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.

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.

The "Idiot" Wing of the Republican Party Hates John McCain.

I think the thing that makes me happiest about John McCain's victory in Florida yesterday is the way a lot of right-wing blowhards have further revealed their hypocrisy and complete separation from reality due to their hatred for the Senator. Rush Limbaugh has sobered up long enough to say that if McCain is the nominee he will "sit this one out". Tom Delay has said the same thing. Good, maybe that corrupt son of a bitch (in Dick Armey's words) can better use his time trying to keep his ass out of jail. Just this morning I heard one of them say that if McCain beats Romney to become the nominee, it will be the worst bloodbath the GOP has suffered since Goldwater in 1964. Apparently polls have a liberal bias because every poll I've seen shows the exact opposite. McCain is in a statistical tie with all Democrats, while Romney gets beaten by at least 12 points. There's a bigger turn-around here though. Do you remember in 2004 that these same talking heads were saying the most important issue was national security? We were told that "the fate of western civilization is at stake", "the war is the defining issue of our time", "this is world war 2 all over again". This faux-patriotism was what helped turn me from true-believer into dedicated skeptic. Perhaps it was best exemplified in the way these chicken-hawks wrapped themselves in the flag and questioned the patriotism of anyone who opposed their policies, even when involved trashing a guy like Max Cleland, who lost an arm and both legs serving his country, or John Murtha, or John Kerry (none of whom I agreed with at the time) who've actually shed blood for this nation. Because apparently real patriotism is measured more in party affiliation than in pints of blood. What a difference four years makes. Apparently pretending to be a fighter pilot and war hero matters more to this crowd than actually being one. Because right now there's only one candidate who gives me any reason at all to think he knows the first thing about national security, foreign policy, or how to run a war. But, according to the far-right, the party must rally around the candidate who is most likely to.....lower rich peoples' taxes! Deficits don't matter!(according to Dick Cheney) The fact that the last seven years have been an economic disaster for most of the country doesn't matter. We need more of the same! All that talk about national security was clearly a smoke-screen. The real priorities are painfully obvious at this point. Critical thinking and putting the country above the Republican party orthodoxy are an unpardonable sin to this crowd. It would be kind of interesting to see how this crowd would react if their "conventional wisdom" is followed. How would they spin the results on the air on November 5th, the day after the Democratic nominee beats Romney by ten points and the democrats take 7-8 seats away from the GOP in the Senate, and God knows how many in the House.

Endorsement

(Bob submitted this post to me and I thought it pretty well summed up my feelings on the presidential race, and I agree with 99% of it I thought it would serve pretty well as a statement of endorsement)

Possible conversion on Candidates

Tonight Senator John McCain won the South Carolina Primary. I have over the last several weeks started to reexamine the senator and his candidacy. In the 2000 primary I supported John McCain because I like the fact that he spoke truth to power and was willing to buck the system when he thought he was right.This year I wrote the Senator off, this was a mistake of mine I for the first time in my life bought into the pundits opinions. As I look at his positions there are some I don't agree with, like his stance on immigration ( the amnesty bill) and his support of campaign finance reform. But I like that fact that he is trying to get things done and is willing to go against his party if necessary to do so. He has a consistent conservative voting record, he is a rational logical conservative. He is a supporter of a balanced budget and against pork barrel spending, and his foreign policy experience is first rate. I like that he has spent his life in public service, that he honorably and courageously served his country in Vietnam and sacrificed his pride, blood, and a whole lot of pain for his nation. The fact that he knows the horror of war makes him very qualified to be President and Commander and Chief. He also has the credibility to talk about issues like torture and techniques for interrogation. I like that fact that he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve that he is one of the millions of Americans who for the most part believes religion is a private matter. He doesn't pander to the likes of Pat Robertson or James Dobson and I like that very much.He also appears to be against the defense of marriage amendment which would ban gay marriage, he says that it is a states rights issue and this is a good start and a good position for a President from the GOP to take. So as I look at the Senator again and reassess what I'm looking for in a leader of my party and more importantly my country I am considering doing something I have never done this late in a Primary and that is switching my support.I think I may be a McCain Republican, I believe that he can appeal to Republican and independent voters alike, I also think he can beat Hillary Clinton like a drum. More importantly I believe he is just what America needs after seven years of the Bush Presidency and a Democratic party that is clueless to the threats this nation and world faces. John McCain is an elder statesman, a man who has been tempered by war, is schooled in how government works, and has a core set of Principals. I think that America taking a break from being governed by Baby Boomers may very well be what this nation needs. I still like Mike Huckabee but the political realities are that if he can't win in South Carolina, how can I expect him to win in Indiana, Connecticut, and Colorado and supporting a losing candidate leads to very bad policies by the person that beat him. I think Mike would have made a fine President but I realize now that McCain may be a better fit for me.So I am considering switching my support to Senator McCain. Now I am not a fair weather fan, I simply realize that I may have chosen Governor Huckabee too quickly. I have always called myself a Reagan Republican and that is very true he is after all my political hero but I also think I am a McCain Republican. So we shall see I hope the Senator wins in Florida and can go on to take out Romney on Super Tuesday. As for Governor Huckabee I believe he spent his energy on Iowa, he may win a few more primaries but I think for the most part he is done. So I will mull it over for a few more days and decide weather to stick it out with Governor Huckabee until the nomination is decided or whether to change my support to Senator McCain.

(Steve's note: What it came down to for me in a race where there is no candidate that I agree with 100%, I liked the fact that McCain is more of a known quantity to me. He has more experience in lawmaking than all three leading Democrats combined. And while I disagree with McCain on how long we can stay in Iraq, I don't believe any of the dems on this issue. When's the last time any president moved our forces away from oil? So I feel that most likely any candidate will find an excuse to continue the war. The difference is that McCain is honest about it, and I believe he will be much more competent in these matters than our current president.)

my home state lets me down again.

Well, my home state has let me down again. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton won the Michigan primary on Tuesday. They picked the candidate I like the least from each party. Hillary's win was not particularly impressive since she was the only major candidate on the ballot and the second place finisher was "uncommited". I don't necessarily oppose these two for ideological reasons (too liberal, too conservative, etc.), I see these two as people who will say or do anything to get power. The Romney win bothers me for several reasons.
-The campaign he ran in Michigan focused heavily on being the "native son". It worked because, as a person who lived in Michigan for 24 years, Michigan always seemed to be a place that was particularly quick to latch on to people with Michigan connections, however tangential. (This could be the case everywhere, but I haven't noticed the phenomenon nearly as strongly here in Colorado.)
-He was willing to pander in the most shameless manner. When McCain honestly pointed out that the auto industry jobs are gone forever, Romney went on the attack claiming that he will bring those jobs back. This is a fantasy. The woes of Michigan over the last 30 years are an object lesson of the disastrous results of having an entire economy based on one industry. The sooner the state can move past this the sooner it will recover some lost prosperity.
-The specifics of how he's going to bring back the big 3 also don't measure up. Basically he wants to ease fuel economy on new vehicles and target massive tax breaks at the big 3, so they'll have more money to invest in factories and the like. Let me say this, no company bases these kinds of investments on taxes. What the auto manufacturers (and most businesses) need is very simple. Two things that would bale them out more than anything else are 1) a solution to the rising health care cost for employees and pensioners alike. I'm not saying it has to be national single-payer health care per se, but something has to be done. If you look at the money these companies pay in taxes versus health care costs the numbers aren't even close. 2) They need more people buying their products. Lower taxes won't do a bit of good to spur investments if you have a factory full of vehicles (or any other product) that aren't selling (or not selling enough) This is why targeting the tax cuts at the middle class (who are most likely to spend the money) would have provided a much better stimulus than targeting it at the top bracket.
-Another issue is this. I don't think Romney has a chance of beating any of the 3 democrats in the general election. Generally if you're in a (hopefully short) recession, nominating a blue-blood wall street tycoon won't play all that well in Peoria. Especially when its a guy who wants to double Guantanamo and likes to go around praising the corporations like drug companies that people (rightly or wrongly) believe are turning record profits at the expense of the middle class. So I'm begging my fellow voters: Please don't make me have to choose between Mitt and Hillary in November.

