Anthony Weiner Can Never be President

I hear that Anthony Weiner is re-entering politics.  we here at the Chaos Compound wish him well. There is a limit to how succesful he can possibly be in American politics, however. No matter how successful he may be, he, through no fault of his own, can never be president because of his name. 
President Weiner?Never gonna happen.

 

Air Force 1?

Here are a few more political figure that can never be President due solely to unfortunate names. 


Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse can never be president because it would be too confusing.

Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador can never be president because his name sounds like a dog.

And Idaho Governor Butch Otter can never be President because "President Otter" would just be too adorable!

  

Maybe Surgeon General?

California Congressman Adam Schiff can never be president because he's be too busy yelling at Sam Waterston

  

Chung Chung!

Michigan Congressman John Dingell can never be president because that would just be silly. President Dingell!



Alabama Congressman Jo Bonner can never be President because Bonner is too close to "Boner." Also, "Jo" is a woman's name. The male version is "Joe."

  Arizona Senator Jeff Flake can never be President for obvious reasons.

Same goes for Arkansas Senator John Boozman.

And it goes without saying that if your name contains the word "crap," you should abandon any presidential aspirations you may have. Honestly, it's a miracle this guy made it to Senator!

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush can never be president because he shares the same last name as the worst president in our history. Not his fault, but them's the breaks!



 

Horrible Columnist is Horrible, Probably Racist.

I had never heard of Mona Charen before, but we recently started receiving the Atlanta Journal Constitution again and they featured one of her columns entitled White House Ducks Truth Over Americans' Deaths. I'm guessing that this is a fairly typical column for her since I found the on-line version at Townhall.com

It begins:

Count me as irritable on the subject, but President Obama's imperious habit of suggesting that American diplomats work for him is offensive to democratic sensibilities.

Which is odd since they pretty much do work for him.

Also, Imperious? Really? This seems to be a common theme for right-wing critics of Barack Obama. They like to say he's "arrogant" or "aloof" or "elitist." My assumption is that they think it is the height of arrogance for Obama to act like he's really the president, or that he has any right to be president. Do a google search fro Obama + arrogant. I just did one and it returned 7,900,000 results. Results like:

1. Barack Obama's arrogant EU intervention won't help David ...

1. Beck Maps Out How Scandals Reveal Obama's 'Arrogant' Goal Of ...

 

1. Arrogant President on His Heels: How Obama Fell for the Mandate ...

2.  

Does Obama's arrogance have any limits? » The Loft -- GOPUSA

The Arrogance Of The Obama Administration Will Bankrupt Us ...

 

 

And it would be one thing if he seemed at all arrogant, but Barack Obama? He's conciliatory to a fault. He doesn't strike me arrogant at all.

In the second presidential debate last fall, when the Benghazi matter came up, the president responded: "Well, let me ... talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation [sic]. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am."

 

He's concerned about their safety? The arrogance!

And he is, in fact, the person who sends them out. So what's the problem here?  Hell if I know.

 

 

Then she adds this snide little aside:

(I wish Candy Crowley had asked what the names of the four dead Americans were. But, as we discovered, she had other plans that night.)

 

 

First of all, I guarantee you he would have known the names. No way would he have gone into a debate that unprepared. Secondly, what "plans" did Candy Crowley have? The plan to not let Mitt Romney's falsehoods go unremarked upon? Was that her nefarious scheme?

 

 

Last week during a press conference, the president again described the murdered Americans as "people I sent into the field."

 

She keeps bringing this up as if it were some sort of obvious faux pas, but they were literally people whom he had sent into the field. So what's the objection? It isn't clear. If he hadn't said something like this, she would have attacked him for passing the buck or failing to face up to his responsibilities or something. I think it just grates on her that this particular person is president, and so anything he says that reminds her of that fact offends her.

 

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, emphasizing the president's deep concern, noted, "This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are at risk, people who work for him."

No. Ambassadors and other officers of the Foreign Service represent the United States of America. They are not the personal envoys of Barack H. Obama.

 

Well, yes and no. They are employed by the State Department, at the president's pleasure, which is the agency tasked with carrying out the president's foreign policy, so they kinda represent both the United States AND the President.  Or, as you quoted Obama as saying " these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there."

 

The president sets our nation's foreign policy, Mona. Even if the president is black!

 

(I shouldn't so lightly accuse someone of racism, but I really can't see any other reason why she would be so undies-in-a-knot over a sitting president stating basic facts about the state department)

 

(which reminds me)

 

 

 Anything this president does is an outrage to the mouth-breathers on the right. Even if it is something that other presidents have done routinely, like use a teleprompter or play golf.  Maybe a white Democratic president would have been treated just as badly. They certainly accused Bill Clinton of everything from rape to drug trafficking to outright murder before settling on having received oral, so who knows. Maybe it's not based entirely on racism. But it's still dickhole behavior and it isn't good for America.

 

 

 

Oklahoma Has Terrible Senators

Really, I can't think of a state with a worse pair of Senators than Coburn and Inhofe.

 

James Inhofe, mostly famous for his continued insistence that science is just a nefarious plot cooked up by the Weather Channel to undermine capitalism or something, famously came out in opposition to relief spending for states hit by Hurricane Sandy, calling it "pork." So, one might assume that he would continue his principled anti-pork stance against tornado relief spending in Oklahoma. Well, one might assume that if one was completely unfamiliar with Jim Inhofe.

Inhofe: Tornado aid ‘totally different’ from Hurricane Sandy aid

By Rachel Weiner and Matt DeLong, Published: May 21, 2013 at 10:40 am

 

Different in that Hurricane Sandy didn't affect me!

 

That was a “totally different” situation, Inhofe told MSNBC, arguing that the Sandy aid was filled with pork. There were “things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there and putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C.”

 

Oh, well, if there was help for other people included in that bill, then yeah, totally wasteful spending! We must always be sure to help the narrowest swath of people possible!

 

“Everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place,” he said. “That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”

 

Oh, nooooo. Of course not. Everything is always on the up and up in Oklahoma! It's not like it was settled by folks who cheated in the race to claim land stolen from the Indians or anything. It's not like the founders of Oklahoma got there SOONER than they were allowed by federal law or anything.

 

 

 

 

At least I have to give it to Tom Coburn for consistency. Just as a rat dropping is consistently a rat dropping, so Tom Coburn is consistently a rat dropping. I lost my analogy halfway through there, but you get the idea. My point is Tom Coburn is consistently a despicable human being. Inhofe is, too, but Coburn is always the same kind of despicable human being.

 

 

 

Tom Coburn: Tornado aid must be offset

By Rachel Weiner and Paul Kane, Published: May 21, 2013 at 9:04 am

 

 

Yes, Tom Coburn will not vote for disaster relief unless he can take the money away from some other part of the budget (NOT DEFENSE). Because the important thing is that someone somewhere is being made to suffer. If Oklahoma gets tornado relief, then someone has to lose their food stamps, or someone has to get their Medicaid cut. Coburn will stick to his sadistic principles even when it affects his home state, because it still doesn't affect him personally.

 

 

 

I don't hate the people of Oklahoma any less than I hate the people of any other state!

 

 

Tom Coburn has, however, promised the people of Oklahoma that  “I can assure Oklahomans that any and all available aid will be delivered without delay.” Because I guess he suddenly remembered that the people of Oklahoma still get to vote for or against him, unlike the recipients of Sandy aid.

 

Of course, what makes these two especially sickening is their votes prior to yesterday's disaster. According to Think Progress:

 

 

– Coburn voted in 2011 against funding FEMA after it ran out of money, because, in his words, funding FEMA would have been “unconscionable.” Inhofe did not vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fired back at Republicans blocking a bill for necessary funding to FEMA.

– Inhofe proposed removing grants for storm shelter programs coordinating with FEMA, and instead provide individuals with tax breaks.

 

– After Hurricane Sandy, Inhofe and Coburn voted against a bill for $50.5 billion in Hurricane Sandy disaster relief.
– Coburn demanded that $5.25 billion in FEMA grant funds be reallocated because of sequestration in April 2013.

 

So now they want funds from the very programs that they tried to de-fund. Typical Republicans. Spending on anything that doesn't directly benefit them is wasteful "pork," spending in their state is absolutely necessary and proper. Could any pair of human beings be worse than these two?

 

  Still not as bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Orphan March

So I saw a bus the other day that had this sign on it about going to Washington for an "orphans march"




Yeah, like that.
So my interest was naturally piqued, as I have been especially concerned about the orphans lately, having been learning about them on the BBC.

 

 

I'm especially worried about her.

Anyway, I tried to look it up on the internet, and the first thing I found was this:

Take Action! Jump on the

 Cotton Seed Studios Bus

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Rob

FILM DOCUMENTARY

STUCK

STEP FORWARD FOR ORPHANS MARCH

FRIDAY MAY 17
WASHINGTON, DC

 

 

And their explanation of what the orphan march is all about was this:

We are excited to take a group of folks from OPELIKA to our nations capitol to march on capitol hill with the STUCK Tour for the STEP FORWARD FOR ORPHANS MARCH, an effort to restore civil discourse between politically diverse Americans

Which, I'm pretty sure is not what the organizers of the Orphan March had in mind. I think their purpose is to try and help the orphans.

