-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".
Friday, February 29, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
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."
-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
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
Thursday, February 21, 2008
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)