*gasp* I’m shocked!
21 July 2007 by Naomi
Happy fucking weekend, everyone! We need to eat, drink and be merry – within moderation. After all, we’re the adults of society – the xians are the piggish children.
Bad week! The president is pushing his “executive privilege” bullshit. Congress needs to tell him that the only “executive privilege” that Constitution allows him is “the privilege to use the executive washroom”.
And I’m looking forward to Harriet Miers being declared in “inherent contempt”. This nifty little distinction means that Congress doesn’t have to present a case to a US Attorney in DC (fat chance of finding an untainted-by-Gonzalez USA).
Congress can direct the US Congressional Security forces to arrest, handcuff and frog-march Harriet “I’ve got a crush on you” Miers to testify. (I wonder if Cheney will let her share his “undisclosed location”.)
Witness this laissez-faire attitude to the rule of law by a presidential candidate. And remember every infraction thereof on election day.
(I expect the title of this post will become a running series, with appended numbers to differentiate…)
Romney aide’s bogus badges: Sources detail ‘illegal’ security tactic
In an apparent violation of the law, a controversial aide to ex-Gov. Mitt Romney created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail to strong-arm reporters, avoid paying tolls and trick security guards into giving them immediate access to campaign venues, sources told the Herald.
The bogus badges were part of the bizarre security tactics allegedly employed by Jay Garrity, the director of operations for Romney who is under investigation for impersonating a law enforcement officer in two states. Garrity is on a leave of absence from the campaign while the probe is ongoing.
Oh, please, please! Read it all. You won’t be sorry.
Final paragrah: Garrity is also under investigation in New Hampshire for a separate incident in which he allegedly told a New York Times reporter to stop following Romney’s motorcade. He also allegedly told the reporter his license plates had been run. Garrity has denied through his lawyer that he checked the reporter’s license plates.
At least there isn’t a dog involved – that we know of!
The newest wrinkle in the “Haircutgate that won’t go away; the MSM loves it because the joke is on the Dems!”, check these links:
Mitt’s makeup wakeup call: Romney pays $300 for predebate primp-fest. [I love the juxtaposition of "makeup" and "wakeup". And "predebate primp-fest" - how pre-prom! How gay! But he did look fabulous...]
Mitt Romney spent nearly $2K on makeup while governor. Money quote? “You know I think John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $400 for a haircut and then there is everybody else,” Romney said. [If that sounds like Mitt and Naomi are "equivalent", I call "bullshit"!]
What? You never heard of this? Well. among other corrupt news outlets, NBC continues to report on Edwards’ haircut, ignores Romney campaign’s makeup purchases.
Summary: Regarding the Mitt Romney campaign’s $300 makeup expenditure, NBC News’ First Read blog advised readers on July 17 to “look for [John] Edwards supporters to use this as a test to see if the MSM [mainstream media] covers Romney as harshly as Edwards was.” Despite that admonition, a July 19 Today report on candidate expenditures mentioned Edwards’ $400 haircuts, but not Romney’s makeup purchases.
If you wouldn’t vote for Romney, tell us why. If you would vote for him, you’re on the wrong blog!
21 July 2007, on 1:54 am
Puh leese can sum one tell me. Does Mitt wear his magic Mormon underwear? And does it really protect him? If it does then does he really need all that secret service protection. Isn’t his god good enough to protect him while he has his magic underwear on? I really want to know. Really I do.
21 July 2007, on 3:50 am
Are they, perhaps, killing him for being Mormon? Or is he really so much worse than the other candidates that there would be so many stories about him circulating now?
21 July 2007, on 8:58 am
Just what we need running the show, another statist/corperatist who doesn’t even know how people like me get their groceries, probably hasn’t picked up a tab in years, probably doesn’t own an umbrella, in charge of the daily life of the nation.
21 July 2007, on 10:00 am
I’m coming to the conclusion we shouldn’t even HAVE a president.
21 July 2007, on 12:08 pm
I won’t vote for him because he’s a Republican. As for him being a Mormon, I don’t consider him any more or less ignorant than any other religious adherent.
21 July 2007, on 2:16 pm
“Badges?…badges?…(’gasp’)…
you mean…we DO need stinking badges?…WTF!”
“Whell!”…as to that (hot to trot?) Mitt-man’s service provider…you know, the…
“I just thought, what am I supposed to do with him? He was just as sweet as pie and so cute.”
[cue the self applied, forefinger dimple probes?]
