Tag Archives: Sen. Barbara Boxer

It’s (probably) Billary’s if she wants it

FILE - In this April 2, 2013, file photo Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are seen in Washington. Clinton, whose popularity is high when out of public office and who carries the scars of being seen as inevitable in 2008, is trying to strike the right careful balance between staying out of the daily political maelstrom and setting herself up for a possible second presidential run. Her fans and foes are making that difficult. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

Associated Press photo

Recent polls put Billary Clinton (photographed above with Vice President Joe Biden in Washington, D.C., in April) at 50 (yes, fifty) or more percentage points ahead of Biden for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and show her beating her toughest potential Repugnican Tea Party challenger, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, an average of 6 percentage points in the November 2016 presidential election. If Billary runs for president in 2016, she most likely will be our nation’s first female president, so it’s too fucking bad that her record indicates that as president she’d be little to no more progressive than the dismally disappointing Barack Obama has been…

Admittedly, I have wondered if Billary Clinton would have been a better president that President Hopey Changey has turned out to be. In 2017 and the following years, most likely, we’ll find out.

Smug individuals point out that Barack Obama for 2008 campaigned as a moderate and that thus the way that his presidency has unfolded could have come as a surprise to no one. My response to that, in a word, is: bullshit.

It’s true that Obama did not campaign as a radical. Crucial to his 2008 victory, I think, was the fact that he didn’t come off as “threatening” to too many white voters, as though once in the Oval Office he’d orchestrate the violent overthrow of the white ruling class by blacks, a revolution that many whiteys, at least in the back of their minds, still fear even today (they’re still talking about the New Black Panthers non-scandal, for fuck’s sake), a revolution that never could be successful any year soon, given the fact that the 2010 U.S. Census put whites at 72.4 percent of the American population and blacks at only 12.6 percent (not to mention the giant gap in wealth and power between white Americans and black Americans as groups).

It’s true that in his first presidential campaign Obama’s mantra was so-called “bipartisanship,” and that his stated goal was that he basically wanted to induce all of us to hold hands around the national campfire and sing rounds of “Kumbaya” until we all dropped of exhaustion.

It’s true that I cringed when Obama repeatedly publicly evoked the name of Ronald Fucking Reagan as A Model President, as though a Repugnican president would publicly praise Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter. (The last Democratic president that any of the Repugnican Party set have viewed as remotely OK to praise publicly is John F. Kennedy, probably because he’s dead and because the way that he died made him a bit of a martyr.)

But Obama in his first campaign for the White House also promised “hope” and “change” — ubiquitously and relentlessly — and promised to turn the nation around, promised to undo the damage of the eight long years of the unelected Bush regime.

The word “change” means something, and it does not mean “status quo.” Obama had talked and written about the “audacity of hope.” We were to bravely dare to hope. Just like he claimed he did.

And while Obama never promised to be a left-wing radical, we progressives understood that, politically, he probably couldn’t afford to do so, not if he wanted to actually win the White House, but while Obama was campaigning at least as a progressive lite, Billary Clinton, as her quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination became more and more desperate, acted as though she weren’t a limousine liberal.

After Obama had taken some heat for having stated during a private fundraiser in San Francisco (!) in April 2008 that some Americans “cling” to their “guns or religion” (which is, um, true*) — audio of which was leaked to the public (probably by the Clintonistas)  the desperate Billary saw an opportunity and so she took some shots: an actual shot of whiskey to show what a bad-ass redneck she actually is, and a shot at Obama, calling him “elitist and out of touch” and remarking, “I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America.”

Jesus fuck, I thought at the time (and still think). Which party’s presidential nomination is it that she wants?

Seriously: Billary was using the same rhetoric that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors were using against her own party. (Well, OK, this was in 2008, before the rise and fall of the so-called “tea party,” but still…) Billary painted Obama as an “out-of-touch” “elitist,” as though she weren’t a carpetbagging Beltway hack herself, and as though the state she had dragged her carpetbag to, New York, were a red state (indeed, New York is bluer than is Obama’s Illinois).

