2007 Christmas Spectacular!

Cruel and Unusual?


If there's one thing the Christmas season could do with a little bit less of, it's those ridiculous Santa hats that people wear. Let's be honest: they're just not funny. At best, they're incredibly tacky, and slightly creepy. But are they cruel?

Apparently, if the wearer is a Beluga whale, the answer is yes. Not satisfied with protesting actual acts of animal cruelty, a few animal advocates have trained their sights on a particularly egregious threat to the dignity of animals everywhere: a japanese aquarium that places tiny Santa hats on the heads of its performing Belugas:

It's a scene that brings laughter and cheers from visitors to a Japanese aquarium - two white beluga whales wearing Santa hats. But environmentalists are saddened by the sight of what they say is the final humiliation for the whale in a country that hunts them down with harpoons.
...
While the white belugas are entertaining the crowds, their humpback cousins are facing a brutal end in cold storage at the hands of Japanese whalers in Antarctica.
...
Wildlife officials say the display of the white belugas wearing Santa hats is both sad and ironic against the background of the Antarctic hunts, due to start in the region after Christmas. "While whales are being used for entertainment in Japan, the Japanese fleet is subjecting whales to a cruel death in the Southern Ocean," said Mr Darren Kindleysides, a Sydney-based campaigner for the International Fund for Wildlife. "Sadly, the aquarium owners seem to be showing as little respect for whales as their Government."

I haven't extensively studied the thought-patterns of small arctic whales, so there's always a chance that the whale-huggers could be right. Perhaps Beluga whales are incredibly self-conscious creatures who die a little every time their wicked task-masters force them to don festive holiday headgear.

But, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit that -- despite my disdain for Santa hats in general -- those lil' Santa hat wearing Belugas are probably the most adorable things I've seen all year. How can something that looks so right be so wrong?

A Very Merry (Huckabee) Christmas

On a slightly less adorable note, newly-minted Republican frontrunner Mike Huckabee wants you to have a merry Christmas, and he's got a heart-warming video to prove it:




Is that suspiciously cross-like windowpane in the background a coded message to evangelical voters? Probably not. But Ron Paul seems to think it's a harbinger of fascism:





The friendly Fox News guy is right: Mike Huckabee isn't a fascist. He's just a nice politician trying to spread Christmas cheer across key battleground states. Maybe Ron Paul's just ticked off by the fact that his Scrooge-esque mountains of cash have hardly put a dent in his opponents' poll-numbers, while Huckabee's managed to take the lead in Iowa (and the nation) with a paltry sum that could hardly purchase a decent Christmas goose. I guess elections just bring out the humbug in everyone.

Aren't They Into That Polygamy Thing?

There's something you have to know about Mitt Romney. It's something scandalous, earthshaking, and it just might freak you out of your pants. You see, unlike the devout men who've sought the nation's highest office in the past, Mitt Romney refuses to adhere to an orthodox flavor of Christianity.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

Please, feel free to snap out of that state of shock anytime you like. Really.

Not surprised? Then you're not alone. Even your distant, generally non-political relatives you sometimes see during important holidays have probably heard something about Mitt Romney's unusual "faith tradition", and what it means for his candidacy. All this discussion is certainly warranted, considering the fact that there are polls showing that over 50% of the important evangelical voting bloc won't even consider voting for a Mormon candidate -- even if he lines up with them on the issues. Unfortunately, one particularly important voice has been missing from the discussion: Mitt Romney's.

While it would be unfair to say that he's completely avoided the issue, Mitt has displayed a tendency to skirt around the so-called "religious question", refusing to confront it head-on. Up until now, just about all the statements Mitt's made about Mormonism have come as responses to often hostile questions from potential voters, which pop up frequently at "Ask Mitt Anything" events across the country. His typical formula for answering such questions looks something like this:

(A) Emphasize the importance of religious tolerance
(B) Assert that Mormonism is the same thing as Christianity
(C) Avoid any follow up questions.

This is hardly satisfactory. Whether he likes it or not, the questions surrounding Mitt Romney's religion matter to thousands of key voters he'll need to win over in the months to come. By refusing to talk in detail about his faith, and the role it plays in his personal life and public service, Mitt has insulted the intelligence of voters across the country, and made himself look like a weasel.

So, when the news broke last week that Mitt would be giving a speech specifically addressing the religious question, there was enough speculation to fill the Great Salt Lake Basin. Would he try to explain the oft-confusing doctrines of the LDS church? Would he reassure everyone that polygamy would remain illegal under a Romney administration? Would he plagiarize Kennedy's "Running as an American, not as a Catholic" speech? Would he merely repeat the same things he's been saying for the past year, but with more words?

On Thursday, we finally got all the answers, and there weren't a whole lot of surprises in the bunch. The speech was essentially a juggling act put on to win over evangelical voters, with Mitt Romney trying to advance two seemingly contradictory main points: that his Mormonism does not define his candidacy or dictate his policies, but that "faith" is an integral part of American life, and should be allowed to shape activities in the public sphere. For anyone who was expecting a lengthy discourse on the location of the planet Kolob, the speech was a massive dissapointment:

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
...
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
...
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
...
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
...
The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be -- You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Obviously, there were a few noticeable flaws in Romney's logic -- like all the talk about the validity of all faiths, while consistently referring to a singular Almighty, which almost certainly offended all the Hindu Republicans out there. But overall, Romney's message came out loud and clear: "Yes, I'm a Mormon, but it's totally cool. I'm not controlled by a bunch of nuts in Salt Lake City. I share your values, and I like Jesus. I also like religious freedom, and keeping God in the pledge of allegience. Please vote for me instead of Huckabee. Please."

Will this message impact the presidential race? Probably not. Most of what was said in the speech had already been said during previous events. Evangelicals who view Mitt Romney as an evil cult member with awesome hair will be unswayed by high-minded rhetoric about the importance of religious freedom. It might even hurt Mitt Romney, by drawing attention to one of his weakest points so close to the Primary season.

What do I think of it all? To be perfectly honest, I think Mitt Romney has so many problems besides his religion, that the "religious question" ain't worth a sack of potatoes at this point. Even if Mitt Romney had enough born-again cred to put Huckabee to shame, he still wouldn't be the right man for the job, for reasons previously alluded to on this blog. Enough said.

Come For The Picture Of Fat Huckabee, Stay For The Mostly Unrelated Article.

Disclaimer: Due to an abundance of words, the following article is long. Reading the entire thing in one sitting may cause eating disorders and/or acute nausea. Any resemblance to good writing, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

---

Barack Obama calls it "the politics of hope".
Mike Huckabee calls it "vertical politics".
But regardless of the exact terminology they may use, both candidates have been going to great lengths to tell the American people that they stand for a fresh, optimistic brand of positive politicking that stands in direct opposition to the vicious, back-stabbing politics that have dominated Washington since its inception. They've even written their own cute little books on the subject -- Huckabee's From Hope to Higher Ground, and Obama's The Audacity of Hope -- each with a cover featuring the author gazing into the reader's eyes as if to say: "I'm too busy buying the world a Coke to level personal attacks at my foes. Hugs for everyone!"

