Current Events Watch

From Saturday’s LA Times:

Google ready to pursue its agenda in Washington

Its employees supported Obama, and four Googlers served on his transition team. Now the Internet giant hopes to win support for network neutrality and expanding high-speed Internet access.

By Jim Puzzanghera and Jessica Guynn, January 24, 2009

Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA.

Reporting from Washington — Another inauguration took place in Washington this week — Google Inc. officially became a political power player.

In October, Google was only hours from being sued by the Justice Department as a Web-search monopolist. Today, less than three years after it made its first Washington hire, the Internet giant is poised to capitalize on its backing of President Obama and pursue its agenda in the nation’s capital.

Google’s executives and employees overwhelmingly supported Obama’s candidacy, contributing more money than all but three companies or universities. And only DreamWorks employees gave more toward inauguration festivities.

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama and was one of four Googlers on his transition team. He is now as likely as any corporate chieftain to get his calls to the White House returned.

At the top of the company’s policy priorities are two that consumer advocates largely champion. First, it wants to expand high-speed Internet access so people can use its Web services more often. It also is pushing for so-called network neutrality: prohibitions on telecommunications companies charging websites for faster delivery of their content.

“Google is not just a benign corporate entity. It has a variety of special interests,” said Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, who has sparred with Google over data-privacy issues. “They’re in a great position to push their agenda through with the support of the president and the Democrats in Congress.”

But Google’s newfound political ties heighten concerns about its grip on the online advertising market. The company could play better defense against strong competitors trying to curb its influence.

Last fall, Justice Department lawyers, who had been lobbied heavily by Microsoft Corp. and large telecommunications companies, were about to sue Google on antitrust grounds. They wanted to block its controversial search-advertising partnership with Yahoo Inc., but Google abandoned the deal rather than fight in court.

Competitors worry about Google’s close relationship with the Obama administration, said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

“The question going forward is: Will Google turn into just another business entity looking for favors in Washington, or will it manage to keep the 767 flying at 30,000 feet above the political din?” he said, a reference to the Google founders’ private plane.

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment. Obama vowed generally this week that his administration would not be beholden to anyone.

Google says the main reason it has improved its standing in Washington is that Obama’s tech priorities mirror its own. He has endorsed network neutrality. His technology agenda also calls for expanding broadband Internet access to rural areas and appointing the first government-wide chief technology officer (Schmidt has been mentioned for the position but reiterated this week that he was not interested).

“This administration is more focused on science and technology,” Schmidt said in an interview. “That’s positive for all of technology, and particularly Google.”

…

Source

I think it’s interesting that Microsoft was pushing the Justince Department “to sue Google on antitrust grounds“.

• Christopher Dodd endorses Obama. (Vercaifer)

• Hillary and Barack blame one another for all kinds of stuff during the Ohio debate. (The Huffington Report)

• McCain predicts that Iraq might cost him the election? (Crooks and Liars)

• What does Cuba think of Raul? (Drury University)

• College students claim they were thrown off Southwest flight because they were too pretty. (Breaking News USA)

• Medicare spending could double. (Wall Street Journal)

• MJ’s Neverland set for auction. (Dotspotter)

• White House email system a security risk. (NPR)

• Itunes #2 music selling. (Mac Rumors)

And what current events have piqued your interest?

Or is that mistakes? After only making one misstep in last week’s Texas debate(that Xerox comment was a horrible moment) I thought the Clinton camp had learned their lesson. Don’t be mean to Barack Obama. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t make you look good, or strong or competent. It only makes you look-well-mean. It makes him look, cool, clam and collected because he’s not the one yelling and pointing fingers. He looks presidential and you don’t. You’d think some high priced politicos would have pointed this out by now.

Over the weekend, Clinton lashed out at the Obama campaign for distributing fliers in Ohio that criticized her position on NAFTA and healthcare. Was her over the top response really worth it?

The fliers were distributed in one state. Not my state. We’ve not gotten the fliers and I don’t know if they’ll make it here or not. NOW, I’m really wondering if she expects everyone to buy healthcare even if I can’t afford it. I’ve no idea but now I’m concerned. Afteall it’s what the fliers says. /sarcasm

Clinton should’ve defended herself on Ohio soil and not invited Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric to the party. Sure the issue would have gotten some national attention but certainly not to this extent. The accusations have now permeated not just the Ohio primary but the Texas primary and March’s Super Tuesday. Obama’s getting getting thousand dollar results for a dollar spent.

