Tag Archives: Mittens

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

Mittards in the news!

Some interesting news articles today.

There’s this one from Reuters:

Phoenix — An Arizona woman, in despair at the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, ran down her husband with the family car in suburban Phoenix on Saturday because he failed to vote in the election, police said [yesterday].

Holly Solomon, 28, was arrested after running over husband Daniel Solomon following a wild chase that left him pinned underneath the vehicle.

Daniel Solomon, 36, was in critical condition at a local hospital, but is expected to survive, Gilbert police spokesman Sergeant Jesse Sanger said.

Police said Daniel Solomon told them his wife became angry over his “lack of voter participation” in last Tuesday’s presidential election and believed her family would face hardship as a result of Obama winning another term.

Witnesses reported the argument broke out on Saturday morning in a parking lot and escalated. Mrs. Solomon then chased her husband around the lot with the car, yelling at him as he tried to hide behind a light pole, police said. He was struck after attempting to flee to a nearby street.

Obama won the national election with 332 electoral votes compared with 206 for Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Arizona’s 11 electoral votes were won by Romney.

That last paragraph is key. If the stupid white woman — here is her mug shot:

Police booking photo of Holly Solomon, accused of running over her husband in their car after the presidential election

Reuters image

— knew anyfuckingthing about civics, she would have known that the U.S. presidency is determined not by the popular vote, but by the Electoral College (yes, please, please, please fucking click on that link if, like the apparent piece of white trash pictured above, you don’t know anyfuckingthing about the Electoral College either!), and that Mittens Romney had almost zero chance of losing the deep-red state of Arizona and all 11 of its electoral votes in the winner-takes-all-except-for-two-states-and-Arizona-isn’t-one-of-them Electoral College.

Therefore, blaming her husband for Obama’s re-election was stupid, since her husband could have voted for Obama and it still wouldn’t have made a fucking difference in the outcome in Arizona, which was Mittens’ from the word “go.” But then to run her husband down in the family car — that was even more stupid heaped upon already more than enough stupid.

And as if there still weren’t enough stupid, Holly Solomon reportedly believes that her apparent white-trash family would have fared better under Mittens than under another four years of Barack Obama. Because a multi-millionaire vulture capitalist like Mittens — with his car elevator(s) and his horse in the Olympics — cares so fucking much about her and her (apparent white-trash) family! Right! He said he cares, so it must be true!

Then there is this winner, yet another credit to his race:

Eric Hartsburg

Yahoo! News image

That is a Mittard named Eric Hartsburg. Yahoo! News tells his story:

Eric Hartsburg was confident that Mitt Romney would win the election. Perhaps a little too confident. In the weeks leading up to Romney’s showdown with President Barack Obama, Hartsburg had the Romney campaign logo tattooed on his face. (No, he wasn’t even promised a position in Romney’s cabinet.)

Hartsburg didn’t do it for free. Via eBay, he raised thousands of dollars to get the tattoo. The 30-year-old professional wrestler from Indiana said, “I am a registered Republican and a Romney supporter. I didn’t mind getting this tattoo because it is something that I could live with and it’s something that I believe in.”

But that was before the election. Romney lost, and now Hartsburg isn’t happy with his new ink. “Totally disappointed, man,” Hartsburg told Politico. “I’m the guy who has egg all over his face, but instead of egg, it’s a big Romney/Ryan tattoo. It’s there for life.”

The tattoo isn’t subtle. At around 10 square inches, the ink can’t be covered up without help from a ski mask (or maybe a wrestler’s mask). Several weeks before the election, Hartsburg told ABC News, “In the beginning it was done for gags and publicity, but now I see it as a way to encourage young people to vote. We have so many rights that we don’t utilize and young people need to exercise that right.” Hartsburg also told ABC News that he got some weird looks. “A lot of people look at me and think I am the boogeyman.”

Still, according to Politico, he isn’t too broken up about Romney’s loss.  “I’m a tattoo guy, and it was something fun,” he said. “I was trying to make politics fun. I didn’t change no lives; I’m no hero. But I shed blood for this campaign, and I’m glad to know that I did all that I could.”

“I didn’t change no lives.” I wonder if the double-negative-spewing Hartsburg believes that the “illegals” should learn English. And while maybe Hartsburg didn’t exactly change my life, hey, I did get a blog piece out of it.

“I’m no hero.” No, I’m sure that to plenty of his fellow fascist douchebags out there, he is a hero. And incredibly stupidly getting his face tattooed with the Mittens campaign’s logo — pathetically, that probably was all that he could do.

Ironically, under the rule of the fascist party he supports — the party that views him only as a wage slave, a teeny-tiny cog in the capitalist machine — getting his face tatted like a fucktard — which, he admits, he did for the “publicity” — is the biggest life accomplishment that he could make.

Indeed, his life has peaked already — unless he can make that professional wrestling thing really work out for himself.

In the meantime, if Hartsburg wants to “shed” even more “blood” for his hero Mittens, I’ll happily send him a cheese grater or a potato peeler for tattoo removal.

Anyway, I’m guessing that Holly Solomon’s husband will be seeking a divorce, so maybe Holly and Eric Hartsburg can hook up. I mean, Eric certainly has demonstrated a dedication to Mittens that Holly’s obviously worthless husband did not, right?

And then Holly and Eric can pop out the puppies like Octomom, just like their Mormon hero would have them do.

I suddenly am reminded of the movie “Idiocracy”…

On that note, finally, today, I kid you not, there is this news article, which asks, “Are Humans Becoming Less Intelligent?”

I haven’t even read it yet, but my answer to that question is a resounding Fuck yes!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama wins Round Two (but the media will call it a draw)

U.S. President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Romney debate during the second U.S. presidential debate in Hempstead

Republican presidential nominee Romney and U.S. President Obama speak directly to each other during the second U.S. presidential campaign debate in Hempstead

US President Obama speaks next to Republican presidential candidate Romney during second US presidential campaign debate in Hempstead

U.S. President Obama answers a questiion as Republican presidential nominee Romney listens during the second U.S. presidential campaign debate in Hempstead

Republican presidential nominee Romney and U.S. President Obama shake hands at the conclusion of the second U.S. presidential debate in Hempstead

Reuters photos

The up-close-and-personal town-hall format of tonight’s presidential debate, and the criticism that President Barack Obama received for not having called out Mittens Romney on his string of blatant lies during the first 2012 presidential debate, resulted in a fiercer second debate performance by Obama tonight. And moderator Candy Crowley proved herself to be no Jim Lehrer, also to Mittens’ disadvantage.