In the rhetorical world of Huckabee and Obama, the tone of the message is equal to the content. They may not offer policies that have never been proposed before, but they'll propose them in such a genial way that the American people (and the opposing party) will be compelled to accept them, as if they were adorable puppies left in a basket on the country's doorstep. If the Huckabee and Obama PR line is to be believed, the power of positive politics will allow compromise without the compromise; Huckabee will stick firmly to his conservative principles, and Obama to his liberal ones, but they'll be able to win over the other side of the political aisle through sheer niceness. As Huckabee has often stated: "I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody about it".

Naturally, all this talk about conciliatory politics looks great when taken at face value. Just about everyone would like Capital Hill to be a little more Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, and a little less pre-surge Fallujah. Unfortunately, this positive rhetoric just doesn't match up with political reality -- on several different levels.

The first strike? The fact that ideas actually matter to some people. Although there are a few people who may be repulsed by liberalism or conservatism because of the negative attitudes exhibited by liberals or conservatives, it's probably pretty safe to say that a whole lotta' people oppose certain political philosophies because they genuinely disagree with the ideas behind them. Barack Obama can smile all he wants while he proposes a Universal Health Care plan, but a majority of Republicans will still oppose it. And Mike Huckabee can attempt to melt the hearts of the pro-abortion crowd with a volley of endearing catch-phrases that could make a puppy cry, but ultimately, their disagreement is with the substance of his message, not the style.

And even to nice-starved voters, the kinder, gentler candidate isn't necessarily the most compelling one. Until every candidate simultaneously decides to play nice, the odd man out will appear weak at best. It's kind of like nuclear disarmament -- while everyone would love it if nuclear weapons just disappeared off the face of the earth, as long as a single belligerent power possesses such weaponry, we're sure as heck not going to give them up (with all due respect to Mr. & Mrs. Kucinich). If candidate A hurls sticks and stones at candidate B, they may very well break his political bones... unless candidate B responds in kind.

This isn't to say that it's wrong to run a friendly presidential campaign, or to be a friendly president -- it's just that being Mr. (or Mrs.) Sunshine isn't the political wonder-drug Obama and Huckabee make it out to be.

However, none of the stuff I just said really matters. I've been examining the flaws that would be present in an unconventionally nice political strategy, but the Obama and Huckabee campaigns are quite conventional, and not always nice.

In the case of Barack Obama, "The Politics of Hope" are especially illusory. Although he's repeatedly charged Hillary Clinton with running "a textbook campaign", it looks like Obama's been studying the "textbook" pretty hard for the past couple of weeks. Negative tone? Scandal allegations? Bitter attacks? As Staple's might say: yeah, we got that. It's easy enough to talk about positive campaigning when you're flying high in the polls, but when you're floundering at a distant second with about a month left before the first primaries, it becomes a political necessity to frantically claw your way back to the top.

Even Mike "Hug-a-me" Huckabee has proven he can be as abrasive as a stainless-steel porcupine when the occasion arises. During his term as governor, he implied that supporters of a tough immigration bill were bigots -- and called the Christian faith of the bill's primary sponsor into question. On the flip side, he recently leveled a pointed personal attack towards Mitt Romney for hiring allegedly illegal Guatemalans to do yard work. Sure, Huckabee isn't exactly Nixon 2.0, and yes, he's generally a ridiculously nice guy. But he's still a politician; a politician who happens to know that there are times when it's politically expedient to handle your opponent with kid gloves, and times when the gloves have to come off.

In the distant future, there may come a day when politicians beat their swords into plowshares and engage in group-hugs en masse. A time when red states and blue states will melt together into a delightful -- and slightly creepy -- shade of purple. But will that day arrive during this election cycle? Pardon my cynicism, and forgive me for presuming too much about the future, but: it won't.

Hillary: Por Que?

I don't spend a whole lot of time trying to figure out why Democrats do the things they do. It just isn't healthy. But now that Hillary's status in the primary race has shifted from "frontrunner by a healthy margin" to "frontrunner by a ridiculous margin", my mind is desperately trying to grapple with the sheer inanity of it all.

Hillary is far from being the most experienced candidate on the Democratic roster. With only seven years of public office under her belt, even Dennis Kucinich has a lengthier resume. Granted, he was never the first lady -- for one reason or another -- but when did being the first lady qualify anyone to become the President? Let's get a few things straight:

First ladies are not elected officials.
They have no executive or legislative duties.

A first lady is just a woman who happened to be lucky (or unlucky) enough to marry a man who became the president. Yes, Hillary didn't just sit around and bake cookies, but generally speaking, she was still just a spokeswomen for her husband's policy initiatives.

Of course, I needn't mention the fact that Hillary isn't the most likable cookie in the Democratic jar. That robotic cackle? Don't want to talk about it. Moving on. Now.

Finally, as much as it may pain conservatives to hear it, Hillary really isn't the most liberal or "progressive" Democrat seeking the party's nomination. On foreign policy, she's a GOP-esque hawk, and on everything else, she's more vaguely-not-like-Bush than anything else. In an election where voters are widely expected to side with whoever happens to be running against the Republican candidate, I find it surprising that Democrats seem to be picking a candidate who has all the drawbacks of a radical candidate (polarizing, widely believed to be the anti-christ, etc.), without the base-pleasin' positions (no residual forces in Iraq, zero hostility towards Iran, etc.).

Naturally, as someone who isn't exactly a member of the Democratic party's cheerleading squad, I plan to greet Hillary's nomination with a resounding "huzzah!", or "huzzah!" equivalent. If Hillary is indeed the Democratic candidate of choice in '08, the Republican party will be given something that it would otherwise lack: a fighting chance.

The question is, why don't the Democrats see this?

Gore Isn't Running. Surprise!

"I have no intention to run for president"

-Al Gore

If you just skimmed past the quote above, go back and read it.

And don't just read it like you might read the nutrition facts on the side of a box of Cap'n crunch. Really read it. Linger over each and every syllable; let your soul absorb the very essence of the sentence. Now, close your eyes, clear your mind of all thoughts, and try to visualize the incredibly complex concept that Albert Gore Jr. was attempting to communicate with those beautiful yet simple words.

By now, assuming that you have a brain at least slightly larger than a pecan, most of you will probably have a pretty firm grasp of exactly what it was that Gore said:

Al Gore said he has "no intention to run for president".
This probably means that Al Gore does not intend to run for president.

It's too bad that millions of seal-hugging liberals and nostalgic journalists seem to have brains slightly smaller than pecans.

Yes, Al Gore won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, Al Gore is revered by hordes of young political zealots. But no, Al Gore will not be, and will not attempt to become, our nation's next president. Even if you were to completely ignore Al's repeated assurances that he will not run -- like so many have -- a Gore '08 campaign just doesn't make good sense. Why would he want to be the president when he's already an all-powerful environmentalist deity?

At this point in time, Al Gore has more influence and prestige than any single politician in the country. Our Democratic congress and our Republican president are both sinking into a bottomless pit of low-approval and general mistrust. So far, Al Gore has managed to hover above the mess by maintaining his status as a private citizen.

