Idiot wind

Why?  Why?

Rick Santorum made news of a sort this week when he proclaimed that the Parkland students should be studying CPR rather than fighting for stronger gun control laws in the U.S.  While it showed all the class and empathy that one should expect from those on the religious right (which is to say, absolutely none of either), it begs the question...Why does anyone give a fuck what Rick Santorum thinks about fucking anything?

Near as I can tell he had two terms as a Senator from Pennsylvania during which time he accomplished nothing, and ran twice for President, getting his ass handed to him in 2012 by Mitt Romney, one of the worst Presidential candidates in recent memory, and bowing out rather quickly in 2016 after getting stomped by the orange shit gibbon, Donald Trump.  He's written no world changing books and has no interesting ideas about life in America other than those that are adapted pretty much from Catholic bullshit, which most Americans have no desire to adhere to (thankfully).  Frankly, there are plenty of former Senators and losing Presidential candidates who are a) a lot smarter, and b) considerably more relevant to America, circa 2018.

My guess is it's affirmative action for the religious right--who in their right mind would hire such idiots without it?

Fuck Donald Trump,
emaycee

Two more reasons...

...why it's necessary that we don't just defeat republicans, but completely annihilate them.

To wit:

• Rick Santorum commented last week that Pope Francis should leave Climate Change to scientists--conveniently ignoring the fact that he's not a scientist, either.  Santorum later compounded his idiocy by saying that because he's a politician he's more qualified to discuss it than the Pope (the Pope does have a background in science).  Unfortunately for Santorum, large donations from big oil to his campaign doesn't make him anymore an expert than the Pope.
• South Dakota Senator John Thune today tweeted that President Obama should acknowledge that Obamacare is bad for the American people because six million Americans could lose their subsidies because of the upcoming Supreme Court decision concerning King v. Burwell, a lawsuit brought by republicans to continue their assault on America's poor.  This is akin to robbing a bank and later claiming you're not guilty because you lost the money.  Poetic justice?  Thune has been thoroughly ridiculed for his tweet.

Santorum and Thune are either incredibly stupid or lying through their teeth.  Their comments are endemic to today's republican party and either way, it should absolutely disqualify them from governing the American people.

Peace,
emaycee

Another one hops on the Bozo Bus

Yes, indeed--Rick Santorum has decided that he, too, has a shot at being the next President and today announced his candidacy for the 2016 republican nomination.  Considering that Santorum a) got crushed in his U.S. Senate re-election bid in 2006 by current U. S. Senator Bob Casey, b)  finished second to Willard Romney in the 2012 republican primaries for the Presidency and Willard proceeded to get drubbed by President Obama, and c) puts the looney in Looney Tunes, one has to wonder if Santorum has taken one too many swigs from the happy juice jug.

Either that or there must be a shitload of money to be personally gained by running for the U. S. Presidency.

Regardless, Rick Santorum joins a long list of previously announced candidates who are both fucking nuts and  have a poorer chance than I do of being the next President of the United States and I'm not even running (yet...).

Peace,
emaycee

What is it good for?

Rick Santorum thinks we should bomb Iran back to the 7th century.

Marco Rubio thinks hunger and homelessness are the least of our problems--they won't matter if for the, oh, second time in our 239 year history some idiots decide to try to blow something up in the United States.  Because starving and the brutal elements of nature never killed anyone.

Lindsay Graham is desperately trying to relight John McCain's pretty much permanently snuffed out torch which would call for war in the Antarctic if a penguin farted.

It's beginning to look like the republican strategy for foreign policy in 2016 will be war, war, and more war--there's nothing like calling for the killing of people in foreign lands to excite the GOP base.

And this should be the Democrats response:

Good God, y'all--didn't you bozos learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Peace,
emaycee

WTF exemplified

A voice at the table:

Forget about Santorum's response to the woman's rant--by now we should all be more than accustomed to republicans cozying up to their tea party supporters.  Listen to the woman herself--Obama the communist, Obama the tyrant, republicans should have him removed from office (all of which is familiar) and then the part about Obama trying to set off a nuclear device in Charleston.  But most of all, it's the sheer and utter hatred for Obama--who is, by the way, a very decent man who has carried a nation through a very difficult time with nothing but class and courage and done it very well.

This woman has a vote, and I'm sorry, but she is completely and totally fucking certifiable.

And this episode personifies every single fucking reason why we need to defeat republicans in 2016.

Peace,
emaycee

A master campaigner

Say what you will about President Obama coming out in favor of gay marriage, but as is often the case with his election team, it was a masterstroke of campaigning.  To wit:

• It takes the sting out of the crushing loss Amendment One suffered in North Carolina.
• Because it's an election year, Willard Romney will look like the lame-ass he actually is trying to answer questions about it without looking like a bigot.
• Makes republicans look wasteful--a constitutional ban against same sex marriage?  Really?  Because for a party that swears austerity is the way to go, spending millions to get this voted on when there is so much more we can be spending the money on makes republicans seem a tad hypocritical.
• Makes republicans look intolerant--could the Catholic Church possibly put a worse face forward than the Catholic League's Bill Donohue?  He wants the law to discriminate against gay people?  That ought to help with Independent voters--and shore up the Church's sagging parishioner numbers.
• Makes republicans look petty--too many bozos to comment on.
• Makes republicans look overwrought--Santorum thinks it's a "tragic" day for America?  What the fuck?  Let me tell you, November 22, 1963 was a tragic day for America.  September 11, 2001 was a tragic day for America.  That one-sixth of our population lives in poverty is tragic.  That foreclosures are at all-time highs is tragic.  That we have more hunger in America than since the Great Depression is tragic.  The President supporting equality in marriage?  Not so much.
• Shores up the youth vote--voters who overwhelmingly support marriage equality.
• Provides red meat to the base (who turn out to vote in the biggest numbers)--I lost count of all the "attaboy" e-mails I've collected in the last two days, from Move.On to the ACLU to Democracy for America.  Turnout counts and this definitely will help Dems on election day.

I've seen a few who think this will hurt Obama--it may cost a vote or two, but I highly doubt it will be significant.  The people most against marriage equality weren't going to vote for Obma anyway, under any circmstance.  And this isn't 2004--gay marriage isn't quite the bogeyman it once was.

Now if we could get the President to lead and govern the way he campaigns--we'd really have something then.

Peace,
emaycee

Dream, dream, dream...

Seems the republicans are trying to console themselves over what has been a disaster of a primary season by saying that the protracted battle between their candidates is much like the Obama/Clinton primaries of 2008--and that those battles didn't hurt Obama's chances in the general election.

Hee, hee, ha, ha, chortle, chortle, guffaw, guffaw, guffaw....

I seem to remember the Democrats being extemely excited about their candidates in 2008...pretty sure the republicans are extremely less so here in 2012.  Voter turnout for the Dem candidates in 2008 was phenomenal...not so much for republicans in 2012.

That's the problem when your candidates are Tweedledum and Tweedledee--it's hard for your base to give a shit....

Peace,
emaycee

Is it over yet?

Joy of joys--we here in Michigan have spent almost two weeks now inundated with ads and newspaper pieces about the battle royale featuring Willard Romney and Rick Santorum.  The only pleasure I have is when one commercial says, "Rick Santorum can beat President Obama!"  and I respond, "No, he can't!" and that's getting old after a couple thousand times.

The Free Press featured excerpts from their interviews with Romney and Santorum and frankly they're both regurgitating economic ideas that have already failed under Bush the Lesser and espousing social ideas that are only being used to see who can out wing-nut the other.  Why I bothered to read the excerpts was beyond me, but I did come away amazed at how flaccid their positions were.  Nothing new, nothing that hasn't failed before, nothing inspiring--in a nutshell, same shit, different day.

Not that the Free Press noticed--their editorial page was too busy telling us how the republicans were choosing their nominee for the Presidential election with what they described as "fringe voters."

