Political Theatre category archive

Via the Booman Tribune, a barrage of Mitticisms:

No sense of entitlement there, not a jot, not a tittle.

At Psychology Today, Stanton Peele argues that Newt the Gingrinch is ahead of his time:

Did you hear that PT Blog readers? All those titillating posts by Stanley Siegel about casual sex and non-conventional families — Newt Gingrich was living that. No wonder he got to charge so much money to consult because of his ability to peer into the future. Newt is the avatar of the kind of future family-sexual relationships that the rest of us only dream about.

Dr. Dale Archer thinks he’s just following his leader.

Good ruling.

The Supreme Court for the first time ruled on Monday that police use of a GPS device to monitor a suspect’s vehicle was a search and protected by constitutional privacy rights, a test case involving new surveillance technology.

All this means is that the authorities will have to show cause and get warrants.

I’m neither surprised nor offended that the current federal administration was on the other side. One would expect them to side with Justice, Homeland Security, and the Pentagon, not one of whom gives a tinker’s damn about civil liberties.

Steve Chapman, writing at the Chicago Tribune, considers the frequency with which (mostly rightwing) candidates call for amendments to the Constitution, amendments to mandate a balanced budget, to outlaw abortion, even to repeal other amendments.

He finds them hollow, much like (this is my addition) those who propose them (emphasis added).

So why bother (to call for amendments–ed.)? It’s much easier to demonstrate your fiscal conservatism by voting for a balanced-budget amendment — while opposing the actual fiscal changes it would require. Anti-abortion candidates can endorse an amendment without much risk, since pro-choice voters know it’s not going to pass.

When a presidential candidate vows to amend the Constitution, he may be doing any number of things: dodging a tough issue, pandering to a bloc of voters or trying to sound bold. What he is not doing is telling the truth.

In a long post at Delaware Liberal, Delaware Dem sums up the appeal of Newt the Gingrinch:

I suspect the radicals on the right know, if they are honest, that pigs will fly before this nation elects Newt Gingrich. But they want someone to denigrate Obama, to call him the Food Stamp President, to insult him.

Racism has been part of the underlying appeal of the Republican Party since Nixon’s odious Southern Strategy.

It is now becoming the overlying appeal, as the Republican Party continues to react to the election of a black President by morphing into the Dixiecrat Party.

It will be interesting to see whether Mitt the Flip and the Republican Party’s erstwhile corporate masters can flip the overlying back to the underlying, where they prefer it lie. Dick Polman thinks that Mitt the Flip has a chance to flip Florida.

Mike Papantonio and Chancey Devega discuss how Republicans are channeling Pitchfork Ben:

Via ABL.

Afterthought:

One would have expected a gekko to support a newt, simply out of family loyalty.

Security screeners at Kennedy Airport violated procedures this fall when they asked two elderly women to show them medical devices concealed beneath their clothing, senior Homeland Security officials acknowledged in correspondence made public this week.

The women were 85 and 88. The devices were a colostomy bag and a back brace.

Management promises to retrain everyone.

As the veteran of over three decades in the training biz, I would not consider this a “training” issue.

This is an “arrogance of unlimited power” issue.

Less than three and a half minutes. Watch it.

In the Chicago Tribune, Paul Begala argues that Mitt the Flip illustrates in micro Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. After pointing out that the “fittest” does not mean the strongest, but rather the most adaptable, he supports his thesis with examples:

First he was a liberal: he voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary for president, spoke emotionally of a relative who died from an illegal abortion and vowed to be more pro-gay rights than Teddy Kennedy. Then he was a moderate: as Massachusetts governor he signed Romney-care, which included a health insurance mandate — the moderate alternative to nationalized health care.

Now Mittbot 3.0 is a conservative . . . .

(snip)

That, friends, is what I call adaptable. Romney is a political shape-shifter who will renege (sic) on any promise, abandon any pledge, betray any principle to please his audience.

He goes on to point to Mitt’s one constant: His allegiance to the bankster creed that money means virtue and that any way of amassing money is therefore a virtuous way.

The only constants I see in the Flipper are ambition and entitlement.

He believes he should be President because he believes he should be President because he believes he should be President . . . .

Follow the link for the rest.

On the Media looks at the invasion of the skybots:

The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing to announce new regulations for small camera-equipped drones, versions of which you can already buy at your local mall. Lots of people are eager to hear the FAA’s decision, from energy execs and environmentalists to police and protesters. Brooke talks to Matt Waite, founder of U. Nebraska’s Drone Journalism Lab, about some of the “cool” and “creepy” ramifications of drone technology. Also, check out this blog post for some cool examples of journalistic drones in action.

Follow the link to listen.

Via Atrios.

Flops with the Flipper.

Putting Ron Paul’s newsletters in the color mirror: A little word substitution makes the hate more noticeable, does it not?

Via Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog.

January 16, 2012 | Posted by: Frank | Posted in: Political Theatre | Bookmark this post