But If Al decides to return to politics -- presidential or otherwise -- his achievements so far will be marred by suspicion that his environmental heroics were motivated not by genuine concern for all things green and/or furry, but by an unbridled thirst for power. And in the case of the 2008 presidential race, an even greater danger could await poor ol' Al: the very real possibility that he might lose. If Al Gore lost the primary, which would be likely, given Hillary's massive hoard of campaign cash, and his less than three months to catch up, he would solidify his reputation as a loser, and severely damage his currently untouchable prestige in the eyes of young liberals.

The chance of losing isn't Gore's only concern. Politics is a messy, nasty game; Gore, of all people, knows this very well. If Gore enters the presidential race, he will be put under intense scrutiny by a previously-adoring media, and will almost certainly be subjected to vicious attacks from Democratic candidates who have had nothing but praise for Gore as a private citizen. It may be difficult to precisely predict what would happen in a hypothetical Gore '08 primary bid, but one thing is certain: Gore would not come out unscathed.

It's taken Al Gore nearly a decade since his humiliating presidential defeat to regain a prominent spot on the national stage. In the world of environmental activism, he wields an unprecedented amount of influence, and in the eyes of the media, Gore is the immaculate patron saint of one of the largest social movements of our day. Will Gore decide to risk it all for a chance to win the office that eluded him seven years ago?

He says he won't.

That's good enough for me.

Which One of These Doesn't Belong?

In the months leading up to Fred Thompson's "late" entry into the 2008 race, the question on everyone's mind -- or at least, my mind -- was whether the lawyer-actor-senator-lobbyist could topple king Rudy from his red white and blue throne. Now, over a month after Thompson's official announcement, the answer seems to be a timid no. Despite all the premature comparisons, Fred Thompson just isn't shaping up to be another Ronald Reagan.

Heck, he isn't even shaping up to be another Gerald Ford. With all due respect, Fred appears to completely lack the ability to fire up the conservative base -- an ability that many thought would be his greatest asset. The warning signs were in plain sight long before his announcement: there was the story about Fred's lobbying work for a pro-abortion group, rumors about his wife's controlling behavior, Dr. Dobson's "I don't think he's a Christian" diss, and faint rumblings about his lifestyle during his single days on capital hill. By the time Thompson broke the news that everyone had been expecting on Jay Leno, his embryonic candidacy had already lost a considerable amount of luster.

Still, hundreds of candidates with far heavier loads of personal baggage have managed to cruise to victory. Generally speaking, Americans are willing to overlook a few minor inconsistencies, as long as those inconsistencies are paired with a healthy dose of charisma. Sadly, Thompson has been consistently striking out in the charisma department. The title of a WORLD magazine profile of Fred Thompson was a typical assessment of Thompson's star power in action: "Blah and Order". Thompson obviously expected that his low key, down-to-earth persona would appeal to so-called "common sense conservatives". So far, it appears that he was terribly mistaken. Fred's notoriously bland stump speeches have left eager audiences all across the country disappointed and disillusioned with the man that many thought would be the savior of the conservative movement. In the post-Bush era, it will take more than vague, folksy American-isms to energize the Republican party.

None of this is to say that Fred Thompson won't be a major factor in the primary race. The latest poll numbers place Thompson solidly in second with 23% to Giuliani's 30%, a respectable chunk of the electorate by any measure. But in order to surpass -- not just threaten -- Giuliani, Thompson needs a little something called momentum, a commodity he seems to be sorely lacking.

What should the Thompson campaign do to remedy the situation? Well, I may not have a degree in public relations, but here's just one teensy little tip that I would like to offer Fred for absolutely no charge:

SMILE.

When you're running for president, having a face that constantly says "I've come to loot your churches, slaughter your cattle, steal your womenfolk, and send your children into bondage" isn't a good thing. Just a thought.

Don't Be a Hater.

Yesterday, the overpaid members of our Senate voted to pass a controversial hate crimes bill, which they cleverly tacked onto a war funding bill in an attempt to make it veto-proof. Currently, our nation identifies a violent crime as a "hate crime" if the victim's religion, race, national origin or color was the perpetrator's primary motivation. If the president signs this newly passed hate crimes act, sexual orientation, gender, disability, and "gender identification" will be added to the list of forbidden motivations for violent acts.

What does this mean? It means that if you kill a gay guy because he's gay, the legal system will somehow consider the crime worse than it would have been if you had killed him for taking your favorite parking space at Wal-Mart. The logic here is obviously flawed: gay guys go to Target, not Wal-Mart. But the Senate's logic is also flawed: all violent crimes, with the possible exception of those committed by highly intelligent, yet emotionless robot ninjas, are motivated by some kind of hate. There simply isn't any rational reason to pass a bill that would make already illegal acts "more illegal" if they're motivated by a particular class of hatred. Of course, certain law-makers don't see things the same way I do:

(From the LA Times)
"We have never had this bill with the potential to go as far as it is," said Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.), one of the chief sponsors, who pleaded for the president to sign it as a "legacy that he can claim on an important civil rights issue."

Smith stood on the Senate floor next to a photo of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was brutally beaten in Wyoming in 1998 and left to die tied to a fence. The bill is named for Shepard. "What happened to Matthew should happen to no one," Smith said.

I agree with Gordon Smith on one point: nobody should be brutally beaten to death and left to die tied to a fence. However, I'm pretty sure that murder was outlawed in Wyoming well before 1998. Yes, that law didn't stop people from killing Matthew Shepard, but neither would the bill the Senate just passed. As it turns out, the two men responsible for Matthew Shepard's murder were caught, prosecuted, and are both serving life sentences. If this new hate crimes bill had been passed prior to 1998, what difference would it have made? None. Matthew Shepard would have been killed, the killers would have been prosecuted, and in all likelihood, the sentence would remain the same. I may not be an expert on the mindset of criminals, but I have a tiny hunch that most murderers will be undeterred by the possibility of being charged with a "hate crime" instead of just a plain ol' murder.

So, to commemorate the downright stupidity of this bill, I hereby award the 110th Congress of the United States of America the prestigious "Walrus of Shame", donated by Texas State University:


It must also be noted that the Walrus of Shame makes an excellent conversation starter at weddings, funerals, parties of all kinds, and NRA meetings. For information on how to get your own Walrus of Shame, please contact the Texas State University department of Multicultural Student Affairs by phone at (512) 245-2278, or by e-mail at multicultural-affairs@txstate.edu.

My Enemy's Enemy Might Still Be My Enemy.

No matter what General Petraeus & Co. actually say when they testify about progress in Iraq on Monday, it's already obvious what the spin from the Bush camp will be. While they may admit -- in an offhand sort of way -- that the progress we've seen in Iraq hasn't reached desired levels, they will almost certainly shine their rhetorical spotlight on the fact that in the once-dangerous Al-Anbar province of Iraq, Sunnis who were previously fighting against American forces with the help of Al-Qaeda are now fighting against Al-Qaeda with the help of American forces. Of course, this definitely sounds like a good thing -- what could be bad about some of our worst enemies becoming our friends and allies? Isn't that a valid sign of progress? Well, yes... and no. If these Sunni ex-insurgents have truly experienced a miraculous change of heart overnight, the news is fantastic. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is probably a little less rosy.

