Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

If anybody hasn't seen that video yet stop reading and go to YouTube right now.

The playground is getting rougher and shovier over in the Primary race. Bush has backed Romney, Gingrich's best $$$$$ friend is looking to ditch him because he's..losing... and Santorum is fishing in the bottom half of the country for all of his new friends. God help us if he wins Texas.

It's as if everyone was invited to a birthday party at Obama's and nobody wanted to go but their parents made them.

Sorry for all of the middle school references I've been reading a lot about the movie 'Bully' and I'm having flashbacks to the cruel and sadly appropriate age the candidates are acting.

K, SO.

Everyone is tired of this race already. Everybody is just screaming over each other and it's becoming redundant so today I thought I'd make Batman analogies instead.

Even though Santorum took up Mississippi, Alabama and Louisianna - the three states arguably most mocked for their wholesome good hearted southern backwardsness, Romney is still considered the most viable of the race so far. It's not just that he's pocketed the most delegates or that he will one day grow up to be the guy from Monopoly, it's that he's just more moderate and it's less scary.

So let's put Romney and Santorum in the context of Batman villains to explain why Romney is the most relatable and defeatable. And let's say Santorum is, idunno, the Scarecrow. This guy loves fear mongering, he loves to discuss Satan I don't know if the Scarecrow was into that but I'm sure it doesn't hurt to assume. He wants to take over America with a mix of noxious fear and what is most likely pent up aggression about all the guilt of masturbation he had to deal with growing up. Romney will be the Penguin. I recognize that Dick Cheney embodies this but I'm going to allow dual association here because they are both Penguin in their own way. Romney: misunderstood, and one of the rare few who makes sense wearing a monacle. He wants to be adored, and to lead an army of freaks (the exorbitantly rich) out of the sewers (mansions) to take over Gotham (America). Cheney just resembled him more, and probably eats raw animals as well. I don't know I can only assume.

I'd like to say this makes Obama Batman, and so I will. The tragic hero set up to be the face of everything Gothmerica loves and fears, needs and resents and will be blamed when things go wrong. Unfortunately I can't think of a single Batman plot that ever involved hours of Batman and the villains arguing over taking away women's rights or whether everybody should be allowed accessible health care. Actually scratch that it's not unfortuante at all, it would make for an incredibly tedious and irritating graphic novel and a boring career for Frank Miller. Although I'm sure Christopher Nolan could still have adapted a badass movie of it.

This would make Max Shreck the GOP trying to help Romney Cobblepot talk to the public and run for office. Although I think Max Shreck did a better job but, whatever they both hate their candidate so it's a tough situation from the get-go. Although I think things will end more savagely than they did in Batman Returns because the fight is going to be through the media and I don't know about you but I think that is far more dangerous than a bunch of missile-strapped penguins. But still the public can get behind him because, you know, you kind of want to see what he'll do next. And yet Obatman will eventually defeat this Rompenguin because nomatter how attractive new tries to be if it's still a raw fish eating weirdo underneath it's going to shine through. This is a moral.

Santorum as the Scarecrow attracts exactly the crowd that would be into hallucinogens. God's hallucinogens in his case. And all he wants to do is destroy Gotham (America) by spreading his poison gas (self-righteous rhetoric on how only Christians know how to handle social issues) everywhere to KILL the citizens (' rights and freedoms to make choices that aren't in the bible). Scarecrow did it because he was picked on as a child. HM.

Batman gets him too.

Okay that's my daily quota of Batman Politics. A topic I am perpetually happy to revisit.

White men can't jump (or have children).

So I've been sitting on this topic for a while, just letting it heat up to boiling point. I've debated getting into the use of women's rights as a political tactic because it is very difficult to make a strong argument for women as a woman, in that hypocritical patriarchical way our country identifies with, but it's something that calls for defense regardless. It's particularly difficult to be female defending females, because society and media has made damn sure that women hating women is what men are most comfortable with. But here we are, front and center again so if anyone wants to call it a feminist rant or blame my hormones, you can come say it to my face.

Where to even begin. So it's come to my (and the entire northern hemisphere's) attention that abortion and contraceptive use is what's wrong with this country. Here is my abridged list of what I consider to actually be wrong with this country, in light of this political atmosphere:


1. Rush Limbaugh. Attacking a private citizen about her sex life is pretty 90's, bro. Not to mention ethically abhorrent, because if you can reduce an educated woman who is exercising free speech to make a case for contraceptive coverage to a prostitute, I wonder how loosely we can use that definition in the future. Birth control has many purposes, not all of which are about having sex. There are plenty of health related reasons women use contraceptives, reasons Rush Limbaugh is happy to ignore in order to call women who use birth control sluts and tell them that he wants to watch their sex tapes. Both creepy and ignorant. You should do that bit at your birthday party. Invite all of your sponsors they'll love it.

2. The fact that we are discussing abortion. STILL. How often is a progressive move like legalizing abortion overturned? Where is the logic decades after Roe v. Wade, as we move forward generationally and as a culture that we would choose to suddenly regress into some kind of puritanical society where women are forced to have a child nomatter how it was conceived? This is like some bizarre dystopian nightmare. I have no idea why it's okay for grown men to cover their ears and try to scream over the reality of rape, incest and broken condoms. I'd say generally when push comes to shove a broken condom is going to present a stronger argument than God when it comes to the decidision to have a child. Wrapping this issue up in the misinformed, stifling blanket of pro-life doesn't change the reality that it is anti-choice. Not taking into account that there is a certain psychological trauma that is inherent in having a child of rape or incest, and that this child that you're so graciously forcing all precious life upon even though nobody asked you, old white men, to do that, this child may end up living a life fraught with resentment and confusion because you have forced an identity on another human being that they did not ask for.

So thanks again, privilaged white men I'm sure have thoroughly googled this and know exactly what it must feel like to be forced to have a child. Puritan America really was the golden age.
Oh and make sure to really hammer home your future points about people abusing the welfare system when we're dealing with over population. Be sure all the teenage moms and low-income mothers who had their rapists babies aren't trying to pull a fast one on the rest of privilaged America.

3. Arguing that Americans are paying for abortions and for contraceptives. Hey reality called it wants it's overwhelming social cost of unexpected pregnancy back.

4. Rick Santorum is a self-righteous jackass.


There are hundreds more points I can make about this country but I am trying not to dissolve this into a cantakerous survey or a forum to preach. Believing in God or being 'pro-life' for yourself is not the problem, the suggestion that believing in God makes you worthy of making everyone else's decisions for them is the problem. This issue has become especially potent because I consider it to be condescending, regressive and a waste of everybody's time.

Happy Super Tuesday Y'all

So I'm sitting in my liberal apartment in the liberal Democratic SHARP left turn of the state of Massachusetts. Watching the Super Tuesday results roooooollllll in (by the way Santorum has 12% here in MA of course we hate him).

As expected Romney is sweeping his way across the PriCaucusi, snagging Virginia, Vermont, Massachusetts (uhduh), Ohio and Oklahoma. Santorum has Tennessee (jealous, Romney?) and Newt Gingrich probably has a box of tissues at his side. I'm sure Ron Paul has changed the channel by now. 

Newt Gingrich is giving another condescending speech to the audience, ever the bored bitchy teenager complaining to her friends while his wax statue of a wife stands next to him trying to avoid open flame. Don't light your cigarettes near Callista. I bet Santorum is googling 'how babies r made,' because it just makes him so mad and Romney is burning money and laughing since that's how he winds down after a long day.

I can't believe someone hasn't slapped a muzzle on Santorum yet since it's as if every statement that comes out of his mouth is something he picked because he closed his eyes and pointed at a page from the bible. How does somebody being considered for an actual influential position in 2012 get away with saying that rape victims should be forced to have their rapists baby, or that women in combat might compromise a situation because of their emotions. Or that Obama saying that he wants every American child to go to college makes him a SNOB. Seriously who edits this guys speeches? People actually applauded that. Yeah, you're right elitist Obama wants all of America's children to have the opportunity for higher education that is soooo snobby. I can't even believe he wants to make it possible for every child to have the same opportunity that is just a perfect example of the exclusionary and discriminatory behavior generally associated with snobbery PFFT. GOD, Obama. Not everybody is so goddamn fancy as you are. 

