Who’s the King? (Or, NOW is the winter of our discontent)

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Reps for the National Organization of Women are protesting the Newsweek cover with Michele Bachmann describing her as the “Queen of Rage,” demanding to know who has ever designated a man as the King of Rage.

This is a valid question. Sting is the King of Pain. Ozzie is the King of Darkness. But the King of Rage crown is apparently available.

I hereby volunteer for the title. I wrote “The Incredible Hulk” longer than anyone else, and I get pìššëd øff really easily.

You may all bow down before me.

PAD

68 comments on “Who’s the King? (Or, NOW is the winter of our discontent)”

  1. .
    Rage Against the Machine by Spin Magazine back in early 2006. There, hope they’re happy now.

  2. Some people are crying sexism, but I think it has a lot less to do with sexism than with how radicalized some politicians in the American Right have become.
    .
    I know Conservatives have a hard time admiting it. But just imagine if Ward Churchill were a rising star in the Democratic Party.

    1. Totally off-topic here, but…did you know that in Dutch, France is called Frankrijk. Rijk means Empire…so Frank’s Empire…which I think is completely unfair ! Who is this Frank ? And why does he get an Empire !? Why do other people have to make due with much less. For instance, Nash only get a ville. (What is a ville, anyway ?) And Saint Peter only get a Burg ? It ain’t fair !

  5. Is it really the smartest idea to bow down before the King of Rage? Wouldn’t it just, like, leave you open to the King’s Rage and all? Or would not doing it make him angry? And you wouldn’t like him…y’know…

  6. The King’s Speech 2: The Spittling!
    You wouldn’t like him when he’s incomprehensible.

    Honestly, I believe the true King of Rage is easy to identify. The man with more bluster than anyone can muster is Lewis Black. Nobody else can even come close to strolling through the Pantone Wheel.

    1. Seems appropriate, Mike. After all, both Sharpton and NOW seem to enjoy playing their cards.

      2. No – Al Sharpton for King of Rage.
        .
        He might have to share the title with Rushbo, though.

  10. Well, there is no need for a King. Plenty of monarchs rule as sole Kings or Queens, their consorts if there’s any receiving some other title. The Queen of england is married to the Prince of Edinburg.
    .
    By the same rule, Bachmann can be the Queen of Rage and whoever is her consort be crowned the Prince of Good Places to Hide.

    1. Duke of Edinburgh. It’s a city, not a country, so it doesn’t warrant a royal ruler all its own.

  12. Isn’t it because the title for King of Rage is in dispute?

    Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, et al?

    1. I always thought they should tour as “The Kings of Rage”. Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity. With their catchphrases “Git’er dumb”, “Tea Bag This!”, “I’m sorry if anyone’s upset”, and ” I’ll do it live”.

  13. Meanwhile, London burns as the people in the cart riot against the people pulling the cart…

  14. I’ve got this herniated disc along with this trick knee, bit of whiplash from that dragoncon incident still plaguing me, my left elbow’s a bit off due to excessive page turning…do you mind if I just blink in a subservient way?

  15. I suppose being the King of Rage is better than being the Jack of Hearts or the Prince of Tennis, but no where near as cool as being the King of the Seven Seas.

    1. I dunno, I think George Carlin picked it up and ran with it till his death.

      His stuff was funny right to the end, but listen to his shows from early in his career till the more recent ones up to the end, he was getting angrier with each passing year.

      1. Carlin seemed more cranky than enraged. Kinison looked like his head might explode.
        .
        There was also John Belushi–remember his shtick on weekend update where he would get increasingly ballistic until he passed out or had a stroke or something?
        .
        Which is something for PAD to consider–the King Of rage tends to have a very short reign. Perhaps the King Of Sarcasm or the King of Sharply Worded Letters To The Editor would be better on the old ticker.

  17. Sigh. If Republicans are going to make Theater out of our government, can they at least make musical theater?

    1. They’d argue that musical theater is too gay for them and would demand a constitutional amendment banning it (while whistling showtunes in private the whole time).

  18. No one’s nominated Lewis Black yet? Surprising.

    For what it’s worth, PAD, I’ve always found you to be a pretty easygoing bloke, no more prone to “hulking out” than anyone else living in modern times.

  19. There’s that guy who wrote the Hulk today
    He’s the same old writer as yesterday
    There’s a contract caught in a office top
    There’s a Non-disclosure gag and the ret-con won’t stop

    I have stood here before inside the comic page
    With the world all painted in some tones of beige
    I guess I’m always hoping that you’ll smash this cage
    But it’s your destiny to be the king of rage

  21. Peter, will you decree “Kneel before Zod” to those who beg audience with you? 😉

  23. Peter, you say things that are entire too rational too often to qualify as King of Rage, in my opinion.

    Ted Nugent. Now there’s a guy that I’ve never, ever heard sound like he’s not enraged.

  24. Howard Stern was the self-proclaimed King of All Media, though I think leaving non-subscription radio limited his right to that title quite a bit.

    To me, the one true king is the one who actually refused the crown and its duties:

    Bruce Campbell.

    Hail to the king, baby!

  25. Is this moniker any different than when the press gangpiled on Howard Dean by deeming him irrational or unstable for his enthused rousing of the crowd during the 2004 Iowa caucus, despite that fact that everyone else picked up his cues and cheered with him, and \i{no one} appeared disturbed at his behavior during that moment?

    1. The hype regarding the “Dean scream” always seemed a bit ridiculous to me. he was simply trying to rally his supporters after a loss.
      .
      Hëll, I WANT passionate people in office. dean’s outburst may not have been presidential, but I never feel it looked like he “lost it”. Hëll, a lot of his comments since then, though spoken in a calmer tone, seem a lot more out of whack.
      .
      So, yeah. That was a cheap shot. But so is the Bachmann photo. Even Jon Stewart agrees:)
      http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/08/10/shame-on-you-jon-stewart-slams-newsweeks-bachmann-cover/

      3. .
        I posted the direct link to that bit over on Facebook. There are a lot of photos of her that her own campaign has released that would have served the purpose they needed. This was just stupid of them.

      4. Blowing minds further … I agree with Jerome here as well. I hope somebody had odds on that.

      5. Well, Tim, if I had played the odds on that happening I wouldn’t have to work anymore:)
        .
        But I think after last night’s debate, Bachmann has made the cover photo barely a blip on the radar. She was nearly flawless last night. The only one who came close to plausibly winning was Romney and they are both trying to accomplish different things. But there are a couple moments where Roney seemed squishy, si I give Bacmann the win by a nose.
        .
        Really. Bachmann came across as informed, down-to-earth and able to to convey her positions in a passionate way without appearing strident. Also, unlike Newt, instead of complaining certain questions were “gotcha” questions, she actually was able to answer them and defuse some of the material already being used against her.
        .
        To me, it broke down this way:
        WINNERS:
        1.) Bachmann – see above.
        2.) Romney – still the front runner and acquitted himself well. Seems at ease during the debates.
        3.) Santorum – Seemed to finally come alive and scored big points regarding Iran and abortion. Still has a long way to go, but I thought he was possibly done after this debate unless he did really well – and I think he did. he is relevant for the first time I think.

        HALF AND HALF

        1.) Gingrich – The good news is he gave his best performance and also probably did enough for people to give him another look. The bad news is that as often as he reminded people how great some of his answers can be, he also reminded people that he can come across as a thin-skinned condescending prìçk.
        .
        2.) PAUL – The good news is that Paul seemed to have a lot of people cheering his ideas. The bad news is some of his ideas are just plain kooky. Wish he would drop out and give some of his supporters the chance to find a more viable candidate.
        .
        3.) CAIN – The good news is he’s getting better as a candidate. The bad news is they all are and his “not a politician” mantra comes across as ill-informed at best at times and too much like Obama 2008 at others.
        .
        LOSERS:
        1.) PAWLENTY – Got his ášš handed to him by Bachmann. He seemed like a high school kid at times. Instead of focusing on what he would do and bashing Obama, he tried hitting Bachmann to pry the conservatives/Tea Partiers, which did not work, especially since even Santorum and Gingrich sounded better. A little late with the Obomneycare charge. When Bachmann and Santorum bash it, they sound pricipled. He sounds like he’s being a politician. With yet another conservative governor in Perry set to enter the race, unless he does well in the straw poll, I think he’s finished.
        .
        HUNTSMAN – With the mood of the country right now, Huntsman sounds like he is seeking the nomination of the wrong party. Said nothing particularly memorable and with perry entering I think he’s about ready to go down for the count.

      6. In a rare instance, I disagree with Stewart.
        .
        A cheap shot is some candid photo where the subject wasn’t prepared. Perhaps they were picking their nose thinking there were no cameras around, or they’re in the middle of blinking or sneezing so the picture isn’t flattering. When you’re smiling and looking right into camera, that’s not a cheap shot. To my mind, this picture proves why Bachmann is better served not looking directly into camera: it makes the crazy all the more obvious. And I say that with a completely clear conscience, because I was ahead of the curve on this one: It’s the exact crazy that I was talking about before the picture ever hit, and all the Newsweek photo did was bring that center stage. It wasn’t cheap. It was revealing. And I suspect that’s why they went with it.
        .
        PAD

      7. I’ll take whatever madness you may think she suffers from over Obama’s creepy cult-of-personality, demagoguery and failed ideology.

      8. Mr. David,
        .
        Regarding Ms. Bachmann’s weird lack of looking at the camera in that response, it’s not quite true. She just wasn’t looking at the camera that was going to the television feed. She was consistently speaking directly to a camera that was going to an internet streaming of her speech that was on various Tea Party websites. I’d say that she knew which audience was more important to her and was speaking to them. I also suspect that a large percentage of that audience doesn’t find her remotely creepy, either.

  26. What sort of service must one perform to get a knighthood from the King of Rage? And I would assume that, at the very least, Harlan Ellison will receive some sort of dukedom; say, perhaps, the Duke of Exasperation or Aggravation?
    .
    Anyway, long live the King!

    1. Unlikely. Ellison seems too sane too often, even at his angriest. Some might argue – rightly – that his sanity is what fuels that anger.

      For the same reason, Peter is likewise disqualified from this particular competition.

  27. A bit OT but no doubt relevant to our angry monarch:
    .
    Oblivion went up on Netflix instant as of this morning, for those who may care to watch.

  29. I was looking for someone sufficiently misguided to award this “white elephant” of mine to – it’s a pup tent I purchased on sale, that won’t stay up no matter what, that I wanted to give to someone who’d get outraged over the stupidest possible thing.
    .
    Yes, NOW is the winner of our discount tent.

    3. It jokes like this that are getting Stephen Pastis (The Pearls Before Swine” guy, sent to federal prison in his own strip…

    4. And considering how much you probably kvetched about your purchase, originally you were the whiner of our discount tent.

  31. Oh ye of short memory. The King of Rage? Not you Peter. Not by a LONG shot. I nominate Mel Gibson. Cheers!

  33. That Newsweek cover really doesn’t match that “Queen of Rage” title. It has a more “I smell bacon!” bacon-bits look going for it.

  34. Bow before…?

    Yeah, that should be okay. I’ve already pledged to kneel before this Zod guy, but it shouldn’t be an issue.

  37. Does anyone else find it odd that a woman’s group is taking the position that a queen can not reign without a king? Not terribly progressive I say….

  38. There doesn’t have to be a King of Rage. When a man is king, his wife is the queen. But when it’s a queen who rules, his husband is the prince. So Michelle Bachman can rule over rage to her heart’s content without any man as the king of rage.

Comments are closed.