This is because our new-found Sunni allies still hate our guts; they just happen to hate Al-Qaeda's guts a little bit more. They're our co-belligerents in the fight against Al-Qaeda, not friends -- and there happens to be a difference. The main difference being that once Al-Qaeda is driven from Al-Anbar province, there's a fair chance that these foul-weather friends could turn on us hard and fast.

Now, I'm not omnipotent or anything, so I may be wrong about this. But looking at the history of the situation, I don't think it's an altogether unreasonable assessment:

(1) For years, the Sunni tribes in Al-Anbar province wanted us dead. Coincidentally, Al-Qaeda also wanted us dead. Because of this convergence of interests, Al-Qaeda and the Sunnis developed a relationship of co-belligerency against the American forces.

(2) But then, Al-Qaeda crossed the line, attempting to control the Sunnis using brutal tactics of terror and intimidation. Now the Sunnis wanted to get rid of Al-Qaeda, but they couldn't do it alone. Coincidentally, the American forces also wanted to get rid of Al-Qaeda, but they couldn't do it without local support. This second convergence of interests allowed us to develop our current relationship of co-belligerency with the Sunnis.

So what happens when Al-Qaeda is removed from the scene? The most logical step for the Sunni's of Al-Anbar would be a return to the fight against the American occupation. The current Sunni-American alliance is built on a common goal, not deep seated loyalty or a mutual love of democracy. Once that goal is achieved, it would be naive to assume that this alliance built on self-interest will hold. Worse still, Sunnis who were taking pot-shots at us only months ago are now receiving weapons, funds, and training from the U.S military. If the Sunnis decide to bite the hand that feeds them, we could find ourselves faced with a well-fed enemy indeed.

In a time when hope for Iraq seems scarce, it's only natural that the administration tries to cling to every scrap of good news it can find. But placing an unrealistic amount of trust in an alliance that seems flaky at best may not be the greatest idea in the world. What seems like an investment in the future stability of Iraq could easily turn into a dangerous gamble -- and the American people may not be able to tolerate another major blunder in an already unpopular war.

Remembering Tommy.

Tommy Thompson was a candidate who had it all: a lovable personality, an incredible career as the governor of Wisconsin, and disturbing tales about alternative methods of conception. But sadly, he is no longer with us. After a dismal showing at the Ames Straw Poll, Thompson bravely decided to fall on his own political sword, foregoing the risk of any further humiliation at the hands of citizens who simply refused to understand his wholesome mid-western ways.

(From The Politico)
Keeping his promise to withdraw from the GOP contest if he finished worse than second at the Ames Straw Poll, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson announced in a statement tonight that he was "leaving the campaign trail."

"I felt my record as Governor of Wisconsin and Secretary of Health and Human Services gave me the experience I needed to serve as President, but I respect the decision of the voters," Thompson said in the press release.

The first thought that came to mind as I read the news with tear-filled eyes was that age old question: why do bad things happen to good people? To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I really don't know. But I do know this: as long as Tommy -- and his beloved daughter Tommi -- remain in our hearts, they'll be with us forever. So please, don't cry for Tommy Thompson. Keep him alive in your memory each and every day, remembering him as he would have wanted to be remembered -- as a stalwart cultural crusader standing up for the rights of the little man, implementing common sense policies, and sailing around the globe with medical students in order to heal the impoverished natives of third world countries.


Farewell, The Honorable Tommy Thompson.

Stupid Celebrity Tricks

Hollywood celebrities, in their never-ending quest to rationalize their frivolous existence, love to become the self-proclaimed champions of popular causes. You've got Leonardo Dicaprio lending his intellectual gravitas to the go-green movement, Brangelina raising Africa out of poverty by adopting a couple of African children (while posing in pictures with a few more), Tom Cruise crusading against the evils of psychiatric drugs, and so on and so forth. But there aren't many causes quite so popular among celebrities as that venerated grand-daddy of celebrity causes, first amendment rights. Every year, various celebrity organizations congregate in order to hand out cute little awards to the celebrities who possess the most zeal for the defense of free speech. It's usually easy to spot the main contenders; they're the ones that annoy the general public by taking every opportunity to talk incessantly about how the Bush administration won't let them talk incessantly about how bad the Bush administration is, and then proceed to talk about the growing gap between the noble poor and filthy, self-centered rich people like themselves, and why the Bush administration is at fault for not taking more of their money for redistribution. In other words, just about every celebrity qualifies for these coveted first amendment awards, and ultimately, the winner is probably selected at random.

Last year, the prestigious Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award happened to be awarded to Sean Penn, who graced the ears of his audience with an eloquent acceptance speech about --of all things-- the evils of the Bush administration. Naturally, the speech was filled with the whiny, self-righteous moralizing, grand-standing, and pretentious theatrics that characterize most of the anti-Bush rants that usher from the mouths of the Hollywood elite. Sean Penn was in his element, standing as the lone beacon of truth in the midst of a vast Republican ocean of corruption and deceit:

Should we speak truth, we stand against government efforts to intimidate or legislate in the service of censorship. Whether under the guise of a Patriot Act or any other benevolent-sounding rationale for the age-old game of shutting down dissent by discouraging independent thinking and preventing progressive social change.
...
globally, the United States is number one at demanding accountability and backing up that demand with imprisonment. But, when it comes to our president, vice president, secretary of state, former secretary of defense...this insistence on accountability vanishes. All of a sudden, what's past is prologue. And we're just "forward-looking." But some people can't just look forward. Men and women stationed in Iraq at this moment, under orders of a Commander-in-Chief so sufficiently practiced in the art of deception, that he got vast numbers of American journalists and the most esteemed media outlets of this country, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and PBS to eagerly serve his agenda-building for war. And the process also induced vast numbers of artists and performers (probably even some in this room tonight) to keep quiet and facilitate the push for an invasion in Iraq.
...
Christopher Reeve promised to get out of that chair. Well, I don't know about you, but it feels like he's up now and I wouldn't be standing here if it weren't on his shoulders. Let it be for something.

Of course, after the speech was over, applause was the only thing that Mr. Penn received for his daring monologue. He didn't receive jail time, sharp reprimands from the media, a pink slip, or any negative consequences whatsoever. He continues to live his life in obscene luxury, untroubled by the supposedly far-reaching tentacles of the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, down in Venezuela, critics of the government can actually run into real trouble. Hugo Chavez, the goblin-esque leader of Venezuela's socialist government, has been proactively cracking down on the country's independent media for years. Recently, RCTV, the second largest television station in the country, was shut down by Chavez due to the stations history of airing material that presented criticism of his administration. Just last month, the Venezuelan legislature passed a law that allows for the deportation of any foreigners that criticize the government. Venezuela is now classified as "Not Free" by Freedom House, ranked 115th out of 168 in press freedom by Reporters Without Borders, and a US Senate resolution has been passed condemning the Chavez administration's increasing hostility towards the free press.

So, you'd naturally expect that an outspoken defender of freedom of speech like Sean Penn wouldn't be the first in line to cozy up to Hugo Chavez. And you'd be wrong:

(From the Associated Press)
CARACAS, Venezuela - Sean Penn applauded President Hugo Chavez as the Venezuelan leader lambasted the Bush administration and demanded an end to war in Iraq.

Chavez met privately with the 46-year-old actor for two hours Thursday, praising him as being "brave" for urging Americans to impeach President Bush.
Chavez said he and Penn discussed the question of "why the (U.S.) empire attacks Chavez so much," saying Venezuela's oil wealth is a key reason.

He also said Washington is "afraid that the people of the United States will learn the real truth" about the situation in Venezuela, citing his social programs for the poor.

"If the people of the United States, those millions and millions of poor people ... if that nation realizes what is truly happening here, there would be a revolution in the United States," Chavez said, eliciting applause from Penn.

Some Chavez opponents were angered by Penn's visit.

If I was the kind of person who gets upset when a celebrity does something stupid, I would be angry as well. But, being who I am, I have to say that I find Penn's ignorant international faux-pas more amusing than infuriating. An actor behaving in a hypocritical manner? Whodathunkit!

But the event serves to highlight one of the dangers that the more-red-than-pink variety of liberalism presents to our country. While some conservatives will eagerly sacrifice liberty for security, certain liberals would be equally willing to sacrifice that same liberty for "social progress". While they can talk for hours about the importance of a free press, in actuality, many on the far left consider free press to merely be a means to accomplish the end of radical social change. They believe, as the marxists of decades past believed, that the masses need to be incited to rise up against their upper-class masters, and the inflammatory power of the media is the perfect tool to accomplish this feat. Once the desired changes in society have been made, the tool is no longer necessary, and can be replaced with a state-run apparatus designed to perpetuate the new order.

Due to this mindset, Penn is all for freedom of speech in America, because he hates Bush and wants to oust him from the White House. But on the other hand, Penn is indifferent to freedom of speech in Venezuela, because he likes Hugo Chavez's socialist policies and anti-Bush stance, and wants him to remain in place. Apparently, Penn believes that freedom of speech is sacred in places with governments he doesn't like, but can be tossed out the window in countries with "progressive" governments. I don't think I need to say that this is stupid, but I'll say it anyways: this is stupid.

I don't know if I've ever actually seen a movie with Sean Penn in it, but if I have, I sort of regret watching it. I also sort of regret that Sean Penn is one of the only big actors to have acted in a movie partially shot in Omaha.

I guess we still have Jack Nicholson.

A Little Q&A

Last night, CNN held it's much-hyped YouTube debate. According to CNN, the debate was a "historical" forum which gave citizens "uncut" and "unfiltered" access to the candidates. According to me, CNN's description is hogwash.

CNN would like you to believe that this debate was a departure from televised debates in the past because of one fundamental difference: instead of being asked by a moderator, the questions featured in the debate were submitted by voters in the form of YouTube videos. At first glance, this looks very high-tech, shiny, hip, and revolutionary. Unfortunately, the assertion that this new addition to the television debate format changes the way television debates work in any meaningful way is plainly false. There is absolutely no difference in substance (although there is a difference in style) between the voter-submitted YouTube videos used in last nights debate and the voter-submitted written questions that have been the mainstay of televised debates for years. In both cases, the questions originate from ordinary citizens; presenting the questions in video form does nothing to make the debate more of a conversation with the American people.

And in both cases, the conversation with the American people is an illusion. Ultimately, the questions that get played or read on television have to pass through television producers who select the questions that they want asked. In all likelihood, the content of the debate would change very little if the producers wrote all the questions themselves.

But that doesn't really matter. Debates shouldn't be judged based on where the questions originate or how stylishly they're presented. They should be about candidates having rational discussions about the issues at hand in order to give voters a clear idea of what their individual positions are. I don't care if it's Jim Lehrer or your next-door neighbor Bernie asking Barrack Obama what his plan for Iraq is; I care about what Barrack Obama's plan is. Debates are about the answers, not the questions.

In that sense, the YouTube debate can be seen as a step backward for reasoned political discussion in America. As soon as the debate was over, an article on CNN.com boasted that,

"The lights and cameras were focused on the eight candidates, but it was the personal, heartfelt and, at times, comical nature of the user questions that stole the spotlight."

The title of the article?

"Questions, not answers, highlight YouTube debate"

Apparently, CNN believes that a good debate is one in which the issues are raised in an entertaining fashion, not one in which the candidates are able to examine those issues thoroughly. I don't want to be mean, but that's pretty dang stupid. Many people have accused television of watering down politics in this country, but very rarely has a television station been so open about the fact. If CNN wants to hold a truly groundbreaking debate, they should try giving the candidates more than a paltry thirty-seconds-to-a-minute to answer questions, and eliminate fluffy queries like "who was your favorite teacher and why?"

There are many things wrong with television debates, but I've never considered un-entertaining questions to be one of them. Nor is a lack of "conversation" between the people and the candidates the primary flaw in our political system. What we need is more in-depth public discourse on the issues facing our country, and CNN's YouTube debate did less than nothing to deliver this.

Hitler Obviously Had Better Hair.

Today, someone compared Bush to Hitler. Of course, certain people have been doing that for almost half a decade now, so the statement itself isn't all that shocking. What might be a little more shocking is the fact that the man making the dubious comparison wasn't just another marginalized, green-haired nut waving an obscenity-laden sign by the road. It was congressman Keith Ellison, America's very first Muslim member of the House.

[from The Telegraph]
Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

[9/11 was] almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

Vice-President Dick Cheney's stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was "the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship", he added.

Okay, so...

(1) Bush is a Hitler-esque dictator.

and yet...

(2) He lets members of congress openly label him as such.

Bush is the nicest evil dictator ever.

Creepy Video... Explained?

For everyone who was disturbed or confused by the video I posted featuring presidential candidate Mike Gravel staring into the camera and throwing a rock into a pond: fear not. Below is an interview in which the creepy guy himself explains the meaning of the video. Prepare to be enlightened.

Fighting Fire With Firefighters

Once upon a time, there was a man named John Kerry who wanted to be the President. Unfortunately, he didn't have looks, charisma, or name recognition. But he did have something the other guys didn't have: purple hearts. John Kerry was a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war, and he soon found that he could win support by emphasizing the fact that he was a war hero. Then the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth burst onto the scene: a bunch of guys who served with John Kerry in Vietnam and thought he was a low-down varmint who didn't earn his medals and betrayed the United States after his return. Whether or not the allegations were true, they stuck to him like some kind of ridiculous-looking adhesive baboon, and managed to destroy one of the most powerful pillars of the Kerry campaign. Needless to say, President John Kerry wasn't sworn into office on the 20th of January, 2005.

Flash forward to the present day, where a man named Rudy Giuliani is seeking the presidency. He should be a long-shot candidate: he sides against the vast majority of his own party on just about every hot-button issue out there. But up until now, none of that has mattered, because Giuliani is a decorated veteran of the War on Terror; the man who heroically led New York City during it's darkest hour. Running solely on his record as a hero, Giuliani, a liberal, east-coast politician, has managed to capture the heart of a party that's been controlled by bible-belt conservatives for over four decades. But now, Giuliani will have his own Swift Boat Veterans to deal with: the disgruntled firefighters of New York City. Yes, those firefighters. The ones you always see in pictures of 9/11, the ones standing at Rudy's side by the rubble of the twin towers. As it turns out, a lot of them actually think that Giuliani was a low-down varmint who mismanaged the response to 9/11 and caused the deaths of hundreds of NYC firemen. And they're going public with those allegations. This video, entitled "Rudy Giuliani: Urban Legend", was created by the International Association of Firefighters to shatter Giuliani's seemingly unbreakable reputation as the hero of 9/11. Will this be the beginning of the end for the Giuliani campaign? We'll see...

