Archive for conservative asshats

Conservative comedy: "So 20,000 illegals sneak into a bar..."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

cartoons conservative comedy

I don't know how Garry Trudeau does it, day after day, week after week, year after year. But he does. He takes the best, funniest, most painfully effective swipes at those who deserve them. He does that better than just about anyone in the funny papers. He rarely misses. Trudeau, IMHO, is the Jon Stewart of comic strips, even when I don't agree with him, just as I sometimes disagree with Stewart. Today he hits his target... again. His Sunday "Doonesbury" skewers what he calls "conservative comedy", demonstrating what an oxymoron that phrase is.

And while spotlighting conservatives' substandard sense of funny, Trudeau manages to illuminate the sad fact that they still get laughs... inadvertently. Remember the ClusterFox epic fail at a Daily Show rip-off, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour"? Painful. We aren't laughing with them, we are laughing at them.

And while making that point, Trudeau makes an even bigger one. He calls out their bigotry and prejudice, whether it's aimed at "hippies" or "wetbacks." Considering the GOP House immigration bill fiasco, this episode's timing couldn't have been better. Say it with me: Gotta laugh or you cry.

Take it away, Mr. Trudeau:

doonesbury conservative comedy immigration

 

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Gov. "Ultrasound" McDonnell probed, media mounts soap opera defense for him

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

bob mcdonnell trans vag ultrasound probe

Media coverage of the Gov. Bob "Ultrasound" McDonnell corruption case could take a cue from the following excerpt from USA Today, and an even bigger one from The Rachel Maddow Show below:

RICHMOND, Va. — The key prosecution witness in the federal corruption trial of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, took the stand Wednesday, saying there was no personal relationship between he and the couple.

Jonnie Williams, the wealthy businessman and former chief executive of Star Scientific, said he did not give the two initial checks to the McDonnell family because he thought he and the McDonnells were friends.

"This was a business relationship," he said about why he helped the McDonnell family. "I needed his help."

That's news. Unfortunately, however, that has not been the focus of the so-called "news" media when it comes to this story. Rachel Maddow zeroed right in on the How Do You Solve a Problem Like Media Coverage? issue in the following segment. We owe her our gratitude:

Maddow on "the salaciousness of the headlines":

The headlines are all like this... "Trial reveals governor's wife had 'crush' on CEO"...

The indictment-- the allegations from prosecutors-- those have been out there for months now. But now that we're having the trial... what has stolen the show about the defense is this designed-for-headlines assertion from the defense, that the McDonnell's marriage was broken, Maureen McDonnell had a "childlike crush" on this businessman who the McDonnells are accused of helping in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts...

But the defense strategy in the corruption trial of Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife is apparently going to be [about their marriage]... This is how they're going to try to keep the governor and his wife out of jail.

Bob McDonnell and Maureen McDonnell stand accused of accepting over $160,000 in gifts and cash from this wealthy CEO [Johnnie Williams] in exchange for providing official help from the state for the CEO's company. That's called corruption, right? "Give me something of personal value to me, and in exchange, I'll give you a little something from the government, the government in which I am an official." ...

So that strategy, the "she took everything" defense... is undercut by the fact that Bob McDonnell himself did things himself like ask this guy for a $70,000 loan for his real estate business... But that is their main defense strategy, the claim is basically that "she did it all, she's not a public official, so there's no public corruption. And, there couldn't be a... corrupt conspiracy between the two of them, because there was no "two of them."... It was just her "lovesick stupidity. He's actually kind of the victim here."... That's their legal strategy...

What does not make sense is the media helping them with it... It is being covered purely in a tabloid way... Purely through catty, sexist gossip [her shopping, her "crush"]... That framing is not only sexist and gross, it ignores the fact that Bob McDonnell himself was doing things like setting up meetings for this wealthy donor with top state health officials... They claim they have the evidence to prove it.

But if the Bob McDonnell defense is gonna be to blame it all on the "lovesick, emotionally erratic, Louis Vuitton-loving wife, they are so far doing a masterful job of injecting that storyline into the press and getting the press to mount their defense for them.

The press is bending over backwards to help the McDonnell legal defense... Attention news media! This is an overt strategy and you are helping one side of this legal case by advancing the strategic storyline for them, because you can't resist a tabloid soap opera tale.

You're being played! You're being played... by covering this as a tabloid story about a marriage, and not a crime blotter story about a corrupt governor.

bob mcdonnell probe johnnie williams

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Not a skit! Our actual Congress! Gaaa!"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Not a skit, our actual Congress, gaa! Maddow

Our own Sherry Hardy covered Rachel Maddow's edible take-down of the Worst Congress Ever in her post, 'Get Out and Push', Says Maddow of the Useless, U.S. Congress. Maddow went ballistic, and rightfully so. Wowee, do GOP obstructionists suck, and yes, I'm using the official elitist left vernacular. Before going any further, I have to share a couple of the best parts from the segment Sher put up. And by "best" I mean most relatable, because Rachel's Moment of Gaa! was surely felt by many of us. Here are four very short clips (under a minute each) that represent some of her best outbursts. Here she is, blasting Congress to smithereens, and by Congress she meant Republican members thereof:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Maddow:

"Not a skit! Our actual Congress! Gaaa!"

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Maddow:

"This is truly historic failure."

ding ding ding

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

All of this brings us to today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor in which readers responded to former Rep. David Dreier op-ed that was meant "to assure readers that it's not as bad as it seems in Congress. The nearly unanimous response from the nearly two dozen readers who sent us letters: Are you serious?"

Here you go, because our voices matter:

It's been tried many times before, the guilty claiming innocence by accusing the victim.

Dreier does just that. He blames the people for being divided, implying that the members of Congress themselves are not at fault. This is why only 13% of Americans approve of Congress, according to a January Gallup poll. Eighty seven percent of the people being of one mind in their disapproval doesn't sound like division.

Fewer laws have been passed by this Congress than by any other in the last 65 years, and Dreier says it's not really that bad. I think it is time for a reality check.

Frances Pin, Marina del Rey

..

Dreier deludes himself and, even more sadly, us.

We have a do-nothing Congress not because Americans are deeply divided. Important legislative efforts on immigration, the minimum wage and gun control did not die because of deep division, as a large majority of Americans favored these measures.

Is Dreier saying that shutting down the government and threatening its solvency came because of voter division? The failures came because the GOP was listening to the radical tea party members of Congress, who represent a very small minority of the population.

It is self-serving for Dreier to blame the division of the people — actually, insulting.

Jim Hoover, Huntington Beach

..

Dreier states that he is continually asked, "Is Congress completely controlled by big money and special interests?" and "Is it more partisan and dysfunctional than ever before?"

He never answers. Instead he tells us how there are always two opinions to every issue and groups of constituents on both sides.

I have to assume that he avoided answering because the answers are both "yes."

Ted Bacino, Palm Springs

..

Dreier blames the diversity of Americans for Congress' obstructionism.

Of course we are diverse, and we are better off for it. However, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated in 2010 that his main goal was for Barack Obama to be a one-term president, he revealed quite clearly what the Republican Party was all about: not diversity, but settling scores.

Robert S. Ellison, Arcadia

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

WI GOP may allow cameras next: Poll watchers already allowed 3 feet from voters

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

cameras in faceImage via

voter intimidation voter suppression

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a bill this year that let poll observers intimidate get within thirty-six inches of the voters they are hovering over monitoring. Nothing like having the rabidly right wing poll police breathing down your neck while you try to make private choices in what used to be a country that believed in democracy. Now Wisconsin may allow cameras. Now they want their "observers" to be able to record your personal information, too.

Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog on the original law:

The law would allow observers to stand 3 to 8 feet from the table where voters announce their names and addresses and are issued voter numbers, or from the table where people register to vote.

Gee, who could possibly mind if a total stranger, a fanatic extremist partisan with fervently opposing views, overheard your name and address? Or scrutinized and challenged your vote? What could possibly go wrong?

breathing down neck, intimidateImage via

Here's a video of Rachel Maddow explaining the original law in full back in April:

Clearly, that's not enough Dem harassment for Wisconsin Republicans. Now the election bullies observers would be able to unnerve their fellow citizens not just with their presence, but also with cameras and video recorders. If Americans exercising their voting rights happen to rub the monitors the wrong way, then hey, chill them to the bone. Document them. Record them. Use your cameras as weapons. Make them as uncomfortable as possible. Terrify them. Try to suppress their votes by causing them to avoid the polls in order to avoid the poll watchers.

Via the Green Bay Press Gazette:

Wisconsin officials may lift the ban on camera usage by election observers.

The state elections board will meet Monday to vote on proposed changes to election observer rules, the Wisconsin State Journal reported. The Republican-controlled Legislature proposed the ban reversal.

Election observers have been prohibited from shooting photos and video at the polls for the past eight years.

If the ban is lifted, cameras can start being used during the August primary. So much for your privacy, Wisconsinites.

Via nutsandolts.com

This is going from "creepy" to downright scary.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

South Miami Mayor: "Rubio is an idiot."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Marco Rubio

From the Things We Already Know Department: Marco Rubio is an "idiot." I know, I know, that's redundant, but there still may be someone out there reading this who isn't aware. In this particular instance, it's about climate change. Rubio the Genius-o doesn't believe that climate change is man-made-o:

"I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy."

His brilliance is blinding, isn't it? Kinda like the sun that's baking Mother Earth to death.

child squinting blinded by sun

He's clearly competing with former Alaskan Half-Gov Ignoramette McVacant for who can stick their head in the sand more deeply. It's a toss-up, but McVacant has a slight edge. But I digress. Back to Florida...