Now for the Republicans....

+Would have posted this sooner but the college football bowl season has kept me preoccupied lately. I have decided to leave out Duncan Hunter because he has no chance of winning and does not interest me, but have included Alan Keyes because he has no chance of winning, but is interesting to me (in a train-wreck fashion).














Alan Keyes-




Keyes is the only current candidate I have actually seen in speak in person. During the 2000 primaries I wandered into an event where he was speaking at Western Michigan University. Since I had plenty of time between classes and was not hung over for a change, I figured I'd go listen to him. The thing I was struck by about him (other than the enormous gold watch he was wearing, seriously it was probably the nicest watch I've ever seen in person) was how he'd say 3 or 4 things that made sense and then springboard off into the deep end of absurdity. For example he'd go on for a few minutes about the tax code being a burden. Okay, I can buy that. But then he said "In some ways my slave ancestors had it better than we do, because at least someone else paid for their chains." I understand that's hyperbole, but it's not even good hyperbole. I'll take metaphoric "chains" over literal ones any day of the week. This pattern was pretty much repeated throughout the speech. When he stuck to economics related issues he did a lot better with me than when he got off into moral issues and the need to convert the entire country to fundamentalist Christianity. He also mentioned about 4,000 times that he had won all the debates. I'll give him this: he was a great debater. That is, until he completely went off the deep end over the past few years. I always wonder about these far right types and their obsession with homosexuality. Between the "selfish hedonists" comment and the way he has treated his daughter, his positions on most issues are overshadowed by his irrational hatred on this one.









Fred Thompson-




Yawn.




Seriously, has there ever been a bigger waste of time than Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate? All summer long there was all this hype surrounding the guy; people were claiming he'd be the front-runner as soon as he declared, he had the big announcement on Jay Leno, and has proceeded to go NOWHERE since. I wonder if he thought "Hey I'll go around saying 'aw shucks' and mentioning Ronald Reagan every other sentence, and people will vote for me because I was on Law and Order." This is a major thing that annoys me about republicans in general. This is a presidential campaign, not a Ronald Reagan impersonator contest. I mean Reagan was a master of shaping his image and perception, but Reagan could back it up with actual substance when it came to understanding of policies and the workings of government. And don't think you can fool me by pretending you don't really want the job. You called us, we didn't call you. And if you genuinely don't care about being president, we'd be more than happy to oblige you on that one. Maybe there is some substance to this guy but you'd never know from watching him on tv. He doesn't have any break-out issue. He seems to try not to say anything that will be controversial (translation: anything substantive or specific). If you look up his ideas on various issues, the phrase "Thompson did not reveal details of his _____ plan" will show up on virtually every one. When it comes to social issues I'd better never hear this guy come out and talk about defending "traditional marriage" If you have children older than your wife, I don't want to hear one word about "traditional marriage" come out of your mouth. I haven't heard him say this yet, but if I do my head will explode.









