A right-winger has to go pretty far to be criticized by both the left and the right. But Liz Cheney and her Keep America Safe organization have managed to do it with their McCarthy-like attacks on U.S. Justice Department lawyers, smearing and demonizing them as terrorist sympathizers for their previous legal work defending Gitmo detainees.
This brings me to my latest two-verse limerick:
Liz Cheney: Chip Off The Old Crock
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Has Cheney gone stark raving mad?
I’m speaking of Liz — not her dad.
Now even some peers
Are attacking her smears
As McCarthy-like. Talk about sad!
When her natural allies cry foul,
She’s applying her lies with a trowel.
If she fails to give in
And fess up to her sin,
She’ll end up with a Dick Cheney scowl.
Related Posts: Liz Cheney’s Song and Ode To The Deceitful Cheneys
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 »