Various Videos

In the absence of an actual article, here are a bunch of random videos combined with tiny articles that are definitely not actual. Read them, watch them, love them, or ignore them and move on to a more interesting part of the Internet.

Dumb Global-Warming-Type Video
This video, created by Madonna, is a promotional music video for Live Earth, Al Gore's miserable failure of a global-warming awareness concert. On the surface, it's a fairly slick music video made with a lot of quick cutting and emotional footage. Beneath the surface, it isn't anything at all. Just try paying attention to the lyrics for a few seconds and you'll probably notice something: the song was constructed entirely from a bunch of vague hippy-isms that don't even relate to the subject at hand, or any subject for that matter. There are a few visual gems to watch for as well: several shots of evil nuclear power plants, which happen to be carbon-emission free (they emit steam, not smoke); lots of wretched, impoverished children, who apparently became wretched and impoverished because of global warming; and middle-eastern Muslims, who would sooner behead an infidel like Al Gore than hug a tree, bowing in a mosque (which is obviously the green thing to do). On the plus side, this is probably the best Madonna music video ever, completely due to the total absence of the artist herself in the footage.





Video of a Scary Person of Color
There are two kinds of people in this world: scary people, and not-scary people. The person in this video is definitely one of the former. The question is, why was this on C-SPAN? Scary.





Video of a Scary White Guy
Mike Gravel is an obscure ex-senator from Alaska who happens to be running for president. He gained a big online following due to his over the top antics and anti-establishment ranting during the recent Democratic candidate debates. And he just made this video. If you can tell me what it means, you win a biscuit.



And that's about it.
(To people reading this on facebook: embedded videos don't work on facebook. Go to the actual blog, dagnabbit!)

But Who Had the Best Hair?

Last Saturday, the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief held a presidential forum in which six of the current GOP presidential candidates were given 20 minutes each to speak about the issues near and dear to the hearts of the event's sponsors: fiscal responsibility, tax reform, and Christian values. The event took place in Des Moines, or, as it shall henceforth be known, lil' Omaha , and was targeted at the coveted demographic of "People That Live In Iowa". I don't actually live in Iowa, but I came along anyways because there would be free food and the possibility of touching the hem of Mitt Romney's robe, which is rumored to possess miraculous healing properties. Unfortunately, no robe touching occurred in the course of the event, but I still got to see some semi-famous people in real life, which was reasonably awesome. Some of those semi-famous people did well, some didn't do so well, and some were freakishly bad. So, without further ado, this is my take on the performance (not necessarily the views) of each individual candidate:

Tommy Thompson
When I saw Tommy Thompson in person for the first time, I came away thinking that he was a loud, arrogant, egotistical jerk. After seeing him for a second time, I came away with the impression that he'd spent a long time refining his loud, arrogant, egotistical jerk routine into a masterpiece of the art form that will remain unsurpassed for generations to come. Watching Tommy Thompson speak was a bit like watching a rhinoceros trampling on a herd of chihuahuas: tragic, but strangely hilarious. I could write a three-volume book on the many facets of weirdness his speech contained, but I'll try to restrain myself. Just remember: if a friend asks you to vote for Tommy Thompson, turn around, walk away, and never speak to that person again. Someone like that is clearly unstable and poses a serious risk to your physical, mental, and spiritual well-being.

Worst line: "You better beg God that you nominate Tommy Thompson!"
I don't think so Tommy.

Mike Huckabee
Coming right after Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee was like a fresh gust of wholesome country air. He was funny, he was polished, he was humble, and he was so darn nice that he could shoot your dog, look you in the eyes and say "I killed your dog", and you would still want to give him a hug and a sizable donation. Needless to say, the communication experience he gained as a pastor clearly paid off. He may not win the nomination (due in part to paltry media coverage), but whoever does get the nomination should seriously consider making Huckabee their running mate.

Sam Brownback
I think Brownback is a nice guy with a good heart and good views. Unfortunately, he talks with a numbing, Al-Gore-esque monotone that lacks anything that resembles charisma. He attempted to add some folksy appeal to his speech with farm anecdotes and references to Sunday school values, but in the end he failed to convince anyone that Sam Brownback is the man we need in the oval office. We need good people in the Senate, and in my opinion, that's where Brownback should stay.

Mitt Romney
It was kind of weird watching Romney on stage. While the other candidates participated in the event, Romney transcended the event, in a decidedly non-Buddhist way. Instead of quibbling about the technicalities of public policy, or attacking the views of the leading candidates, he spoke about a broad, inclusive vision for America's future, and acted like he was the only Republican candidate running for the presidency. The other candidates are focusing on winning the primaries, but Romney is already running for the general election. I don't know if this attitude of inevitability will ultimately hurt or help him, but a few things are certain: he sounds like a president, he looks like a president, and a lot of voters in key states want him to be their president. I don't like Romney personally, but I think he has the potential to go far. Will we see a Romney-Huckabee ticket in 2008? Maybe.

Tom Tancredo
This one was the shocker of the evening. Tom Tancredo, a bottom-tier candidate who was terrible in the debates, absolutely blew the crowd away. His on-fire conservative rhetoric was Limbaugh-esque in it's resonance with the audience; the air was positively electric. Tancredo said the right things in the right way, and gave a voice to all the people who are sick and tired of the do-nothing GOP leadership in Washington. It was enough to fill any red-blooded Republican with the urge to bust into a meatpacking plant and start rounding up illegals. His views and adversarial attitude are so polarizing that I don't think he has a chance in the general election, but who knows? As Barry Goldwater said when he ran for president in '64, the Republican party needs to offer a "choice, not an echo". Of course, Goldwater ended up losing, but it's thought that counts.

Duncan Hunter
To sum him up in one word: disappointing. Duncan Hunter did very well talking in thirty-second bursts during the debates, but he appears to be unable to effectively communicate for an extended amount of time. He began with a long, rambling anecdote about Americas dependency on foreign countries for obscure components of military equipment, and continued on that same note for the rest of the speech. He couldn't seem to get off the subject of the military, which is an important topic to be sure, but not the only one. I came away thinking that Duncan Hunter might make a great Secretary of Defense, but a great President? Forget about it.

---

I'll try to post clips from the forum once they become available (CSPAN should have the whole thing on their website on the fourth of July).

Good Cop/Bad Cop

I feel kind of bad about writing so many negative things about Mitt Romney. Despite a hefty PR offensive (defensive?), he's still trailing behind in the polls, and nobody likes it when people start beating up on the little guy. So, in the spirit of fairness and goodwill, here is my exhaustive list of good things about Mitt Romney:

1. His hair is generally excellent.
2. His kids are nice people, and one even has a beard, which is also nice.
3. He thinks polygamy is a bad thing. I agree.
   
4. He has a lot of money, and probably gives some of it to poor people.
5. He is a special, individual person.
6. He hasn't recently robbed a bank, car, or synagogue treasury.

With that out of the way, I will now proceed to indirectly bash Mitt by bashing one of his top political advisers. Sorry, Mitt.

---

There are basically three types of scandals in American politics: (A) scandals involving money, (B) scandals involving extra-marital relations, and (C) a scandelicious combination of the two. But the Romney campaign is now faced with the prospect of dealing with a brand spankin' new kind of scandal; a scandal innovation, if you will. To put it into the simplest of terms, one of Romney's top political aides has been allegedly caught impersonating highway patrol officers in two states. To put it into slightly less simple terms, here is a long article which you may not have the attention span to read and that you can skip if you have to:

(From the Boston Globe)
State Police are investigating one of Mitt Romney's top campaign aides for allegedly impersonating a trooper by calling a Wilmington company and threatening to cite the driver of a company van for erratic driving, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the probe.

Jay Garrity, who is director of operations on Romney's presidential campaign and a constant presence at his side, became the primary target of the investigation, according to one of the sources, after authorities traced the cellphone used to make the call back to him. The investigation comes three years after Garrity, while working for Romney in the State House, was cited for having flashing lights and other police equipment in his car without proper permits.

The New Hampshire attorney general, according to the Associated Press, has also opened an investigation into a report that a Romney aide, later identified as Garrity, pulled over a New York Times reporter in New Hampshire and said he had run his license plate.

New Hampshire law prohibits private citizens from accessing license plate databases or pulling over fellow citizens.

In the phone call to the Wilmington company, which was recorded by an answering service and obtained by the Globe, a man who identifies himself as "Trooper Garrity with the Massachusetts State Police" complains about the driving of a van owned by Wayne's Drains Middlesex Sewers of Wilmington. The caller repeatedly says he is a trooper and questions when the driver will return to the office.

"I'm going to get the address of your company," the caller says during the May 13 call. "I'm going to come down to your company. I'm going to personally issue this driver a citation for both speeding, driving erratic, cutting across."

"The whole thing was just hinky," said Wayne Barme, owner of the Wilmington drain and sewer cleaning company, whose wife, Dot, contacted State Police after receiving the complaint.

The charge of impersonating an officer, a misdemeanor, carries a penalty of a fine of up to $400 or up to one year in prison.

In 2004, the Globe reported, Garrity was cited and fined for driving a Crown Victoria with red and blue lights mounted in the grill, a siren, a PA system, and strobe lights; and for having a nightstick and identification showing a State Police patch that read "Official Business."

Garrity was also cited for having windows that were more deeply tinted than state law permits

So, to briefly recap the story for everyone who skipped it:

• A "Trooper Garrity with the Massachusetts State police" called a plumbing company, threatening to come over and fine one of their drivers.

• The call was traced back to Jay Garrity, one of Romney's closest political aides.

• A New York Times reporter in New Hampshire also claims to have been pulled over by Jay Garrity, who ran his license plate number.
  

• As recently as three years ago, Jay Garrity was fined for driving a car decked out with illegal police equipment, including strobe lights, a siren, and a PA system. He was also found bearing a police baton and a fake police ID.

What does this mean? It means that one of Mitt Romney's closest friends is a junior psychopath with a thing for pretending to be a police officer and doing creepy faux-police work in his spare time. Seriously people, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

Of course, I know it's terribly wrong to judge a man by the company he keeps, but couldn't Romney at least try to publicly distance himself from the nuttiness? So far, Romney is sticking by his man, despite the fact that the evidence doesn't look so good for good ol' Trooper Garrity. And even if all the allegations prove to be false, in a presidential race, it pays to play it safe. But hey, it's just politics: some campaigns offer sleaze and intrigue, the Romney campaign offers wacky cartoon hijinks. It's a good thing that I happen to like wacky cartoon hijinks.

And if it turns out that Jay Garrity is as clean as a whistle, I get to add another item to my ever-growing "Good Things About Mitt Romney" list:

(7) His top aide isn't a nutcase who illegally impersonates state troopers.

That's what you call a win-win situation.

Say It Ain't So Flipper, Say It Ain't So!

At last, another item can be added to the long ledger of things that you can/do/should fear: dolphins that wish to physically harm you.

(From local 6 news Orlando)
Marine researchers are warning about a growing number of dolphin bite cases in Sarasota County, according to a Local 6 News report.

Florida experts said wild dolphins are becoming more aggressive because boaters are feeding them.

"It seems reasonable to understand why you wouldn't feed a bear or something more dangerous-appearing, but these are wild animals," dolphin researcher Jason Allen said. "They are wild animals with lots of sharp teeth."

As far as fears go, this one ranks somewhere in between the mysterious disappearance of our bee population and the Ebola virus, although the inevitable Michael Jackson comeback tour should knock it down a few points.

And you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

Vice Presidential Material.

McCain Losing Steam. Duh.

Yes, it's still pretty darn early, but a lot of people are already proclaiming the death of McCain's presidential bid. And I'm one of them. The truth is, McCain just doesn't have a solid political base. He alienated the right by siding against the GOP establishment on issues like gun-control and campaign finance reform, and then proceeded to alienate the moderates by maintaining a hard-line stance on the war in Iraq. McCain has prided himself on being a "maverick" politician who says and does what he thinks is best, without considering what the political consequences may be. Unfortunately, as it turns out, in order to do well in politics, you actually have to consider the political consequences of your actions from time to time.

Still, there is a chance that McCain could reach the White House in '08, at least as the numero dos man in the Executive branch. A McCain Vice Presidency looks compelling on paper: he's got a lot of experience, his independent streak could attract some of the independent vote, and at 5'7" his presence wouldn't overshadow any of the possible Presidential candidates. And, to give a little McCain-esque "straight-talk", let's face it: McCain is very old. This is his last chance to make a bid for the presidency, and if he fails, a lot of people (myself included) will feel at least somewhat sorry for him. Even if the Republican party doesn't like McCain enough to anoint him as their new king, I don't think anyone would object to tossing him a consolation prize to comfort him during his last years of public service.





Powell-Obama '08? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Colin Powell made an appearance on Meet The Press this Sunday (subscribe to the vodcast NOW) and said a lot of things about a lot of things. The most notable things he said had to do with the situation in Iraq, which he constantly referred to as a "civil war", much to the chagrin of the Bush administration, and the Guantanamo bay military prison, which he believes should be closed immediately (also to the chagrin of the Bush administration). But then, near the end of the interview, he handed Tim Russert two tidbits of political information that can only be classified as intensely juicy: (1) Powell has met with Barack Obama, and (2) Powell isn't ruling out a possible return to public life (but not elected public life). He immediately played the Obama bit down, explaining that he would meet with any candidate running for President, and refusing to reveal which candidate (or party) he'll support in 2008. But he had already said too much.

