Tag Archives: demographics

TIME’s lazy, unimaginative choice

TIME magazine cover of Barack Obama as Person of the Year 2012

TIME magazine’s having made Barack Obama its “Person of the Year” yet again (it first gave Obama that designation for 2008) reminds me of the ludicrously premature awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to President Hopey-Changey-Droney for 2009.

Not that TIME routinely is exactly creative or visionary in its naming of its annual “Person of the Year.” Winning a U.S. presidential election often if not usually is enough of an accomplishment/“accomplishment” for an individual to win the designation. Jimmy Carter won the designation in 1976 and Ronald Reagan did in 1980. Bill Clinton won it in 1992 and even George W. Bush won it in 2000 and in 2004 — and then, as I noted, Obama won it in 2008 and then again this year.

The Nobel Peace Prize selectors are a lot more creative — the only two U.S. presidents to win the prize during my lifetime (I was born in 1968) were Jimmy Carter in 2002 and, as I noted, Obama in 2009. (Well, Al Gore, who actually won the presidency in 2000, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, but he wasn’t coronated as president by the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court.)

I fail to see why, other than TIME’s lack of vision or creativity or imagination, Obama was named the magazine’s “Person of the Year” again this year.

I mean, TIME’s selection comes right as Obama apparently just handed over U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s scalp* to the KKK, headed by Grand Dragon John “Sore Loserman” McCain, so that the much more acceptable old white guy (John Kerry) can be made U.S. secretary of state instead, and as Obama apparently is poised to sell us out to the Repugnican Tea Party fascists on Social Security, and Goddess knows what other historic Democratic achievements the center-right DINO Obama will dismantle during his second term. (Surely Obama will be a progressive president in his second term, the Obamabots theorized. The gloves will be off! Yeah, right. I’m so glad that I voted for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on November 6.)

TIME’s 2008 designation of Obama as its “Person of the Year” I can accept. He not only beat Billary Clinton in the protracted Democratic presidential primary season, which was a political feat, but his election as the nation’s first non-white president was at least a milestone if not technically a great accomplishment.

But TIME’s 2012 designation of Obama is just fucking lazy.

True, Obama, given his dismal first term, is damned fucking lucky to have been re-elected. He promised “hope” and “change” but delivered more of the same. Instead of pushing through a progressive agenda when both houses of Congress were in his party’s control in 2009 and 2010, he squandered his once-in-a-lifetime political capital by trying to sing “Kumbaya” with the Repugnican Tea Party traitors — and thus his party lost the House to the “tea party” traitors in 2010.

Obama won re-election last month only because the Repugnican Tea Party dipshits incredibly stupidly nominated one of the most unlikeable people on the planet as their presidential candidate for 2012.

Multi-millionaire Mormon Mittens Romney is so freakishly unrelatable that even many if not most Repugnican Tea Party traitors had to hold their noses while they cast their votes for him (better the despicable white guy than the black guy again), so of course Mittens lost the so-called “swing vote.”

Obama didn’t win re-election because he’s so great, but because his opponent was so unbelievably bad, replete with telling his Richie-Rich donors on hidden camera in May that he already had written off 47 percent of the American people as being lost causes.

Fuck, make David Corn of Mother Jones magazine, who broke the “47 percent” story in September, the “Person of the Year.” He did more to win Obama re-election than Obama did.

Even TIME magazine’s editor seems to credit changing U.S. demographics to Obama’s re-election more than to Obama himself. Reports Reuters:

[TIME magazine] has tapped U.S. President Barack Obama for its Person of the Year for the second time, citing his historic re-election last month as symbolic of the nation’s shifting demographics and the rise of younger, more diverse Americans.

In announcing its annual selection [today], the magazine called Obama the “Architect of the New America.”

“He’s basically the beneficiary and the author of a kind new America — a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of,” TIME editor Rick Stengel said of Obama, who was also selected for the honor in 2008 when he became the nation’s first black president. …

Obama is the beneficiary of demographic changes and the resultant national cultural changes, to be sure — as well as he was the beneficiary of what Howard Dean built in his failed 2004 Democratic presidential bid (indeed, in 2008 Obama rode Dean’s wave right on into the White House) — but how, exactly, is Obama the “author” or the “architect” of these changes?

Um, aren’t national demographic changes a lot bigger than just one individual?

Barack Obama could fart or sneeze and it widely would be called a great fucking accomplishment.

Only in a dying empire, it seems to me, could this be the case.

*If you thought that Obama actually was going to defend a person of color from the lynch mob to the death, don’t feel too badly. I also actually thought that maybe this time Obama wouldn’t throw a person of color who is under attack by the white supremacists under the bus, but, of course, just as he did with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod, he apparently tossed Susan Rice right under those big wheels.

Because he’s a man of character and courage, you see.

Let’s make him the “Person of the Year” every year!

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

No. 1 reason for Mittens’ defeat: Mittens

The presidential election post-mortems are slicing and dicing what went wrong for Mittens Romney when the No. 1 reason is glaringly apparent: Mittens Romney.

There were, admittedly, a slew of things that went against Mittens: His Mormonism and his resultant weirdness. His stunning detachment from the average American caused by his being an overprivileged and overpampered multi-millionaire from his vulture capitalism. His having the disadvantage of challenging an incumbent, which in most races for office is an uphill battle. Um, demographics. (And thank God for those demographics!)

But, to me, the largest factor in the sinking of the U.S.S. Mittens was his video-recorded “47 percent” remark in May. He said:

“There are 47 percent of the [American] people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.

“That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.… 

“[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll  never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

After the “47 percent” debacle, Mittens and his surrogates assured us that no, Mittens indeed cares about “100 percent” of us.

Yet yesterday, on the heels of his electoral loss last week, Mittens said this to donors during a telephone town hall:

“The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people. In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups.”

“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift,” Mittens also proclaimed during yesterday’s telephone town hall.

I see no significant difference in spirit or even in substance between this latest remark and Mittens’ “47 percent” remark. Do you?

Yet Mittens disavowed what he said in May, only to essentially say it again yesterday. That could only make him a fucking liar, correct?

And what about the groups that would have benefitted from a Mittens victory, such as the treasonous super-rich, who, at the very least, under a Mittens administration would not have endured any tax hikes, but who probably would have received even more tax cuts, and the treasonous war profiteers, whose ever-increasing profits in the name of bogus perpetual national security threats — while the rest of us are told that the nation just cannot afford us — Mittens assured?

What about the deregulation that would have happened under a President Mittens, deregulation that would have increased corporations’ profits obscenely by allowing them to do whatever the fuck they want to do?

Are those things not “gifts”? De facto bribes to Repugnican Tea Party politicians, even?

Corporate welfare — that’s not “gifts”? Telling Americans that they — we — are unaffordable, but just handing over billions and billions of their — our — tax dollars to the war profiteers, who actually are the ones we cannot afford — that’s not “gifts”?

No, it’s only a “gift” or a “handout” or “welfare” when it’s granted to someone who actually needs it. Only the already-rich should get the handouts, you see. They’ve “earned” them!

It’s funny — the Repugnican Tea Party traitors were contrite for less than a week, promising that they’d change their ways in order to prevent future electoral defeats, including by reaching out to Latino voters, yet here is Mittens, a week after the election, not only essentially repeating his “47 percent” remark, but also saying this in his telephone town hall yesterday:

“With regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for the children of illegals — the so-called Dream Act kids — was a huge plus for that voting group. On the negative side, of course, they always characterized us as being anti-immigrant, being tough on illegal immigration, and so forth, so that was very effective with that group.”

The word “Hispanic” to describe Latinos to me is much like using the term “Oriental” for Asian, and for Mittens to use the offensive term “illegals” — does it sound to you like Mittens really gets it, that he truly understands why he lost the election?

I can sum it up in a simple sentence: Mittens Romney lost the presidential election because he’s a major-league, world-class, grade-A asshole.

Love ya, Nate Silver, but it doesn’t take a shitload of scientific analysis to know why Mittens lost.

Have the Repugnican Tea Party traitors learned? Of course they haven’t.

In the week following the election, we have not only Mittens essentially restating his “47 percent” bullshit, but we have Arizona Sen. John McCainosaurus — obviously still bitter for having lost the presidency to a black man in 2008 — calling for a “Watergate”-like investigation into Benghazi, which not only is the crass, shameless, opportunistic politicization of the deaths of four Americans in Libya (and comparing it to Watergate is ludicrous), but also, at least symbolically, is the angry old right-wing white man attacking the younger black man — which, demographics just fucking showed us, as they did in November 2008, doesn’t work anymore.

But I advise McCainosaurus and Mittens and their ilk to keep it up.

They are ensuring that their party remains in the wilderness.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized