Thursday, November 29, 2012

Stupidest Election Analysis So Far

The horrible Washington Post Op-Ed section had someone write a piece about what a great campaign Mitt Romney ran. It was written by one Stuart Stevens who was, um, Mitt Romney's chief campaign strategist because, you know, objectivity!


Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.

Yeeeeeahhhhh.... Mitt Romney may be a lot of things, but a "good" man? I've seen no evidence of that.

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing.


 It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.



I don't know how you define narrow.

 I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians

Or of anyone.
Pretty much everyone hates him, but only because he's kind of a horrible person.

That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

Everyone knew Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nomination. No one wanted him to be, but he was the only one who didn't seem crazy

Or retarded

Or weird

Or all of the above

He was the default nominee since the 2008 campaign ended.

But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. 

They liked him so much that they flitted from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich to Perry, only finally settling on Romney after each and every one of them had imploded.

 What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement

What began? Nothing began in any small field in New Hampshire. It began in Karl Rove's "American Crossroads"boardroom.

It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates

Yeah, that must have been tough!


and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

He was behind all the other candidates because the voters loved him so much!

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. [sic]

In debate. Yes, he won A debate. One out of three. And only because Barack Obama didn't show up for the first one.

He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

Using his Bain capital experience as a good object lesson, he sure made a moral case for something, but it wasn't for "free enterprise" or "conservative economics." It was more of a moral argument for tar and feathers.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed.  

And with Paul Ryan at his side, he won the elect. . . .oh, wait! Maybe the intelligentsia had apoint?
And there is nothing rational or persuasive about Paul Ryan's position on Social Security or Medicare.

The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin.  

So the people who would not be affected by the future slashing and burning of SS and Medicare voted for the boring white guys over the scary black man? Well, I'm certainly convinced!

It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

No, it will always be the same tired lies trotted out again and again by the Ryans of the world.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Hmm, the affluent voted Republican?  You don't say!

 But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000

Mainly because it really didn't?
Although, getting away with that level of chicanery could be described as brilliant, in a way.

 Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012.


Obama Victory Margin Grows

As the votes keep coming in, David Wasserman notes President Obama's national lead over Mitt Romney is now 50.9% to 47.4%. 

Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed.

 Yeah, it kinda is.

In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans

Pictured: millions of people, sweeping rally.

He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. 

The vision of a country where people can get medicine when they're sick and we still make cars? The horror!

He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics. 

Natural grace? Good humor? Are you kidding? Mitt?

That's either Mitt Romney or Cary Grant!


There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. 


Yeah, when the Democratic party was really liberal, they totally had lots of problems!

Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. 

Maybe if they can be ridden to victory, they don't really qualify as "problems?" 


 But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical.

Yes, he could never survive a primary!

Yes, the Republican Party has problems

  but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day. 

I'm not sure which day that was, but it sure as hell wasn't Election Day!

On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future. 

Worst Book-Ad Blurb Ever

This blurb caught my eye in an ad on Wonkette:

"Cooch takes us on a special-ops thrill-ride. Buy your tickets now!" -Admiral James Loy

This is the book he's plugging:

It's by Robert COOK. But Admiral James Loy would rather talk about "Cooch."


Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Why does Rick Santorum still get to be involved with things?

Santorum joins Sen. Lee to oppose UN treaty on disabled rights

At a press conference on Monday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association to voice opposition to a United Nations treaty regarding the rights of people with disabilities.
Raw Story (

Oh, oh, is Santorum opposed? Oh, well, that changes everything!
Nobody cares, Rick! No one cares what you oppose. You have been thoroughly rejected by the American people. You couldn't even win the Republican primary. The primary! The most extreme right-wing voters in all the land, the Republican primary voters, took a look at you and decided they'd rather back an empty suit that they openly despise than vote for you.
But just out of curiosity, why would you oppose rights of the disabled?
The three men said the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) would undermine parental rights and threaten U.S. sovereignty.

Of course!
Of course, it involves the super-scary UN, so of course it undermines US sovereignty!
Some how.

I guess.

How would it do that, again?

The former presidential candidate pronounced his “grave concerns” about the treaty, which forbids discrimination against people with AIDS, who are blind, who use wheelchairs and the like. “This is a direct assault on us,” he declared at a news conference.
Oh, well, a direct assault. Oh, that does sound bad. How exactly is this an assault?
I've been searching stories about this on the web for about 15 minutes now, and I can't find anywhere where Santorum explains what he means by the "direct assault" comment.

Santorum made an emotional appeal, even bringing his daughter Bella, who has a severe birth defect, to the Senate hearing room for the event. “There’s no benefit to the United States from passing it,” he said, as Bella wriggled in her mother’s arms. “But what it does is open up a Pandora’s box for the most vulnerable among us: children with disabilities.”
Ah, the  handicapped child as political prop! The Palin is strong in this one.

But why is Santorum being invited into the Senate hearing room anyway? He's not a Senator, and he says nothing worth hearing. 

Who invited Rick Santorum? Who is giving this assclown a forum? The man has no credibility, he is clearly a nut, and a world-class prick to boot. 

By the way, Mike Lee (R-Idiculous) claims to have 36 Senators signed up to oppose ratification which, if true, would mean that they could actually prevent the treaty from being ratified. So the US would again be embarrassed on the world stage by the right-wing nuts. Wonderful.

Also, just another aside, this treaty was originally signed by G.W. Bush and has the support of John McCain, and other Republicans as well as veterans' groups. But sure, Santorum, you glistening turd of a human being, let's go ahead and organize opposition to block it because you're afraid of black helicopters.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Kid Can See the Writing on the Wall

Angus T. Jones bashes 'Two and a Half Men,' calls it 'filth'

Angus T. Jones doesn't much like "Two and a Half Men," and he wishes viewers wouldn't watch the show.
So said the 19-year-old TV star in Christian testimony shot principally in his production trailer and posted Monday by the Forerunner Christian Church on YouTube.

"You cannot be a true, God-fearing person and be on a television show like that," he said. "I know I can't. I'm not OK with what I'm learning, what the Bible says and being on that television show."

The kid can see the end of his career just around the corner. No one is going to cast  him in anything again. It's amazing that he ever got cast in a show in the first place.

 With all the cute kids in America, they somehow end up hiring this slab-of-meat faced kid with absolutely zero charisma and somehow this piece of shit show catches on and becomes a hit. Don't see that happening twice.

So, what to do, what to do. . . .?

Well, the Kirk Cameron route is always available! You can make a living appearing on the 700 Club and FOX and whatnot.

Good move, kid. Good move.

Monday, November 26, 2012

There's a War on Men!

We've been having computer problems here at the Chaos Compound. It seems willing to cooperate a bit today, so let's see what I've missed these last several days. . .

Well, it seems someone has declared war on men. Wait a minute, men? That's me! Oh no!

The war on men

Oh, thank God, the war is only being waged in the FOX universe. Earth men are presumably safe. 

As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same
Haven't met the right girl?

When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.

They're futuristic cyborgs!

 To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.

They're more confident? More independent? 
In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly.

What? Why would that be?

 That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy.

Really? REALLY? I'm not sure that that wouldn't be a reasonable thing for them to think, given the proliferation of shit like this:



 . . . but who is raising their daughters to think that men are the enemy?
Is that what they mean when they say "So. . .when are you getting married? When am I gonna have grandkids?"

 Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Now the men have nowhere to go.
Really? 'Cuz it seems to me that once you're off the pedestal, you can go wherever you want. You're on the ground now, you can walk in any direction you want.  Seems like it would be a pretty good idea to have no one on any pedestals.
And what was this supposed pedestal that women had before? Oh, sure, women may have been financially dependent, constantly belittled, and had very little legal recourse when physically abused, but dammit, we used to open doors for them! What were they thinking jumping down off of that pedestal?

It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes.
Yes, the relationship between the sexes has been totally destroyed. Men and women just never get together anymore. Maybe that's why there just isn't any money in the wedding planner game anymore. And there are barely any publications at all dealing with brides and weddings.

Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.

Yes. The 1970's

But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault? 

Yeah! It's your fault that we suck! Oh, I feel so much better knowing that we aren't to blame. Phew!

You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat.

What? You mean I don't have to drive anymore? Awesome! Schmoopie, the crazy lady says it's your turn to drive all the time now! I'll be back here with someone's kids.

Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. 

Oh. We're venturing into reality now? We're going to admit that any man with halfway decent self-esteem is not threatened by successful women?

. . . the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off.

Oh for the love of . . . You said you were going to explain how this was all the women's fault! Now you're just saying that we fellas are just such petulant children that the success of women "pisses us off?" Whose side are you on?

It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family.

I'm sorry, based on what? How is our ability to be self-sufficient undermined by women also being self-sufficient? It's no a zero-sum game. It's not like there's only so much self-sufficiency to go around.

 Men want to love women, not compete with them.

Are those the only two options? And I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. My wife occasionally kicks my ass in air hockey. It doesn't make me love her any less. And the only reason that she only kicks my ass occasionally is because we only play occasionally. I stink at air hockey. I'm a big enough man to admit that.

So does this guy, I'm guessing.

They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. 

I don't think you really know that much about DNA. Or men. Or women. And you are one!

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

And women totally get nothing out of that. God knows they don't enjoy sex!  Although, I've got to say, I've said "hello" to a lot of women and none of them have even tried to have sex with me. Am I saying it wrong?

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

Women need men's linear career goals? What does that even mean? And how does a man's career goals affect women's life balance? It doesn't make any sense. And if they have a basic understanding of how to use a condom, they shouldn't have to worry that much about the "consequences" of sex.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

I didn't realize women had this kind of control over us. They can transform us into marriage-phobic slackers? I've been a slacker since I thought girls had cooties, I don't know that they can really take credit for that.


Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork 
Yes, just move to Stepford!

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Stupid Story of the Day

(via Yahoo News)

Why Black Friday is losing its meaning. In this photo: Shoppers brave Toys 'R' Us during Black Friday (Getty Images/file photo)

Why Black Friday is losing its meaning

Oh, it's so sad.Black Friday has just gotten so commercialized that it's lost it's original meaning. It used to be about  crass, naked acquisitiveness. Now, I just don't know what meaning it has left. Do the younger generation even know what Black Friday is even about?

Goddammit, I hate Black Friday. I mean, I hate that "Black Friday" has become a thing now, not just a bit of retailer jargon, stores now advertise Black Friday sales as if it were an event unto itself, not just a day when most folks are off work and sick of their families and looking for something, anything, to get them out of the house for a few hours so, sure, why not do some early Christmas shopping? Now everyone is supposed to act like the day after Thanksgiving is some sort of actual holiday, or something to look forward to, or something other than the most obnoxious consumer feeding frenzy of the year, and the worst day possible to be a retail employee. Hate it!

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Republicans Begin to Make Overtures to Minority Voters

(Via Think Progress)

Maine GOP Head Suspects Voter Fraud Because ‘Dozens, Dozens Of Black People’ Voted


Okay, that can't really be what he said, right? That headline must be a little misleading. Let's just see what the actual text of the article says:

In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day. Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in town knows anyone who’s black. 


When Carrigan pressed the party chairman for specifics about where fraud occurred, he vaguely referred to "several rural Maine towns" and promised an investigation to find out more. 

Sounds legit! Fraud almost never occurs in any specific town, usually in some nebulous rural region of unnamed locales.

"What I'm doing is purchasing a post card, we're going to mail it in and thank people for registering to vote and see whether it comes back," [Charlie] Webster said. 
You know, Charlie, voter caging is generally done before an election. Much more effective that way.
 "So, you think the Democrats bussed in people?" Carrigan asked. 
Yes. Yes, I'm sure that's what happened. I'm sure the Democratic leadership risked prosecution and de-legitimization in order to sneak people in to MAINE. They'd go to any lengths to carry MAINE, with it's, what, one and a half electoral votes?  Let the Republicans pull their chicanery in Ohio or Florida, we'll have the last laugh when we carry MAINE!
And what a coup it will be! Why, no Democratic presidential candidate has carried MAINE since, um, 2008.  But before that, no Democrat took Maine since, um , John Kerry way back in '04. . . wait, why are we stealing Maine again?

Of course, the problem is, according to Charlie, that he shouldn't have used the word "black." Because what he meant to say was, um, "black."

“I regret saying the word black because it wasn’t like I was singling out black,” Webster said. “The reason I said it, ‘cause I don’t know where you live, but where I come from in rural Maine, it’s a small percentage of the population. I think we’re the whitest state in the country. So if you go to the polls and see people who are black, it’s unusual. And when you see a lot of people who are black, like six or eight or ten people, you think, ‘Wow, where do they live?’ That was my point.”
Oh, that's your point! Sure, in a town with only a few black folks in it, I suppose it would be odd to see several black people in the same place at the same time. Unless something important were happening there, like say, a presidential election!
Webster told TPM he heard from five individuals who were concerned by the number of minority voters casting ballots on Election Day.
“If you live in a town of a few hundred people and you go to the post office every day, if there’s someone who doesn’t look like you, you usually know that,” Webster said. “And that’s why when folks called me and said, ‘Where did this Chinese man come from? We don’t have any Chinese people here. Where did they come from?” Well, I don’t know! It’s a good point.”

Oh, never mind. It's just Mickey Rooney!

 You know, I'm beginning to think Charlie Webster might be a bit racist!

Webster said he wasn’t racist and that he had several black friends.

“There’s nothing about me that would be discriminatory. I know black people. I play basketball every Sunday with a black guy. He’s a great friend of mine. Nobody would ever accuse me of suggesting anything,” 
No, I'm sure that in your entire life, no one has ever accused you of suggesting anything. But what if we wait just one more sentence?
  Nobody would ever accuse me of suggesting anything,” he said. “What I do suggest is. . . 


 So, if Maine is any indication, the GOP is making serious progress attracting minority voters. The Democrats might as well close up shop.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Fun With Victoria Jackson

When I first found out about Victoria Jackson's political ravings, I thought for sure it was some sort of extended joke.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Victoria Jackson is funnier than I remembered.

But the joke is still going on. So maybe she's serious?

After the election, I found out she has a Twitter. I signed up to follow her, thinking it would be funny. Which it kinda is, but mostly just sad.

Because she tweets things like this:

White people (statistically) don't have more children than they can take care of without outside assistance. It's called RESPONSIBILITY.


I do give her credit for not prefacing this with the obligatory "I'm not a racist, but. . ." If you're going to be a racist douche, at least own it!

Better to SECEDE than have a civil war. 

Um, secession and civil war are kinda like love and marriage. 
You can't have one without the oooooo-therrrr!!!

Ooh, here's a good one:

Repeal Obamacare. It is killing jobs in this country. Thousands have already lost their jobs because of it. I signed

Yeah, the policies which have yet to take effect are totally killing jobs! Unless you believe like, numbers and stuff.

Very clear chart showing why Socialism/Communism is EVIL

I haven't even looked at the chart yet. I just love the idea of evil being something that can be quantified and expressed in chart form!

And of course, she's huge on secession!

Peacefully grant the State of Minnesota to withdraw from the United States of America & create its own NEW government.

You do know Minnesota's a "blue state," right? 


Why would they even want to secede, when the guy they voted for won?

Peacefully grant the State of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America & create its own NEW government.

And of course, being a teabagger douchenozzle, she is, shall we say, a fair-weather patriot?

I'm proud to be a Red-State American, but I'm not proud to be an "American." I'm ashamed of 50% of my people.

And which "Red-State" does Ms Jackson call home?



Why, Florida, what an unusual shade of red you're wearing for the last few elections!

Today, she tweeted a link to an article she wrote for her asinine website:

I Have No Money by Victoria Jackson
The website that makes the totally-not-silly claim that environmentalism is a tool of the Anti-Christ/UN/One World Government cabal to destroy all that is good or something. That is the source of this particular "Fact!"

Anyways, it goes on and on, and I'm just too tired to keep reading, but you get the idea. I really really can't believe that there is any way Victoria Jackson is serious about any of this. I would never have guessed that she was this good a comedian, but I can't believe that she could possibly be this crazy and stupid and still function.