Ron Paul-




Do you remember the days when conservatism was about limited government and individual liberty? Neither do I, but I'm told by some that such a time actually existed. I would contend that if you were to resurrect Barry Goldwater and ask him what he thinks of the current crop of conservative candidates, he'd be confused because there is only one true conservative running: Ron Paul. I had never heard of Ron Paul until one of the early debates where he was excoriated for challenging the ridiculous claim that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists "hate freedom" I mean that's just some nice shit we like to tell ourselves. (It's kind of like when some one breaks up with you and you try to convince yourself that it was because of some good quality like being "too nice") He actually had the gall to claim that we have been pushing the Muslim world around for close to a century and that people may not like that. Can you imagine? To introduce the truth into a presidential debate? This guy must be insane. The phenomenon of the Ron Paul re(evol)ution has been the most interesting development of the campaign season so far. He has managed to compete with the big money candidates without the support of any political machinery. Hopefully this kind of decentralized movement will become the wave of the future, with candidates getting their strength from individual voters rather than party brass and the will of big-money lobbies. Ron Paul is one of (if not the ) only candidates on the republican side not to be seduced by the foreign policy madness of the so-called neoconservatives. He voted against the Iraq war, against the Patriot act, and most of the other constitutional violations of the Bush regime. Ultimately Ron Paul will probably make noise in some early primaries, but ultimately has no chance at the nomination. I blame this on the fact that the GOP has come completely off its moorings. The new definition of conservatism involves unending foreign entanglements, unlimited executive power, religious fundamentalism, fiscal irresponsibility, and corruption.









Rudy "Did I Mention 9/11?" Giuliani-




Did you know he was mayor of New York City during 9/11? If that doesn't qualify you to be president what does? (besides foreign policy experience, legislative experience, etc.) I think Rudy's 3 major advantages are: name recognition, the fact that he has successfully cast himself as the candidate that can beat Hillary (I'm not sure if he can), and the fact that he has few ties to the religious right. The major drawbacks for Rudy are allegations of corruption as mayor of NYC, endorsement of continuing the foreign policy blunders of the neo-cons, and the fact that he has few ties to the religious right. If running against Clinton, the religious right will back him enthusiastically in the general election, but may not rally as strongly if the opponent is Edwards or Obama. I think Rudy understands the difference between pushing your ideology and actually governing effectively (which is lost on the current administration). I like the fact that Rudy doesn't believe the government has any business in peoples' bedrooms. The fact that he is a card-carrying ass-hole would help him in some ways, when dealing with the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos of the world.(much like it was when he was prosecuting mobsters) He also has an advantage that he went out on top as mayor in terms of popularity, and didn't have a chance to ruin his momentum the way Bush did.The main problem I have personally with Giuliani is his ties to Norman Podhoretz and many of the other "experts" that sold us the Iraq war, and are currently trying to produce a sequel in Iran. His support for torture, domestic surveillance, and certain other constitutional violations of the Bush presidency are deal-breakers to me.









Mitt Romney-



I thought about just copy and pasting the section on Edwards and changing the name to Romney for this one. He is one of the few candidates I can safely say I wouldn't vote for against anyone this side of Kruschev. I can't really criticize his stand on many issues because he WON'T TAKE ONE! Is he pro-life or pro-choice? pro or anti gun control? Does he favor the Bush tax cuts? Who the hell knows? Those are just a few issues he's managed to come out on both sides of. This is why I couldn't help but laugh Sunday when I read that he accused Huckabee of not being an authentic conservative. When has Mitt Romney been an "authentic" anything? If your going to smear another candidate, at least have the common sense not to smear them with remarks that could just as easily apply to you. The speech he gave about his Mormon faith also seemed to backfire. I think he took something that was a marginal issue and put it front and center. After that speech you rarely hear his name mentioned without the word "Mormon" attached. (I've rarely heard Harry Reid's Mormonism mentioned as an issue.) To me religion is not a major sticking point, especially with a candidate I already have this many reasons not to vote for. On a final note, you'll sleep easier tonight knowing that his five sons are "serving their country" by working on his campaign. (Yes he actually said that. He apologized later, but I give no credence to most apologies from any politician) After a statement like that he should run 2 campaigns,1 for him and 1 for his balls, which must be larger than anything you'll find in the produce aisle of your local grocery store.











