Quick Hits 5

-I'm kind of torn about the upcoming Ohio and Texas primaries this Tuesday. On the one hand I'd like to see Hillary win to keep the chaos going in the Democratic primary for a few more months. On the other hand, if Obama can wrap it up I'll feel like one of those orcs in mordor when that green beam shoots up and they can finally march on Minas Tirith. Because Hillary is right when she talks about how tough the republican attack machine can be.
-I don't think Ralph Nader will prove to be anywhere near the threat to Obama that he was to Gore, because Gore was far more centrist than Obama. Obama is also strong amongst college students and hippies which seemed to be Nader's strongest constituency. If you've got a few bucks burning a hole in your pocket, it still may not be a bad idea to send him a check. You know, in the interest of "fairness".
-I think this is the most interesting pair of (presumptive) nominees in a very long time. You have a guy with a fascinating life story, who would make history if elected, doesn't toe the party line, transcends party in a lot of ways, has shown a willingness to bring people together to get things done whether it's popular or not.......and on the other side you have Barack Obama.
-I think if I were a midget I would prefer the term "midget" over "little person". Little person sounds more demeaning to me.
-Howard Dean has announced plans to sue the McCain campaign on financing. Now without getting into what Howard Dean can go do with himself as far as I'm concerned, I'm just shocked. That's so unlike the left to go around suing people.
-While I'm on the subject of people who belong in straight jackets, people who get their children humiliating hair cuts should be looked into by the authorities. It's 2008 people. I should not have to see a 4-year old boy walking around with a freaking rat-tail.
-I'm also kind of sick of conservatives complaining that the media picked our candidate. I could have swore he won because he got the most votes, but maybe I'm just being naive there.
-If I may play Andy Rooney for a moment: why is it that a job that really blows is referred to as a "suck-job" but when somebody su......you know, never mind. I'm not gonna go there.
-I noticed looking at the websites of both McCain and Obama that neither of them list crime in their list of issues at the top of the page. This seems like an area where McCain could make some inroads if he were so inclined.
-I watched a couple of youtube videos of Reagan speeches this week. Now there was a guy who could give any kind of speech. We may never see that good of a speaker again. He wasn't just good at firing people up he could do it all (oratorically). One of my personal favorites was the one from the night of the Challenger disaster " they waved goodbye, then slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God." I got goosebumps just typing that.
-I've spent the last few days analyzing Senate voting records. A few weeks ago I questioned the claim of Obama having the most liberal voting record over the last year. I now stand corrected.
- In my city we have laws against aggressive pan-handling near the entrance to a business. Why are the girl scouts exempted?
-I heard some air-head caller on Air America radio the other day say in response to the Obama/patriotism flap that "running for president is the most patriotic thing you can do". So if someone's running for president they must be a patriot. (I don't care about his patriotism one way or the other, I'm more concerned with his socialism so I'd respond the same way if a McCain supporter had said this) Really? What's more patriotic than running for president? I don't know, maybe dying or being grievously wounded on a battle field in anonymity far from home during the prime of your life, sacrificing whatever future you may have had for people you don't know or a cause you may not even believe in? No, not at all. Trying to become the most powerful (and probably most famous) person on earth is way more patriotic.
-I thought the clip of McCain accidentally referring to himself as a liberal yesterday was pretty funny.
-And lastly, the other night I was listening to the radio and during one of their half-hourly "news" updates the second thing they mentioned was that Eddie Money is going to launch a career in country music. Now that's news in 2008! The only way Eddie Money should be mentioned in news would be a story that involves the words "dead" or "arrested for murder".

Quick Hits IV

More oddities from this week:

-Ralph Nader is expected to announce that he is running for president on meet the press tomorrow. I strongly support this development. Somebody needs to siphon off a few far left votes, give 'em hell Ralph! I want him out there touring with all of his classic hits: "Republicrats", "both parties are the same", "evil corporations", "capitalist pig-dogs", "imperialism, imperialism, imperialism!"
-If you're going to use a public restroom, I'll thank you to refrain from moaning while you urinate.
-I remember thinking six years ago when I had to write a research paper (and participate in a 60-minute round table discussion) on the subject of Kosovo that it would be a major headache when they declared independence. Without going into details the Serbs view this region as their Jerusalem and it's just one more way to rattle Russia's cage.
-Darfur continues to be a great example of how "awareness" has never stopped people from killing each other. I think a better idea would be to arm the people being persecuted. When they show up at the UN aid station say "here's your sack of wheat and here are your AK-47's".
-What's the deal with these chicks fainting at the Obama rallies? I've seriously got to go to one of these things. I'll bet they leave feeling all hopeful and euphoric. Perhaps willing to "reach across the aisle" for a little "bipartisanship", if you follow my train of thought.
-I saw the NIU shooter's girlfriend on the news. wtf? girlfriend? When's the last time a guy who shot a bunch of people had a girlfriend, but didn't kill her when he did the shooting? That struck me as odd.
-You don't change Washington. Washington changes you.
-Jimmy Kimmel was pretty funny talking about this McCain/NY Times thing. He said that for every year you spend in a Vietnamese prison camp you should be entitled to one extra-marital affair. So in his book McCain could have up to five and it would still be alright.
-I think pretty much any candidate who gets elected will have at least one situation come up while in office that makes them say "this is the toughest situation I've ever been in"........except one. The capitol could be burning down and McCain would be like "this still isn't as bad as the time I was in the middle of a fire that killed 134 guys on my ship, or the day I got shot down, broke three limbs and was bayoneted twice, or the time they stuck that live leach up my ass".
-I should add that the leach thing is something I made up, unlike the other 2.
-I couldn't care less who there is a picture of hanging in one of the Obama campaign offices.
-Did you ever notice how every Democratic nominee is vilified as probably being the "anti-christ" except John Kerry? I heard Glenn Beck mention this and I was like "yeah, Kerry should be very offended". He should be like "do they think I'm too boring to be the six-hundred three-score and six?" Just not beastly enough I guess.
-We've got two alleged centrists likely to face off in November. One (McCain) votes with his party 87.3% of the time (according to a database maintained by the Washington Post) and another in Obama who votes with his party 96.5% of the time.
-Shouldn't a guy who's major theme is his ability to reach across party lines to find common ground and consensus on major issues be able to point to ONE time he's done so? (Don't give me "ethics reform" or "nuclear non-proliferation" either those were slam dunks.)
-According to an article I read this week, apparently it's "disguised racism" to suggest that a candidate with very little experience has, you know, very little experience.
-I've just finished reading the book Demons by Fyodor Dostoevsky (my favorite writer) and while it's impossible to describe, he to some degree foresees the totalitarianism and blood-shed that would come to his motherland in the 20th century. Despite being written in the 1870's it kind of predicts how Marxist ideology would grow into a movement worse than the problems it was trying to fix. It was also very screwed up. There's "screwed up" and then there's "screwed up even for Dostoevsky". This was the latter. At the end it's like: "I hope you weren't too attached to any of the characters". I've read enough Russian novels to know better than to expect a happy ending, but I expected at least one protagonist to survive the book besides the narrator.
-I thought McCain's speech Tuesday night talking about Senator Obama and his "eloquent, but empty call for change" and going on to point out how liberal he is was pretty good. The way McCain needs to go is to stay on the issues and not try to get into a personality contest.
-Somebody else mentioned how fascinating the Obama story is. Which confused me because if you want fascinating life stories, Clinton and McCain's lives would both make for a far more interesting movie than one about Obama. Better special effects in the McCain story. More sex scenes in the Hillary story. The Obama movie would be one of those "guy goes to the hood and teaches the gangstas calculus" snoozers.
-I've been studying Senator Obama's proposals for what he would do as president along with his senate voting record. There is plenty of substance there. He has a ton of ideas. There are specifics every where. I'm torn now. I wish I could go back in time and ...........DONATE MONEY TO HILLARY CLINTON! Seriously, if my economic plan called for almost $2 Trillion in new taxes I don't think I'd be bringing it much on the stump either. I'd stick to the "hope" and "change" talk too. I'm sure I'll be bringing this up again constantly for the next nine months or so.
-I hope this isn't lost on the McCain people. Don't waste time talking about "experience" because if you look at the past several elections where the White House has changed hands, the less experienced candidates have had a decent record (Kennedy v. Nixon, Carter v. Ford, Clinton v. Bush, Junior Bush v. Gore to name a few). And don't waste time talking about 'Nam because War Veterans have lost the last 4 presidential elections. (yes, I consider Gore in this group because, while he wasn't strangling people with piano wire or locked in a Hanoi-pit-of-Hell, he was in-country with the military during the war.) So with this in mind I was very happy to hear a McCain advisor say last week about Obama: (paraphrasing) "He was just named the most liberal member of the Senate for 2007. I don't think most of these moderates and conservatives coming out for him know that... but they will."

