My E-mail To William Kristol

The 0-13 Lions are playing the 9-4 Colts, who have won six in a row, this Sunday in Indianapolis. I think this a splendid opportunity to make a prediction that actually goes right. Who's it going to be?

Quick Post-Election Question

Now that Barack Obama has soundly defeated John McCain in the 2008 United States presidential election, I have just one simple question: can we finally stop paying attention to Joe the Motherfuckin' Unlicensed Lying Scumbag Fucknut Asshole Plumber? Can we? For fuck's sake let's be done with this A-No.1 Asshole once and for fucking all.

2008 Presidential Election Prediction

The time is almost upon us. In a matter of hours voting booths in the East will be opening for U.S. citizens to elect a new President. The only two candidates with any chance to become the President-Elect are Republican John McCain of Arizona and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Those other people who have declared their candidacy (and will appear on a limited number of ballots as well) will have, unlike in some years past, virtually no impact on this election. That's ok because, really, who the fuck is Bob Barr, anyway? Normally this lack of a third party "spoiler" candidate would make predicting the election results much simpler, but John McCain and Barack Obama have made things considerably more complicated. After all, John McCain is, um . . . well, the dude is fucking ancient. And Barack Obama is – holy shit! – a black dude! With a Muslim-sounding name, no less! What the fuck does he think he's doing running for President? As old as McCain is, at least he's a whitey who served his country in the Spanish-American War or something. And both men are Senators, which means for the first the time since John F. Kennedy in 1960, somebody will move from the Capitol to the White House. Which senator will it be? Let's take a wild guess and say . . . Barack Obama? Yes, at the risk of putting the ultimate jinx on somebody at the worst possible point in the history of this country, I am predicting that Senator Barack Obama will defeat Senator John McCain for the Presidency of the United States of America. Here's how I see it going down.


Despite John McCain's creepy and constants pronouncements of an incredible comeback in Pennsylvania – the kind of bravado that sounds almost as if McCain knows something about a Pennsylvania fix that the rest of us schmucks don't – Obama will win all 19 states, including Pennsylvania, plus the District of Columbia that John Kerry won in 2004 and gave him 252 electoral votes to Bush's 286 in the process. For the sake of argument, however, we will give Obama one (possibly gigantic) vote less than Kerry's 252. Why? Because Maine does not have a winner-take-all electoral system, and John McCain made it a point to campaign hard in one district in Maine in order to insure himself one electoral vote from the state. Here's the breakdown of Obama's almost assured total of 251 electoral votes thus far:

Washington (11)
Oregon (7)
California (55)
Minnesota (10)
Wisconsin (10)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Pennsylvania (21)
New York (31)
Maryland (10)
Washington D.C. (3)
Delaware (3)
New Jersey (15)
Connecticut (7)
Rhode Island (4)
Massachusetts (12)
Vermont (3)
New Hampshire (4)
Maine (3)
Hawaii (4)

Before moving on to John McCain's projected electoral votes, it is important to note that one state – at least according to almost every poll taken in it during this campaign – has decided that there is not a snowball's chance in hell it will be held responsible for another four years of a Republican presidency: Iowa. Often overlooked in coverage of the 2004 election is the fact that Iowa barely went to George W. Bush – 50.06% to Kerry's 49.15%. After four more disastrous years of the Bush presidency, however, Iowans made a clear signal they wanted drastic change by overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama in the Democratic caucuses. The average poll – not the Obama campaign's best-case scenario poll but the average poll – has Obama break-dancing all over John McCain's senile head with a fifteen point lead. Unless there is an incredible number of Iowa Republicans playing practical jokes on pollsters, not even the election-stealing skills of the GOP can take this state away from Obama. This state's seven (7) electoral votes thus give Obama a total of 258, meaning he needs a mere twelve (12) more to win.


George W. Bush won 31 states in 2004, 21 of which are all but guaranteed to go to John McCain tomorrow. Here's a breakdown of the 164 electoral votes John McCain will receive from these 21 states plus Maine's one McCain vote:

Alaska (3)
Idaho (4)
Utah (5)
Arizona (10)
Montana (3)
Wyoming (3)
North Dakota (3)
South Dakota (3)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Oklahoma (7)
Texas (34)
Arkansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Tennessee (11)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Alabama (9)
Georgia (15)
South Carolina (8)
West Virginia (5)
Maine (1)

The ten Bush states McCain is not guaranteed to win include the aforementioned Iowa – which, again, barring a miracle, is going to Obama – and nine others: Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), North Carolina (15), Florida (27) and Ohio (20). Again, in order to reach the decisive 270 threshold, Obama has to win just 12 more electoral votes. In other words, all Obama has to do is win Ohio, Florida or Virginia, and he wins the election. Unless they have a brilliant plan to pilfer Pennsylvania and its 21 electoral votes (McCain is down an average of 7.6 points there), the Republicans know the only Kerry-won state they might be able to take away from Obama is New Hampshire – and they probably don't even believe that, either (McCain and his GOP operatives still talk positively about New Hampshire because that's where McCain made his mark in both the 2000 and 2008 primaries, but they know they're down an average of 10.6 points there and are more or less humoring McCain at this point). Nonetheless, if they can make a last-second surge and take New Hampshire, Virginia does not become imperative to steal, er – win; only Florida and Ohio's electoral votes could single-handedly give Obama the election. With my apologies to Sarah Silverman, I think that John McCain will win Florida – legitimately, that is – mainly because of Obama's unusual surname. Ohio, on the other hand, is a bit trickier to call. The average Ohio poll has Obama up by approximately three (3) points, which is inside the margin of error for any poll. If the GOP can prevent enough Ohioans from voting once, they can do it again. Besides, I'm having some doubts about the intelligence of the average Ohio voter considering Joe the Lying Unlicensed Plumber is a resident. Chalk Ohio up for McCain and all those moronic Joes, which then gives McCain a total of 211 – forty-seven (47) behind Obama's 258 and fifty-nine (59) short of the 270 needed to win.


So if Obama can't reach 270 through Florida or Ohio, how does he reach it? According to the average poll, there are approximately seven other states up for grabs: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. I'm going to give Missouri, Indiana and North Carolina to McCain since he's up in those three traditionally Republican strongholds anyway. Adding those three states' 37 electoral votes to McCain's total, here's how the race to 270 looks now:

Barack Obama: 258 electoral votes
John McCain: 248 electoral votes

This scenario leaves four states to decide the election: Virginia and its thirteen (13) electoral votes, which haven't gone to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964; moderately conservative Colorado and its nine (9) electoral votes; and the lesser states of New Mexico and Nevada, each of which receives five (5) electoral votes. How will these states play out? Let's start off with possibly the most difficult to call, Virginia. Obama is up by an average of 4.3 points here, 49.8% to 45.5%. The 4.3 difference does fall within the margin of error, and Obama's average is still under 50%, so this state is by no means guaranteed to Obama. The fact that the state appears to be on an anti-Republican trend right now – the citizens recently elected a Democratic Governor (Tim Kaine) and Senator (Jim Webb) Party – indicates that Obama should still take it. But, wait – remember New Hampshire and McCain's delusion that he still has a chance there? Well, that's McCain's delusion, not the Republican Party's: they know McCain's not going to win those four votes, which means they also know that an Obama victory in Virginia would give him 271 electoral votes – or one more than he needs to win the election. C'est la vie to Virginia, Senator Obama (but thanks for the effort, Ms. Bishop – it did not go unnoticed). With those thirteen electoral votes, McCain now takes a 261-258 vote lead – and things begin to look rather shitty, don't they? Then we move on to Colorado. Right now Colorado looks very firmly in Obama's grasp; his average lead in the polls there is 5.5 points, 50.8% to McCain's 45.3%. If that five-point lead still pinned Obama below 50%, there might be reason to give McCain the edge just because Colorado tends to steer conservatively. With Obama's average number over 50%, however, I cannot see McCain overtaking Obama legally or not. Thus, Colorado's nine votes give Obama 267 to McCain's 261.


And then there were two: New Mexico and Nevada, western states each worth five (5) electoral votes. Obama leads in both states in the average poll: in New Mexico the average poll has Obama up 7.3 points (50.3% - 43%), and in Nevada the average poll has Obama up 6.3 points (49.6% - 43.4%). At first glance the New Mexico lead looks more formidable for Obama, but New Mexico had some serious election fraud problems back in 2004 that almost cost a Democratic congressman a seat, not to mention the whole U.S. attorney scandal involving the likely illegal firing of David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney who wouldn't kowtow to Karl Rove's demands to prosecute baseless election fraud cases against Democrats. Something just doesn't smell right; combine that with the fact that New Mexico is right next door to McCain's home state of Arizona, and I can't help but think the GOP is going to sneak away with New Mexico's five votes to give McCain 266. Appropriately, then, it all comes down to Las Vegas and the rest of the state of Nevada. Again, Obama has a 6-point average lead in the polls in Nevada, meaning that McCain stands almost no chance of legitimately winning this state. And as firmly as I believe that the Republican Party is in a class all by itself when it comes to successfully and illegally manipulating the inner workings of the election process, I still think it's too much to believe that they can steal not one, not two, not three, but four states (Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada). Thus Obama takes Nevada, wins the election by a count of 272-266 and then receives a lovely concession phone call from John McCain – two months after he's lost all forty-seven recounts from Colorado and Nevada, that is!


Come on – you didn't think the Republicans would go without yet another dirty fight, did you?



NOTE: There is one factor that I still cannot determine the legitimacy of in this election – cell phones. Yes, that's right, cell phones. The thing is, most political polls do not include cell phone users in its statistics. With an increasing number of young households (that is, households that appear to go for Obama in this election) not being accounted for in many of these polls, there is a chance that the polls that do include cell phone users – which are the ones that usually have Obama ahead by wider margins – could be more accurate than the polls that do not include cell phone users. If this scenario is true, we probably won't see nearly as close of an electoral race as I just predicted. If a small margin of error is very likely to decide many of these battleground states, then the inclusion of these underrepresented voters would play a bigger role than expected. In which case, I would go ahead and give Obama a few more of those borderline states such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico and perhaps even North Carolina or Indiana – and then give Obama the until recently unfathomable electoral landslide victory as well. Obviously I hope tomorrow plays out closer to this situation, but there really is no way to tell.

Let's hope this schmuck is correct

Jim Nuzzo, an aide to former President George H. W. Bush, recently told the U.K. Telegraph that "there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin . . . is the new Ronald Reagan."

Really? Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan? Let's hope Sarah Palin really is the future face (she certainly won't ever be the brains, obviously) of the Republican Party - that is, if super-schmuck Jim Nuzzo is correct and Sarah Palin is in fact the next Ronald Reagan - then the Democrats will be able to roll out the corpse of Adlai Stevenson and still take the next election. Outside of her loyal voter base - that is to say, the most completely ignorant, paranoid, women-hating, minority-fearing, gun-toting, blindly loyal nutjobs to hold American citizenship - Sarah Palin is a complete joke. And not a very funny joke at that. Henry Higgins wouldn't know where to begin with Sarah Palin, folks. So I sincerely hope her idiotic supporters get their wish because that would be nothing but good news for the United States.

Senseless, Paranoid Celebrity Endorsement of the Day

Actor, author, and born-again Christian Stephen Baldwin — who Sarah Palin last week referred to as her "favorite Baldwin brother" on "Saturday Night Live" — talks to TODAYshow.com about his faith and support for Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Baldwin's latest project is a work of fiction called "The Death and Life of Gabriel Phillips." [Senseless & paranoid portions set in italics for your convenience; sensible responses set in brackets for your convenience, too]

Q: Why do you think McCain is the best choice for our next president?

A: I think that right now everybody's freakin' out, and for a good reason. The next president of the United States has to look at multiple issues simultaneously. In the prioritization of that, of course it's our economy. We need someone who is prepared and experienced enough to deal with all that's on our plate now.

Q: Is Barack Obama the wrong choice for our country?

A: No, Barack is not the wrong choice. I just don't think he's the right choice. [Interesting distinction] Barack Obama is clearly a smart guy, talented. I think that guys like Obama, like Clinton, have had their eyes on this goal for a long time … becoming President of the United States. I don't believe personally that Barack Obama cares for America as authentically as John McCain. [John McCain said in his autobiography that he did not "decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."]

Q: Why?

A: He's a politician. [So is John McCain - and for a much longer time]

Q: How is McCain more for America than Obama?

A: He served it 24 years longer. [Of course, John McCain is 26 years older than Barack Obama, giving McCain a decided head-start in his ability to serve in the Senate longer. Similarly, these extra 26 years also give McCain a big head-start in the on-set of dementia and Alzheimer's Disease as well as the recurrence of his melanoma or suffering a heart attack.] He is somebody who has demonstrated within his own party that he would rather do what's right for the people who elected him than what is right for his party. People want change. How is Barack going to do it? I think McCain can bring change.

Q: Do you support McCain/Palin because you are a Republican?

A: I'm a registered Independent. But my brother says it's obvious that I'm a Republican sympathizer. Once I get in the voting booth it doesn't matter. I just think in the now. [Sorry, Stephen - so far there is no evidence that you have the ability to think.]

Q: The New York Daily News last week quoted you calling Barack Obama a "cultural terrorist." Can you explain your statement?

A: If you look up the definition of the words, a terrorist is someone who incites violence. The Bible says that "God knew us and formed us in our mother's wombs." Simply the fact that he's pro-abortion — that to me is a form of terrorism based on the dictionary definition. [No, Stephen, Obama is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Do you "pro-lifers" still not understand the difference? Wow. And, oh, by the way, Stephen: many folks on the religious right believe that Hollywood tv shows and movies incite violence - you know, movies with violence such as The Usual Suspects or Crimetime or Target or Bound By Lies. Does your participation in the production of those movies make you a well-paid terrorist, Stephen?]

Here's what's creepy about Obama: There's something else going on with this dude. That's part of the mystery of Barack Obama. That is probably what will cause him to lose this election. As much as people love the phenomenal aspect of his message, there's a lot of unanswered issues about this dude. Creepy stuff. His birth certificate … you could call it all hokesy stuff. [OK, Stephen, you're starting to ramble incoherently here. Obama is creepy? Is it the huge ears? The lack of bowling skills? Or is it the last name Obama? I don't get the creepy thing: the guy is a nerdy African-American with a wife and two cute little kids - when did this become creepy? And what is this "mystery" of which you speak? What about Obama is mysterious? Is it the completely manufactured birth certificate issue - you know, the one that even the psychotically right-wing World Net Daily has verified as authentic? What questions could you have about Obama that have not already been answered by him in interviews, debates, biographies, auto-biographies and his actions as an Illinois and U.S. senator? Please, just give me one, dude. And whatever "unanswered questions" about Obama that linger for people such as yourself are not going to be what costs Obama the election. No, what might cost Obama the election is the ignorance of people such as yourself combined with the Republican Party's amazing ability to purge young, poor, minority, elderly - you know, perfectly legitimate and usually Democratic - voters from the voter registration rolls.]

John McCain doesn't have anywhere near the amount of questions in his past as Barack Obama. Not even close. He's got Keating Five. He doesn't have things about his record and history and being that are in question. He's a war hero. He's literally one the last of a dying breed of heroes.

Q: Why did you go public with your political views?

A: My No. 1 concern is that we don't have another 9/11. Here's what Americans don't realize … there are 60 million jihadists on the planet who actively are trying to get together to kill Americans and destroy this nation. This is a quote from General [William G.] Boykin, who I work with. This a fact from knowledge of intelligence. This not a fear/scare tactic. [OK, hold on a second: 60 million jihadists around the world? Where did you get that figure? From retired General William Boykin? Oh, yeah, the guy who said that during a battle in Somalia in 1993 he "knew that my God was bigger than his . . . that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." Oh, yeah, that William Boykin! Yes, quite the unprejudiced source is he. This may not be a "fact from knowledge of intelligence" after all, whatever the fuck that means in the first place.]

I believe that with the platform I have, I have an obligation, as someone who is very proud of this country. With the best of my ability, within reason, without stepping outside of my faith, without being slanderous or crazy or stupid I want to just be able to state what I know to be the truth.

It's not Stephen Baldwin saying, "This is what I think and you should think it, too." Forgetting all religion, John McCain should be the next president of the United States. It just makes more sense in these times for that guy to be president.

It doesn't mean Barack can't surround himself with smart people. But I don't think Warren Buffet should be the treasurer or whatever. Warren Buffet's nuts! Just because he's a freaking billionaire doesn't mean he has common sense. [Warren Buffet has been called many things, Stephen, but "nuts" is not one of them. Besides, didn't John McCain mention Mr. Buffet as a possible candidate for Treasury Secretary as well? The evidence continues to pour in, Stephen, and it continues to show an inability to think on your part.]

Q: Who are you trying to reach with your endorsement?

A: I'm trying to reach the common sense people. To me God's in control; God's going to do his thing. [Keep trying, Stephen; the common sense people are very amused by your attempts at voter outreach. And god's in control now - does this mean you're going to believe god's in control when Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009, effectively saying that he was god's choice? Even if there is a god, we are in control, Stephen.] It's not that there's animosity in my attitude about it. At the end of the day, [different parties] should be able to go have a soda pop [together].