Every time Santorum opens his mouth plenty of people who write their opinions on these issues takes to their laptops in a blind fury, and this is not the time to digress into a full fledged rant because this is a holiday after all, but I will for the record express my disbelief at the fact that he is still awkwardly explaining his backwards and extraordinarily detrimental values to anybody who will listen. Oh, and he also said he plans to retroactively nullify all gay marriages in the 8 states that allow them so, we have that to look forward to in the quantum universe in which Santorum has a chance.

 

OhRomneycare.

So this story caught my eye this week - Santorum went after the Massachusetts Healthcare Plan that Romney helped initiate in 2006, calling it 'An Abject Failure.'

Clearly Santorum is not doing his homework. Here's how I know that: because he's wrong.

In fact, the Massachusetts Healthcare reform was arguably one of the best things that could have happened for the state in recent years. More than 98% of MA residents are covered, essentially every child and it only cost the state a staggering ONE PERCENT in additional spending. In short, it was A Decisive Success, Rick. Google it.

So I know Mitt Romney is a ridiculous Ken doll of a man in his public life but this is definitely as aspect of his political career that I will happily brag about as a Massgal (a term I just made up and will never use again). I'm not saying this necessarily makes him a better contender for President, and I'm not saying I call my friends up on the weeknights to gab about Romney's latest mom jeans, what I am saying is that this decision for the state was anything BUT a failure. And herein lies the most painful irony of the rest of the hunger games Presidential Campaign.

The fact that Santorum is already going around bashing 'Romneycare,' which is something nobody in Massachusetts actually calls it, is going to be a really difficult issue for Romney to defend. On the one hand, the bill worked for Massachusetts. It was great for Massachusetts - our overall health is up and it's not generally crippling to business, large or small. But if he defends it, he's four steps farther to the left of Conservatism, an image he's already struggling to maintain. However if he decries it he will be flip flopping even more fervently and it will hurt his interest to repudiate his own (correct) decision, which he should be able to brag about as a political success. Tough call, Mittens.

I think it will be worth noting how Romney handles this future awkward dinner party of an issue. One of his biggest political successes is now going to be working against him and it won't matter much that Massachusetts might wholly agree with it because come the actual election this state is going to remain as blue as they come. Seriously, I'd see the lone McCain bumper sticker in 2008 and wonder if they were lost. It's valiant in it's own way to support a Republican Presidential candidate here but come on, we all know you just wasted $2.50.

I suppose in a country where Socialism is a dirty word any uniform law on a social issue, even one as important as our health, is considered a breach of our rights. Our rights to health? I can't help but notice that this is not a strong argument against Romney's politics, this is just bad math.

Link..

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/08/146583319/double-take-toons-the-hat-rick

This is great.

Santorum - Viable candidate, or long running GOP joke about being a politician against gay marriage?

So. Rick Santorum. Taking the election by storm (or so they tell us).
It seems that with Santorum's sudden rise he is the candidate who we should be recognizing as the key threat to Romney, Gingrich and Paul. Of course, this is a fun development albeit not one that I think should have people buying their Santorum for President decals and grocery totes juuust yet.

In terms of the media circus surrounding the primaries and caucuses (caucii? I like that better) it's certainly more entertaining to keep the field from narrowing too much this early on. And Santorum has a lot to say that the media is more than happy to give him stage time for. This is the common issue with these kinds of spikes in the primaries - nomatter how much attention you give to the guy who's got the hot button issue, in the end only the smallest, least electorally represented groups are going to really WANT that man in control. I consider this true in the case of Rick Santorum. People were zombie walking toward the proverbial 'anti-aboration baby killing socialist machine' sign flashing behind him and just bumped into him along the way. Bam. Voted for.

So let's suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend that Santorum were actually chosen at the RNC. Now imagine he won the same three states - Colorado, Montana and Missouri, for a total of 29 electoral college votes. Now consider that Romney won Florida, which has 29 electoral votes in itself. That's not counting the other two he's won so far. I'm not saying that Santorum doesn't have a chance, I'm just saying the numbers matter. A candidate winning a state that has more eventual electoral votes during the Primary actually means a lot more than how many states a candidate has won, regardless of the supposed victory. The more represented states are the ones that people should be looking at, because come convention time it's more likely the GOP will choose the candidate people like more in the harsh flourescent light of population density.

Ultimately I think Santorum is going to get the attention he needs to still be considered viable, maybe snag a couple of more states who knows maybe go out and get that new tie he's been eyeballing at Banana Republic for when he has to make his concession speech to Romney (....) and eventually they will get John Slattery to play him in the movie of the Years America Unraveled. You need to picture that title with a Jane Austen character staring across a field at a sunset with wind blowing through their hair.

Shame

Over the weekend I went to see the movie 'Shame,' a film by Steve McQueen chronicling the life of a sex addict - Brandon Sullivan - played by Michael Fassbender, also known for a small role Lt. Archie Hilcox in Inglorious Basterds and a surprisingly emotional role as the young Magneto in X-Men: First Class. Here is where Michael Fassbender first caught my eye. Up until then the X-Men series has played out as more of an unhappy family reunion of celebrities.

In 'Shame,' Fassbender gives an authentically disturbing, evoking and painful performance. His character Brandon is a sex addict whose sister comes to visit him (Carey Mulligan, reprising her irritatingly typecast role as the withering victim) and throws his life sharply off balance. First we get a good look at Brandon's social, professional and personal life. A look into these aspects of his life in such sharp focus that I dare you not to feel like a pervert for just sitting through it. It's incredibly effective, and sets the stage for every painfully congenital moment in the film's arc.

Carey Mulligan (playing Sissy Sullivan) does a great job of making you feel both sympathetic toward and totally turned off by her needy, energetic and pathetic disposition. At the point in the film where she makes an appearance the audience is already so wrapped up in Brandon's life that we can't help but vicariously bristle at the intrusion. This makes the volatile dynamic between the siblings all the more raw, the tension between them bubbling up and over multiple times resulting in the fierce manifestations of Brandon's inner demons.

Of course, only with an actor like Michael Fassbender can this evoke such a visceral and acute response to a dynamic. I will go as far as to say that I have never felt so much through a character as Michael Fassbender made me feel through Brandon. Though the audience is given access to Brandon's daily life and rituals we are never subject to his thoughts or to his actual processes. We are tourists, trying to understand a man through only his face and his routines and I have to say I have trouble thinking of any actor that can put so much intensity into any scene using only his expression. The script isn't dialogue heavy - the subtle tremors of emotion in Fassbender's expression and the score serve as more than enough to get you to not only connect on an alarmingly real level with the character but to self reflect in a way that will make you uncomfortable with yourself. Watching Fassbender play this incredibly controlled, tragic man will give you the same discomfort that you might feel watching somebody grieve. Probably because in a lot of ways you are.

Steve McQueen directs the film in a way I can best describe as patient. If you haven't caught on by now, you are more than likely going to find yourself in a state of tension for the entire film. But McQueen doesn't rush it, he doesn't give the audience the gratification of moving things along or of finding resolution. His direction is patient, at times drawn out and it never lets you get away with sitting back and assuming things will be fine. His directing along with the score takes it's time, makes you sit with Brandon through every painful moment of his life because he's not going to let you off that easily. You don't get to just infer the suffering of this man, you are going to watch it unfold in real time. This is where the film's power comes from. Instead of rushing the scenes, creating distracting dialogue and making Brandon universally relatable the camera lingers long enough on Fassbender's face during scenes so graphic (emotionally and at times sexually) that you can barely sit still, creating the almost unbearable discomfort that defines his character.

All in all, an incredible film. I can't recommend it enough - just make sure you don't have any social plans after seeing it because this one will stay with you for a while.

You can find the trailor here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62nelnMXW3M
If you've seen it, what do you think?