McCain. Who’d have thunk it? War veteran, border state maverick hero … and possible pedophilic incestuous quick shooter.

You be the judge. Impressive wood, though, I must say. And I hear that there are exercises a guy can do to get that “quick shoot” thing under control.

Yep, Lucas McCain, The Rifleman. Civil War vet, rebel do-gooder hailing from down New Mexico way. I do love my classic TV. I’d just never realized how retrospectively disconcerting some of it could be!

Turns out, seems that McCain may not have been all that he was at first cracked up to be.

What’s that? John who? Oh, yeah. Duh. My bad. I know him.

The old guy.
That other war hero.
Transexually-shunned.

Sorry for waxing nostalgic. My original train of thought completely derailed, I apologize. I’ll try to avoid becoming so easily distracted in the future.

john mccain, rifleman, chuck connors

John Edwards … over and out. I really thought he would stick with it through Super Tuesday but, in reality, I suppose the timing makes sense.

If you’ve been barely passing all semester, chances are you’re not going to be able to pull an A+ out of your ass come next week’s big exam. So dropping out now was probably a wise decision on his part.

I have been supporting Obama for some time, but have often said that I would probably have taken the Edwards route if I thought he stood a reasonable chance of making it to the general election. I figured this day would come, though. I just didn’t know when.

After all, his campaign coverage has been practically nil in comparison with Obama’s and Clinton’s. It was particularly noticeable throughout the debates, and mainstream media attention is, of course, crucial for any candidate’s success.

Is he not black enough? Not buxom enough? Nah, that’s probably not it. After all, they give plenty of coverage to the typical run-of-the-mill white boys of contrary political orientation.

So why is he clearly lowest man on the MSM totem pole? His message has consistently been as good, if not better in some instances, than his fellow Democratic opposition.

I’m glad he managed to hang in there for as long as he did, though, if for no other reason than to force the still-in-the-running dynamic duo to step it up a notch or two.

As his senior campaign adviser Joe Trippi said, “Look, the guy led on every single issue out there, whether it was poverty, the economy, global warming, or universal health care.

“He moved the progressive agenda much further than any other candidate - so much so that both Clinton and Obama adopted a lot of his language and agenda. Which is a great thing to have done.”

His populist viewpoint put pressure on his opponents to vie for union endorsements, and he was the first out of the gate with comprehensive plans for universal healthcare and education, forcing the others in the field to play catch-up.

Edwards was also the only one who consistently hammered corporate America for hurting middle and lower-income Americans, by sacrificing their health care and pension benefits in lieu of higher profits and salaries for the shareholders and CEOs respectively.

“The corporate greed that is destroying the middle class in this country is stealing your children’s future. It is stealing the future of Democrats’ children, Independents’ children, Republicans’ children.â€?, Edwards said.

Well, there you have it.

That, my friend, was the real deathblow to this campaign. Good night, John-Boy.

Considering that all major media outlets are owned by just a handful of massive corporations, it’s no wonder that they had little interest in touting his agenda.

With most news outlets having fallen into the hands of large conglomerates, conflicts of interest predictably interfere. They are in it for the money, after all, and are obligated by law to put profit ahead of all other considerations. Responsible journalism? Who needs it.

So Edwards has thrown in the towel. He may be gone, but I hope not forgotten, and that he has influenced both the Clinton and Obama camps in positive and permanent ways.

I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting either of them to jump on the corporate greed bandwagon, though, lest they, too, be shunned and suffer similar fates.

john edwards, edwards presidential campaign, presidential campaign, 2008 election, presidential campaign, presidential race, corporate media, mainstream media

I took this test today. Final score? At the bottom of the results page, I’m told that my “political philosophy is hard-core liberal.” WOOT!

Not only that, but my number one candidate match was … you guessed it, give it up for my favorite little munchkin … Dennis Kucinich! Of course, not really a candidate anymore. He’s dead in the water now, thanks to the MSM drowning pool, but it still made my dick hard. Matched him at 80%, I did. I’ll try to do even better the next time.

Second place runners up were a tie: Mike Gravel, another belly up casualty, and Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. Cynthia I know little about, other than what I’ve read on her website. Must have missed the Green Party debates. My bad. She would be the total package, though … black and female! Two birds with one stone there.