Given Billary’s mad dash to the right as she became more and more desperate in her losing quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, given her vote for the unelected Bush regime’s obviously bogus Vietraq War in October 2002, and given her husband’s destruction of the Democratic Party through the now-thank-Goddess-defunct “Democratic Leadership Council,” which dragged the party to the right to the point that the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Tea Party now pretty much are the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party — two plutocrat-and-corporation-loving parties that, like Coke and Pepsi, are hard for many if not most of us to differentiate — Barack Obama to me was the obvious choice in 2008.

But now, five years later, admittedly, I have to wonder if Billary would have been a better president than Obama has been.

It wouldn’t have taken much for Billary to have done a better job as president than Obama has, given that as president Obama has done little, that he squandered his best opportunity to push through an actually progressive agenda (which was in 2009 and 2010), that instead of tackling the nation’s in-its-death-throes economy head on, he spent all of his initial political capital on “Obamacare” (I have to wonder if he had wanted to accomplish what Billary had tried but failed to accomplish when she was first lady — to reform health care), and that because Obama squandered his initial wealth of political capital, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors regained the House of Representatives in late 2010 and probably will retain it after the November 2014 election, thus ensuring that Obama will have no legacy other than the dubious “legacy” of “Obamacare.”

Would Billary Clinton as president have spectacularly squandered the political opportunity of 2009 and 2010 like Obama, with both houses of Congress controlled by his own party, did?

Sure, you might say, she would have tried again with health-care reform, and perhaps she would have, but at the same time, her husband’s mantra for his 1992 presidential run was the James-Carville-credited “It’s the economy, stupid!”

My guess — and, admittedly, it’s just a guess, just a hunch — is that as president, Billary would have worked to fix the economy first, and then focused on health-care reform later (if she ever took it up at all).

Consequently, my further guess is that had Billary been elected as president in 2008, the Democrats would have kept the House of Representatives after the November 2010 elections, allowing Billary to continue pushing for an actually progressive agenda beyond her first two years in office.

Barack Obama has been such a fucking failure and such a dismal disappointment, and already is a lame duck so early into his second term that already the 2016 presidential speculation has heated up; all of us already are looking to what comes after him, knowing that the rest of his second term will be, at best, a wash.

I mean, Billary Clinton is getting her own fucking miniseries on NBC, for fuck’s sake.

Yes, today.com reports:

Betting on Hillary Clinton’s second candidacy for president, NBC has ordered a four-hour miniseries based on the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state’s life.

“Hillary,” starring Diane Lane [as Billary], will recount Clinton’s life from 1998 to the present and will be written by Oscar-nominated screenwriter Courtney Hunt (“Frozen River”). NBC chairman Bob Greenblatt announced the miniseries [yesterday] at the Television Critics Association summer press tour.

“I think she’s one of the most fascinating women of our time and this world,” Greenblatt [said]. “And on the precipice of what we all assume will be her running for president, we think it’s an interesting story to tell with classy producers and a great star.”

The script, which has not been written, will begin with Clinton living in the White House during her husband’s second term and will likely include her second run at becoming the nation’s first female president. It is not based on a book and Clinton is not involved with the project, Greenblatt said. Lane was already attached to the mini-series when NBC bought it, Greenblatt said. …

The miniseries would likely air before Clinton would announce her candidacy if she decides to pursue the nation’s highest office. …

Since Bill Clinton was impeached by the Repugnican-controlled House of Representatives over the (literally…) messy Monica Lewinsky scandal in December 1998 (and was acquitted in February 1999 by the Repugnican-controlled Senate, which could not muster the 67 votes necessary to remove a president from office), presumably the miniseries will begin with the bullshit, uber-partisan Lewinsky affair, but I expect the miniseries to get it over with fairly quickly.

Anyway, I get it that the NBC bigwig is shilling the show, but how, exactly, is Billary Clinton “one of the most fascinating women of our time and this world”?

What, exactly, has this whiskey-guzzling, supposedly “elitist”-hating, carpetbagging, Vietraq-War-rubber-stamping woman accomplished? Does not pretty much everything that she has “accomplished” stem from the fact that she has been married to William Jefferson Clinton?

Would the voters of New York have elected her as their U.S. senator in 2000 had she not first been first lady? Or, like almost anyone else would have been, would she have been rejected by New York’s voters as the shameless carpetbagger that she was?

How is gaining success via your spouse “fascinating”? Or inspiring? And what, exactly, does it do for feminism?

I’m more than ready for our First Female President, but I can’t say that I’m ready for President Billary Clinton.

I’m much more impressed by a woman who made it without having ridden her husband’s coattails. How about my own Sen. Barbara Boxer for president?

I have much more respect for her than I do for Billary. Not only did Boxer have the brains and the balls to vote against the Vietraq War in October 2002, but in January 2005 she had the balls to be the only U.S. senator to stand with U.S. representatives in their objection to the certification of Ohio’s Electoral College votes in light of the serious problems at Ohio’s polls. (Like Florida was crucial to George W. Bush’s “win” in 2000, Ohio was crucial to Bush’s “re”-election in 2004, and like Florida’s chief elections officer in 2000 [Katherine Harris] was openly supporting Bush’s campaign [no conflict of interest there!], so was Ohio’s chief elections officer in 2004 [Kenneth Blackwell].)

Boxer also in early 2005 famously took on then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza “You Know She’s Lying When Her Lips Are Moving” Rice during a hearing in D.C., stating, “I personally believe – this is my personal view – that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth.” Hell yeah!

When did Billary Clinton ever do anything as courageous as these things?

Much like Barack Obama used to be, Billary to a large degree still is a political rock star, even though, like Obama, she has accomplished little to nothing in D.C. and thus doesn’t deserve the status.

But, just like in a high-school student-council election, it’s popularity, not accomplishment, that gets you into the White House. (Well, unless you’re George W. Bush; when, like Gee Dubya, you don’t have enough popularity, you have swing states’ chief elections officials who are of your party and the right-wing members of the U.S. Supreme Court and your governor brother help you out…)

And while Billary Clinton has little to no actual accomplishment, she does have popularity aplenty.

Billary shows a whopping 50 (yes, a five-oh)-point lead above Vice President Joe Biden in recent polls of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate preference. Biden consistently comes in at second place in only the low double digits. Yes, Billary consistently is hitting more than 60 percent in these polls.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, on the hand, have no clear front runner for the White House for 2016, with not one member of the possible field of Chris Christie, Pretty Boy Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Prick Perry, Prick Santorum and yes, Jeb Bush, able to reach even 20 percent in recent partisan 2016 presidential-preference polls.

And in recent hypothetical matches against Repugnican Tea Party traitors for the 2016 presidential election, Billary handily beats them all. She beats even her thus-far most formidable opponent, Chris Christie, by an average of 6 points. (Recent polls, by contrast, have Biden losing not only to Christie but even to the likes of Jeb Bush…)

In a Bloomberg poll taken not too terribly long ago (May 31-June 3), 40 percent of those polled said they “probably” or “definitely” would vote for Billary if she were the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, while only 34 percent said they “definitely” would not vote for her. Twenty-three percent said they “might” vote for her and 3 percent said that they were “unsure,” so if you give her the support of only half of those individuals (which is 13 percent), that’s 53 percent before she’s even declared her candidacy.

Fifty-three percent is not bad. (And it’s what Obama got in 2008 — 52.9 percent of the popular vote.)

So, while I never have been and never will be enthusiastic about Billary Clinton, whom I consider to be just another Democrat in name only, just another Repugnican Lite, the numbers very apparently are behind her.

