Posts Tagged ‘ron paul


Politicians: Corporatocracy Whores

It seems most politicians are members of three clubs: former big biz, lawyers, and academics. Of course, there are exceptions. Ron Paul, Bill Frist, Howard Dean, and Tom Coburn were also doctors. California offers up actors from time to time, and Jesus give us his peeps:  Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mike Huckabee. Sarah Palin crawled out from under a rock in White Trashville, as will have Joe The Plumber when he undoubtedly attempts to run for some public office.

Maybe we need to take a closer look at where our politicians come from and what type of background offers the most successful selections. By successful, I don’t mean longest-serving or highest-ranking. I mean most effective, the politicians that benefited the American people the most.

In pondering this topic, the most pessimistic observation regarding the state of our government is that there is an undeniable rotating door between government and big business. As I’ve said, this is not a democracy, but a corporatocracy. Lobbyists and politicians are one and the same and this is true of both Republicans and Democrats.

Sure, this is a well-known reality. So, what could have triggered my need to blog on the topic today? Well…

On Morning Joe this a.m. Joe Scarborough, in his usual pithy tone of egotistical disgust and certitude, derided Obama who, just like Bernanke, Joe said, is a professor. They’re just professors. And this is true. But maybe, just maybe, it’s not a bad thing.

Yesterday, Robert Scheer pointed out in his Huffpo blog entry, Runaway Wallstreet, that Geithner’s choice for top aide is Mark Peterson, Goldman Sachs VP and lobbyist. “It was confirmation that Goldman Sachs runs the Treasury Department–no matter which party is in power.” He also sites The NYTimes’ “The Guys From ‘Government Sachs'”, which details Goldman alumni in the government – Paulson, of course, but also Joshua B. Bolten, Neel T. Kashkari, Robert Rubin, World Bank Pres. Robert Zoellick, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and a BUNCH, bunch more.

Goldman Sachs is one of the many Wall Street, financial institutions with a revolving door between itself and the Treasury Dept., the Fed, the SEC and more. What about Rahm Emanuel and Michael Bloomberg? And, most recently John McCain was greatly considering naming shamed former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain – you know the one who spent $1.2 million redecorating his office – for his Treasury Secretary. How can our government be expected to enact the best policy when they are all big biz wankers who have no priority over increasing wealth among their ranks?

The financial industry isn’t the only extreme conflict of interest in the government. Remember Dick Cheney? Yes, that ex-Halliburton CEO called in major energy execs to help write the government’s energy policy. No wonder Bush thought Kyoto was a bad idea. No wonder Bush wouldn’t let California set high fuel emissions standards. No wonder Detroit refused to acknowledge the growing demand for greener autos. No wonder Halliburton, its subsidiaries, and other companies close to Bush & Cheney received no-bid contracts in Iraq worth billions while our underfunded military continued to fight wars on two fronts. Nothing new – former head of Enron Ken Lay would trip over himself licking the heals of Bush I, leaving little surprise that the company was able to get away with manipulating the California energy market before its bubble collapsed.

Where do you think Tom Daschle went after his senate career? Yeah, a lobbying firm with clients in the health care sector. He would have made a great health care secretary. No conflict there. And you know how recruited him? Bob Dole. Even Bill Frist went to work for a health care investment firm after leaving the senate.

And there’s always a new crop of big biz lackeys knocking at the door all the time: Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, and  Meg Whitman are biding their time, waiting to make their big break on the national circuit. But it’s not just the politicians – it’s their spouses, their children, congressional aides, government inspectors for the FDA, SEC, CDC and more – everyone around these politicians are in bed with lobbying firms and corporations. Lower level government employees, eying big dollar jobs in the private sector, push their bosses toward pro-biz legislation and deregulation. The mainstream media, dependent on sponsor dollar, rarely publicize the siamese twins our government and big business have become.

And the American people suffer for it. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry mandated the vaccination of teenage girls with Gardasil – interesting because of his ties to Gardasil’s maker, Merck. The governor thinks he can issue executive orders regarding the health of our children, ordering them to take a new drug with multiple questions regarding its side effects. The man should be jailed. He also tried to rush the building of coal plants before new “clean coal” (cough, cough lie) regulations were put in place. Yeah, we got a winner down here in Texas. Hey Perry – this isn’t a fucking autocracy! Asshole.