Then I aligned with Obama, Clinton and Edwards, in that order. Thank God the Republican “Ä“”s were at the end of my list, with either single digit or zero percentage agreement scores. RomnÄ“, GiulianÄ“, and particularly HuckabÄ“. I’d probably have had to slit my wrists otherwise.

Based on my most excellent answers, this is where I placed on the political chart. (I’d be interested to know others’ results. Anyone? Anyone? Click here to take the quiz in a separate window, then share your results. Inquiring minds want to know.)

presidential candidates, 2008 election, politics

I still have my Kerry-Edwards yard signs, pins, bumper stickers, magnets and sundry loser paraphernalia from 2004. Don’t really know why. I hoard. (Thank goodness this isn’t a podcast lest my reputation be tarnished! For the record, I’m not even nappy-headed.)

Waste of money, that was. Not to mention a waste of time. It took me forever to get the bumper sticker aligned just-so. And those wire pokey stick-it-in-the-ground yard signs? They have a mind of their own. They tend to seriously flail. I risked putting an eye out just getting it to stay put, but finally had it under control after about half an hour.

All for naught. We still lost.

Great googly moogly. Who’d have thunk it? The king of all village idiots was re-coronated. Lots of folks apparently queued up for the short bus that day.

So his days are now numbered. Bush begone, and good riddance. I’m afraid, though, that unless we step up to the plate, we may very well end up with more of the same ol’ same ol’, albeit bearing a different “Hi, My Name Is … ” lapel sticker.

As Lewis Black said in reference to the 2004 election:

“The fact of the matter is the Democrats not being able to find somebody to defeat George Bush is beyond belief. It’s stunning.

“It would be like finding a normal person who would lose in the Special Olympics.”

We’ll hopefully do better this time around. Obama, Clinton, Edwards … any one will do. Take your pick, get your yard signage now, and don’t forget the safety glasses. Trust me on that one. Oh yeah, and voting might not be such a bad idea, either.

republican debate, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards, 2008 election, presidential election, george bush, politics

In a tight race, with all being unquestionably worthy competitors, you’d think it would behoove the top three to step it up a notch in campaigning for the nomination, never knowing who might next take the lead or come nipping at their heels.

With such pressure, platitudinal rhetoric is bupkis. Forced by necessity to take their respective stump speeches beyond cliché, it would seem imperative that they strive to differentiate themselves one from the other.

Not so much.

Last night’s Democratic debate (?) in Nevada between the invited top three frontrunners turned into such a love fest that I needed a cigarette when it was over. Was it good for me? Not really, but I faked it, enduring the full two hours. A mercy viewing, one might say, but truth be told it was less than pleasurable for me. And I’m not the only one less than impressed.

Debate? Hardly. It moreso resembled a friendly coffee klatsch. Friendly is actually an understatement; I kept expecting Barney to make a cameo appearance. “I love you, you love me, we’re a happy family.”

They were all so agreeable with one another that it seemed as if they were vying for the the position of most-worthy running mate should things go terribly awry within their own campaigns, wanting to make nice with either of the other two who might be crowned Democratic king or queen.

A friend of mine asked me several days ago why I’ve tossed my hat into Obama’s ring in this three-ring circus, and you know what? I really didn’t have an answer to that question. I know my number one pick is for all intents and purposes a non-contender (thanks to media disenfranchisement), but amongst the remaining, I don’t see that much difference, truth be told.

While it’s great to see them all just get along, and as much as I hate mudslinging which seems to be par for the course in any election, I would have liked to at least have heard each of them, at some point, attempt to elucidate exactly why he or she should be president. Even if spoken nicely, with hugs and kisses all around.

I heard, more than once, how they were all for change (the key word in this election, which is indeed a most excellent notion) but that there are “some fundamental differences” between the three. What those differences are certainly were not elaborated upon last night, that’s for sure. How many times did we hear “I agree with Hillary that … “, or “Like John said …”, or “Barack is right about …” ?

The X’s and O’s aren’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to see a civil exchange between those of my party. But last night’s debate honestly didn’t help me one whit in answering the question posed to me, “Why Obama?”

democratic debate, nevada primaries, las vegas debate, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards, dennis kucinich, presidential debates, 2008 election

By Mike Huckabee

First, I’d like to sincerely thank Doug Robertson for allowing me this opportunity to contribute. I’ll admit I was more than a bit surprised at the invitation. After all, he does moderate my comments (I have yet to see one posted), and he has been less than kind toward me from time to time. Still, I appreciate the chance to share with your readers today, so I thank you, Doug.