Let’s see…erm…sorta in line with the old…
“Coo-coo-cachoo, ‘Mrs. Robinson’; Jeebus loves you more than you could know…Ho-ho-ho”?
Should we suggest to those various makeup gals, adding to their services, an additional “Show your love for Mitt”/Washington Madam (Taylor style?)…and totally discreet…extra service?
“Oh, Hi Larry Flynt!”
If you get my silly drift.
OK, Naomi…More of my admittedly inexcusable, diversionary, weekend style, self-sponsored, and pretty much off-topic interruptions:
I was really searching for an old “Makeup!”…and Romney related…slapstick comedy bit to use; an extremely old comedy bit, which I’ve always related to the old classic Milton Berle show…yeah…well, this is ‘close’:
“Uncle Miltie Gets Told Off” [w. Arnold Stang applying the makeup, no less...Arnold who?]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh-g2Ap6MRg
But, as per usual, I ended up stumbling on some other YouTube shtick.
Here’s some completely off-topic, but perhaps interesting to some of you GifSter TV buffs:
Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis clips [main page]…lots of great ‘Colgate Comedy Hour’ nostalgia!:
Some of early TV’s most hilarious, and timeless skits (Genius; in my opinion)…Martin & Lewis in their “Hay day”?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dean+Martin+%26+Jerry+Lewis&search=
Every time I do a search on YouTube, I’m amazed at how much stuff has been unearthed and added by various people…worldwide. Yeah…YouTube CAN get rather addictive…Duh!
More in line with our “GifS agenda”?…(and to selfishly ‘Redeem myself’, for interrupting?)
In spite of a rather “sing-songie” narration…here’s a, somewhat newly added, pro-atheist YouTube:
“Atheist Life vs Religious Life”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaOVPaYf780
My (feigned, and un-remorseful) apology for the brazen effrontery of this comment.
Like…in spite of all the mind boggling political madness…we should all just…
keep on laughing?
Colonoscopy, anyone???
21 July 2007, on 2:57 pm
Does anyone else find it funny that given all the republican candidates, the only one with one wife is the mormon?
21 July 2007, on 5:03 pm
james, you make the point that Mitt and his wife continue to stress: she’s neither a “starter” wife nor a “trophy” wife? Both terms speak to HIM – his position and how it rises and leaves HER behind…
I’ll make a generalization here (I don’t have time to research this in depth): Women want to be bound to a man, to legitimize the sex. Men, later, want to be freed from that bond, when his “star rises” and her’s loses its sparkle; when his dick needs refreshing and her body loses its tightness.
Is the “republican power-male” thing connected to this? Does neo-conical thinking apply? It’s clear that the more money a Republican man has, the more ex-wives…and more mistresses, ex- and otherwise!
Some liberal pundit mentioned that there’s not one divorce among the Dem candidates, including the “busy doing other things: Al Gore”, and Prez#42 and his candidate wife).
(*walks to the end of the board, bounces once and dives headlong*)It has been rumored that President Godsend was a drinker, a druggie and a womanizer. But no one has asked why Laura had just one pregnancy, from which two daughers were born. I suspect there’s more wrong with that marriage than we know.
IF Mitt Romney has been unfaithful to his wife, it will come out. And only reconfirm my “already carved-in-stone” opinion of republican men – they are assholes and charlatans, liars and thieves. And haven’t enough ethics, in the aggregate, to fill a thimble.
21 July 2007, on 5:32 pm
[...] Those horrible liberals continue to pick on MY HARRIET! And I’m looking forward to Harriet Miers being declared in “inherent contempt”. This nifty little distinction means that Congress doesn’t have to present a case to a US Attorney in DC (fat chance of finding an untainted-by-Gonzalez USA). [...]
21 July 2007, on 5:36 pm
“Some liberal pundit mentioned that there’s not one divorce among the Dem candidates, including the “busy doing other things: Al Gore”, and Prez#42 and his candidate wife). ”
I’m not sure if you were making a joke there or not, but our 42nd prez was NOT the greatest example of how a husband should behave. I still can’t believe there were secret service agents willing to take a bullet for that jerk.
Please clear that up for me if you could.
I’m with Rev, but maybe for different reasons. I hate when election time rolls around, you have to pick the lesser of two evils. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that we will have a Dem in office next, but I really wish that the independent candidate thing would have stuck after Perot. We need more than two options.
Something like that Robin Williams movie ‘Man of the Year’, kind of a bad movie but exactly what I would like to see. A candidate that shouldn’t have a chance in hell of winning but functions in calling out the donkey and the elephant on their bullshit. Man I would love to see that.
21 July 2007, on 5:38 pm
Naomi, I was actually making a joke, you know the whole polygamy thing (though allegedly no longer a doctrine) with mormons and the sketchy marital past of a lot of the Rep. candidates. I found it ironic and funny.
21 July 2007, on 7:01 pm
Oops!
Update on Miz Romney: He and she are saying she is BOTH a starter-wife and a trophy-wife. Too bad she isn’t allowed to be a woman in her own right – rather than an extension of Mitt, a submissive subordinate of Mitt, a breeder Mitt needs to duplicate his very important DNA.
Jimmer, no word yet on the magic “one-sie”! Even JesusGenera (a-k-a PatriotBoy) posted on Mitt’s armor-of-silk following his campaign opening announcement. The General is (? was raised?) a mormon, and posted a picture and predicted many posts about the Romney-underdrawers. He delivered for less than a week. Now, “no talkee” about Mitt’s-skivvies – and no explanation of of why there is “no talkee” on J-Gen…
Does it make you wonder if the LDS church also gets all Xenu-protective like tCoS?
21 July 2007, on 7:37 pm
Responding to your lame and vague joke, james. GOPissers seem to rate the marriage ritual as sacrosanct, “society’s glue”.
However, staying together is a subjective issue. And most people who stay together, when there is a “despite” involved, themselves can’t explain why they remain married.
OTOH, it’s much simpler to see why the bond/glue is broken, isn’t it? And frequently, it’s over sex, right? And who has the most problem with sexual fidelity? As a group, xians! Sexual orientation? As a group, xians!
Who rails about pornography, while using it at enormously high rates? XIANS!
james, less than 50% of our country is married just now. Red-states (especially in the DeepSouth) have more divorces per capita than blue-states.
Are xians practicing what they preach? Or just being “preach-y”?
And to your de riguer jab at Bill Clinton, we Dems don’t deny he was unfaithful; we believe that sexual infidelity was NOT high crimes and misdemeanors, that a censure should have been sufficient – not spending $55million to find out what they already knew: Bill Clinton has a “zipper problem”.
BUT we already knew that, james! Don’t you remember Gennifer Flowers? Her story couldn’t keep Bill from being elected in 1992; and Paula Jones couldn’t keep him from being re-elected 1996. And when his term was up, he left office with extremely high favorability ratings, despite every false thing said about him for eight years.
I think we need to find Mitt Romney’s “Gennifer Flowers”…
21 July 2007, on 7:42 pm
BTW, if Clinton hadn’t been term-limited and had run again in 2000, consider this: despite being impeached, and lying about Monica, Bill may have been elected to a third term…
21 July 2007, on 8:17 pm
I think arguably Clinton was a great prez, just a piece of crap morally.
Concerning your crack about Christians, marriage, and the numbers, that isn’t stuff that we’ve heard in church thousands of times. Will I argue you on that point? No, how could I? That stuff is public knowledge, so in answer to your question: just being “preach-y”?
I guess one of my biggest problems is this:
(and this is just an idea)
Do we look for a prez who has great morals or do we elect a leader who is just that, a great leader and will lead this country in a positive direction. Clinton was a great prez but again, a crappy moral example (and I am referring back to a few posts ago when we had a convo about moral leaders/mentors/etc).
That part always bothered me. Maybe anyone here can shed some light on the subject.
(and by morals I do NOT by any means mean ‘Christian’, I think we are all in agreement here that morals exist whether or not we agree on the source).
21 July 2007, on 11:04 pm
Then, james, instead of using the word “morals”, use ethics instead. They’re a lot easier for us to track, evaluate and even just define.
For instance, “moral relativism” is bullshit and easily skewed – as we’ve seen. Ethics is more clearly understood and relativism is not an easy-sell.
Since “moral” is in the hands of xians, and since they don’t support rights for individuals or for everyone, Ethics makes the stronger, fairer statement about society’s behavior.
Neither GWB nor Cheney have a sense of ethics. At all! Yet xians think they are “moral men”. Why is that?
21 July 2007, on 11:06 pm
All republican men, carved in stone, are all charlatans….you’re an idiot, Naomi. You’re one of those with diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. Overgeneralizing like that shows you’re not very reasonable or thoughtful.During your last visit here, you were just as unpleasant as this. Just as pugnacious, just as bilious.
Obviously, you’ve strayed from the reservation. Just turn 180-degrees and you’ll find your way home.
At a guess, I ‘d say you’re the second professional troll this week. I’m curious – how good is the pay?
Mods
21 July 2007, on 11:55 pm
Hmmm…
Does…erm…”BlotcheyFart” qualify, perhaps, for the “I’d kiss Bush’s ass, anytime”…Colonoscopy Award?
Just wondering, Mods…I guess I’m just trying to establish some sort of ‘theme’ connecting my disparate (or desperate?) comments.
22 July 2007, on 1:20 am
“Neither GWB nor Cheney have a sense of ethics. At all! Yet xians think they are “moral men”. Why is that? ”
I’m with you on that, I’m the one who recommended war crimes charges after their time is up.
22 July 2007, on 1:26 am
Personally, I’m voting for Bill Richardson. He has enormous support from both parties in his home state of New Mexico. He at least seems to compromise. Which is a word we seldom hear from either party these days.
As to ethics, we cannot truly know how ethical any of these assholes are. All we can see is their hypocrisy and lies. When was the last time any politician was called honest? When was the last time a member of either party did not waffle to the special interest money? Both parties are corrupt. We simply get to choose which side of the corruption we want.
22 July 2007, on 3:16 am
“BTW, if Clinton hadn’t been term-limited and had run again in 2000, consider this: despite being impeached, and lying about Monica, Bill may have been elected to a third term… “
“July 21st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I think arguably Clinton was a great prez, just a piece of crap morally.”
Unfortunately the traits needed to get elected are completely different from those needed to be good at running a country.
22 July 2007, on 10:23 am
I wouldn’t vote for Mitt for one reason:
He’s a Moron … wait … left out the ‘m’… ok, 2 reasons.
22 July 2007, on 12:06 pm
I kind of like Richardson. He put out a great campaign ad, which also showed he had a sense of humor. GW has a sense of humor too, but it mostly involves laughing at his own jokes.
22 July 2007, on 2:46 pm
Revenant:
What little humor coming out of GW is largely vicious bully-humor. Such as: making a video of him searching the Oval Office for the “missing WMDs” and saying, “It would be lot easier if this was a dictatorship – as long as I’m the dictator” and describing his “base” as “the haves and the have-more”. Also cynically mimicking Carla Fay Tucker, after having her executed.
Obviously, he lacks depth, and has compassion only for his wealthy friends…
23 July 2007, on 9:20 am
There’s no need to vote for any of them. The repugs will decide who everyone voted for when they make up the numbers after the next “election”.
Currently there isn’t a single one worth a vote on either side. I think I’m voting for John Stewart.
23 July 2007, on 3:57 pm
OLoPM: The repugs will decide who everyone voted for when they make up the numbers after the next “election”.
That’s what I’m afraid of. I’m also pretty scared of all these “executive orders” the Shrub has been signing into being. Are he and Cheney just going to hand over the government unless it’s back into Republican clutches?
More later. I’m at work and can’t blog much right now – drat!
24 July 2007, on 6:26 pm
No matter the skew of reality versus public image, the disconnect between the much ballyhooed- and self-described, morality, religiousity, and credibility of the Bush/Cheney cabal and the anthracite of their actual hearts in practice, we’re pretty juvenile in terms of what we look for in a Leader.
It isn’t necessary for a Leader to be our father, our friend, someone we’d like to have a beer with. It matters not one whit whether our prospective leader projects as wooden on television or has a monotonous speaking voice. {It does, I’ll admit- though it ought not to, matter that whether a candidate once lived in a tree and baked cookies for a living. You hear me, Kucinich?}
And the realists amongst us know that an ass in a pew means jackshit in terms of one’s ethics. Perpetual media brainwashes us into admiring irrelevant qualities in a contender and ignoring, if not belittling actual qualifications for the job.
That said, I could never vote for anyone who believed that his holy book was revealed to his patriarch while his face was in a hat, that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel, that until very recently sold persons of color on their becoming “white” in heaven- hell, that could keep a straight face while claiming religion founded by a documented grifter and pedophile.
Plus, how can anyone take a man named “Mitt”- or Willard for that matter, seriously?
24 July 2007, on 8:28 pm
I think the most telling part is that the indiain “spirit” who imparted this information to Smith was named… Wait for it…. Moroni.
Need I say more?
26 July 2007, on 10:16 am
Well, I’d vote for him, as bad as he is, over Hillary Clinton… Ultimately though, I’m going for Ron Paul in ‘08!!!