We Need Some Good GOP Campaign Songs

A few days ago one of my loyal readers posted a Liz Warren campaign song video (even though she’s not running for anything right now). The video was posted to my comments section with a snide comment and reminder of the Obama songs we contended with in 2008.

I wondered why we never see any good campaign songs for the GOP contenders? Rather than mock Warren’s supporters, how about putting together some ditties for your candidates? So I figured in this time of dark headlines and world unrest, we could use a lighter post today. Here are my song fragments for a few of the leading contenders for the GOP POTUS run.

Mitt Romney (provide your own melody)

Mitt’s the hit, he’s the hole in one.
Michigan’s favorite son.

Vote for Mitt and you can bet
He’ll wipe out Russia, our biggest threat.

“Bankrupt Detroit”, our Mitt foretold
That GM cars would all soon explode.

The war on women will gets its licks
When Mitt opens up his binder of chicks.

VOTE FOR MITT, HE’S THE HIT!!

Rand Paul (provide your own melody)

Rand Paul, he’s our man
A tried and true Libertarian

Rand Paul, he’s our man
He won’t send your son to die in Iran.

He’ll get the gov out of your bedroom
And let you smoke pot and eat your shrooms.

And just like his Daddy said
He’ll stop foreign aid and audit the Fed.

Jeb Bush (to the melody of John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance”)

Everybody’s talking ’bout Iraq, Afghans, Katrina, failed banks, Cheney, Rumsfeld.

All we are saying, give Jeb Bush a chance!

Everybody’s talking ’bout Father, Brother, dynasty, even Mother say’s it’s bullshit but

All we are saying, give Jeb Bush a chance!

Marco Rubio (to the melody of “La Bamba”)

Come on and vote for Marco.
Come on and vote for Marco, the Cuban wonder.
He’s not like Obama.
He’s not like Obama, he will not plunder
Your hard earned wages.
Your hard earned wages will stay with you, will stay with you, will stay with you!

Come on and vote for Marco.
Come on and vote for Marco, the Rubio.
He will fix immigration.
He will fix immigration but do it slow.
Don’t want to piss off the right wing
Don’t want to piss off the right wing and Tea Party
He will fix immigration
He will fix immigration very slowly, very slowly, very slowly.

MARCO, MARCO
MARCO, MARCO
MARCO, MARCO
MARCO!!

Chris Christie (to the melody of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”)

Have yourself a President Chris Christie.
He’s a voice that’s new.
While others coddle voters, he just says “Fuck you!”

So have yourself a President Christie — FUCK YOU!

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Advertisements

The Idiot’s Guide to Gun Control

128px-Gun_outline.svg

Nine Unarmed Men and an Armed Man Walk Into a Bar

This evening, barely disguising his anger, President Barack Obama asked how the Senate could ignore the will of 90% of the people by not passing a bipartisan written bill for expanded background checks on gun purchasers. The answer is simple. Nine men without a gun ask for expanded background checks. One man with a gun says no. Who are you going to listen to?

The Stupidity of Confiscation

There is an odd intersection of the illegal immigration debate and the gun safety debate. We have approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in this country and no one but the nuttiest on the fringe would suggest rounding them up and kicking them out of the country. On the one hand, there are humanitarian considerations in that many of these folks have lived here a long time and are law-abiding. However, there is a far less altruistic reason for not kicking them out. It’s a practical near  impossibility, a logistical nightmare.

There are approximately 270 million guns owned by civilians in the United States. Does anyone really think there is any practical means by which the US federal government could confiscate these guns? It is, like deporting every illegal immigrant, a logistical nightmare. And while kicking out immigrants might not be met with violence, you can be sure as hell that trying to take even a fraction of those 270 million guns away from their owners would result in a bloodbath. Yet the fundamental opposition to any gun control legislation comes from the slippery slope theory. First, they expand background checks. Then they register gun owners. Then they “come for your guns.” It’s the very definition of paranoid stupidity. In fact, the legislation that was shot down today (pardon the pun) contained a provision making it a felony to maintain a registry of gun owners. Wayne LaPierre and the gun industry funded NRA won’t tell you that. That’s because they think you’re an idiot. Enough idiots intimidated their Senators today to defeat a perfectly reasonable gun safety bill.

No Need to Pass Laws Because Criminals Will Violate Them Anyway

This has to be one of the hallmark idiotic premises of the pro-gun gang. There is no sense passing new gun legislation because criminals don’t abide by the law. Thankfully there are some in the media who won’t let folks get away with this idiocy. Witness this exchange between Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio and “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer.

RUBIO:  My problem is this, in addition to the issue I’ve just raised, which is that this debate needs to be about violence, not just about guns, we have to ensure that the laws that people are putting out there do not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens and that actually do keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And my skepticism about gun laws is that criminals don’t follow the law. They don’t care what the law is, that they don’t — you can pass any law you want, criminals ignore it, by definition they’re criminals.

SCHIEFFER: You know, Senator — are you still there, Senator?

RUBIO: Yes.

SCHIEFFER: You know, criminals don’t follow the laws on burglary and on murder and on auto theft. But those laws still, I think…

RUBIO: And we prosecute those.

SCHIEFFER: I think most people would say those laws are fairly effective.

My Conversation with an Idiot

OK, to be fair the following actually represents my exchange not with one idiot but with a composite of folks I’ve talked to online about gun control or more specifically, limiting the capacity of ammunition clips. Let’s call our idiot Quick Draw McGraw.

Rutherford Lawson: I advocate limiting clip size to ten rounds. That way a gunman can only fire ten bullets before he has to change clips.

Quick Draw McGraw: That’s ridiculous. I can change a clip in less than two seconds. If I have multiple ten round clips, I just change them once one is empty and I keep shooting.

RL: While I doubt the average person can change clips in under two seconds, even so, every time you interrupt the gunman you give advantage to the victim.

QDM: What’s the victim gonna do in 2 seconds?

RL: Jared Loughner in Tuscon got tackled while changing clips. If his first clip had only ten bullets perhaps fewer folks would have been shot?

QDM: Yeah, well you realize that when you limit my clip capacity you put me at a disadvantage to protect myself.

RL: How’s that?

QDM: I’ve got an assailant coming at me and I don’t have time to change clips.

RL: If you can’t drop a guy with ten bullets, you’re not a very good shot, are you?

QDM: A lot you know! You watch too many cop shows. Do you know how hard it is to shoot accurately under pressure?

RL: But I thought you said you could change a clip in under 2 seconds?

QDM: Uhhhhh …..

RL: So let me get this straight. Limiting clip size does nothing to slow down a potential assailant but it can slow you down. Is that what you’re saying?

QDM: Uhhhhh ….

It is really hard to understand how we are losing the debate to these people. Hopefully, the passion for better regulation will not die with today’s vote and we can take some sensible steps toward a safer nation.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Art by INVERTED (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Bush in 2012, Really (and a Sip of Tea)

Bush in 2012, Really

Rich Lowry’s penis has finally stopped making his decisions for him and he seems to have gotten off the Sarah Palin train. In a recent article in National Review Online, Rich offers eight reasons why Jeb Bush should run for President in 2012. I’ll paraphrase Rich’s points from a liberal perspective:

1. Nobody else worth a damn is running or as Rich puts it, it’s a wide open field.

2. By 2016, Jeb’s resume will be stale.

3. By 2016 the current crop of newbies (Christie, Rubio, etc.) will be seasoned enough to jump into the ring.

4. Brother George is enjoying a perverse sort of nostalgia right now.

5. Regardless of George’s stink, Jeb will still be a Bush in 2016 so he might as well jump now.

6. He’s not like Dad or Brother — see my additional reason #9 below!

7. Jeb might be a GOP uniter. This is where Rich throws Sarah under the bus (cue the moose death groan) saying she is too polarizing and implying that Romney is too bland.

8. Better to run too soon than too late. Of course this fails Rich’s own internal logic from reason #3. If it’s better to run too soon, why is he not advocating for Christie or Rubio now?

And now my two extra reasons for Bush in 2012:

9. Jeb was the smart one. From everything I’ve seen, read and heard, it was Jeb who should have sought the nomination back in 2000, not his dumb-ass brother. Jeb lacks George’s swagger and seems to have replaced it with some real intellect. If I’m not mistaken, he also speaks fluent Spanish.

10. It’s enough to give Presidential historians an orgasm. I’m a bit rusty now but I used to be a Presidential history buff. Jeb, if he won, would add another great first to the annals of Pres history. We have John Adams and his son John Quincy (so George 43 broke no records there), we had William Henry Harrison and his grandson Benjamin and of course we had Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin. Jeb taking the oath in 2013 would give us the first case of a President (George Herbert Walker) having TWO sons in the White House.

Honestly, I’d like to see a worthy adversary go against Barack in 2012 for one simple reason. I don’t trust this country not to throw Obama out for a knucklehead so if Obama has to lose to someone (and I don’t think that is a foregone conclusion), I’d like it to be someone I could minimally respect. And speaking of respect …

A Tasty Sip of Tea

Well ever since they took the oath in January in the 112th Congress, we’ve been waiting to see what those racist fear mongering Teabaggers would do and I’m shocked to say this but I actually respect their very first major move. So much so, I shall officially retire the term “teabagger” from my vocabulary. Yesterday, Tea Party caucus members were key players in not extending three provisions of the Patriot Act including warrantless wire tapping.

Who would have thought this early in the game that Tea Party members and liberals would be on the same page regarding civil liberties and government over reach? Heck, if not being able to spell and totally misunderstanding the Constitution gets these great results I may have to completely reevaluate my Tea Party stand. I think I’ve got enough bags left in my Red Rose box in the cupboard to start working on my hat. Oh and I’ll have to buy a gun. This sounds like the start of a great relationship.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance