RepMan

MICK MOUNTS MILLION DOG MARCH AGAINST MITT

Also Wails About 'Wimpification' of Canines 

LINCROFT, NJ - February 17, 2012 - Outspoken former U.S. Congressdog Mick Cody today announced he'd be leading a million dog march to undermine Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's chances in the upcoming Michigan primary.

The controversial canine says it's high time canines shine the spotlight on what he called Romney's '...heinous treatment...' of the family dog, Seamus, in 1983.

'We'll begin the march (or trot, walk, run, or canter. Take your pick.) from every corner of this great country of ours,' said the peeved pit bull, who was forced to resign from office last year after being caught texting a topless photograph of himself to a cat.

'Voters need to know that Mitt Romney deliberately strapped his dog, Seamus, to the top of his car during a long drive to Canada. I think it's the Beltway equivalent of Michael Vick's training pit bulls to fight to the death.'

Cody said the one million dogs plan to converge on Detroit in early March. Once there, he promised the dogs will run in packs along the highways, and up and down every street tearing down Romney campaign posters, defecating on them, or both. 'We'll also be lifting our legs outside every Romney campaign office in the state,' he sniffed.

The outspoken pooch says he believes dogs can, and will, cost Romney the Republican candidacy. 'People love dogs, and once more of them know what happened to poor Seamus, they'll shift their votes to a more animal-friendly candidate. Not that Newt, Rick or Ron look very friendly, mind you,' panted Mick, as he returned from a brisk four-mile walk of his own.

WIMPIFICATION OF DOGS

Cody also railed at what he called the liberal Hollywood establishment's 'wimpification of dogs.' Standing on his hind legs and activating the remote control of the Cody Family DVD, the dog showed a gathering of reporters a popular Youtube video he called, 'demeaning and degrading to all canines, no matter their breed.' 

'My master is sick and tired of Hollywood's portrayal of all men as stupid. I'm equally upset at their marginalizing all dogs by showing one weakling who happens to be scared silly of cats. The liberal elite are ruining this country,' he howled.

Readers will recall that Mick Cody first rose to prominence when he organized a march of some 100,000 dogs in protest of Michael Vick's abuse of pit bulls. Buoyed by massive national publicity, Cody then became the first dog ever elected to Congress. He later resigned in disgrace because of the sexting scandal, an incident Mick still insists was nothing more than entrapment.

# # # 

Shout out and thanks to Syd Steinhardt who sparked the idea for this post.

Dogs against Wall Street join worldwide movement; Canine Activist Mick Cody to lead

Lincroft, NJ, October 17, 2011 --- Man's best friend has just joined the growing worldwide protests against greed with today's announcement of the formation of 'Dogs Against Wall Street'. The grass roots effort (whose members love to graze on grass), will be headquartered here and led by canine activist and one-time U.S. Congressdog Mick Cody. “Everyone knows our sense of smell and hearing far exceeds that of man's,” explained Cody, lifting his leg on a hastily built placard that read, “Piss off, bankers!” As a result, said the controversial mutt, “...dogs have known forever that the rich have been getting richer while the poor have been getting poorer. We'll be adding what I call four-legged power to the movement.”

Cody said some 5,000 suburban dogs will descend on Manhattan's Tomkins Square Park sometime Monday afternoon. “A lot depends on how quickly our masters can drive through midtown traffic,” he confessed.

Once firmly entrenched, the pooches will join their human counterparts in marches, protests and guerilla raids on the homes of the rich. “We'll bring additional weapons to the fray,” promised Congressdog Cody. “If we spy a rich dog, we'll mount him or her on the spot. Hell, gender has never mattered anyway when it comes to establishing dominance. And, if we should catch, say, Morgan Stanley's John Mack or JP Morgan/Chase's Jamie Dimon on the street, just watch out. We'll have several dogs simultaneously mounting those rich bastards and soiling their pant legs.”

Just like their human counterparts, Cody admits Dogs against Wall Street has no solution whatsoever. “Hey, we need the exercise. Plus, many New Jersey dogs in particular are interested in viewing the new 9/11 memorial, so it's a real win-win.” The canine activist shook his hind quarters and whines when asked how protesting pooches would respond if confronted by trained police dogs. 'I'd like to think the Shepards will unleash themselves and join our cause, but Germans have always proved unpredictable throughout history."

