Explaining our stupid elections

In recent months we've seen the debut of new election campaign strategies. Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle is taking a page out of Sarah Palin's book by not appearing on any network or allowing any media access to a journalist that will ask a hard question or not allow her to nakedly fund-raise on air. Ran Paul learned the lesson of allowing media access when the discovered that when he stated his positions near any type of recording device, they tended to make people angry. He has since remedied that situation with a media blackout.

Soon our elections will be conducted with voters only allowed to know the name and party of a candidate, with only a headshot providing the remaining information we're allowed to know. We'll make our decision on whether or not the name is cool and whether we think the person is properly dressed and has a good enough haircut in the photo. Like the founding fathers intended.

Much in this same line is Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who yesterday took to the airwaves and responding forcefully to the suggestion that Republicans should be forced to articulate some actual policy ideas instead of "Democrats want it? No."

KING: So, It’s a combination of being against what Obama is for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for. Having said that, I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.

That's right, the GOP can't release a policy platform or series of proposals for what they'd do if they win the upcoming election, otherwise the jerkoff media might go and make the proposed governing of this country a campaign issue. You know instead of what the GOP thinks an election is supposed to be about: bland statements about how things are going to be different, hoping no one remembers the fact that their policies, governing, and obstruction put the country in the deep hole that we're struggling to get out of now, finding an ethnic, socio-economic, or political group and blaming them for all the ills of the world, REPEAL EVERYTHING~!, and never articulating a thought that could be criticized once people understood what it would do to the country.

Great. Ah well, it's not like the coverage of those imaginary issues was going to be intelligent or enlightening anyway. Onward to voting on names, looks, and party affiliation. Whoo! America!

Electric earth

Gophers. I hate them, you hate them, we all hate them. Tunneling in here, taking our jobs. By gophers I mean Mexicans. They tunnel in here too, right? I'm not sure. I think I may have mixed up a racist metaphor here. Maybe I need Rand Paul to explain other similarities between underground dwelling tunneling mammals and Mexicans looking to cross the border, otherwise his new suggestion for the border doesn't make much sense.

Republican Senatorial candidate Rand Paul wants to build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a rather ho-hum proposition in the larger context of conservative ideas -- except that Paul wants that fence to be electric and he wants it built underground.

Among the variety of proposals to stem illegal immigration along the southern border, the construction of an underground electrical fence appears to stand alone on the extreme. ... Indeed, when approached in the halls of Senate several weeks ago and asked about the idea (though not told who proposed it), National Republican Senate Committee Chair John Cornyn (R-Tex.) assumed it was a joke.

"I have not heard that," the Texas Republican said. "Underground? What would happen? How would that work?"

That's actually a good question and one that Paul's campaign won't answer. His website says only the following: "My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border." The details of how it would be built, what it would take to make it work and how much it would cost are left unanswered.

Surely this is all just a massive misunderstanding over a typo. Surely he means an electronic fence. Something that monitors the border... electronically. Not some sort of fence that shocks people if they touch it... only buried underground. No? He repeatedly mentions it on his website and in public? Whoo boy.

Alright, I'm no electrical expert. I'm only tangentially related to a couple of electricians (father and brother). But the way I understand electricity, other than the fact that it involves high tech lighting bolt capture and that elves force it out the magic holes in our walls, is that it involves this concept called "Grounding". Wherein there are means and methods employed to prevent contact with dangerous voltages if electrical insulation. There are many ways to "ground" an electrical system, but they all stem from the fact that the physical ground, aka dirt, is a zero voltage conductor that can absorb an near limitless amount of current. In other words: you can't fucking electrify the ground no matter how many fences you bury underneath it.

You would think a doctor, no matter if it is one who certified himself, would understand this. Nope. He wants to spend at least a billion dollars building the underground electrical fence in the hopes that the pure force of his libertarian ideals will electrify the ground.... or in effort to stop what he must assume are a large number of Mexicans that tunnel in to this country.