Add to this the probability that Billary’s mere official announcement of her candidacy probably would effectively or perhaps even literally, totally clear the Democratic field, saving her a primary fight and thus allowing her to focus her time, energy and money on the November 2016 election, while we’ll probably see another crowded Repugnican Tea Party primary field, as we did in 2012.

Not only will these Repugnican Tea Party candidates have to focus on the presidential primary elections (and caucuses) and the presidential general election, but if they have a particularly nasty primary season, the eventual winner could come out of the process fairly bruised, battered and tarnished.

And my guess is that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ “Benghazigate” bullshit** has been helping Billary more than it has been hurting her, in that those (34 percent or so) who already solidly hate her already solidly hate her, and in that if the Repugnican Tea Party traitors attack Billary viciously and frequently enough, they could induce even unenthusiastic-about-Billary people like me to support her.***

And that’s a feat that only morons of the magnitude of those who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party could accomplish.

*The fuller quote is:

“… You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are [going to] regenerate, and they have not.

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. …”

Again, there is a word for these remarks: the truth.

Indeed, the “tea party’s” best accomplishment is blaming the wrong people for the nation’s problems (feminists, immigrants, non-heterosexuals, progressives [a.k.a. “socialists” or “Commies”], labor unionists [also a.k.a. “socialists” or “Commies”], Muslims, et. al.) while those who actually are responsible for the nation’s problems (the plutocrats, corporatocrats [Wall Street weasels and many, many others] and militarists, mostly) get off scot-fucking-free.

**Statistician god Nate Silver, who I hope writes about the 2016 presidential election despite the fact that he soon is leaving the New York Times for ESPN, wrote this about “Benghazigate” and Billary’s popularity back on May 31:

… So, are Americans carefully parsing through the details of the Benghazi attack — and finding Mrs. Clinton more culpable than Mr. Obama?

Probably not. Instead, the decline in her ratings was likely just a matter of time — and if the Benghazi hearings had not triggered it, something else would have.

… It’s easy to be popular when nobody is criticizing you — and there was a long period, from the closing stages of the 2008 campaign through most of her tenure as secretary of state, when Republicans had little interest in attacking Mrs. Clinton directly. Now that Republicans have chosen to engage her again, her numbers are coming down. … This is what happens when a politician returns to being in the partisan fray after having drifted above it for some time.

But if Mrs. Clinton were to run for president in 2016, Republicans would undoubtedly have found any number of other ways to criticize her — from her policy proposals, to concerns about her age or health, to gaffes that she might make on the campaign trail, to controversies recycled from her tenure as secretary of state.

Mrs. Clinton, if she runs in 2016, is highly unlikely to win by the double-digit margins that some polls have given her over prospective Republican opponents. But the same would have been true regardless of Benghazi. The main circumstances in which a presidential candidate wins by double digits are when that candidate is an incumbent running in a time of exceptional economic growth, or when the other party’s incumbent is viewed as having performed terribly. Or, every now and then, the opposing candidate might be viewed as extreme or incompetent, and swing voters will feel as though they have no real choice. …

I expect Billary, if she runs for president in 2016 (and I put it at more than a 75-percent chance that she will), to do about as well as Obama did in 2008 and in 2012 (Obama in 2008 beat John McCainosaurus 52.9 percent to 45.7 percent and in 2012 beat Mittens Romney 51.1 percent to 47.2 percent).

In fact, again, Billary’s polling against the most-popular-thus-far potential 2016 Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate, Chris Christie, has her, on average, 6 percentage points ahead of him, and Obama’s average popular-vote victory over his Repugnican opponents in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections was 5.55 percent, which to me suggests that we’re seeing about a 6-percent gap between those Americans who prefer a Democratic president and those who prefer a Repugnican Tea Party president.

This to me appears to be a demographic (and not a situational) gap that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors cannot close, which would explain why they want to further rig our future elections, such as through even further voter suppression (especially in the name of preventing “voter fraud”) to the greatest extent that they humanly possibly can.

***That said, about the only way that I could see myself casting a vote for Billary for president in November 2016 would be if her Repugnican Tea Party opponent, whoever it is, actually were close to winning California and its huge chunk of electoral votes, which is quite unlikely, given that Billary beat even Barack Obama in California’s 2008 Democratic presidential primary election, 51.5 percent to 43.2 percent. She’s quite popular here in California.

However, were Billary’s campaign actually struggling nationally and her Repugnican Tea Party opponent actually within range of winning the White House in November 2016, I cannot, as I type this sentence, rule out holding my nose and giving her campaign some money…

As much as I’m not a fan of Billary, of course, when push comes to shove, I’d prefer her in the White House over any Repugnican Tea Party traitor.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Carly should have her head examined

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO  Carly Fiorina gestures during a ...

Associated Press photo

Rich Repugnican Carly Fiorina, who although she never has held elected public office wants to be a U.S. senator for California, is doing nothing to challenge the perception that California is the land of fruits and nuts. Crazy Carly — who recently released a beyond-bizarre, National-Organization-for-Marriage-like attack ad on her Repugnican primary opponent — is shown above in a photo from last month and is shown below shilling for fellow Repugnican John McCainosaurus in 2008. Just like Sarah Palin-Quayle does, Crazy Carly opposes a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own uterus and she opposes equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals, but she expects women to vote for her anyway.

Associated Press photo

Repugnican Carly Fiorina, whom the board of Hewlett-Packard forced to resign in 2005 and who was John McCainosaurus’ top economic adviser when he ran for the White House with Sarah Palin-Quayle and who has been listed among the top 20 worst American CEOs of all time, reportedly has beaten breast cancer, but I suspect that the cancer has metastasized to her brain. In fact, her brain might be more tumorous matter than healthy gray matter.

That would explain her incrediblyreally, it’s unfuckingbelievable — bizarre and incredibly bad attack ad against her Repugnican primary opponent Tom Campbell.

I’d thought that they were exaggerating, but then I watched the ad, which truly must be seen to be believed:

I think it’s fairly safe to say that with what has been dubbed her “demon sheep ad” — yes, the ad contains images of an evil sheep with red glowing eyes that is a bit reminiscent of “The Amityville Horror’s” Jodie the Pig:

An actor in a sheep costume with "demon eyes" is seen ...

Reuters video grab

 — Carly Fiorina already has lost her bid to unseat U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.

If Crazy Carly actually manages to make it out of the Repugnican primary alive — by pumping millions of her own dollars into her campaign, just as her Repugnican-former-CEO-who-never-has-held-any-elected-public-office-before cohort Megalomaniac Whitman is trying to buy the governorship of California with her own personal fortune — then she’ll die at the ballot box in November 2010.

Nutmeg Whitman and Crazy Carly Fiorina think that the voters of California are fucking stupid. OK, so true, they did elect Repugnican Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Repugnican-orchestrated gubernatorial recall election of 2003. But even the dullest of Californians now see what a huge fucking mistake that was, and just as California’s women voters weren’t stupid enough to vote for Repugnican John McCainosaurus because Sarah Palin-Quayle was on the ticket, they’re not going to vote for Whitman or Fiorina just because they (presumably) possess the XX chromosomes.

Nor, I believe, are cash-strapped Californians going to take too well to two corporate bizillionaires trying to buy office — and a U.S. Senate seat and the governorship of the nation’s most populous nation, no less — when they never have held public office before, not even city council member.

P.S. Crazy Carly’s campaign’s “FCINO” as “fiscal conservative in name only”?

Um, what creative genius thought that up?

You can say “RINO” (Repugnican in name only) like “rhino,” or “DINO” (Democrat in name only) like “dino” (as in short for “dinosaur”), but “FCINO”?

