Two things. Two things that prove that the Teabagger movement is essentially daring people to vote for them. Not asking, not persuading, but extending their middle finger to say "Come on, do it. We dare you."
1. This:
Shorter: "I am fucking insane. Do you have the balls to vote for someone who is as obviously insane as me? I bet you don't. Pussy. But you're kinda curious about what would happen if I won, aren't you?"
2. Teabagland has found a new enemy, one that is sure to win them a whole new realm of supporters: legislation aimed at shutting down puppy mills. That's right, their "big gub'mint" paranoia is so extreme that they are opposed to a ballot measure to shut down puppy mills. They are anti-anti-puppy mill. This is the political platform of Skeletor.
(A)ccording to the Alliance For Truth, the main force behind the anti-Prop B movement, there is something much more nefarious afoot (er, apaw) in the HSUS measure. The Alliance For Truth claims that the HSUS has a "radical agenda" and is "misleading the public with its intentions on Prop B. The society seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners."
Anita Andrews from Alliance For Truth told TPM that it's a "deceptive, lying bill" that is "trying to purposefully get rid of the breeders." The state of Missouri, she said, has been given a bad rap as "the puppy mill capitol" of the U.S. but "in truth we have the best ribbon breeders in the country." And, Andrews said, the state already has anti-cruelty laws on the books.
"They don't like animals," she said of the Humane Society of the United States.
I give up on trying to figure out if this movement is real or an elaborate Joaquin Phoenix-style joke.
HoosierPoli says:
All teabaggers are puppy-breeders. Suddenly it all makes sense.
Nunya says:
Uh, no Christine, I'm not like you at all for the following reasons:
1. I'm not a pathological liar
2. I'm not a pathetic example of the idiocy of the right
3. I actually earn an income and pay taxes
4. I'm not about to be indicted for imbezzlement
5. I fully endorse masturbation
Puppymiller says:
"The society seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners." Yes, because we all know shelters are running out of dogs for middle-class American families to adopt. This may be the dumbest argument I've heard all century, and I remember the case for invading Iraq.
J. Dryden says:
Can someone in the appropriate field of, I'm guessing, the nexus of Sociology and Political Science (and what a wild and woolly corner of the Ivory Tower that intersection must be), please determine when it became acceptable parlance to reflexively describe the priorities of anyone who even slightly disagrees with you as "a radical agenda"? Do people not understand the meaning of the term? (Rhetorical question: No, they do not.) I worry that "words that actually mean what they say" is a rapidly depleting resource. Like "Hitlerian." Remember when that used to be something that made you stop and say "Whoa," because of the severity of that claim? Not anymore, and indeed, the word bears no relation to its referent. "Radical" no longer means anything more than a vague scary pejorative, as well-illustrated here: if disapproval of subsidized animal cruelty is "radical," then, fuck, what *isn't*?
As for you, Ms. O'Donnell–perhaps you were/are not a witch. And a lot of easy humor has been made at your expense. Fair enough. But you also weren't a very attentive student in your English classes. "None" (short for "not one") is a singular subject. It therefore takes the singular form of the verb "to be." Hence, "None of us *is* perfect" is correct, while "None of us *are* perfect" is lazy mouth-breather crap that loses one points on even the most loosely graded of essays. It's called grammar, and since I care about it, and you don't, you are not I. (And yes, that too is the correct phrasing.)
eau says:
Well, Christine, if you're me, I have some questions for you concerning the amount of masturbating you've been doing.
Dirty girl.
Teah Baggeur says:
Please do not ask us about bestiality.
