Texas Gov. Rick Perry is circling his wagons. His fellow conservatives lambaste him for his stumbling syntax in debates, and for his softness on illegal immigration. One hundred seventy-five years after the Alamo, is it Perry's turn to make his last political stand? Find out in the latest episode of "The Devil Made Me Blog It!"
Merci to my muse for suggesting I actually look at a photo of the Alamo before drawing it.
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Rick Perry's 'Alamoment'
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Will Obama Gloat Over Osama's Death?
We've seen plenty of over-the-top celebrations over the years, George Bush's aircraft-carrier landing predominant among them. Now that Navy SEALs have taken out Osama bin Laden, how will President Obama respond? That's the question asked in this week's "Devil Made Me Blog It."
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Fist-Bump Time for Obama
Does Osama bin Laden's death mean "The End of Terrorism," just as the fall of the Berlin Wall meant "The End of History"? Satan wants to find out in the latest edition of "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Boehner's Selective Shutdown
Satan suggests that when House Speaker John Boehner shuts down the government, he should leave room for a few exemptions in the latest episode of "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Can Deval Tap Into Right Outlets?
Wrentham, Massachusetts, is not only home to GOP Sen. Scott Brown ... it's home to a storied collection of outlet stores. It is these "outlet voters" -- the suburbanites and exurbanites of southern and central Massachusetts -- who will tell the final story of the Bay State governor's race in 2010.
Outlet voters swarmed to the Republican checkout line to vote for two popular members of their party in the last 10 years: Mitt Romney in the governor's race in 2002; and Brown in the special election for Senate earlier this year. Both candidates won.
You see the power in these outlet voters when you watch them at non-political events, from shopping at the IKEA in Stoughton to cheering on the Pats at Gillette Stadium. It was these outlet voters that the great New York Times columnist David Brooks unconsciously evoked when he penned his great paean to the exurbs back in the George W. Bush era. (Yes, their counterparts nationwide loved Dubya.)
For Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat who represents everything the outlet voters dislike -- taxing the rich to help the poor, more social services, increased government in general -- the key to winning this election is straight out of the Sun Tzu playbook: If an enemy is strong, avoid them. I'm predicting and hoping Patrick -- who represents more of what I like than Republican rival Charlie Baker -- will avoid them enough to win this race.
He has avoided them in one way by not stirring up their wrath like fellow Democrats in the past. Former state treasurer Shannon O'Brien offended their sensibilities when she joked about having a tattoo ... paving the way for Mitt's win eight years ago. Current state AG Martha Coakley slandered Fenway Park and Curt Schilling, double no-nos that cost her brownie points against Brown. Deval has played it more prudently.
He also has the fortune of a spoiler in the race, current treasurer Tim "Pick Six" Cahill. Polls report a consistent six percent for the independent from Quincy, which is sort of in the northern hemisphere of the South Shore outlet belt. Cahill's Andrew Jackson-like populism -- in debates, he spoke up for the spoils system and likened his style to the Founding Fathers' -- may resonate with outlet voters who'd otherwise go for Baker.
There are, of course, pitfalls. Patrick seems to have all but written off courting outlet voters directly, ceding the attack-ad space to Baker during sporting events on TV and talk radio. (Kudos to Coakley and Democratic auditor candidate Suzanne Bump for not following the governor's example here.) This puts a lot on Cahill's shoulders, and Cahill does not seem to have any ads during these times either. Worse yet, the treasurer has run an opera-buffa campaign that overshadows the candidate's decent performance in the debates.
Still, Patrick may have done just enough to outmaneuver the outlet voters and get the rest of Massachusetts to vote for him today.
Outlet voters swarmed to the Republican checkout line to vote for two popular members of their party in the last 10 years: Mitt Romney in the governor's race in 2002; and Brown in the special election for Senate earlier this year. Both candidates won.
You see the power in these outlet voters when you watch them at non-political events, from shopping at the IKEA in Stoughton to cheering on the Pats at Gillette Stadium. It was these outlet voters that the great New York Times columnist David Brooks unconsciously evoked when he penned his great paean to the exurbs back in the George W. Bush era. (Yes, their counterparts nationwide loved Dubya.)
For Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat who represents everything the outlet voters dislike -- taxing the rich to help the poor, more social services, increased government in general -- the key to winning this election is straight out of the Sun Tzu playbook: If an enemy is strong, avoid them. I'm predicting and hoping Patrick -- who represents more of what I like than Republican rival Charlie Baker -- will avoid them enough to win this race.
