Raddatz/Lehrer Debate a Draw, Undecided Voters Say

Moderator Raddatz.

ANN ARBOR, MI -- Last night’s debate between Martha Raddatz (ABC) and Jim Lehrer (PBS) at the University of Michigan’s Crisler Center ended in violence and drew sharp contrasts between each moderator’s moderating policies but left undecided voters unsure which moderator, if either, was the victor.

“I just felt that neither Martha nor Jim showed me what it really takes to moderate a debate that serves all the debate viewers, especially the moderates,” said Ann Bivalent, a self-described independent viewer from Cincinnati. “Is it better to be vague and somewhat dull, permitting the candidates to shape their own responses, or to be aggressive and detailed, keeping the candidates in line? I’m just not sure.”

Former U.S. Senator Bob Dole (R–KS), himself a veteran of debates in 1976 and 1996, moderated last night’s debate, but the opposing moderators wasted little time before directly confronting each other. Lehrer was first, about 5 minutes into the debate, when he asked, “Martha, how does your moderating style differ from mine?”

Moderator Dole.

Raddatz in turn hammered Lehrer for details on how much of his PBS Newshour budget comes from taxpayer dollars and how much is diverted from the marketing income from sales of toys, games, videos and other products related to another PBS program, Sesame Street.

Grinning, rolling her eyes, and shaking her head disdainfully throughout the 90-minute joint appearance, Raddatz asked, “Is Gwen Ifill eating out of Big Bird’s soft, feathery paw? Is this another case of Trickle-Me Elmo economics?” She also referred to one Newshour anchor as “Mrs. Woodruffupagus.”

“It’s all about mathematics, Jim,” Raddatz insisted. “Subtract x number of cookies from y number of cookies.”

Without waiting for Lehrer’s response, she addressed the camera, saying, “You see, folks? His subtraction just doesn’t add up.”

Raddatz abruptly cut herself off, saying, “Let’s move on to the next topic now.” Lehrer responded with a lengthy synopsis of his next “One-Eyed Mack” novel.

Dole repeatedly tried without success to get the moderators back on track, asking whether either or both would be willing to pledge to bail out Frito–Lay, the makers of Doritos™ Brand snack chips; and Pfizer, the makers of Viagra®, in the event of another economic crisis.

Overnight polling showed undecided voters evenly split, with 27 percent agreeing with the statement, “I feel that Martha Raddatz understands the needs of a viewer like me,” 26 percent agreeing with the statement, “I feel that Jim Lehrer understands the needs of a viewer like me,” and 47 percent undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 98 percent.

“Jesus H. Christ, what is wrong with you people?” Gallup Organization Chairman and CEO Jim Clifton said, in response to the polling results.

University of Michigan campus security officers report 86 injured and 3 dead in the mayhem that erupted at the Crisler Center immediately following the event. Raddatz and Lehrer are scheduled to debate 18 more times before election day.

Moderator Lehrer.

Read more!

Liberal Mob Demands PBS Cut Funding for Jim Lehrer

ARLINGTON, VA -- Minutes after the conclusion of last night’s debate between presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, an angry mob of liberal voters gathered here outside the headquarters of the Public Broadcasting Service to demand an immediate cut in funding for Jim Lehrer. The veteran anchor, 78, served as moderator for the debate.

Arlington police estimate that as many as 800 protesters surrounded the PBS building, blaming Lehrer for President Obama’s disappointing performance in the debate.

“When the economy is in trouble, there’s no reason the American people should pay for something they don’t need,” said one protester, Viva Maxwell of Silver Spring, MD, who carried a hastily made banner that proclaimed “Moderation in the Defense of Obama Is No Virtue.”

“Instead of asking Mitt Romney the toughest questions and ‘gotcha’ follow-ups to trap him in his lies and make the President look good, Lehrer let Mitt run around the stage and babble on without any kind of restraint,” said another protester, Charlie Henderson of Richmond. “He didn’t even ask about the 47 percent! Mother of mercy, what kind of moderator is he, anyway?”

The exit is that way, Mr. Lehrer.

“At the very least, Jim Lehrer should have punched Mitt Romney in the nose,” agreed Mack Einaeugig, of Georgetown. “What are my tax dollars paying for, if not for a debate moderator who will punch Mitt Romney in the nose?”

As protesters linked arms and sang “We Shall Overcome,” a McLean woman, Mrs. Billie Joe Hallson, surveyed the scene.

“I just hope that cutting funding for Jim Lehrer solves the problem,” Mrs. Hallson told reporters. “I mean, what if he isn’t to blame? What if President Obama just had a crappy debate? What would become of us?”

On the bright side, at least we can say the Obama campaign was telling the truth when they said he’d be disappointing in the debate. We won the battle for low expectations!

Read more!

Why I Enjoy ‘Modern Family’

I admit I may be a little fuzzy on the details.

By W. Mitt Romney,
Guest Columnist

Ann and I were talking to our good friend Kelly Ripa yesterday, when she asked what my favorite TV show is. I gave her the same answer I always give: Modern Family, the popular half-hour documentary series on ABC, which is part of the Disney-ABC Television Group, owned by the Walt Disney Company, the largest media conglomerate in the world in terms of revenue.

Now, when I say that I enjoy Modern Family, some people are always surprised. I don’t see why.