Eh, I'm for it. It'll be a less egregious waste of money than most of the stuff we do. Plus it'll give us the moment where a bunch of technicians explain to Rand why his plan to bury fences and pump volts into the earth hasn't seemed to work on anything except the Southwestern Border Gopher and the moment where he rushes over to Google, types in "electric" then "electronic", slaps his forehead, and then says something like "Maybe.... we should.... increase the.... watts?" That's worth a billion or two, right?

Compassion

Right now unemployment is hovering around 10% and businesses aren't hiring. What's the problem? In his efforts to seem like the most self absorbed, uncaring prick not currently working for BP, Rand Paul decided to tell us what the problem was. Lazy peasants.

In an interview with WVLK-AM in Lexington, Kentucky on Friday, Paul told host Sue Wylie he supported the Republican filibuster last week of more than $100 billion in emergency spending that includes extended jobless benefits. Paul said the bill must be paid before the extension is voted into law -- and if that can't happen, it's time for America's unemployed to face facts and stop holding out for jobs similar to the ones they've lost.

"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," he said. "Nobody likes that, but it may be one of the tough love things that has to happen."

Paul also suggested that regardless of whether the benefits could be paid for with cuts somewhere else, it might be time for some people to just stop asking for government aid.

"I think the issue is bigger than unemployment benefits." Paul said, referring to government spending. "It's all about priorities, what is the priority. And sometimes tough decisions will have to be made."

Ah yes, because the main problem in this jobless recovery is that people are sitting at home, looking at dozens upon dozens of valid job offers and are saying to themselves "Weeeeeeeell, this doesn't pay me quite as much as I'm used to. I think I'll just choose to be unemployed longer. You know, because unemployment benefits are so generous." It's a matter of people sucking up their pride, not a matter of no jobs. And if anyone is qualified to tell them that, it's a rich Republican whose entire income is predicated on taking government money.

And really people, grow up and stop taking government handouts. Sure it way seem like a king's ransom living on welfare or unemployment, getting at most a couple thousand a year and barely being able to afford to live. But what's more important: eating and shelter or living by the libertarian code of principles that Rand Paul himself refuses to live by?

I think we've been taught an important lesson here: if you would just give up those government benefits and actually have a desire to work... which 10% of this country obviously doesn't, you'll get a job regardless of the hiring situation in the country or the state of the larger economy. Because of magic. Thanks for the tip, Rand. Good luck on your quest to use your father's name to move from government Medicare payouts to just a direct government salary. Boy, you're sure teaching all those lazy assholes out there a lesson.

Not getting it

Rand Paul isn't in the news a lot lately. Mainly because he decided to go hide in a ditch, only pop his head out for softball interviews on Fox, and has relied on the moribund and dying Kentucky newspaper business to help repeat all of that "The Civil Rights Act is for homos" thing he was caught up in.

But because Rand is a man who never wants to pass up a good "government and media are oppressing the average rich white man" jag, he decided that the perfect opportunity to insert himself back in the national debate was the whole Joe Barton apologizes to BP situation. Naturally.

Emerging from relative silence since his rocky general election roll-out, Paul stressed that BP "should be responsible for cleaning up" the mess it created. He did not explicitly address the role that government had to play in compelling the oil giant to do that.

"Lets not convict them before we give them a chance to figure out where the problem came from," Paul said.

Asked specifically if Barton should resign, Paul confessed to having no opinion, save to offer his sympathies once more.

"I'm not really in a position to know about what they should do to him personally. I do know what it is like to be piled on," he said.

No, no Randy my dear boy, you both know what it's like to be justifiably piled on. Everyone going "Can you believe this asshole doesn't like the Civil Rights Act?" was completely justified. Everyone going "Can you believe that asshole apologized personally to BP and BP's CEO during a government hearing on the massive catastrophe they caused?" was totally justified. You weren't being persecuted, you weren't being picked on, the nation and the media just looked at two idiots going virulently against common sense and decency and decided "Hey, let's give these assholes an easy brickbat beating. They deserve it."