He has avoided them in one way by not stirring up their wrath like fellow Democrats in the past. Former state treasurer Shannon O'Brien offended their sensibilities when she joked about having a tattoo ... paving the way for Mitt's win eight years ago. Current state AG Martha Coakley slandered Fenway Park and Curt Schilling, double no-nos that cost her brownie points against Brown. Deval has played it more prudently.
He also has the fortune of a spoiler in the race, current treasurer Tim "Pick Six" Cahill. Polls report a consistent six percent for the independent from Quincy, which is sort of in the northern hemisphere of the South Shore outlet belt. Cahill's Andrew Jackson-like populism -- in debates, he spoke up for the spoils system and likened his style to the Founding Fathers' -- may resonate with outlet voters who'd otherwise go for Baker.
There are, of course, pitfalls. Patrick seems to have all but written off courting outlet voters directly, ceding the attack-ad space to Baker during sporting events on TV and talk radio. (Kudos to Coakley and Democratic auditor candidate Suzanne Bump for not following the governor's example here.) This puts a lot on Cahill's shoulders, and Cahill does not seem to have any ads during these times either. Worse yet, the treasurer has run an opera-buffa campaign that overshadows the candidate's decent performance in the debates.
Still, Patrick may have done just enough to outmaneuver the outlet voters and get the rest of Massachusetts to vote for him today.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
From Salman Rushdie to shoe-throwing
ARLINGTON, Mass. -- Tuesday's snowfall has created a holiday atmosphere across the greater Boston area, and Christmas tunes abound on radio stations. The news headlines, however, focus on another religion: Islam.
On Sunday, Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi threw a pair of shoes at President Bush during Dubya's farewell visit to the nation. Shows of support for al-Zaidi took place in the Middle East, and fellow journalists explain his gesture as one of contempt for the president.
It's easy for some Westerners to paint al-Zaidi as representative of Islamic sentiment. Easy, but misleading. In a story depicting approval of al-Zaidi, the New York Times nevertheless reported that "A number of Iraqis said they were dismayed by what Mr. Zaidi had done," that Lebanese "reactions varied by political affiliation," and that across the Middle East, people "deplored Mr. Zaidi’s act as a breach of respect or of traditional Arab hospitality toward guests, even if they shared the sentiment." Yet the headline read: "In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.) "
This misrepresentation is only the continuation of a trend.
Consider another conflict: the Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's 1988 fatwa against author Salman Rushdie for his portrayal of Islam in his novel "The Satanic Verses." Twenty years later, people still interpret the fatwa as emblematic of Muslims' reaction, when the actual situation shows more nuance. "When Saudi Arabia tried at the end of 1988 to get the novel banned in Muslim countries worldwide, few responded except those with large subcontinental populations, such as South Africa or Malaysia," spiked reported. "Even in Iran the book was openly available and was reviewed in many newspapers."
Are some Muslims upset at the West? Yes. Is some of this anger justified? Rushdie merely wrote a book; al-Zaidi's anger has more concrete causes. (A Baghdad editor "said he recalled that in (the) last year his colleague told him that 'the criminal Bush' would pay two-fold for the crimes he committed against innocent Iraqis," the Times reported.) Should we continue portraying these conflicts as pitting all Muslims against the West? No. There are some who see the nuance -- including our much-maligned president. "Mothers and fathers and children across the Islamic world, and all the world, share the same fears and aspirations," he told the West Point graduates of 2002. "In poverty, they struggle. In tyranny, they suffer. And as we saw in Afghanistan, in liberation they celebrate."
Let's hope the present anger dies down. And let's hope that we in the West can see the nuances in thought across Iraq and the Islamic world.
On Sunday, Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi threw a pair of shoes at President Bush during Dubya's farewell visit to the nation. Shows of support for al-Zaidi took place in the Middle East, and fellow journalists explain his gesture as one of contempt for the president.
It's easy for some Westerners to paint al-Zaidi as representative of Islamic sentiment. Easy, but misleading. In a story depicting approval of al-Zaidi, the New York Times nevertheless reported that "A number of Iraqis said they were dismayed by what Mr. Zaidi had done," that Lebanese "reactions varied by political affiliation," and that across the Middle East, people "deplored Mr. Zaidi’s act as a breach of respect or of traditional Arab hospitality toward guests, even if they shared the sentiment." Yet the headline read: "In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.) "
This misrepresentation is only the continuation of a trend.
Consider another conflict: the Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's 1988 fatwa against author Salman Rushdie for his portrayal of Islam in his novel "The Satanic Verses." Twenty years later, people still interpret the fatwa as emblematic of Muslims' reaction, when the actual situation shows more nuance. "When Saudi Arabia tried at the end of 1988 to get the novel banned in Muslim countries worldwide, few responded except those with large subcontinental populations, such as South Africa or Malaysia," spiked reported. "Even in Iran the book was openly available and was reviewed in many newspapers."
Are some Muslims upset at the West? Yes. Is some of this anger justified? Rushdie merely wrote a book; al-Zaidi's anger has more concrete causes. (A Baghdad editor "said he recalled that in (the) last year his colleague told him that 'the criminal Bush' would pay two-fold for the crimes he committed against innocent Iraqis," the Times reported.) Should we continue portraying these conflicts as pitting all Muslims against the West? No. There are some who see the nuance -- including our much-maligned president. "Mothers and fathers and children across the Islamic world, and all the world, share the same fears and aspirations," he told the West Point graduates of 2002. "In poverty, they struggle. In tyranny, they suffer. And as we saw in Afghanistan, in liberation they celebrate."
Let's hope the present anger dies down. And let's hope that we in the West can see the nuances in thought across Iraq and the Islamic world.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Dubya fans can't get even a quantum of solace
On Saturday, my muse and I saw two movies -- "W" and "Quantum of Solace" -- at the Somerville Theater. While only one was a portrayal of Bush, and while only one was truly fictional, both contained lessons in how we see the Bush Administration.
First, the protagonist of each film wants revenge. Josh Brolin's Bush seeks revenge on Saddam Hussein after the Iraqi leader's alleged involvement in an assassination plot against Dubya's dad, ex-president George H.W. Bush. (The Huffington Post disputes whether such a plot existed.) Daniel Craig's 007, meanwhile, pursues revenge for the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd.
Just as common as the revenge element are conspiracy theories. Which is more believable -- Richard Dreyfuss' Dick Cheney arguing that an occupation of Iraq would help the US rule the oil market and preserve American global hegemony? (Um, no comment.) Or Bond villain Dominic Greene sparking distrust of environmental groups through his portrayal of an eco-do-gooder with bad motives? (He wants to manipulate the Bolivian water supply.)
Revenge and conspiracies abound in both films, and maybe it's no mistake that they each contain characters who go by one initial -- Judi Dench's M and, of course, the president. What this also reveals, though, is how disturbing the presidency has become when the cartoonish elements of a cloack-and-dagger flick permeate it.
First, the protagonist of each film wants revenge. Josh Brolin's Bush seeks revenge on Saddam Hussein after the Iraqi leader's alleged involvement in an assassination plot against Dubya's dad, ex-president George H.W. Bush. (The Huffington Post disputes whether such a plot existed.) Daniel Craig's 007, meanwhile, pursues revenge for the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd.
Just as common as the revenge element are conspiracy theories. Which is more believable -- Richard Dreyfuss' Dick Cheney arguing that an occupation of Iraq would help the US rule the oil market and preserve American global hegemony? (Um, no comment.) Or Bond villain Dominic Greene sparking distrust of environmental groups through his portrayal of an eco-do-gooder with bad motives? (He wants to manipulate the Bolivian water supply.)
Revenge and conspiracies abound in both films, and maybe it's no mistake that they each contain characters who go by one initial -- Judi Dench's M and, of course, the president. What this also reveals, though, is how disturbing the presidency has become when the cartoonish elements of a cloack-and-dagger flick permeate it.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Bush 'Strategery' on Obama
Bush Cartoon
Originally uploaded by rbtenorio
On Monday, President Bush welcomed his successor, Barack Obama, to the White House. Bush explained the details of the presidency to Obama. But wouldn't it have been a nice parting ploy if Dubya somehow sabotaged his presentation? Satan envisions such a scenario in the latest episode of "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama to create a "Hope Tax"?
Taxes Cartoon
Originally uploaded by rbtenorio
President-elect Barack Obama is busy putting together his economic team. What will be his first major economic step? Mephistopheles thinks our 44th president will soon institute a "Hope Tax" in the latest episode of "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Liberals partying like it's 1929?
Crisis Cartoon
Originally uploaded by rbtenorio
The US economy is in financial freefall, with the Bush Administration trying to rescue it with a Brobdingnagian bailout. (The House of Representatives rejected it today.) Yet amid all the dire forecasts, are liberals secretly (or not-so-secretly) loving the sight of Wall Street laid low? Find out in "The Devil Made Me Blog It"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