After all, Modern Family has the word “family” right there in the title, and family is what makes this country great. Also, the word “modern” is a reminder that it’s important to keep up with the times, which I certainly do. Now, this is a time when Americans need to hear specificity from their leaders, so let me get specific about why I like this show. In many ways, this is the best reality series on TV today, showing how most Americans really live.

The Pritchetts are a lot like the Osmonds, really.

Modern Family is about the Pritchetts, who are solid middle-class Americans, earning upwards of $200,000 a year in this failed economy. Like most of us, they live in very, very small, very modest but comfortable houses in the suburbs, where the lawns are green and the trees are just the right height. All the Pritchetts have garages that are big enough for a couple of Cadillacs but no elevator.

The head of the family, Jay Pritchett, is a job creator of some sort, and he has a swimming pool. Not Olympic, but it’s a nice pool. His little dog sure does seem to enjoy it.

Jay lives with Gloria, his housekeeper; and her son, Manny. Now, Gloria and Manny are from Colombia, and I can’t understand anything they say, which is a little bit of a disappointment. While the show doesn’t go into specifics, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Gloria and Manny are in this country legally.

Slice of Life: Here, the Pritchetts’ housekeeper
serves the Sunday dinner.

Jay’s daughter, Claire Dunphy, lives down the street. She’s really not my favorite person on the show, I must say, because she can be a little too aggressive for my tastes. She drinks wine and she works outside the home, but she has three attractive children, and her husband, Phil, is a serious, down-to-earth guy who sells real estate.

After Jay, my favorite on the show is probably Cameron, who’s the very nice roommate of Mitchell Pritchett. Now, let me see if I can get this straight: Mitchell is Jay’s son and Claire’s brother, and he lives on the same street as the rest of the family. Mitchell reminds me of a boy I went to prep school with. He’s an attorney, while his friend Cameron is a nanny who looks after little Lily, a Chinese girl whose parents we never get to see.

Babysitting the little foreign girl: In a failed economy
like Obama’s, I guess her parents are too busy
to pick her up after work.

Some of you may say that being a nanny isn’t a very macho occupation, but don’t worry, because Cameron used to play football. Also, since he and Mitchell never even touch, I’m sure there’s nothing — you know — funny going on. I do hope Cam checked to make sure that Lily’s papers were in order! Usually you have to worry about whether the help is in this country legally, instead of the other way around.

Now, every week something goes wrong for some member of the Pritchett family or for Mitchell’s friend Cameron. Sometimes all at once! My goodness, that’s exciting. But the documentary crew manages to take it all in. And because Jay believes in the American way and the free-market system, because the Pritchetts don’t take handouts but do take responsibility, the family always manages to get through their troubles. Best of all: in the end, week in and week out, Jay knows best.

So that’s why I like Modern Family. I can’t always watch it as closely as I’d like, but it’s the best documentary show on TV right now. Things may get a little racy sometimes, but there’s no sex or violence. Modern Family tells it like it is.

For example, in these tough economic times, sometimes even single men have to live with roommates. You can see in this picture how lonely they are. But don’t worry! I’m sure Mitch and Cam will find some nice girls and get married some day!

NOTE: For those seeking a little more background, this article from the Advocate, entitled “Gov. Romney Didn’t Know Gay People Had Families,” may prove enlightening.

Read more!

Republicans Would Have Been Happy to Invite a Former President to Address Their Convention, If Only One Were Available

Some analysts say part of President Obama’s
post-convention “bounce” can be credited
to former President Clinton’s speech last week.

WASHINGTON, DC -- In the aftermath of the two nominating conventions and the wave of popular nostalgia that greeted a speech by former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, Republican political operatives now say that they, too, would have been pleased to invite a former Republican President to address their convention, if only one had been available.

“Say what you will about Clinton,” Romney campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told reporters, “he did serve two terms as President of the United States. That commands a certain amount of attention. Unfortunately, we haven’t had anybody like that in our party since Ronald Reagan.”

“George H.W. Bush served only one term, from 1989 to 1993,” agreed Romney speechwriter Lindsay Hayes, “though of course he’d have been a wonderful convention speaker. We’re very lucky to have run a video tribute to him in Tampa two weeks ago, and his son Jeb was terrific in his speech. But there’s just nobody else in the Republican Party today with the Bushes’ stature.”

At former President Bush’s advanced age, Hayes said, giving a major speech might have been too much strain. “We didn’t want to impose on him,” Hayes said. “And after that, we just didn’t have any other comparable figure to call upon.”

Republican nominee Romney: Forced to go it alone.

Analysts agree that, even a few years after a President’s term has ended, voters tend to overlook the controversies of the past — just as relatively few voters listening to Clinton’s speech last week focused on his impeachment or the scandals that plagued his administration. Almost any misstep, no matter how grave, is forgotten over time, analysts say.

“There’s an aura of success, even invincibility, that attaches to a former two-term President of the United States,” Fehrnstrom said. “The average voter sees that. It’s not as if we could ask Clinton to speak at our convention. I just wish we had somebody like that, but it’s as if we’re working from a slate that’s basically wiped clean. I mean, can you think of anybody else we could have invited to speak?”

“It’s about star power,” said Romney strategist Stuart Stevens. “Any former two-term President — Commander in Chief, leader of the free world, regardless of his politics — is an unbeatable star. Sure, you run the risk of upstaging your own candidate, which personally I feel the Democrats did this time. But there’s an immense potential impact we could have gotten from seeing any former two-term President endorse Mitt Romney, if only we had one.

“Wow, I wish Reagan were still alive,” Stevens added. “What a great speech he’d have made! Wouldn’t he and Mitt have looked great together? At least we managed to get Clint Eastwood.”

“Miss me yet?”

Read more!

The Good Wives

A wife’s testimony cannot be compelled as evidence in a court of law. But all bets are off at nominating conventions these days.

My fellow Americans, I am here to tell you a few things about my husband that he’s too modest to say for himself. You’ve just nominated him as your candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America — but you don’t know him the way I do. And let me tell you, if you were married to my husband, you would definitely vote for him.

My husband doesn’t like to talk about it, but he knows what hardship is. Yes, he’s suffered just like you. Worse than you, in fact. He’s had to roll up his sleeves and work for a living, using his bare hands to grab money out of other people’s pockets, stooping day after day in the backbreaking heat to pick up dollars that fell on the floor of the Stock Exchange. He’s gone hungry on cold nights when we were out of gluten-free pasta. He’s gone without sleep, worrying whether he remembered to take out the trash.

My fellow Americans, I promise you that, if you elect my husband, he will never leave the toilet seat up. That’s right. That’s the kind of man my husband is. And let me tell you a few more things about his domestic policies. He will never hog the remote. He will always let me pick the movie. And take it from me, my husband really knows how to satisfy a lady. That’s why this man should be your next President!

America cannot afford the failed politics of a man who is not my husband.

America cannot afford the kind of President who can’t handle my mood swings, my shopping sprees, my mother, my O.C.D. approach to housekeeping, and my inexplicable crush on Michael Bublé. I ask you, my fellow Americans, how can we expect our President to cope with a global economic crisis, or Iran’s nuclear program, or war in Afghanistan, if he’s the kind of man who forgets our anniversary?

Vote for my husband, and he will never forget my anniversary!

My fellow Americans, I want to tell you a little story that will tell you so much about my husband. Shortly after we were married, I decided to bake him some cookies. Now, they don’t teach you much about baking at Miss Porter’s School, but I knew that, as a political wife, these were skills I would need in the future.

Well, I got mixed up and added salt instead of sugar! We’ve all been there — right, girls? Do you know, my husband not only ate three cookies and told me they were delicious, he went right out without another word and gave the rest of those cookies to Grendel, the family dog!

That’s the kind of leadership America needs!

Finally, my fellow Americans, I want to share with you something that our adorable children said to me just yesterday. I was standing there in the Situation Room when they trooped in, all 3.5 of them. “Mommy,” the littlest said — she’s five — “we want Daddy to be President!”

I ask you, America. Can you honestly stand there and disappoint my children?

My fellow Americans, I ask you to vote for a great father, a great husband, and a man who is easily the best lover I’ve ever had! I love my husband, so you should vote for him!

God bless America, and God bless my marriage! Thank you!

Also, I really want a new house. Thank you.

Read more!

Disney Imagineers on Standby for Romney Speech

A prototype for the Romney 2012.
The beard tested badly with focus groups and was eliminated.

ORLANDO, FL -- Specialists in robotic technology at Walt Disney World resort here are on high alert as their most ambitious “audio-animatronic” creation yet, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, prepares to make his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in nearby Tampa.

“We’ve worked for years on the Romney 2012 model,” said lead “Imagineer” Roger S. Wathel. “Any kind of malfunction would be hugely embarrassing, both to Disney and to the thousands of American citizens who have voted for the prototype already.”

A team of top imagineers is standing by at the convention center now, ready to snap into action in the event of short-circuting, programming or audio failure, or mechanical breakdown at any point during Mitt Romney’s speech, Wathel said. “We’ve got our best people working ’round the clock to make sure the model remains as lifelike as possible.”

If elected, the Romney 2012 could stand
alongside these prior models.
Unless of course something goes worng.

Party leaders selected the Romney 2012 model after determining that flesh-and-blood candidates were too unpredictable, frequently straying off-message, disobeying orders, and making outlandish choices of running mate. The Romney 2012 “is a candidate every Republican can get behind,” Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus has told reporters. “This country cannot afford another four years of failed Obama policies.”

The stakes couldn’t be higher, Wathel confirmed, which has put tremendous pressure on his team. “We tried to warn the Party about setting expectations too high,” Wathel said. “Then what do they do but send out the Romney-A to ‘humanize her husband,’ as they put it. Thanks for nothing!

“[Disney Chairman and CEO] Bob Iger nearly blew a gasket when he heard that,” Wathel added, “and by ‘blew a gasket,’ I do mean ‘blew a gasket.’”

Read more!

GOP Convention Menaced by Giant Metaphor, Analysts Say

TAMPA, FL -- As the Republican National Convention gets underway here in Tampa, analysts report that proceedings have been threatened by a gigantic metaphor looming on the horizon.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” analyst Herman Eutik told reporters. “Seldom if ever has a political event in this country been menaced by a metaphor of this size and density. I have reason to believe the metaphor has the potential to disrupt the entire convention with massive outbursts of exegesis and commentary.”

Analysts disagree whether the metaphor represents divine disapproval of the Republican party platform; the Bush Administration’s failed response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005; the disenchantment of women voters; the End of Times; or the wrathful spirit of author Ayn Rand. Critics have advised conventioneers to remain calm, but convention organizers truncated the schedule of events to allow for gale-force deconstruction that could potentially overwhelm the Gulf of Mexico.

Aides to the Republican candidates, presumptive nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), insist that the metaphor is a reflection of four years of failed Democratic policies in Washington, the prohibitive cost of Obamacare, and “the objective force of our victory in November’s election.”

“This election is about authority, not ideology,” Romney told a rally in Pensacola earlier this week. “It’s my intention to make this country great again.”

UPDATE: The National Semiotic Service has downgraded the metaphor to a Category 3 Symbol. Area residents and visitors are advised to read all signs closely.

Read more!

Conventional Behavior

Listening to speeches, Chicago 1996.

NOTE: The sad fact is that my experience of nominating conventions hasn’t changed in the slightest since I wrote about them in 2008. After all, it’s not as if I’ve been to any political convention since 1996. But I’ve recently come across a cache of old photographs to illustrate my observations, and so by way of an update, I’m taking the most unusual step of quoting myself — at great length — as the Republican National Convention begins in Tampa.

There are few more reliably poignant reminders that I no longer work in broadcast news than the nominating conventions of the American political parties, which doggedly persist in taking place even though I’m not there to cover them. “Cover” is perhaps the wrong word to use, since it implies that news might actually be involved, which is only rarely and fleetingly the case. Dismayed by the mayhem of the Democratic convention in Chicago, 1968, organizers in both parties began to do their utmost to present to the nation a serenely polished spectacle in which very little would happen of interest to anyone on earth. News organizations continue to pour enormous resources into covering the conventions, however, in the fearful hope, or hopeful fear, that someone may slip up and do something significant.

Oh, the glamour! At work in one of the CBS News trailers
outside the convention space. Probably Chicago, 1996.

I attended five conventions, three Democratic and two Republican, in 1988, 1992, and 1996. At my side on all these excursions was Dan Rather, whose roughing up in Chicago in 1968 has come to symbolize both the mayhem of that week and the last gasp of newsworthiness at any convention. By the time I arrived on the scene, technology had advanced to the point that it was no longer necessary for Dan to wear an elaborate headset like the one he’d worn on the floor of the Chicago convention — but the sight of him in any headset at all was startlingly powerful. He was a television icon, like Spock in his ears or Matt Dillon with his pistol.

He used to roam the halls, greeting delegates and reporters alike with the cheery request to “Call me if any news breaks out.” People would chuckle, but he wasn’t joking. He was likewise serious when he’d say to me, “Take a good look around. This may be the last time.” He didn’t mean the last time for me, but the last time for the networks. Covering a convention is an expensive proposition, and though it’s a gesture of good citizenship, the rewards are few. As conventions get duller, fewer people watch. During my tenure, all three major networks cut back on the hours devoted to convention coverage, and all three cut back on personnel, too. The lavishness of it, by turns circus, parade, and Roman orgy, could not survive.

A winning ticket: WVM and Dan Rather, San Diego, 1996.

I’ve written before about the summer-camp excitement of attending a nominating convention. It’s not unlike a Star Trek convention, too, for we are brought together by a passion that others do not share, and we find thereby a community. We treat as major celebrities people who are not widely known to the general public (“Look, there’s Walter Koenig/Evan Bayh!”), we boast of our knowledge of trivia while speaking arcane languages (Klingonese/policy), we are encouraged to buy overpriced memorabilia (an authentic copy of a phaser/a Pat Buchanan button), and many of the conventioneers feel the need to wear strange costumes (Wisconsin cheese-heads being but one example). Having witnessed both ladies in action, I can assure you that the appearance on the dais of Nichelle Nichols or Barbara Jordan excited a precisely equivalent frenzy among their respective audiences.

At least Star Trek conventions are colorful. At the nominating conventions, our eyes are assaulted by red, white and blue — it’s everywhere — until we get headaches, and in more severe cases, we start to see spots. Pink, purple and green ones. We have regrettably little time to get to know the cities where conventions take place, though my glimpses of Chicago and San Diego in 1996 inspired me to linger through the weekend after each convention had ended, and to return several times on my own. We can’t get into the good restaurants, because big shots like Peter Jennings and Bob Dole got there first. For fear of a security breach, we can’t afford to hook up with attractive conventioneers — but fortunately, there seldom are any. Rob Lowe may have gotten laid in Atlanta in 1988, but I didn’t.

CBS News press rep Kim Akhtar and WVM join Vice-President Gore
in dancing the macarena, from the relative serenity
of the CBS anchor booth. Chicago, 1996.

I miss the conventions. I miss the speeches, which with only one exception (Buchanan in 1992) were incredibly, invariably dull. I miss the foolishness — I miss watching Al Gore dance the macarena. I miss the skullduggery, the wariness accorded to the politicos by the press, and vice-versa, while each side feeds voraciously off the other. I miss the pomposity and audacity (“The next president of the United States, Michael Dukakis!”), the eccentricity (“The great state of Missourah nominates… ”), the pageantry, the inevitable balloons. And I’ll miss it again this year.

I miss Frances Arvold, too. CBS’ late, peerless makeup artist
is seen here in the anchor booth at one of the 1984 conventions.

Read more!

Judge Head’s Other Worst-Case Scenarios

Judge Tom Head.

LUBBOCK, TX -- Lubbock County Judge Tom Head — 2009 recipient of the Judge Learned Hand Foundation prize for “Judge Named after a Body Part Least Likely to Be Described As ‘Learned’” — finds himself the object of national attention this week after hypothesizing about the possible consequences of the reelection of President Barack Obama. According to news reports,

“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N., and what is going to happen when that happens?” Head asked. “I’m thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.

“Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want ’em in Lubbock County. OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say, ‘You’re not coming in here’.”

Judge Head later complained that his remarks had been taken out of context, explaining that, as the county’s emergency management director, he is obliged to consider “worst-case scenarios” that would require response from the local government. These include — but are not limited to — tornadoes, epidemic, terrorist attack, and nuclear war.

Asked to share some of the other worst-case scenarios for which Lubbock County should prepare, Judge Head offered several examples.

One source of potential concern.

School board eliminates football program.
“This is just an example of the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that you have to do when you are the emergency management director. I mean, realistically, we know that there is absolutely no chance that the Lubbock I.S.D. is going to eliminate the football program. But if that were to happen, then I would work with the sheriff’s department, place the school board under arrest, and order the entire district under the direction of a well-armed militia and a couple of junior-varsity coaches. Among the civilian population, we would have to expect a certain amount of rioting and possibly armed retaliation, especially until we were able to get the word out that the football program would in fact remain in place, and so we would require security checkpoints, roadblocks, and a curfew of some sort.”

First Baptist opts for sprinkling instead of immersion.
“Obviously we would call in the National Guard, but limited air strikes might be necessary, also.”

That Whataburger over on Quaker Avenue closes.
“Immediately, it would be impossible to get a hamburger at 3 AM on Quaker Ave., unless of course you know somebody who’s awake at that hour who happens to have some hamburger and doesn’t mind cooking it up for you. But it still wouldn’t taste as good as Whataburger, probably, because you need the right kind of mustard. And if you didn’t know anybody who was awake, you might have to drive all the way over to 50th St. In such an event, I would recommend the immediate implementation of martial law.”

Election of a Democrat to public office.
“This requires different responses, contingent on the nature of the office in question. If it’s a local matter, then the sheriff would place the Democrat under arrest, I would declare the election invalid, and we’d hold a new election as soon as possible. If it’s statewide, then obviously we would barricade the county, arm every citizen who isn’t already armed, and secede immediately. I believe I’ve already made clear our policy in case of a national election. Ideally, however, you prevent this kind of situation prior to any election, maybe using voter restrictions or possibly some sort of elaborate redistricting.”

Bill Madison moves back to Texas.
“I don’t even like to think about the possibility of this one, but it’s my duty as a public servant to be prepared for any kind of emergency. What would happen is, you would see the rivers run red with blood and a great darkness cast upon the land unto the seventh generation. Children would be torn from their mothers, cattle would fall sick with murrain, and crops would wither in the fields. This would be a clear sign of God’s disfavor; there’s really no hope after that. So I would call on the sheriff’s department to distribute suicide pills to every U.S. citizen in the county who is able to provide valid identification. We’d probably have to let the Mexicans fend for themselves, poor souls.”

Truly, we love Lubbock: Susan Graham went to school there.

Read more!

Lady Parts Are Magic

By Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO),
Candidate for U.S. Senate,
Guest Columnist

My fellow Americans, I misspoke. As you may know, the other day I was talking with an interviewer about a topic in which I am expert: lady parts. I have made a great study of this subject. I know so much about lady parts — more than any lady I’ve ever met, I hasten to add — that I feel perfectly comfortable telling ladies what to do with their lady parts.

For example, if a lady becomes pregnant due to rape, then she should not be allowed to have an abortion. After all, in a legitimate rape, which is to say a rape that the lady doesn’t actually want to have, then she will not get pregnant, so she doesn’t need an abortion. And if she does get pregnant, then it means that she enjoyed herself, and actually wanted to have the rape, and so she ought to have the baby. It’s that simple.

Some of the greatest medical minds of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries are in complete agreement with me on this point. And I am not one of those politicians who disregard science. Far from it! As I told that interviewer, I have it on good authority that a lady’s lady parts can block an unwanted fertilization during an unwanted rape, because lady parts have a well-known magical ability to identify unwanted man parts. It’s also an equally well-known scientific fact that ladies do not get pregnant if they do not experience pleasure in the act of whoopee. You can look this up.

Moreover, we see the evidence every day, because it’s the promiscuous ladies who enjoy the act of whoopee who ask for birth control and abortions and who use their lady parts to control the minds of menfolk. Whereas righteous ladies who do not enjoy whoopee do not need to worry about getting pregnant, and they do not practice witchcraft with their lady parts. Do you see the distinction?

As a matter of principle, I do not feel that this nation should reward witches who abuse the magic of their lady parts. The righteous solution is righteous abstinence, not trifling with the sanctity of human life. If a lady doesn’t want to birth demon spawn, or a goat’s head, or anything of that sort, why then, it’s perfectly simple: she should not experience pleasure when she is forcibly raped.

I could not have more sympathy for ladies who do not enjoy rapes that they did not want. By which I mean that I tried to have more sympathy, but I could not.

Make no mistake, our contemporary society is sliding down a slippery slope, where married ladies accuse their husbands of rape all the time, even though all they’re trying to do is get a bigger divorce settlement. These devilish divorcing women cast a spell on judges and juries, making it so that rape seems like a potentially bad thing, and not the natural practice of submission to a man, as our loving God intended.

There are many other magical things that ladies can do with their lady parts, such as ruining crops, causing hailstorms and earthquakes, and running the U.S. State Department. But I will save that discussion for another day. My real purpose today is just to explain to you what I meant when I said what I said.

When you understand lady parts as well as I do, you will see that there’s no reason for all this fuss. Please remember to vote for me in November. Thank you.

Read more!

The Ryan Nomination

Mitt Romney’s selection of a running mate caught many by surprise. While Irene Ryan boasts solid conservative credentials — significantly better, in some regards, than Romney’s own — she is little known outside the rarefied stratum of classic television where she works. Also, she has been dead since 1973.

As a service to my readers, I’m pleased to provide this handy résumé of Ryan’s career and character.

Look out, Joe Biden! Ryan is a skilled debater
who does not concede a point.

While Romney is sometimes criticized for his stiff, awkward style on the podium, Ryan is nothing if not lively, especially after a shot or two of her famed Spring Tonic. Adroit at handling the press, she has been known to dismiss aggressive questioners by tossing them into the Cement Pond.

Especially lively when she’s had a little Spring Tonic.

Ryan is best known in Washington policy circles for a stubborn resistance to government intervention, and for fierce opposition to taxes (“revenuers”).

Although Ryan projects a working-class image, the candidate is in fact quite wealthy and enjoys especially close ties to the petroleum and banking industries.

Considered strong on family values.

A crack shot with a 12-gauge, Ryan is expected to win approval from the National Rifle Association. Having bestowed on herself the degree of M.D. (“Mountain Doctor”), her views of health care are somewhat outside the mainstream. And, as an ardent defender of states’ rights, Ryan believes that the Confederacy won the Civil War.

Clearly, the campaign just got more interesting!

NOTE: Some readers have wondered what I made of the Palin nomination, in 2008. Reflecting the perspective of my neighbors in France, that essay may be found here.

Read more!

Clinton Attacks Romney as ‘Sterling’

John Slattery as Roger Sterling

WASHINGTON -- In the latest example of Bill Clinton’s political cunning and the kind of thinking that’s made him the go-to guru for Democratic candidates, the former U.S. President today described former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as “sterling” — thus insidiously linking the presumptive Republican presidential nominee with the ethically challenged characters of TV’s Mad Men.

Romney had “a sterling business career,” Clinton told an interviewer on CNN.

“This is absolutely devastating,” political analyst and TV critic Philo Farnsworth told reporters. “Who uses that word, except when they’re talking about Mad Men? In a single phrase, Clinton reminded voters of all the reasons they find Mitt Romney creepy and definitely not trustworthy.

Romney with colleagues at Bain Capital.

“While seeming to contradict President Obama’s harsh criticism of Romney’s business record,” Farnsworth continued, “Mr. Clinton has in fact done the President’s reelection campaign a huge favor.”

Later, former President Clinton was overheard to say that “Ann Romney’s got a strong soprano,” a remark that Washington insiders widely interpreted not as an assessment of the candidate’s wife’s singing voice but an attempt to link her with the unsavory Mafia family depicted in the groundbreaking HBO series.

Read more!

Campaign Rhetoric Heats Up

With Mitt Romney now the almost inevitable Republican nominee for President, the general-election campaign is underway in the U.S., and rhetoric on both sides is heating up. Before a crowd of approximately 4,000 at a whistle stop yesterday in Ann Arbor, Romney unleashed his most direct attack yet on Barack Obama’s competence, declaring, “America can’t afford to reelect a President who splits his infinitives.

“Barack Obama makes us look weak and poorly educated in the eyes of the rest of the world,” Romney continued. “You’d never see the president of Germany splitting an infinitive, that’s for sure.”

Stung by the criticism, the White House fired back almost immediately. “The record is clear,” Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “This Administration does not often split infinitives, and Gov. Romney is simply out of touch with the real issues facing this country today.”

Asked for examples of “real issues,” Carney cited the ongoing debate over the use of the so-called Oxford comma, “one of the most divisive issues this country has faced since the Civil War.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

“At the same time,” Carney continued, “most American authorities see no problem with splitting an infinitive. Time and again, the Republicans are in denial about the science of grammar.”

Later in the day, the Democratic National Committee released video of Romney at a rally in Pennsylvania, just a few weeks ago, in which he is heard splitting the infinitive “to support.”

“Yet another example of flip-flopping by Mitt Romney,” wrote left-leaning blogger Linc Madison. “Maybe splitting infinitives is simply a practice he thinks is okay for wealthy white men, but not for everyone else.”

In other news, economists are now predicting a “spring slowdown” in the economic recovery, and the United States remains at war.

Read more!

Santorum Urges Return to Traditional Values of Witch-Hunting

GAYS MILLS, WI -- At a campaign stop just days before the winner-take-all Wisconsin primary, Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum today urged voters to “return America to its traditional values,” including “prayer in the schools, criminalizing abortion, and rooting out the practice of witchcraft wherever it may dwell.”

“For too long Democrats in Washington and the liberal media have ignored the problem of witchcraft in America,” Santorum told Wisconsinites. “The Bible instructs women to submit to their husbands, but more and more, across this country, you see women casting spells, flying through the sky, poisoning wells, dancing with Satan, engaging in strange sexual practices using crucifixes, and working outside the home.

“My fellow Americans, you and I recognize the real problems facing this country. The time is now and this must stop!”

Santorum with his wife, Karen, who he is “reasonably sure”
is not a witch.

Taking direct aim at his rival for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, Santorum said that only a true conservative — namely, himself — would have the courage to uncover witches and prosecute them “under a new law, which I will send to Congress on my very first day as President, that would make witchcraft a capital offense once again, just as it was when this country got its start.”

Santorum noted that, while Governor of Massachusetts, home to the infamous Salem Witch Trials, Romney “did not prosecute, neither did he instruct state officials to investigate, a single case of sorcery, curses, or pacts with Satan. While milk-cows went dry for no apparent reason, and hens stopped laying, and reports of a talking goat in Seekonk spread the land, Mitt Romney stood by and did nothing.

“As Governor, my opponent did not dunk a single woman in the pond! He did not even investigate accusations by forcing strange women to recite the Lord’s Prayer to see whether their tongues would burst into flames,” Santorum said. “For years, Massachusetts’ unusually high number of stocks and pillories have remained idle. And at no time has my opponent endorsed the practice of burning witches at the stake!”

“I guess old Romney was afraid that a good witch-burning might contribute to global warming,” one Santorum supporter told a reporter. “America as we know it will perish, our children will be sold into slavery, and our livestock come down with murrain if we don’t nominate a true conservative to defeat Obama and all the other conjurors and servants of Satan.”

The candidate seemed to agree. “This country cannot afford a President who is soft on sorcery,” Santorum said in conclusion. “This election is about nothing less than the future of freedom — freedom from women with power.”

“Even a Massachusetts liberal like Ted Kennedy once managed to dunk a woman,” Santorum told Wisconsin voters.
“Romney never has.”

Read more!

Backlash Ensues over Santorum ‘Blah People’ Remark

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum denied recently making comments about “black people’s lives” after receiving criticism for the remarks. Santorum took heat after saying, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

During an appearance on FOX News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor, he denied ever making the comments, saying the remark was the result of “a little bit of a blurred word.” “I looked at that, and I didn’t say that,” Santorum told O’Reilly. “If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — ‘blah’— came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t.”

-- from The Huffington Post

LITTLE BORES HEAD, NH -- Dull, uninteresting, run-of-the-mill, and downright mediocre people are up in arms following what they construe as “an unwarranted, frankly bigoted attack” from Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a spokesman for the League of Boring Voters, Herbert Velveeta, said today.

Since attempting to excuse what many interpreted as a racial slur, Santorum has been on the receiving end of a frothing wave of anger from protesters who dog his campaign appearances but who otherwise wouldn’t have the gumption to say “Blah” to a goose.

“We thought he was one of us,” Velveeta said. “He even wears sweater vests! But until we get an apology, we’re going to bang the humdrum loudly, I promise you.”

Blah voters are estimated to represent approximately 30 percent of the American electorate, said statistician Ludlow Ogden Schnorr of the Nebraska Institute for Statistics. “Blah Americans can be found in every community, every faith, and many lines of work,” Schnorr said, “including chartered accountancy, bookkeeping, cheesemaking, computer repair, and — this will surprise a lot of people, given how exciting the field is perceived to be — even statistics.”

Despite his near-victory in the Iowa caucuses last week, the chances of the former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania may be affected negatively by the backlash in the aftermath of his “blah” remark, but many New Hampshire voters said they had yet to see Santorum’s appeal.

“I’ve never believed that Rick Santorum shared the values of rank-and-file Blah Americans,” said Jane Smith, of Happy Valley, NH. “He’s always talking about sex. It’s like the man is obsessed. Have you seen his Google site? Disgusting!”

Read more!

Survey: Iowa Voters Ruining It for Everybody, Reporters Say

CLIMAX, IOWA* -- A new survey released just minutes ago finds that an overwhelming majority of news reporters believe Iowa voters are on the brink of spoiling the process for everybody.

“For months, we’ve been happily going about our work, predicting winners and losers, guessing at who’s ahead and who’s behind and what that means, without anybody casting a single vote,” Tess Harding of the AP told pollsters. “All that’s about to change. Thanks for nothing, Iowa.”

This morning’s survey figures showed reporters in agreement, with 29 percent in a comfortable lead over 17 percent. Among pollsters, a critical demographic segment here in Iowa, there was no clear winner, however, with 14 percent speculating, 12 percent predicting, 11 percent horse racing, 9 percent self-pitying, and 8 percent contemptuous.

“Clearly, this is one of the most exciting horse races we’ve seen so far in this election cycle,” Ann Mitchell of Politico said. “I’ve never seen so many horses! Also cows.”

“The volatility is astonishing, and the ‘anyone-but-Iowa’ segment just seems to careen from one rival to another,” the Des Moines Register’s Henry Connell said of the latest survey. “I don’t think you can discount the importance of the Tea Party-slash-Occupy Wall Street-style discontent among reporters here, which translates into an almost palpable restlessness and desire to throw the bums out. It’s neck-and-neck, hold-your-breath excitement here!”

Diz Moore of interrupted Connell, saying, “The really significant trend, however, is — oh, who am I kidding? Once Iowans start to vote, there’ll be nothing left to live for.”

According to today’s survey, 85 percent of political reporters overall demanded another survey, for old time’s sake, while a statistically negligible 4 percent preferred sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

This represents a marked shift from two weeks ago, when Iowa reporters favored “Jingle Bells.” Analysts say the trend away from Christmas carols reflects nationwide preferences among other analysts of analysis.

“Before today, basically, we could make it all up — and very often we did,” Sam Craig of The Washington Times said. “After all, who could prove we were wrong? The only hard data was the stuff we generated ourselves! Now actual voters will get involved, muddying the water by creating verifiable statistics of their own. Rank amateurs!”

With striking unanimity, political reporters and analysts told pollsters they believe that actual voting could “shake up the field” of candidates, with serious consequences.

“So Iowa votes, and the next thing you know, some of these clowns are going to drop out,” Chuck Tatum of CNN said. “Instead of a half-dozen colorful candidates, you’ll have just one or two. Do you have any idea how hard it’s going to be to come up with stuff to say about them, day after day, hour after hour, until November?”

Some analysts recommended caution, but Hildy Johnson-Burns of Gallup spoke for many colleagues when she urged Iowa voters to postpone the caucus until a later date.

“Actual voting results will provide us with material for, what, a couple of hours? And then what?” Johnson-Burns said. “I’m warning you, Iowa, for your own sake. If you screw this up, we’ll have to pack it up and take our business elsewhere. New Hampshire is starting to look mighty appealing.”




*NOTE: I did not make up that name. The reporters’ names are all from classic Hollywood films.

Read more!

Romney Compares Obama to Character from a Kirsten Dunst Movie

Romney looks forward to challenging Obama at the polls in November. “Bring it on,” the candidate said.

DAVENPORT, IOWA -- President Obama is like a character played in movies by actress Kirsten Dunst, long-time Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in a stump speech today.

“Americans only think they like Obama,” Romney said. “People talk about him, they think about him all the time, probably, but without listening to what he’s really saying. They obsess over him like they did that pretty girl Kirsten Dunst played in Virgin Suicides, without ever really paying attention to the real problems underneath,” Romney said.

Also like Dunst, Obama’s name doesn’t sound American, Romney said.

The former Governor of Massachusetts added that if the parents in the film had been Mormon instead of Roman Catholic, and if they’d had five sons instead of daughters, there wouldn’t have been any problem. “But then I guess you wouldn’t have had a movie, either, so it’s kind of a wash.

“But then have you noticed how Obama is constantly cheerleading for his socialist agenda, just the way Kirsten Dunst was cheerleading in Bring It On?” Romney said. “And isn’t Obama sucking the life out of the American economy, just the way Kirsten Dunst sucked blood in Interview with the Vampire?”

Romney conceded that Obama still manages to be adorable,
even when pursuing deadly policies.

When voters size up the prospective candidates for the White House in 2012, Romney said, they should remember another Dunst film, Little Women (1994).

“You sure don’t want to vote for a Beth, do you?” Romney said. “She’s only going to die in office. And Jo is too erratic, sort of a Gingrich type. You never know what she’s going to do next.”

Winona Ryder (Jo), Claire Danes (Beth), Trini Alvarado (Meg),
Dunst (Amy), and Susan Sarandon (Marmee)

“I’m much more of a Meg than an Amy,” Romney said. “And I’m not ashamed to admit that. Meg [played by Trini Alvarado] was the responsible one. Sure, Amy [played by Dunst] may be more entertaining, and she ends up with Christian Bale, but in the final analysis, what America needs is a Meg. Am I right?”

Ronney also compared Obama to the character played by Dunst in the film Marie Antoinette.

“The President wears clothes well, I have to hand him that,” Romney said. “He’s got a nice build. I bet he’d look good in pastels, satin, maybe a little lace. And he’s a good dancer, too.”

In conclusion, Romney said, “Really, in many ways, President Obama is a lot like Kirsten Dunst, when you think about it.”

“Also, Obamacare is like Harry Osborn [James Franco],” Romney suggested. “He may look attractive, but he’s the next Green Goblin.”

Following Romney’s speech, Iowa Republican Earl Earlson, 47, a welder and father of three, told reporters covering the campaign that he remained unimpressed and would probably vote for Ron Paul instead.

“Governor Romney and I just don’t share the same values at heart,” Earlson said. “I guess I’m more of a Reese Witherspoon kind of guy.”

Romney’s critics dismissed the speech as a brazen attempt to court the Kirsten Right, voters who have long suspected the candidate’s commitment to their cause, and whose presence has been noted increasingly at campaign events for Romney’s rivals. “Legalize Mary Jane” banners seen at Ron Paul’s events, for example, are a clear reference to the character played by Dunst in the Spider-Man movies.

Romney declined to take questions from reporters, but through his office released a statement: “This will be a campaign about issues, not personalities,” Romney said, “just like that fine film by Alexander Payne about the high-school election, from 1999, starring Matthew Broderick.”

Read more!