Some analysts say the former Congressdog is merely capitalizing on the media frenzy surrounding Occupy Wall Street to test the political waters. “He's a damn smart pooch and, intellectually speaking, he's already more savvy than five or six of the top Republican contenders,” said James Carville, speaking on a special, Animal Planet edition of ‘Meet the Pooches’.

Repman bloggers will recall that Mick Cody first rose to prominence in the controversy surrounding Michael Vick's return to professional football. He subsequently rode a wave of popularity to become the country's first elected Congressdog, only to be forced to resign after texting topless photographs of himself to a cat.

Cody continues to claim the sexting scandal was little more than “feline entrapment” and “yet another example of society's liberal power structure putting down alpha males such as Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner and me. And, trust me, I freeze whenever I hear the expression 'putting down', he whimpered."

The Browning Nagle of American Presidents

I was recently musing about the seriously flawed presidency of Barack Obama. 

I remember voting for him with a vengeance after suffering through eight years of his predecessor's utter disregard for constitutional rights and common sense. But, since then, like many others who formed Obama's base, I've grown frustrated by his Kerry-like flip-flopping. 

Also being something of a sports junkie, I began thinking of athletes from football, baseball and yes, even golf (which is a game and not a sport, BTW) whose careers paralleled The One's. But, I didn't stop there. I also thought of jocks whose accomplishments (or, lack thereof) reminded me of Obama's predecessors: W and Slick Willy.

See what you think:

- Obama is the Browning Nagle of American presidents. For those of you who don't recall Nagel, the Jets drafted him from the University of Louisville and immediately anointed him as the 'the next Joe Namath'. Gifted with a canon for a throwing arm but hampered by a brick for a brain, Nagel quickly flamed out after a season or two, and was never heard from again.

In thinking about the past three years, I believe Obama's made nearly as many ‘on-field’ mistakes as Nagel. He's clearly a gifted intellectual, but lacks the spine to make the tough decisions needed of a leader in times of crisis. In my opinion, he'll have to stage a serious fourth quarter rally to win re-election and not end up like Nagel: a forgotten wanna-be.

- W is the Herb Score of American presidents. For those of you who don't recall Score, he entered Major League baseball with a 100 mph fastball and pinpoint control (insert Score's bio). He was literally unstoppable until struck by a line drive that knocked him unconscious and out of baseball for the rest of the season. When he returned, Score was never the same and disappeared from America's pastime within a few years.

Like Score, W enjoyed one of the great rookie seasons in recent memory and was positively Lincolnesque in his immediate post 9/11 statements. But, like Score's line drive to head, something unhinged W's thinking and he set upon an unprecedented course of rack and ruin (i.e. Missing the opportunity to nab bin Laden in the first few months after the Twin Towers attack, using a total lie to justify invading Iraq (WMDs), totally ignoring New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina and, of course, de-regulating Wall Street and setting the stage for the 2008 crash that reverberates to this day). In fact, it's not a stretch to say that no single American president has done more to damage America's international image and reputation than W.

- Bill Clinton is the Tiger Woods of presidents. Since you all know Tiger, I won't recount his off-the-course hijinks. Nor will I call attention to Clinton's infamous “I did not have sex with that woman” statement. Clinton will be remembered as a gifted politician who accomplished tremendous things but whose image is permanently tarnished. The same holds true for Woods. He was a great golfer who allowed his personal putter to ruin his legacy.

So, there you have it. Do you agree with my comparisons? If not, to whom would you liken Obama, W and Slick Willy? I'd like to hear your thoughts. (Note: I'd suggest a follow-up blog offering jock analogies for H.W., Reagan and Carter but, alas, I fear my Millennial audience won't know who those presidents were.)"

Pit Bull outraged by Maureen Dowd column; Demands immediate apology

Outspoken libertarian and former U.S. Congressdog Mick Cody says he's outraged by the words  used in a recent column written by New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd.

In her column, Dowd presented a woman's POV on the Anthony Weiner sex scandal. In an essay Mick describes as “otherwise brilliant”, Dowd says the average woman's view of men has transitioned from “boys will be boys” to “men are dogs”. That last line struck a real nerve with the high-profile canine, who was forced to resign his own Congressdog post after texting a topless photo of himself to a cat.
Speaking from his newly-opened back yard pool, a tanned and rested Mick was nonetheless howling mad. “Dowd's just as insensitive as the powerful men she ridicules in her column,” he said. “Why do a hatchet job on canines? What have we done to earn such contempt?”

Cody followed up with a different, but equally rhetorical, question: “How would Dowd feel if I said all columnists are squirrels? But, that's the difference between Dowd and me. You won't find this dog demeaning an entire breed for the sake of cleverness. Saying that men are dogs may be cute and cool and oh so clever, but 50 million American canines are now royally pissed off. We want an apology and we want it now.”

The erstwhile Congressdog predicted Dowd would 'pull a Weiner.' He said she'd first ignore his demand for an apology, then suggest computer hackers had changed her column's original wording and finally, just like Anthony Weiner, come clean. 

'The Times is a business and they know that dogs often bring the paper to their owners and that cats will use it for personal hygiene purposes. They'll pressure Dowd to respond. But, I'm not going to wait a week for the Old Gray Lady to force the Anti-dog Lady to say she's sorry. If I don't receive a written apology ASAP, I'll track Dowd down like the dog she is and rip a few pounds of flesh off her left-wing calf.”

Note: Repman readers will recall that Cody first rose to prominence in the aftermath of the Michael Vick/pit bull scandal. He later organized a hugely successful canine boycott of Vick's return to the NFL. Flush with the heady aroma of celebrity, Mick threw his collar into the political ring and won a New Jersey congressional seat (a position he later resigned because of the aforementioned Twitter scandal). He is currently on the speaking circuit and writing an autobiography entitled, From Back Yard to Capitol Hill: a Congressdog's Tail.

I guess the South will rise again

A just-released CNN/ORC poll marking the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War showed  an astounding 42 percent of respondents said slavery WAS NOT the main reason southern states seceded from the Union. Holy Abraham Lincoln!

When broken down by political party affiliation, most Democrats said southern states seceded over slavery, independents were split (which is why they're independents, I guess) and MOST Republicans said states' rights and not slavery, was the reason for secession. Gimme a break.

The South seceded solely to protect 'the curious institution' as they called slavery. Period. To say otherwise is to rewrite history and reminds me of the nut jobs who claim the holocaust never occurred either.

I'm not surprised the Tea Party-inspired Republicans believe the way they do. It actually fits like a glove. Still, it's a sorry commentary on the current state of affairs and an affront to the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who were killed and wounded to preserve the union and end slavery.

I think the survey speaks volumes about the image of the Republican Party and, frankly, am surprised the Rachel Maddows of the world aren't making a bigger deal about the findings. I'm also surprised reactionaries such as the Reverend Al Sharpton aren't leveraging the survey to further fan the flames and advance their personal agendas.

BTW, here are a few other key findings:

- One in four Americans surveyed sympathize more with the Confederacy's cause than the Union's. Nice.
- That statistic increases to an astounding 40 percent among Southerners. Even nicer.
- 80 percent of Republicans admired the leaders of the southern states (all of whom were slaveholders, BTW).

I suggest CNN/ORC survey the same group in November of 2012, when we mark the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. I wonder if an overwhelming number of Republicans and Southerners will still insist the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery? Silly me. Of course they will.

I guess the South will rise again.

Tip o' the hat to Chris 'Repman, Jr.'  Cody for suggesting this post.

And Gettysburg citizens should be proud of their contributions to the oil and gas sector

Like the late, great Wall Street firm, Merrill Lynch, Tea Party candidates are a breed apart. They provide a steady stream of malaprops, mangled grammar and misinformation that make me laugh, cry and sigh.

The latest Tea Partier to demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about U.S. history is Michele Bachmann.

Speaking before a group of supporters in Concord, New Hampshire, Ms. Bachmann praised them for living on the hallowed ground where the fabled “shot heard 'round the world” was fired. There was only one thing wrong with her comment. Bachmann was in the wrong state. The opening salvos that touched off the American Revolution were fired in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire. Oh well, who cares about a minor thing like historical accuracy when one is a high-profile, elected official advocating for the  dismemberment of, among other things, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which provides American citizens with the type of daily information necessary to learn such tidbits as where this country of ours  began.)?

But, far be it from Tea Party types such as Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell and Alaska's momma grizzly to let things like facts and figures get in their way. Since they believe they're re-writing history, why should they need to learn it in the first place? And, why stop with things like misunderstanding the First Amendment (O'Donnell), or, being unable to name one newspaper she'd recently read or Ms. Bachman's geographic blunder?

Even though they're consistently wrong in their facts, street smart Tea Party candidates know two key facts about their public gaffes:

A) They create news and
B) They really don't matter much since their adoring fans know less about history and geography than they do.

In analyzing the 'gaffe potential' of the various primary states, I'm pleased to report the upside potential is literally limitless. Among other  opportunities, Tea Party candidates can:

- Congratulate J.P. Getty for saving the Union in 1863 when he defeated
 Robert E. Lee on a battlefield subsequently named him.
- Visit Christ's birthplace in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
- Tour the site of the actual witch trials while campaigning in Salem,
 Oregon.

America hasn't experienced a more inept, more out-of-touch political party since the 1850s when Nativists did their very best to prevent further immigration by Irish Catholics.

Knowing the average Tea Party candidate, though, she'd probably embrace the “Know Nothing” moniker as a badge of courage: “I may know nothing about history or geography, but I do know how to undo collective bargaining for unions, strip funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and accuse an entire religion of fostering terrorism. With accomplishments like those, who needs to know where the shot heard 'round the world was fired?'

What would Lincoln have done?

Believing that President Obama’s speech in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings was quite possibly his best moment to date, I decided to ask an historian-in-the-making how other past presidents might have handled the very same situation. The following guest blog is authored by Chris ‘Repman, Jr.’ Cody, who is pursuing his master’s degree in history at Northeastern University.

The recent shootings in Arizona, and subsequent heated political discourse, have led me to reflect on how past presidents might have handled the same crisis.  Having taken a deep dive into each and every one of our 43 presidents, here’s how I think a few might have reacted (Rep, Sr. Note: Grover Cleveland held two, non-consecutive terms so, technically, Obama is 43 and ‘43’ was 42. That, in turn, would make ‘41’ 40, but something tells me this might be too complex an issue for the Bushes to figure out):

-Thomas Jefferson would have publicly denounced the shootings, but would have tempered his remarks based upon the violent world in which he lived (i.e. his vice-president, Aaron Burr, killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel).

-Franklin Pierce would most likely have shrugged his shoulders and said absolutely nothing (as he did when outspoken Abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner was beaten with a cane by a Southerner on the Senate floor in 1856).

-James Buchanan would have kept mum, taking no decisive action whatsoever. The only bachelor president was notorious for saying and doing absolutely nothing as our antebellum country was coming apart at the seams.

-Abraham Lincoln would have risen to the occasion and, undoubtedly, delivered a speech comparable to the Gettysburg Address in both its brevity and magnitude. 

-Teddy Roosevelt (despite being the benefactor of McKinley's assassination) would have denounced the Tucson shootings.  But, in doing so, he would have firmly reinforced the importance of the Second Amendment. Despite being our first, great environmentalist, T.R. was also an avid hunter, killing thousands of animals during his lifetime. There’d be no call for gun control from the man who spoke softly but carried a big stick.

Of these five examples, it seems clear that President Obama followed Lincoln's lead.  Obama's speech, and its conciliatory overtones, has been hailed by many as his greatest moment.  This may indeed be the case.  However, I think it's worth pointing out that the only truly unifying events in our nation’s long history have been outwardly-focused. Consider this:  The Mexican-American War united Southerners and Northerners alike in a military action that delayed the Civil War by a few decades.  Similarly, the Spanish-American War served as a catalyst in mending post-Civil War animosities by again bringing the North and South together in an outward-facing cause. 

Our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are anything but unifying.  So, do we need another Mexican-American War to end the fratricidal fighting in our country?  There certainly seems to be one brewing.  But the James K. Polk approach, in which we invaded Mexico while proclaiming "manifest destiny," would never work today.  Cross border, Pancho Villa-like incursions by the Mexican drug cartels are another story, though.  If such incidents were to occur in significant numbers, I could see our country becoming united again in the same way it was following 9/11.

One must accept that, from a historical standpoint, assassination is as American as baseball and apple pie. And, political discourse in a democracy will always be divisive (except during those rare moments of unity a la Pearl Harbor).  True unity will only occur when it is ignited by a perceived threat beyond our borders.  That doesn’t mean Obama has no influence to bring us together.  Indeed, there is a right and wrong way to lead.  I agree with Rep Sr. that Obama's post-Tucson remarks were the correct strategy for mitigating any further escalation of hate talk in America.

The differences couldn't be more striking

I'm becoming more convinced with each passing day that Barack Obama will win re-election in 2012.

For one thing, he's finally awakened and is now followed Bill Clinton's proven 'centrist' strategy.  More importantly, though, his statesmanlike words and actions in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting spree stand in stark contrast to those of his number one contender in 2012.

Last night, Obama called for a new era of civility (and, good luck with that, Mr. President.) Meanwhile, the erstwhile Alaskan governor and slayer of moose, elk and god knows what else chose, instead, to stir the hate talk with even more hate talk. Palin accused TV commentators and journalists of “blood libel” in their rush to blame Palin-inspired, Tea Party-generated hate speak for the murders.

In the process, Palin somehow managed to make a bad situation even worse by outraging Democratic lawmakers, fellow Republicans and Jewish groups with her use of the expression “blood libel”. According to a New York Times, the term was originally coined by anti-Semites in the Middle Ages who blamed Jews for killing their Christian children. Palin, who is positively clueless about history, American or otherwise, obviously had no idea of the term's historic and demeaning origins.

The Republican Party needs to start distancing itself from their momma grizzly and find a centrist candidate who has some grip on reality, a sense of history and an ability to project statesmanlike leadership in a time of crisis. What they don't need is someone like Palin, who seems limited to vitriolic, malaprop-laden, mumbo-jumbo.

As someone who studies image and reputation, I think the aftermath of the Tucson shootings reveals the stark differences between the two leaders.

One is calm, measured and able to seize the opportunity to redirect a nation that is slowly splitting apart at the seams. The other reverts to form, hunkers down in her Wasilla bunker and stirs up a new, news cycle with her unfortunate anti-Semitic remarks.

The differences couldn't be more striking.

Jim Morrison's still lighting fires after all these years

I was heartened to read that Governor Charlie Crist of Florida is pursuing a posthumous pardon  for two criminal convictions handed down to the legendary Jim Morrison of the Doors after some questionable stage behavior at a 1969 Miami concert. (Jim Morrison Is Candidate for Pardon in ’69 Arrest)

Having researched the court ruling, Crist says, “The more that I've read about the case and the more I get briefed on it, the more convinced I am that maybe an injustice has been done here.” How about that? We still have one politician who can read and who actually wants to do the right thing.

Naturally, though, right-wing, god-fearing conservatives, vehemently disagree with Crist. And the resulting debate has sparked a mini Florida firestorm that would no doubt amuse the man who sang, 'Light My Fire.'

Claude Kirk, Florida's governor at the time Morrison was convicted on misdemeanor charges of profanity and indecent exposure, was annoyed to be asked by the Times reporter about Governor Crist's efforts on Morrison's behalf. “There's a lot more important things to think about than that,” he sniffed. Well, yes, but if Richard M. Nixon can receive a full pardon for ordering and then covering up the Watergate break-in, why can't Jimbo catch a break?

Adding insult to injury, Florida's state attorney of Miami-Dade County, Katherine Fernandez Rundle, huffed: “It's not worth the time.” Nice. I'll bet Morrison wouldn't love her madly or two times, for that matter.

I see the Morrison conflagration as yet another example of our country's acute polarization. Bible-thumping Tea Party types view Morrison (and his liberal, left-leaning successors) as the epitome of evil. The latter, meanwhile, would like to right a past wrong and allow Morrison's name (if not his spirit) to rest in peace.

If former New York governor George Pataki could pardon Lenny Bruce and former Enron chairman Ken Lay's conviction can be annulled, why can't Florida do right by Morrison? As Jim sang, people are strange (and are becoming even stranger every day).

Although my vote doesn't count, here's hoping Crist can 'break on through' and get Morrison's minor offenses expunged after all these years. It would certainly give new meaning to one of my favorite Doors' songs: 'The End.'

It's D-Day for liberals, conservatives and libertarians alike

REPCHATTER

I think I speak for each and every America when I say, "Thank god, election day is here and those horrific political attack ads will finally be gone."

To get an insider's view on how the mid-terms will go, Ted 'Ludacris' Birkhahn and I played host to Cenk Uygur, creator of Theyoungturks.com and a frequent contributor to MSNBC.

As you'll hear, Cenk pulls no punches in attacking both Tea Party extremists and the far too many failings of the Obama Administration (if fact, at one point, Cenk likens 'The One' to Peppercom's very own Birkhahn since both are long on promises and short on results).

Click on the gray bar below, to listen:

Cenk Uygur Podcast

Enjoy. And, please exercise your right to vote (and post comments on this podcast). I'm Repman and I approved this Repchatter.