My Short list for Obama runningmates

(Bob is back with his suggestions for Obama VP. This is a list of 4 strong candidates and 1 dream running mate.)
My Short list for Obama runningmates
by Bob Wells
As promised I have compiled a list of the those people that I think would make the best runningmates for Barack Obama in this years Presidential election. I tried to put aside my endorsement of McCain and my membership in the GOP and make this list according to which Democrats would most benefit the Obama campaign. I know I said that I would do a list for both Democratic candidates however after eleven straight primary victories by Senator Obama it is becoming increasing unlikely that Senator Clinton will be the Democratic Nominee there for I will not be writing a list of possible runningmates for her. However if she manages to pull an upset and win in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania I will of course write a list for her. Oh also my choices do not take into account which candidates the choices endorsed in the primary. Some of my choices may be people who endorsed Senator Clinton.
1) Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH) Age 67
The reason the Governor makes the first spot on the list is because he is from the state of Ohio a swing state that has gone Republican in the last few elections cycles but by no more then a few points. He is extremely popular, was elected in a landslide and would I believe make it much harder for Senator John McCain to carry the all important Buckeye state. He also has experience not only as an executive but as a member of congress for over ten years. While he endorsed Senator Clinton I believe Senator Obama would do well to choose the governor, as a OBAMA/STRICKLAND ticket would be very hard to beat.
2) Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Age 52
The Senator, a moderate Democrat would appeal to independent voters, as putting the state of Indiana in play. Senator Bayh is a former governor and arguable one of the most popular elected official in the state and possible the only Democrat that could put Indiana, a state that has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate in decades into play. He is also a policy wank that would bring some much needed substance to the Obama campaign. He also brings executive experience to the campaign. The only short fall is that he has been know at times to have the charisma of a stump, when he gave the key note address at the 1996 Democratic Convention some pundits said it was like "watching paper mache dry" however this is not to much of a problem as Obama has more then enough charisma for this campaign.
3) Bill Nelson (D- FL) Age 66
The senator is again from an important swing state, he also has a rather moderate voting record in the senate which would help to appeal to moderates and independents. He is also considered by some to be a policy wonk who would again bring much needed substance and experience to the Obama campaign.
4) Bill Richardson (D-NM) Age 61
This choice brings the most experience and knowledge of government to the ticket. Governor Richardson is not only from an important swing state out west, but is also extremely popular. He has served in the U.S. House, As secretary of Energy under President Clinton, Ambassador to the U.N. and now as governor. He was the candidate that I believed and still believe would have been the best choice for President and had I been a democrat I would have endorsed him.He also brings a lot of experience and credibility to the Obama campaign.
5) Former Vice President Al Gore ( D-TN) Age60
Possibly the most popular Democrat in America, he would bring all the experience and credibility to the campaign as well as give the press joygasms and ensure nothing but great coverage. He would also energize the Democratic base even more. I also choice him because it would be very interesting

a Pall on Truth and Reason.....

(Warning: the following post may be considered offensive by some readers. It contains profanity, sex, and may be offensive to barnyard animals or the animal husbandry profession as a whole.)





I normally don't read the tabloids very often. I find their writings to be to ridiculous to pretend they are actual news while at the same time not subtle enough to be good satire. Today's New York Times hatchet piece on Senator McCain caught my attention however. Apparently this "news" organization decided that it had not humiliated itself enough this decade between the Jayson Blair fiasco and the shoddy reporting done by Judith Miller and others in the run-up to the Iraq war. I think the comment I heard today from a left-wing caller to a left-wing talk show sums up my feelings the best: "he could be screwing goats for all I care". But, I'm getting ahead of myself. For those of you who have not read the "story", allow me to sum it up.
Two anonymous (meaning "lacking the balls to speak up in public like a man") former aides who've become "disillusioned with the senator" (What the hell does that mean? Were they fired or something?) claim that 8 years ago an affair may or may not have happened between Senator McCain and a young blond lobbyist. They claim advisers met with the senator to tell him not to be around her due to the "appearance of impropriety"(due to the lobbyist thing? because people might think there's an affair? we're not told and apparently the "reporters" had very little interest in finding out.) The story then re-hashes the Keating Five scandal that happened when I was in grade-school. That's about the entire story.
My first reaction to this piece of "news" was that it was the flimsiest story I've read in quite some time. The headline should have read "Two Guys Think McCain Might Have Had an Affair....Maybe". I mean shouldn't a story like this one present one piece of oh, I don't know.....evidence? Maybe a recorded phone conversation or a semen-stained dress or a line of countless women coming forward with allegations would suffice. The whole story seems carefully worded so that it doesn't go beyond rumor, innuendo, and speculation into stating a claim that could be considered libelous. I mean we're talking ZERO evidence here. Nothing even pretending to be evidence. I've heard Barack Obama speeches with more substance than this. Of course that didn't stop the "journalists" from jumping all over this shit. I've probably heard the term "raises the question" 50 times today. I've got a radical idea here, rather than "raise the question" repeatedly how about DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB and looking for any kind of corroboration before giving your opinion on what is rumored to have happened 8 years ago? "Well we're just giving both sides of the story". The problem with this line of reasoning is that the truth is often one-sided. If you're going to drag some one's name through the mud at least look for some hotel receipts or notes or something better than "they rode on a plane together" or "she showed up at fundraisers". I think if I was running the campaign I would use every means at my disposal to make the people at that paper think heaven is falling. I wouldn't stop until every one involved is fired. The reasons for this are two-fold 1) you can't let these things go unchecked as John Kerry learned 4 years ago. You need to clear your name for the sake of your family. 2) From a hardball politics standpoint, you need to make an example out of someone. This way if a shaky, poorly sourced story pops up in September or October people will think twice about running with it.
I know some people will ask me the following questions. Didn't the New York Times endorse McCain? Yeah, when he was running against OTHER REPUBLICANS. Now it's a different story. The other question is "what if it's true? Do you care about politicians having affairs?" The answer is no. I was 18 when the Clinton-Lewinsky thing happened and was too obsessed with getting laid myself to care who else was. My feelings now are that these matters are between a person and their spouse. Thomas Jefferson was banging slaves for crying out loud. As far as I'm concerned if you can balance the budget, uphold the constitution, and not use government property in the commission of any lewd act you can fuck goats for all I care. Yep, that's right, good leadership entitles you to a "goat-fucking license" as far as ol' Mr. Haircutt here is concerned.