Mike Huckabee-



After winning Iowa, I'm interested to see if Huckabee can maintain his momentum. I find him to be one of the more interesting candidates in the field right now. As a former baptist minister, rock and roll guitarist, loser of over 100 pounds, and Jim Neighbors lookalike (seriously the resemblance is eerie), out of left field front-runner and all around nice-guy Huckabee makes for interesting television. I think Huckabee has an uphill struggle in many of the upcoming primaries because he represents a threat to the beltway machine. He is also the candidate who represents the biggest threat to the leadership of the religious right (the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world). That might seem counter-intuitive, but if Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney want a piece of the evangelical vote they have to kiss major ass with these types to get them to go to their pulpits and shamelessly plug, the way they did for W. Huckabee, if so inclined, can tell these guys what to go do with themselves because he doesn't need to cozy up to whackos to get the "values voters" (whatever the hell that term means). He may still cozy up the theocrats, but it won't be out of necessity. This allows him to break from the religious right on any issue he wants (as long as it doesn't involve bedrooms or uteruses). For example, if Hillary Clinton as president proposed repealing the "family friendly" Bush tax-cuts these folks will see it as some kind of "secular humanist agenda" that will result in a "one world government" ruled by the "anti-christ". They'd have a hard time selling this line about a Southern Baptist minister. The Washington lobbyists also can't be real happy about pumping money into a bunch of the best candidates money can buy for years, only to have some governor of Arkansas who doesn't owe them a damn thing come waltzing into THEIR Oval Office can they? I worry about this guy when it comes to foreign policy, specifically I'm afraid Vladimir (I call him Vladimir) would steamroll this guy in most serious negotiations. I like the fact that Huckabee isn't clamoring for a disastrous war with Iran which seemed to be the next big thing within the administration up until very recently and has been one of the more vocal critics in the GOP field of Bush foreign policies. As governor of Arkansas he presided over large increases in government spending, (which I don't mind in and of itself provided you can pay for it with increased revenue) which may help give him some of his populist appeal. Which brings us to......







John McCain-


Let's see: legislative experience-check, foreign policy experience-check, actual service in war- double check. How did this guy make it onto the stage? After spending 7 years trying to be more of an establishment candidate and the "heir-apparent" to Bush, I hope the old McCain who talked straight and didn't care about the consequences is back. I voted for McCain in the Michigan primary in 2000 and may wind up doing so again. I like the fact that McCain has a long history of promoting policies that promote fiscal responsibility (ie Gramm-Rudman back in the 80's) rather than the "faith based" less taxes + more spending madness of the Bush administration. McCain is the only republican (other than Ron Paul) who does anything for me at all on the torture issue. If you had told me in 2000 that there would be a "torture issue" in the '08 campaign, I would have thrown up into the nearest trash can and then packed my bags for Canada. (Don't miss my point here: I believe there are plenty of people in this world who deserve to be tortured. I believe rapists deserve to be drawn and quartered. That does not mean I endorse actually doing so as a matter of US policy.) Our current strategy always reminds me of what Nietzche wrote over a hundred years ago that seems to be lost on those currently running our country:



"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."



This was echoed in McCain's best statement on the subject that it's not about who they are, its about who we are. The fact that this may be the tipping point for me on whether to vote for someone sickens me. I disagree with the Bush-like positions McCain has taken on the issues of executive power and surveillance of American citizens. The constitution tends to be something of a sticking point with me. I also think McCain is too hawkish for me. I think his views about staying in Iraq for 50 or 60 years as well as statements about Iran are troubling to say the least. This is not as big an issue to me as the constitutional issues. I could conceivably vote for someone I disagree with about the Iraq war. This is especially true of McCain for a couple of reasons. As someone who has seen and felt the horrors of war first-hand I have the (perhaps naive) belief that he will take a much more thoughtful approach to it than the current group of armchair warriors in the White House who actually disdain logic and forethought. (I mean does anyone honestly know the long-term political strategy over there? The answer is no, because there isn't one.) Another factor that leads me to believe this is that John McCain is the only candidate I know of who has a son currently serving in Iraq (with the USMC), so I'd like to think those two factors would prevent him from ever seeing war as a "product" to be sold to the nation on false pretenses. McCain's support for the president's domestic spying program might ultimately be the thing that forces me to pull the lever for Ron Paul. McCain to me is the clearly the republicans best chance at winning the White House. No one else on that side of the aisle can take down Obama.