Johnny Pandersticks

Vote for me! Please.

Mitt Romney released the audio part of the sequel to the infamous Drinking Out of Cups video by Dan Deacon.  Once they get the animated lizard and some awesome backgrounds, they’ll be good to go.

He’s been trying to say everything that he thinks people want to hear for so long that he has no idea who he is anymore.  He’s become completely unhinged and it’s hilarious.

Some…

“I was born and raised here. I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height.  I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars.”

At least he’s got the seahorse vote locked up.

Have a look…

Drinking Out of Cups

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0

Romney’s Sequel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4

 

Mindless

 

If you support both of us, you have no brain.

If you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and you’re supporting Ron Paul in 2012, one of three things must be true:

– You jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 without knowing much about the candidate you supported.

– You jumped on the Ron Paul 2012 bandwagon without knowing much about the candidate you’re supporting.

Or, the most likely answer…

– You jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 and you’re jumping on the Paul bandwagon in 2012 and you don’t know a goddamn thing about the political system or either candidate you’re supporting.

I don’t intend to champion Obama nor to bash Ron Paul’s supporters here.  I only intend to point out how utterly fucking absurd it is to be a supporter of both of them. The only way for this to happen while maintaining any degree of intellectual consistency is to have completely changed your basic core beliefs in a matter of a few short years…and that’s, well, fucking absurd.

You can’t go from voting for a center-left, pro-choice, black guy to an extreme-right libertarian (except of course when it comes to women’s reproductive rights or the expression of one’s sexual orientation) who is a 9/11 truther, conspiracy theorist, religious zealot, and racial bigot. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

I’ve said many times, here and in other places, that I appreciate Ron Paul’s integrity and look at him as one of the most honest men I’ve seen run a political campaign.  He doesn’t pander and he has no qualms with bucking his own party.  Those are great things.

The rest of it though? Not so much.

Most of his policies, if you can call them that, fall somewhere in the range of impractical to impossible to enact. You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who thinks it’s possible to disband the Fed and return to the gold standard, no matter how nice he makes it sound. You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who thinks disbanding FEMA is a good idea and that people without health insurance should be left to die.  You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion.

These aren’t rationally coherent positions to take.

Which brings me back to the original point…you either didn’t know anything about Obama, don’t know anything about Paul, or don’t know anything about either or how anything works.  Most people will fall into the third category, and it’s the most logical and obvious reason why someone would support both candidates for president, since you can’t really support both of them if you’re truly knowledgeable about both of them.

While Obama and Paul couldn’t be further apart on almost every actual policy issue they do have some similarities in what we could call the “ethic” of their campaigns.

Both have a strong appeal to young voters and both have a strong social media presence.  Both embody “hope”, just in different ways.  Obama actually preaches hope of rising to a better sort of politics – post-racial, post-partisan,etc…  Paul embodies the hope of the individual to dictate their own course in life and the idea that many young people have that if they do their best, things will work out.  They’re both able to make very powerful connections to young voters because of this.

This is where it becomes important to note that both of these appeals are generally mindless.  While it’s certainly nice and admirable to support and follow both of these ethics, it shouldn’t be enough to be choosing the leader of the free world on either.

While I fully support Obama’s reelection, I don’t support people who voted for him based on their feelings that he just agreed with everything they believed, apart from any knowledge about his positions.  If you voted for Obama thinking that he was going to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan when he campaigned on a military surge there, or because you thought he was going to legalize marijuana, or any number of other policy positions that people pinned to him without knowing what he was actually campaigning on, you are your own biggest problem.  (You’re also your own biggest problem if you think marijuana legalization is a critical political issue.  Not that I don’t support it, I do.)

And if you’re voting for Ron Paul because he’s the rage-against-the-machine, tear down the establishment, reform Washington guy you think he is without realizing who he actually is, without knowing what stuff he plans to do, and without recognizing what things he plans to do that he simply cannot do, you’re going to be your own biggest problem again.

If you voted for Obama in 2008 and you’re tearing him down right now to build up the candidacy of someone you don’t know anything about, congratulations, because you’re fucking yourself twice.

You just helped elect Mitt Romney.

So Many Things…

Sometimes when you win, you're still a loser.

There are so many things wrong with this picture.  Let’s see if we can find them all.

First of all, Mitt Romney won the pointless Iowa Caucus by 8 votes out of 122,255 total votes.  He spent 17 jillion dollars there trying to make Newt Gingrich look bad.  That worked.  But then a guy who spent nothing almost beat him.  Considering what advantages Romney had over Rick Santorum, Santorum kind of did beat him.  Mitt’s been the frontrunner for years now, so winning by 8 votes means that everyone pretty much still hates him.

And he (almost) got beat by someone whose name has come to be defined as something I don’t even want to write…so just Google it.  It’s more fun than me ruining the surprise for you, and it’ll keep it in the top search spot.

Then we’ve got Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain all finishing with less total votes combined than Ron Paul alone which is strange since god told them all to run for president.  Then again, if god can’t make up his mind and he totally lacks the follow through to help any of them win, what does his endorsement really mean anyway?  Besides, he told George W. Bush to invade Iraq, so maybe politics isn’t god’s thing.  It’s almost like it would be a good idea to keep those things separate…

Somewhat unsurprisingly, 58 Iowans actually didn’t realize that Herman Cain left his sexual harassment 9-9-9 campaign of bullshit in the past a few weeks ago.

Jon Huntsman, the only candidate who openly admits to acknowledging the realities of climate change and evolution got 745 total votes.  Literally, the only candidate with enough intelligence and integrity to essentially say that 2+2=4 gets treated like a total non-factor.  There’s so much wrong with that.

But none of that is as wrong and funny as this…

135 people showed up to caucus for “no preference”.

Caucus attendees left their houses for a non-binding vote where they had to mill around for a while and then write a name down on a piece of blank paper…and 135 Iowans spent a few hours of their day doing this to write “no preference” on a card.

That is unequivocally insane.

So congratulations, Iowa.  Your caucus system is still a total sham.

Welcome, Republicans

"Strategery."

Common knowledge these days is that the Republicans are poised to make significant gains in the House and Senate next Tuesday in the midterm elections, largely due to a sweeping feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction with the entire political landscape – financial uncertainty, unemployment, and the media meme that the current administration and the Democratic led Congress are ineffectual, despite the fact that they have accomplished quite a bit in the past two years.

Assuming that it’s true that the Republicans win big next week, the next step (one would think) is for them to take on the job of governing the country, which Constitutionally, would require them working with President Obama.

Just one problem – the word  “bipartisan” only matters to them when the only power that the voters allowed them to cling to after the 2008 elections was the filibuster, which they used a record number of times in the past few years to shut down anything that signified real progress or reform.  When the Obama administration or the Democratic Congress are about to make any serious headway in achieving pieces of the agenda that won them so many elections in ’08, the Republicans use filibuster threats to dilute any legislation to the point where even passing an historic health care bill looks like defeat for the President.

Continue reading

Just Like You

The Mormon Church has launched a series of ads just in time for Mormon Mitt Romney’s upcoming presidential candidacy, trying to convince middle America that they are “normal”.

You know, like all the other religions.  Totally sensible and possible and like, true.  You know?

See, Mormons are just like everybody else.  Nothing to see here.  Nothing weird about the religion.  Except that it was created by a con artist in the 19th century, supports (supported?) plural marriage (except for women, that’s an abomination), believes in magical underwear, and doesn’t like black people (though no longer officially).  Oh yeah!  And it hates gay people too – enough to be the driving force behind the passage of Prop 8 in California in 2008 which attempted to ban gay marriage in the state.  Ah, another loving religion of peace and understanding…

Then again, with talking snakes and people living inside fish and dead people walking around, it’s not like Christianity is any better.  They have also hated blacks and gays en masse, tortured, condemned, murdered, stolen, etc…all in the name of their god.

Of course, this is always the point, and always the way religions spread and maintain themselves.  Cast off the extremists, who are also, generally speaking, those who interpret their texts literally – as in, how they were meant to be understood by the men who wrote them.  Pretend that the extreme views don’t represent the group at large, all while the moderate and normal representatives of the religion find broad acceptance, not only for themselves, but for the extremists as well.

It is the broad acceptance of moderate religious tradition that prevents us from disavowing the extreme groups – the “God Hates Fags” crowd, the killers of abortion doctors, those opposed to stem cell research – the way we should.  It’s time that as a society, we should be able to say that it doesn’t matter what stories some people (who thought the world was flat) made up a few thousand years ago.  But we can’t because that offends the “normal” people.

There is nothing good about advertising the normalcy of your religion.  While you as a Christian, or you as a Mormon may be a perfectly normal, thoughtful, intelligent, and caring person, it’s in spite of your religion, not because of it.  And while you may represent the best of the believers, you don’t represent all of them.

And if you need to put a “normal” person on television to say, “See, we’re not all nuts!” chances are, you’re mostly nuts.  You’re supposed to be normal!

I would probably be more convinced if the Mormons just said, “Hey, you know Christianity is really crazy too right?”  Or, “Hey, at least we’re not Scientologists!”