That’s just anticipatory, my prediction* for tonight’s second presidential debate, which, as I post this, begins in less than a half-hour. (I am watching the debate live online and of course will write about it here, in this same post, later tonight.)

What I’m really looking for in tonight’s debate is to see if Mittens Romney repeats Pretty Boy Paul Ryan’s execrable attempt during last week’s vice presidential debate to make a mountain of political hay over the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11.

At the time of Mittens’ initial politicizing of the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in the American consulate in Libya, I saw an editorial cartoon depicting Mittens slapping his presidential bumper sticker on Stevens’ headstone. It was quite apropros.

I can’t find that ’toon now, but while searching for it I did find a couple of others:

Romney Political Posturing

 Libya Tragedy

Beyond the shamelessness of using the attack on the American consulate in Libya for political gain, it’s a fucking laugh that it is the Repugnican Tea Party traitors who are going to keep us safe.

Four Americans died in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, but more than four fucking thousand Americans** died preventable deaths during the watch of the unelected “President” George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, and in late August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states.

There had been plenty of warning that both Osama bin Laden and Hurricane Katrina would strike the U.S., but the Vacationer in Chief George W. Bush couldn’t be bothered to do anything about either threat.

Whether or not the attack on the American consulate in Libya could have been prevented or not — it seems to me that it’s quite difficult to keep an American consulate in any Middle Eastern nation safe — the way to respond to such an incident is first to examine what went wrong and then to do things differently.

Putting another right-wing, swaggering, plutocratic chickenhawk in the White House is not doing things differently, and under a President Mittens, I believe, we’d see a lot more American deaths than we have under President Barack Obama.

We’ve seen already how well Mittens is received on the world stage — a Mittens presidency would be reminiscent of that of George W. Bush. Making the world hate us makes us less safe, not safer, and Repugnican presidents have a way of making the world hate us.

For all of Obama’s shortcomings, we (those of us who inhabit the reality-based world, that is) can’t say that he hasn’t kept the nation safe. Yet that is what I expect Mittens insanely to do tonight.

Update:

I found that cartoon:

Bill Schorr - Cagle Cartoons - Romney Libya Comments - English - Mitt Romney,Libya,Chris Stevens,politics,

Update: Fifteen minutes in, I’d say it’s a draw-leaning-toward-Obama. Mittens makes pledges, such as regarding job creation, but surreally, he offers no specifics. His first prickish attempt to steamroll moderator Candy Crowley of CNN failed.

Update: Obama, apparently having learned from Round One, freely states that Mittens isn’t telling the truth, and we’re seeing a fairly feisty Obama tonight.

This debate on oil, coal and alternative energy production is way too reminiscent of the 2008 debates. The wingnutty mantra of “Drill, baby, drill!” hasn’t changed. Indicative, I believe, of how the right wing does its damnedest to prevent progress.

Update: I don’t for a nanosecond believe Mittens’ claim that he won’t give the rich and super-rich tax breaks and that he wuvs the middle class (um, aren’t we the 47 percent he was disowning just back in May?). I believe that his plan is to give them tax breaks right away, and his “five-point plan” sounds like Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” plan…

I believe Obama’s assertion that Mittens’ plan is to give the plutocrats their tax cuts and spend even more on the military-corporate complex, bloating the federal budget deficit even further — just like George W. Bush did.

Update: Mittens’ attempts to run over Candy Crowley aren’t going nearly as well for him as they did during the first debate, and I think that Mittens’ aggressive, steamrolling behavior is indicative of his character.

On the topic of women’s issues (specifically, women in the workforce), Mittens claims that as governor of Massachusetts he essentially engaged in affirmative action where women are concerned. Um, aren’t the wingnuts against that?

Meh. I look at the patriarchal Mormon cult that Mittens supports and women’s status within the Mormon cult that Mittens supports. That fact, I believe, is a much better barometer of the truth than are Mittens’ words in his post-Etch-A-Sketch-shaking phase.

Update: A great question from an audience member (who said that she is “undecided” but seems to lean toward Obama) for Mittens was how he is different from George W. Bush (a.k.a. He Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned). Mittens first lied that he “appreciate[d]” the question that mentioned He Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned and then blathered about how he wants to focus on small businesses, whereas the Bush regime focused on Big Business, and how he wants to focus on jobs.

Obama retorted, correctly, that just as Gee Dubya did, Mittens would only give tax breaks to the rich and otherwise support the plutocrats.

Update: Mittens brought up Ronald Reagan, which I guess was meant to neutralize the mention of George W. Bush.

It strikes me that this presidential election isn’t entirely unlike the 2000 election: We are to believe that vulture capitalist multi-millionaire Mittens Romney, whose religion is all about elevating the right-wing, “Christian” white man over the rest of us, is a “compassionate conservative,” which is what George W. Bush claimed he is, and we know how well George W. Bush worked out.

It’s interesting when liars like Mittens actually promise to govern progressively. They’re lying through their fangs, of course, but the fact that they are lying that they will be progressive is proof that progressivism is superior to what the wingnuts actually stand for.

Update: Mittens just used the term “illegals” in the discussion of immigration. Wow. I wonder if they’ll be talking about that tomorrow. “Illegals” is a charged word that reveals, I believe, how Mittens regards those who are in the nation without documentation.

Update: The attack in Benghazi finally came up. Mittens claimed that Obama didn’t take the situation seriously enough, which is interesting, given that when George W. Bush received the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” Bush was on vacation in Crawford, Texas, and on August 29, 2005, the day that Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, George W. Bush was celebrating John McCain’s birthday in Arizona.

It’s sickening that the Benghazi incident is being used by Team Mittens as a political football, and it’s sickening that the back-and-forth on the Benghazi incident is the only topic thus far that has caused the studio-audience members (in violation of the rules…) to applaud first for Obama and then for Mittens.

Update: Mittens has used the topic of gun violence to try to bring up another anti-Obama pseudo-scandal, “Fast and Furious.” I get it that it’s his role to tarnish Obama, but — Oh, cool: Moderator Candy Crowley has redirected Mittens back on topic. Clearly, Mittens was too comfortable with the Jim Lehrer treatment.

As I was saying, I get it that Mittens wants to tarnish Obama, but I don’t think that the anti-Obama pseudo-scandals from which the members of the right-wing blogosphere get their rocks off are going to appeal to a general audience.

Update: So according to Mittens, China is our big economic enemy, and we must stop sending our jobs overseas. Nevermind that Mittens made his millions via corporations whose profits skyrocketed through cheap labor overseas. Wow.

