I couldn’t resist writing a 2-verse limerick about Trump’s ball game boos:
Donald Trump’s unaccustomed to boos;
He’s protected from anti-Trump views.
But a ball game affords
No shelter from hordes
Of folks who don’t follow his cues.
The World Series (Game Five) featured booing
And “lock him up!” chants — worth-pursuing —
All directed at Trump
Who sat on his rump
And glowered, free speech his undoing.
Was the speech that Trump canceled a ruse
Designed to manipulate news?
To martyrize Trump
On his campaign swing stump?
“Trump’s been blocked from expressing his views!!!”
Unlike most Trump events little vetting
Was done to ensure Trump was netting
A crowd of supporters
Plus penned-in reporters.
Seems on violence The Donald was betting.
I’m amused to see that the rich Republican beneficiaries of ‘Citizens United’ are rather unhappy these days:
“Major GOP donors and fundraisers are wondering whether they’re wasting their money on super-PACs.”
“It’s ‘free speech!’ Let us spend to the max!”
The Supreme Court said “yes” to those hacks,
To the GOP guys
Who thought this was wise:
Buy elections with billionaire PACS.
Having gotten the ‘right’ they demanded,
Any SuperPAC donor who’s candid
Says “My giant transmittal
Of bucks bought me little!
What a waste! Why was ‘free speech’ expanded?”
Weep For The Wealthy (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Though the wealthy will publicly cheer
As campaign regs get knocked on their rear,
Some privately groan:
“No limits?” they moan.
“Buying pols is becoming too dear!”
Note from Mad Kane: Although I concocted that quote, it may be closer to the truth than you think. Here’s The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, who argued on ABC’s This Week “that not every wealthy donor will embrace the outcome of the McCutcheon case, because they may now be obliged to give more:”
“All the donors I know hate this decision, of course,” he said. “This used to be a very good excuse to say to a candidate, ooh, I’m maxing out, I just can’t help your campaign.”
Free Speech Gets Pricey (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Remember “one person, one vote?”
Now “one dollar, one vote’s” what they wrote;
Yes, the U.S. Supremes
Favor money — in reams,
As the rich grab free speech by the throat.
Thanks to the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, for inspiring this limerick with his acerbic comment about McCutcheon v. FEC:
But Wednesday’s decision, once again a five-to-four ruling, represented another significant step away from the antiquated principle of “one person, one vote” toward the more modern, and utilitarian, notion of “one dollar, one vote.”
If you thought the Citizens United ruling undermined democracy, brace yourself: The Roberts court has made things even worse with yet another controversial 5-4 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. Assaulting campaign finance reform once again, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits on how much an individual can contribute to candidates, parties and political action committees.
As Ari Berman astutely observes:
The Court’s conservative majority believes that the First Amendment gives wealthy donors and powerful corporations the carte blanche right to buy an election but that the Fifteenth Amendment does not give Americans the right to vote free of racial discrimination.
Supreme Priorities
By Madeleine Begun Kane
The Supremes freed the wealthy to buy
Politicians — an endless supply.
Seems “free speech” means “free spending,”
While “voting rights rending”
Isn’t something they care to decry.
Newt Gingrich seemed way off his game at last night’s Florida debate. And at first, I attributed this to Mitt Romney’s new, improved debating style.
But Newt apparently needs the adrenalin rush that comes with cheers and applause. And last night’s NBC debate rules precluded such a rush: Audience feedback was limited, in the interest of using the time for actual debating.
So now Newt (always on the outlook for another excuse to bash the media) is petulantly threatening to boycott any debate that limits the audience’s free speech:
Mr. Gingrich’s performance in the debate in Tampa on Monday night was far more muted. Critics noted that he seemed to be off his game. The National Journal, which co-hosted the NBC debate, compared Gingrich to “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.”
Mr. Gingrich clearly noticed something was off, too. “We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “We’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”
Hmmm…., I wonder how Newt feels about boos.
Limerick Ode To Newt’s Latest Temper Tantrum
By Madeleine Begun Kane
No cheering at last night’s debate!
This has Gingrich quite peeved and irate.
He says cheers from the crowd
Simply must be allowed.
Without cheers, will Newt Gingrich deflate?
Mad Kane (Madeleine Begun Kane) is a writer, musician, and "recovering lawyer." She won the Robert Benchley Society Award For Humor and enjoys writing limericks, song parodies, and current events haiku.
You can email her at madkane@madkane.com, visit her non-political humor blog, or stop by her home page.
Ode To Odious Corporate Personhood
Monday, January 25th, 2010There’s nothing funny about the U.S. Supreme Court’s activist ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Overruling long-held precedents, it gives corporations free rein to buy political influence, all in the name of “corporate personhood” and “free speech.”
Nor is there anything funny about the hypocrisy of self-described anti-judicial-activism Republicans who laud this calamitous decision.
And, alas, there’s nothing funny about this limerick:
Democracy’s Demise?
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Justice Roberts and co are unbound,
Driving precedents precious aground.
Yet Republicans cheer,
And the sobs that we hear
Are the sounds of democracy drowned.
********
Lance Mannion managed to extract some humor from this judicial travesty.
Tags: Campaign Finance Reform, Citizens United, Corporate Personhood, Democracy, First Amendment, Free Speech, Justice John Roberts, Legal Verse, U.S. Supreme Court
Posted in Campaign Humor, Constitution Humor, Constitutional Crisis, Democracy Humor, Election Satire, FEC Satire, Free Speech, Hypocrisy Humor, Judiciary Satire, Law Satire, Legal Limericks, Political Commentary, Political Limericks, Political Verse, Supreme Court | 3 Comments »