2012 Election | Magazines | Mitt Romney | New York | News | Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Have 'Bromance' on 'The New Yorker'


That poor puppy has no idea what's in store for it.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. that is amazing.

    t's basically a pictorial version of this HILARIOUS critique by Karen Garcia, a blogger I discovered bc she posts long comments on NYTimes articles while often managing to be first commenter: http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/2012/08/he-said-yes.html

    Posted by: redball | Aug 27, 2012 7:04:27 PM

  2. This is homophobic of The New Yorker. It is, generally speaking, a homophobic liberal magazine run by anti-male women. This is why a lot of gay people are going to vote against Obama.

    Keep in mind this very interesting fact about The New Yorker. In the last year or so, it elected to have 2 covers regarding gay marriage, and neither of them showed two men. It was the liberally correct two women, not two men.

    As far as I'm concerned, The New Yorker is a selectively homophobic liberal magazine that should be boycotted by gay men.

    Posted by: jason | Aug 27, 2012 7:10:08 PM

  3. @Jason:
    Keep calm and sleep.

    Posted by: Alejo | Aug 27, 2012 7:22:18 PM

  4. Jason, do you have any other evidence of the New Yorker being anti-gay in the case of gay men? As for me, I found the cover funny, except for the tar and feather "prank" that was to be played on the dog. It's hard to gauge how many gay people (especially when the exact numbers of gay people are not clear given to different views on what constitutes being gay) are not going to vote for Obama. My personal belief is that except for the GOProud crowd and the LCRs and other self-loathers with trust funds to protect, the vast majority of gay men will vote for Obama. I think he's easily the lesser of two evils.

    Posted by: j m | Aug 27, 2012 7:24:42 PM

  5. The New Yorker appears to be homophobic and has a homophobic double standard. The double standard regarding its two gay wedding covers is evidence of this. It failed to show two men on its cover on both occasions.

    There's a general anti-male attitude that runs through any publication that is politically correct in a pro-female direction. As men, we gays suffer because of this.

    Posted by: jason | Aug 27, 2012 7:26:19 PM

  6. That cover combined with the fall-out-of-the-chair funny column by Karen Garcia (thanks Redball!) is a liberal satirist's nocturnal emission. I'm going to have some great dreams tonight imagining Romney and Ryan re-enacting some Daddy/Son scenes from hotoldermale.com. (Oh, you can just imagine Ryan whimpering "Yes, Daddy" as Mitt murmurs to him lovingly, holding on tight to both of Ryan's wide-spread ankles...)

    Posted by: Dback | Aug 27, 2012 7:29:51 PM

  7. My pleasure, Dback...hmmm, that is quite an image you just put in my head! mmmm

    Posted by: redball | Aug 27, 2012 7:45:44 PM

  8. @Jason, you and rick are the only ones who ever see "anti-male" conspiracies in everything. You both need hobbies to better utilize your time.

    Posted by: Luke | Aug 27, 2012 7:55:03 PM

  9. The feminazis and their girly straight male friends love to poke homophobic fun at bonding between men. It irks them because it proves the superiority of men. The fact they use homophobia as a means of poking fun is proof that feminazis and girly straight guys are prepared to use male homosexuality as a means of degrading someone.

    This is one of the reasons why I don't like feminists. I've turned off feminists in general. At heart, they are homophobic towards men. The New Yorker is run by these sorts of females.

    Posted by: jason | Aug 27, 2012 8:14:30 PM

  10. Jason, for god's sake change your tampon. You're starting to show signs of toxic shock.

    Posted by: Caliban | Aug 27, 2012 8:23:10 PM

  11. Well, there's no denying that The New Yorker refused to show male couples on its two gay wedding covers during the past couple of years. It went for the lesbians both times.

    Posted by: jason | Aug 27, 2012 8:25:50 PM

  12. "Feminazis"? Is that you Limbaugh?

    Posted by: Vince | Aug 27, 2012 8:28:03 PM

  13. Jason, are you really sooooo stupid that you're upset with the New Yorker for making fun of two rabidly anti-gay men, implying that they're hypocrites, instead of actually being upset with the anti-gay men? Are you sooo stupid that you fall for that conservative BS that *liberals* are the problem? Are you that stupid, Jason?

    Posted by: Nick | Aug 27, 2012 8:30:04 PM

  14. The New Yorker refused to show a gay male couple on its wedding cover twice in a row. Nuff said. It's homophobic towards men.

    Posted by: jason | Aug 27, 2012 8:37:25 PM

  15. Paul Ryan has figured out the best way to make Mittens (or anyone else) fall asleep: read them selections from "Atlas Shrugged."

    Posted by: Artie_in_Lauderdale | Aug 27, 2012 8:39:24 PM

  16. I just googled "the new yorker masthead" and found that of the top four positions, two were male, two female. In general half the positions were male. So much for Jason's theory.

    Interesting side note, The New Yorker has never published a masthead except for one list they put together resembling a masthead. And the positions change over time because they have a large staff and publish almost weekly.

    Posted by: i could go on, but I won't | Aug 27, 2012 8:44:33 PM

  17. I Could Go On,

    What theory? I pointed to the fact that The New Yorker refused to show gay male couples on its cover for its two most recent issues on gay marriage. It went for the lesbians both times.

    It's a homophobic magazine as far as male-male sexuality is concerned.

    Posted by: jason | Aug 27, 2012 8:58:25 PM

  18. Never mind the @&*&ing New Yorker.

    Paul Ryan needs to be outed NOW.
    He is clearly a member of Opus Dei who has sworn to push Catholic Doctrinal positions in his political life. His position on abortion and the non exception for rape victims is straight out his local bishop's mouth.
    Ryan does not serve the people , he serves the promotion of the Catholic position on moral issues.........
    Even if some bishops disagree with his views on Health care, it is the abortion issue that is absolutely paramount with him.
    In second place is the gay issue; he is rabidly anti-gay, again taking his position as a mouth piece and a secret promoter for Opus Dei.

    Ryan must be outed.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Aug 27, 2012 9:06:51 PM

  19. Ya'll....I think Jason is a paid commenter whose job is to provoke conversation...and increase page views maybe? Why else would someone write such stupid things are obviously inflammatory and moronic?

    Posted by: Terry | Aug 27, 2012 9:11:05 PM

  20. Woof

    Posted by: Gast | Aug 27, 2012 9:51:07 PM

  21. I immediately thought of this:

    How funny you can bid for it on ebay.

    Posted by: Markus | Aug 27, 2012 9:55:15 PM

  22. At least Romney and Ryan don't eat dogs. Replacing them with dog-eater Obama would be way funnier.

    Posted by: AG | Aug 27, 2012 10:05:24 PM

  23. Jason, I'm not sure how you got the idea that The New Yorker is homophobic. In February of this year the magazine published a 15-page article, written by a man, on the tragic suicide of Tyler Clementi, and it did not cast disparaging remarks on Tyler at all.

    Posted by: Robert K. | Aug 27, 2012 10:27:59 PM

  24. @Jason: This theory: "It is, generally speaking, a homophobic liberal magazine run by anti-male women."

    You did write that didn't you?

    You don't place a high value on factual information do you? No wonder you're so taken in by Republican bs.

    Posted by: i could go on, but I won't | Aug 27, 2012 10:38:22 PM

  25. Political cartoons are nothing more than a 19th century fad that has yet to fade away.

    Posted by: Will | Aug 27, 2012 10:52:49 PM

Post a comment


« «Newly-Appointed SF Archbishop, 'Father of Prop 8', Arrested in San Diego DUI« «