Posted tagged ‘2008 election’

The Queen is (nearly) Dead

February 22, 2008

Another brilliant performance by the Queen of Smarm last night. I’m going to start a petition that she also be appointed the Princess of Petty. After her emotional (media words, not mine) closing remarks at last night’s debate (in which she smugly stated Obama’s language is “change you can Xerox”) I find this story at CNN’s Political Ticker. The Dame of Disengenuiousness. Yeah, that’s the one.

I anticipate her next move will be to uncover Obama’s history of violence (pulling pigtails) and previous collapsed marriage (you know, the one that took place at recess under the slide). Stay tuned…

John Edwards, we barely knew ye…

January 30, 2008

Although it does make my choice easier now.

FOB no more?

January 27, 2008

Watching things unfold in & around South Carolina the past week, as well as a blog entry I recently found, has made me look more critically at the Clinton campaign machine. Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior National Correspondent, wrote this post which caught my eye as it was a member of the “mainstream” press penning a pointedly subjective (and opinionated) piece about Billary. Now, I may not be entirely clear on Tapper’s job duties (reporting or providing commentary or a hybrid of the 2), but it struck me that, in the middle of this political race for president, a journalist (and I’m discounting Fox News for obvious reasons in this statement) would so directly challenge the statements of someone involved in the campaign (and Bill is most assuredly involved).

I was too young to remember Bill’s first campaign & in his second, he didn’t need to attack too hard with Bob Dole sinking his own campaign with such statements as those questioning the addictiveness of tobacco & blaming C. Everett Koop’s criticism of Dole’s tobacco statements on the “liberal media.” In this campaign, Billary has faced a significant, sustained, and unexpected challenge from Obama. As such, their rhetoric has been quite vindictive, especially over the past few weeks.

Going into this election, I didn’t really care for HRC’s smarmy arrogance, but after the recent attacks covering everything from qualifications (in spite of Obama holding elected office longer than HRC) to race-baiting statements (comparisons to Jesse Jackson), my distaste for her & her campaign have been cemented. Bill is certainly no rogue agent & his comments are made with Hill’s tacit approval. So, without really knowing with whom I am going with in this campaign, I can now most certainly say with whom I am not.

Who be caucusin’?

January 3, 2008

This video is the best description I’ve seen about just what the hell a caucus is & how one caucuses. So sit back & let the sexy, sexy Jeff Greenfield learn you some knowledge.

Paultards Unite!

December 30, 2007

disclaimer: For those of you who’ve heard me rail about this the past week, please forgive me…or don’t. Also, my apologies to mentally-challenged persons everywhere for besmirching your condition with my Ron Paul-inspired portmanteau.

So this past week, I’ve been subjected to so much of the Ron Paul Revolution that I just have to write about it. I especially dislike receiving unsolicited propaganda for Dr. No slipped under the door of my apartment, namely the note stapled to a voter registration form encouraging me to register Republican to vote for Dr. No in the primary & reassuring me that I can change my registration back after the primary. Also, I tend to visit a certain website that allows users to contribute their own content (and vote on contributed content, thus making it more popular) & this site has been bombarded with Paultards blindly promoting every piece of info about him & rejecting, en mass, every objective (read: honest) article about him.

As such, I have decided to write about Dr. No using information that the Paul Nation will no doubt hate. This information is based on the average Paul supporter’s biggest nemeses: facts and logic.

(Full transcript available at the Meet the Press website. Check it out for more jaw-dropping statements.)

MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?
REP. PAUL: Well, they’re not going to. That is like saying “Iran is about to invade Mars.” I mean, they have nothing. They don’t have an army or navy or air force.
me: Wow. It seems his foreign policy stance is based on the game Risk.
MR. RUSSERT: What about public schools?
REP. PAUL: That’s what I’m trying to…
MR. RUSSERT: Are you still for…
REP. PAUL: No, I’m not–I’ve never, I’ve never taken the position–is it in my platform? And…
MR. RUSSERT: It was–when you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
REP. PAUL: I, I bet that’s a misquote. I, I do not recall that. I’d like to know where that came from, because I went…
me: Ron Paul, bringing a refreshingly familiar hedge to Warshington.
REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I’ve never voted for an earmark in my life.
MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.
REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn’t cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?
MR. RUSSERT: Well, that’s like, that’s like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.
REP. PAUL: Nah! Come on, Tim. That has nothing to do with that.
MR. RUSSERT: If, if, if you put it in the bill and get the headlight back home…
REP. PAUL: No, I, I make the request. They’re not in the bills.
MR. RUSSERT: …and then you, then you know it’s going to pass Congress and so you, you don’t refuse the money.
REP. PAUL: Well, no, of course not. It’s like taking a tax credit. If you have a tax credit, I’m against the taxes but I take all my tax credits.
MR. RUSSERT: This is The Wall Street Journal. You load up the bills with special projects…
REP. PAUL: I–no, no, no. No, you don’t.
MR. RUSSERT: You do. You do. You deny that you have, you have…
REP. PAUL: How many of them ever got passed? But the whole point is, we have a right and an…
MR. RUSSERT: They pass. You vote against them, but you take the money.
REP. PAUL: You don’t quite understand.
REP. PAUL: They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch. And I’m saying that I represent my people. They have a request, it’s like taking a tax credit, and I put it in–the whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything.
MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me ask you this. But if…
REP. PAUL: I vote against it, so I don’t endorse the system.
MR. RUSSERT: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.
REP. PAUL: I don’t take it. That’s the system.
MR. RUSSERT: The system.
REP. PAUL: I’m trying to change that system. To turn it around and say I’m supporting this system, I find it…
MR. RUSSERT: Well. Well…
REP. PAUL: …rather ironic and entertaining.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the, in the spending bills, then I think you’ll be consistent.
me: I didn’t say I committed the rape. I simply slipped the drug into her drink and stood back, disapprovingly, as the act took its course. Douche.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re running as a Republican….on your Web site, in your brochures…There’s a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan. And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan. You said this: “Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world.”
REP. PAUL: Well, I’ll bet you any money I didn’t use the word traitor. I’ll bet you that’s somebody else, so I think that’s misleading.
me: Glad to see our potential Commander in Chief using such storied debate tactics that have, for generations, proved their worth on the playgrounds of the world. I can’t wait to see President Paul’s solution to illegal immigration: one big ass Red Rover line along America’s borders.
And finally, this little gem on evolution:

It is reassuring to see that the man who will appoint the nation’s chief science adviser & strategist has such a complete grasp on the scientific concept of a theory.

In conclusion, Ron Paul is just a channel for the pissy & generally ignorant population who cannot find a candidate to attach to. Guess what: they’re all opportunists who will talk out of both sides of their mouthes to achieve their goal. Guess what: that’s how it works. Either learn how to navigate the waters or get out. If the latter, I hear there’s a cozy little place in Ruby Ridge for sale…