Sarah says:
There are three to four million animals getting euthanized in the United States every year. My county alone euthanized over 6,000 animals in the fiscal year ending September 2008 (which was the number I used for a presentation I did on this issue in December 2008). Many of these shelters and animal control agencies are literally giving animals away (with the adopters taking on the cost of vetting the animals) or adopting the animals with very nominal fees ($85 for cats and $100 for dogs at the shelter where I volunteer, for an animal that is spayed/neutered and current on shots and basic medical treatment). The animal control facility in my county adopts them out for $50 with a voucher for the required spay/neuter, and frequently drops the fee to $25. The idea that shutting down puppy mills will make it harder for people to have animals is bullshit. And even if it did become harder, for some people who shouldn't have animals, that is probably a good thing.
Elder Futhark says:
Listen carefully to the background music in O'Donnell's commercial. That's the music crazy people hear inside their heads all the time. I bet Christine didn't even know there was background music.
sluggo says:
That girl has crazy eyes!
I think she is trying to cast a spell through the computer!
sluggo says:
It worked. She just turned me into a cat.
sluggo says:
Nixon: I am not a crook.
O'Donnell: I am not a witch.
DO THE MATH.
sluggo says:
Let me get this straight: This chick was born in New Jersey,has dabbled in witchcraft, and is the spawn of Bozo?
Can it get any freakier?
John says:
1) It is a sad, sad day for America when a serious political candidate for the senate opens their campaign ad with "I am not a witch." I mean, fucking seriously, can we please just sink quietly into the ocean in the dead of night so we can go out with some dignity? There exist people that thought that ad was a good idea. That fact *alone* is enough reason for our eventual alien overlords to vaporize the planet.
2) @Sarah: "The idea that shutting down puppy mills will make it harder for people to have animals is bullshit."
What it is, is faux-populist bait. The people opposed to the legislation are more than aware that shelters have to put down animals because there aren't enough adopters for them all. But they dont' give a shit about the animals, and they don't give a shit about middle-class America. What they *do* give a shit about is the profits of puppy mill owners. It's just that they realized that "DEY COMIN' TO TAKE UR GUNZ!" isn't needed here when they can use the much more salient "DEY COMIN' TO TAKE UR DOGZ!"
There are times when I really have to grit my teeth to stick to my basic principles of freedom. I believe with all my heart that those people have the right and the freedom to say things like that. I believe that there is no place, in civilized society, for harming people on the basis of their ideas.
But I'm not going to deny that there is some dark, twisted corner of my soul that wants to see people that use tactics like this flogged into oblivion. Restraint is challenging, but I hold firm.
Monkey Business says:
The more and more insane these people become, the more and more I feel like we're at a tipping point in American history. The full lunacy of these rednecks and psychotics and the greed of their corporate and political masters has been laid bare at the feet of Lady Liberty. These people are clearly not capable of participating in the electoral process in a reasonable capacity. I'm not saying this because they disagree with me; I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, as long as they have a reasonable explanation for doing so. I'm saying this because they have no concept of the truth, or facts, or anything other than the mass hysteria and fearmongering that fits their particular world view.
Frankly, I think we need to kick these people out. If you are or have ever been affiliated with the Tea Party movement, your right to participate in the electoral process, either as a voter, candidate, staffer, etc. is permanently revoked.
Pete says:
Look, I hate to be on the wrong side of the commenters here , but there is some takeaway that y’all missed.
-Humane Society U.S. =/= the people who run shelters. HSUS is parasite organization that is into animal liberation, not humane care.
-All the stuff in the new bill,with the exception of the 2 litter/18 month limit, is in current law. Good laws are already on the books. In fact current law is better written and applies to more breeders.
-There is no published science that supports the 2 litter / 18 month limit.
-The tea-baggers are on the right side of this.
Pete
Jon says:
@Pete So if the bill's substance is already enshrined in law, how is this legislation 'radical' ? Are the teabaggers up in arms because they really fear duplicate legislation? I think the point of this post isn't whether the teabaggers are right or wrong. It's that they're always batshit crazy.
CaptBackslap says:
"This is the political platform of Skeletor" made me laugh pretty hard.
AL says:
@Pete: If tea party representatives were making the argument, "much of what is in prop b is already current law and, thus, we don't need duplicate legislation," (which appears to be similar to your argument) then that might be a reasonable argument. However, this clearly does not seem to be the tea party's message about this measure. Rather, it appears they've gone the lunatic route by calling the measure "radical" legislation aimed at taking away the right of Americans to own pets. I think that is the message of Ed's post.
BK says:
I don't know the specifics about the Missourah puppy mill bill, but I do have a lot of experience in the puppy mill world… This is a huge, emotionally-charged issue which is ripe for teabaggery and PETA level hysteria.
I previously was the chief of staff for a state assembly representative who was willing to author a bill to regualte puppy mills in Wisconsin. I worked to craft the legislation, gained support from a couple of different organizations that are working on this sort of legislation across the country and had a moderate Republican co-author the bill (which was needed given the fact the house was controlled by the GOP).
Then we got blown out of the water by the AKC and a group of conservative GOPers who throught our measure was too extreme in as much as it allowed our Dept of Ag, Trade and Consumer Protection to license breeders who sold more than 6 dogs a year…
Just to be clear, the logical extension of opposition to the licensure and inspection of pets like dogs is the oppostion of regulation related to food, transportation and infrastructure. There are standards that need to be met regarding safety for cleaning supplies, bedding, furniture, housing materials and the list goes on… requiring licensure for the production of an an animal that has the ability to cause significant injury or even death doesn't seem all that extreme to me…
Andrew says:
The scary part is that the commercial actually makes her seem reasonable. Who wants to stand up for politics as usual? Who wouldn't do things differently if given a chance. Now you know and I know that she's absolutely batshit insane, but if you'd never heard of her before this commercial, you wouldn't get that impression.
Pete says:
@Al and John-
I agree that they are using stupid arguments, but see past that. Also, too, they do have consistently dumb as dirt supporters like Jimmies Babtist dog biscuit bakery, or State Representative John Q. Fuckface, but look past that.
I do have a longstanding disrespect for HSUS
see: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/136
I see them as Animal Liberation rather than Animal Welfare.
tl;dr- they're right for the wrong reasons
wellnab says:
@Pete,
Although I don't think it'll make any difference, judging by your link to yet another dubious web site run by the so-called Center for Consumer Freedom, a lobbying firm paid for and run by HSUS opponents, I'm going to try to run this down for you.
I am, and have been for many years, a vegan. I _DO_ think that animals are people. I think it's morally wrong to kill them for our food or to enslave them for any purpose. I am an animal rights advocate and an abolitionist.
The Humane Society of the United States, in contrast, holds that it is OK to produce and to kill animals for food, AS LONG AS those animals are treated with a minimum standard of decent care and are killed in the nicest possible way. They do not hold that veganism is necessary; they do not want to abolish animal food production; they do not want to abolish animal ownership. They advocate a very reasonable, middle-of-the-road, animal welfare position. They are an animal welfare organization.
Do I support HSUS? Absolutely. The work that they do makes the terrible lives of millions of animals slightly less so. That does not mean that I agree with them 100%, and, more to the point, it does not mean that they agree with me.
HSUS is an animal welfare organization.
Nate W. says:
Don't buy what Pete's selling. He just tipped his hand by linking to the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a front group for several lobbying groups. I suggest you do your own research before assuming that he's telling the truth on the state of Missouri law.
Angry Geometer says:
She's going to go to Washington and do what I'd do? Really? She's going to try to rub her balls on as many things in the White House as she can before security escorts her out? Yeah, I suppose she is.
Comrade PhysioProf says:
Regardless of the merits regarding "puppy mills", the fact remains that HSUS *is* an extremist "animal rights" organization with an overall extremist agenda of ending all use of animals for food, scientific research, etc.
Pete says:
@wellnab
Diet-wise we aren't going, and don't need, to find agreement. I respect where you are coming from and have no beef (sorry, had to) with the moralist position. We disagree, but that isn't a fight I care about.
I am more concerned with their position on animal research.
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/statements/statement_on_animals_in_research.html
I assume we will dissagre
@Nate
Pete says:
sorry for the mis-click, continued from above
@wellnab
…
I assume we will disagree, but that position puts them outside the mainstream, and firmly in the liberation category.
@Nate-
Your right, I didn't vet (sorry, had to) that website and it does appear to be overly biased to the food and agriculture side. Fine, I will quote Missouri law.
Summary: http://www.animallaw.info/administrative/adusmo2mo_adc_30_9_020.htm
Ballot measure: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Dog_Breeding_Regulation_Initiative,_Proposition_B_(2010)
Note that is a measure does more than I originally said. It also limits breeders to 50 dogs. That is new, and I do support that.
It is funded mostly by HSUS whom I consider outside the mainstream. I don't see any rational for limiting the size of operations as long as they conform to best practices for raising animals.
On a personal note, I do not support pet stores, fad pets or puppy mills. I am the proud keeper of a rescue animal and will be willing to listen to reason and argument.
Mr. Wonderful says:
Late getting here, but seriously:
Let me get this straight: This chick was born in New Jersey,has dabbled in witchcraft, and is the spawn of Bozo?
Can it get any freakier?
…for the win.
John says:
@Pete: Going off of the ballotpedia link you provided, the language as it would appear on the ballot measure is the following:
"A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.
A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes. "
This language was challenged, but the courts found it to be a fair and accurate portrayal of the legislation.
According to that same page, HSUS is not the only organization supporting the measure. Admittedly, I know nothing of Missouri's various associations, but names attached to it include:
"The main organization in support of the initiative is Missourians for the Protection of Dogs. It is a coalition made of the following groups: Humane Society of Missouri, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Humane Society of the United States."
The ASPCA, I would imagine, is not very extremist, though I may be out of date in my knowledge of them. In any case, the legislation as it is explained in the ballot measure simply limits the number of breeding dogs to 50, and requires that they be properly cared for. Even if HSUS is not exactly mainstream, I don't really see anything "radical" in the measure as proposed. According to the ballotpedia site, opposition comes substantially from agribusiness concerns that are not even affected by the legislation — they make slippery-slope arguments that legislation to make sure breeding dogs are well cared-for will morph into legislation regarding food animals and food-producing animals.
I don't pretend to know anything about Missouri or its industries, but as an outsider looking purely at the ballot language, I can't see where claims of "radicalism" are coming from.
acer says:
I'm starting to think Christine O'Donnell is a human sacrifice, conjured up to take national attention away from Sharron Angle and Rand Paul. What's creepy is that I can totally imagine the tone of that ad resonating with the weepy Oprah crowd.
anonymous says:
Wellnab writes:>The Humane Society of the United States, in contrast, holds that it is OK to produce and to kill animals for food, AS LONG AS those animals are treated with a minimum standard of decent care and are killed in the nicest possible way.>>
And don't you know this is exactly what's infuriating the Teabaggers? That group seems to enshrine the belief that abuse is perfectly okay as long as the target is weaker than they are.
P.S. I volunteered at the HSUS in NYC, and I know Pete is full of lies.
Ben says:
@pete
-There is no published science that supports the 2 litter / 18 month limit.
Thank you for indicating that you would like to see a published science on something. You have single handedly restored my faith that Tea Party members may actually be interested in facts and science, something that up to this point I did not know the Tea Party stood for…
Ben says:
@pete
-There is no published science that supports the 2 litter / 18 month limit.
Thank you for indicating that you would like to see a published science on something. You have single handedly restored my faith that Tea Party members may actually be interested in facts and science, something that up to this point I did not know the Tea Party stood for…
Robert says:
And witches across the US breathe a sigh of relief.
Regarding the smudging definition of 'radical', has anyone else noticed that some people in public discourse in the US today (not pointing any fingers) seem to have a rather curious sense of what 'elite' means? I suspect that it has come to mean, like Orwell's example of 'fascist', [someone whose views on subject X I find disagreeable]. If someone can be a Fascist and a Marxist simutaneously, being an 'elite' as well should be no problem.
John says:
Watching/hearing multi-millionaire pundits that get paid multiple times my salary to flap their gums on radio/teevee for a couple hours a day talk about "those dern elites" makes me laugh.
And then it makes me rage.
Pete says:
@John
I am left defending a weak position. What I dispute is the claim that 'large-scale' breeding is so much worse that it needs to be outlawed. I dispute that there is any rational reason relating to animal welfare that should limit a [female dog] to one litter every 10 months. There are existing care requirements, there are existing enforcement mechanisms, there are licensing requirements. There is a state oversight already.
Since we both agree these are the scope of the law is limited then you see what is happening, right? National organizations can say they are "stopping puppy mill torture" and per my link that you quoted, they pull in $1.2 million in donations in 4 months. This is my beef with HSUS; they grandstand for money when there is public sentiment for animals, then spend the money on lobying efforts.
see here after the michael Vick thing:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/images/hsus_clip.png
and after Katrina they raised $36M:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032501002.html
So my critique remains: They are a lobbying organization, outside the mainstream that takes the good work that American Humane Assc. does (they're the ones who actually run shelters) and uses it to fund raise for what I consider Animal Liberation rather than Animal Welfare. This claim come from prior actions by HSUS directed at shutting down university primate research labs.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Humane_Society_of_the_United_States
@ anonymous
You worked for a lobbying firm, not a shelter
@ben
Liberal secular humanist not TP
Entomologista says:
No, she specifically says she is not a witch.
Sour Kraut says:
No, she specifically says she is not a witch.
She turned me into a newt!
Ike says:
The thing is, most of the teabagger crowd are watching this ad and thinking, "dang, she's hot. I would so do her."
Entomologista says:
But you got better!
Brighton says:
The agenda that has been grafted onto them by their Republican handlers has already been given to them by Obama. Read here: http://brighton-towne.blogspot.com/2010/10/keep-real-stakeholders-at-table.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FKGpTb+%28Dolphin+Kazoo%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Their real agenda is:
1. Send all Blacks back to Liberia.
2. Send all gays back to Li-queeria
3. Help Israel because they live near Jesus.
4. Get those kids out of my yard!
5. Don't touch my free government money!
6. No free government money for anyone!
7. God in the classrooms, god in the board rooms, god in the bedrooms, god, god, goddily woddily godgodgod!
8. Let me shoot something.
9. Myeanhh!
10. No more government oversight; give me back contaminated food, elder poverty, the great depression, organized crime, monopolies, slavery, misogyny and the ozone hole. And barbershop quartets.
Wisakedjak says:
If that's all it took to get barbershop quartets, I would be behind that in a second
Joe Bauers says:
"I'm not a witch."
But you are dressed as one!
g says:
Seems to me another public good that could come out of the Missouri ballot measure to limit puppy mills is the limitation of the product of puppy mills.
Yes, it's good to improve the conditions the animals are raised in.
But it's even better if it put some limitations on the number of animals that can be raised.
We don't need an increase in product to meet the demand of a market fueled by fads. These are animals, not widgets. The cute chihuahua someone buys because Paris Hilton's looks so cute on the cover of People magazine, ends up euthanized in a shelter 1 year later.
Puppy mills are like cheap toy factories, only the products don't end up in close-out stores like Big Lots, they end up dead after much suffering.
I'm the proud owner of a beautiful shelter dog – my third, the other two having lived long and happy lives after being rescued. The Los Angeles animal control shelter I got him in was filled to the brim with unwanted chihuahuas and pit bulls.
chautauqua says:
Look what just climbed in through the Overton Window.