As to your other point: we really need to wait for the verdict to come in on this whole BP situation? Really? What do you think an investigation is going to find? An elite strike team of Greenpeace ninja hippies scubaed down to the well and placed some C4 charges and granola at the base of the thing? Some group of rogue whales decided to declare war on the land people and their floating sea fortresses? Ghost possession? Alien conspiracy? Government squelching of the freedoms creating a psychic shockwave that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon? Nah, kid, nah. I think we can close the book on this investigation.

So Rand, next time you feel the need to stand up for the rights of idiots to not get criticized for moronic things they say or mean things the President says about a company comprised of shitbags, pause, take a breath, and step outside the deluded little Ayn Rand/libertarian bubble you live in. It'll save you a lot of piling on.

Raaaaaaaaaaandy

This post-primary period has been tough for Ran Paul. When everyone in the national media rushes to point out how childish your ideology is when it's said out loud and you have to spend all your time backtracking and assuring people that you want black people to vote, things aren't going great. Then the libertarians completely back away from you and Senate Minority Whip and fellow Kentuckian Republican Mitch McConnell starts intimating that you need to seriously consider shutting the fuck up and going away.

So what does one do to shore up these mistakes and prove your libertarian, Constitution loving bona fides? By advocating for insanely expensive methods of capturing Mexicans and opining how you'd love it if someone would pass a law that violated the 14th Amendment. Naturally.

I recently have been talking more about satellite observation. They say you can sit in front of the store here and a satellite can read the headline on your newspaper. So I think you could also monitor your border with satellites, and then you just have to have some means of intercepting people who come in illegally. You could have helicopters stations positioned every couple of hundred miles. . .

We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.

Hey nothing says libertarian quite like government agencies using spy satellites to direct surveillance and black helicopter brigades to anyone suspicious on the border. But it's nice to know that a man who admits to getting nude and rubbing himself down with the Bill of Rights and feels that before passing a piece of legislation Congress “should point to where in the Constitution they get the authority for it” has no qualms with passing a law that directly violates the Constitution. I just wonder what part of the Constitution he's going to point to when he tries to pass this "Fuck you, freeloading babies" Law. Maybe he'll fake a siezure or claim he was being asked "gotcha" questions.

I guess that libertarian/strict constructionist line of thought goes out the window when it either deals with issues that affect Rand himself or deals with Mexican bashing making it easier for him to get elected.

Ah, but we're talking as if gross hypocrisy and appearing to be a little bit racist against blacks and Mexicans is actually a negative in a Kentucky political contest. He's ahead right now anywhere from 3 points to 25 points. We at TB Industries look forward to Raaaaaaaaaaandy dragging down the intelligence level of the US Senate. We didn't think that was possible.

Sarah's back

If there's one you can say about Sarah Palin it's that she spends an awful lot of time needlessly barging into situations without ever showing that she knows why she initially felt the need to barge into said situation in the first place.

Take the BP oil spill, for instance. With the Obama Administration taking increasing criticism for letting BP handle the cleanup and spill stoppage ineffectively, the best thing to do would either be to let the pressure mount organically or dip in and deftly lay in a few intelligent shots. Or, you could loudly shout that Obama is in bed with Big Oil, try to claim that all of Obama's oil connections and oil money are clouding his judgment, and then try to build some bizarre case that the Democratic Party is the party of Big Oil. She does realize she's the former governor of Alaska, is in the Republican Party, and essentially pours oil on her pancakes each morning and eats it with a smile, right? Now to some, this all might be seen as "intensely and obviously stupid", but our minds do not work like the well oiled steel trap that is America's Dumb Rural Mom.

So when most of the GOP has started backing away from Rand Paul, mouths agape, marveling over the fact that he found a way to make the Republican Party look worse to black voters, what do you think Sarah Palin decided the smart thing to do was? Accuse the interviewer of prejudice and cloak easy, straightforward questions as the Machiavellian machinations of a malevolent media.

"One thing we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be," Palin said. "You know, they are looking for the gotcha moment. And that evidently appears to be what they did with Rand Paul..."

Hmm, yes. I think when America saw the interview they clearly saw that the agenda and prejudice was coming from the interviewer and was not wafting off the guy who just said he was cool with discrimination. And everyone knows that asking a question about Civil Rights so easy ("Civil Rights Act of 1964: Good thing?") that even the most embittered Klansman would know how to answer it on the TV, is just a cheap gotcha question much in the same vein as "What do you read?" "What is your foreign policy experience?" and "Is there something in your eye? You keep winking."

At least she added in a bunch of comments calling for stricter action on BP by Obama... which I'm sure will not come back to bite her in the ass when Obama takes stricter action on BP and she feels the need to decry the onerous pressure of the government on business. Ah well, at least it gives me one chance in my life to say "I agree with Sarah Palin". So, if any large chunks of the earth fall into the sea or the sky turns blood red, I'm sorry. She just happened to make a valid point, however accidentally, inherently dishonest or nakedly political it may have been. There's a first time for everything.

Quote of the day

So what do you do when you seemingly endorse repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, set off a firestorm, and have to walk things back so much that at the end of the day you are not only disavowing any connections you have to yourself, but you're seriously considering claiming you have a big tattoo of Martin Luther King high fiving Sojourner Truth across your back?

If you're Rand Paul, you criticize the President and stick up for BP in the midst of a massive ecological nightmare. Of course you do.

On Good Morning America today, Paul also steered the conversation toward something more recent, President Obama's criticism of BP following the oil spill. Paul said: "This sort of, you know 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

Paul continued: The President's reaction is "part of this sort of blame game society" where "it's always someone's fault." Paul added: "Maybe sometimes accidents happen."

"Accidents happen." That's one way of putting it. I'm no political expert, but maybe the best pivot point off of "Businesses should be allowed to discriminate. A pox on the Civil Rights Act" isn't "How dare the President criticize a corporation just because it's extreme negligence is causing an unprecedented environmental disaster." At least Rand took out time to also intensely whine about the criticism he received yesterday.

But, maybe we're being too harsh on Raaaaaaaaandy. As Orrin Hatch explained

“If I were you guys I’d give him a little leeway,” Hatch told reporters. “He just got elected. It’s a tough thing for him to get in the middle of this cauldron.”

Yeah, it's his first day on the job. How's he supposed to know criticizing one of the landmark bills in US history and openly endorsing the right to discriminate would make him look like an ass? C'mon, lay off.

I don't know, Rand, what's on tap for tomorrow? Feel a need to praise the Pope's handling of the whole child molestation thing? Opine on the sporting excellence of the Pittsburgh Pirates? Start an intensive discussion on all the good policy ideas Hitler had? Talk about the chilling effects the Emancipation Proclamation had on business; especially the cotton industry? Whatever it is, I'm sure you'll do it in your trademark smug, entitled style. Never pausing to actually think about how what you're saying sounds. Keep it up, Rand. We need a new punching bag now that Palin and Bachmann have seemingly learned to shut up.

Cheap Blogging Crutch - 5.20.10

Happy Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!

Hey, Internet, can you keep a secret? Good. I have something to confess. Remember a few days back when Miss USA won the scandalous competition after pictures of her pole dancing surfaced? I really should have mentioned it at the time, but I'm the pole. Yeah, I know, conflict of interest and such. But if you'd been me, would you have stopped her? Exactly. Envy me. And now, for delicious linkage:

As some five or six of you might have noticed, the World Cup begins three weeks from tomorrow. Given that most of our audience is American -- no, we haven't forgotten about our loyal following in Slovenia -- we wanted to pass along this handy guide from The Unlikely Fan, which translates the personalities and skill levels of all 32 World Cup qualifiers into easily recognizable American sports franchises.

Pennsylvania Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett has subpoenaed Twitter in an attempt to identify anonymous critics. We, for two, are shocked, SHOCKED that a state AG who, for purely political purposes, joined in baseless lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of health care reform turned out to be a thin-skinned prick willing to bend the law in order to intimidate and punish anyone who criticizes him. The best part? This awful jackass is going to force Matthew to vote for Dan Onorato.

Tea Party champion and enemy to balanced breakfasts everywhere, Rand Paul, won the Republican Senate nomination in Kentucky largely on his reputation as an enemy of federal spending and its overwhelming effect on our daily lives. That is, he's an enemy of federal spending unless cuts would take some of those juicy Medicare dollars out of his pocket. Yeah, that Libertarian streak always runs real hard... right up until its proponents have to apply it to themselves. I guess he's just not that big on the "hard parts of freedom," unless they're being endured by black people.

With all the recent oil spill coverage (ha!), Texas school board fuckery, and election news, the Catholic Church has been getting a bit of a pass on TheseBastards. First, we would like to apologize. Won't happen again. Second, we would like to point out that in Catholicism, if a Priest rapes and tortures innocent children, he is moved to another parish. If a nun at a Catholic hospital allows a woman to undergo a life-saving abortion procedure, she is excommunicated. Think if she'd raped either mother or fetus, they'd have let her stay on?

We leave you, on this glorious Thursday, with the best piece from this week's Onion.

Broken News: Rand Paul Unwilling to Articulate Alternative to Waffles

FRANKFORT, KY--Two days after trouncing Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the state's Republican Senate primary, upstart conservative candidate Rand Paul has begun to lay the policy framework for this November's election.

"My victory in this primary sends a message, loud and clear, to the breakfast establishment. No more will the American people tolerate batter or dough-based cakes cooked in a waffle iron to give a distinctive shape," said Paul at a press conference held outside his offices in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

When asked by one journalist if he was advocating wider ingestion of alternative breakfast foods such as cereal, pancakes, or perhaps an omelette, Paul grew visibly irritated.

"I'm sure the liberal media would love to paint me as an omelette advocate," sneered Paul. "But this is not about carefully considered logical alternatives to a dominant institution. This is not about building consensus around new and better ideas. This is about cantankerous politicking fueled by a vague, largely irrational opposition to an abstract idea. That is why the good people of Kentucky nominated me and that is why, come November, they will send me to Washington."

Of course this answer led to the question of whether this was part of a broader attack on the institution of breakfast itself.

"Look," Rand said, pausing to mark his place in the Fountainhead with his objectivist boner. "I'm not against the concept of breakfast; I've had breakfast many times before. I'm just against the government decreeing, with their oppressive food pyramids, that the morning shall be the time for these Belgian cakes and raisined brans. The hard part of freedom is allowing people to eat a grilled Reuben the second they wake up, not advising that they partake in eating a muffin or grapefruit wedge."

Rand closed by stating that he was not being an "self-absorbed, up-his-own-ass, navel gazing prick" about this to a disbelieving audience, before congratulating himself for his bravery in speaking out for his beliefs.

Stay classy, Rand

Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, is the GOP's candidate in Kentucky for their open Senate seat. Let's see, he's the son of Ron Paul, is named after Ayn Rand, claims to be a libertarian, and was elected by a combination of Paulites and fervent teabaggers. Gee, there's just so much to like there. I bet he's not an asshole at all.

INTERVIEWER: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.

Ah yes, he's so committed to freedom and the flag that he realizes that large parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need to be removed. But he's not racist. He hates racism. He just wants to strip huge chunks out of civil rights legislation so that people can be more free to discriminate on racial grounds.As he goes on to explain, sometimes in a free society we have to tolerate "boorish people". "Boorish people" being sixties era Southern racists. Wonderful people they all were.

Hey, no worries though. He's theoretically against racism and discrimination. Just tacitly against laws that do anything about them.

Hey, at least he didn't come off as a smug prick during a separate interview with Rachael Maddow where he expressed the exact same thoughts. Oh wait... At least there he had the class to reduce the struggle people went through fighting for civil rights as "not a very practical discussion" and a mere "philosophical debate". At least he realized his mistake today... talking to Rachael Maddow in the first place.

Stay classy, Rand. You and your "libertarian" tea baggers. We'll get those segregated lunch counters back, buddy. We'll get them back. Fuck those cripples too.