Again, Mittens is lying that he’d stop the flow of jobs overseas, but in his lie, he admits that sending jobs overseas (which he actually supports) is the wrong thing to do.

Update: It’s winding down. Mittens says that the biggest misperception of him is that he doesn’t care about “100 percent of the people.” Well, um, he was video-recorded in May saying that he has written off 47 percent of us.

He has used the phrase “100 percent” at least three times now, which underscores what a gaffe his “47 percent” remark was. (A “gaffe” as in he wouldn’t have said it had he known he was being video-recorded, not a “gaffe” as in that he “misspoke” or put it “inelegantly.” He knew exactly what he was saying and he meant exactly what he was saying.)

Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!: Obama saved the best for last, reminding us, finally, of Mittens “47 percent” remark.

Obama got the last word in the debate, and my impression now, now that the debate is over, is pretty much what it was early in the debate: That Obama won the debate, but that he didn’t deliver a knock-out punch.

I expect the corporately owned and controlled mass media to call the debate a draw.

Whatever, but if Obama continues his trajectory, he will deliver the knock-out blow next week.

Obama is a smoother debater than is Mittens. Obama can deliver a blow smoothly and without apparent arrogance, whereas Mittens practically salivates all over himself when, in his mind, he has delivered a body blow, such as his bullshit on Benghazi and his bullshit on “Fast and Furious.”

If you take all of Mittens’ “blows” tonight combined, they don’t add up to that one “47 percent” remark of his that he made, as, Obama put it tonight, “behind closed doors” not even a full six months ago, and while the incident in Benghazi and “Fast and Furious” haven’t touched you or me personally, being categorized as half of the American people whom Mittens Romney doesn’t give a shit about: That is personal. That does affect us.

And that is the central (albeit secretly video-recorded) campaign promise that Mittens Romney, as president, would fulfill: That he would ignore at least 47 percent of the nation.

*My initial title of this post was “Obama wins!” Then I changed it to “Obama wins Round Two!” and then I changed it to its current title, once it seemed clear to me that Obama won but probably wouldn’t get credit for having won.

**Per Wikipedia, 2,977 were killed by the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, and more than 1,830 were killed by Hurricane Katrina.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Freeloaders comprise Mittens’ base — not Barack Obama’s

Reactions mixed to secretly-taped comments at Romney fundraiser

Better than a sex tape: Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabe Mittens Romney helpfully explains to (potential) rich, right-wing donors in May that the supporters of Barack Obama are “dependent upon government” and “pay no income tax,” even though the majority of the states that Mittens is likely to carry in November pay less in taxes than they get back from the federal government, essentially making them welfare states that are dependent upon the blue states.

Mittens Romney has it half-correct in the now-infamous, secretly taken video of him talking to his Richie Rich donors in May.

Indeed, recent polls show that Barack Obama right now has the support of about 47 percent to 50 percent of the nation’s voters — and that Mittens has the support of around 45 percent.

In the hidden video of him talking to (potential) donors on May 17, which has been brought to light by Mother Jones magazine, Romney 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… These are people who pay no income tax. …

“[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.”

It’s probably true that there is nothing that any 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate could have done or could do to cut significantly into the fairly solid support that President Barack Obama has, which indeed sits around 47 percent to 50 percent, at least somewhere in the upper 40s.

It’s also probably true that there’s nothing that Obama could do to cut deeply into Mittens’ about-45-percent support. These 45 or so percent are largely (not entirely, I suppose, but mostly) white supremacists who wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s black.

It’s also true that Obama shouldn’t worry, and in his first term thus far he should not have worried, about getting the support of these racist, white-supremacist haters whose support he never was going to get anyway because of the color of his skin. Obama thus far into his first term should have focused instead upon delivering for his base.

Had he done so, we would see a lot more enthusiasm for Obama’s re-election than we do now. A progressive agenda, instead of a “bipartisan,” Repugnican-Tea-Party-and-corporate-ass-licking agenda, would have resulted in the change that Obama relentlessly promised.

It strikes me that Obama is doing as well in the polls as he is now only because Mittens Romney is such a fucking catastrophe as a presidential candidate. Being a multi-millionaire and a Mormon, both of which demographics make him very unlike the average American voter, Mittens really has needed to be likeable. But call that strike three: multi-millionaire, Mormon and unlikeable.

Mittens very most likely is out.

Which brings me back to the secret video that Mother Jones brought to light.

In the video, Mittens repeats the relentless right-wing lie that the denizens of the blue states are lazy parasites “who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them” and “who pay no income tax.”

That last part is really fucking funny, because Mother Jones — to which I probably am going to subscribe, since the magazine apparently just brought down Mittens Romney’s presidential campaign — in February of this year also published an article on how the red states still are sucking the blood of the blue states in terms of how much the states get back from the federal government in comparison to how much money they put into the federal government. (I wrote about this phenomenon way back in April 2009. My figures at that time were from 2005.)

Per Mother Jones, from 2010 figures, these are the top 10 states in terms of how much they get back from the federal government for every $1.00 that they put into the federal government:

1. New Mexico: $2.63

2. West Virginia: $2.57

3. Mississippi: $2.47

4. Hawaii: $2.38

5. Alabama: $2.03

6. Alaska: $1.93

7. Montana: $1.92

8. South Carolina: $1.92

9. Maine: $1.78

10. Kentucky: $1.75

My home state of California gets only 87 cents per dollar. The other blue-state powerhouse, New York, gets only 72 cents per dollar.

The writer of the February 2012 Mother Jones article concludes that:

  • “Most politically ‘red’ states are financially in the red when it comes to how much money they receive from Washington compared with what their residents pay in taxes” and that
  • “The states that contributed more in taxes than they got back in spending were more likely to have voted for Obama in 2008 and were more likely to be largely urban” and that
  • “Of the 22 states that went to [John] McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16.” [Emphasis mine.]

So it’s not just that Mittens Romney has insulted about half of the American electorate by deeming us “dependent upon government” and possessing an outsized sense of “entitlement” — by calling us, in essence, lazy freeloaders.

It’s also that he’s a motherfucking liar, and that the true freeloaders in the United States of America live the in the majority of the states that Mittens is most likely to carry in November.

Fucking freeloaders are Mittens Romney’s base, not Barack Obama’s.

It is those of us in the blue states who are carrying the red-state parasites, who have the audacity to call us blue-staters the parasites.

If the red-staters believe that they have it so bad, we should let them secede.