Here is a headline and sub-headline at The Guardian:

Miami, the great world city, is drowning while the powers that be look away

Low-lying south Florida, at the front line of climate change in the US, will be swallowed as sea levels rise. Astonishingly, the population is growing, house prices are rising and building goes on. The problem is the city is run by climate change deniers.

Via TPM:

Rubio is among those Florida politicians, including Gov. Rick Scott (R), who've refused to address the warnings of those experts.

"Rubio is an idiot," South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard said, as quoted by The Guardian. "He says he is not a scientist so he doesn't have a view about climate change and sea-level rise and so won't do anything about it."

Stoddard noted that "the waters are rising." True.

And Marco Rubio is in way over his empty little head.

rubio etch a sketch

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

SCOTUS rules for Freedom of Tyranny

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

women's rights vote 2014 scotus decision freedom of religion

Freedom, freedom, freedom schmeedom. The concept is losing its meaning, especially in light of the Supreme Court's warped perception of the word. My reaction to their ruling on contraception and "freedom" of religion is still hampered by my inability to respond with anything but sputtering noises and involuntary twitches, bursts of banging my head against the wall, and convulsing into tears of outrage. Freedom my ass. What about our freedom to not have your damned religion shoved up our atheist and/or non-Christian hineys?  Bam! And that was just a hiccup. I'm shutting up now.

By the way, conservatives, how's that outreach thing going for ya these days?

Anyway, instead of ranting, which would be nothing more than stream-of-consciousness outbursts at this point, I'll leave it to the Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because, despite evidence to the contrary, our voices still matter. The Times headline for this batch of letters is, notably, "Don't want more Hobby Lobby decisions? Then don't elect conservative presidents":

The U.S. Supreme Court's distressingly improvident 5-4 decisions in this year's religious rights cases should surprise no one. They are the price we have paid for suffering disproportionate conservative appointments to the high court from 1980 to 2008, when Republicans occupied the White House for 20 of those 28 years. ("Supreme Court, citing religious liberty, limits contraceptive coverage in Obamacare," June 30)

All who despair over the Supreme Court's unseemly bowing to religious zealots — especially when certain faiths' tenets are allowed to trump enlightened medical care — should remember this in 2016: If a Republican is elected our next president, look for the court's conservative judicial activism to endure far beyond his or her term of office.

Robin Groves, Pacific Palisades

***

I am losing confidence in our system of three branches of government. Two of them seem no longer to be working for us.

The Supreme Court increasingly seems to be operating as a political body, rendering decisions that make questionable judicial sense unless one happens to be a corporation that has taken on "person" status or a religious group that wishes to impose its specific beliefs on its employees. These decisions are becoming more questionable as our do-nothing Congress functions less like an elected body responsible to the people and more like a robot body created and manipulated by wealthy donors.

As long as our lethargic electorate keeps reelecting these legislators, our president is left to act alone and the court decides in an increasingly predictable way, we will see the continued eroding of our beloved constitutional form of government.

Bette Mason, Corona del Mar

***

If there's a silver lining to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, it's that the decision will energize progressive voters to flood the polls for the foreseeable future as well as fuel boycotts against businesses that use religion as an excuse to discriminate.

Jerry Weil, Seal Beach

***

Will someone please explain to me how forcing your religious beliefs on others, who may or may not agree, is freedom of religion? Sounds more like tyranny to me.

Barbara Buckner, Laguna Niguel

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Rand Paul, what if a Dem joked about trading YOU "instead of 5 Taliban"? Hmm?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

not funny hahaha no

This tweet is already a couple of days old, but calling out Rand Paul for his tone deaf idiocy never gets old:

rand paul tweet Bergdahl trade Dems

He got a lot of Twitter backlash, but check out the very first reply he received:

"Isn't that redundant? and how would you tell the difference?"

Two class acts.

What patriots.

What jokesters.

What the f***.

The real joke is Rand Paul, a very, very bad one.

So let's get this straight. According to Paul and his fanboy @varifrank, the words Democrats and Taliban are interchangeable and/or President Obama should have handed over Dems to the Taliban. To be imprisoned. And tortured. And possibly killed. Isn't that a knee-slapper? Are we laughing yet?

No. We are not.

Some "jokes" are not funny, Rand Paul. And that you would make light of a very serious situation, that you would imply that Democrats' lives are worthless, that you would equate them with deadly enemies is pretty appalling.

He's your guy, GOP. This is the lowlife many in your party would like to see as commander in chief, residing in the White House, attending state dinners, handling delicate negotiations with other world leaders, and as the president who is responsible for the health and welfare of all Americans.

Go ahead, Republicans. Make Rand Paul your nominee. We dare you.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare