Tag Archives: presidential candidate

The Romney who wasn’t there

The Republican candidate sits down with Mark Halperin. Mark asks him about how he would tackle the problems Americans struggle with every day. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney doesn’t have any answers. In fact, other than knowing how to go on and on about nothing, he doesn’t seem to know anything at all. Here’s an excerpt of the interview where you see Romney’s initial answers to Halperin’s questions:

Halperin: . . what specific skills or policies did you learn at Bain that would help you create an environment where jobs would be created?

Romney: Well that’s a bit of a question like saying, what have you learned in life that would help you lead? My whole life has been learning to lead, from my parents, to my education, to the experience I had in the private sector, to helping run the Olympics, and then of course helping guide a state.

__________________________________________________________

Halperin: So when the President says he wants to focus a lot of the election and debate on your career at Bain Capital, do you welcome that?

Romney: Well, of course, I’d like to also focus on his record. What is it that he’s done as the President of the United States over the last four years?

__________________________________________________________

Halperin: But you welcome scrutiny of your business record, is that right?

Romney: Mark, what I can tell you is this. The fact is that I spent twenty-five years in the private sector. And that obviously teaches you something that you don’t learn if you haven’t spent any time in the private sector. If you were to say to me, tell me what you learned from your schooling that would help you be a President, it’s like, well, how do I begin going through a list like that?

__________________________________________________________

Halperin: One more question generally about jobs. For people out there, for voters who want to know what you’re about in terms of job creation, is there some new idea, some original idea, that hasn’t been part of the debate in American politics before, that you have that you think would lead to a lot of new jobs?

Romney: Well the wonderful thing about the economy is that there’s not just one element that somehow makes the whole economy turn around, or everybody in the world would have figured that out and said there’s just one little thing we have to do – you know, Greece is settled, and France and Italy are all back and well again. No, it’s a whole series of things.

__________________________________________________________

Halperin: I know you’ve got a lot of ideas, but again, for voters who don’t pay close attention or who aren’t maybe going to read the whole plan, is there something within those 59, or something else you’ve developed, that you consider to be innovative and new, that you think people could really attach themselves to and say, there’s one idea that Mitt Romney has that’s new and innovative about how to create jobs.

Romney: Mark I tell you, that you’re gonna have to look at them one by one – I’ve got 59 there, you’re going to have to decide which one is the most innovative and new.

_________________________________________________________

Halperin: . . Again, just in terms of voters getting to know you and understanding, doesn’t that set voters up for maybe a surprise – when you get into office you’re cutting programs or proposing cutting programs hat they care about?

Romney: Remember, that was what was asked of Chris Christie. It’s like come on Chris, why won’t you tell us all the things you’re going to change? He’s said, you know what, I’m going to cut back on spending. We’re going to work together with the legislature to find ways that Republicans and Democrats can come together and find ways to reduce spending. And the media kept saying to Chris, come on, give us the details, give us the details, we want to hang you with them. And he said look, my plan is to reduce spending and to get us to a balanced budget. He’s done that, and he’s reduced taxes as well. And I had that experience in the state of Massachusetts.

__________________________________________________________

Halperin: But you’d still need more than you’ve been specific about; you just made that quite clear. Again I’ll just say…

Romney: There will be a long list of things.


You get the idea, or not.

Share

Clarence Thomas will run for president. Also, the buttmonkeys are here.

Just how stoned do you have to be to write for the Daily Beast? Or is this merely a Sunday problem? Everybody’s too hung over to be sane, apparently.

Clarence Thomas Is a Long Shot for President, But His Candidacy Makes a Lot of Sense
by Adam Winkler | The Daily Beast | Feb 26, 2012

. . While Christie and Bush might be fine candidates, perhaps the Republicans should consider a more inspired and game-changing pick: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Who thinks this is a good idea? Other than Adam Winkler and a couple of poo-flinging bloggers? If you’ve seen interviews with Thomas, you know what a hump of clay the man is. Phlegmatic, intellectually incurious and self-regarding, Clarence is more donkey than dude.

Thomas as a politician would be a hilarious flop. The guy’s currently got a gig where the opinions of others hold absolutely no sway over his well-being. No matter what anyone else thinks, he can’t be fired. It’s the easiest gig in the world for anyone with a point of view. And he hasn’t said a syllable in six years.

I would love to see Thomas try to convince anyone of anything, ever.

. . Thomas is outgoing and charming off the bench. When he was on tour promoting his autobiography, he easily engaged audiences with his wit, insight, and willingness to talk straight about his upbringing and the Court. About his refusal to ask questions, he’s drawn laughs by joking that his “colleagues should shut up!”

That’s funny? The other justices carrying their weight? No, that’s Thomas. He’s an ass. He’s a hack far out of his depth who’s been leveraging his mind-boggling good luck for gifts and glory. He’d be beyond stupid to resign his position just to become the latest and greatest 2012 Republican embarrassment. And while we’re talking dumb:

Mitt Romney Is a Canny Politician Doing What’s Necessary to Survive the Primaries
by Lee Siegel | The Daily Beast | Feb 26, 2012

Here’s an outrageous proposition. The Republican primary race is not chaos, or a clown show, or a travesty of the political process. It is going exactly as it was meant to go.

Here’s another one. Mitt Romney is not a stumbler, or a bumbler, or a fool. He is a shrewd man painstakingly making his successful way through a complicated situation.

Yes, it’s going predictably well, isn’t it? What gainsaying bullshit.

Share

The rise of Newt brings out the right-wing knives

Someone isn’t exactly happy with the Gingrich-ian weather:

The Democratic Party? The Committee for Marriage Fidelity? Tiffany’s accounts receivable? Nope – Ron Paul. More:

A few of Newt Gingrich’s… Not-So-Greatest Hits:

. . In 2007, he accused the Bush administration of fighting a “phony war” on terrorism, and declared “a more effective approach would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil.”

In 2008, he hailed John McCain’s efforts in the crafting of the TARP legislation:

“Gingrich put out a statement hailing McCain’s eleventh-hour intervention. ‘This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, I will go to Korea.’ Eisenhower’s pledge was enough to reassure voters that if elected he would find a way to resolve the Korean conflict. McCain’s high-octane involvement in the bailout is meant to convey the same sense of stature and leadership, and to provide cover to reluctant Republicans to support a deal that runs counter to everything they thought they stood for.”

Mother Jones? Nope – National Review.

Share

I have here a letter from Newt Gingrich to you the voter

Let’s be honest: I’m not the smartest man in the GOP. Hell, I’m not the smartest guy on my block. I’m really the opposite: an idiot, a fool. Stupid to a fault. Dumb to disgrace. I don’t know how I manage to survive day to day in my position: the ‘intellectual’ in the anti-intellectual party. It should be a cakewalk, but then nothing in my life ever goes right.

My marriages: failures. My speakership: terminated from within. Though I’m 68 years old, what’s my legislative legacy? Nothing anyone can remember. I haven’t had a real job in years, and the last time anybody voted for me, “Touched By An Angel” was a hit on TV.

I’ve been working the seams of respectability ever since. Those History books? Flights of fancy, written by my partner. Those political manuals? Full of absurd ideas no credible politician would consider. Believe me, I know because no one has implemented a policy idea of mine in 30 years.

And why should anyone take me seriously? After Republicans elected me Speaker of the House, I shut down the government and quashed the GOP’s popularity, getting Bill Clinton re-elected. In 1997 I became the only Speaker in U.S. history to get disciplined for ethics violations. In 1998, while carrying on an affair of my own, I pressed the Monica Lewinsky scandal and lost seats in the second midterms. The opposition party hadn’t been beaten like that since 1822. My party had no choice, they had to fire me.

So now I’m a citizen politician. But I may be even worse at that: I never manage to appear sober or sane. I recently told Fox News that America should shoot down a North Korean missile with a ray beam. I claimed “President Eisenhower had a rule that Presidents of the United States went to the meetings after success had been assured,” but Ike never said that. I made the official motto for one of my right-wing operations “Real Change Requires Real Change.” I know, I’m stupid.

I warned of Obamacare: “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years.” I forgot I had served under Bill Clinton. I said the current administration posed “as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” But they hadn’t murdered anybody. Targeting the opposition, I came up with this: “We have to decide we’re going to replace the left.” Sounds good doesn’t it? Has anyone ever come up with a better plan? I don’t think so.

Though I’d been long thrown out of government, I had the balls to tell Donald Rumsfeld to create a Soviet-style propaganda unit for the Pentagon. On the wars, I advised him “Those trying to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine should simply build lists and brief reports on every impediment to effectiveness and every tool and system they wished they had.” Had anyone thought of that before? Who knows? Rummy never called back.

Turning my analytical powers upon the president, I stated “The best way to understand Obama is in the historic tradition of anti-colonialism . . only if you understand Kenyan anti-colonial behavior can you begin to piece together . . the most accurate predictive model for his behavior.” Of course, I also said “Honeymoons in space will be the vogue by 2020.”

So I’m a joke, a clown, a fraud, a hack. An apparition of towering self-regard erected despite seven decades of failure (btw — my 1.3 million Twitter followers? Fakes. I contracted a firm to generate them.).

And yet, America . . here I am. KICKING YOUR STUPID ASS:

“You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly . .”

Ha ha ha ha . . .

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid . . these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash . . they’d begin the process of rising.”

When I’m president, I will shift jobs to middle school students. I will build an America of child labor, zombie unemployment and teen illiteracy. See? I’m stupid.

Share

Rick Santorum demands he no longer be anal lube + fecal matter

Final score . .

Dan Savage: 1. Rick Santorum: 2.

Santorum claims his ‘filthy’ Google results ‘have an impact on the country’
Kase Wickman | September 20th, 2011

. . Sex columnist Dan Savage famously campaigned to redefine the then-senator’s name in 2003. Nearly a decade later, the effects of Savage’s prank remain: the top Google result for “santorum” is spreadingsantorum.com, which defines “santorum” as “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.”

Rick’s known about this for years, Dan epically pranked him. Call it a flit-er bombing.

But Frothy is upset now? His campaign’s tanking, I take it.

“I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it,” Santorum said. “If you’re a responsible business, you don’t let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country.”

“To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can’t handle but I suspect that’s not true.”


Through their website? Their system? Google doesn’t own the intertubes, Rickie. They merely monitor the traffic. And of your claim that the paramount and butt-centric ‘santorum’ has a negative “impact upon the country”? I am reminded of Artie Ziff, after a prom-pawing of Marge Simpson:

“Marge, I would appreciate it if you didn’t tell anyone about my busy hands. Not so much for myself, but I am so respected, it would damage the town to hear it.”

Reasonable readers would assume the former senator is moronic, but he’s merely Medieval. In February, he allied his campaign with The Crusades. Seriously:

Rick Santorum launched into a scathing attack on the left, charging . . that the history of the Crusades has been corrupted by “the American left who hates Christendom.”

No moron would take sides.

Share

Rick Perry trots out global warming denialism, rank scientific ignorance

Here’s no surprise: Republican Rick Perry will campaign for president as a global warming denier. Here he was yesterday addressing a group of New Hampshire businessmen:

“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”


The only thing you could commend of this statement is its professional demeanor. This is as slick a denial as you’re likely to get from a major Republican. It’s right out of the professional denialists’ playbook:

1.) Call the science politicized (hint at the CRU e-mail hacking).
2.) Hint that the scientists are greedy and opportunistic.
3.) Say the broad consensus is fractured and weakening.
4.) Appeal to morons: the weather changes, duh.

Meanwhile, the facts remain: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there’s a lot more of it around, and the heat is rising. The overall trends of decades and centuries, the stone-cold facts, cannot be reversed by even the slickest rhetoric.

Perry’s statement is particularly striking given that so much Texas farm and cattle land have been turned into Arabian desert this year by seemingly permanent, searing heat. If ever there were a demonstration of what Texas could become without our taking climate change seriously, this Summer is it. Lastly:

“I don’t think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.”

You want a scientific ‘fact’? Try this one: the overall theories of large-scale phenomena are never ‘proven.’ Too much of them remain permanently hidden from the sorts of views (e.g. actually seeing it occur) to allow scientists to say, “The theory is officially proven.”

The Theory of Gravity hasn’t been proven. No one’s seen a graviton, nobody’s discovered a gravity wave — gravity interactions are still deeply mysterious things. Yet, gravity continues to function in a completely predictable way. We have so much confidence in gravity that we successfully sent men to the moon and back.

Perry’s lack of science understanding is predictably dismal, and it puts him in common company with the anti-Evolutionists and regressives in his sad party. Count on him using ignorance to his routine political advantage in the coming months.

Share

The only Herman Cain video you’ll ever have to see

You gotta love presidential candidate Herman Cain just a little. He’s got no shot at the Republican nomination, he’s loony as a craphouse rat, and he knows nothing of politics, statesmanship or governance.

Nonetheless, he keeps swinging away. Swinging straight for the fences. It’s almost charming how he figures he’s about to hit a medicine ball into a volcano. It warms the heart that he just can’t accept strike thirteen. Game’s over, lights out, buses gone, fans asleep, and Herman’s spitting on his hands and digging in. Good for you, pizza man.

Now speaking of and in silly metaphors, did you see the Republican debate Thursday night? God no, me neither. But somebody at New York mag did, and they noticed a funny thing of Mr. Never Say Die. Herman has worked the theme song from Pokemon 2000 into his campaign spiel. No kidding. A kid’s feature cartoon. Here it is:

“Life can be a challenge.
Life can seem impossible.
It’s never easy when so much is on the line.”

I got a major chuckle out of that when I read the post. After everything Bachmann and Palin and Gingrich have already said and done, now we get this? Funny.

So I went and double-checked it, and sure enough, it’s true. Herman’s philosophy doubles as the opening lyric from Donna Summer’s theme for a Pokemon movie back when Bill Clinton was president. Herman Cain has been quoting, if not living by, the immortal words penned for perhaps the shittiest Japanese cartoon ever. The best part? HE HAS NO IDEA WHERE IT CAME FROM.

Well, that’s good enough for me. A little YouTube trolling and a few video edits later, I present to you . . this. The only Herman Cain video you’ll ever have to see. From your blog pal, me. Enjoy.


Share

That’s why God and Michele Bachmann never apologize

Finally got around to reading the New Yorker’s sketch of Michele Bachmann by Ryan Lizza. It’s pretty much what I figured, only more nauseatingly so.

Her Jesus Dominionism acts like scuba gear for her brain. No life-giving oxygen exists outside of it. God has charged Bachmann, et. al, with eventual total control and power over the planet, over its fitful manifestations and crawling inhabitants, and that includes you.

That’s why she’s never too concerned with media questions about actual facts and figures and accompanying reality. Those things are merely niggling details of His grand design. And since the real story is that God wants her in charge of everything, why should she bother with details? It’s like a parking attendant barking at a CEO about not knowing how many cars fit in the company lot. Who cares? I run the joint, shut up already.

To detail this point, take a gander at this bit from Lizza’s article. This comes from J. Steven Wilkins, an evangelical writer and historian that Bachmann is a huge fan of. Quoting from an autobiography of Robert E. Lee, Lizza highlights Wilkins’ view of slavery:

African slaves brought to America, he argues, were essentially lucky: “Africa, like any other pagan country, was permeated by the cruelty and barbarism typical of unbelieving cultures.” Echoing [John] Eidsmoe, Wilkins also approvingly cites Lee’s insistence that abolition could not come until “the sanctifying effects of Christianity” had time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom.”

Utterly denying that slavery acted as American serial killing, Wilkins (and Bachmann) prefer the view that it was a providential practice meant to move Earth closer to a total Christian Dominion. Black African folks were as un-Christian a people as you might find, so consider slavery to be a purgatorially historic necessity.

“Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.”

One appreciates how well this ‘Christianing’ of the African pagans worked. Until, sadly, they were emancipated. That’s when the “companionship” inherent in the mutual “Christian faith” of the master-slave relationship broke down, and this was the predictable result.

Brutal. But there’s no other way to interpret a Domionionist view of slavery that refuses to condemn it as historic evil. Instead, Michele’s particular Christian view embraces it (and everything else that ever happened in American history) as part of God’s terrific plan. Now, on the campaign trail, she’ll have you believe she’s the heir to His American presidency. Don’t expect her to make any apologies for whatever gaffes she makes along the way because God makes no mistakes.

Share

Black Republicans also claiming slave children better off during slavery

Are we to be surprised? We are not.

At the beginning of this month, an Iowa values group called The FAMiLY LEADER composed a pledge they wanted all Republican presidential candidates to sign. It asked the candidate to be faithful to their spouse, to ban pornography, to attack gay marriage, and to do plenty of other silly stuff.

Once Michele Bachmann signed it, the pledge became a target for scrutiny. It included something like an introduction which sought to provide the basis for the oath’s existence. In it, bloggers (and others) were dumbfounded to read this:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

I smelled a sizable rat, so I decided to research that claim. But, hey, why bother? Here’s why:

. . this ‘fact’ is no trivial matter, for a couple of reasons: 1.) it’s the sort of incendiary thing right-wingers love to memorize and then hurl at you to derail an argument 2.) it’s the first ‘fact’ TFL uses to build a case for the necessity of their marriage-obsessed pledge, as if:

‘This is how bad things have gotten, you see? Black kids used to have parents during slavery, but not any more. Won’t somebody please think of the children?’

So I vetted their ‘research.’ The claim was a huge lie. The footnoted report never made any claim about the family lives of slave children. It made no claim to know anything of African Americans before 1880. More obviously, it’s entirely possible that relevant research on the life-quality of slave children doesn’t even exist. They were not citizens, not part of culture, not part of society, and wouldn’t likely have been offered up by their paranoid ‘owners’ to early sociologists for study. They were nothing more than property, like chairs, or horses.

Why the right-wingers thought they could deceive reasonable people with a shocking, illogical claim by merely footnoting an unrelated bit of small-college academia, I don’t know. The whole thing is outrageous, and not a little disgusting, in pretending to lecture people on racial unknowns that insult modern day families and society.

I wrote up the post, here, and plenty of people read it. Job done, bunk debunked, case closed.

If only. No more than three weeks later, just as I predicted, the ‘slave children’ bullshit again rears its racist head:

Star Parker now swears it’s true. Shame on you, Star.

Share

President Rick Perry mis-blasts NASA loser Barack

Woo-hoo, space fans. Don’t no prezdints mess with His Prissy Pants, Rick Perry.

As America bids farewell to the space shuttle era on Thursday, likely presidential candidate Rick Perry appears none too pleased with the Obama administration, accusing the president of “leaving American astronauts with no alternative but to hitchhike into space.”

In a sharply worded statement issued by the governor of Texas — the state is home to the Johnson Space Center — Perry charges that the Obama Administration “continues to lead federal agencies and programs astray, this time forcing NASA away from its original purpose of space exploration, and ignoring its groundbreaking past and enormous future potential.”


Quote the President:

“…we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle’s chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle — after nearly 30 years of duty — will be retired from service.”


So the shuttle got retired this week. Not that George W. Bush now cares about it any more than he did in 2004.

Share

Complete bullshit: Bachmann ‘pledge’ that claims slave children more likely to be raised by Black parents

Yesterday, we ran into an Iowa values group, THE FAMiLY LEADER, (couldn’t find a less obnoxious name, boys?) by way of their trying, successfully in Michele Bachmann’s case, to get candidates to sign on to an atavistic ‘pledge.’ Among the highlights of the 14 points candidates would avow: gays are hegemonic evil, they’re prone to pop or explode, gay marriage provokes lions, and straight marriage is an orgasmatron.

Also, pornography something ladies something something innocence. The pledge makes a candidate promise to ban all porn (I can barely read this), so the ‘ban’ is now a Bachmann campaign promise. She will ban all pornography.

This is an interesting development for many reasons but most immediately because, as many of the porn-familiar community are aware of (yes, me), Conservatives are the biggest consumers of online porn. ‘Whither the Bachmann campaign?’ I wondered. Who knows.

Others who read the pledge found their bits of interest. Cheryl over at Jack and Jill Politics, offering ‘A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics,’ came across something:

Michelle Bachmann Signs Pledge that Says Black Children Better Off During Slavery
Cheryl Contee (Jill Tubman) | July 8 2011

. . It’s got some pretty rigid-sounding stuff, but there’s also this extra-special piece:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive.

No shit. Thanks to Cheryl for pointing it out. And this ‘fact’ is no trivial matter, for a couple of reasons: 1.) it’s the sort of incendiary thing right-wingers love to memorize and then hurl at you to derail an argument 2.) it’s the first ‘fact’ TFL uses to build a case for the necessity of their marriage-obsessed pledge, as if:

‘This is how bad things have gotten, you see? Black kids used to have parents during slavery, but not any more. Won’t somebody please think of the children?’

You get the drift. So, when I read Cheryl’s piece, I wondered if the ‘fact’ weren’t bunk. Slave owners held no interest in keeping families together, so it’s a counter-intuitive claim. Plus, I couldn’t imagine there’d have been any census-style records of non-citizens, or fractional citizens, as far as what family members lived with whom in what shack.

So I checked it out, and it’s pure bullshit. The pledge specifically references this scholarly work to support their claim:

The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans
A Comprehensive Literature Review
Authors: Lorraine Blackman, Obie Clayton, Norval Glenn, Linda Malone-Colon, and Alex Roberts

I’ve got no qualms with the academic work. They seem to be a group of “family scholars” at small institutions who take their charge seriously. The real problem for TFL is that the work never once addresses Black family structures, tendencies or traditions before 1880. Even the information from 1880 is a surprising source as far as being available and useful for the aims of investigators’ study, as they themselves note. But that’s where the data end, and for good reason. Before 1865, most Black people were property. So the TFL’s claim to know how slave parents raised their children in 1860 is blatant crap, completely made up, a bald-faced lie.

Worse yet, when the work does address the issue of slavery, it’s in the opposite context; slavery is a heinous, destructive force in the realms of family health and marriage. Page 10:

Some scholars have focused on understanding why marriage rates are low among African Americans. They have noted that the practices of slavery, as well as subsequent poverty and discrimination, have cultivated conflictual gender relations and undermined the formation of stable, married-couple families in the African American community.

Over and over, page 45:

Ultimately, these problems likely have deep roots in the unique, sometimes traumatic, historical experience of the African American community. Orlando Patterson has eloquently argued that slavery and Jim Crow scarred male-female relations among African Americans in ways that continue to shape current marriages — particularly in the ways that slavery denuded Black men of their proper role as husbands and fathers, fostered promiscuity, and wove violence and domination into the fabric of male-female sexual relations among Blacks (and interracial relationships).

Again:

This cultural legacy, and the unique sex ratio of African Americans, may help explain why studies suggest that infidelity, domestic violence, and mistrust of the opposite sex are particularly salient problems in the African American world, even after taking into account the effects of economic factors. In Patterson’s words, “The nation as a whole, and Afro-Americans in particular, are still paying the ethnocidal price of slavery and the neo-dulotic Jim Crow system.”

So you can see the truth. It is atomically outrageous, disingenuous and insulting to foist the idea of slavery-era families being superior in any way to contemporary African-American families. If that wasn’t immediately and painfully obvious, the fact that their own footnoted research blows the idea out of the solar system suffices.

THE FAMiLY LEADER amount to hypocritical propagandists, willing to denigrate anybody’s truth, history or culture for their own cynical purposes. They’re disgusting, and Michele Bachmann is welcome to them.


update: TFL have taken a lot of heat over this ‘slavery’ assertion in their pledge, so they’ve removed it.

“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man,” the group’s officials said in a statement. “We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”

Not that they’re any wiser:

“We came up with the pledge and so we had no idea that people would misconstrue that” [director of public outreach Julie Summa] said. “It was not meant to be racist or anything. It was just a fact that back in the days of slavery there was usually a husband and a wife…we were not saying at all that things are better for African-American children in slavery days than today.”

Amazing.


[note: paragraph nine edited for clarity]

Share

Holy fay! Michelle Bachmann’s husband is GAY! A gay man!

It’s sooooo perfect. It doesn’t get better than this, karma wise. Dr. Marcus Bachmann, husband of the surging whackjob ultra-Conservative homophobe and presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann, is a homosexual. He’s gay. A queer boy, a homo.

How do you like that? Holy Minnesota Minnellis. I was just wondering about the reclusive guy when I clicked on the video at Crooks and Liars. It’s only an audio clip, but that’s all you’ll need. Just listen to Marcus speak. Here:

I got as far as “Barbarians need to be educated” before I fell out of my chair. I pictured him with his hands on his hips and stamping his feet.

The best mimics in the world can’t reproduce that sound — that’s the sound of authentic GEH. And god bless that poor man, what a difficult life he must lead. If, like me, you’ve wondered why we’ve never seen or heard from the Bachmann spouse while Michele’s polling as high as second in the 2012 presidential campaign, there’s your giant, lisping answer.

As obvious as it sounded to me, I didn’t imagine I’d be the first person to figure out Dr. Cochmann’s real identity. And I wasn’t:



“If Mrs. Michele Bachmann thinks she’ll ever become president with Ms. Marcus Bachmann as her husband, well . . she’s got another thing coming.”

Now we know why Michele’s so reality-challenged: it’s a coping mechanism. We also know why Marcus ‘fixes’ the gay people: he’s an expert. He fixed himself. You ignore cold, hard reality at your own peril, freaks. No Oval Office for you.


add: More comments on the video:

–”This is my first search about gay anti gay Marcus Bachman and as a gay man my gaydar is singing like Jo Anne Worley WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.”


bonus plus: The ‘controversy’ ends. The matter is settled.

Cher saw the Marcus Bachmann video last night:

Share
Next