BRATTLEBORO, VT -- A small Vermont town is considering issuing arrest warrants for President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Brattleboro town officials will let voters decide if the pair should be charged with war crimes.
"We've got voicemails, e-mails, we've got calls from Florida, Idaho, and around the nation," said Gene Wrin of the Brattleboro police.
On town meeting day people in Brattleboro will vote on whether the President and Vice President should be indicted and arrested for war crimes if they ever set foot in Vermont.
There will be a write up on him soon. Rudy Giuliani will be dropping out too, presumably to direct pornographic movies starring numbers that add up to 20. Gotta give credit to the man - He sure knows how to not say anything substantial, ever. Here's to a campaign based on 3 cubed and a prime number. Hip Hip! Hoor-go away.
Preparing for the results of the South Carolina primary, two things come to mind:
First, I really dislike the Token Black Republican on every news channel. We get it, Black Republicans exist and you managed to find one. Congratulations. All you've proven is that you're racist against Black Democrats.
Second, purposefully trying to create a "Race War" between two candidates is the reason no one watches the news anymore.
Since the results won't be in until later, here is my rewrittenlame version of Petey Pablo's "Raise Up" dedicated to today's primary:
This one's for South Carolina! C'mon and raise up Cast your vote off, twist it 'round yo' hand Spin it like a helicopter South Carolina! C'mon and raise up This one's for you, uh-huh, this one's for who? Us, us, us; yes sir!
Who am I? Barack Obam' motherf*cker! First to put it down for South Carolina But guess what (what?), it's been worth it I'ma superstar, bought me a big ol' camp Four point six (up in the polls!) Back wit the votes from the front to back and got a button in the middle, make the funk go "eh-eh" But it ain't 'bout that It's about gettin whatchu gettin and drivin all back here Big fellas (six fellas) Half of me and Carolina n***** done campaign together Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Mike, Bill Rich, Hillary, damn Vilsack, Kucinich, Blues over here (Reds over there) Wesley Clark, down on the, Howard Dean (lemme think) New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan, Wyoming, Florida, Feb 5th (Super Tuesday) Washington, Hawaii, Virgina, Wisconsin, Maryland And all my states doin votes after the 5th This right here, right here, right here's for
This one's for South Carolina! C'mon and raise up Cast your vote off, twist it 'round yo' hand Spin it like a helicopter South Carolina! C'mon and raise up This one's for you, uh-huh, this one's for who? Us, us, us; yes sir!
I received an email from my father yesterday containing a link to an article about Barack Obama being anti-semitic. The article was "well researched," contained interesting information about who he surrounds himself with, and in general gave a somewhat convincing argument about why liberal Jewish supporters of Israel may want to vote for someone other than Obama. Convincing, enough, for the subject of the email to read: "Well, I was going to vote for him, but now I'm not anymore."
But if you looked further at the article (which I will not link to) you notice a few odd things. First, the way this man attacks Obama is, quite frankly, much more spiteful than a normal liberal Jewish person would attack anyone who is generally on their side. Why? Because we're used to the left wing not approving of Israel. If we had that big a problem with progressives who don't support Israel, there is no way 85% of us would still be able to lean that way.
Secondly, the media loves making out politicians to be anti-semitic, or racist, or sexist, or what have you. So why would we not have heard of this before? Surely this article on this blog could not have been the first time anyone has uncovered this information, but the author does not source other articles or take their information directly from outside sources (when I referred to the article as "well researched" - I said this because it contained a lot of detailed facts). So I googled the name of the website as well as the author. Sure enough, the website is known solely for its undying love for Rush Limbaugh, and the author has written such articles as "Why you MUST vote for Bush if you consider yourself a good Jew." Even if what he had written was true (it's not), it needs to come from a credible source before it's going to influence my opinion of the person it's attacking. Unless it's about Cheney. God I hate him.
So what have we learned? We've learned that trusting any online source, even something that looks as legitimate as a regular news organization, should not be done without proper research into the person and website making the claims. Lying and blatantly biased inferences are not just true of NeoConservatives. Even if I read something on a liberal website, I will always check out the credibility of the sources before coming to any rash conclusions.
Fun Fact: The first image comes from Conservapedia, and they use this image as the source to WHY Fox News is fair and balanced. If that image doesn't prove it, I don't know what will. Click on the link for more hilarity about that stupid website.
In the political justice system, the parties are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the politicians who show up to work on time and the sub-par actors who do everything poorly. These are their stories:
One year from today, there will be no dark clouds The birds will sing your favorite songs The air will smell like sweet peppermint The ground will be soft enough to go out barefoot Strangers will smile and wave when they pass by One year from today.
One year from today, all your pains will cease Your arthritis will no longer hurt Your aches will subside Your sicknesses will heal Your pimples will disappear One year from today.
One year from today, snow will blanket the ground while the air stays warm enough for shorts and the sun shines brightly until 9:00 PM Your boss will give you a paid day off and you'll sleep soundly until noon One year from today.
One year from today, the fields will fill with bunnies. Dogs will become puppies forever Kittens will sleep at your feet Everyone will get their own pony that will bring your your slippers and brew your coffee One year from today.
One year from today, young women will walk the streets topless while the men look at nothing but their personalities The young will appreciate the wisdom of the elderly The elderly will appreciate the energy of the youth and Parents will end their endless worry One year from today.
One year from today, Paris Hilton will enroll in college Britney Spears will seek counseling and stick with it Tom Cruise will convert back to normality Lindsey Lohan will take up work at an orphanage Mel Gibson will convert to Judaism One year from today.
One year from today, China will let Taiwan become independent Israel and Palestine will merge and share the land peacefully Canada will no longer be seen as America's hat Mexico will choose to share some of its wealth with the poor Sudan will institute strict anti-weapon laws One year from today.
One year from today, angels will float behind you and give you a long back rubs as you walk Spirits will whisper funny jokes in your ears Ghosts will help you find things you've lost and God and the Devil will share a warm embrace. One year from today.
One year from today, your life will be better. Because one year from today, January 20th, 2009 is Bush's last day.
To save the failing economy that he created, Bush has appealed to Congress AGAIN to make his tax cuts permanent.
How does not changing something that isn't working save the economy you ask? The answer: In a little over a year, he's no longer president. So why should he give a shit.
He has also asked Congress to provide 145 billion dollars in tax refunds, which, again, has obviously worked so well in the past.
Some people learn from their mistakes. It seems that is worth mentioning, since we've seen such a profound lack of intelligence recently - so rest assured, there are people who learn from their mistakes. They're just not politicians.
If the Democratic congress grants Bush these requests, I'm writing in Homer Simpson for president on the 2008 ballot.
Your assistance is appreciated for these two issues:
First, I need an original idea for a 1000 word article about politics that manages to be both about current events but also can be published anytime within the next month and not be considered outdated. (For example, one idea I had was for the "Ron Paul Phenomenon" - but the topic doesn't necessarily need to be a presidential candidate)
Second, I put this Digg script on the blog so that I have the "Digg This" in the top right corner. Now I'd like to get rid of it, but I can't remember the scripting and doing a find and replace for the word "Digg" did not produce any results. Thoughts?Edit: Domoni is awesome.
Take this for what it's worth - but I explained in this post how no one that supports the Democrats should be upset if Clinton or Obama or Edwards ends up with the nomination, no matter how passionately they want one of those three to take it, because all three are amazing candidates that, quite frankly, blow the Republican options out of the water.
Well, a CNN/Opinion research poll has been released that reinforces that point. The poll, which should be ignored after reading it, is showing that all the Democratic candidates poll higher than the Republican candidates in a head to head match up by a statistically significant amount. The only exception of John McCain, who was close to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the polls. But popular opinion is that if McCain runs, he is going to be destroyed in a debate against the Democrats. A colleague of mine, who supports Barack Obama, said to me in response to the polling numbers: "No matter what you think of Hillary Clinton, she will demolish John McCain in a debate. I almost want to see that. I would almost vote for Hillary Clinton instead, if it gave me an opportunity to watch her debate McCain."