Soon, despite the fact that Powell expressed disdain towards the idea of running for elected office, the question that was perched on the tip of just about everyone's tongue was whether an Obama-Powell ticket could be in store for voters in 2008. Personally, I find the notion a bit ridiculous. Obama's strongest selling point has been his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq (unlike Hillary and Edwards who voted for the war before they voted against it). And although Powell has distanced himself from the current administration and openly admitted that if he had known then what he knows now, he wouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq, Colin Powell remains embedded in the collective-consciousness of the American people as the face of the Invasion of Iraq. I can't think of anything that would tick-off Obama's anti-war base more than the selection of Colin Powell as his running mate, and I don't think he's stupid enough to commit that kind of political suicide.

See? Glasses DO Make People Look Smart!

In a magical time long ago, Republican candidates may have been chosen based on their adherence to the conservative principles of little government and traditional values, or their ability to articulate such principles. But somehow, it appears that the GOP is now more interested in candidates who can prove that they're tougher, meaner, and more eager to bomb third-world countries than the rest. Principle is firmly buckled in the back-seat, chutzpah takes the wheel and pseudo-conservatives like Rudy Giuliani reign supreme.

I've written previously about Giuliani's liberalism, a fact which has been widely discussed in both the old and new media. But over the past few months, Giuliani has displayed a Teflon-like resistance to this criticism, maintaining his lead in the polls. The reason for this is becoming clear: a lot of Republicans just want a tough-talking alpha-male, and Giuliani is THE tough-talking alpha-male. Sure, his rhetoric about expanding domestic surveillance, enacting a national ID card and suchlike are completely anti-conservative in nature, but as long as it proves that he's got the "resolve" to fight terrorism, it doesn't matter. And who cares if he's been divorced twice, is estranged from his kids, and supports public funding for abortion? I mean, at least he's not Hillary, right? Yes, Rudy isn't Hillary, but a vote for either is a vote for big government; the choice is only whether you want a welfare state or a police state.

Here's an idea: how about choosing neither?

A tragic example of the GOP's choice of tough-talk over solid conservative reasoning occurred in the second debate. It was the most talked about moment of the day: Giuliani's "smackdown" of Ron Paul. Essentially, Ron Paul suggested that America's interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East could have contributed to the hatred of America that led to the attacks on September the 11th. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it's one that's been supported by dozens of experts, and at the very least it deserves some substantive debate. But instead of presenting rational arguments against Ron Paul's point, Giuliani basically told the audience that Paul's statement was outrageous and that he should take it back. No reasoning, no logic, just an elementary school-esque "I'm right, you're wrong". Did anybody care? No; The crowd went wild, conservative pundits tripped over themselves to see who could heap the most ridicule on Congressman Paul, and everyone declared Rudy Giuliani the winner of the debate. It didn't matter that no real debate on the issue occurred: Rudy Giuliani was the macho conservative who took a stand against the terrorists, Ron Paul was the weak, appeasing, liberal, and that was that.

Another (slightly less severe) example of the Republican obsession with form over substance is the popularity of soon-to-be candidate Fred Thompson. While Fred Thompson isn't a bad candidate, and is definitely more conservative than Rudy Giuliani, the excitement surrounding him is only partially because of his conservative views, and certainly not because of his government experience (1-1/2 terms in the Senate). In fact, on the issues, Thompson is pretty close to McCain (Thompson was a strong supporter of McCain in the 2000 election), and there are already candidates with better or equal conservative credentials in the race (Brownback, Hunter, etc.). What really gets most people fired up about Fred Thompson is the fact that he's got a gruff southern voice, drives around in a big pick-up truck, towers over the other candidates at a commanding 6 foot 5+ inches, has played powerful authority figures in movies and television shows, and delivers aggressive rhetoric on the issue of "Islamic-fascism". For a lot of people in the GOP, it's more important to have a "cowboy president" than a truly conservative president.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with having a straight-talking, tough, charismatic man in the oval office (Reagan, anyone?). However, there is something wrong when those qualities are confused with sound reasoning and conservative principles. While there are occasions when black-and-white "axis of evil" rhetoric is required, conservatives need to realize that some situations (such as the current war in Iraq) are very complicated and that nuance isn't a dirty word. When aggression, strength, and machismo are valued above all else, you end up with a dictator in office. I don't think any Republicans want that, but if candidates like Giuliani, who embody power detached from principle, continue to succeed, we may find ourselves traveling down that path.

A Few Debate Highlights...

Rudy Giuliani on Iraq:





John McCain on Iraq:





Mitt Romney on Momonism:





Ron Paul on everything:





Tom Tancredo on the role Bush would play in his administration:





Mike Huckabee on evolution:

Third GOP Debate Summary.

Rudy Giuliani dominated the evening with his preaching-to-the-choir attacks on the Democratic candidates supposed weakness towards "Islamic fundamentalist" terrorism. His response to a question on abortion may have been weak, but no one will ever know, due to the fact that lightning knocked his microphone out about three times during his response (his humorous rebound from the mic failure could win him a few points).

John McCain was attacked by just about everyone on stage because of his stance on immigration, but seemed to handle himself quite well, although he did say "my friends" a few too many times for comfort (at least he didn't pull out the stale "drunken sailor" joke). Worst moment: dodging a question on what to do if the troop surge fails, essentially admitting he has no plan B for Iraq.

Mitt Romney tried to appear Reagan-esque with his rhetoric about being a visionary with a plan for the future (which apparently consists of selling American products to Asia), poorly dodged a question on whether he would have supported an invasion of Iraq if he had known then what he knows now, and invoked JFK while defending his faith. Flip-flopped on yet another issue: gays in the military (he's against it now... imagine that!)

Mike Huckabee distanced himself from the current administration by dissing it's handling of Katrina, Iraq, the border, and just about everything else, gave more canned speeches on the "culture of life", and defended his views on creation (his use of Martin Luther's "here I stand" line might be popular among evangelicals). Still smooth, still canned, still Huckabee.

Sam Brownback's statement that abortion is the key issue of our time and that the Republican party shouldn't think about nominating an anti-life candidate made him look like a strong, principled pro-lifer, but his admission that he will ultimately support whoever gets the Republican nomination (including Giuliani), made him look less so.

Ron Paul was his usual anti-war-libertarian self (dubbing himself "the champion of the constitution"), but seemed to be trying to capture a piece of the evangelical pie as well, saying that preemptive war was a violation of the "just war principals of Christianity" and that Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided

Duncan Hunter revealed that he was the only guy on stage who had actually read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting on the war, attacked Bush for having "a case of the slows" on the border-fence project, and initiated a last minute attack on the so-called "big three" candidates (referring to them as the Kennedy wing of the Republican party).

Tom Tancredo stunned everyone by attacking the Bush administration with unparalleled bitterness (called Bush a liberal, attacked just about all his policies, and said that Bush won't be allowed to "darken the doorstep" of the Tancredo whitehouse), and went a tad overboard with respect to immigration (says he wants to halt all legal immigration). Tancredo didn't have a chance in the past, and certainly doesn't have a chance now.

Tommy Thompson served up another sizable portion of his trademark arrogant bluster, delivering yet another forgettable debate performance. Reiterated his cryptic line about turning our health-care system into a system centered around prevention rather than treatment (still won't mention how).

Jim Gilmore remained the most obscure of the "little seven", although his Rudy McRomney line was brought up yet again (and it still wasn't funny). He should quit now and give more debate time to the candidates that people actually want to hear.