« Free the Comics Page | Main | Here are a Few of My Favorite Quotes »
May 31, 2007
Mystery Science Politics 2000
We continue the Prickly City tribute to Fox News Channel, in which reporters ask idiotic questions in order to extract an answer from which they will construe their own interpretation to fit their ideological point of view. Today: all candidates, except the ones we say aren't, are insane. Even though the question itself is insane, because the election couldn't be held today - that'd be like asking who the next Pussycat Doll would be if we had to choose today. How can we know??? They haven't even finished holding all the auditions for the next contest yet!!! Nevertheless, in the nutty spirit of the wacky PC, if they election of 7 years ago were re-held today, who would you vote for? Today's contestant, George W. Bush, with responses from the October 3, 2000 debate.
BUSH: I cannot let this go by, the old-style Washington politics, if we're going to scare you in the voting booth.
The politics of fear surely isn't something that I'd find presidential.
BUSH: It's fuzzy math...And that stands in contrast to my worthy opponent's plan, which will increase the size of government dramatically.
BUSH: I am pro-life.
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3463
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 11
Total 3474
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.
Riddle me this: Starts with a Q and ends in a mire, and the situation continues to get more dire and dire.
BUSH: And so, look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law....I think we need to fully enforce the law. I think we need to have an attorney general that says if a law is broken, we'll enforce it. Be strict and firm about it.
Gonzalez “was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way.”
Gonzales “was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.”
Gonzales “helped formulate and later defended the policies that repudiated the Geneva Conventions in the war against terror, and that sanctioned the use of kidnapping, secret detentions, abuse and torture.”
Gonzales “has been central to the administration’s assault on the courts, which he recently said had no right to judge national security policies, and on the constitutional separation of powers.”
Under Gonzales, the Justice Department “has abandoned its duties as guardian of election integrity and voting rights. It approved a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a poll tax, a case in which Mr. Gonzales’s political team overrode the objections of the department’s professional staff.”
Under Gonzales, the Justice Department “has been shamefully indifferent to complaints of voter suppression aimed at minority voters. But it has managed to find the time to sue a group of black political leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.”
Next time in our continuing Stupid Questions series: If the Super Bowl were held today, would anyone notice that the season was supposed to end 4 months ago?
Comments
Yeah, but how do you feel about Paris Hilton?
Posted by: Annie at May 31, 2007 11:21 AM
I would like for Stantis to explain why Kucinich is insane. Although he has agreed to be in that Fox News-hosted debate, but that's more stupid than insane.
Posted by: The Furnace at May 31, 2007 12:30 PM
Why is Stantis so hateful of Kucinich? I mean, the guy isn't the most prominent candidate, and though he is really liberal, I wouldn't say that voting for him would make you insane... I wouldn't do it, but that's because I don't agree with all of his policies -- not because either one of us is insane.
The irony of your whole tirade about the stupid question of "if the elction were held today..." is that Stantis already tackled it... and it was a long time ago too. September 26, 2004...
Winslow replies to a pollster that if the election were held today, he'd "be totally surprised! I mean, that thing's not until November or something..." Then, he rages at the pollster: "Don't tell me those Homeland Security types CHANGED it! If they do that then the terrorists win! And I for one won't stand for it! Do you hear me? Come back here!"
One of the few truly funny Prickly City strips. Unsurprisingly, it was from one of the first few months of the strip, before Stantis's 2 year burnout. Which is almost all of the strip's lifespan.
Oh yeah, and don't miss yesterday's "Candorville". That strip really made me laugh.
http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20070530.html
Posted by: Chris at May 31, 2007 03:55 PM
I can pretty much guarantee that Stantis knows virtually nothing about where Kucinich stands on the issues, other than he wants out of Iraq now. Apparently that's enough to make someone insane. So for us 70 percenters out there who agree with the Kuc, welcome to crazyland.
Posted by: The Furnace at May 31, 2007 11:39 PM
Yeah, notice how Stantis only refers to Kucinich by calling him insane, not by actually criticizing his platform. How sad.
Posted by: Chris at June 2, 2007 01:00 PM
Yeah, notice how Stantis only refers to Kucinich by calling him insane, not by actually criticizing his platform. How sad.
Posted by: Chris at June 2, 2007 01:00 PM
Yeah, notice how Stantis only refers to Kucinich by calling him insane, not by actually criticizing his platform. How sad.
Posted by: Chris at June 2, 2007 01:00 PM
Yeah, notice how Stantis only refers to Kucinich by calling him insane, not by actually criticizing his platform. How sad.
Posted by: Chris at June 2, 2007 01:00 PM
Whoa... Why did that just quadruple-post?
Posted by: Chris at June 2, 2007 01:01 PM
