Clown Show News

-->
Obama Administration

Mitt Romney has refused to sign a “pro-life” pledge. Mitt insists he is “pro life,” mind you, but he thinks this particular pledge contains provisions that would restrict possible nominations to his cabinet and the courts and would block funding to some hospitals.

Give Mitt some credit for integrity here. Anyone who agrees to all the pledges generated by the various whackjob factions of the Whackjob Right would (if he were elected) enter the White House wearing such an inflexible ideological strait jacket he couldn’t so much as cough without breaking a pledge. So, although the CW on Mitt is that he’s a shameless flip-flopper, it appears in this case he is trying to be honest about what he might really do in office. This is unlike the shameless panderers who did sign the pledge — Bachmann, Gringrich, Paul, Pawlenty, and Santorum.

Mitt also has broken with right-wing ideology by admitting the earth is round getting warmer, and that humankind likely is contributing to that.

And this points up the GOP dilemma, which is that a candidate nutty enough to get the nomination is likely to be too radical to win the general election. The American public may be a bit confused about some aspects of climate science, but polls taken after last months tornadoes showed that a significant majority blamed global climate change rather than a wrathful God for the storms.

Before we go any further anointing Romney as the “reasonable” alternative to Right-wing insanity, however, let us point out that Romney can dish out teh crazy, too, when called upon to do so. And while Mitt may be the most viable general election candidate of the crew, many on the Right remember that’s what was said about John Kerry in 2004.

Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann doesn’t shy away from teh crazy — she’s telling cheering crowds of consrvatives that President Obama wants Medicare to go bankrupt so he can force senior citizens into “Obamacare.” This is his “secret” Medicare plan, she says.

The irony is, of course, that Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan actually would do something sorta like that. See “The GOP Proposes ‘Obamacare’ For Seniors.”

Bachmann also wants schools to teach “intelligent design.”

There’s some noise in the news that Moosewoman will announce her presidential intentions soon. Don’t hold your breath. I don’t think she wants to run; I think she wants the attention a candidate gets without actually having to jump through the same hoops as the rest of them and risk being a loser.

And, anyway, current CW on the Right is that Bachmann makes a better Palin than Palin.

Share
19 Comments

18 Comments

  1. c u n d gulag  •  Jun 18, 2011 @9:58 am

    There is no such thing as “Intelligent Design!”

    I offer as proof – Michele Bachmann.

    Would a wise and loving God design such a stupid creature?

    She may prove, however, that Darwin might have missed out on one thing – devolution (reverse evolution).

    I offer, again, as proof – Michele Bachmann, and other Conservatives.
    ‘The Devolution of the Species.’
    ‘The Reagan Devolution.’

    I rest my case.

  2. Swami  •  Jun 18, 2011 @10:50 am

    Can somebody point me in the right direction to find the connection between Susan B. Anthony and anti-abortion? An Anthony Comstock list might narrow the gap between godly causes and historical figures.. And what’s with the list thing? Craig’s list, Angie’s list…Susan B. Anthony’s list?

  3. maha  •  Jun 18, 2011 @11:26 am

    Can somebody point me in the right direction to find the connection between Susan B. Anthony and anti-abortion?

    I was wondering the same thing. It’s a big like naming something the George S. Patton Institute for Sensitivity Training.

  4. moonbat  •  Jun 18, 2011 @11:32 am

    The cat fight between Michele and SaraCuda will be interesting. Sarah won’t leave the limelight easily. Kudos to Romney for not signing any stupid pledges that will surely hamstring him. I’m sure the Big Money Boyz are happy with Mitt this morning.

  5. buckyblue  •  Jun 18, 2011 @1:53 pm

    The big fear on our part is that Mitt does exactly this; come across as a reasoned politician which he will look even more reasonable when compared to the lunatics that are running against him. The economy make Obama vulnerable, but whackjob central almost makes it a safe seat. I, for one, believe Mitt’s flipflopping is in response to the hard right turn the republicans have taken over the last decade and a half. Unless he wanted to join the dems, he was going to have to change course. His best chance at election is to move to the center. And I think he can get the nomination even without being a lunatic.

  6. hopefulandfree  •  Jun 18, 2011 @2:41 pm

    Here’s my own scary thought for the day: I just realized a Romney presidency doesn’t completely freak me out. Maybe one reaches a ceiling on fear, and when the fear cannot get worse without making one keel over on the spot, one becomes immune. I should probably be worried about all this, yet my worry file is filled. Is this what it now feels like to be American (U.S.), a boomer, once working-class but just plain poor, now, with no religious affiliation? Rhetorical question, of course.

  7. LongHairedWeirdo  •  Jun 18, 2011 @2:44 pm

    Can somebody point me in the right direction to find the connection between Susan B. Anthony and anti-abortion? An Anthony Comstock list might narrow the gap between godly causes and historical figures.. And what’s with the list thing? Craig’s list, Angie’s list…Susan B. Anthony’s list?

    I won’t speak for Anthony specifically. But many feminist pioneers came out strongly against abortion for fear that husbands would force women to have them, and abortions were *very* dangerous at that time. So, they opposed abortion. They also opposed husbands punching their wives in the abdomen hoping to induce miscarriage. Go figure.

    Once modern surgical techniques arrived, the risk was minimized. To suggest that those same feminists would still oppose abortion is to ignore reality[1]. One might as well suggest that Thomas Jefferson was, in all ways, an enemy of human freedom and dignity, since he owned slaves.

    [1]Granted, we also can’t state that they would *support* women’s choice, even if we suspect they would.

  8. Swami  •  Jun 18, 2011 @3:09 pm

    I see Newt is still making those worthless pledges. Yeah, like you can take them to the bank! But I guess it’s what you have to do to keep the revenue flowing into the coffers of Gingrich Productions. I love Newt & Callista..they’re my kind of people.

    This one goes out to Callista…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBoHa3GArA

    You go girl!

  9. Candide  •  Jun 18, 2011 @6:31 pm

    I’m with Moonbat on this one. I’d be surprised if Moosewoman doesn’t run. She may not care about losing, her sole purpose is to stay in the limelight and rake in as much cash as possible. But I do expect that she’ll put off declaring her candidacy until the last possible minute, when she launches a “Draft Sarah” campaign (because America really needs her, you know). If she fails to win the nomination, she’ll be screaming that’s because the liberal media relentlessly persecutes her and her lovely family.

    Could be wrong of course. I can only predict with confidence that this will be sleaziest election yet in American history.

  10. Dan  •  Jun 18, 2011 @6:56 pm

    “…but polls taken after last months tornadoes showed that a significant majority blamed global climate change rather than a wrathful God for the storms.”

    Hey, aren’t the fires in Arizona proof that God does not like Republicans? I mean, let’s be fair.

  11. Dan  •  Jun 18, 2011 @7:02 pm

    “I won’t speak for Anthony specifically. But many feminist pioneers came out strongly against abortion for fear that husbands would force women to have them, and abortions were *very* dangerous at that time. So, they opposed abortion.”

    Also note that no major religious organizations opposed abortion until some time after the Civil War – when medical practices made it slightly more likely a woman would survive childbirth than an abortion (which were not REALLY that dangerous, when compared with other standard medical practices of the time). At that time, there were essentially no “surgical” abortions – most were herbal/chemical using time-tested materials available from way ancient times. Surgery was not something one did without a true emergancy!

  12. erinyes  •  Jun 18, 2011 @7:12 pm

    “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners are much more fun…”
    Amen to that!

  13. Swami  •  Jun 19, 2011 @2:34 am

    Yeah, clowns they are! When I try to organize in my mind some sort of rating system to determine a hierarchy of success for any of these clowns winning the GOP nomination..I just get so confused. It’s like I know I can safely place Santorum at the bottom tier of my organizational structure without creating any conflicts because Santorum’s negatives don’t exceed the negatives of any of the other candidates, and he has no positives to bump him up on the rating scale..so therefore he really doesn’t register and becomes a like a zero, or place holder. Last place!

    Now Newt presents some difficulties in finding a proper slot in my structure because although he is a clown like the rest of the clowns, he is an evil clown in a field of stupid clowns( Bachmann—intelligent design). It’s apparent to me as it should be to everyone else that an evil clown will always rate higher in advantage than a stupid clown, thus raising it higher in the echelon of success.

    So far so good..not a complex equation… but now factor in that the evil clown is also an adulterous evil clown..See what I mean? The complexity just explodes when you factor in a moral component in assessing an immoral clown who is also a evil clown to boot. I can only figure out that whatever complexity is involved in placing Newt on the second tier( above Santorum) from the bottom it will have to be cubed. Oh ..almost forgot.. Newt is also going to pioneer a netroots/ high tech/ low budget Presidential campaign so I’ll have to take that into consideration as another factor to compound the perplexities of how Newt stacks up in the running..

    OK. I’ve had enough of these clowns for the night..good night!

  14. c u n d gulag  •  Jun 19, 2011 @6:13 am

    Way OT – but Clarence Clemons, the great R&R, R&B, Oh Hell, just plain GREAT saxophonist died yesterday from complications of a stroke he suffered a week ago.

    RIP Clarence.
    All I can say is, we’ll never see your like again…

  15. Theo  •  Jun 19, 2011 @6:33 am

    Strictly speaking, c u n d, evolution has no direction (i.e., to higher forms), so Darwin didn’t really miss anything, although Bachmann surely would fit the definition of devolution.

    Early feminists were products of their times (as are all people, then and now) and, aside from the risk factors of abortion being discussed, could be remarkably “unenlightened” regarding other issues such as race, etc.

    (Boy, I’ve got a cranky looking avatar, randomly generated I guess!)

  16. c u n d gulag  •  Jun 19, 2011 @7:29 am

    Theo,
    Yup, randomly generated.
    Do you think I’d want to look like an angry yellow circle looking for a fight? Though, I must admit, the resemblence is stunning. :-)

    Oh, and Happy Fathers Day to everyone!
    Even non-Dad’s, like Uncles – which I am.

  17. joanr16  •  Jun 19, 2011 @10:58 am

    RIP Clarence.
    All I can say is, we’ll never see your like again…

    I concur. So long, Big Man. Thanks for the glorious sound.

  18. vjbinct  •  Jun 22, 2011 @6:48 pm

    Just a note about semantics: the GOP insists upon calling the Affordable Care Act ‘Obamacare’. I think the progressives in Congress and bloggers might do well to describe the rightwing rhetoric as ‘Obamascare’, having little to nothing of substance behind the words.

    “medicare for all” is the phrase we should be unable to escape.

1 Trackback



    About this blog



    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me


















    Support This Site







    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile