Komen Turns to Men: Announces the Susan G. Komen 3-Way

in Blog, Humor Blog, Satire

Facing a firestorm of criticism that has angered women’s groups across the country, The Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation today turned to an unlikely source for funds: men. The cancer-focused organization announced a creative twist on one of its signature events in order to get the attention of men, and their wallets.

“Today we turn to the good intentions of men by announcing the Susan G. Komen 3-Way,” said Karen Handel, the Susan G. Komen Senior Vice President of Public Policy. “It’s every man’s fantasy and suddenly we need the cash. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, ya know.”

The event will allow men to service two women simultaneously, for a small donation. They are allowed to bring the own female donors, or choose from a pool of female Komen supporters. Or at least the ones that remain.

“We were going to call the event ‘Donors for Boners’ but our PR staff nixed that,” Handel said, which was followed up with a question by every single reporter at the press conference simultaneously: “You actually have a PR staff?”

Responding to another question, Handle said the “Komen 3-Way” was strictly limited to heterosexual activity – only one man per group, based on their “significant religious support.” When a reporter pointed out that the two women in a 3-way could be considered homosexual activity, she snapped back: “No way. Two women kissing isn’t gay. It’s hot” adding they would allow two men in a threesome at a later date “basically if we need the funds.”

Reaction to the plan was immediate and passionate. Republican candidates for President were split on the announcement. Newt Gingrich was opposed, simply because the activity sounded like fun. Mitt Romney praised the plan because more private research funds equate to more money for rich people. But he saw the larger picture as well.

“Now, finally, the tide is coming to Uncle Mitt and I am becoming mainstream, relatable and pretty fucking fun,” he said. “One man, multiple women? Hmm. Wonder where I’ve heard THAT before. Welcome to the party, bitches.”

 

 

 

0 Comments

Mitt’s Middle Ground: The most important numbers from the Florida win

in Blog

 
Mitt Romney scored a runaway victory in Florida last night, earning as many votes as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who finished 2nd and 3rd respectively, combined. Earning almost 50 percent of the vote, Romney obviously was happy with those numbers.

But as I watched CNN’s primary coverage, and the slew of exit polling and other statistics they kept throwing at the viewer, I saw a different set of numbers that should make Romney even happier.

Among very conservative voters, Romney actually narrowly lost to Gingrich. And he still won the primary by 14 percentage points.

Why should that be cause for celebration in the Romney camp? This is after all a Republican primary and you want to earn the favor of conservative voters, right?

But what those numbers reveal is Romney – at least in Florida, but I suspect among the national Republican electorate nationally — has a commanding lead among the centrist and moderate segments of the party. And that is the support you must attract in a general election.

What we tend to forget is that primaries are staged for true party activists – and those who turn out to vote are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans (or Democrats in other years). So in order to get people to volunteer, or to attend a rally, or to donate money, you are usually forced to position yourself as the “most conservative” or the “most liberal” candidate.

And then – the moment you win the nomination, you immediate have to run towards the middle to win the moderate, unaffiliated voter. THAT vote is the one you must win to capture a general election.

So the system is set up to create flip-floppers, or at least very clever wordsmiths who appear to be changing their tune while singing from the same hymnal as months before.

When I was hired to run the communications operation for a gubernatorial candidate, he suffered from name recognition of 5 percent. That’s not good. But in a few months, we were able to appeal to the party insiders to win their trust, but also position him in the polls as the Democrat most likely to defeat a popular Republican incumbent.

We ran on the idea of actually placing a Democrat in office, someone who shares most of your political ideals, but also has a record, and an attitude of teamwork that was in the best interest of the people. Stalemates don’t get you change, they just get you angry.

If the idea is to put your candidate in office, aren’t you doing your party a disservice by ignoring electability in favor of the most conservative, or most liberal, candidate. Because once the gates open and everyone gets a say, the words “liberal” and “conservative” are no longer positives.
So, for Mitt Romney, he can move forward knowing he’s already winning the middle of his party, and can likely play in the middle beyond the GOP convention. He needs to use his sizable financial advantage, and his message, to remind people he is still a conservative. Maybe not your grandfather’s conservative necessarily, but definitely your children’s president. And isn’t that what we are really fighting for?

0 Comments

BREAKING: Gingrich: “Uno No Mas”

in Blog, Humor Blog, Satire

Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich today said he would propose a Constitutional amendment making the popular family card game “Uno” illegal. Gingrich said the game sends a negative message to children and opens the door to widespread tomfoolery later in life.
“America is so great. Where else can a guy like me actually be in position to be president? I mean really??” he said. “But we need to restore that portion of greatness that Ayatollah Obama has stripped from us.”
Asked 10 times by reporters what any of this has to do with the widely popular game, Gingrich said “don’t get your panties in a bunch” before adding “but it’s great to see they’re letting women be reporters now. That’s charming.”
“Uno, singlehandedly, is undermining our children, – by using colors and procedural tricks such as skipping someone’s turn and reversing the order of play rather than following the rules – to make them think that some language other than English should be the official language of our beloved United States,” Gingrich pontificated. “It may be cute to say ‘Uno’ when you’re on the verge of winning, but if this continues, America clearly will be on the verge of losing.”
Gingrich continued on. And on. And on, adding that “Uno” undermined America’s efforts to combat illegal immigration and “discouraged learning habits” in children by teaching a foreign language as a mainstream option, in a fun manner. Asked if he would consider asking the game’s manufacturer to re-name the game to “One” Gingrich said he would rather discuss the Constitution and make a simple issue more convoluted.
“I’m upset by the color issue as well,” he went on. “Coloreds are ruining this country by providing variety and choice and things pleasing to the eye. And when people are stimulated by coloreds, they do things like daydream, envisioning rainbows, and not developing a working habit.”
When a reporter pointed out Gingrich said “coloreds” instead of “colors” he muttered. “Goddamnit, use your outdoor words Newt.”
Gingrich’s Republican foe Ron Paul vehemently opposed Gingrich’s plan.
“If people wanna scream Uno instead of reading an economic textbook, or thesis on supply side economics, let ‘em,” he said. “Hell, if they wanna put a red 1 down on a yellow 6, let ‘em do that. Why do we even have rules for these games?”
The SuperPAC for Mitt Romney immediately issued an attack ad not against Gingrich but against Ron Paul. The voiceover in the ad says, in part “Ron Paul hates Asians and has proposed Asian families be soiled by the blood of menstruating women” followed by Paul saying “If they wanna put a red 1 down on a yellow 6, let ‘em do that.”
The White House press secretary,  asked about the latest Republican controversy, referred to a YouTube clip of President Obama singing an Al Green song because it polled well and then reminded the press corps that he killed Osama bin Laden.

 

0 Comments

19 Debates And Counting…..

in Blog

There have been more Republican presidential debate than there are Duggar children.
Ah, well, not quite, but it is tied. And, as because you surely know there are 19 Duggar children, you also know there have been 19 GOP square-offs.
If you ask me, it’s not too many. These debates have served a purpose, a great public service. They have given the electorate a clear view of the candidates. Their views, their intellect, their records, their styles, their reactions when caught in a lie or exaggeration. I truly believe those that have been eliminated through this process did not have the mettle to lead our nation and the bright light of scrutiny that comes with running for president.
I have long believed that the presidential race should be taxpayer funded only (roll your eyes, but did you even imagine the Super PAC mess we’re in now?), and in exchange for those funds, candidates must submit to 2-hour-long debates, several of them, all on different topics. Foreign policy for 2 hours? May sound dull, but to me it sounds pretty complete. No skimming over the issues while viewers take a bathroom break. Inform us. Move us. Most importantly, make a record of your views and be subject to intense follow-up questions.
If we did subject-exclusive debates, we would get the candidates’ truthful and full positions on those issues and they would be unable to escape the 30-second sound bites they virtually memorize. Which three departments did Rick Perry want to eliminate? What do we know of Newt’s Israel stance except that the Palestinians are an “invented people?” What do we know of Romney’s economic plan, beyond that he’s perfectly content paying less than 15 percent in income taxes?
You’ll notice there are rarely debates within a week (or usually two weeks) of a presidential election. That is not a mistake. Debates, more often than not, can do a candidate harm rather than help.  Undoing that damage does two things: 1. Takes valuable time and 2. Gets you off of your pre-debate message.
Campaigns in 2012 are nimble. A quick 30-second ad can be hoisted onto the airwaves; friends of the campaign can make media tours to be high-level spokespersons giving the opposite impression of the candidates own words; staffs can release miles of statistics and voting record to reflect the actual record, away from the rhetoric.
But, the truth is people remember what they see.
Which gets us back to the point. If we remember what we see, after 19 debates we can (and do) say “we don’t like what we see.” While this creates a headache for the Republican Party in 2012, we should feel encouraged and proud we’ve weeded the political garden of the immature presidential plants.
It’s always better to throw away the rotten tomato two days before you have to make the salad. Otherwise you’re stuck with a rotten salad.

 

0 Comments

I Hate To Say It, But…..You’re a Bigot.

in Blog

We all know our country faces plenty of challenges. The economy. The role of the world’s watchdog. Health care. The environment. We will debate them all, and then some, plenty this year.
But yesterday I realized – none of them matter.
Let me explain.
Yesterday I visited the local gym for the first time. I forgot my iPod, but was content enough to thumb through my Blackberry’s screens.  About three treadmills to my right was a group of three women – two younger and one middle-aged, who apparently work out together regularly.
One of the younger one mentions visiting her boyfriend’s mother in a local nursing home. She had not been to the facility in several years, but was not happy about the changes, and the resulting level of care. What was different, the other women wondered out loud.
“Ghet-to!!” the exasperated girl said, with great emphasis.

As you probably know, or could guess, “ghetto” is a not-to-subtle way for white people to say there is an influx of black people.  I thought maybe the “conversation” would stall there. But they were just getting started.

• “The level of care there has so deteriorated,” said the first girl. “The workers – they seem to be there just for a paycheck – no bedside manner.”
• “I hate to even ask,” the middle-aged woman said, “but how many white people were working there?”
Okay, big tip her folks. If you start a sentence with “I hate to even ask” — it’s a pretty good sign that, in fact, you should not ask. Whatever is on your mind. Don’t say it. Don’t write it on a piece of paper. Move on.
• “Not a one,” the girl said. “It was all blacks. They just want their paychecks and to go home.”

Okay, here is where I thought two things.  1. Newt Gingrich would be so proud of our local “blacks” – they actually want a paycheck, not “entitlement” to foodstamps. 2. I wondered what this girl did for a living and if she approached it with such zeal that she forgot she even was owed a paycheck at the end of the week. I would guess not.
• “I hate to even say it….” the middle-aged woman said. “But the black people; they seem to know all about their ancestors, their relatives, and they almost operate out of anger. Like it’s time for payback.”
Again if you “hate to even say it” you shouldn’t.  And to take the customer service levels of workers at a nursing home to the level of “they’re paying us back for slavery” seems a bit racist to me. Okay, it seems overwhelmingly racist to me, but like going from Point A to Point T.  And, by the way, slavery is a pretty good reason to “operate out of anger,” though I don’t in the least bit agree with her.
• “She just had a stroke, and I figured someone should turn her over to make her more comfortable. I knew what she needed, so I took her outside for a cigarette. Can’t someone, anyone, take her out front to have a cigarette.”

I would like to think this was one random conversation in one gym. Or even that my town somehow was this pocket of ignorance. I let it go for a few hours.


Then on Tuesday night, I saw U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at the President’s State of the Union. I remembered the horrific events of over a year ago. And how there were calls for a toned-down rhetoric in our politics, in our lives. In how we treated each other.  It’s as if we listened to each other that week and intentionally carried ourselves in the opposite manner afterwards.
Forget politics. Back to my original point. None of the issues to be debated this year even matter.

As long as white people in Indiana describe a nursing home staffed by African-Americans as “ghetto.” As long as we dismiss “normal” Muslims as the exception, rather than the rule. As long as we believe in the same God, but dispatch other religions to hell for holding different beliefs. As long as we treat those who don’t believe in God differently. As long as we instantly judge an Indian by his pigmentation, a Frenchman for his accent, a southerner by his Confederate flag.
If we cannot even manage that, how can we possibly move forward on the issues that affect us all, have conversations about who in our society should be helped, ignored, or taxed more by our government.
You can have your Newt. Your Obama. Even your Paul. It won’t matter.

If “ghetto” comes from your lips to describe another person, we’ll never have the kind of discussion that  will move our country forward. We’ll all be in living in the ghetto – the ghetto of the mind – and there ain’t no government program that can help us then.

 

 

1 Comment
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes