Category: Politics

Patrick Kennedy, Motivational Speaker

Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island), the son of the late Ted Kennedy went a tad nuts while speaking in support of a resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan within 30 days. Kennedy accused the media of ignoring the war and obsessing over the “tickle fight” scandal that forced Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., to quit. He also sounded a lot like Chris Farley…

As others have pointed out, there hasn’t been anything close to a press blackout on Afghanistan recently, and sorry, but the Massa thing was provocative and legitimate news. Listen to Massa recap it in the clip below:

UPDATE: SNL does a “Really??” Segment on Massa:

“Coffee Party” organizes to make Congress play nice

A left wing movement calling itself the “Coffee Party” has been formed to respond to the right wing movement against Obamas expansion of government policies calling itself the Tea Party. Washington Post did a profile on them and they have a website, but… it’s all kinda murky as to what exactly is going on with it.

The first thing I thought of when I heard of this though was, how come no one is calling these people evil brainddead bigots like the Tea Partiers are constantly labeled? A rally over Barack Obama’s policies called the “Coffee Party” and no one has cried racism? How soon ye forget…

I guess a “Chris Rock” impression voice needed to be present.

Clearly this Coffee thing is kind of all over the place when it comes to explaining wtf it’s even attempting (follow the link for video vs interview clips of its founder saying how she created the moment to oppose the Tea Party but that she’s not opposed to the Tea Party and prepare to be confused) and looking to them for more specifics is an exercise in vague niceties:

We want the political process broken down into three steps:
1) open and respectful dialogue
2) thoughtful and informed deliberation
3) competent and decisive execution.

The process is so broken, we can’t get past step 1 right now. We demand cooperation, productivity and accountability in government in the same way we would demand it of an employee we might hire for a job.

We want local chapters to have the autonomy to figure out their own legislative and electoral priorities. At the national level, we’ll make recommendations for direct action on legislation. But they will only be suggestions. We value and celebrate diverse opinions just as we value and celebrate diverse backgrounds. All that is required to be part of this movement is a sincere commitment to participating in, and protecting the democratic process.

Okay… so they have a problem with there being a lack of open and respectful dialog in Congress and they want to organize against it..somehow. Alright.. I guess. although it’s a really weird thing to rally over. whatever. these “can’t we all just be nice?” types like to look across the pond as examples of Government things we should emulate when it comes to larger government and more control from the state, but never nuclear power, social issues that lean to the right or civility in politics.

Recently in the UK, this happened:

Ukip’s Nigel Farage faces reprimand after calling Herman Van Rompuy ‘wet rag’ . (you know this is a story from UK as soon as you hear there is someone named “Nigel” involved. charming).


MEP and UKIP leader Nigel Farage on Wednesday delivered another major tirade against EU President Herman van Rompuy and, along the way, severely insulted Belgium and Greece during a plenary debate in the European Parliament. Farage said Van Rompuy had the “charisma of a damp rag” and the appearance of a “low-grade bank clerk.”

Bush Bashin Obama, Hacky Hannity and the facts

Sean Hannity just played a clip from Obama’s speech where he talked about Bush and came back with the awesome come back of “will the Bush bashing ever stop!?”. ooooo! zing! LOL Sean! Good one! that is such an annihilating smackdown that it in no way illustrates what an untalented hack you are! who cares if Obama’s list of Bush foibles was accurate – YOU SURE TOLD HIM! lulz. Hannitee 4 Prezident LOL lulz roflma fml.

This part of the speech is what Hannity was referring to:

The worst part is that he could have actually made a point there if he weren’t such a knee-jerk Republican shill that thought non-hilarious one-liners like that were acceptable retorts to the opposition in power.

He could have, for instance, maybe brought up the fact that Obama is going to triple the national deficit this year and even the Whitehouse’s own estimates show they plan to put Bush’s spending to shame.

And it doesn’t stop there, Woody. This Buzz Lightyear is going to Infinity and Beyond:

Karl Rove gave an ACTUAL response to the Bush stuff (is it too late to give him Hannitys job?):


transcript from Karl Rove’s segment with Greta Van Susteren:

“I can find no administration in which there is such a frequent recourse to blame the previous administration…

They want to blame the Bush Administration for the debt. I happened to be last week in a debate with David Plouffe in which he blamed the Bush Administration for the deficit this year. And I said, “Wait a minute, what about your spending bill? It was your bill, President Obama’s $787 billion Stimulus Bill. What about the $33 billion SCHIP bill that he signed? What about the $410 billion Omnibus Bill?” In reflection didn’t Senator Obama support the rescue package the recovery package last fall, the $750 billion to help rescue the banks? $350 billion dollars of that was spent by the time he got into office. If he didn’t like that spending he could have said, “You know were not going to spend another dime of that $350 billion,” and yet he did…

I think this is wearing thin. This is causing the American people to say, “Wait a minute. This is all your spending. Why do you keep blaming the guy who came before you?”