But anyway. . . . as part of their effort to "restore civil discourse," they are presenting a special guest speaker. . . drum roll, please. . .

 

 



1:00 – 2:30 PM

March to Upper Senate Park Special Guest Speaker: Laura Ingraham

Laura Ingraham! Because when I think of civil discourse, the first name that pops into my head is Laura Ingraham!



Ironically, when I googled "Laura Ingraham Quotes," this was the first one to come up:

There's a rule of thumb in politics. If you're at a point where you're complaining about the other guy being mean and unfair and uncivil, that's probably a sign that you're losing.

Laura Ingraham

 

Just do a quick check of her name on the Media Matters site, and you'll find things like this:

 

Laura Ingraham Compares Benghazi "Whistleblowers" To Freed Slaves, Obama Admin To Slave Owners
 

 

And

Laura Ingraham Claims Immigration From Mexico Would Create U.S. "Hellhole"



a

and

 Fox's Ingraham Compares Press Relationship To Obama As Similar To Battered Women, Prostitutes




so, you know, "Civil Discourse."


So what kind of an organization would trot out this guttermouth as an exemplar of civil discourse? I don't know. The organizers of the Orphan March, which seems, at least at first glance, to be a legitimately well-meaning group, apparently brought her in to speak about her own experience with international adoptions. It seems to be the people doing the bus tour, a group called "Cotton Seed Studios" who are under the impression that this is about restoring civil discourse.

 

Maybe they're thinking of this?

 

 

So who is "Cotton Seed Studios?"  I don't know. They seem like a legitimate arts organization. Their raison d'etre, according to their website is: Cotton Seed Studios exist to offer artist an environment to create, record, express, collaborate and grow with their craft through a full service recording/film studio and premier arts venue.

So, to sum up, I have no idea who any of these people are. But someone, somewhere thinks that Laura Ingraham has something to do with civil discourse, and that's good enough for me.
 

Georgia Lawmakers Illustrate Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Georgia depends heavily on federal money

Federal funds made up about $10.4 billion of state agency spending in fiscal 2008, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution review of budget records. Four years later, that figure was more than $12 billion, in part because the state had some leftover federal stimulus money. But the total will likely approach or top $12 billion again in the upcoming year. That’s roughly 31.6 percent of state spending, up from about 27 percent in 2008.

That's not all that surprising, given that A) Red states nearly always get more back from the Federal government than they send in*, and B) this is the state that produced Newt "king of Pork" Gingrich.

And then I said "fiscal responsibility!" Ahahahaha!!!

But here's the good part:

Some top lawmakers regularly gripe about federal spending and the state Senate passed a resolution last year backing a federal balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Well, it's nice that they are taking a principled stand. There's a certain integrity in saying "even though it will hurt my state, I still think that cutting spending is morally right, and I'm willing to make that sacrifice." Oh, wait! These are Republicans!

But lawmakers have also urged Congress to spend more on everything from Georgia reservoir construction and commuter rail to medical training, and they have approved tax maneuvers to draw down nearly $800 million a year in extra federal funding for health and nursing care.

And there you have it, today's Republican Party in a nutshell. Cut spending! Cut spending! Cut spend. . .woah, wait, don't cut here! The spending in my district is absolutely necessary! Cut the wasteful spending. You know, the spending that affects other people!

Gov. Nathan Deal said that can’t continue.

 

 

Yes, he won running on that slogan.

“We cannot be hypocritical at the state level,” said Deal, a longtime former Congressman. “We cannot continue to bombard the people in Washington, telling them they need to cut spending, they need to reduce the burden on taxpayers in this country by reducing their expenditures, and then when something like sequestration occurs, be the first to complain we’re not receiving as much federal money."

"Oh, wait, I'm being told that that is indeed our entire business model," he did not continue. "That is actually our standard electoral strategy and the only reason we get out of bed in the morning. Please tell Mr. Koch that I'm very very sorry."

Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, sponsored legislation creating a Senate committee to study alternatives to federal funding for health care programs. He said he’s worried the state has become too dependent on Washington.

“We are basically making assumptions every year in the budget that the federal government is going to continue to carry the state of Georgia,” McKoon said. “As a conservative who wants to see Washington tighten its belt, it’s prudent as policymakers to start asking what is our contingency plan if federal funding is significantly reduced.

In other words, we want DC to stop spending all this money, but we have no idea how we're going to get along without it.


*