Also hilarious was the statistic about Mitt Romney's candidacy that said 62% of the country would not vote for him under any circumstances, regardless of the Democratic candidate. Romney in 08!!!!
What should we take away from this? Well, first of all this is great news to all of those who support Hillary Clinton but were worried that she is too disliked to win against the Republicans. Secondly, it shows us that we do not have to let our votes in the primaries be influenced by our worries about who will win. We no longer have to worry that Obama won't win because he's black or Clinton because she's disliked, or Edwards because he was a previously a candidate. Those of you that are taking a stand in the primaries are not free to place your vote for you who you like, rather than let if you think they will win influence your judgment.
...Until the Justice Department remembers to pay the bills.
I can't believe this is government.
FBI late on phone bills; wiretaps disconnected
WASHINGTON — Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.
A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.
In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal and intelligence investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.
"We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows.
Assistant FBI Director John Miller said wiretaps were dropped only a few times because of the backed-up billing, which he said didn't significantly set back the investigations under way. He said the FBI "will not tolerate financial mismanagement, or worse," and is working to fix the problems.
Bill Richardson dropped out today. I liked him, but he didn't stand a chance in a field with 3 people considered Rock Stars by the rest of the country. And, to be fair, one of his strong points was that he was a Governor with a long resume of experience in Washington. This election race has already proven those qualifications unnecessary. His slip when asked if being a homosexual was a choice, and his answer was "I'm not a doctor" placed the final nail in his political coffin. Almost everyone recognized it was a mistake, but to beat Clinton, Obama and Edwards, he could not afford mistakes.
On to the remaining contenders:
Edwards is an interesting case. He's a great candidate, stands for all the right issues. But in at a time when simply not being a Republican is a huge positive, he has one glaring flaw: He's not the first of anything. He's not going to be the first woman, he's not going to be the first president of color.
If Edwards gets the nomination by sweeping on the 5th, I'll write about him a lot more. He's still a great candidate. But for now, he isn't going to get many bytes dedicated to his candidacy on this website. It is not personal - this blog (ie, me) doesn't support any candidate in particular. Each has their pros and cons, all of them are better than the other side's candidates, and I believe, with the exception of probably Huckabee, none of them will lose to a Republican candidate.
So without further ado, here is a brief analysis of Obama v. Clinton:
Neither one is perfect, but neither is as flawed as their die hard supports will lead you to believe. I'll start with Hillary, as she is the most hated of the group.
Hillary Clinton is outstanding politically. Outstanding. I'd say she's even better than her husband with the exception of his Obama-like Charisma. Hillary does not make mistakes. And in a world where making just a few mistakes can be the difference between success and failure, this is an amazing accomplishment. Always remember that politics is just that. Politics. Imagine you have a job that requires a skilled typist, and you find a person who can type 200 words a minute with no errors. She's less likable than the other candidates for the job, but she's still really, really good at it. Even if you like Edwards or Obama more, if she ends up being the candidate, you should still be excited, because you're getting a candidate that does not make mistakes.
For that same reason, however, she's flawed. To get political work done, you're automatically doing two things. First, you're forced to acknowledge and respond to the needs of the other side. For politics to work, you need some sort of balance. Already, Hillary loses points, because she can't be as liberal as we all wish she were. Now, whether she is genuinely liberal or not is not the issue. She can't acknowledge the need for gay marriages, whether she believes in them or not, because she can't justify that belief with Republicans. Civil Unions she can. She can't say she plans on taking all of the troops out of Iraq because she can't justify that belief with the 30% of people that still think it was a good idea. Pulling the majority of the troops out, she can. For her to keep this political advantage (by that I mean, the fact that she's better at it than everyone else) she has to keep the balance between what we want (the Democratic party) and what she can justify to the right. If you're liberal, it's hard to stomach this. If you're a Republican, just because she can justify it doesn't mean you'll care or bite - so she isn't really more liked for this by the right, and liked less by the left. But she still needs to maintain this balance to keep the advantage.
(Video posted for no reason. But give me 5 stars, okay?)
Second, the fact that she doesn't make mistakes is one of the reasons many people dislike her. She appears fake, disingenuous. Obama does not. Edwards does not. This immediately makes her less likable. I don't have much to say on this, other than I want you to remember that George Bush was elected for being likable, and we saw how that turned out. Likability is not the best criteria. Though that is not to say it isn't important. How likable she is will eventually dictate at least a little of what she will be able to get done once in office. Similarly, by not being likable, if she ever does make a mistake her popularity will drop much faster than Obama's would if he made the same mistake, because it's easier to forget negative things about people we like.
Issues about her past should, in my opinion, be taken with a grain of salt. I don't expect anyone on either side, with the exception of Giuliani, to be corrupt upon taking office. I could care less if a candidate had money in oil companies, etc., unless I thought it would affect their job as president, which in this case I don't. Bush was corrupt, Cheney - obviously. These candidates, both Democratic and Republican alike, are not those two.
And for those that actually have a problem with her sticking with her husband after Lewinsky (I'm talking to you, racist commenters that post on AOL blogs), you need to get over it. Funny that the people who have the biggest problem with it seem to be voting for Giuliani. Is it necessary to bring up the kind of crap he's pulled?
So Hillary Clinton is a great candidate. Not perfect, but incredibly skilled with the potential to do great things. Does that mean she will? Not necessarily. To use a baseball analogy, not all prospects pan out as expected, but that's no reason to give up on them before they reach the Bigs.
Now, Barack Obama also has that much potential. Let's start with responding to his strengths:
First, he's likable, charismatic, a great speaker - he gives the impression of being a leader, something many of us noticed when he spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Whatever people say about his abilities because of his short time in office is bunk. Obama knows what he's doing. He's not as polished as Hillary, no, but again, it's hard to be. Still, his likability allows most of us to ignore his mistakes, and so he is at far less risk of unexpectedly dropping in popularity because of a speech blunder.
Similarly, the guy is good. Very good. Politics often takes some degree of manipulation - not for a vindictive reason, but because it's necessary to sway people to your side. Obama doesn't need that manipulation. He's believable. He explains his points clearly and wins over his opponents simply because they can see the truth in his words. And he's liberal, inarguably. So that's a plus.
As for his flaws - they, too, are questionable. Not enough experience? Please. Experience seems to have a fairly low correlation with abilities. If any of you have worked for a boss, chances are you know this to be true. Cheney had a lot of experience. 'Nuff said.
On the flipside, he does make mistakes, and he lacks some of the clout of Clinton. But again, he has the charisma and the knowledge to get better. While there are no guarantees he can make this adjustment, he's shown no reason to believe he doesn't have the ability. Consider where he has come in 2 years. Part of politics is getting public support, and there is no question that Barack Obama can garner more public support than any of the other current presidential candidates.
That makes him an incredible force.
So, in my opinion, the question comes down to one thing: Who can win? And the answer is: Both of them. The Republican candidates suck. They're really, really bad. They're the "Dude Where's My Car" of Presidential politics. The only exception would be Huckabee vs. Clinton. In that one instance, I think Huckabee would be difficult to beat. Otherwise, they're both going to beat any other candidate the Republicans have to offer (especially with Wesley Clark as Vice President, yeah?) . True, Clinton is HATED by Republicans. For a lot of people, they worry that she will lose because there will be a high Republican turn out just to defeat her. I have three responses to this: First, I think she's a strong enough candidate that she'll still win. Second, don't forget that Obama's best demographic is young voters - and I'm not convinced they're going to be running the polls any differently than any other year. Finally, I don't know about you, but I personally like something more when it pisses off Republicans.
Once more, however, if you are a woman, voting for Hillary Clinton because she is also a woman is a bad idea. Similarly, voting for Obama because he is black is equally bad. Remember, NeoConservatives vote for their candidates based on their religion. Let's not be like them.
You can, however, be excited that those two candidates will be the first of something. The first black president OR the first woman. That's exciting. But if you vote for Hillary because she's female, you're basically saying: "I'm not voting for Obama because I'm not black, I'm female." You are WELCOME to like her, and you may even like her because she is female, but that should not be WHY you're voting for her. Same goes for Barack.
So they can both win, and they are both great candidates. So who should you vote for?
Well... Both of them. If you have opinions one way or the other, I encourage you to make your pick at the primaries. There is nothing wrong with a preference for a candidate, and if you have one, I hope you vote for them in the Primary in your state. But be happy you have these candidates to choose from and be excited even if the candidate you'd prefer does not end up as the Democratic pick. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are phenomenal candidates, and though you may like one over the others, I'd take those three over Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani any day.
As Mike Huckabee gains in the polls, the former Arkansas governor is finding that his record in office is getting more scrutiny. One issue likely to get attention is his handling of a sensitive family matter: allegations that one of his sons was involved in the hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in 1998. The incident led to the dismissal of David Huckabee, then 17, from his job as a counselor at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, Ark. It also prompted the local prosecuting attorney— bombarded with complaints generated by a national animal-rights group—to write a letter to the Arkansas state police seeking help investigating whether David and another teenager had violated state animal-cruelty laws. The state police never granted the request, and no charges were ever filed.
Anyway, minor setback. Mike Huckabee did, in fact, win in Iowa. And since he is probably the only Republican that has any chance of beating the Democrats, this could represent a major setback in winning national elections come November.
But there is hope - a way that the Democrats can sweep the elections single handedly. That hope is choosing General Wesley Clark as the Vice Presidential running mate. Of all the possible flaws that the Republicans can try to exploit, all of them are addressed with Wesley Clark.
Soft on Terrorism? GENERAL Wesley Clark says hello. Upset about a female/Black/Hispanic president? Caucasian male Wesley Clark say hi. Want someone with Experience dealing with the White House? Want someone with war experience trying to get us out of Iraq? Want a good public speaker who is likable, not ugly, and has charisma?
The Democratic presidential candidates have a leg up this election. Most likely they will win, regardless of who is running. But "most likely" isn't good enough. With Wesley Clark as their running mate, they'll win. Someone buy "DraftWesleyClarkforVP.com" and get on it.
...And pray that anyone but Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa.
I'm accepting guesses on what happens after the results today:
- Two days from now, I expect Fred Thompson to bow out. - Ron Paul will stay in, though he will lose a little bit of support. He will quit immediately and angrily after New Hampshire. - Mitt Romney will win in Iowa. He will place third in New Hampshire but call the results "Bologna" - McCain will place third in Iowa, first in New Hampshire. - Huckabee will get second in Iowa and, God willing, bow out immediately. - Duncan Hunter will quit the race today, immediately after the results, and he will hold a press conference endorsing McCain. - Biden will quit the race tomorrow. Mike Gravel will stay in, though no one knows why. - Kucinich will quit the race immediately after New Hampshire. Chris Dodd will leave two days later.
The New Year brings too many things to do. But I wanted to write a quick paragraph about the title and subtitle of an article in the New York Times:
Iraq War Taking Back Seat to Domestic Issues
Economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.
Now, I ask you: Who are these people that care more about the economy than the Iraq War. That's not to say there is no problem with the economy. I liken the current economy to German Pornography: Sure, there are some people who like watching a man defecate in a woman's mouth, but only the minority is enjoying the benefits while all the rest of us see are a few people that are full of shit. (I stretched that metaphor a bit)
But am I so anxious about the economy that the war doesn't matter? I have a job. Bush isn't going to take that away from me no matter how much he f's up the economy. And I can't fathom that anyone in the cesspool that is the available Republican candidates can do worse than the current president. I don't, for a moment, forget that people are dying in another country. I do forget that the current job growth is not as high as it could be.
If I saw two candidates that I liked equally, and they both had major announcements to make the day before the primaries, and one of them announced: "I am going to take every soldier out of Iraq my first day in office" and another announced "I have a comprehensive plan on the economy that is guaranteed to increase our rate of job growth and personal financial wealth by a sum unheard of in modern history," I will still probably vote for the former. In fact, the latter may even be more important (arguably, not necessarily) as far as the future of this country goes, but I would still vote for the former. I don't see myself back-seating the war any time soon.