Q: So politics are more of a discussion than a war?

A: It shouldn't be [a war]. But that's not to say that there isn't — between the conservative movement and the liberal movement — a cultural war.

I don't think it's right that in 10 or 15 years, potentially, my son goes to a public school and reads a book about the normality of homosexuality. [There are some people who do not think it is right that their child can go to a public school now and not be informed that, however uncommon, homosexuality is completely natural. The religious aspect of homosexuality has no place in public school; the scientific aspect most certainly does.] I don't think that [belongs] in the public education system. In a political sense, I don't agree with that. It doesn't mean that I think personally that making that lifestyle choice is wrong. The Bible says it's wrong and I believe in the Bible and I stand for that. So part of the danger of living the faith I live is that they're going to shoot the messenger.

Q: Is there a danger is being outspoken about religion and conservative politics in liberal Hollywood?

A: Just call me Stevie Kamikaze. In regard to politics and faith, I just want to state my understanding on a simple pure, common-sense level.

Q: Has there been tension with your family over faith and political views?

A: Let's just say this Thanksgiving, I've hired a professional food-taster — so I don't get poisoned.

Q: Do you go to church with your brothers?

A: No. I go to some freaky waily churches. [At my water baptism, March 2002] Alec was like, "Oh my God, he's a Jesus freak." But Alec is a very dedicated Roman Catholic, Billy has Christian leanings, his wife China Phillips is a huge born-again Christian.

Q: Are celebrity endorsements effective?

A: Of course. If tomorrow there was an MTV two-hour hip-hop show in support of Barack Obama, with P. Diddy, Kanye …

Q: Why would it be hip-hop?

A: Why not?

Q: Why not rock or jam bands?

A: Well because demographically, hip-hop appeals largely or more so to African Americans, and it's already obvious that the African American vote is hugely going to Barack Obama, even within the military. Which is another whole bunch of votes that people haven't weighed into the polling system: 75 to 80 percent of all the military is voting for John McCain. That's a lot of votes. [I don't know what poll you're citing there, Stephen. A recent Faux News poll suggested that 67% percent of military voters are going for McCain; Faux News is unlikely to err on the side of Obama, of course.]

Q: Is Governor Sarah Palin ready to be president?

A: Absolutely. I think Sarah Palin is tougher and smarter than Obama or Joe Biden. Just because they jacked her up with freakin' what's her name? Who's the reporter? [Katie Couric.] That was a setup obviously. [Ok, now you're just making up shit, Stephen. What evidence do you have to support the claim that Sarah Palin is tougher and smarter than Barack Obama or Joe Biden? And now the Katie Couric interview was a set-up? Lemme guess - the "liberal media" conspired with the Obama campaign to ask Palin tough, thought-provoking questions that require expertise on the intricacies of international affairs in order to make Palin look like a complete dumbshit? Hence the all-but-unanswerable "What newspapers and magazines do you read" bomb? Stop it, man. Paranoia does not help an argument at all. All the evidence is in, and, sadly, you and Sarah Palin are running neck-and-neck.]

Q: Can Palin keep keep our country safe?

A: Yes. She has an understanding of that reality. Barack Obama and the Democratic party just want America to think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was the jihadists. [OK, how did Sarah Palin acquire this expertise to keep our country safe? Was it from whatever newspapers her handlers put in front of her? Was it from looking out upon the vast Russian tundra from her front porch? Was it from talking to minimum-wage immigrant hotel employees? WHAT THE FUCK GAVE THIS SMALL-TOWN, SMALL-MINDED BITCH THE MAGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DAMMIT?!!? Oh, yeah - John McCain did . . . because he said that she was qualified . . . and he has always been "100% truthful" and because he always puts country first, so he would never have to lie about the qualifications of his running mate because he wouldn't have chosen her if she weren't qualified in the first place . . . because he loves America in a way Barack Obama does not and never could . . . and I think he was a P.O.W. at some point . . . because he loves America in a way Barack Obama does not and never could . . . and because, did I mention McCain was a P.O.W. and that Obama hates America? Oh, yeah, one last thing, Stephen: you are correct that the Democratic party wants America to think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because . . . IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT! It's a matter of - what did you call it earlier? - "fact from knowledge of intelligence" or something? Yes, Stephen, it is a matter of fact, on the record, etc, etc: IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 . . . you fucking dumbshit.

Q: What do you think the outcome of this election will be?

A: There's a very good chance that John McCain is going to win this election. [No, there's not a very good chance that John McCain is going to win this election. There's always the good chance that the Republican Party will steal the election on McCain's behalf, but there is absolutely no chance that John McCain will fairly and legitimately win this election. Call it god's will or the people's will, but that's the way it is. Now go make another horrendous, low-budget crime drama, Stephen. Thanks for talking.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27362751/

If Barack Obama predicts the future while everybody watches and nobody notices, did it still happen?

July 30, 2008

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama – an African-American with a non-Anglo surname – said in regards to the type of campaign he expected his Republican rival John McCain to run: "Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me." Obama went on to say that the McCain campaign would also say things such as "he's [Obama] not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making.'' [emphasis added]


July 31, 2008

John McCain's campaign manager, the always historically astute Rick Davis, responded to Obama's comments with these harshly critical words: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong." [emphasis added]


October 4, 3008

Sarah Palin, Republican John McCain's vice-presidential running mate, said these words in three separate speeches: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country . . . this is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America." [emphasis added]

It could have been a fluke when Barack Obama predicted the disastrous path of the Iraq War with near-absurd accuracy; then he predicted with near-perfect accuracy the McCain campaign's inevitable descent into dishonest fear-mongering as its tactic of choice. Not that it was a bold prediction on Obama's part – after all, doesn't every Republican campaign eventually come to revolve around dishonest fear-mongering? – but it was nonetheless accurate. That particular statement by Sarah Palin, along with a couple of recent McCain television ads that link Obama to Vietnam-era radical-turned-professor William Ayers, are the only pieces of evidence one needs to see in order to confirm the accuracy of Obama's prediction.

The media's treatment of Obama's prediction, of course, is the problem. When the story first broke, the mainstream media – like a broken record – presented it from the Republican point of view. "Is Obama being fair?" many in the media asked. "Is it a good strategic move?" others asked. "How does McCain respond to the charge?" was another common theme. Stunningly, almost nobody asked the most important and obvious question: "Based on the recent history of Republican campaigns, is Obama correct to make such a prediction?" Sure, the question is so simple it answers itself; nonetheless, this transparency should not have disqualified it from being asked in the media. In other words, the relevance of the question should not have been negated by the ease with which it could be answered. That question is essential to understanding the Republican philosophy of electioneering and needed to be asked. Naturally, it wasn't.

Now that Obama's prediction has proven to be wholly accurate, the media has returned to the story, hasn't it? Right? Umm . . . no. Returning to the story – and thereby acknowledging its severe lack of competency in covering it from an objective point of view – would be responsible of the "liberal" mainstream media. With the 2000 and 2004 elections as sufficient proof, we should all know by now that the mainstream media is not ready to act as an adult just yet.

Sale Pending: John McCain's Soul

Senator John McCain's obsessive quest for a ninth domicile – which appears to be transforming the senator into the political world's own version of Popeye Doyle every day – is about to take an extremely ugly turn. An MSNBC.com headline last Saturday (Oct. 4) read "McCain plans fiercer strategy against Obama." Wow. We've all seen how nasty and untruthful Republican campaigns become when they don't announce that they're about to launch a "fiercer" campaign (which, as everybody by now should know, is GOP translation for a "reality-challenged, policy-avoiding, personal attack-driven" campaign), so one can only shudder to think what kind of crap the bad boys in the GOP have up their sleeve this time. With its constant whining about unfair treatment from the formerly adoring mainstream media as well as its infantile strategy of repeating lies in the hope that nobody ever notices, the Republican Party is fast approaching self-parody. In other words, don't believe for a second that a doctored photo of Obama with a "666" on the back of his head is out of the question. The Republican Party – and John McCain in particular – is that desperate. Consequently, Senator's McCain's promise to run "a respectful campaign" – reported, appropriately, on April Fool's Day earlier this year – is looking more and more McCain-like every day. That is, it is looking like nothing more than just the latest in a series of flip-flops and outright lies on the part of Senator McCain in a pathetic attempt to fulfill what has become his tragic ambition to become President of the United States of America.

John McCain is a fairly unhappy dude these days. Of course, who could really blame him? He's still trying to win the Vietnam War for one (sorry, Senator: John Rambo went back and won it in 1985, remember?). The mainstream media, which was sharing the senator's favorite donuts with him earlier this year, is not rolling over and presenting every Republican lie as a legitimate campaign matter any longer. In fact, unlike the past two elections, the mainstream media is actually doing its job and debunking at least some of the crap the GOP passes off as fact. But what must enrage John McCain the most right now should be obvious: the man has aspired to be president for a very long time, and he is watching his chances of fulfilling those aspirations vanish before his very eyes – and he has George W. Bush to blame for it. Again. Think about it: McCain had his first chance at the presidency stolen from him by the less than curious "cowboy" and his sleazy team of campaigners from Texas in 2000; now, eight years later, McCain finally has his shot at the presidency – and it's quickly vanishing again because of that same "cowboy" and his sleazy, incompetent administration's failed policies! One can only imagine what is running through the slip-sliding mind of John McCain these days, though I would put good money down that this thought has been bouncing about his head quite a bit: did Bush really screw things up so badly that a white war hero is going to lose a national election to an inexperienced black guy? Really? And I don't suggest that thought to imply that Senator McCain is racist in any way; to the contrary, if he is a realist in any way, the gravity of that scenario must have occurred to him by now, given its unlikelihood even in the year 2008. Combine the aforementioned circumstances with his sacrifice and service in the Vietnam war, and it seems that if anybody should feel entitled to something, it is John McCain to the White House. The man most certainly has paid his dues, much more than his far younger rival. The problem is that McCain, despite having sacrificed so much as POW in Vietnam and serving twenty-six years in Congress, is not entitled to the presidency because of that sacrifice any more than Obama is simply because he is the first African-American to be nominated by one of the two major political parties. Circumstances do count, and the country's circumstances are most definitely not helping John McCain right now. Numerous other factors – including personal charisma, voting records and sheer luck among others – play a part as well, and almost none of these factors is helping McCain, either.

Thus, when it became apparent that he would not be able to sweep into the White House simply by rotating the words "POW," "maverick," and "reform" in and out of sentences, John McCain was left with two choices: to run – as promised – a clean and respectful campaign based on personal policy records and future policy plans or to run a nasty campaign with many of the same sleazy people using the same dirty tricks that had cost him his first chance at the White House eight years earlier – or, more simply and accurately, to sell his soul for the White House. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is exactly what John McCain is doing. If one simply looks at McCain's actions over the past ten years, it becomes impossible to describe it any other way. It is clear in hindsight that John McCain has been campaigning for at least the past ten years, not just the past two, and that this ongoing campaign has called his character into question countless times now. While there are so many examples of McCain's actions that raise red flags about his character (my favorite is his flip-flop on the Confederate flag issue in South Carolina, a flip-flop he admitted to undergoing strictly for political gain), here is a list of the five most important soul-destroying steps taken by the "maverick" from Arizona in his endless campaign for the White House:

• He voted against the Bush tax cuts – citing the fact that they unfairly benefited the wealthy, a statement he later completely denied having made, of course – every year until 2006, the year prospective presidential candidates began jockeying for their respective party's nomination for the 2008 election. Now, of course, he is dead-set on making those tax cuts permanent.

• In 2002 McCain accurately labeled the late Reverend Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" for his publicly stated belief that the US brought the horror of 9/11 on itself because of its tolerance of homosexuality (among other things, though he curiously forgot to mention intrusively unethical US foreign policy in his list). Four years later – in 2006 again, that is – McCain reversed course and found Falwell politically helpful enough to give the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University.

• In 1998, Senator McCain answered "yes" when asked in a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire if he supported the complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. A year later, near the start of the presidential nominating process, McCain caught conservatives off-guard by announcing that he would not repeal Roe v. Wade, a position he would hold (seemingly) until – you guessed it! – 2006, when he announced in November that "the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade" and return the matter to individual states. Why the sudden about-face? "Because I'm a federalist," McCain explained – except when he's not. To summarize: John McCain was for the repeal of Roe v. Wade before he was against it even though he was also against it before he was for it. Apparently the chicken did come before the egg.

• In April of this year, Senator McCain announced that he respected Barack Obama and therefore would run "a respectful campaign." McCain's wife, Cindy, went so far as to vow that the public would not see any negative campaigning "at all" from her husband because "he is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning." A few months later, the McCain campaign fired the first shot of negative campaigning in the 2008 election with its television advertisement that attacked Barack Obama for not having "visited Iraq in years" and for having "voted against funding our troops" – all while conveniently leaving out the fact that McCain had voted against funding our troops around the exact same time as well. And the negativity has been piling up ever since. Another television ad that premiered soon afterwards went so far as to blame the high cost of gas on Barack Obama! Soon after the broadcast of that advertisement, the levee broke on McCain's campaign, flooding it with filthy, dishonest negativity. McCain began personally questioning Obama's patriotism; distorting his publicly stated positions on numerous issues, most notably by claiming that Obama wants to invade Pakistan and teach comprehensive sex-education to kindergartners; lying about his own positions and the positions of his running mate Sarah Palin (most egregiously that she was opposed to the "Bridge to Nowhere" – which she was for originally – and that she never requested earmarks as governor of Alaska, which she has); encouraging Governor Palin to lie about her past and distort Senator Obama's policies and personal dealings even more forcefully and dishonestly than himself; approving more television ads that purposely distorted many public statements made by Senator Obama; and finally – most incredibly – blaming Senator Obama for bringing the negative campaigning on himself by not agreeing to take part in a series of "town hall" structured debates!

• Just last week (October 3), John McCain – the same John McCain who cheated on his first wife with his current wife (and a few in between), and who vowed to run a respectful campaign only to start airing dishonest attacks both on television and in personal speeches – told the Des Moines Register that he always tells the "100 percent absolute truth." Really? Yes, really. Where does one begin to psychoanalyze somebody who makes such a blatantly dishonest claim with 100% conviction? Wow.

Now, after all the shameless, vote-grabbing political flip-flops and blatantly hypocritical attacks on his opponent – not to mention a complete lack of personal honesty and a possibly lethal amount of self-righteous self-delusion – John McCain is ready to "take the gloves off" in his fight to secure his dream house. With the loyal disciples of Karl Rove – the man whose dirty tricks doomed McCain's first bid for the White House eight years earlier – on board his Double-Talk Express, John McCain is going to intensify his already obsessive quest for the United States presidency. Considering all of the personally damning evidence, including his own admission in 2002 that he had decided to run for President not out of patriotism, but simply because it had become his ambition to be president – an ambition he had held "for a long time" as it turns out – there is no telling how far Senator McCain will go to achieve this ambition, especially when he promises "a fiercer strategy" to do so.

One hopes the more moderate John McCain will appear on the scene in the nick of time to prevent what's looking more and more like the true John McCain from completing the sale of his soul. The more one observes John McCain's actions, however, the more likely he is to believe that McCain will ultimately finalize the sale of his soul in order to fulfill his long-time goal of occupying the one house he and his wife cannot buy.

Is it wrong to wish for this?

With John McCain's nagging condescension towards Barack Obama over foreign policy near the end of last night's debate, is it unrealistic or unfair to wonder if the "straight-talking" senator from Arizona is going to address Barack Obama as "son" or "boy" in one of the next two debates? Seriously. How many times did McCain say that Obama "fails to understand" some aspect of world affairs? More importantly, how many times did McCain make this claim despite the fact that Obama showed greater understanding of and clearer foresight into the complex nature of world affairs than did McCain himself? But Senator McCain's arrogance did not end there. Of course he pulled out that old reliable Republican trick of loudly and entirely misquoting (or taking out of context) many of Barack Obama's past statements on foreign policy matters while assuming nobody - even Obama himself - would call him on it. At one point McCain even had the nerve to become agitated when Obama accurately cited Henry Kissinger's claim that the United States should enter into talks with Iran without any pre-conditions. McCain's response to Obama's citation of Kissinger's public disavowing of the horribly unrealistic, juvenile and failed approach to foreign policy initiated by President Bush was sadly predictable: "I've known him [Mr. Kissinger] for thirty-five years" and . . . and . . . and well, ok, Senator, you are seventy-two years old, so you've probably known plenty of people for a long time. We get that point; but "I've known Mr. Kissinger for thirty-five years" is not the same as "I've known Mr. Kissinger for thirty-five years and therefore know every comment he's ever made about foreign policy in his entire life." This is the best McAngry can bring to a national debate on foreign policy?

After twenty-six years in congress, one would think John McCain could play the game with a cooler head - not to mention more facts - but that is simply not the case. McCain was becoming agitated by Obama's reference to Kissinger, and with the truth (or, more accurately, the knowledge that he didn't even know the truth) not on his side, McCain began to lose the battle at hand and had to change focus. Historically speaking, once McCain starts to lose an argument or lose his focus, it has often been just a matter of time before he loses his cool as well. This is why, however unlikely, it may not be completely unfair to wonder if John McCain will slip in a "son" or a "boy" somewhere in a drawn-out emotional exchange with Barack Obama during one of the debates. After all, jokingly or not, the man did call his wife a cunt in public.

It would be outrageous and offensive if John McCain were to make such a slip of the tongue, of course. Nonetheless, I kind of hope he makes it. Realistically, if it were to happen, any fair-minded and undecided voter who had not been turned away by the Sarah Palin nomination surely would be turned away by that kind of racially-tinged condescension. And after all the lies presented by the McCain campaign, it would be ironic – and infinitely delightful – to see a moment of revolting honesty from the senator himself become the final nail in the coffin of his own sleazy campaign.

A moment of silence, please . . .

Paul Newman has passed away. And I don't believe there's anybody to take his place among the good guys, either.

Sean Payton needs to have his head examined

Often times in matters of pro football, neither the fans nor the sportswriters have enough information with which to make truly informed opinions. The New Orleans Saints' current situation with rehabilitated running back Deuce McAllister, however, is not one of those times.

For those not in the know here, Deuce McAllister is one of the most dedicated, toughest athletes ever to put on any uniform in any sport. He tore the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee early in the 2005 season and then returned the next year to run for over 1,000 yards along with ten touchdowns (by comparison, Edgerrin James, considered to be one of the premier running backs in the NFL at the time of his ACL injury back in 2001, accumulated almost as many yards - 989 to be exact - but with only two touchdowns in his first season back from ACL surgery in 2002). In the third game in the 2007 season, Deuce tore the ACL in his left knee, requiring yet another off-season of intense rehabilitation. Anybody who had ever watched Deuce McAllister's efforts with the Saints (including myself) had absolutely no doubt that Deuce would be able to return successfully from a second ACL surgery at the age of twenty-nine, an age that is considered "old" by NFL running back standards. (Frank Gore is the only other running back currently playing in the NFL who has had ACL surgeries on each leg; Gore, however, suffered both injuries while in college at an age when the body is much more able to rebound from such formerly catastrophic injuries.). And thus far, in what little Deuce has been allowed to show in the 2008 season, he appears to have made the successful comeback he had expected to make.

Despite Deuce's proclamation to be ready for this season as well as his having ably carried the load in the first half of the last exhibition game versus the Miami Dolphins, head coach Sean Payton has given the ball to the remarkable running back only twice all season. The only thing Deuce did with those two carries is gain ten yards for a 5.0 average, which is far better than either Reggie Bush or Pierre Thomas has been able to average in much more extensive action. Coach Payton's decision to leave Deuce on the bench was especially puzzling (and downright enraging, really) when the Saints failed to convert on a 4th-and-goal from the 1-yard line in the first half and then again on 3rd-and-1 in Denver territory late in yesterday's loss to the Broncos. The question almost every Saints fan has been wondering (besides, "What in the name of Carl Smith was coach Payton thinking when he called the same play that had failed three previous times on 3rd-and-1?") was obvious: "What in the name of Carl Smith was Deuce doing standing on the sidelines when the Saints needed a mere one yard to all but win the game yet again?" It is this question that Sean Payton simply cannot answer in a satisfactory manner.

All the evidence is there: Deuce was healthy enough to carry the ball eleven times in a meaningless exhibition game against the Dolphins - when injuries are not any less likely to occur than in a regular season game (just ask Osi Umenyiora of the Giants) - but is now being held out of games until Payton feels that Deuce "is ready." In essence, Sean Payton is saying that he's not willing to risk having Deuce re-injure his leg in order to help the team in crucial situations, but he is willing to risk having Deuce re-injure his leg with absolutely nothing to gain in the process. Does this rationale make any sense to anybody over the age of six? If Deuce is going to get hurt, coach, I guarantee you that he would prefer to get injured while trying to make a relevant contribution to the team, not while mopping up the floor with meaningless carries. That would be a complete waste, wouldn't it be? And almost every fan would agree, I'm sure.

Furthermore, as John DeShazier of the Times-Picayune pointed out, if coach Payton is so sure that Deuce is not ready to carry the ball, then why does he allow Deuce to dress for the game at all? Why not activate an extra player on defense, where injuries have taken a huge toll on its abilitiy to stop opposing offenses? Does this decision mean that coach Payton can't determine a mere two days before the game whether or not Deuce will be able to carry the ball at all? He can determine whether or not Scott Fujita, Aaron Glenn, Aaron Stecker, Mike McKenzie and every other injured player is physically able to participate, but that Deuce's physical condition is so extraordinary that his ability cannot be determined at the same time? Ridiculous, I tell you.

The most damning piece of evidence, however, is Deuce McAllister himself: granted, it was only two carries, but Deuce looked as good as any other Saints RB in those two carries versus Washington. Not only that, but Deuce has historically been the RB to carry the ball in short yardage situations - and he has historically been good at delivering what the Saints needed, too.

I've heard some people speculating that Payton is "saving" Deuce for later in the season when the Saints will "really" need him. Well guess what: those late-season games won't be nearly as important if the Saints don't start winning today. And obviously neither Reggie Bush nor Pierre Thomas is having much success on 3rd or 4th & 1, which leaves no logical explanation for Sean Payton's decision to keep Deuce on the bench.

We can only hope that coach Payton sees the error of his ways before yet another late-game short-yardage failure costs the Saints another victory. If this happens just a couple of more times, any action Deuce - along with everybody else on the Saints' roster - sees after mid-season will have been rendered completely meaningless by the head coach's currently inexplicable way of making decisions.

Defying Science (Yet Again): The Republican Party Sinks Even Lower

Just when you finally had accepted the fact that the Republican Party will ceaselessly lower the level of their own shamelessness, they manage to sink so quickly that one is still shocked. It wasn't shameless enough to constantly criticize Barack Obama's readiness to serve as President and then nominate one of the most unqualified politicians ever to serve as backup President for an elderly, near senile presidential candidate with a history of health problems. Nor was it shameless enough for Republicans to warn Americans that they can expect Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress to spend taxpayer money recklessly even after a completely Republican-controlled government spent taxpayer money like a bunch of coked-up heiresses on Rodeo Drive while running up the biggest budget deficits in U.S. history. And – somehow, some way – it still wasn't shameless enough for John McCain and Sarah Palin to criticize Barack Obama for the amount of earmarks he requested the U.S Congress in 2007 for his state – $25 per resident, to be exact – even though Sarah Palin requested earmarks at a rate of $295 per resident as governor of Alaska! No, none of those ridiculously baseless criticisms of Barack Obama were shameless enough to satisfy the apparently insatiable Republican appetite for self delusion and hypocrisy.

A statement made yesterday by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, however, might just be enough to satisfy the Republican need for hypocrisy, self-delusion and self-pity all in one. With complete and utter sincerity – or with what passes as complete and utter sincerity for a Republican – Mr. Davis told Fox News (who else!) that Governor Palin would not grant any more interviews (after the one interview she gave to ABC's unofficial Republican liaison Charles Gibson) until – get ready, folks – she can "be treated with respect and deference" by the media!

Holyshiteatingbunchofmotherfuckincracksmokingsonsofbitches!

What did that colossal asshole just say?!!? Did he really say that the media needs to treat Governor Palin with "respect and deference"? By "respect and deference," can we assume Mr. Davis was referring to the same kind of "respect and deference" the media showed, say, Vietnam veteran and longtime senator John Kerry in 2004? Or Vice-President and future Nobel Prize winner Al Gore in 2000? Or President Bill Clinton during the absurd, grotesque theatre of the Monica Lewinsky "scandal"? Oh, wait – not that kind of "respect and deference" from the media, stupid American citizen! No, Mr. Davis was referring to the kind of respect and deference the media has shown to somebody like, say . . . John McCain. You know, the kind of respect and deference that allows members of the Associated Press to sit down and share shits, giggles and donuts with Senator McCain! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7EDnW-yns] Ahh, yes, that kind of respect!

You see, folks, self-pity and victimization are huge – and I mean huge – parts of the Republican Playbook. If you were to ask a Republican, he would quickly identify his own white self as the most put-upon person in the entire United States of America. Let us now pity the poor, downtrodden, trampled-upon average Republican, for he is a victim many times over: he has to pay higher taxes than everybody else; his guns are always on the verge of being confiscated by the government; his marriage is in danger of being defiled by those dastardly homosexual monogamists; his peace of mind is being chipped away because violent criminals are not being executed by the state; his religion is not being allowed to infiltrate every part of the government; his job – and nobody else's – is habitually threatened by the influx of illegal immigrants; he has to pay for every other child's education; his children are threatened with the possibility of learning about sex rather than being shielded from it; his self-worth is always being brought down by all those uppity women want to get paid the same amount of money he gets for doing the same job; he actually has to compete with minorities now for the jobs his forefathers were guaranteed; and, of course, the mainstream media is always out to destroy his preferred political leaders and ideals.

How many Republican campaign speeches and commercials have been filled with some or most of – if not all of – the scenarios listed above? Oh, you've never seen a Republican openly declare he is against equal pay for women? Well, truth be told, neither have I. Obviously, almost no political candidate is going to come out and declare that he doesn't want women to make the same amount of money men do for performing the same job; however, the fact that almost no Republican ever publicly declares that leveling the paying field is a priority says enough. After all, silence is approval; by not speaking up for true equality, Republican candidates merely affirm that the unequal status quo is working just fine for them. Every other scenario has been explicitly stated as a platform, though their obvious psychological motivations are often left unstated, of course.

All of those Republican self-pitying scenarios have one thing in common, and it sticks out like a gay black woman at their national convention: each of them is patently absurd. And that's what this claim of the media's lack of "respect and deference" toward Sarah Palin is: a gigantic and utterly absurd piece of political poo-poo. Please, Mr. Davis – the media is not showing Ms. Palin the proper respect and deference? Then what were all of those banner headlines praising her speech at the Republican National Convention? Some of those reviews even argued that her speech may have saved the Republican Party itself; those certainly didn't seem like career-killing reviews to me. Still not satisfied with the amount of respect the media gave her after that speech? OK, first things first, Mr. Davis: Sarah Palin isn't the Queen of England. She's not even the Queen of Alaska; she's the governor of Alaska, a state that ranks near the bottom in population and infrastructural needs (and before that was the mayor of town of close to 9,000 people, wherein she infamously tried to start banning books almost immediately upon taking office). However small the town of Wasilla or state of Alaska might be, however, being mayor of the former and then governor of the latter surely should command everyone's respect . . . unless by "everyone" you're including Republicans, that is. If I recall, Republicans, your favorite character assassin-turned-political "analyst" Karl Rove showed a complete lack of respect and deference to Barack Obama's once-presumed running mate, governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. What were Mr. Rove's less-than-glowing words about governor Kaine? Hmm . . .

Well, with all due respect again to Gov. Kaine, he's been a governor for three
years. He's been able but undistinguished; I don't think people could really
name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest
city in America. Again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller
than Chula Vista, California, Aurora, Colorado, Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona, North
Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town.

Soon after Sarah Palin had been nominated, a spokesperson for Barack Obama's campaign, Bill Burton, pointed out the GOP's double standard of criticizing Obama's lack of experience while possibly placing somebody with even less experience a very delicate heartbeat away from the White House:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign
policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin
shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big
Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the
change we need, it's just more of the same.

One person's lack of respect is a Republicans' refreshingly honest political analysis – when a Republican is refreshingly not showing the respect, that is! So, what was a piece of candid political analysis by the insidious Karl Rove a mere four weeks ago magically morphed into an utter lack of respect and deference on the part of the Democrats and their cohorts in the "liberally biased" mainstream media. And the only thing that changed was the subject of the criticism.

But this type of criticism was merely the beginning of the incessant Republican whine-fest. The truly unbearable display of self-pity and victimization by the Republican Party began when more of Governor Palin's personal life came to light. Naturally, because Governor Palin was all but unknown, the mainstream media was completely abuzz trying to find out anything about John McCain's hockey mom-turned-running mate. So what did the media do? Well, it did its fucking job – that's what it did! It uncovered the fact that the very religious Governor Palin, who is vigorously anti-choice and firmly believes in abstinence-only sex education, has a teenage daughter who, from all available evidence, is either a slow learner or simply a non-believer in abstinence-only sex education. In either case, she is living proof that her mother's belief in abstinence-only sex education simply does not work; after all, if you can't prevent your own daughter from being impregnated through that kind of education, how are you going to prevent inner-city girls from being impregnated via the same means? But the media didn't cover Bristol Palin's pregnancy from that approach (of course not, because that approach would have been responsible!); no, the media then did what it does best when it comes to politics: it runs away with and obsesses over the more or less meaningless aspects of the story. Some left-wing blogs (most noticeably the Daily Kos) went particularly ape-shit and started publicly questioning whether Governor Palin's four-month old baby was hers or her daughter's. Is this kind of "journalism" going too far? Well, I think it is, but then I thought it was going too far when the mainstream media – not right-wing blogs, mind you – publicly questioned, without a shred of evidence, whether or not the Clintons had murdered longtime confidant Vince Foster during the Whitewater investigation. Where was right-wing outrage over that completely irresponsible and disrespectful bit of media coverage? Oh, wait – that was a-ok because it had the off-chance of bringing down the dreaded Clinton political machine. Kind of like how it was a-ok for the mainstream media to obsessively investigate President Clinton's private life in order to uncover the Monica Lewinsky affair. Yeah, I can't recall too many Republicans publicly declaring that the media was showing a lack of respect and deference toward President Clinton during that sorry excuse for congressional abuse of power. The list could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.

The idea is simple: as always, it is the patented Republican hypocrisy that makes the McCain campaign's cry of media unfairness so ridiculous. The media constantly ran stories and aired "analysis" by conservatives that belittled and/or defamed Barack Obama (along with just about any Democrat who happens to be on the national radar as well, e.g. Tim Kaine) and convicted Obama through his associations with a controversial religious pastor and a former 1960s radical-turned professor. The very instant one of their own was subjected to the same intense scrutiny, however, Republicans – not right-wing blogs or "mainstream" right-wing media, but nationally recognized members of the Republican Party itself – pulled out the victim card and claimed that the mainstream media was treating their candidate more harshly than the Democratic Party's candidate. Very few in the mainstream media, however, will point out the obvious: the Republican Party knows damn well that the media is not treating Sarah Palin unfairly. Ultimately, though, who will care? Nobody. Well, nobody other than well educated and well informed Obama supporters and independents. Why? Because the GOP's constant cry of left-wing media bias still seems to work, so they will play the victim card as a means of shielding Governor Palin from the expectations placed on every Vice Presidential candidate who ever came before her. Then the GOP will forbid the media from conducting any completely unscripted interviews with Governor Palin, and they will cry liberal wolf every time the media uncovers anything new and unsavory about the inexperienced candidate. And then the mainstream media will follow the lead of the poor, helpless, victimized Republicans and refuse to obsess over Palin's private or public life the way it obsessed over every detail of the whereabouts of President Clinton's penis, the misquoted (but valid) claims of Al Gore, the completely evidence-free assertions of the Swift Boat Veterans for [cough] Truth, the exact cost of every haircut John Edwards ever received, the controversial sermons delivered by Barack Obama's longtime pastor (whether or not Obama was present during or even approving of these sermons), the one-time failure of Joseph Biden to cite the source of a quote he had cited every previous instance he had used the quote in similar speeches - etc, etc, etc.

Then, because of the mainstream media's spineless capitulation to the Republican Party's victimization act, there will remain the outside chance – and terrifying prospect – that John McCain, despite being a warmongering, near-senile dipshit, will win the 2008 presidential election after all.

153 Down, 6 To Go

The 200 block of Vinet Ave in Old Jefferson is one of only six blocks in that neighborhood still without power. An Entergy representative informed me today that power would "definitely be restored by September 9." Of course, just yesterday I was told that power would "definitely be restored by September 8," so the the word "definitely" obviously doesn't have the same meaning for Entergy as it does for the rest of the English-speaking population. All of which means that, if Hurricane Ike follows its projected path, there is an outside chance that by the time I get power back I'll have to evacuate the very next fucking day.

Yeah, I can't wait to see how this situation plays out . . .

The Sarah Palin Nomination: Business as Usual for the Republican Party

On the surface of things, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin – who has served as governor of the state of Alaska for less than two years – appears to be a radical choice for the party. After all, she has a vagina and is rising through the ranks faster than many men in her party; that fact in itself is revolutionary for the GOP. As soon as one has digested that bit, however, he will notice that her nomination is nothing more than business as usual for the Republican Party. Governor Palin is a red-blooded modern Republican through and through: she is a feverishly pro-life, card-carrying member of the NRA who has been calling for the termination of the federal government's ban on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for quite some time. This "business as usual" label, however, lies not so much in Palin's policy preferences as her party's infinite ability to talk out of both sides of its very large and very loud collective mouth.

You see, the GOP's most common attack on Barack Obama is that, as a one-term U.S. senator, he is simply not experienced enough to serve as president. Now comes the news that the oldest candidate for president in U.S. history – a man who has battled near-constant health problems for ten-plus years, a man who also has shown at least five of the ten warning signs of Alzheimer's disease and a man whose father and grandfather both died suddenly of heart attacks – has chosen a self-declared "hockey mom" with less than half a term as governor of Alaska under her belt as his prospective vice president. The vice president, of course, is the person with the crappiest job in the higher reaches of our federal government. John Adams, the first vice president of the U.S., once described it as "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived." Why did future president Adams feel this way? Well, basically because the vice president doesn't do anything. The primary responsibility of the vice president (as vested by the Constitution, not Dick Cheney) is to do as little as possible unless he is called upon to fill the shoes of the president, in which case he is expected to be as ready as the disabled president was. In other words, the vice president is basically a well-paid understudy to the actual president in case the president cannot fulfill his duties. What are we to make of the Palin nomination then? If I'm not mistaken, the Republican Party appears to have hired Dakota Fanning to be Sir Anthony Hopkins' understudy for a new production of Richard III. Is it just me, or did John McCain just turn himself into the political world's very own Max Bialystock?

Why is any of this vice presidential stuff important in the first place? Well, the cold hard reality, folks, is that John McCain's age and health are completely legitimate factors in assessing his ability to competently serve the highest office in the land, if not the world. Whether it's politically correct to discuss publicly or not, the fact is that Senator McCain's extensive medical history, along with well-known contemporary medical statistics, means there is a much higher probability that John McCain would be unable to complete his term in office than any previous first-time presidential candidate in U.S. history. That simple fact alone makes Senator McCain's choice for vice president much more important than Senator Obama's choice for vice president. Despite the obviously greater need to choose a running mate who is ready to be president immediately, Senator McCain and the Republican Party approved the nomination of somebody who is even less ready to serve as president than Barack Obama, whom the GOP has constantly accused of not being ready to serve as president. The fact that McCain was willing to choose somebody who is even less experienced than Barack Obama to serve as U.S. president in the instance of an emergency displays incredibly poor judgment on the part of Republican candidate; in turn, this incredibly poor judgment should be a major concern – and a major roadblock – to anybody who is considering not voting for Obama simply because he lacks experience.

Of course, this selection is par for the Republican Party's well manicured course: they firmly believe that the same thing that constitutes a weakness or fault in an opponent does not constitute a weakness or fault in themselves. How will the GOP justify placing somebody so unqualified within a heartbeat of the White House? I'm guessing the same way they do anything: they'll just make up shit and talk in circles! I can see it already (because I've seen it countless times before): they will cry that "Barack Obama is not ready to lead because he lacks experience," of course; and then, when called out for hiring somebody wholly unqualified to replace an elderly man with near-chronic health problems in the most important job in the country, the GOP will respond that "Governor Palin's even smaller résumé of governmental experience is not a weakness because she has [insert artificial GOP-created reason here]. Besides, she's running only for vice president." It's the only thing the GOP knows how to do: accuse others of having the very glaring faults they possess themselves – and then continue to do so until the public consciousness is beaten senseless.

Do you doubt my claim? Please – it took me over an hour just to decide where to start! How about this anecdote: just a few weeks ago on CBS' "Face the Nation," former GOP assassin turned political "analyst" Karl Rove, discussing the rumors that first-term Virginia governor Tim Kaine would be selected as Barack Obama's running mate, told Bob Schieffer that Obama

would pick a Red State Democrat, because I think he's going to make an intensely
political choice, not a governing choice. He's going to view this through a
prism of a candidate, not through the prism of President. That is to say, he's
going to pick somebody that he thinks on the margin will help him in a state
like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and
broad about the responsibilities as President. Well, with all due respect again
to Gov. Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able but
undistinguished; I don't think people could really name a big, important thing
that he's done. [emphasis added]

The implication is obvious: Barack Obama would choose a vice presidential running mate based solely on how many votes this running mate would bring to the ticket while John McCain would do the exact opposite and choose somebody who is qualified and ready to stand in for the president because John McCain is so experienced, so responsible and always so ready to put country before politics or his party or especially himself. (*sigh* what a dreamboat that John McCain is!) Lo and behold, three weeks later, it's Barack Obama who has chosen his running mate, Senator Joe Biden (of the critically strategic state of Delaware, that is), based on the strength of his extensive congressional résumé while John McCain has shamelessly attempted to woo the uncompromising members of the Religious Right along with still-disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters by choosing the uniquely unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate. Does that seem almost unbelievably absurd and hypocritical? Of course it does, but again, that's merely business as usual for the Republican Party. (And, oh by the way, Karl: please name one big, important fucking thing she's ever done as governor of Alaska. What was that Karl – I couldn't hear you.) One piece of evidence not enough? Here's another one: the Republican Party – with a collective straight face – has had the audacity to tell the American people during this campaign that they should fear runaway government spending by Barack Obama and the Democrats – never mind the fact that we just recently spent six years under a federal government run exclusively by a Republican Party that ran up the largest budget deficit in the history of the country. See how it works? The GOP recklessly spends money for six years and then runs for office on a platform of "fiscal responsibility" and "reform." By Republican campaign logic, then, their slogan should be simple enough to remember: "The only way to get us out is to vote us in!" Folks, insanity this fucking insane is nothing more than a living, breathing self-writing and extremely unfunny punch line. But it's what Republicans do. And they seem to do it 24/7. It's the only way they can ever get votes: to create a lie or unfounded fear, and then repeat it over and over and over – with the help of the right-wing loving mainstream media, that is – until voters simply give in to the mantra (see the habitually misquoted Al Gore of 2000 & the character-assassinated John Kerry of 2004 for proof).

Now we have John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, a choice that simply continues the patently hypocritical Republican way of business. They have been squealing at the top of their lungs that Barack Obama is not "ready to lead," yet announce today that the person they have chosen as their backup president is younger and less experienced – or less "ready to lead," if you prefer – than Barack Obama. And again, the Republican Party does all of this without a trace of evidence that they are aware that this choice undercuts their very own message. Of course, the Republican Party can pull off this magic trick as many times as they wish since the mainstream media almost never points out the fact that the GOP talks out of both sides of its mouth virtually all the time – but that's a matter for an entirely different entry. This time could be different, however; even I am not convinced the McCain-loving mainstream media will be able to provide McCain cover from the consequences of this blunder. All of which means that the person who stands to lose the most by this selection is the selection herself. The reality is that Sarah Palin is exactly the kind of politician conservative voters love: she's a tough-talking, no-nonsense achiever with a matching set of uncompromising political views. And she's also already being investigated for ethics violations in Alaska, though I can't say all conservatives love their politicians to be unethical scoundrels (it just seems that way). Unfortunately for Sarah Palin, she now stands a good chance of becoming a political casualty of the very standards created by her own party to kill Barack Obama's candidacy.

William Kristol: His employment is now one of the world's greatest mysteries

I have copied and pasted – in its painful entirety – New York Times' columnist William Kristol's latest bout of mental diarrhea. Mr. Kristol used his pulpit to lambast Moveon.org's latest ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzB4T5I4eAI). Following Kristol's latest masterpiece, I have included my letter to the editor of the Times-Picayune, the local New Orleans paper that insists on printing Mr. Kristol's detestable bowel movements in its editorial section (because the comics are too light-hearted, I guess), in response to their printing this bad joke. I hope you enjoy it, provided you can actually survive more than one paragraph of William Kristol . . .


Someone Else's Alex

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Published: June 23, 2008

The people at MoveOn.org have a new Iraq ad that is, if they do say so themselves, their most effective ever. Then again, for the group that brought us the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad last September, that might not be saying much.

Nevertheless, the organization boasts on its Web site, "This isn't your average political ad — it lays out the truth about McCain's Iraq policy in a personal and compelling way." MoveOn also claims, "We just got the results back and polling shows that voters found it to be more persuasive than any other ad we've tested before."

I'm not persuaded. Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.

Their new and improved message is presented in a 30-second TV spot, "Not Alex," produced in conjunction with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It's airing for a week on local broadcast stations in markets in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, and on two national cable channels, with a reported buy of over half a million dollars.

The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:

"Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."

Take that, warmonger!

Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn't counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.

And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, "Maybe 100" — explaining, "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. ..."

In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we've had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.

But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won't be drafted, and his mommy can't enlist him. He can decide when he's an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.

All of this is pretty much par for the course in political advertising. And I'm of the latitudinarian school when it comes to campaign discourse; politics is supposed to be rough and ready. So, why, I wondered after first seeing the MoveOn ad, did I find it so ... creepy?

I was having trouble putting my finger on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com.

Here's what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:

"Does that mean that she wants other people's sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone's son, somewhere."

This is the sober truth. Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And we're not entering any such world.

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won't be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But that's not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.

Who needs waterboarding when you can just shove a little of William Kristol's prose down theie throats? Hahahahahaha . . . yes, it's over. Congratulations if you've reached this point without having stabbed yourself. Now onto my letter to the editor (note: the Times-Picayune changed the op-ed's headline from "Someone Else's Alex" to "Anti-war ad is a testament to selfishness) . . .

RE: Anti-war ad is a testament to selfishness (William Kristol, June 26, 2008)

Upon reading William Kristol's latest failed attempt at making sense (he's still advancing the completely baseless Germany-Iraq comparison), I couldn't help but think of the classic poem by Countée Cullen titled For a Lady I Know. The poem is incredibly powerful in its simplicity:

She even thinks that up in heaven
Her class lies late and snores
While poor black cherubs rise at seven
To do celestial chores.

It is fascinating to observe the heights to which Mr. Kristol's hypocrisy can soar. He would like to play the part of the honorable Mr. Cullen by pointing out the selfishness of little Alex's mother, but, unlike the unprivileged Mr. Cullen, Mr. Kristol is himself a member of the truly powerful elite. The hypocrisy, of course, is that, like so many other public advocates of unnecessary military action, Mr. Kristol completely avoided any kind of combat when he had the opportunity to serve his country honorably. Apparently it is not selfish for people of Mr. Kristol's class to lie late and snore when called to military duty, but it is pure selfishness when poor cherubs like the one in the moveon.org advertisement lie late and snore when they are called.

The fact that Mr. Kristol – or any other Neocon who never served in the U.S. military (the list is way too long to include here) – feels completely justified in attacking the "selfishness" of a mother who does not want her son to serve in a prolonged, senseless war started by the lies of a few privileged men including Mr. Kristol himself is way beyond galling – it borders on the criminally insane.

(End of letter)


And I didn't even bring up how Mr. Kristol is able to detect that the advertisement "barely disguised . . . its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving." Nor did I mention how Mr. Kristol finds that "the ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past." Really? It did all of that - with just a mother telling Senator McCain that he can't expect her son to serve in his war? If he can find all of that from that simple advertisement, then he's probably going to find some sort of erotic, homosexual subtext in Curious George Goes to the Hospital as well. And I also didn't mention how I feel that the ad is actually kind of lame in the first place and not even worth mentioning in a public forum, for goodness' fucking sake. I didn't mention any of that, and all of it would have been worth mentioning if the Vietnam-avoiding Mr. Kristol hadn't had the near-impossible audacity to come and out and call anyone - much less the mother of a newborn son - selfish for not wanting to serve in a war that he played a major role in starting. And as shitty and inhumane as I had always assumed Mr. Kristol and the rest of his Neocon, draft-dodging buddies were, I simply never thought even one of them could write a column so incredibly moronic and megalomaniacal.

It leaves me with one question: how in the fucking world does this guy stay employed? It's truly incomprehensible.

You're not depressed until George Will says you're depressed!

On Sunday's installment of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," George Will declared that he would tell the "average American" that he's better off now than he was eight years ago if put up to the task. If the Democratic Party had any kind of brains for the most important part of contemporary politics - that would be electioneering, of course - then they would run the video clip of this infuriatingly pompous comment on its own network, 24/7 until Election Day.

If elitism has a face, it is George Will's self-satisfied mug with a wide-open mouth full of foaming diarrhea. Is there anything more elitist than somebody who comes on national tv and tells a large group of people he's never met that their dissatisfaction with the economy and their place in it is simply a work of their imaginations? OK, so those aren't the words Mr. Will actually used, but that was part of the implied message since almost all the latest polls show Americans as feeling worse off economically today than they did back in 2000. If Mr. Will had wanted to avoid any kind of ambiguity, however, then his declaration would have more closely resembled this: "The average American is better off than he was eight years ago, he's just too stupid to realize it." In fact, that is the one and only thing that could be construed from Will's closing statement from the the clip over at crooksandliars.com (see link at end of entry).

The statement made me wonder: if Barack Obama is elitist for identifying - some would say misidentifying - the average small-town American's dissatisfaction with and knee-jerk reactions to the faultering economy, then how elitist is George Will for telling the average American that he doesn't even have the right to his dissatisfaction in the first place because he just doesn't understand that he's better off than he was eight years ago? There is simply nothing more elitist than this type of statetment, and the Democrats would be wise to point out this type of elitism as often as possible before Election Day.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/15/george-will-on-this-week-who-are-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lying-bank-account/comments

Misleading Headlines of the Lazy Mainstream Media

MSNBC's website published an article today featuring the following headline:

White House admits fault on "Mission Accomplished"

Anybody in America with a tenth of a human brain understands the reference to "Mission Accomplished" – they are the two words on the prominently positioned, self-congratulatory banner hanging on the USS Abraham Lincoln, where President George W. Bush gave his speech marking the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq on May 1, 2003 (I guess the ensuing five years have been nothing more than minor combat operations, though I wouldn't dare say that aloud near anyone serving in the military right now).

There is one very peculiar problem with this article: the White House never actually admits its true mistake! Back in 2003 White House administrators claimed that the crew of the battleship USS Abraham Lincoln ordered the sign and then claimed – as if the entire U.S. population were as stupid as themselves – they had no knowledge of the banner before the speech! Then, in keeping with a common Republican theme, the White House created its own second reality in which the crew of the Lincoln put in a request for the banner to the White House, which then paid a third party to create it.

Now we have the latest White House-created reality involving the "Mission Accomplished" banner. According to Press Secretary Dana Perino, the banner "should have been much more specific" in regards to which mission it was referring because – I hope you're near a toilet bowl – it was really referring to the mission of the battleship itself, not the mission of the entire U.S. military in Iraq! Yes, folks, you read that sentence correctly: the White House now wants us to believe that a huge banner declaring "Mission Accomplished," hanging on the battleship upon which the President of the United States of America was announcing the "end of major combat operations in Iraq," was referring only to the mission of the battleship where the speech was given, not to the erroneous content of the speech itself. Wow. Again, one must wonder: does the Bush Administration think we're every bit as earth-shatteringly stupid as they are?

If Ms. Perino had left the matter there, it would have been bad enough; but the Bush Administration has never been good at knowing when to say when. Ms. Perino goes on to say, "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year." What exactly is this price of which she speaks? Being the butt of numerous jokes on "The Late Show" and "The Colbert Report" – is that the price to which she is referring? Or perhaps she was referring to Bush's being the butt of numerous jokes on "The Late Show" or "Real Time with Bill Maher"? Whatever! Here's the real reality, Ms. Perino: President Bush hasn't paid the price for anything, sweetie. Paying a price for the things he's done to this country and its citizens – not to mention to other countries and their citizens – would include his being impeached and then sent to prison for war crimes. That would be "paying a price," toots – being mocked by every comedian in the country is mere foreplay in this situation. Of course, the Bush administration has made lying to the public a habit, so why should we expect even a drop of truth to invade its ocean of bullshit?

As if the White House's habitual lying weren't bad enough, there's also the problem with the media's presentation of this habit. This article presents a bigger problem, in particular its completely misleading headline "White House admits fault with 'Mission Accomplished.'" The thing is, MSNBC, the White House didn't actually admit the true error. No, like an elementary school student who just got caught trying to pull one over on the teacher, the White House simply came up with yet another excuse – and a horribly pathetic and completely unbelievable one at that. Ms. Perino may as well have just come out and said that the dog ate the memo about the banner's true meaning, which in turn caused everyone to mistakenly believe the banner was referring to the entire "Operation Iraqi Freedom" rather than the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission in carrying out its part of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Despite the obvious transparency of the White House's mea culpa, MSNBC's headline suggests that the White House offered an honest admittance of arrogance in the shameless public relations stunt that was "Mission Accomplished." This decision by MSNBC is extremely puzzling given the seven and a half years of habitual bullshitting on the part of Bush & Co; at this point, shouldn't it be routine for any and every media outlet to pass on the words of the White House with a reality translator? Apparently not, as we are subjected to the reporting only of White House spokesperson Dana Perino's flimsy explanation and ensuing whining about the effects of the White House's "mistake" on President Bush's reputation. If the media were performing its true service to the American public, MSNBC's headline would have looked more like this:

White House offers impossible-to-swallow explanation of that ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" banner

Actually, sources tell me that was the original headline . . . until one of President Bush's dogs ate it, that is. Unfortunately, neither Barney nor Miss Beazely seems ready to offer any confession at the moment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24400896/