cartoonpolitics:

Donald Trump once again adding his own inimitable brand of class to the already classy GOP campaign ..

liberalsarecool:

The Men of Orange.

(via thepoliticalfreakshow)

abokononist:

paxamericana:

GOP Congressional Spokesman: ‘Let’s Hurl Some Acid At Those Female Democratic Senators’

How do you deal with female political opponents? If you’re the spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth’s (R-NY) re-election campaign, you might “hurl some acid” at them.

Jay Townsend, a longtime GOP communications director, proposed just that on a Facebook forum with constituents this week. The comment, which is still uphere (as of the time of posting), is in reply to another commenter named Tom.

Wow.

There is a little known regulation at the FCC called the Zapple Doctrine, which is an offshoot of the Fairness Doctrine and of Section 315(a) of the Communications Act, which says that, in the 60 days prior to an election, if a broadcaster offers free airtime to one major party candidate, it must offer free airtime to the other major party candidate. Zapple expands this definition to include supporters of candidates.

The only programs which are exempt from this definition must qualify as “Bonafide News.” To qualify as “bonafide news,” programs must be non-political and not support any candidates.

[…]

So we found five monitors and had them count how many minutes each program was specifically supporting Scott Walker or bashing his Democratic opponent Tom Barrett, or supporting the GOP and bashing Democrats, and vice versa, how many minutes they were supporting Democrats in the race.

We discovered that each Right Wing Talk radio station in Milwaukee is giving about 80 minutes every day to the GOP side. Out of fifteen hours of programming, that doesn’t sound like much, but it would cost between $34,000 and $68,000 for supporters of Tom Barrett and the Democrats to buy that time. That’s $34,000 -68,000 - every single day.

[…]

But the FCC needs to hear from people all over the country who want this narrow rule, that in the 60 days prior to an election, stations must provide comparable airtime to BOTH major political parties, to survive.

Please sign the Media Action Center’s petition to help this once in a lifetime effort to change the Talk Radio dynamic for once - and for ALL.

(Source: sarahlee310, via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

political-linguaphile:

Henry Cisneros, the former San Antonio mayor who was secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton administration, made the suggestion three years ago in an interview with the Spanish-language news service EFE.

“I don’t know if he or she’s in elementary school or in law school or is already elected … to public office, but I believe that that person is already alive, and we’re 20 years or less away from having a Latino or Latina president,” said Cisneros, whose own path to higher office may have been derailed by personal scandal and who today is executive chairman of CityView, an urban development investment firm.

When the day comes that Cisneros predicted, the man or woman behind the resolute desk in the Oval Office will represent an ever-increasing segment of the population. Latinos (or Hispanics, the official government term) made up 15.5% of the U.S. population in 2010, but by 2050 they’re projected to approach 25% of the population.

In case you were wondering why ethnic programs are getting canceled. In case you were wondering why the right is so desperate to eliminate immigration. In case you we’re wondering why the Spanish language is seen as “evil”. In case you were wondering why the Dream Act hasn’t passed. The right is scared of that 25%. Too bad those over 50 million latin@s currently living in the Unites States are virtually unstoppable now. I can’t wait to see the first Latino president. 

thisbrokenwheel:

And yet, it’s Republicans who always cry out in fear of voter fraud. But then I suppose no one fears being robbed more than a thief. 

If you have to cheat to win, guess what? Your ideas suck. 

(via brotherdarkness)

republicanidiots:

“I only saw him once up close, which happened to be when he got a question he didn’t like. Was it true that his staff in the 1980 debates had stolen President Carter’s briefing book? (They had.) The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard. His reply was that maybe his staff had, and maybe they hadn’t, but what about the leak of the Pentagon Papers? Thus, a secret theft of presidential documents was equated with the public disclosure of needful information. This was a man never short of a cheap jibe or the sort of falsehood that would, however laughable, buy him some time.”

Photo courtesy Washington Post

A British company, PFC Auctions, is currently entertaining bids for a vial of the late president’s blood; the bidding closes on Thursday and, as of writing, was approaching $12,000. The blood was collected in 1981, when deranged would-be assassin John Hinckley shot the president in Washington, D.C. The sale has elicited predictable disgust and outrage, both in the public and on the part of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.

“If indeed this story is true, it’s a craven act and we will use every legal means to stop its sale or purchase,” John Heubusch, the foundation’s executive director, said in a statement. (It has also elicited equally predictable jokes: “Is it too late for the vial of Reagan blood to run for the GOP nomination?” “The appropriate thing to do with the Reagan blood would be to trickle it down on some poor people.”)

…..

(Source: phyllis36, via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

oinonio:

GOP’s Push for Self-Regulation