(see that's what I mean about subtle sarcasm. Am I joking? Am I insane? Hard to tell isn't it? But I bet you weren't expecting to read the phrase "goat-fucking license" today.)

Bad Choice of Words

I think Michelle Obama's statement today "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" was nothing more than a poor choice of words. I'm willing to bet that she meant to say "never in my adult lifetime have I been this proud of my country". Sorry, but I don't believe she hates the U.S.A. And if she does hate this country I think she is far too smart to say so publicly. I don't really consider this to be an issue but I'm sure people are jumping all over it. That said, I will continue to work towards her husband's defeat in November.

Short list for McCain running-mate.

(Bob has submitted to me his list of people he would like to see as John McCain's running-mate. I like the fact that these are not necessarily the names I hear being thrown out in the media right now. Some are more likely than others, but they are all people I would give serious thought to. Especially Powell, but I think he's pretty much enjoying his retirement these days.)
Short list for McCain runningmate
By Bob Wells
Ok here is my short list of possible runningmates for Senator McCain I will give them in order of preference first through five. Later I will give a list for both the Democrats but it is becoming more apparent that Senator Obama is likely to be the nominee.
1) Lt Governor Michael S. Steele (R-MD) Age 49He is my first choice because his brings the most benefit to the ticket. He is young and vibrant, he is from a blue state and has been a proven vote getter. While he lost his 2006 Senate race I would point out that he took nearly 45% of the vote in a very Democratic state in one of the worst years for the GOP since 1974. He will not only appeal to conservatives and help sure up the base but he may also put Maryland into play, at the very least he forces the Democrats to spend money there instead of in a swing state. He may also appeal to minority voters him being an African American. He would if necessary make a fine President.
2) Mike Pence (R-IN) Age 49He is again very young and vibrant ( this is an important issue because of McCain's age), he is from Indiana which while a solidly conservative state could be in play if Evan Bayh is the V.P. nominee of the Democrats. He is a favorite of the conservative base, he is also a very principled conservative who is a fine speaker and is a champion of a return to small government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and less intrusion into peoples lives. Finally I just like the guy, he has good political sense and midwestern sensibilities I think he would make a fine Vice President.
3) Former Congressman J.C. Watts (R-OK) Age 51He too is young in political terms, he is a very good speaker ( important after the Bush years) he has always been a great champion of conservative ideas and thought. He would bring energy and excitement to the McCain campaign. He would also again help McCain to appeal to minority voters. One of the other major benefits of Watts as a runningmate is the fact that while he has political experience he has for the last six years been out of elected office. He has worked in the private sector and is untouched by the current brand-tarnish of the GOP. He would make a fine Vice President and would I believe be able to if necessary set in and fill the Office of President if need be.
4) Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) Age 44She is young, articulate, attractive, and so far very affective. For the record I am not picking the Governor simply because she is a pretty women, while it helps there is substance there. Her appeal would be I believe to younger voters, to young upwardly mobile women many of whom are not as the media proclaims all raging liberals. She is from a very conservative state and is herself a respected conservative, although her appeal to independent voters is still unknown. She is also a relatively fresh face and would help a great deal to rebuild the Republican brand. She would also be an important voice on the importance of domestic exploration for oil. I believe that Governor Palin would do well under President McCain she would not only be a good Vice President and champion for the administrations agenda but would also be a possible successor for the Presidency in either 2012 or 2016 should McCain decide to serve only one term.
5) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell While he is of the same generation as John McCain, a more moderate Republican then John McCain he makes the list for one reason. HE IS COLIN FREAKIN POWELL. His record as Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not to mention the fact that he has nearly universal name recognition and his integrity is second to none. While Secretary Powell would not help McCain with conservative he would more then make up for it with the massive amounts of Independent and even democratic voters he would bring to the ticket. I believe to spite the harpings of a few on the far right a McCain/ Powell ticket would amount to a perfect storm in politics and would give McCain this election by at least 15 points.

Obama's Witnesses

I am now christening the cult-like followers of Senator Obama the "Obama's Witnesses". So if media types start using this term, you heard it here first. I don't have a problem with people passionately supporting their candidate, but the pseudo-messianic aspect is what I'm referring to here. (I am currently collecting quotes related to the Obama's Witness phenomenon and will post them once I've got a good collection to illustrate exactly who I'm referring to.) As one article put it this week, "we have a senator from New York who was born in Illinois running against a senator from Illinois who was born in a manger". I'm half expecting to hear him say "I will unite the country; I will draw all men unto me". So, by all means support your candidate. Donate to him, campaign for him, work the phone lines. Tell me why he's the best guy, but save the metaphysical new-ageish language for someone other than me.

quick hits 3

-I was thinking the other day about how much I've changed in the last 8-years. In 2000, I was an agnostic nihilist who got drunk every day and screwed anything that moves. But I voted in lock step with the religious right. In 2008, I am a Christian who is a lot more moderate politically and views the religious right as the scariest force in American culture. Kind of a weird transformation.
-I have and will continue to point out reasons I don't support Senator Obama's candidacy but I will point out things that I like. I like his health care plan better than Hillary's. The fact that his plan does not use the power of government to force people to buy health insurance the way hers does. I've never sat around thinking: "I wish the government would force me to do more things. That's the problem these days, too much control over my own life."
-My sense is that Hillary is done, but I'm not sure "her legs are protruding from under the house" yet.
-According to the Wall Street Journal, Senator Obama has proposed $800 billion in new federal spending so far. This doesn't sit well with me. I view borrowing as the biggest threat to the long term survival of the republic.
-The History Channel should change it's name to The "Marching Nazi" Channel.
-Bill Moyers' Journal continues to be my favorite television show. I like the fact that people actually come on there and talk about substantive issues for longer than 3 minutes. Bill also reminds me of my father, between the southern accent, the way he looks at people while they talk and the fact that he used to be a minister.
-The headline on www.johnmccain.com currently reads "Ready to Lead on Day One". Uh oh, hey John that slogan hasn't really worked for Hillary so far. I'd try something else if I were you.
-I do believe that most of the coverage I see at this point is biased against Hillary and for Obama.
-Quote from Obama's Super Tuesday speech: "Nothing in this country has ever happened except somebody, somewhere, was willing to hope." You know, hope is nice. Action is better. Hope didn't kick out the British, free the slaves, or destroy Hitler. Even in Obama's own life story where he talks about hope, it seems to me that actions had a much bigger hand in his rise above his circumstances. The fact that he worked hard, studied hard and did everything in his power to make himself a better life resonates more with me than the ad-nauseum appeals to hope. I wonder if this would be as powerful of a message with the electorate at-large, though.
-I saw this video called "No, You Can't" based on the Obama "Yes, We Can" stuff. It was an attack on McCain which is fine with me, but they took a shot at Cindy McCain's addiction to prescription drugs in the 80's and early-90's. Word to the wise: 1) Let's leave the families out of this. 2) It would probably not be a good idea to make mention of anyone else's past drug use if you're trying to help Obama. Otherwise, a-holes like me are going to go out and constantly remind people of the days when Barack was doin' something back in the neighborhood. I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book. So let's try to stick to the actual issues involved with who we want leading the nation for the next four years.
-Two funny things I saw on Jimmy Kimmel's "fun with unnecessary censorship" segment last night. 1) Obama speaking: "They come up to me and whisper 'Barack, I'm a republican but I support you.' And I say '____ you!'"
2) McCain speaking: "I am f___ed up and ready to go!" Hillarious.
-I can't begin to tell you how much I wish McCain had beaten Bush in the 2000 primaries.

Huckabee runs amuckabee

According to the current delegate counts I saw today in an e-mail from the McCain campaign (which doesn't take today's Romney stuff into account), John McCain needs 35% of the remaining delegates to wrap up the nomination. Mike Huckabee would have to win 123% of the remaining delegates. That means it's past time to call it quits Mike. I realize Huckabee's base is southern evangelicals, who probably can't call science (and by extension math) their strongest subject and are inclined to believe in miracles, but it's time to pull the plug. It has been fun, what with the jokes about flag-pole sodomy and getting to see Chuck Norris make an ass out of himself someplace other than an info-mercial or Mountain Dew commercial, but for the love of God let it go already.

Enough Already!

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy-tale I've ever heard." -Bill Clinton.


Truer words were never spoken. About a week ago I had a severe allergic reaction to the phenomenon known as Obama-philia. I don't think my problem is so much with the Senator himself. I believe he is an intelligent, honest man who also happens to be one of the better political orators I have seen in my lifetime. And in another 8 years I might even view him as being qualified to be president. I guess what drives me insane is the way people fall all over this guy as some kind of great leader when I can't find ONE SINGLE ACCOMPLISHMENT that leads me to believe he knows how to run an entire nation. Sure his speeches are great, but it's rare to hear anything even bordering on actual substance in one of them (Other than calls for unspecified amounts of "more spending"). If you want my vote, tell me what you'll do, what it will cost, and how you intend to pay for it. I don't care if a candidate "lifts my spirit" or whatever drivel I'm hearing from people planning to vote based on their feelings. I view this as a job interview. If I'm hiring a guy to run a factory (much less the world's largest economy) I need more than talk of "hope" and "change" and "bringing people together". I want to know "have you ever run a factory before?" "have you run anything?" "What specifically will you do to turn the business around?". Most of Senator Obama's issue statements on his website use the phrase "put more money (generally not specifiying how much) into _________". Seriously you can't swing a dead cat without reading a call for more government spending. We're borrowing and spending our way right over a cliff as a nation as it is. So what I want to know from Senator Obama are boring, uninspiring details like: "how much are you willing to raise taxes to pay for all of these new initiatives?", "What is your plan to balance the budget?" "Do you think you can handle tough negotiations with somebody like Ahmadinejad, or Vladimir (I call him Vladimir) who are not going to be bowled over by nice words about hope, the way the hippies and college students seem to be?" I'd like to think the tough questions will have to be answered at some point in the campaign, but that may not be the case. He might be able to ride the wave of euphoria all the way to the White House. And maybe he is perfectly ready to be president, but I'm not going to assume that without seeing actual proof. That kind of optimism has burned me once (actually twice) before.

Interesting quotes I read.

"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington." -Bill Moyers, 2004

"By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into a political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube."- Episcopal Minister and former Republican Senator John Danforth, 2005

Not a "conservative" anymore.

I've been listening to and reading a lot of right wing pundits lately in their attacks on John McCain, and I've come to the conclusion that apparently I am not a "conservative". (Whatever the hell that term means these days.) Here is a list of reasons why, in many cases in direct responce to what I've seen in the last week or so. I still have plenty of problems with the left, but it's the right that is pissing me off right now. So here is my angry tirade. Many of the things I will point out are things that conservatives claim to believe, but you know what they say about actions and words.
- I believe the purpose of government is to handle the peoples' business. I do care more about "getting things done" than I do about partisan "ideological purity". If you don't agree, look at history and pick out the 10 most ideologically pure regimes the world has seen. Now ask yourself if these are the societies you would want to live in.
- I don't believe it is the purpose of government to push or in any way be involved in the promotion of religion. Especially my religion. And it bothers me to no end that my party has almost become the first religious party in American history.
- I could not care less what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms.
-I don't believe cells in a petrie dish have the same human rights that I do.
- I believe (in agreement with the overwhelming consensus of scientists not on the oil company payrolls) in global warming. Apparently I'm not supposed to believe in global warming, evolution, gravity, or photosynthesis because it doesn't fit the agenda.
-I'm sick of faux-patriots who wrap themselves in the flag while destroying every constitutional principle it stands for.
- I don't believe the president has the constitutional authority to violate the first, fourth and fifth ammendments under ANY circumstance.
- I have a problem with the fact that we've gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "take what you want, just don't let them hurt me".
- We have a system of checks and balances for a reason. The fact that the party that says it wants limited government has done more to expand the power of the government than any other in our history bugs the hell out of me.
-I hate euphemisms like "tough interrogation techniques". Yeah, I'm sure we send people to Egypt and Syria for "agressive interrogation".
-If I hear one more member of this administration use the phrase "I have no recollection of that" while testifying before congress about some scandal I am going to puke!
-I don't believe that the bible was intended as a science textbook, and I don't want it used as one in the public schools.
-While we're on that subject, I'd like foreign policy decisions that don't involve Jesus Christ riding out of heaven on a white horse. The child-like understanding of good and evil that pervades our country is also a sure sign that we are most likely living in a new dark age.
-I'm not going to trust what the government tells me without question. I believe the purpose of a free press is to ask the hard questions of those in power.
-I don't believe McCain-Feingold was anywhere near as unconstitutional as the presidents warrantless wire-tapping program and flagrant abuse of "executive privelege" which is worthy of impeachment and prison time.
- I'm not going to defend incompetence on partisan grounds.
-I'm not willing to distort history to obscure the fact that Reagan and George W. Bush have been the two least fiscally responsible debt-growers ever to inhabit the Oval Office. The numbers do not lie. (note: this is not meant as an attack on Reagan, who I respect on the whole. It is more of an attack on those who would make him out to be someone who walked on water and never made any mistakes and had no failings whatsoever.)
-I wish John McCain had stuck to his guns on the Bush tax cuts, saying "I voted against them because I said we would have massive deficits. Guess what we have now? Massive deficits."
-There is a difference between being pro-capitolism and pro-big business. For all the talk of a welfare state, we should start with an end to corporate welfare.
-I would like to see an end to policy being determined by political operatives, rather than experts in particular fields.
-Feel free to fight your "culture war" using means that don't involve government.
-This doesn't constitute a complete list on my part but it's enough for now.

My trip to the caucus

I participated in the Colorado GOP caucus last night. My current mood with regard to this whole debacle can be best summed up as "disillusioned". I checked the party website before I went down to the middle school to verify the room number. Everyone said to show up by 6:30 to be sure and sign in and be ready for the start of the caucus. When we arrived at the school at 6:20 no one knew what the hell was going on. We must have asked 10 people "Where are the precinct 152 republicans?" They all said "go around the corner to the left and sign in at the table." So we go around the corner. Now I should mention that I could tell by the demographics of the people in line that this was NOT the line for the Republicans. I live in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood and everyone in the line was either very old or very young and about 50% black. As we got closer to the table we saw an Obama sign on it and a lady passing out Obama stickers. So we bypassed the line and saw room 45, where we were supposed to be according to the website. We walked into room 45 and there was a large Obama sign hanging from the ceiling. So we wandered the school for another 20 minutes. When we got upstairs we saw some other republicans but no one knew anything about precinct 152, but at least there were republicans hanging out in the hallway. It turned out the guy in charge for our precinct was no where to be found so Nick and I commandeered a classroom with an open door, made our own sign and posted it on the door. I kind of expected the Republicans to be organized and show machine-like efficiency while the democrats had no organization to speak of. What I experienced was the exact opposite. The classroom started to fill up with people who, like us had been wandering the halls looking for our precinct, many of whom had been directed into the Obama room while wearing Romney paraphenelia. I knew going in that I was going to be in the minority as a McCain supporter, but I wasn't expecting the level of irrationality I heard around me. You'd think McCain was the second coming of Kruschev. But I managed to bite my tongue. Finally at around 7 the guy in charge got there, looking completely disorganized and overwhelmed. He brought the meeting to order and had us sign in. The turnout was about 5 times what it had ever been in the past. Out of around 400 registered republicans in our precinct, a whopping 27 actually showed up. We opened the meeting with an invocation in which I half-expect the angel Moroni to be mentioned. Then said the pledge of allegiance. The whole process of the meeting reminded me of the movie "The Life of Brian". A lot of time wasted. A lot of masturbatory procedural stuff. Electing a leader for the meeting. Electing a secretary, etc. I swear to God that they took up an offering for the republican party. Because if there's one thing the GOP doesn't have it's money. Next they said if anyone wanted to make a 1-minute speech on behalf of a candidate they could. I was tempted to get up and say "Can anyone here tell me the difference between Hillary Clinton's health care plan and the bill Romney signed as governor of Massachussetts?" But I didn't because I just wanted to get it over with. After about 45 minutes they finally took the presidential straw poll.(Which thankfully was a secret ballot.) The results were:
Mitt Romney- 21 votes.
John McCain- 4 votes.
Mike Huckabee- 2 votes.
Ron Paul- No Love.
After this was done, most of the group left. They still had to elect delegates and a bunch of other crap to take up another hour. We stayed a little longer, but as soon as their was a break in the action we managed to bail. Overall, this felt like a complete waste of time and I vastly prefer a regular primary to a caucus. This was the least democratic process I have ever taken part in. I would much rather show up and cast a ballot for the candidate of my choosing than go through this process which was clearly and obviously run by supporters of Obama and Romney respectively. Nobody involved with any other campaigns was visible at all. I wonder how many people showed up and changed their minds to go along with the herd. This wasn't a problem for me since I don't particularly care what the rest of the room thinks, but I could see where it would be for people more prone to avoid conflict. I went home and watched election returns to see that thankfully my experiences were atypical, with McCain racking up delegates, the resurgence of Huckabee, and Romney only winning a) states where he has lived b) states where there is a disproportionate number of mormons and c) states where they have these borderline-rigged caucuses. (Maybe "rigged" is not the right word since I don't think any actual wrong-doing occured. But the outcomes did seemed determined by who's people were running the show.) Next up for Colorado: the primaries to select senate and congressional nominees in April.

quick hits from this week: part 2

-I've been listening to both right-wing and left wing talk radio a lot this week. I find it amusing that the lefties devote a great deal of time bashing Hillary Clinton, and the righties have done nothing except bash John McCain. Am I living in bizzarro-world? It doesn't seem to be doing much good on either side. Now granted the right has (as it usually is on most issues) been much more forceful. The moment of the week for me was Sean Hannity pleading with Zogby and Rasmussin to say something other than the obvious: that John McCain leads Romney by a wide margin and fares much better against either Democrat in November.
-Note to the Romney people: If he can't beat the "liberal" John McCain in a Republican primary, how can you expect him to have a chance in the general election?
-Here's a fun game: get a piece of paper and a pen and see how many U.S. Senators you can name from memory. I scored 52. (Bob, I wouldn't be surprised if you scored a 100 on this.) Ah, the things I do to cure insomnia.
-Make him spend it all, Mac!
-Am I the only one who finds this "scientific", "computerised" (whatever the hell that means) survey that came out this week saying Barack Obama was the most liberal Senator to be an absolute joke? No Russ Feingold? No Bernie Sanders?( a self-described Socialist) I mean come on. They also had Joe Biden ranked number 3 most liberal. Another example why anything put out by a "conservative think-tank" should be viewed with suspicion.
-Can Barack and Hillary strike a balance in a debate? It's either the Jerry Springer show or a love fest. I half-expected them to start making out on Thursday.
-The Iraq strategy of both Clinton and Obama seem like the worst of both worlds to me. Okay, so we reduce the number of troops to the point where they can do nothing to keep the country from spiraling out of control, but we leave a smaller force there that will be less able to defend itself so we keep having American casualties? How is this a good idea? I've said it before and I'll say it again; I want there to be a large number or none at all. I believe this war was a mistake from day one, but a half-ass solution is worse to me than choosing between what we have now and a complete withdrawal.
-I for one am glad people like Ann Coulter are not endorsing Senator McCain. If she had one less synapse firing in her brain, she'd be in a coma.
-I'm really into the Dropkick Murphys these days.
-I'm considering spending my economic stimulus package money on a tattoo for my chest. The ideas I have are a) some type of flaming skull b)Old Glory c) the words "No Control" or d) the words "Liberty or Death". I am open to suggestions.
-I think the worst thing to happen for Mike Huckabee's campaign was when he increasingly transitioned from being seen as "former governor" to "former minister". I don't know if this is something done by the campaign or by the media, but I think this was, along with that stuff about changing the constitution and sodomizing people with flag poles the undoing of his campaign.
-Larry King used to do a stream-of-thought column in usa today (much like the one I'm doing right now, only with shorter sentences) in which he would impart such deep wisdom as "I have no tolerance for people who commit rape". Some deep thought right there.
-Al Qaeda (how the hell do you spell that anyway?) is now using women with Downe's Syndrome as human bombs. I'm not shocked by the fact that these are evil bastards, but this caught even me off guard. Do you think they just sat around going "what's the most evil thing we could possibly do today? Oh, I know. We'll use mentally handicapped people to blow up a pet-market full of schoolboys who have the day off! When I hear stuff like this it makes me hope that a) There is a literally burning hell and b) that God grades on a curve.
-If you've still got the piece of paper you were using for the Senators quiz, go to www.cnn.com (or www.foxnews.com if you prefer), look at all of the stories they have links to on their front page. Now count how many are actual news and how many are simply sensationalistic headlines. Usually stories like "celebrity x reportedly nailing celebrity y" or "dildo sales up 20%" or "cute child reunited with cute puppy" outnumber stories like "Are Pakistan's nukes secure?" or "Skyrocketing price of rice endangers world's poor" by a ridiculous margin. Is it safe to say the word "news" is false advertisement at this point?