Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Undecided voters, beware of Hello Kitty!

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 5, 2012, 10:05 p.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Undecided voters, beware of Hello Kitty! [and unicorns]

This year, as part of our election coverage, Marketplace is asking comedians what they think about the issues. We’ll be doing short bits by both underground and mainstream comics. Yes, the issues in this election are important and serious, but who says we can’t have a little fun?

Undecided voters of Ohio and Colorado, Virginia and Florida, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, I take this election seriously. If you have not picked a candidate yet, I assume you are someone who must live for the moment, ruled by their gut, whimsical and possibly distracted by loud noises and shiny objects.

If left alone in a voting booth, I am afraid you will panic. And if enough of you panic, freak out or show up high to the polls -- in the same numbers which tipped the 2000 election when Ralph Nader ran -- you might just vote for a cartoon cat. It will be disastrous. Some would say "cat-astrophic." But I wouldn't. I'd say disastrous.

That's right. Hello Kitty is running for president. And you must not be swayed, you crazy undecided voter. Not even if your booth is filled with Hello Kitty-themed tinsel.

I know you'll want to vote for her. Who wouldn't? Little pink nose, whiskers, running on a platform of "happiness, friendship, and fun." Sure, she'll promise you the moon, but can she deliver? She's a cat without a mouth!

Forget China and Iran, what’s America’s biggest threat? Frowns. And the cat’s only solution so far is to turn them upside down.

Who would she appoint to the Supreme Court? Pro-hug judges who will shift the court's balance? Japanese businessmen? People who are cute?

Hello Kitty does support FEMA -- but only because it has the same letters as "fame." And that's exactly what she wants.

I implore you undecided voters. Choose one of the two humans instead. The black one or the white one, I don't care which. Just don't tank this when you're in the booth. Elect someone you actually believe in.

About the author

Tamara Federici's work has appeared in The New Yorker and Mad Magazine.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

More Nader blaming from the war loving WSmith....


[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

more msm dribble....


Just go sign up and join the wars already.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

I'm concerned that Romney may not really be a white man; I mean, hey look, they lied about Obama, didn't they?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Answer me this: Seems how we are focused on DAs and GAs and other political means, and you seem to put an ungodly emphasis on this lone day of November 6th, what do you plan to do after the election?

ARe you going to go around screaming Vote Out Cons!!! for the next two years? Or are you going to then revert back to occupy will and claim to be against all the corruption and the banks and bought politicians?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

I didn't just start fighting RW extremism and 1% tyranny last year. And one election, no matter how good the results, doesn't end it.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

As 08 proved. Everyone busting their asses, get record results, and then the Dems side with the corporations on most of their decisions. Wonderful.

Sorry, but Ive had enough of that pathetic ass party.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

I voted Nadar in 2000. Voting for Obama was a makeup call. Now that I've repaid my debt to society I'm soon to be released. Sorry, but I only owed 1 makeup vote and that's all there is. I'll be skipping tomorrow. I hope Obama wins, Johnson gets his 5% and everything will be peachy.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Here, I'll give you this:

Robert Scheer's Columns

Vote for the B-

Posted on Nov 5, 2012

By Robert Scheer

It’s crunch time, and I want to be on record, just in case some still undecided independent voter cares what I think. And one might, since I did write a decidedly nonpartisan book on the origins of the economic crisis entitled “The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.” I have been a harsh critic of Barack Obama for continuing that bipartisan capitulation to Wall Street, but on this and every other matter of serious contention in this election, Mitt Romney is decidedly worse.

A vote for Obama in a swing state is a no-brainer, because, on a host of issues, including immigration, women’s rights, gay rights, health care, campaign finance, income inequality, tax breaks for the rich and the legitimacy of trade unions, there is a vast partisan difference that should not be ignored. It matters greatly who appoints an anticipated two justices to the Supreme Court, which is already dominated by right-wing ideologues.

In a state where a protest vote will not elect Romney, a vote for the Green Party’s admirable Jill Stein, the consistent Libertarian Gary Johnson, or the populist Rocky Anderson sends an appropriate but measured signal of contempt for the sorry state of our two-party system.

That disgust is warranted by the fact that this president has followed the broad ideological outlines of his predecessor on national security. Witness the continuing assault on due process that is the island prison of Guantanamo and the killing of innocent civilians through drone attacks, as well as the unwarranted Nixonian persecution of alleged whistle-blowers Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

But on all of that, Obama is the lesser evil compared to Romney, who has promised to increase military spending to fight a new Cold War that might, under his stewardship, turn hot against China, Russia, the forlorn Palestinians and anyone else with whom he can pick a fight. Romney is as dangerous as he is inexperienced in such matters. To compensate for his ignorance, he has turned to the same pack of neoconservative ideologues that lied us into Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

On economic policy, Romney has attempted to smear Obama as some kind of big government socialist, although the former vulture capitalist would surely have wasted just as much money as Obama rescuing his friends on Wall Street. Neither candidate would stop the Federal Reserve from continuing to purchase toxic assets to save the banks from their own folly. The candidates split on a bailout of the auto industry, with Obama helping save some decent American jobs, and they disagree about how much the obscenely wealthy should pay in taxes, although sometimes Romney disagrees with himself on that score.

Obama sold out to Wall Street when he appointed Lawrence Summers, who had pocketed more than $8 million in bank and hedge fund fees while serving as a top Obama campaign adviser, to be his key White House expert on the economy. This was an egregious error vastly compounded when he appointed as his Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, former head of the New York Fed and faithful ally of the Bush administration in filling the lifeboats to capacity with bankers. However, Romney blasts Obama for not being solicitous enough in catering to Wall Street greed and defines the extremely minor reforms of Dodd-Frank as an attack on capitalism, when it is anything but.

As Gretchen Morgenson, the sharpest business journalist of our day, noted in a recent column in The New York Times: “Many Americans probably think the Dodd-Frank financial reform law will protect taxpayers from future bailouts. Wrong. In fact, Dodd-Frank actually widened the federal safety net for big institutions. Under that law, eight more giants were granted the right to tap the Federal Reserve for funding when the crisis hits.”

But Romney finds objectionable even the slightest improvement in transparency and accountability in Dodd-Frank, including a much-needed consumer protection agency championed by Elizabeth Warren. He absolves Wall Street and the Bush administration that let greed run wild of any responsibility for the economic mess and, indeed, seeks to cut funding for programs that aid its victims.

Romney’s talk of the deficit is specious. He would spend multiples of Obama’s stimulus on the military, alone, while relegating the unemployed, disabled and impoverished to the hope of charity and warm weather. Consider the millions of Americans kept fed by Obama’s hard-won extensions of unemployment benefits and food stamps during the worst lows of the recession. How would President Romney have handled such a crisis?

To employ the vernacular used in my day job teaching college students, I give Obama a generous B- grade for initiating a national health care plan that, while flawed, is a start, ending discrimination against gays in the military, easing the student loan crisis, signing equal pay legislation and appointing reasonable Supreme Court justices, among other achievements. Meanwhile, the rapacious capitalist turned candidate Romney—poster boy of the 1 percent—denigrates the less economically fortunate among us while growing filthy rich by slicing and dicing good American jobs out of existence and exploiting every tax loophole to aggrandize his own fortune. He earns a solid F and makes Obama look quite good in comparison.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

WSmith, if Libertarians get the 5% they need for themselves and Obama has a 1-4% victory, just remember who made you.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Will do