WTF?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Boxer already has won re-election

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Sen. Barbara ...

Associated Press photo

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, chair of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., today on the climate-change talks in Copenhagen. Meanwhile, her would-be Repugnican successors are focusing on the scandalous! fact that she actually asked someone to address her as “senator”!

The 2010 election is almost a year away, but I think it’s safe to say that U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is going to win re-election.

This from The Associated Press today:

Washington – The widely played video clip of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer reprimanding a general for calling her “ma’am” is the gift that keeps on giving for the two Republicans hoping to challenge her next year.

Republicans Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore are trying to capitalize on the exchange by making it a key ingredient of their fundraising efforts and attempts to recruit grassroots support. Both campaigns say the video revs up a GOP base that already has long-standing animosity toward Boxer, among the most liberal members of the Senate.

Whether it will have currency beyond next June’s Republican primary, when the winner will have to appeal to a much larger and more diverse audience, is an open question.

During a hearing last June, Boxer interrupted Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers in mid-sentence: “Do me a favor?” she said. “Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it. Yes, thank you.”

Boxer said the general was not offended by her remarks, but many in the GOP clearly were, including the two Republican challengers.

Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina thought the exchange was so memorable that it prompted her to create a website titled CallMeBarbara.com, which she uses to raise money and keep in touch with supporters.

Campaign aides said they could not quantify the site’s appeal, except to say it has received thousands of hits and led to thousands of dollars in donations.

The campaign of state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore juxtaposed the Boxer clip with an Austin Powers movie frame showing the Dr. Evil character upbraiding those who dare refer to him as “Mr. Evil.” The 30-second video has generated more than 108,000 clicks on YouTube. It’s been one of the campaign’s most popular tools for reaching out to potential supporters.

Barbara O’Connor, professor of communications at Sacramento State University, said the use of Boxer’s comments from the hearing will no doubt fire up the GOP base during the primary campaign but probably will not hurt the third-term senator in the general election. Jobs, health care and other bread-and-butter issues are expected to take precedence….

Um, yeah.

To give just one example, while Fiorina never has held elected office but just wants to buy office (and the governorship of the nation’s most populous state at that), like so many Repugnicans do, and while DeVore is just another stupid white man who stupidly believes that Californians at this point in time want to replace Boxer with a stupid white man, Boxer has been at the forefront of combating global warming. (Fiorina and DeVore, of course, being Repugnicans, would put profits over the planet.)

Um, yeah, I’m a lot more concerned about scientists’ projection that the Arctic could be ice-free in less than a decade than I am that Barbara Boxer — gasp! — actually asked some general to call her “senator”!

The fucking Repugicans fucking fiddle while the polar ice caps melt. It’s fucking great.

Those who hate Boxer are going to hate Boxer. Those of us Californians who love her are going to love her, and no rich bitch trying to buy office or stupid white man is going to get our vote for the U.S. Senate over Babs.

And what, exactly, was Boxer’s “crime” in asking the general to call her “senator”? She was not deferential enough to a man in the military?

Oh, fuck that shit!

I smell sexism — and fascism.

Barbara Boxer nor any other American citizen or elected official is required to fall at the feet of anyone in the U.S. military.

Anyway, the AP also reports:

Registered Republicans represent less than a third of California’s electorate. Women, who vote in greater numbers than men in California, may well see Boxer’s statement as a demand for equal treatment….

Boxer said her opponents’ focus on the exchange says more about them than it does about her. She’s not about to apologize.

“Once in 17 years that I’ve been a senator, I asked a witness to call me ‘senator,’ because we were having a back and forth and I kept saying ‘general’ and he kept saying ‘ma’am’, and it went ‘general,’ ‘ma’am,’ ‘general,’ ‘ma’am.’ And I thought, you know what, this is one of those times we ought to call each other by our titles,” she said in an interview.

Boxer’s strategy for dealing with the fallout is simple: Let her opponents talk about the exchange while she focuses on talking about jobs and other priorities. It’s her way of conveying to voters that she is focused on the issues they care about while her opponents are focused on petty issues….

Fiorina and DeVore already have demonstrated their pettiness and political naivete amply. They might be in touch with California’s wingnut minority, but they’re grossly out of step with the California majority that elected Barbara Boxer for her third term in the U.S. Senate in 2004 with 58 percent of the vote to her Repugnican challenger’s 38 percent. In 2004 she earned more than 6.9 million votes, more votes than any other candidate for the U.S. Senate ever earned in the nation’s history, and more votes than any other candidate ever won on the California statewide ballot.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Palin-Prejean 2012!

Carrie Prejean starts to leave Larry King’s show because he asked her a question that he wasn’t supposed to. Prejean, like Sarah Palin, represents a faux victimization that only harms, not helps, women. (You know that Prejean is a good Christian, by the way, because she wears that cross.)

So Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin are what’s left of the Repugnican Party — well, except for Glenn Beck.

What do Prejean and Palin have in common? A lot, with the exception that no Palin sex videos have yet to be discovered. (And I’m really, really hoping that there won’t be any Beck sex videos…)

Both Prejean and Palin have books out (as does Beck…), only Palin’s book is doing much better than is Prejean’s: Amazon.com has Palin’s book at No. 1 and Prejean’s at No. 6,712 — yes, at No. 6,712 — as I compose this sentence.

(Porn star Jenna Jameson’s book How to Make Love Like a Porn Star is at No. 56 on amazon.com right now — I swear – so what I’m thinking is that Prejean needs to follow the logical course of her “career,” which is to do professional porn, since she’s already done amateur porn. Then, perhaps, after she has had success as a professional porn “actress,” for which she’s already had her tits artificially enlarged, she finally can sell some books!)

If you think I’m awful for comparing Palin and Prejean, Prejean makes the comparison herself. This is from her pathetic recent interview with Larry King:

KING: You characterize yourself as being “Palinized.” What do you mean?

PREJEAN: Well, you look at Sarah Palin and Congresswoman, you know, Michele Bachmann, they are relentlessly, you know, torn down by the liberal media. I mean, they’re wonderful women. They’re intelligent. They’re great mothers. They’re brilliant. And yet there’s this double standard that conservative women are fair game to be attacked. And it’s not right. And it needs to stop.

KING: Doesn’t the conservative media tear down liberal politicians?

PREJEAN: Not to the extent that liberals do to conservative women. I think that they get away with it. If you look at Keith Olbermann, for instance, I talk about it in my book, some of the things that he says on his show about conservatives, if Sean Hannity or if Bill O’Reilly said anything like that about a liberal woman, like Sonia Sotomayor or Michelle Obama, he would be off the air. And there is this double standards and Americans are now exposed to it.

KING: But the conservative media commentators denounced Sonia Sotomayor as a racist, Hillary Clinton as a bitch and a liar. Laura Ingraham recently accused Nancy Pelosi of having do everything but sell her own body to get the health bill passed. You must condemn things like that.

PREJEAN: Look at the things that they said about Sarah Palin and her children. I mean, it’s unbelievable. The attacks are still coming. And, you know, when they’re not happy with the message, Larry, what do they do? They attack the messenger.

KING: Well, you don’t see that it happens on both sides?

PREJEAN: I think that it’s important for women to stick together. I think that’s the biggest thing. And I think that there definitely is this bias against conservative women. It’s fair game. And if they don’t like what you have to say, they have to attack your personal life. And that’s what we’ve been seeing. It’s very consistent.

Oh, puhhhfuckinglease. If you put yourself in the public spotlight, like both Prejean and Palin have done, you can’t complain that the public spotlight shines on those parts of your life that you wish it wouldn’t.

Especially when you claim to be such a great fucking upstanding “Christian” (which includes hating fags and dykes, just like Jesus did/does, of course!), as Prejean does, you can’t expect your hypocrisy (such as breast implants and amateur sex videos) not to be exposed.

When I watched the Prejean-Larry King clip with Prejean ostentatiously wearing her Christian cross pendant, as though she actually exemplifies what Jesus Christ taught, I wanted to vomit.

All that Palin and Prejean do is cry “victim.” How, exactly, does this victim mentality empower women? And is their incessant whining about the “liberal media” enough to elect the likes of Palin to positions of power? Aren’t you supposed to have actual accomplishments, not just bogus claims of victimhood? 

Prejean is full of shit when she claims that women on the right are given worse treatment than are progressive women. And women on the right usually are attacked because they are fucktarded and mean-spirited, not because they are women.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are “brilliant”? Well, consider the source of that assertion. No doubt Prejean considers herself to be “brilliant” as well.

I recall the incredibly vicious attacks on Cindy Sheehan by the right. (The majority of Americans now agree with Sheehan, of course, that the unelected Bush regime’s Vietraq War was dead wrong.)

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and my only truly Democratic U.S. senator, Barbara Boxer, constantly are villified by the right, as was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (primarily because she isn’t a conservative white man), yet here is Prejean whining about what supposedly horribly unfair treatment she and Palin have received. She’s even coined a verb for it: “Palinized.”  

What Palin and Prejean and their ilk really want is for progressive women to be crucified while wingnut dingbats like Palin and Prejean get a free pass — lest they scream “sexism.”

Why won’t Palin and Prejean just go the fuck away, even though the McCainosaurus-Palin-Quayle ticket tanked at the ballot box a year ago this month and even though Palin and Prejean both, to my knowledge, are unemployed, except to peddle their books?

Because of Americans’ love affair with white trash, that’s why. We haven’t seen Palin’s nasty bits, as we have Prejean’s, but we are promised that soon we’ll see Palin’s grandkid’s baby daddy’s pee-pee on playgirl.com.

That’s why Palin and Prejean endure: because Americans just can’t get enough of stupid.

I don’t expect Prejean to be around much longer, and I don’t see that Palin-Quayle ever will make it to the White House. Still, I believe that it’s a mistake to misunderestimate, as our last “brilliant” “president” would put it, how popular stupid is in the United States of America.

Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean appeal to the fantasy of millions of fucktarded Americans that they, too, can become famous one day, even though they have attained absofuckinglutely nothing. It’s the American dream, to attain to heights that you never earned and don’t deserve. (It was, I think, the “brilliant” “President” George W. Bush who started that trend.)

Still, though, Palin and Prejean (and Glenn Beck) do represent an ever-shrinking segment of the U.S. population: the misogynist/pro-patriarchal, white supremacist, “Christo”fascist, xenophobic, homophobic, pro-bogus-war, anti-social-program, anti-environmental (not necessarily in that order) set. They are vocal, but they are going extinct like the dinosaurs they don’t believe in.

The Repugnicans think that just because they can front a she-Nazi or two, the majority of the American voters won’t see that a Nazi is still a Nazi, male or female, Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin.

“I think that it’s important for women to stick together,” Carrie Prejean proclaimed on Larry King.

Because getting breast implants in order to compete in the Miss USA pageant is what feminism is all about! As is the anti-abortion stance of both Prejean and Palin! Yes, women of the United States of America, these brilliant women are on your side!

Prejean already is dead in the water, so she might as well go ahead and make that pro porn, and Palin is riding high right now only because of her book. She’ll fade. You betcha.

And even if she didn’t, she and her ilk just don’t have the numbers anymore. It’s not even close enough for the Repugnicans to be able to steal presidential elections anymore, like they did in 2000 and again in 2004.

The demographics are their death.

But it doesn’t hurt to help the demographics along.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized