Bill Clinton might well be the top candidate for luckiest person of all time. The economy was so good that he got away with maybe the worst staffing skills in the history of the modern presidency, Dubya excluded. From making an insane neocon his first CIA Director, to appointing an FBI Director who spent his entire time in office investigating Clinton himself (and totally missing 9/11), to appointing a successor at CIA who was George Tenet, not so good. This is not to mention the likes of Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright, Alan Greenspan (twice), etc. Admittedly, some of these people were not first choices, like Reno. Regardless, here’s hoping Hillary Clinton takes Bill’s advice on staffing with a grain of salt given that the aforementioned first CIA Director is a Trump guy.

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

How is this appropriate in a civil society?

[Former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said:] “If Hillary wins, what’s our lot? … I say to you churches … we will see a heightened level of vindication coming out of a Hillary Clinton White House, where I believe there will be prosecutions for churches, for nonprofits, for anyone that opposes the Hillary Clinton agenda. Open your eyes.”  Bachmann warned activists at the Values Voter Summit in Washington that the U.S. “may not survive” another eight years of a Democrat in the White House. “It will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, one of the two, and just like the Book of Deuteronomy teaches us that: I have set before you life and death, which will you choose?” Bachmann said.

It’s stuff like this that really makes me furious.  Sure, Trump and the media are in a happy frenzy over the constant dribble of new Clinton email news.  But at least it has some shred of substance.  It speaks to an issue, it speaks to Clinton’s truthfulness and character.  Trump is perfectly within his rights to yell about it all day long.

However, when the conversation turns into “DEMOCRATS ARE HERE TO EAT YOUR CHRISTIAN BABIES AND BURN YOU ALL IN A LAKE OF DEMON-SPAWN HELLFIRE”, how are normal people supposed to react to that?  It poisons the well for everyone.  I don’t really have a cogent point to make — shit like this just infuriates me this much.

Share

Rep. Louie Gohmert, a man mainly known for regularly issuing genuinely unhinged quotations, questions the state of Hillary Clinton’s mind.

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

Remember when Tom Hanks used to play fictional characters?

Share
Lev filed this under:  

As many of you know, there is a select group of supremely despicable people whom I find to deserve not a modicum of respect, in life or in death.  People always gasp but, when prodded, always admit they have a list too.

Today, on this episode of I Dance On Your Grave, Phyllis Schlafly.  Thankfully, she finally died yesterday.

Here are some of her greatest hits.

Mrs. Schlafly’s pronouncements drove her antagonists to distraction, though they suspected that her biting language was calculated precisely to provoke their outrage. She said that “sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women” and that “sex-education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.” She called the atom bomb “a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God”…

In 1981, speaking at a Senate labor committee hearing on sexual harassment in the workplace, Mrs. Schlafly said that “men hardly ever ask sexual favors of women from whom the certain answer is ‘No.’ Virtuous women are seldom accosted by unwelcome sexual propositions or familiarities, obscene talk or profane language.”

Dirty office sluts.  And don’t get her started on feminists and women who claim to be raped by their husbands:

Last year, Phyllis Schlafly spoke on the campus of Bates College where , among other things, she “belittled the feminist movement as ‘teaching women to be victims,’ decried intellectual men as ‘liberal slobs’ and argued that feminism “is incompatible with marriage and motherhood.”  She then went on to top herself by claiming that a married woman cannot be sexually assaulted by her husband, saying, “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”

Also, too, Muslims:

Earlier this year, Schlafly’s Eagle Forum almost dissolved thanks to a civil war caused by Phyllis’s endorsement of Donald Trump for president. Even though her life mission has been to espouse family values, Schlafly is all in for Trump, mostly because of his plan to ban Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. (Many European countries have “let these Muslims overrun their country,” Schlafly said last month).

Oh, and lest we forget one of her favorite topics: Gays:

Schlafly said the purpose of same-sex marriage is to “wipe out the Christian religion…”  “I do think that the main goal of the homosexuals is to silence any criticism,” she said in 2013. “Most of them aren’t interested in getting married.”  Her other theory was that LGBT activists actually wanted to get rid of marriage for straight people…

Ahead of the Supreme Court ruling favorably on marriage equality, she called on governors to ignore the justices, who she said “think they’re God or something.” And after the ruling, she kept right on insisting “we don’t have to obey it just because a few judges said so”…

Schlafly was by no means focused exclusively on same-sex marriage, though. She ranted about sodomy — “a central feature of same-sex marriage” — and longed for the days when it was criminalized.

In her universe, I hope she’s correct about there being a Hell, so may she burn in it, for ever and ever. (It makes the Motorhead song doubly poignant, no?)

Share

The ’80s were so weird. Bob Dylan found Jesus and started singing songs about how going to the moon was a bad idea (and developing stage banter about how icky gay people were), and Neil Young found Reagan and writes unironic songs extolling the values labor unions. (Though Dylan also tried his hand at one of those. I think it’s one of his most underrated. Great chorus.)

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

I seriously don’t know why we Americans put ourselves through all this.

Share
{ 1 comment }
 

It’s easy to laugh at the New York Times‘s frantic rewriting of its Donald Trump story from yesterday evening. That red-line graphic is bound to become instantly iconic in some circles. But this is strongly revelatory. With Trump, there was every reason to be skeptical that he was sincere in executing his immigration “pivot”, not to mention whether it would be effective or convincing. As it turned out, the whole thing was (characteristically) yet another exercise in domination, with poor dope President Pena Nieto as the subject. To confer with the guy in the manner he did and then jet off to Arizona and give the sort of immigration speech that gives Jefferson Beauregard Sessions a stiffy is a massive joke at the Mexican President’s expense. This is strongly in keeping with how Trump has treated pretty much everyone outside of his core circle: dominance, humiliation. And yet, it was like a bolt out of the blue for some.

For the entirety of this campaign, the political media has had just the hardest time understanding Trump. First he was a sideshow clown enjoying a Herman Cain moment. Then he was certainly never going to beat handsome young Marco Rubes, because the party would never decide on him. Then after he won primaries, he became a superhero who could do anything, win over any voters. Then after he started tanking, journalists started looking for that pivot. To some degree this is groupthink: people trying to use the standard model of a politician to understand Trump. I can understand the power of entrenched habits, but after a certain point, when do you just drop all the models and try to understand the actual dude? How many times does he make a fool of you? It’s not like he’s a particularly deep or complicated person, in fact, the majority of people see right through him. The wages of departing from the values of empricism…

Anyway, there’s also this:

Francisco Goldman is reporting that the crime perpetrated against the nation of Mexico today is now being described in Mexico as the end of the PRI.

Well, we can always hope. To borrow Scott Lemieux’s shtick, the PRI are SUPERGENIUSES clearly. In any event, finding a comically stupid front to run your criminal enterprise political party can have its downsides…

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  
 

Your Vintners