I am one Californian who is beyond sick and fucking tired of subsidizing the welfare kings and queens of the red states who enjoy their entitlements while they call us blue-staters who make their entitlements possible the lazy socialists who want something for nothing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clint, I forgive you

Actor Clint Eastwood addresses an empty chair and questions it as if it were President Barack Obama as he endorses Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the final session of the Republican National Convention in Tampa

Reuters photo

A disheveled and addled Clint Eastwood performs at the Repugnican Tea Party National Convention — a live-television political disaster along the lines of a sweaty Richard Nixon.

It wasn’t that long ago that I bought the Clint Eastwood-directed film “J. Edgar” on DVD. No, it’s not Eastwood’s best film, and no, as I noted at the time that “J. Edgar” was in the theaters, “J. Edgar,” as a gay-themed film, is no “Milk” (which also was scripted by gay screenwriter Dustin Lance Black) or “Brokeback Mountain.” It’s flawed, but it’s watchable.

I enjoyed Eastwood’s “Gran Torino,” too. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s worthwhile.

Even I am fairly too young to remember the “Dirty Harry” movies, so I will remember Eastwood as the director of some good films later in his life.

And I will give him a pass for his disastrous appearance at the Repugnican Tea Party National Convention last night. I will blame instead the fucktards who decided to ask him to appear.

Really, it was like elder abuse to allow the 82-year-old Eastwood to speak on the topic of politics in front of a live television audience.

Let me repeat that:

He’s 82. His mind is not what it used to be, as is evidenced by his rather halting, forgetful — I’ll say it: senile — delivery of what was supposed to be (I guess) comedy.

While an expert on film, Eastwood is about as sharp on the topic of politics* as is Britney Spears, who has a cameo in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” (it was almost as unfair to allow Eastwood to speak on politics as it was Britney).

Admittedly, I have yet to be able to get through all of Eastwood’s latest performance. I watched at least a few minutes of it on Hulu before I had to stop. It was like watching a puppy being slowly run over by a dump truck. I couldn’t bear it any longer.

Finally, again, Eastwood is an expert of film. Not of live television.

I get it, he’s Clint Fucking Eastwood, and who’s going to ask Clint Eastwood to audition for something?

But, as Rachel Maddow fairly dissects the decision to have Eastwood appear before Mittens Romney did last night, Eastwood’s performance was political tactical disaster.

Obviously Eastwood was meant to appeal to the white male set who view themselves as macho and bad-ass and to the bimbos who think that these macho, macho men actually are, well, macho.

He-man Charlton Heston, who used to shill for the NRA (and who, like Britney, also starred in a Michael Moore documentary), keeled over in 2008, and so the Repugnican Tea Party dipshits got Clint Eastwood.

But putting a doddering old white man on live national television right before Mittens was a strategic mistake of perhaps epic proportion. Sure, there are millions of Americans who are OK with the You-damned-kids-get-off-my-lawn! thing, but they already vote Repugnican Tea Party.

Millions of Americans whom we call “swing voters,” I surmise, were turned off by Eastwood’s crusty, cranky, addled performance, which can only remind them of the last grumpy old man whom they rejected, John McCainosaurus.

And instead of talking about Mittens, Americans are talking about Clint Eastwood’s shockingly bad performance.

Thanks, Clint.

Although you said last night that there are plenty of conservatives in Hollywood, you certainly didn’t just help get another wingnut elected to the White House.

It’s almost like you intentionally sabotaged the Mittens campaign.

*Eastwood’s first salvo at President Barack Obama was that the nation has too many unemployed people. I will agree with that, and, like Ted Rall, I believe that Obama should have pushed through a strong, FDR-like jobs program when he had both houses of Congress in his party’s control in 2009 and 2010, but the fact of the matter is that it was the unelected George W. Bush whose administration of the nation destroyed our economy, and the fact of the matter is that after the Repugnican Tea Party traitors regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 2010 election, they’ve done nothing but oppose Obama (they would have killed any strong jobs program he had proposed) and they have done nothing themselves to counter unemployment, such as through a strong jobs program, so they need to be blamed for our continuing unemployment (and underemployment) problem, too.

But all of this is too nuanced for Dirty Harry, who simply blamed unemployment squarely on Barack Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Thoughts on the Repugnican Tea Party convention I did not watch

Full disclosure: I haven’t watched even one second of the Repugnican Tea Party National Convention that happened this past week. Not even one second of a video clip. I probably will watch a clip of Clint Eastwood’s infamous, reportedly surreal performance later, but in general, for me, watching any of the quadrennial KKK convention is like how it is for the characters in that scene in “Lord of the Rings” in which Gandalf speaks the dark language of Mordor: unpleasant, perhaps even painful.

I will make some remarks, though.

It’s interesting that one of the biggest news items that came from the convention is that two delegates were tossed out for having thrown nuts at CNN camera woman Patricia Carroll, who is a 34-year-old black woman and a native of Alabama, and for having remarked at the time: “This is how we feed animals.”

(Funny — animals throw shit, yet these animals were referring to an actual human being as an “animal.”)

Carroll said of the incident: “This is Florida, and I’m from the Deep South. You come to places like this [she apparently was referring to Florida and/or to Tampa and/or to the Repugnican Tea Party National Convention in the Tampa Bay Times Forum] [and] you can count the [number of] black people on your hand. They [white people] see us [black people] doing things they don’t think I should do.”

Carroll also said that such an incident “could happen to me at the Democratic convention or standing on the street corner. Racism is a global issue.”

Racism indeed is a global issue, but I’d be shocked if she were treated like that at the Democratic National Convention. Not that the Dems are perfect — far from it; thus, I’m a registered member of the Green Party — but your chances of facing discrimination at a Democratic crowd are much lower than at a KKK convention.

I mean, come on. Does Carroll really feel that way or does she feel pressure to parrot the false equivalency between the Repugnican Tea Party and the Democratic Party (“Both parties are responsible for/guilty of [fill in the blank]!!!”) that the corporately owned and controlled mainstream media, including her employer CNN, love to spout, despite its demonstrable falsity?

Some have claimed that the “feed[ing] animals” crack was a slam at members of the media in general, and that therefore it wasn’t an incident of racism, but would the apparent white supremacist fucktards have thrown food at a white male camera operator? Fuck no. (Similarly, President Barack Obama has been publicly disrespected by wingnuts in ways that a white male president never would be.) 

The other big news item from the KKK convention was that Pretty Boy Paul Ryan told so many lies during his speech that members of the stage crew had to rush out with a fire extinguisher because his pants had begun to smoke.

I won’t delve into Ryan’s lies, because with Ryan it’s like it is with Condoleezza Rice: How can you tell that they’re lying? When you see that their lips are moving.

I will say, however, that I take issue with Ryan’s remark, early in his speech: “I accept the calling of my generation to give our children the America that was given to us, with opportunity for the young and security for the old — and I know that we are ready.”

Um, Paul Ryan is not ready to be even vice president, and certainly is not ready to be president if it came to that, and Ryan wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security as we know it, yet here he is, claiming like George W. Bush used to claim, that it’s vitally important to him to ensure that our young people of today will have what our old people of today have — while at the same time proclaiming that of course today’s young people can’t expect to receive what today’s and yesterday’s old people have received; there will have to be significant cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security. Or hey, better yet, privatize both programs to ensure that the treasonous plutocrats can then loot the Medicare and Social Security funds entirely!

They want it both fucking ways.

They can’t have it both fucking ways.

And it incenses me that Paul Fucking Ryan claims Generation X when Generation X does not claim Paul Ryan.

Generation X is not about aiding and abetting millionaire baby boomers like Mittens Romney in sucking up every last crumb before the greedy fucking baby boomers finally kick off, leaving nothing for those of us who have to follow behind them like circus slaves have to follow elephants with shovels.

Of course, Paul Ryan, like Mittens, is a millionaire. (While Chris Matthews recently quipped that Mittens was born on third base, I’d say that it’s more accurate to say that Paul Ryan was born on third base, while Mittens was born on home plate.)

Both Ryan and Mittens come from wealthy families. Neither is a rags-to-riches story. Ryan isn’t the millionaire that Mittens is, but he is Mittens’ Mini-Me.*

And in his big speech yesterday, Mittens himself proclaimed, in part:

“This president [Barack Obama] can ask us to be patient. This president can tell us it was someone else’s fault. This president can tell us that the next four years he’ll get it right. But this president cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office. America has been patient. Americans have supported this president in good faith. But today, the time has come to turn the page.”

It’s true that Barack Obama has been a disappointing president. It was only last night that I finally gave Obama a penny toward his re-election — I gave him an online donation of $30, and that was inspired more from the unfair Repugnican Tea Party attacks upon him, especially this past week, than it was inspired by any hope or change that he’s actually delivered. I may or may not give him a little more money, and I most likely will not vote for him, since he’ll win my state of California and all of its 55 electoral votes in the winner-takes-all Electoral College no matter how I vote, even if I vote for Mittens. We’ll see.

President Obama’s failure is not that he has governed too far to the left. It’s that he’s too beholden to his corporate sugar daddies (he took much more from the Wall Street weasels than even John McCainosaurus did for the 2008 campaign, and then proceeded to put Wall Street weasels in charge of his economic policy) and he has focused too much on this “bipartisanship” bullshit (whether he sincerely believes that there’s any such thing or whether that’s just been rhetoric, I don’t know) instead of taking care of his base — you know, those of us who actually put him in office.

Consequently, Obama has not enacted the progressive vision that he at least implicitly promised us he would. The pro-corporate, center-right Clintonista brand of the Democratic Party has been killing us, just more slowly than has the Repugnican Tea Party.

A real — that is, an actually progressive, and not a Clintonista — Democratic president would have taken advantage of having had the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives controlled by his party in 2009 and 2010 and would have pushed through an actually progressive agenda, not thoroughly squandered it by having tryied to sing a rousing round of “Kumbaya” with the fascists in Congress who never are going to support anything that he says or does anyway (largely, in this case, because of his race).

But if I had to choose between four more years of Barack Obama or four (or even eight!) years of Mittens Romney, if a gun were pointed to my head and I had to choose the lesser of the two evils, it would be Obama, hands down. No question.

Mittens Romney declared in his speech yesterday that “the time has come to turn the page.”

What he doesn’t say is that he wants to turn the page of the American history book back to the 1950s, when women and non-whites had no rights, when gays were arrested solely for being gay or even just being suspected of being gay, when the nation lived in perpetual fear of overseas enemies (real or fabricated, but largely fabricated), when those who disagree with the right-wing fascists were called “anti-American” “Communists” and oppressed (many of them lost their jobs), when there were no environmental protection laws or agencies, when it was easier to suppress the voting rights of the “undesirables,” when, in short, right-wing, “Christo”fascist, (presumably) heterosexual, vulture capitalist, planet-killing, war-mongering white men — like Mittens Romney and Paul Ryan — ran the whole fucking show. 

Indeed, did the Repugnican Tea Party unearth its 2012 party platform from a time capsule buried in the 1950s?

I’m betting that more than half of us Americans on Election Day will reject Mittens’ agenda of dragging all of us back to the time when only people just like Mittens ran the show. The only way that I can see Mittens “winning” in November is if his treasonous, fascistic party is able to suppress enough Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. They’re certainly trying.

And Clint Eastwood — the man has made some good films, but really, if you have to have a senile old man make your case for you, then maybe your case is not that strong.

*Wikipedia notes of Paul Ryan:

Ryan was born in Janesville, Wisconsin to Elizabeth A. “Betty” (née Hutter) and Paul Murray Ryan, a lawyer, and was the youngest of four siblings. A fifth-generation Wisconsinite, his father was of Irish ancestry and his mother is of German and English ancestry….His great-grandfather, Patrick William Ryan (1858–1917), founded an earthmoving company in 1884, which later became P. W. Ryan and Sons and is now known as Ryan Incorporated Central. Ryan’s grandfather was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin by President Calvin Coolidge.

Ryan attended St. Mary’s Catholic School in Janesville, where he played on the seventh-grade basketball team. He attended Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville, where he was elected president of his junior class and subsequently named prom king. As class president Ryan also gained a seat on the school board, making it the first time he held political office.Between his sophomore year and junior year, Ryan took a job working the grill at McDonald’s. He was on his high school’s ski, track and varsity soccer teams and played basketball in a Catholic recreational league. He also participated in several academic and social clubs including the Model United Nations.R yan and his family often went on hiking and skiing trips in the Colorado Rocky Mountains.

When he was 16 and working a summer job, Ryan received a worried phone call from his father’s secretary. He came home to find his 55-year-old father lying dead in bed after suffering from a heart attack.His grandfather and great-grandfather also died from heart attacks, at ages 57 and 59 respectively, inspiring Ryan’s later interest in health and exercise. Following the death of his father, Ryan’s grandmother moved in with the family and because she struggled with Alzheimer’s Ryan had to help care for her while his mother studied at college in Madison, Wisconsin. Due to his father’s death Ryan received survivor’s benefits through Social Security until his 18th birthday, which were saved up in order to pay for his college education. …

So Social Security sure worked out pretty well for Paul Ryan. But since he already got his

Before he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Ryan worked for the construction company founded by his grandfather (Ryan Incorporated Central), and Ryan’s wife was a tax attorney when they met, so again, we’re not talking about an impoverished family here. Ryan’s net worth (due mostly because he married into a rich family) is in the range of $4 million to $5 million — which, again, compared to Mittens’ net worth of more than $250 million, makes Paul Ryan Mittens’ Mini-Me.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Can Eddie Munster save Mittens?

Repugnican Tea Party vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said in 2005, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” who was insane and sociopathically selfish and cold-blooded and heartless – and thus she is the social Darwinists’ goddess. In 2003, Ryan remarked that he’d given copies of Rand’s seminal novel extolling selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, as Christmas gifts to his congressional staffers. Now when he is asked about Ayn Rand, Ryan essentially responds: “Ayn who?”

For months, President Barack Obama and Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabe Mittens Romney remained too close for comfort in nationwide polls, with usually both of them polling at 40-something percent, and usually with Obama ahead, but only within a few percentage points.

Then, something happened: Late last month, Mittens put himself out there, fairly big-time, on the world stage, visiting London, Israel and then Poland. His Rainbow Tour was widely considered, all in all, a gaffe-filled failure.

After that debacle, the nationwide poll numbers did something that they hadn’t done in months: they moved.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken August 2 through August 6 put Obama seven points above Mittens, 49 percent to 42 percent.

Even a Faux “News” poll taken August 5 through August 7 put Obama nine points above Mittens, 49 percent to 40 percent.

A CNN/ORC poll taken August 7 and 8 put Obama seven points above Mittens, 52 percent to 45 percent — which is about what I expect the popular vote to be in November. (In 2008, Obama won 52.9 percent of the popular vote to John McCainosaurus’ 45.7 percent. I expect Mittens to get no more than 47 percent or 48 percent in November and Obama to get around 51 percent or 52 percent.)

The more that the voters get to know Mittens, the less they want to vote for him, so what to do?

Haul out Pretty Boy Paul Ryan!

What a dreamboat! That smile! Those baby blues! That boyish laugh! Who cares if he is pure, raw, unadulterated evil wrapped in a pretty package?

Actually, a lot of people, I surmise.

I don’t expect Paul Ryan to be much more of a boost to Mittens than Sarah Palin was to McCainosaurus.

Ryan probably isn’t as catastrophic a choice as Palin was, but is Ryan ready to be president should Mittens die and go wherever dead Mormons go after death?

I don’t fucking think so.

Mittens would be an awful president, and Ryan probably would be even worse.

I’ve seen articles on the Internet asserting that in Paul Ryan, Mittens picked his “opposite,” but no, Mittens and Boy Wonder are much more alike than they are different. Both of them are fucking mega-phonies who want to stick it to the poor and the middle class and the working class for the benefit of their fellow plutocrats while they smile at and whisper sweet nothings to us.

Mittens, a Mormon, and Ryan, a Roman Catholic, both call themselves “Christians” when their No. 1 goal is to make the filthy rich even filthier rich and the poorest among us even dirt poorer — despite Jesus Christ’s No. 1 teaching to treat and to love others as we want others to treat and to love us.

Mittens and his Boy Wonder also are the faces of the historical oppression of the rest of us by right-wing white men at a time when historically oppressed groups have more political power than they have had at any other time in the nation’s history. (In that respect, actually, it’s possible, I suppose, that when all is said and done, it generally will be recognized that Sarah Palin was a better choice than was Paul Ryan.)

The only way that I can see the Romney/Ryan ticket winning in November is if the democracy-hating Repugnican Tea Party traitors succeed in their plan to suppress enough Democratic voters to be able to steal the election, as George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris & Co. did in 2000. (Recall that Bush in 2000 lost the popular vote by more than a half-million votes to Al Gore but was then coronated as president by the right-wing, vote-count-halting U.S. Supreme Court.)

But even a Romney/Ryan “win” in November might not, in the end, be for the worst.

A second stolen presidential election by two neo-Nazis who are determined to make all of us serfs might, just might, be enough of a tipping point to spark our long-overdue revolution against our plutocratic/feudal overlords.

P.S. I predict that the announcement of Paul Ryan as Mittens’ running mate will give Romney a boost of no more than two or three percentage points in the polls that we’ll see over the next two or three weeks. I expect Obama in nationwide polls to maintain a lead above the margin of error — that is, at least four percentage points — from here all the way through Election Day.

While the white supremacist “tea party” traitors never have been crazy about Mittens, they really want to get the black guy out of the White House, and the Mittensmobile has been their only vehicle to that goal, so the vast majority of them already have been captured in the presidential polling, I surmise.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

WTF is the matter with Mittens? He’s a multi-millionaire baby boomer, for starters

Raw Video: Romney headlines tabloids in London

Associated Press image

A London tabloid expresses its opinion of Mittens’ visit to London on the occasion of the city’s hosting of the 2012 Olympic games.

The 2012 Olympics have gotten off to a great start — and I’m not even into sports. (Well, men’s diving and men’s gymnastics are OK…)

As others have noted, all that Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabe Mittens Romney really needed to do in London this past week was (1) to just show up and (2) to not make a total ass of himself. But very apparently, he could accomplish only one of those two objectives.

The mind of Mittens is a terrifying place to explore, but my blogger’s psychoanalysis of Mittens is that his London Olympics trip was meant to underscore the fact that he was in charge of the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City and was meant to show that he — and not Barack. Hussein. Obama. — is the man who should be representing the United States of America abroad. (I hate it when someone like Mittens acts like a shadow president — it’s deeply undemocratic, since we have not elected Mittens to act as our shadow president.)

And the wingnuts’ view of foreign relations, of course, is much closer to George W. Bush’s than it is to Barack Obama’s. And that view is that the United States of America must act like a drunken, aggressive, narcissistic frat boy, treating others in the manner of a complete and total asshole. 

On that note, I just signed on to this open letter to the people of the United Kingdom:

An open letter to the people of the United Kingdom:

We are writing to express our concern over Mitt Romney’s recent comments, and to let you know that he does not represent how most Americans view your great country.

First, we do not believe, as Mitt Romney implied in 2007, that you have become a second-tier nation. Rather, we are impressed at how the United Kingdom has consistently been able to punch above its weight on the world stage.

Additionally, we do not share the opinion which Romney expressed in his 2010 book, No Apologies, that “England [sic] is just a small island,” and that “with few exceptions, it doesn’t make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy.” Please continue sending us your many wonderful products, especially the upcoming third season of “Downton Abbey.”

We look forward not only to the London Olympics, but also to many years of continuing the special relationship between our two nations. Rest assured we will do our level best to prevent Mitt Romney from becoming our next president.

Cheers!

I hope that before the organizers send the letter on to the Brits, they delete that reference to “Downton Abbey”* — that bad joke seems actually to reinforce Mittens’ contention that the UK is not a serious contender on the world stage — but I agree with most of it. (If you want to sign on, you can do so by clicking here.)

Of course, when we state that “we are impressed at how the United Kingdom has consistently been able to punch above its weight on the world stage,” we need to be careful that with such broad statements we are not endorsing some of the UK’s atrocities, which include the subjugation and in some cases even the decimation of the natives of Africa, Australia, India and neighboring Ireland, and which also includes the UK’s government’s support of the Vietraq War, in which the United States and the UK were partners in war crimes and crimes against humanity. (Indeed, if the U.S.’s rap sheet of atrocities is shorter than the UK’s, that’s only because the U.S. is a much younger nation.)

All of that said — and all of that reinforcing  yet another reason why it was an incredibly poor idea for a henchman of Mittens to assert earlier this week that Mittens Romney better understands the “Anglo-Saxon heritage”** shared by the UK and the United States than does Obama — it was incredibly pompous for Mittens, as a guest of the UK, to state his opinion just before the opening of the 2012 Olympics that London wasn’t ready.    

My guess is that such boorish behavior comes from the fact that Mittens is an American baby boomer — as a group, these selfish narcissists vastly overestimate their talents, abilities and worth, and as a group, they know no fucking shame — and from the fact that as a overprivileged (Daddy was chairman and president of American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962, governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, and secretary of U.S. Housing and Urban Development from 1969 to 1973, and Mommy ran for the U.S. Senate for Michigan in 1970, for fuck’s sake) multi-millionaire (from his vulture capitalism) who is used to others sucking up to him, Mittens is uncomfortable in any other role than being the uber-alpha male, the frat-boy asshole on crack.

My guess is that Mittens feels like he’s in charge wherever he is, and that he saw nothing wrong with telling his hosts on the topic of hosting the Olympics: “You’re doing it wrong!”

Of course, again, those on the right subscribe to the George W. Bush School of Foreign Policy, so it’s not like in their eyes Mittens did anything wrong. They want their president to be the biggest bully on the international stage. Unless the U.S. president is hated worldwide, he isn’t doing his job — that’s their credo.

So, as usual, in November it will come down to the “swing voters.”

I don’t imagine that a huge chunk of them really cares either that Mittens conducted himself like a jackass in London this week, since their area of concern usually doesn’t extend more than a few miles’ radius, but if Mittens gets the reputation as a bumbler on the world stage — because he is — that might cost him a significant number of votes.

We’ll see, but in the meantime, it is instructive, I think, to examine Mittens’ personality traits that have been on display on the world stage this week and to ask ourselves what these personality traits would mean for us here at home should he ever sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Of course, we Americans just allowed George W. Bush to blatantly steal the White House in late 200o — what bad events possibly could follow a blatantly stolen presidential election? — so of course we can’t write presidential wannabe Mittens off.

*I purchased and watched the first two seasons of PBS’ “Downton Abbey,” and my impressions of the television show are that one, while the series is watchable, the first season was better than the second, and that two, “Downton Abbey’s” American target audience seems to be limousine liberals. (That said, I’m quite middle- and working-class myself. I’ve never even been inside of a limo.)

“Downton Abbey” seems to be making structural and institutional socioeconomic equality seem OK because the lord and lady of the manor are fairly decent individuals, are not individually abusive to their servants. Of course, the whole setup — an overprivileged class that is served by an underprivileged class — is abusive, but apparently we are to overlook that.

Thus, again, “Downton Abbey” should be a fave among the limousine liberals, like my baby-boomer uncle, who owns several homes and is a U.S. military contractor but who nonetheless in all seriousness calls himself a “socialist.”

**While I haven’t studied my own genealogy, I suspect that I primarily of am British stock, as many white Americans are. (Wikipedia notes that “German Americans [16.5 percent], Irish Americans [11.9 percent], English Americans [9.0 percent], Italian Americans [5.8 percent], French Americans [4 percent], Polish Americans [3 percent], Scottish Americans [1.9 percent], Dutch Americans [1.6 percent], Norwegian Americans [1.5 percent] and Swedish Americans [1.4 percent] constitute the 10 largest white American ancestries.”)

While there is much about the UK that I admire — such as the incredibly useful and expansive English language, of course — I think that it’s vital to recognize a nation’s wrongdoings as well as its successes. Thus, when Mittens said this in “defense” of his henchman’s “Anglo-Saxon heritage” remark, it was not a save: “It [the United States’ and the UK’s shared ‘Anglo-Saxon heritage’] goes back to our very beginnings — cultural and historical. But I also believe the president understands that. So I don’t agree with whoever that adviser might be, but do agree that we have a very common bond between ourselves and Great Britain.”

Yes, among other things, the United States and the UK have in common their colonization of other nations, the raping, pillaging and plundering of other, militarily weaker nations (including, of course, slavery) so that the UK and the U.S. could maintain a standard of living much higher than that of the average member of Homo sapiens on planet Earth. (And for this so-called “Anglo-Saxon” “success” you will get no apologies from Mittens Romney!)

When the British empire waned, the American empire rose up to replace it, and now the American empire wanes.

And you gotta love Mittens’ assertion, “So I don’t agree with whoever that adviser might be.” How much control, exactly, does Mittens have over his own campaign?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Desperate Mittens finally jumps on ‘war on religion’ bandwagon

In church

Associated Press photo

Mitt Romney obviously is running scared, with Prick Santorum running ahead of him as much as 10 percentage points in recent nationwide Repugnican Tea Party presidential preference polls.

Mittens hasn’t spoken much about religion thus far, I surmise, because he doesn’t want to draw attention to his Mormonism* and because he knows that many if not most of the so-called “swing voters,” who decide presidential elections these days, are turned off by hard-right “Christo”fascist rantings and ravings.

Romney for the most part has avoided going there, but with Santorum having gone there and surging as a consequence, what’s a poor multi-millionaire Mitt to do?

This:

Today Mittens proclaimed on the campaign trail in Michigan: “Unfortunately, possibly because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda — they have fought against religion.”

Um, so President Obama is palling around with the wrong crowd? He can’t think for himself?