These days I don’t have as much time as I would like to dial up the Interweb. So when I do have occasion to connect with my online friends, I try to avoid politics as much as possible and instead share from my heart. That’s why today, I am not asking for your vote, or trying to convince you why I should be your next president.

No, on this Sabbath Day, I would like to put politics aside and instead focus on something of much greater significance. A message that I also shared with the congregation of a down-home country megachurch in South Carolina just this morning … the importance of humility and trusting in Jesus to open the gates to heaven.

The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That’s the real challenge in it.

On that day, when I pull up, I’ll be asked, “Do you have what it takes to get in?”

And if I ask, “Well, what does it take to get in?”

“Gotta be perfect.”

Well, I’m afraid I don’t have that, but you know what? I won’t be there alone that day. Somebody is going to be with me. His name is Jesus, and He’s promised that He would never leave me or forsake me!

I’ll admit, it felt really good to be back behind the pulpit again, sharing the Gospel and fellowshipping with the Body of Christ, exclusive of political agenda. A welcome reprieve from the campaign trail, I must say.

Of course, it would have been unnecessary to bother asking for their votes anyway. Preaching to the choir, that would be! (Ha Ha) Anyway, I already know that those fine disciples in South Carolina will be led by the Holy Spirit in making the right choice.

I have faith that they, like me, recognize the urgency of getting this nation back on the straight and narrow, taking it back for Christ as the Almighty intended.

Like I said at a Baptist convention back in 1998, the reason I got into politics in the first place was because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.

Nonetheless, I’m sure my message has already been heard loudly and clearly by the faithful, so it was indeed a blessing to forego campaigning this morning and instead simply minister God’s Word to the people.

Pastor Hamlet, though, was kind enough to encourage the folks to vote according to Biblical principles, which was a not-so-subtle nod in my direction, I’m sure. I think he may even have given me a wink at the time, but I can’t swear to that.

That was nice of him, and I appreciated it, although I really wasn’t there to toot my own candidacy horn. It was actually kind of embarrassing, what with the South Carolina primaries coming up in just a few days and all. I’m sure my face was as red as a beet.

In conclusion, I would like to say thank you to all for reading, with a special shout out to the wonderful people in South Carolina. See y’all real soon!

And, of course, thank you again, Doug. I will be praying that you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior before Super Tuesday.

Faith, Family, Freedom! And may God bless America! ~ Mike

[Doug here. Is it just me, or does anyone else tend to think that if Huck was Muslim, he'd probably be an Islamic extremist?]

mike huckabee, 2008 election, huckabee, huckabee preaching, south carolina primaries, huckabee president

While the remaining Democratic presidential contenders in all probability are honing their drawls and scanning the pages of their translative English-to-Southern dictionaries, the better to woo South Carolinians later this month, native son John Edwards has some clear advantages this time around.

Born and raised in that neck of the woods, and as one of the top three Democrats in the race, I’d wager that Edwards is fixin’ to open a can of good ol’ southern whoopass on the other two of the trinity. His fluency in the language ain’t gonna hurt none neither.

I’m no Carnac (I don’t even own a turban), but I think Edwards will pull this one off without a hitch. I very much like the guy, and although I’m still hoping that Obama is the last man standing, I’d like to see this trend of mixing things up continue. Obama wasn’t supposed to win in Iowa, nor was Clinton in New Hampshire. The pundits were wrong.

And from what I’ve been hearing and reading, they don’t seem to be holding out much hope for an Edwards victory in South Carolina, either. Yet another reason to think he might just be able to earn bragging rights come the 26th; political forecasting hasn’t exactly been spot-on thus far.

I didn’t think Obama was going to fetch Iowa, nor Hillary New Hampshire. Admittedly, my soothsaying skills may also appear to be less than impressive. I’ve learned my lesson, though. This time around I’m paying no attention to punditry nor polling; I’m going against the grain and relying on my gut, predicting John on top, Hillary in the middle, and Barack on bottom. (That prompts some rather disturbing mental imagery!)

I may be proven wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time. But if I am right and John-Boy wins in South Carolina … well, I told you so. I do doubt, however, win or lose, that he will hang in there for the final lap. Déjà vu all over again, circa 2004.

Either way, though, I don’t think it will be the last we hear from him in 2008. After all, he’d make a fine vice presidential running mate. Using my somewhat questionable psychic abilities, I further predict an Obama-Edwards ticket in the not-too-distant future. That would make me happy. We’ll have to wait and see, of course, but if I’m mistaken on either count, I will simply delete this post like it never happened.

john edwards, south carolina primaries, 2008 election, presidential candidates, presidential campaign, presidential election, barack obama, hillary clinton

Bill Clinton, at his 1993 inaugural address, said, “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” I wish that I still believed, but I’m not so sure anymore.

I miss Bill. And I miss my rose-colored glasses. Now I simply see red. All that George Bush and his band of cronies have wrought since setting foot in the Oval Office has led me to believe that perhaps there is very little left that is right with America.

Maybe there really wasn’t that much right to begin with, but I thought things were beginning to look up. As a nation we haven’t had such a stellar track record, of course, despite historical spin doctoring.

Near-extermination and subsequent oppression of the indigenous peoples? Yep, that was us … Manifest Destiny and all.

Atomic bomb attacks on civilian populations? Missions accomplished.

Stealing a page from the opponent’s playbook and interning American citizens to War Relocation Centers (”concentration camps” sounds so Nazi) because of their ethnicity? Caught red-handed.

Then, just when you think we might finally be making some forward progress, enter Bush to take the proverbial three steps back.

I hate Bush’s regressive America. Of course, to the thin-skinned patriots out there, using the words “hate” and “America” in the same sentence is nothing short of treasonous.

Anti-patriotic I am because I oppose an illegal war, a criminal administration, and am disgusted that our civil liberties are being flushed down the toilet.

“America, love it or leave it,” they say. Well, I may not necessarily love it right now, but leave it? Wherever else I might go, I could possibly become subject to current U.S. foreign policy, and I’ll have none of that! No thank you.

Look, I don’t hate America. It’s probably one of the best countries ever stolen. But we’re not necessarily the bee’s knees, either. And until we get back on the right track (kicking Bush’s sorry ass to the curb will be the first lost step regained), I’ll not be proudly waving Old Glory. Thank God the countdown has begun.

To end with another quote: “Let America realize that self-scrutiny is not treason. Self-examination is not disloyalty.” - Richard Cardinal Cushing

patriotism, george w. bush, american history, american presidents, 2008 election

I must say I was rather surprised that Obama got the thumbs up from Iowans last night. Not exactly flabbergasted, mind you, but I really didn’t expect to see him emerge as the Democratic victor in doubtless one of the whitest amongst white states. Maybe a racially prejudiced presumption on my part, I admit. My apologies to all pallid Hawkeye lefties. Sorry.

It wasn’t even close. The guy kind of kicked ass with nearly 38% of the votes.

Albeit with trifling party representation, Obama has for the time being secured the top spot on the Democratic leaderboard after the first round of competition.

Iowa is only the first of many tough rows to hoe, though, and despite the hype and opening ceremony ballyhoo (not to mention the inordinate millions spent on candidatial entrance fees), the Cornfield Follies really matter little when all is said and done.

Consider that Bill Clinton got only 3% of Dem votes for nominee in the 1992 caucus, and it becomes pretty clear that Iowans are not necessarily midwestern Nostradamuses.

I’m happy, though, with Obama’s first-earned bragging rights from last night’s win, whether or not he ultimately prevails. I like him, and since my guy D.K. has all but thrown in the towel, at this point I tend to think that perhaps B.O. is the way to go.

If nothing else, the results in Iowa revealed at least a soupçon of interest in effecting a much-needed course change, from the path that this country has been led down for the past seven years. Bush has certainly proven his lack of directional sense.

Expect some competitive script-tweaking from Hillary and John as the race continues.

Oh yeah, the Republican swarm bestowed upon holier-than-thou Huckster top honor for their team last night, too. Whatever.

barack obama, iowa caucus, hillary clinton, john edwards, mike huckabee, presidential election

The year is 1996. Ridgefield, Connecticut. Fourteen-year-old raver girl bails, hits the Big Apple, hooks up with delinquent colleagues. Concert, party un, party deux, throw in some Ecstasy.

Later that same night across the river in New Jersey. Girl, buzzed on X, crashes at fellow raver boy’s house. Hangs out for a couple of days with his family, not yet ready to head home.

Meanwhile, back in Connecticut, Mom and Dad worry. They hear that she was last seen in New York City. Dad calls to inform friend and business partner, Mitt Romney. Parental hands wring.

Duty calls, and empathetic Mitt closes shop. Rallies subordinates for a search and rescue mission, books flights to NYC for all. Have You Seen Me? fliers in hand, they pound the pavement.

Cut to Jersey, where the crash pad family is watching TV. Seeing a report about their “missing” house guest, they call the cops, report that she is alive and well, homeward bound, and certainly not lost in New York. The search is called off.

Fast forward to 2007. New Hampshire. Well-intentioned Mitt, who eleven years earlier had put business on the back burner to spearhead the search for a runaway raver, is vying for the presidency.

Primaries pending and in need of support, he enlists the services of former business partner and party girl’s Dad to star in commercial touting why Romney should be the next ruler of the free world.

“My 14-year-old daughter had disappeared in New York City for three days. No one could find her. My business partner stepped forward to take charge. He closed the company and brought almost all our employees to New York.

“He said, ‘I don’t care how long it takes, we’re going to find her.’ He set up a command center and searched through the night. The man who helped save my daughter was Mitt Romney.

“Mitt’s done a lot of things that people say are nearly impossible. But for me, the most important thing he’s ever done is to help save my daughter.”

Without question, an admirable act. The Good Samaritan, exploiting company resources, human and otherwise, to organize a hunt for a partner and pal’s missing and wayward daughter. Kudos. Someone call Oprah.

But how exactly, pray tell, does Dad’s televised testimonial substantiate Mitt’s presidential aptitude? I don’t get it. Previous experience as a search party coordinator should be apropos of nothing, in my opinion, when applying for the position of Commander-in-Chief. Particularly when the experience is more than a decade past, not to mention unsuccessful.

The implications in the ad’s narrative are so tightly spun they might make Bill O’Reilly’s head explode. One can only hope.

First of all, viewers watching the ad are led to believe that Daddy’s little princess suddenly went missing, inexplicably wound up in Gotham, enter Romney to save the day. Lady in distress rescued!

Kind of glosses over that whole running away thing, the parties, the pills. And that, best of intentions aside, Romney’s First Division really played no role in “saving” the guy’s daughter. A girl who, in fact, didn’t need saving in the first place, hanging with her newfound homies in Jersey for awhile, and who voluntarily phoned home sans coercion.

Textbook example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc logic. “After this, therefore because of this.” Missing girl was found, Romney was in hot pursuit. Therefore, Mitt saved her.

Never mind that she wasn’t really lost or in need of salvation, or that the Romney crew was scouring the wrong streets in the wrong state and had zilch to do with her safe and sound return home. Apparently such trivial details are of little import.

With proper spinning and selective omissions, the resulting commercial is clearly intended to tug at the heartstrings of the most emotionally sensitive of New Hampshirian voters. Smokescreen marketing, fail-safe every time.

I still don’t understand, though, trifling facts aside and taken at copiously-edited face value, how this commercial evinces Romney’s presidential credentials. Of course, the ad ends with the obligatory, “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approved this message.” My question to Mitt would be, “Why?”

Never mind. Stupid question.

mitt romney, romney campaign, 2008 election, presidential election, romney commercial, new hampshire primaries

Contrary to popular belief, vertical stripes are not necessarily slimming. Just look at this Huckabee family photo from the good ol’ gubernatorial days! Yikes. Even the inexplicable elbow patches don’t distract from the fattiness of this clan.

Of course Mike Huckabee has since become fit, trim, in shape and ready to participate in the 2008 presidential marathon. Don’t know about the rest of the ‘bee hive; they may very well still be strapping on the all-you-can-eat feedbags, but at least Mikey is certainly down to fighting weight. A big loser indeed (let’s hope.)

However, despite having lost some major inches and a pound or ton, there still remains a considerable amount of work to be done on that fat head of his.

After Pakistani opposition leader, democracy advocate and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated and her supporters suicide-bombed to bits yesterday, Huckabee, after apologizing for what had happened (whoops!), went on to explain how this tragedy emphasizes the urgent need to continue fighting terrorism in Pakistan build a fence to stop Mexican immigrants from entering the United States.

Well, that certainly was a clutchless gear shift from first into reverse!

Asked what the hell a border fence between the U.S. and Mexico has to do with Bhutto or Pakistan, Huck said that security at the southern United States border was dangerously weak and that “we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border.”

Not quite true according to the Department of Homeland Security, which claims far more illegal immigrants come from other countries. But regardless of such trivia, I still don’t quite get the correlation.

Nor did others, apparently, so he had some more ’splainin’ to do. That was, after all, quite a clumsy segue from the subject of Bhutto’s assassination to the Mejicano-Gringo border fence.

When further questioned, he said:

“The fact is the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds. It’s about people that can come with a shoulder fired missile and can do serious damage and harm to us, and that’s what we need to be worried about.”

What does building a fence from sea to shining sea betwixt the United States and Mexico (gated for lettuce pickers and bed makers, of course) have to do with keeping Pakistani shoulder-firing missile bearers at bay? And what connection can possibly be made between Bhutto’s assassination, which was, of course, the issue he was presumably addressing, and barricading our southern border?

The guy is an idiot. Thinner now, perhaps, but without question still fat-headed.

mike huckabee, benazir bhutto, bhutto assassination, immigration, border fence, presidential candidates, 2008 election

It’s all about endorsements. In every presidential election, candidates clamor to obtain the backing of this union, that ethnic community, a fellow politician, or the editorial staff of some influential newspaper. Personally, I don’t care who is giving props to whom. I’ll make up my own mind, thank you very much, regardless of whether or not my favorite newspaper opts to champion my guy or gal.

Still, an endorsement gives a campaigning candidate additional political clout, something to proudly crow about while poopooing hats thrown into an opponent’s ring.

Not often, though, does one happen across an anti-endorsement. Publicly declaring “we really don’t care who you vote for, as long as it’s not…” is seldom done.

But that’s exactly what the editors of New Hampshire’s The Concord Monitor did this past weekend, just days before the New Hampshire primaries, informing readers why they should not vote for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Period.

No published favorited pick as of yet for either party, simply a rather scathing laundry list of reasons why rooting for Romney is really, really wrong.

In the Monitor’s article published a few days ago, they referred to Romney as a “disquieting figure” and that although he looks and acts like a presidential contender, he “surely must be stopped.”

Of course, Republican cheerleading is inherently way off beam in my opinion (with the exception of my admitted and rather inexplicable political crush on Ron Paul), so I think they should all be stopped.

Notwithstanding, the editors at large do raise some good points about Romney worth considering by those who may tend to lean right, as wrong as they might be.

Looking at the facts, it seems that he has gone beyond simply assuming a Reagan-esque coiffure in pandering to the right-wing religious conservative gang, by taking flip-flopping to a whole new über level.

An occasional flip here and a random flop there are, of course, par for the course amongst all members of the homo politicus species, but some of Mitt’s mindshifts are pretty radical indeed, particularly regarding issues that any self-respecting Republican would deem vital. As the Monitor put it:

“If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats.

“If you followed only his campaign for president, you’d swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost.

“Pay attention to both, and you’re left to wonder if there’s anything at all at his core.”

A few key Jekyll and Hyde cases in point:

Then: As senatorial candidate in 1994, running against Ted Kennedy, he claimed that he would be the stronger advocate for gay rights of the two.

Now: These days, well, not so much. Now he makes it a point to declare his opposition to gay marriage and adoption. That whole gay rights thing doesn’t sit so well with his new audience.

Then: Back in the day, pre-Commander-in-Chief-wannabe Romney assured voters that he was pro-choice and said that, “You will not see me wavering on that.” No way, no how. He even referred to the tragedy of a family member’s botched illegal abortion to justify keeping abortions safe and legal.

Now: He has apparently switched teams, now identifying with and playing for the pro-lifers. It’s a baby, not a choice. Without a doubt, some major right-wing brownie points scored here.

Then: The old Romney supported stem-cell research, once more with personal flair. Citing his own wife’s multiple sclerosis, he said that such research could help families like his.

Now: The new Romney largely opposes it. Again, the baby thing. Another secured thumbs-up from the peanut gallery.

Like I said, pick a candidate, any candidate from any party, and you’d be hard-pressed to find one who hasn’t dodged, waffled or completely flip-flopped at some point. I don’t believe there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that. Politicians are human, too (I think), and humans change their minds over time, sometimes even making the complete 180.

But, really, give me a break. The Monitor is spot-on. No way can Romney provide any reasonable explanation for this particular set of turnarounds in any way that could possibly be convincing to potential voters, other than that they are based on nothing more than his own ambition.

mitt romney, presidential campaign, presidential endorsements, 2008 election, presidential election, politics, presidential candidates