Fringe?  Nope--that's the republican party, the party of yesterday, the party of scared, old, white men.  And if they'd been paying attention, they would have noticed that the republican party has been this way for a long, long time.

They're just more honest about it now.

Peace,
emaycee

The birth control facade

I've never been one to really believe that the powers that be in the republican party want to see the right to choose come to an end in America--it would cost them a bit too much money from political donations and a few votes as well from one issue voters and those who are republican on abortion only.  Likewise, I don't believe that republican opposition to the Obama administrations requiring religious institutions to offer birth control coverage to their employees to be about religious freedom or winning the Catholic vote (the latter of which doesn't seem to be working).

Nope, what it's about is finding another way to keep the 1% richer at the expense of the 99%.  The Blunt amendment, for all its claims about being the right for employers to refuse health insurance coverage "on moral grounds" is really about giving employers another way to fuck over their employees--if an employer wants to maximize its profits, even if it's at the expense of its workers and their families health, they can, under republican groupthink.  Because this amendment would allow employers to deny virtually any coverage by simply claiming they are morally opposed.  And we all know that businesses would never take advantage of that....

And what we really need is another way for working Americans to come up a day late and a dollar short.

Peace,
emaycee

Who gives a rat's ass?

Sorry, but for all the media coverage of yesterday's caucus in Iowa, I'm having a real tough time giving a fuck.  I understand that a close election between President Obama and whatever joke of a candidate takes the republican nomination will be worth millions of dollars to the traditional media, but it's really going to take a strong stomach to withstand the puke that will come from the traditional media to make it so.

Let's face it:  the top three candidates from yesterday's vote in Iowa are equally pathetic.  Romney is a pampered rich boy with all the character of a wet fart.  Santorum is so far to the right he's falling over the cliff (not to mention he's the Catholic Church's  fave--enough reason to vote Obama just on that point alone).  I know he makes the republican primaries interesting at least for a while, but here's Kos on Santorum as the nominee:  "If Santorum is the nominee, Obama romps to reelection, we take the House and have a good chance of holding the Senate. This is a guy that barely got 41 percent of the vote in his 2006 reelection campaign in swing-state Pennsylvania. And he's freakin' nuts. It's our best-case scenario."  In other words, not going to happen.  And Ron Paul?  I don't even need a link--the mother fucker is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

On the bright side, President Obama reminded us today of why he won in 2008--his people run a hell of a campaign.  His recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the NLRB serves the double purpose of taking attention away from the republican's caucus yesterday as well as feed into the meme of protecting the 99% from the 1%.  Doesn't hurt to feed the Dem base a little red meat, either.

Republicans, schmepublicans.  More good news on the Democratic Party, please.  It makes my day so much more pleasant.

Peace,
emaycee

Guessing Game

For what it's worth, my predictions for the republican caucus in Iowa tomorrow:

1.  Romney
2.  Paul
3.  Santorum

Romney first because--somewhat like Kerry for the Dems in 2004--I think enough republican voters are going to realize he's their only/best chance to capture the Presidency this November.  Paul second because the republican race for the Presidency has been batshit insane and he may be the most batshit insane of all.  Santorum third because the radical right base has run out of other candidates.  They've got to have some hope to keep them turning out and donating money.

I'm going to step out on a limb and predict Obama takes the Dem caucus in a rout....

Peace,
emaycee

I nominate Rick Santorum...

...for lying numbnuts of the the week.

I'll believe Santorum's claim of how good suffering is for the human race when Mr. Santorum takes the lead and makes sure his children don't have enough to eat, have toothaches because their beleaguered parents can't afford to take them to the dentist, get sicker and die quicker because medical care is financially out of reach, and end up in dead end jobs because a college education is as affordable as a trip on a rocket ship to the moon.

Until such a time, I'll figure Mr. Santorum is another one of those "Christians" for whom suffering is good as long as it's somebody else, and once outside of the womb couldn't give a shit if the human being lived or died as long as Mr. Santorum still has time to polish his nickels and dimes.

Peace,
emaycee