Hannity grills Dick

Dick Cheney on “Hannity” promo says “its a hard hitting Hannity exclusive”. a little misleading, considering “hard hitting” in context of an interview usually applies to the interviewer, not the guest. The promo should have just come out and said “Sean Hannity gives the former Vic President an unchallenged platform to bash the shit out of the opposition”.

Nobel & Limbaugh vs Obama & McNabb

If its wondered aloud that the Nobel committee gave the Peace Prize to Obama because they were excited and hopeful at the US electing a black president, how is that racist? right/wrong/whatever. you discuss it, but RACIST? how? — oh. its not? then how is Limbaugh’s 2003 comment that McNabb got praised “because the media wanted a black quarterback to do well” racist?

Exactly. dumbasses. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s cool to hate on talk show hosts you don’t like all you want, it’s NOT cool to go attacking their attempt to own a small piece of a sports team and it’s not even acceptable to go smearing the hell out of someone as a “racist” over things they never said or inserting racism into statements that had, have and COULD have no racist motive.

Last Monday on The O’Reilly Factor, Detroit Free-Press columnist Drew Sharp argued that the NFL has a right to turn down a “a very polarizing, controversial figure whose occupational practice is largely predicated on making people feel comfortable with their own biases and prejudices.”

After Sharp refers to “racially tinged sound bites” that O’Reilly and his crack research team could not uncover, O’Reilly plays the comment Rush made on ESPN in 2003 regarding Donovan McNabb, then asks if it should disqualify Limbaugh from owning an NFL team. “What it does qualify him for is being a race baiter,” Sharp responds. “I do believe he throws in sound bites… strictly for effect.”

Later in the week it was revealed that those first quotes attributed to Limbaugh were made up.

Today on Reliable Sources, a CNN show I podcast, they discussed Limbaughs attempt at the RAMS:

Chicago doesn’t get to lose millions hosting Olympics (aww)

I hate to lol at peoples failures, but… LOL… The president, the first lady and even Oprah showed up to make the pitch for Chicago to be selected as host for the Olympics; it was whispered that Obama knew he had it in the bag and that was the reason he made the special trip to advocate for his home city; the much needed victory was on its way to be delivered to the administration; Chicago was to get some pay-back for giving the world the YesWeCan president… and it ended up being the very first city eliminated.

Clearly this means that the Olympics are total raaaacists, right?

Further Schadenfreude:

chicagoreactiongasps

chicagovsrio

Chris Slick: total dick

Have you noticed that people are super sensitive about even the most courteous of correction on the stupid things they say or is it just me? I love it when people post political news stories and then freak the fudge out and delete you when you’re not on board because I don’t delete anyone ever so other peoples intolerance gives me the friend-cleansing I would otherwise be deprived of. The keywords though are “politely” and “disagree”, because such a response is justified if its in reply to you going overboard with the hate first.

Today I found this posted item on Facebook to be provocative and replied. You can’t see my replies here of course, because the fellow who posted them (Chris Slick) is a scared little girl who said some  stupid things, got called on them, and then got embarrassed, so he bleached the record.

Luckily for you, dear reader, I have Chris’s replies saved and can easily reconstruct my own responses.

chrisslick.romneynut

What I said that was “completely nuts” was that Romney has a stigma against him that will do damage off the bat and if he is to be a contender for 2012 he must combat his negative image more effectively than he did in 2008.

Super controversial, right? Chris replied:

Richard – the only person the Governor lost to was McCain. McCain will obviously not be in the race this time around.
Additionally, if you we were to follow your premise then Reagan and McCain would never have been GOP nominees. They both ran and lost before they came back the following cycle and won the nomination. So to answer your question – these are at least two reasons why I am so confident. Plus, as of now, Huck and Palin are his closest competitors. Both of them are easy to take out – they are literal fools in ever aspect of the word.

Chris misunderstood my observation that “Romney has image-problems” to mean “Romney can’t win because he lost a previous primary”. An understandable mistake, if you’re dyslexic and retarded.

I clarified by noting that if you take the pulse of prominent bloggers and pundits concerning Romney, you’ll find the dude has major problems with his political base. I even said that the charges are mostly smears (calling him liberal, unreliable, a flip-flopper, etc are all eye-rolling nonsense when you look at the meat behind the charges for instance). For some reason, this still wasn’t taken well and got this response:

CHRIS SLICK: Well, Richard, I would have to completely disagree with you on the Governor not being able to shake the criticisms you listed. He did so and he did it quite well. He would not have beat out the folks he did without shaking those criticisms. People can have their opinions but we can have our facts – and facts will carry the day in the end.

Terrible strategy because its not true at all. Facts don’t just win because they’re facts. Perception is everything and if you have a perception problem, you need to get those facts out there – not just sit back with confidence that the truth will carry you home.

This is important, which is obviously, why I’m posting it here now: because a lot of you think this wrong way and need to not be doing that. Especially since I like Romney a lot – I have no interest in lies about the dude being the prominent headlines.

I said that its a mistake to think Governor Romney combated those criticisms effectively by using “he lost, but ahead of other people” as evidence and that “having your facts” doesn’t equal a win unless you convey those facts articulately and often. I said that its entirely possible that I could end up supporting Romney in 2012, but that he would have to do a lot better at his weak points or I would have to jump ship.

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – you completely missed what I said. I am not talking about facts in the purest sense of the word. I was speaking about past history. Additionally, you should probably just jump ship now because you are a fair weather friend. You know, the kind no one likes.

Please never do this. Unless you’re trolling and trying to make the candidate you’re fake-supporting, Stephen Colbert style, look like a buffoon with only buffoonish supporters, never ever say something like “If you think the person I’m supporting has an unfair PR disadvantage then don’t support the person i’m supporting”.

I asked how I missed what he said about facts/history and how my response didn’t effectively reply to that point. “Additionally”, I said that its creepy to “make friends” with a politician because they’re not our friends, they’re our employees. You can’t be both without doing a crap job at one or both of those titles. Then I asked if he wrote Romneys name in on the 2008 ballot since that appears to be what he was saying with his whole “stick with your guy, even if he loses and is not a candidate anymore” policy — made especially weird given the fact that Governor Romney dropped out of the race for president at a time when many thought he could still pull the Republican nomination off, given the right circumstances – yet Romney halted and endorsed McCain “for the good of the country” and the party. so. erm. Romney was being a “fair weather friend; the kind no one likes” to himself?…

CHRIS SLICK: Richard, you do not know me – you obviously have some personal issues about what you believe and why you believe it that you need to deal with. I hope you find a good conservative to support in 2012. Best of luck.

I asked why he’s turning a political candidate strategy topic into a personal one and why, if he supports Governor Romney for president in 2012, does he keep encouraging me not to support Romney.

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – your comments are getting deleted – your completely nuts.

I asked what was so alarming about my comments that caused him to whitewash the record. I resisted temptation and did not mention his use of the wrong “your” the second time. I did ask though if he deleted his own comments as well as mine because he was conceding that what he said in them was, in hindsight, not exactly intelligent. He replied calmly and pleasantly, without resorting to personal attacks and crybaby ranting.
Just kidding:

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – what the hell is your problem? making accusations etc. I don’t have time for this shit. I deleted my comments because without your delusional thoughts processes it would not make sense for them to be here. Nor would it make sense for me to address a “Richard” when I have deleted your comments. Now, go take your medicine, smoke some crack, and try to keep your ADD under control.

Ryan – want to talk about splitting the nutty vote? Looks no further…”

I typed this response, again calmly explaining my words and his in an attempt to clarify what the dudes deal was or what he was even getting at:

Why are you asking what my problem is when I’ve stated each problem clearly and concisely? You said you deleted my comments and I asked why. That’s not an accusation, that’s repeating the fact that you had just told to me.

This is the 4th time I’ve asked what I’m allegedly “delusional” about (should i be asking “what the hell is your problem? making accusations etc.”? or is that right reserved only for you?). Thanks at least for answering why you deleted YOUR comments. so now: why did you delete MINE? what was so crack-user delusional about me saying that I hope Romney combats his critics more effectively?

You also never answered my question of whether you wrote Romneys name in on the ballot in 08. I asked since you attacked me and suggested that I not support Romney in 2012 if I planned to vote for someone else (possibly the Republican nominee) in the event Romney does not become a candidate.

I considered as an exit question: “why are you so personally offended by questions that ask for clarity on the positions you publicly espouse?” but it didn’t matter because Chrissy had deleted and blocked me on Facebook after delivering his last reply calling me a nutty delusional crack-addict with ADD for asking questions, so that reply could not be sent.

chrisslick.romneynutblock

Well… I guess he sure told me.

Brb. Crack to smoke.

Bernie Bashes Beck

For all the whining that goes on about Fox News: they’re still the only cable network who routinely has on-air discussion and debate about their own mistakes, poor handling of a given issue and general accusations of bias.

Tonight Bernard Goldberg smacked around, without naming any names, Fox News opinion/commentary hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for being even more biased than they should be as opinion/commentary hosts.

I’m less so sure about Beck, but Hannity is unquestionable in the hacktivism department – though its interesting that Bernie appears to have a good relationship with both personalities and went on both Beck and Hannitys shows promoting his book A Slobbering Love Affair about media bias towards Barack Obama when it came out. hmm. Did their relationship sour? Is Goldberg just talkin smack behind their back? or none of the above and he’s fine with both and just giving good natured criticism on a legitimate beef?

The only thing wrong with Bernie’s analysis is the “cross section of Americans” thing since he’s inserting his own meaning into it, causing a strawman fallacy. Political protests are…political. as in, against a policy. So why would Bernie assume that the “cross section” was a reference to opposite political policy endorsers? That makes no sense. If that was the claim made by a host, then THAT makes no sense, but Bernie didn’t give a quote or claim any clarity there. In fact the pictures and video of the protests do show a cross section of Americans: upper class to lower class and in between. There were people in suits and people wearing Wal-Mart wardrobes. The claim was accurate.

Hidden camera Satire vs not satire

It’s annoying when news outlets and opinion commentators falsely ascribe seriousness or comedy to something to fit their bias. If someone they like says something outrageous, then it was just a silly joke, not meant to be taken seriously and thus can’t be offensive – but if someone they don’t like makes a joke that could be taken as mean spirited, the reverse logic is applied in the reporting of the comment. The Daily Show fits this balance perfectly in that supporters who think Jon Stewart may have made a particularly devastating point are able to tout the show as truth speaking journalism, however if a detractor tries to criticize a point made on the show, its supports and in fact Stewart himself, dismiss it because after all its a “fake news” comedy show. duh.

Here are 2 examples I recently noticed involving James O’Keefe, a 25 year old activist who specializes in illustrating absurdity by being absurd, such as holding an “Affirmative Action Bake Sale” in college (an event popular among Campus Republicans nation-wide where the racial discrimination of affirmative action, which lowers standards for racial minorities, is illustrated in a bake sale by charging whites more for a cookie than a minority). His latest work released a series of 5 hidden camera videos showing corrupt employees of community activist group ACORN, a Democrat front-line group closely associated with Barack Obama, helping him cheat the tax system, hide and operate a whore house, traffic illegal aliens, and use 13 year old El Salvadorian girls as sex slaves. In fact these revelations recently led congress to cut funding to ACORN.

Right wing media has been calling O’Keefes expose a “sting” and “journalism the mainstream media used to do” while left wing media has dismissed it as “Borat style gotcha-videos”.

Steve Krakauer, a writer for Mediate.com, is clearly not a fan of O’Keefe as displayed in a recent piece investigating and mocking O’Keefe. The title, Right Wing Darling James O’Keefe: The Man Who Exposed ACORN and Lucky Charms, gives the tone of the article away, but the snarkiness is also misleading. Krakauer reports about O’Keefe on the Lucky Charms thing:

He waged a campaign against dining halls serving Lucky Charms. You see, besides being magically delicious, O’Keefe thought the cereal was offensive to Irish Americans.

That sounds… odd. And it should. because it isnt true. The Mediate columnist failed to mention that O’Keefe didn’t find the cereal offensive, but rather was satirizing the idea that anyone would find it offensive. I was fooled by Mediaites mis-reporting on this myself until I read the real background from the New York times:

In 2004, at a buddy’s suggestion, he and a few fellow Rutgers students set out to satirize what they saw as a pious sensitivity to ethnicity on campus. The result is still there to see on YouTube: Mr. O’Keefe protesting to a slightly befuddled university dining official that the leprechaun on the cereal box “appears to be an Irish-American.”

“As you can see, we’re not short and green — we have our differences of height — and we think this is stereotypical of all Irish-Americans,” Mr. O’Keefe deadpans, as the official earnestly scribbles notes.

I appreciated the Times clearing that up for me as a reader, however in that very same column the author Scott Shane says this of O’Keefe’s previous under cover endeavors:

He has lampooned liberals by inviting them to become pen pals of imprisoned terrorists, and, more darkly, recorded Planned Parenthood staff members agreeing that he can designate his donation exclusively to the abortion of black babies.

eh.. “Lampooned”?… Really? I thought “lampoon” meant comedic satire, ie: the National Lampoon Chevy Chase movies were humorous satirizations of American life, aka: actors acting out a comedy.

Before I embarrass myself by having to make a correction, I went and looked it up and “lampoon” in fact means “a harsh satire”. So… what exactly is the satire taking place here? How are you “lampooning” anything when you ask an abortion advocacy group if you can donate money to kill black babies and they say yes, or ask a government aided organization if you can get help trafficking 12-15 year old south and central american girls to be used as sex slave prostitutes and getting help?

Satire should be reported as satire. Jokes as jokes. Serious acts as serious acts.

First tell the truth. then give your opinion.