Now, sure most of the Democratic politicians are lawyers  – funny how they want to study law before becoming professional legislators. And many other government participants are academics. The main attack line against these people – and we heard it quite a bit this last election – is that they never ran anything. Somehow the recent big biz execs are winning elections to become today’s politicians on platforms that they were in charge in the business sector. And the last eight years have been the most pro-biz in recent history. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Maybe before we jump to criticize these professors and lawyers, we should take a look at how well the big biz peeps fared. Last I looked, our civil liberties were greatly reduced, we spent far more on a war sold with lies than we did on education the children of our country, a credit bubble formed and popped, health care costs became astronomical, unaffordable and the leading cause of bankruptcy, speculation drove oil & gas prices sky high and unemployment reached record levels.

At least the top 400 richest people doubled their wealth while Bush was president. The poverty sector grew by leaps and bounds, but who cares about those people? We have a corporatocracy on our hands and until we establish policy on data, information, evidence and reality and leave ideology and theory in the books where they belong, we will continue to suffocate the middle class. And without a healthy middle class, a healthy American economy cannot exist. The idea of a free market has become a joke, a myth. There’s nothing free about our market. It’s very, very expensive. And it’s not the rich who are paying for it.


Government, Get Out of My Uterus

Not finished stomping on our civil liberties, the Bush administration wants to get a few more shin kicks in before rewarding us with #1 on all our wish lists: their absence.

Last week, the NYTimes reported the administration started circulating a proposal that would require hospitals, medical schools, clinics and researchers to sign a certificate saying they will not refuse to hire doctors and nurses who oppose abortion and birth control if these medical institutions wish to receive funding from the Department of Health. Apparently, it is already against the law for these institutions to discriminate against such doctors and nurses. The certificate, according the Department of Health, helps them police prejudice. Perhaps we should focus our efforts on policing stupidity.

Well, finally our sleepy little Congress is waking up and attempting to put their proverbial foot down. Sen. Hillary Clinton submitted her opinion of the proposal to The Huffpo yesterday, stating these new rules, which will be released next week, “put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them ‘abortion.'”

Over 100 members of the House of Representatives are sending a protest letter to President Bush stating:

The draft regulation could have a disastrous effect upon access to safe and effective birth control for millions of women across the country…

By distorting the scope of the laws, it would gut state and local protections of women’s right to safe and effective birth control. This is not a technical clarification regarding abortion services. This is a radical reversal of decades of public health work to provide contraception and family planning services that have enjoyed wide bipartisan support.

Certainly, I’m not holding my breath in hopes the administration will suddenly take this new proposal off the horizon (the Bush administration’s word for “table”). They have systematically popped holes in many civil liberties once taken for granted in the “home of the free.” North Korea, here we come!

I find it ironic that very few Republicans are raising their voice to oppose this potential change in Department of Health and Human Services procedures. The last I checked, Republican doctrine called for limited government. These new restrictions would practically nullify a number of state laws regarding women’s health issues.

Of course, Republicans under W. have become laughing stock representatives of hypocrisy with their spending and rubber-stamping. Such shameful behavior has led to the recent rise in popularity of Libertarians, such as Ron Paul (who is sticking to his guns and staying with the Republicans) and Bob Barr (who is not). The Republican Party is in a downward spiral of unequaled proportions largely due to their abdication of the party’s original ideals. This new Dept. of Health regulation proposal is yet another example of the federal government overstepping its bounds.

Yet, nary a peep of protest has sounded from the Republican side of the aisle. How disgustingly typical. It will be quite the party tallying all those Congressional seats lost by Republicans the night of November 5th. I hope I’ll be able to stay up after all the champagne I plan on imbibing and must remember not to pop the cork immediately after exiting the voting booth.

Is Bush trying one last time to reward the Religious Right who delivered such a living failure to We The People? The Religious Right who wants the freedom NOT to teach their kids about STDs and birth control? Who wants laws against sodomy to remain on the books in certain states? Who wants the government’s nose in everybody else’s business but their own? “Protect our liberties! Police everyone else who disagrees with us! No Gay Marriage!” You know the drill.

I used to be Christian and sure, I remember that Baby Jesus doesn’t like abortions. But I do not remember reading in The Bible Baby Jesus saying good Christians must prevent all others from such practices. When “Voting by the Bible” (a bumper sticker I read numerous times in Oklahoma), I would urge Christians to remember that The Bible instructs its practitioners to concentrate on themselves and their own sins. It does not urge Christians to run around, ruling everyone else’s lives and demanding the erection of a theocracy.

Remember, when you refuse to protect the rights of those who disagree with you, it will be your rights that are eliminated next.

In the meantime, do you think it’s too early to start planning my Bush’s Last Day Party?


Hall of Shame II: Crazy Hillary Extremists

I have reached the conclusion that any extremist on any side of the political prism is harmful to the democratic process. Once a person reaches the conclusion that their ideals are the correct ones and solidifies the certainty of their philosophy, they no longer are capable of learning. And to make good decisions, one has to learn and be informed on a continual basis. A person incapable of learning, questioning or investigating has a paralyzed mentality and should excuse themselves from the participatory stage of elections and governing.


And every candidate, every party, every philosophy has their crazies. Whether they are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage OR the Ron Paul Nutters OR self-immolating monks OR rawtarians OR the Elvis Lives Fan Club, there are groups of people who have skirted the limitations of reason and become what we call “The Fringe Element.” Obama has them, too. In the footage of his rallies, you can spot those wily-eyed supporters who see nothing objectionable, offer no criticism and refuse to view the Democratic nominee through the lens of reality. They, however, never threatened to abandon the Democratic party if he did not receive the nomination.

And this is where we address another “Fringe Element” garnering media attention. A man named Ed Hale has launched a website,, which apparently represents The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. He essentially wants to unify people who would do their utmost to keep Obama from reaching the White House. Hale claims to be “one of them bible thumping, gun toting red necks and dam [sic] proud of it” who wants his grandchildren to be free from the fear of being killed by a terrorist. Apparently, if Obama is elected, at the very least, our fear of a terrorist attack would skyrocket because his version of security would create another Baghdad here in the USA. Compelling, I know.

Now, I must suspect that Ed – who is a lifelong Democrat – is actually from that demographic element I wrote of in an earlier blog who is a remnant from the days before Democrats and Republicans swapped demographics. We have many of them here in Texas and they are a reason the Oklahoman governor is a Democrat. These are people who are fundamentally conservative and tend to vote Republican, but their pappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy’s grandpappy was a Democrat, so they’re a Democrat, too.

Ed is also one of those petrified “fringe element” types. Non-negotiable. Security over liberty. Political promises over character and judgment. I support him in his swap to the McCain camp because he agrees with McCain’s politics more than Obama’s. I get it. Not really a big loss for us true lefties and probably should have been a Republican in the first place if he was more concerned with political philosophy than party loyalty and straight-ticket voting.


However, there are many Hillary supporters who are promising to vote for McCain over Obama, not because of political philosophy, but for revenge. They want to see a 2008 McCain victory because they are sure Hillary would run again and win in 2012. These people should be shot.

Exhibit A: In this video, you will see a gay man on the far right, in a brown shirt with a turquoise Hillary signature.

***Currently having technical difficulties embedding the videos.

To view the first one, click here.

He was behind her at the Kentucky victory rally as well:

To view the second one here.

He was also interviewed on the Daily Show episode, which aired June 4, in which he told Aasif Mandvi that he is as gay as the day is long and he’s voting for McCain.

These are not people who disagree fundamentally with Obama, but are simply the sorest of losers. They turned a blind eye to Clinton’s slash-and-burn, flawed campaign which gave Obama a fair and square victory (Michigan and Florida seated or not) and they were not rewarded. Nor should they have been.

Now, they are willing to continue sending our troops to an unnecessary death in Iraq, they are willing to allow our government to continue using warrantless wiretaps, make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, squash the idea of universal health care and give their vote to a monumental flipflopper all in the name of political revenge.

I have no respect for these people who would allow their emotions to dominate a decision that requires the most educated and informed of all logic. Bush has proven that the election of the U.S. president has global consequences. Yet these people prioritize their selfish, self-centered demands over funds for AIDS in Africa, preventing a war of choice on Iran, the increase in unfair trade, environmental protection, and the plethora of detrimental Bush policies McCain would either continue or worsen.

They will have blood on their hands if McCain wins. When polar bears go extinct and children sew soccer balls and the situation in the Middle East continues to devolve, it will be their fault.

Suggestion to all you revenge voters: Pull your heads out of your asses. Thems the breaks. Vote Nader. Vote Bob Barr. But don’t relegate the rest of us to four more years of inanity and tragically pandemic destruction just because your girl couldn’t get her shit together and cared more about her candidacy than unity of the Democratic party – you being the prime example of her political selfishness.

People died and gave their lives for our right to vote. It is no small matter. Obama is most politically similar to Hillary than any other candidate. If you are going to use your right to vote not to express your political opinion, but rather your spite, you are a morally reprehensible being and dishonoring all those who fought for our freedoms.

And if you vote for McCain, fine, you’ll just be a loser again. How’s them apples?


THOROUGH Assessment of Ron Paul

This is quite a long blog because it’s one I take very seriously. I’ve bolded each issue though, in the case you don’t want to read every word (most of you, i’m sure!)

I’ve been avoiding writing this, hoping Ron Paul and his followers would see the writing on the wall at some point and exit stage left. But noooooo, they’re on some strange campaignphetamine and have forsaken all hold on reality in hopes their insanity will somehow be affirmed by a miraculous success that “the media can’t ignore!”

The followers want the Republican nomination to remain unsettled until the convention have launched a movement calling on all followers to try and become delegates at the National Convention. I won’t go so far as to say they want to steal the nomination, but they are trying to round up enough delegates who will vote Ron Paul either after their first choices have dropped out or even abdicate the position of the voters in their state or district, which they represent. You can read the views of these “enthusiasts” on the “Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will NOT be President” site and this Ron Paul Forum entry from Feb. 5 which the author titles “Things going according to plan. Don’t lose hope.” The rules for Republican delegate obligations are varied and described a bit on The Republican Source.

In light of the intent by Ron Paul supporters’ to attempt (no matter how serious) to hijack the Republican Convention, it’s time for me to pitch in chronicle my assessment of this cracker jack.

The Bush Effect

In the early stages of the campaign, I knew Ron Paul didn’t have a chance in hell of garnering the Repub nomination. Paul’s following is a result of what I call “The Bush Effect.” If it were not for the turmoil perpetrated by Bush and Cheney over the last seven years, much of what we’re seeing on the political landscape today wouldn’t have been possible. I never would have considered Hillary for president, a fairly green senator from Illinois would have to put in a few more years on the national level before being taken seriously, and the immense increase of democrat voter turnout over Republican voter turnout would have been a dream.

Ron Paul’s candidacy falls into this category. Never would such a rabid following of enthusiasts who have very little understanding of the development of civilization, the dynamics of a successful government and electoral science have been able to coalesce around a fringe, Libertarian candidate so well that he garners more votes than Mayor 9/11 himself, Giuliani, and participates in all meaningful Republican debates.

The unendingly wretched decisions of Goober Bush and Diablo Cheney have made the impossible possible.

Initial Interest and Approval

Ron Paul at a glance seems like a great candidate for change. He labels himself a Libertarian and a smaller, limited governmental beast always seems a good idea. He thinks we never should have gone to Iraq and should get out immediately. I agree the U.S. cannot act as the world’s police (a line Bush used in running for the 2000 nomination). While not for legalized abortion and gay marriage, he believes these decisions should be left to the states – a much better stance than the typical conservative Republican. He signed the American Freedom Agenda Pledge, which I wholeheartedly support and he’s against eminent domain. If nothing else, I appreciated the conversation Ron Paul brought to the Republican Party. From the outset of the campaign, I intended on voting Democrat in order to balance the Supreme Court, but I try to give every candidate across all party lines their due consideration. Ron Paul wudn’t bad, as we say in Texas. The “wudn’t” part, that is.

In the efforts of full disclosure, my boyfriend and partner, Brendan is from Lake Jackson. Ron Paul was the obstetrician who delivered some his friends. So, we heard about him early on and, I must confess, I believe his geographical origins are the main reason for his support among some people we know. You always want to root for the home team. But not mindlessly, as I see many doing today.

Investigation, Research and Disappointment

As I took the mandatory squiz into Ron Paul’s stance on the issues, voting record, and basic history, it became clear this was a candidate I could never support.

Immediately, the support home schooling garners on his site struck me as a red flag. I’m not a huge proponent of home schooling, not necessarily in principle, but because the majority of home schooling is a result of parents who are closemindedly christian and do not want their children exposed to certain tenants in public education – evolution, abstinence, STDs, much of the literature. I’ve belonged to a number of churches in my past in which a number of the congregates home schooled and saw first hand how unexposed and brainwashed their children were. Brendan and I have experienced working and interacting with adults who were home schooled as children and to say they were socially inept is an understatement. We witnessed their failure to effectively interact with coworkers and socially and the subsequent shunning they experienced. While there are certain circumstances under which I would support home schooling – sometimes it’s a requirement for education because of geographical factors – but the widespread encouragement of home schooling (as you sometimes see here in Texas) is never a movement I could endorse because of the negative effects it has on the children.

Secondly, Ron Paul’s letter to gun owners on his website was a huge obstacle for me as a voter. Yes, here in Texas the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is significant. Ron Paul says the “high-and-mighty politicians” want to “Force law-abiding American citizens who want to protect themselves through more bureaucratic rigmarole and throw up more ‘gun free zone’ signs.” Well, the language of the letter is incendiary (who says high-and-mighty anymore?). I don’t believe there’s a gun owner around every corner threatening me and I certainly do not support ever law-abiding citizen’s right to own an uzi and any semi-automatic weapon. The tremendous amount of gun crimes is due largely to the availability of firearms which is due largely to the objection to gun control. (what i find really ironic is that most right to bear arms proponents are christian. so you ask them, what about the bible and an eye for an eye or women submitting completely to their husbands and sitting on their own side in church, shushed into silence. i always here, well that’s a reference to the situation of the times and doesn’t apply today) Bearing arms was a necessity when the Constitution was written. I’m not sure we should suspend the Right to Bear Arms, but let’s have a bit more historical context in our need to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Then we have Ron Paul’s very unlibertarian stance on illegal immigration. I do not believe illegal immigration is a huge threat to the United States. Ron Paul’s very political existence, in his words, is to protect the foundations of this country – meaning the Constitution. Yet illegal immigration is a foundation of this country as well. The U.S. has experienced wave after wave of various illegal immigration groups and responded in fear and intolerance. Yet, each time, the economy and culture absorbed these immigrants well until the fear had passed and the group was accepted. What our economy cannot tolerate is the deportation of over 12 million workers who are here illegally. Farmers, restaurateurs, construction and other industries would be threatened at every level. It is fear-mongering that has the country lashing out at undocumented workers needlessly. Ron Paul contributes to perpetration of such lies – while his supporters accuse everyone else of lying about him.

Having studied intently on the subject of economics, Ron Paul’s approach is strictly in support of free-market Capitalism, as well as the elimination of the Federal Reserve, income tax, the IRS and many departments of the U.S. government. I do not support any pure economic theory, whether its Capitalism or Communism, as it fails to truly interpret and react to the human pysche. These theories assume far too much about human behavior to be effectively applied without hindrance. Economic activity must be a balance of many elements, including capitalism and socialism, to truly benefit the society to which they are applied.


Ron Paul has claimed repeatedly to believe that abortion is a legal question best left to the states. Yet, he is the sponsor of unsuccessful The Sanctity of Life Act which would define life at conception and protects life from conception to birth. A federal law defining life at conception would basically handicap any state law legalizing abortion because it would amount to murder. Paul’s repeated statements that he believes abortion should be a states’ right is a lie – evidenced by his intent to change federal law to prevent the surgical act and private right. Also, Ron Paul asserts a “partial birth abortion is never a necessary procedure.” He goes on to say, “The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture…” If anyone of you has read Freakonomics, you would know that abortion actually contributes to a decrease in violent crime. Just FYI. He is even a member of the Association of American Physicians – a right-wing group of doctors that are opposed to abortion and believe in the free market so they may choose whatever price they want to provide medical services.

Now I will address the controversial newsletters published between 1988 and 1996 under Ron Paul’s name that have questionable messages and innuendos. The newsletters were at various times survivalist or pro-militia, anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, conspiracy theorist and isolationist. Ron Paul says he didn’t write the newsletters and doesn’t know who did (which I believe to be a patent lie) and believes that should be the end of the story. “A Libertarian can’t be racist.” And his supporters think so too. That the American voter should not be concerned with the fact that such ugly, hateful, putrid language was published under a presidential candidate’s name is sheer ridiculousness. Paul has also said he would make all the newsletters available and has not made one effort towards fulfilling his word – leaving it up to The New Republic to dig them up. First of all, his explanation is NOT enough. Second of all, the fact that he’s still a minor player in the race without much attention from the other candidates and media shows how little he is being taken seriously in this race. If he were a real factor, everyone would be going to town on this guy’s past and he would have been forced out long ago. The newsletters are so offensive, I am amazed people would sully their name by endorsing this fellow!

Voting Record

Then I decided to visit Club For Growth and view his voting record, where I discovered many votes on which I personally would have differed. Though I did approve of many of his votes, these are the ones that irked me a bit:

  • Voted for an amendment to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the development of national reading and math tests
  • Votes against all free trade agreements because he thinks trade is inherently free and we don’t need all these silly stipulation. An isolationist view with clear miscalculating of our increasingly globalized world
  • Voted against a minimum wage increase
  • Voted against an amendment that imposed costly arsenic standards on small water systems
  • Voted against an amendment imposing new mileage standards on automobiles
  • Voted against a bill to criminalize so-called price gouging among oil companies
  • Voted for a bill to prohibit federal officials from nominating U.S. lands for protection without prior congressional approval
  • Paul opposes tort reform

Ron Paul Supporters – Hate Groups

Overwhelmingly, white supremacists, pro-militia groups, conspiracy theorists, 9/11 thruthers, and Neo-Nazis support Ron Paul. I would list all the white supremacist groups who support him here if it wouldn’t make me throw up. Should he have to pay for the sins of his followers? Should he have to return their contributions or publicly denounce them? Denounce them, yes.

It is a real and significant question to ask if a person who garners the favor of hate group after hate group would be the best representative for the people of the U.S. and even the free world. This alone, in my opinion, negates him as a viable candidate for president. He never discusses this branch of his support and this, coupled with his past newsletters, indicates to me he speaks Libertarian like the CATO Institute, yet lives and thinks the Libertarian of the Ted Kaczynski/Timothy McVeigh style. “R”evol“ution”? My ass.

And as we see more credible Libertarians abandon his campaign, it is more easily understood that Paul is not for limited government, but for no government. We all have our compounds and apply our own laws. Does he think the South should have had the right to secede? I question how badly he wants to protect the Constitution and his flavor of Libertarianism in general.

Misc. Points

Stealing the Republican Nomination
Ron Paul has many intriguing positions and declarations that allow me to understand his appeal and his cultish following – especially in today’s corporatocracy. Taking into consideration ALL that I have found – and there is a wealth on his positions because he writes so often (a practice to encourage among politicians – he is not a candidate I could support now or ever. Having seen the results of his campaign, it would seem a point moot at this time.

Think again.

In what seems good enough fodder for a conspiracy theory, many his followers want to amass enough delegates at the Republican Convention to give him the nomination anyway! Some think he is the only Republican candidate who could beat the Democratic Nominee. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

I realize many Ron Paul supporters are normal, rational people. I don’t know many of them, but I’m sure they exist. It is with the crazies who want to amass delegates at the Convention that I have a quarrel.

In the Republican primaries so far, give or take a few minor errors, I have calculated 618,094 voters have cast their ballot for Ron Paul. 7,434,090 have voted for McCain and 2,874,007 have voted for Huckabee. Ron Paul has earned less than 4.5 percent of the overall nearly-14 million votes in the Republican primary. And yet his followers still want him to be the Republican nominee. As a Government major in college, you can understand how blasphemous I feel such strategy is!

The U.S. is a representative democracy. For the most part, we choose our elections through a majority or plurality votes. For Ron Paul supporters to think it’s right that they get together to usurp the nomination in direct contravention with the overall will of Republican voters, is shameful. Paul says he will remain in the race as long as his supporters want him to and will use his newfound influence and money to affect other political races. Such is his right.

But end this hope for the Republican nomination. It is wrong at its very base regardless of delegate equations. Only if Ron Paul were to gather a majority of the votes, even if he wasn’t allotted a majority of the delegates, would it be understandable to make a grab for the nomination. This cannot and will not happen.

Ron Paul has been good for discussion and a benefit to the process. But that’s it.


Michelle Could Totally Take Cindy

Did any of you catch the ridiculous non-news story receiving an inordinate amount of air time on the cable news stations?

Michelle Obama says, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change,” she said. “I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.”

Cindy McCain unnecessarily counters with, “I just wanted to make the statement that I have and always will be proud of my country.”

First of all, in a death-match between ‘Chelle and Cindy, my money’s totally on Michelle. Have you seen her thighs?? I do have to say, though, that I’ve always gotten this Stepford Wife vibe from Cindy with and S&M twist. She really looks like she uses a cat ‘o nine tails in the night-time, right? And John has proven he can take the pain; so their marriage really makes sense, if you think about it.

Secondly, I applaud Michelle’s comments because I think it’s time we stop acting like idiot drones, brainwashed as children by the everyday repetition of the Pledge of Allegiance and “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee.” Pride in America does not a good person make. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh is very proud of his country and you know he’s on the Express Way to Hell. I’m sure Ron Paul has oodles of pride – but I wouldn’t touch that pro-militia, anti-semitic, anti-gay, gun wielding, wannabee abortion shooter of a mess with a ten-foot pole.

We were born here, we didn’t not choose to come here. Pride should be earned, and not simply exist to prove you are better than another. Get a grip! Michelle is feeling what many are, inexplicably or otherwise, that the public has, for the first time in a long time, demanded a changing of the guards. That deserves pride. Not simply following the status-quo or altering political opinions to get elected – as McCain has done readily since his humiliating defeat to Goober Bush in 2000. That’s not American or anything deserving of praise or pride. And I should know. I’m an expert. I was born here.


The Jan. 24 Repub Debate in Florida

Next Tuesday will be fun. Slowly watching the death knell toll for Giuliani’s presidential campaign will give me a bit of satisfaction. Who knew that McCain and Giuliani would essentially trade positions in the polls between August of last year and now? It amuses me to no end to see inevitability turned on its head – and for campaigns for president proceed without Ben Franklin determining who emerges as the victor. Romney is basically diarrheaing cash into his campaign, but I still think enough voters are smart enough to recognize his severe, late-in-life political 180’s prove he’ll proffer whatever ideals and promises necessary to win an election. Blech. If offends my political senses to no end. And not much offends me. Really, ask anyone I know.

Every pundit said Romney won the debate last night, though, but only because the other candidates weren’t dog-piling on him and he was able to shed his ankle-grabber status of previous debates. Last night was like watching the Teletubbies or a bunch of men massage each other in a steamy Japanese bath. What was that about?

This is what I heard:

  • Oh yeah, right, the downturn of the economy is serious! I mean, everyone, knows that. We just haven’t talked about it before because Tim Russert only wanted to ask about troops or gays or something.
  • Giuliani, you’re so cute and we’re so glad you’ll be getting out of the race soon. Then we won’t have to look at your mistress and wonder how many times you banged her before you actually got divorced.
  • Hillary Clinton is the devil and we will all suffer a severe case of the terrorismitis if she’s elected.
  • I can be funnier than the other guy.
  • Abortion is no longer the big issue (hallelujuah and praise jeebus!).

Republicans wanted to rise above the fray (how many former Republican Congress people are in the pen right now?) and be a little better than thou democrat, but I was unimpressed and would likely forget every word uttered last night if I wasn’t blogging about it.

Listen, maybe the inoffensive, non-confrontational American friendliness that I do enjoy cringes to see Clinton and Obama scrap a bit, but I thought we actually were hearing some substantive conversation. Wolfie should have sat back and popped a beer like the rest of us and revel in the relevance of some actual DISCUSSION about some ISSUES. Yes, at first, the jabs took a little getting used to, but in the end I felt like we were closer to seeing what kind of candidates these people really are. Admittedly, I’m not sure the arguments changed anyone’s mind or rearranged any voting blocs, but us political junkies loved it and you know it!

I’ll continue to watch the debates of both parties and toward the end of the season, they’ll be easier to turn into drinking games. Hopefully, Nader will jump in and maybe Bloomberg and possibly some family values candidate and we’ll witness some Political Ultimate Fighting Champion and philosophies and ideals and characters will emerge from behind those particle-board podiums! Actual political discussion.

One can only hope.


Do I Have to Watch Tonight’s Republican Debate?

McCain: (paraphrasing) Americans wouldn’t mind if we had a troop presence in Iraq for 100 years if there were not military casualties.

Huckabee: “[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,”

Romney: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

Giuliani: “…we’re going to carry a 50-state campaign…” (which is why he’s only focusing on Florida and losing to Ron Paul in the other primaries….)

Ron Paul:  “The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming a European Union, the good ‘ol (sic) USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen. The UN wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites was to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world….I am writing to you today to ask you to recommit yourselves to this battle. I need your help now, more than ever, in this fight to save the country we love…for the people we love.”

Do I? Do I HAVE to watch tonight’s Republican debate? Maybe some wine will make it bearable…

Scarlet Letter of Atheism


Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 96,977 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None