Here is the breakdown of religious belief in the United States of America (according to Wikipedia):

Protestant: 51 percent of Americans

Catholic: 25 percent of Americans

No religious affiliation: 15 percent

Non-Christian religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.): around 4 percent to 6 percent

My Internet research shows that there are about 6 million Mormons in the United States of America, which has a total population of about 313 million, which calculates to only about 1.9 percent of Americans being Mormon.

(The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life says that 51 percent of Americans are Protestant, 24 percent are Catholic, 16 percent are unaffiliated with any major religious group [4 percent identifying as atheist or agnostic], and 5 percent are Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu. And the Pew Forum puts the number of Americans who are Mormon at only 1.7 percent.)

So we have Catholick Prick Santorum, whose religious beliefs are shared by no more than a quarter of the nation’s population, and Mitt Romney, whose religious beliefs are shared by no more than 2 percent of the nation’s population, wanting to shove their particular brands of religious belief down all of our throats.

Is that fair? Is that right? Is that moral? Is that democratic? Is that American? Is that even Christian? (Whom would Jesus religiously oppress?)

Fact is, in such a religiously pluralistic* nation as ours, the only fair and just and sane way to handle such religious diversity — which includes, of course, atheists and agnostics — indeed is to govern secularly.

To do otherwise is not to be a government for everyone, but to be a government for only some.

Frankly, whenever I hear Barack Obama bring up God, I cringe. I would prefer that if my president actually believed in a non-existent, Zeus-like deity, he or she wouldn’t talk about it publicly. Because when I hear my president bring up God or Jesus, I don’t feel like my president is my president.

(For the record, I gravitate toward Buddhism and other Eastern belief systems, and while I agree with the majority of Jesus Christ’s actual teachings [but I don’t buy that he was more than a human being, so no, he was not conceived asexually, and no, he did not rise from the dead, and nor did he perform the other assorted “miracles”], I am not into the deity/Super-Sized Santa Claus in the Sky thing, and my opinion of the Western patriarchal religious belief system [Christianity, Judaism and Islam] is that it is so toxic as to bring about World War III any day now.)

However, the times that Barack Obama does mention God, I more or less bite my tongue. I know that I’m in the minority, and that for political reasons, Obama is going to make an occasional mention of God whether he would do so naturally or not. He is nothing if not shrewdly but shamelessly politically calculating.

The “Christo”fascists have a pretty good stronghold on the nation, it seems to me. But Mitt Romney, who is losing to Prick Santorum — which absolutely never was supposed to happen — at long last has jumped upon the “Christians are being persecuted!” bandwagon.

Bullshit. When we are tossing Christians to the lions again I’ll believe that they’re being persecuted.

As I noted recently:

The “Christo”fascists in the United States of America have the freedom to live their lives as they wish. If they believe that contraception and/or abortion are evil, then they do not ever have to use contraception or ever get an abortion. Neither contraception nor abortion is forced upon them by the government. If they believe that same-sex marriage is evil, then they don’t have to marry a member of their own sex. The government doesn’t force them to marry members of their own sex, either.

The “Christo”fascists are free to believe whatever insanity they wish to believe, a right that they exercise to the fullest. The government does not force them to believe in evolution or global warming, and if they want to shield their offspring from facts and science and sanity, then they may school their little spawn at home. (That’s child abuse, in my book, but they have that right.)

What really rankles the “Christo”fascists is not that they cannot live their own lives as they see fit, despite their ludicrous claims of victimhood, their ridiculous propaganda about a supposed “war on religion” when, in fact, Americans are free to pray at home and in their places of worship of their non-existent, Zeus-like deity, and are free to express and to disseminate their ideas about this non-existent deity, and U.S. churches remain untaxed, may with impunity blatantly discriminate against individuals based upon their sex and race and sexual orientation and gender conformity (and, of course, based upon their religious beliefs), and, despite their untaxed status, still the churches blatantly insert themselves in the political process (like the Mormon cult’s and the Catholick church’s involvement in Proposition H8).

U.S. churches long have had special rights and privileges and immunties that we non-“Christo”fascists do not possess (try not paying your taxes, or blatantly discriminating against women or non-whites or those whose religious views differ from your own in your workplace, for example), yet they cry “victimhood.”

No, what really rankles the “Christo”fascist minority is that there are tens and tens of millions of us Americans who reject their Bible-based bullshit, and, because the “Christo”fascists’ backasswards worldview doesn’t survive the scrutiny of reality and logic and reason, they need as many converts as they can get in order to be comfortable in their bullshit, backasswards beliefs.

If I were president of the United States of America, I never would make public mention of God. Not only because there is no God — certainly not as Christianity, Judaism and Islam describe God (again, as a Zeus-like figure, male, all-powerful and perpetually angry and ready to smite you at any moment) — but because as president I would want to be all-inclusive, not exclusive.

The 15 percent to 16 percent of Americans who consider themselves atheist or agnostic or otherwise unaffiliated with the major religions is a huge (and growing) chunk of the population.

As president I wouldn’t want to alienate even the 4 percent of Americans who call themselves atheists or agnostics.

I mean, there are more than twice as many of them as there are Mormons, yet Mitt Romney wants to shove his teeny-tiny minority religion down the entire nation’s throat.

With a President Romney, we might as well move the nation’s capital to Salt Lake City. (Romney isn’t beholden to the cabal of stupid old white men in Salt Lake City? Well, they get 10 percent of his income of millions and millions of dollars! Sounds like they pull some strings to me!)

And with a President Santorum, we’d have to move the Oval Office to the Vatican, because it would be Pope Palpatine controlling Prick Santorum like he controlled Darth Vader.

Under the “leadership” of a President Romney or a President Santorum, we would see in the United States of America the actual religious persecution that they falsely claim that they suffer.

One of the few good things that I can say about Barack Obama is that for the very most part, he has governed secularly, and that’s the only way to govern the very diverse United States of America.

— 

*An October 2011 nationwide CNN/ORC poll found that 17 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon, and 36 percent of the respondents said that Mormonism is not a Christian religion.

**Lest you wish to argue that the 51 percent of Protestants make a majority, and thus we don’t have a plurality where religious groups in the United States are concerned, well, the many, many Protestant denominations hardly are monolithic. As the Pew Forum notes:

The Landscape Survey confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51 percent.

Moreover, the Protestant population is characterized by significant internal diversity and fragmentation, encompassing hundreds of different denominations loosely grouped around three fairly distinct religious traditions: evangelical Protestant churches (26.3 percent of the overall adult population), mainline Protestant churches (18.1 percent) and historically black Protestant churches (6.9 percent).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized