Tag Archives: 2012 presidential race

Why you wanna make me have to defend Michele Bachmann?

In this image released by NBC, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, of Minnesota, left, points to a photo of host Jimmy Fallon, dressed as Bachmann, during a visit to "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon," that aired early Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011 in New York. (AP Photo/NBC, Lloyd Bishop)

Associated Press image

Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabe U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a.k.a. “Lyin’-Ass Bitch,” appears on Jimmy Fallon’s show on November 22, above, and appears at a book-signing event in South Carolina on Saturday, below.

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., talks during the book-signing event for her book "Core of Conviction" Saturday, Dec. 3, 2011, in Aiken, S.C.  (AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt)

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., speaks at the book-signing event for her book "Core of Conviction" Saturday, Dec. 3, 2011, in Aiken, S.C.  (AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt))

Associated Press photos

Don’t get me wrong. There’s probably not a single issue on which Repugnican Tea Party lunatic Michele “Eyes Like Deer’s in Headlights” Bachmann and I agree.

But dog-piling upon the theocratic crackpot is fairly unnecessary, as she can’t break even 10 percent in presidential preference polls of members of her own party. (Newt “Lazarus” Gingrich, in case you are wondering, now apparently has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney in the wake of Herman “Black Walnut” Cain’s exit from the race.)

First, the band for late-night talk-show host Jimmy Fallon (whose show I’ve never watched and most likely never will) played the 1985 Fishbone tune “Lyin’-Ass Bitch” when Bachmann came on stage for her appearance last month.

I’m not saying that Bachmann isn’t a lying-ass bitch. I’m saying that you don’t invite someone to appear on your show and then play a tune like that — even if his or her appearance does amount to a free political advertisement. It’s an incredibly cheesy thing to do. If you feel that way about the individual, then you shouldn’t invite him or her on your show. Your invitation indicates some level of acceptance of the individual, unless you make it clear to the individual that you plan to challenge him or her should he or she accept your invitation.

Even Michele Bachmann didn’t deserve the treatment that she got on Fallon’s show.

And now, there is a viral video of a lesbian mother prompting her 8-year-old son to tell Bachmann at a recent book signing in South Carolina, “My mommy is gay, but she doesn’t need any fixing.”

Again, don’t get me wrong: I agree with the message. I’m a gay man. We non-heterosexuals most definitely don’t need fixing, especially by some homophobic, theocratic lunatic and her closeted husband (whom blogger Joe Jervis hilariously refers to as “Ladybird”). We were born this way. (The majority of us, anyway.) Lady Gaga will tell you.

But in the video, it’s clear that the boy is not comfortable delivering the message, and it’s pretty clear that the message isn’t his, but is his mother’s, and children shouldn’t be used for political purposes like this. It’s a form of child exploitation, whether it’s done by the left or by the right.

It’s OK to have your child with you, I suppose, at an age-appropriate political event (I don’t believe that small children really need to be at anti-abortion events, for instance, since they can’t understand the issue, and they especially don’t need to see images of mangled fetuses, for instance), but to use your child to deliver your political message, such as by having him or her wear a T-shirt or hold a sign with a message that he or she cannot fully understand, or having him or her parrot a message that he or she cannot fully understand, is cheesy.

And in the video, it’s clear that Bachmann is friendly, or at least pretending to be friendly for appearance’s sake, to the child, leaning forward to hear what the child has to say, only to be punk’d again, like she was punk’d on Jimmy Fallon’s show.

I’d as soon as have a member of the Taliban in the White House as I would have a “Christo”fascist like Michelle Bachmann in the White House, but we don’t have to resort to low blows against a candidate who has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever becoming president anyway.

Let’s save it for Mitt and Newt.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ides of October

Herman Cain has proposed a so-called "9-9-9" tax plan that would tax people, businesses and sales at a flat nine percent

AFP photo

Maybe “666” wasn’t the best photo op after all… (I mean, it’s pretty pathetic when Michele Bachmann is shown to maybe have been correct about anything.) Anyway, Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabe Herman Cain has been accused of having sexually harassed at least two women while on the job. Why do I tend to believe that he is guilty as charged? 

So last night I saw the George Clooney political movie “The Ides of March,” which is about how a good old-fashioned sex scandal can bring down a presidential campaign. (While not as good as Clooney’s “Good Night, and Good Luck,” “The Ides of March” is watchable.)

And then, later last night, I saw the headlines that top-tier Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate Herman Cain has been accused of having been accused of sexual harassment at least twice in the mid- to late 1990s when he was the top dog of the National Restaurant Association.*

Wow. What timing.

Of course the Cain campaign vehemently denies that Cain ever sexually harassed anyone. (Cain — who, for some fucking reason, many people actually claim is a good speakereven asked a POLICITO reporter who had asked him about the sexual harassment allegations if he [the reporter] had ever been accused of sexual harassment. Yeah, very presidential.)  

While I believe that even a wingnutty scumbag like Cain is (at least more or less) innocent until proven otherwise, the thing is, I still believe Anita Hill, and it looks as though we have another Clarence-Thomas-type of scandal unfolding right about now.

More locally, when he was running in the bullshit do-over California gubernatorial election of 2003, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was accused of having sexually harassed — even sexually assaulted — several women during his years in Hollywood. The Schwarzenegger campaign essentially called all of these women liars. Maria Shriver of the Democratic Kennedy dynasty publicly stated that she stood by her Repugnican man, which helped Schwarzenegger to usurp the governorship from the duly re-elected Democratic governor, Gray Davis.

Then, after his governorship ended in January of this year, Schwarzenegger in May admitted, after he’d been outed by the Los Angeles Times, that he had knocked up his housekeeper and that she had borne his son in 1997. Obviously, had the state’s voters known this juicy fact in 2003, they never would have voted for Schwarzenegger in the Repugnican-orchestrated gubernatorial recall election, and Maria Shriver, understandably, is keeping a very low profile here in California these days.

Gee, if he knocked up his housekeeper, do you think that Baby Daddy Schwarzenegger may actually have sexually harassed all of those (other) women after all?

It all boils down to this, methinks: Men who woefully mistakenly believe that they are qualified for high political office, such as the presidency or the governor of the nation’s most populous state, even when they never have held any elected office before — and both Cain and Schwarzenegger fit this description — obviously have issues with power.

Politics is the exercise of power, as is sexual harassment. (Many of us don’t like to talk about issues of power, which is why sex, politics and religion, which are so interchangeable and which all have to do with the exercise of power, are such taboo topics even though they probably are the most important topics that we possibly could discuss.)

Do I know that Herman Cain is guilty as charged? No. I wasn’t there. But if I had to bet a large sum of money on it, which way would I go?

I’d bet that Herman Cain is another Clarence Thomas.

And it’s a slap in the faces of all women to automatically call any woman a liar when she reports sexual harassment — especially when most of the time such allegations turn out to be quite true.

And after the likes of Clarence Thomas and Arnold Schwarzenegger, do we really want to get punk’d again by another sexual harasser, a man who has demonstrated that he cannot wield his personal (political) power responsibly?

*The website POLITICO broke the story, reporting:

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.

POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names. … [Full story here.]

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Wake-up call: Obama struggling in 2012 presidential matchups

Wow: A recent nationwide Gallup poll (taken August 17 and 18) puts President Barack Obama and all top three Repugnican Tea Party 2012 presidential contenders — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann — polling at 40-something-percent each.

Even foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic Bachmann is only slightly behind Obama in the Gallup poll, at 44 percent to his 48 percent. Perry ties Obama, with 47 percent each, and Romney beats Obama by two percentage points, 48 percent to 46 percent.

(In the poll “libertarian” whackjob Ron Paul garnered 45 percent to Obama’s 47 percent, but Paul has about as much of a chance as Bachmann does of getting the Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination. The last member of the U.S. House of Representatives who went from the House to the White House was James Garfield, for fuck’s sake.)

I realize that the November 2012 presidential election is more than a year off, but these numbers are waaay too close for comfort, and other nationwide polls taken this month show similar results.

One of those polls, a CNN poll taken over August 5 through August 7, has Obama over Romney by only one percentage point, 49 percent to 48 percent; has Obama also beating Perry, 51 percent to 46 percent; and has Obama beating Bachmann, 51 percent to 45 percent. (Ironically, that poll shows only former New York City Mayor Rudy “A Noun, A Verb and 9/11” Giuliani beating Obama, 51 percent to 45 percent, but Giuliani isn’t, at least as of today, running.)

Gee, maybe it was a bad fucking idea for Team Obama to fucking burn its base of progressives (that is, actual liberals).

Seriously: I surmise that if Obama hadn’t burned his base — repeatedly — he wouldn’t be stuck below 50 percent in the polls (with the margin of error [usually plus or minus 3 percent] factored in, that is). Obama received 53 percent of the popular vote in November 2008, which, while obviously was not a huge majority, was better than George W. Bush garnered in 2000 or in 2004.

With a demoralized, deeply disappointed base, I can’t see Obama matching his 53 percent in November 2012. What I can see is a very tight 2012 presidential race, like we saw in 2000 and in 2004 — and the incredibly spooky specter of a President Perry or a President Bachmann driving disappointed Obama voters to the polling booths in order to vote against Obama’s Repugnican Tea Party opponent much more than Obama ever could inspire people to vote for him.

Indeed, the 2012 presidential election seems to be shaping up to be about which candidate the voters hate the least rather than the candidate whom they love the most, which indicates that it’s long past time time to break up the partisan duopoly and to offer the American voters some real choices, and not only the choice between the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party.

The charade, the elephant and donkey show, will continue as long as we support it, it seems to me. As much as I don’t want to see a President Perry or a President Bachmann (or a President Romney), I’m also beyond sick and fucking tired of being punk’d by the Democratic Party.

Maybe a President Perry or a President Bachmann will solve the problem once and for all — if we survive such a presidency…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Anyone but Obama 2012

Since “Democratic” President Hopey-Changey Obama’s latest sellout — giving the plutocratic and pro-plutocratic traitors of the Repugnican Tea Party their tax breaks for the rich and the super-rich while slashing the federal budget (except for the war profiteers, of course) — chatter about a Democratic presidential primary challenge to Obama has increased.

There is this food-for-thought piece on Salon.com about Secretary of State Billary Clinton challenging Obama, but the piece is written by someone who says that he doesn’t consider himself to be a Democrat, so I’m not certain of his intent.

While it’s true that Billary’s balls are bigger than Obama’s (but so are a mouse’s balls…) — and, admittedly, knowing what I know about Obama now, if I could do it all over again I would have supported Billary over Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary race — because Obama’s “governing” style is fairly Clintonesque, I can’t see that a President Billary would be a huge improvement over the status quo. (Admittedly, U.S. poverty did decrease dramatically under Bill Clinton, however.)

Still, if it came down to Billary or Obama for 2012, I’d take Billary. I’d switch my voter registration from the Green Party to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Billary over Obama in a 2012 Democratic presidential primary. Yes, Obama is that bad.

But hopefully it won’t come down to a choice between Billary or Obama.

Hopefully an actual progressive will challenge the worthless Obama.

Reports The Daily Caller* within the past 24 hours:

Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate and perennial third-party presidential candidate, announced last month that he would work to find a Democrat to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

Nader now says that a primary challenge is a near certainty.

“What [Obama] did this week is just going to energize that effort,” Nader promised in an interview with The Daily Caller. “I would guess that the chances of there being a challenge to Obama in the primary are almost 100 percent.”

The only question, he said, is the stature of that opponent and whether it will be either “an ex-senator or an ex-governor” or “an intellectual leader or an environmental leader.”

In approximately a week and a half there will be “another chapter of this effort,” Nader predicted.

The Public Citizen founder said he disapproved of how Obama handled recent debt ceiling negotiations, and claimed the deal’s failings prompted this week’s dramatic stock market drop.

“He made a deal that did not provide for a public works project to create jobs all over the country. All he did was he agreed to cut spending,” Nader said. “And that’s what the market is reacting to.”

President Obama “shouldn’t have even had that problem,” Nader said. “When he surrendered the continuation of tax cuts for the rich last December, the least he could have gotten was the debt ceiling increased. He didn’t even do that. So he set himself up for this hostage situation by the Republicans and it’s his own fault. And the country and the workers are paying the price.”

Asked whether the Tea Party movement was responsible for an unsavory resolution to debt ceiling negotiations, Nader responded: “It’s not really a movement. It’s the conservative non-libertarian wing of the Republican Party.”

Nader continued: “Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian. These are the conservative corporatists that have decided they like the brand name ‘Tea Party’ because the press reports on every movement of the Tea Party. So they’ve jumped on the bandwagon and hijacked it.

“There are a lot of Tea Party people, for example, who wanted more revenues. I think the polls showed that half of them wanted more revenues. And a lot of the Tea Party people want to get out of the wars. But its been hijacked by the corporatists.”

Nader said he doesn’t plan to launch another campaign for president, either as an independent candidate or as a primary challenger to President Obama.

In 2000, Nader received nearly three million votes as the Green Party’s presidential candidate. Some disillusioned Democrats blamed him for handing Florida, and with it the election, to George W. Bush.

Nader ran for president in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 as a left-wing alternative to the Democratic nominee, but has decided another campaign is “very unlikely.”

“I’ve done my rounds,” he said.

Part of me is disappointed that Nader doesn’t plan to run in 2012 — because I’d vote for him, very most likely — but another part of me, a larger part of me, is glad that Nader doesn’t plan to run again, since because the 2000 presidential election debacle, he has been a waaay-too-convenient scapegoat for the establishmentarian (that is, utterly spineless) Democrats.

I mean, fuck, Al Gore didn’t even win his own home state of Tennessee in 2000, yet the Dems don’t blame Gore for having been too weak a presidential candidate — nooo, they blame Nader for having exercised his right to run for president, as though he didn’t have that right.

If I could pick Obama’s 2012 challenger, it would be Howard Dean.

He has balls, like Billary does, but I think that he’s much more likely to stand up for the middle class, the working class and the poor than is Billary.

Also, of course, it was the progressive wave that Dean started in 2002 or 2003 that the lazy hack Obama just co-opted as his own and rode on into the White House.  

Dean still was not, in my estimation, the right candidate in 2004. But he’s the one for the job now. And he deserves the job. He probably would be the president that Barack Obama only promised us that he would be.

P.S. Don’t miss this column by Ted Rall. He nails it, as usual. My only addendum is that you shouldn’t vote only if there is no true progressive to vote for. Should a true progressive presidential candidate emerge, or should a stronger Democratic candidate (like Howard Dean) emerge, then you should vote for him or her.

P.P.S. Because California is the most populous blue state in the nation, I think that it’s pretty significant that the California Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus has called for a primary challenger to Obama. They want to see an actual progressive run on the Democratic ticket in 2012. I’m wholly on board with their effort.

*The Daily Caller is an outfit by the loathesome wingnut Tucker Carlson, so I don’t necessarily take this piece for gospel, but my guess is that it’s accurate. It sure sounds like the Ralph Nader that I know and love.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized