Operation Yellow Elephant
Search Site
Our Sponsor
Reviews of This Blog
"It's ridiculous to compare you to a douche bag; douche bags serve a purpose."
"Pollutes most of what it touches"
"A blog you should be reading for up-to-the-minute news on wingnuts"
"Very funny"
"Shrill"
Online Store
Click here to enter store.
Media Links
Blogroll
100 Monkeys Typing
A Chicken Is Not A Pillage
A Lie A Day
The American Street
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Cloyce's Coffee Klatsch
Correntewire
Dependable Renegade
Elementropy
Jon Swift
Princess Sparkle Pony
The Republic of Dogs
Sadly, No!
Why Now?
World O'Crap
Wingnut Wide Web
Internment Spa Lady
Fat Andy in P-Town
Clown Hall
America's Worst Law Student™
Gipper's Nippers
Freepers Creepers
Feeds
Credits
Site Statistics
Archive for the 'Lying Republicans' Category
Let the Lying Begin
Posted by Clif on 12/15/07 at 10:28 am
Category: Fundies, Lying Republicans, Politics
Since Ed Rollins has been named the national campaign chairman for the veracity-challenged Mike Huckabee, it’s only appropriate that Rollins would immediately run off to the Lou Dobbs show and tell a whopper:
DOBBS: How comfortable are you with that and is it appropriate for god to be in religion and faith to be this prominent in a secular campaign for president?
ROLLINS: You go back to the signing of the constitution I think 26 of the people that signed it were ministers.
Lying Sack of Pence
Posted by Clif on 09/17/07 at 10:08 am Category: Lying Republicans
Mike Pence (R - Nitwitistan), the serial liar who once compared his trip to a market in Baghdad to an afternoon at a Hoosier state fair, was at it again on CNN yesterday:
BLITZER: Alan Greenspan has a new book that has just come out … entitled, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” in which he makes a very, very sharp charge about the war in Iraq.
I’ll read it to you: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil.” Do you agree with him? …
PENCE: Well, I really don’t, and I don’t — I was never in meetings where the chairman of the Federal Reserve was present during the run-up to the war. I was in many meetings where we discussed the … unwillingness to open up to U.N. weapons inspectors.
Except, of course, that in November 2002, five months before the invasion, Iraq allowed the weapons inspectors to return.
Other justifications given by Pence for the invasion included claims that Saddam’s mustache was blond and that Iraqis had been seen videotaping offensive coach signals during NFL games.
If Larry Craig Were Gay
Posted by Clif on 09/1/07 at 8:41 am Category: Gay Issues, Lying Republicans, Republican HypocritesHmmm. The Avenue Q possibilities are endless. How about “Everybody’s a Little Bit Racist” with Trent Lott? Or “The Internet is for Porn” with Mark Foley?
Hugging Bob Allen
Posted by Clif on 08/18/07 at 3:23 pm Category: Loathsome Republicans, Lying Republicans
Republican Bob “Blow Job” Allen, the Florida legislator who got nicked for offering a BJ to an undercover cop in a public toilet, is the gift that just keeps on giving. Each time he opens his mouth, either to put something in it or to let something pop out of it, he lands himself in more trouble. Here’s what he’s been up to lately:
After the Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio stripped Allen of his committee assignments, he compared Rubio to Fidel Castro:
In Cuba, that’s where you are charged by police, wrapped up and sent off as guilty without a trial . . . That’s a Cuba thing, something Fidel Castro does
After a flood of outrage over Allen’s apparent comparison of himself to a Cuban dissident, Allen offered up this preposterous defense:
Never was I trying to ever say Marco is the new Fidel. That’s the most insulting thing you can tell anyone in Miami,” Allen said. “I would have used North Korea if I thought more.
If Allen thought more, he might not have offered an undercover cop a blowjob and then claimed he did it because the undercover was a “black stocky guy” that scared him. Speaking of which, even Allen realizes how stupid that sounds and is now trying to have that statement suppressed in his trial, taking refuge behind — get this — a claim that he wasn’t read his Miranda rights:
Attorney Greg Eisenmenger said Allen was never informed of his Miranda rights to remain silent until he was booked into the jail. … Eisenmenger said statements Allen made in which he allegedly explained why he offered to perform oral sex in a public restroom should be excluded from the record. Allen told police he talked to the other man only because he was intimidated by the ‘’stocky black guy” — who turned out to be a police officer.
Oh, the irony of a conservative Republican relying on a technicality as a defense to a criminal charge.
But there’s more. Allen has also recently claimed that he’s “the most misunderstood guy on Earth.” Somehow that strikes me as, well, extreme, but no matter, Allen, who plans to run for a new term, is convinced this will all pass:
I’m waiting for the politics to say it’s OK to hug Bob Allen again — and they will.”
Eeeeewww. Not even if he paid me.
Poster Girl
Posted by Clif on 08/8/07 at 3:45 pm Category: Lying Republicans, Ridiculous Republicans
South Carolina’s helium-heeled Senator Lindsey Graham got caught on camera with a you-know-what-eating grin on his face and a version of the Obama Osama poster in his hands. You know, the poster that got Romney in so much trouble. When the above photo surfaced Graham called in one of his “special” friends, Darnell McCoy, and asked him, “Hey, Darnell, honey, what did Mitt say when he got caught?”
Darnell said, “He said, sweetness, that he had no idea what was written on the sign.”
So Graham released a statement saying:
I was handed the sign by a rally attendee as I was leaving. I should have been more careful and I apologize.
Now if Graham wants us to believe he holds up whatever anybody shoves in his, er, hands, then I have the same question I asked when Romney made the same, and equally preposterous, claim. Would Graham have posed and grinned with this sign if a constituent handed it to him?
Probably not.
The Name Game (cont’d)
Posted by Clif on 07/23/07 at 3:50 pm Category: Loathsome Republicans, Lying RepublicansAt the latest “Ask Mitt Anything”* forum, Mitt “Say Anything” Romney, came up with another excuse for the Osama Obama sign incident. His campaign manager had floated the risible idea that “Osama Obama” was just an “alliterative play on words” and not a comparison of Osama to Obama bin Laden. Not even Mr. Say Anything could get that one out with a straight face, so he tried another excuse:
I don’t look at all the signs when I’m having pictures taken. I have a lot of pictures taken with people,” Romney said. “I don’t really spend all that much time looking at the signs and the T-shirts and the buttons. I don’t have anything to say about a sign somebody else was holding.
Fair enough, except for this:
Mitt’s got both his mitts on that poster, so I think he can’t really say he wasn’t holding it. And you have to imagine Mitt looks at stuff he holds up for the cameras with his own hands. Else he might wind up holding this:
______
* Believe it or not, “Ask Mitt Anything” is really the name for Say Anything Mitt’s “town hall” meetings.
The Name Game
Posted by Clif on 07/22/07 at 1:37 pm Category: Loathsome Republicans, Lying Republicans
Not only will Mitt Romney say anything to get elected but he’ll do anything as well, as evidenced by his photo op with one of his illiterate supporters from South Carolina and the vile poster she scrawled. A Romney campaign spokesman tried to explain away this latest loathsomeness from Romney by saying:
The governor stopped briefly for a picture with a supporter who just happened to be holding their own sign with an alliterative play on words. I don’t think it was equating or comparing anyone.
Because it was just an alliteration and could easily have been “Obama Opama” instead. It was just an accident that it was “Obama Osama” instead, so there’s no effort to compare Obama to Osama bin Laden. None at all. Uh huh. That excuse isn’t lame, it’s paralyzed.
Well here’s another “alliterative play on words” for the Romney campaign.
This poster isn’t saying that Mitt is shitty, so Mitt would have posed for a photo-op with this poster too, right?
(Picture from TMZ.com)
What a SCHIP-Head
Posted by Clif on 07/18/07 at 9:31 pm Category: Loathsome Republicans, Lying Republicans, White House
Who could object to providing health insurance to children? Why, the White House, of course.
Bush today explained why he plans to veto the re-authorization of the S-CHIP program which provides health insurance to children in families not eligible for Medicaid. That’s right — a program that benefits only children. Even assuming that one accepts the notion that poor people are simply lazy slugs who don’t deserve a free ride from the taxpayers, we are talking children here. Children who didn’t choose their parents.
Of course, the reasons that Bush serves up for not insuring children are, quite simply, bull-SCHIP. The chief one seems to be this:
Members of Congress have decided, however, to expand the program to include, in some cases, up to families earning $80,000 a year — which would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan.
This is a completely dishonest explanation. What’s going on here (as explained in detail here) is that certain states expanded eligibility for the program to cover families at 200% to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (”FPL”), i.e., families of four earning between $40,000 and $80,000 per year. The Bush Administration wants now to restrict federal funding to programs that cover only families up to 200% of the FPL So if Bush were honest, what he would have said is not that he objects to insurance for children in families earning “up to” $80,000, but that he objects to programs that provide coverage for children in families of four earning $40,001 or more. Doesn’t sound very compassionate, does it?
But it gets worse. A recent study showed that 30% of children in families earning between $40,000 and $80,000 per year were uninsured and that this number is increasing. Even accepting Bush’s unsupported and improbable assumption that people will drop employer-provided insurance for a government program, Bush is saying that this is reason enough that the 30 percent or more of the children in that income bracket should remain uncovered. So not only should children be uninsured because their own parents are louts, but also children should be uninsured because other parents are louts.
Of course, the real reason for Bush’s position here is, in fact, this:
And when you couple [S-CHIP covering more than 200% FPL] with the idea that some have suggested of reducing the age at which you can be eligible for Medicare, you’re beginning to get a sense of a strategy to grow the government’s role in the provision of health care. I believe government cannot provide affordable health care. I believe it would cause — it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time.
There it is, the old faithful of why health insurance shouldn’t be expanded — “there would be lines.” Let’s be perfectly blunt about this. What this means is that Bush believes that the way to keep certain people in the front of the line is to kick children out of it.