Current Events Watch

YIKES! Hail to the potential Chief! A presidential election of firsts this will be, indeed. In addition to the conventional troupe of white guys in suits and ties, we also have the breasted, asbestos-pantsuited Hillary, the black-enough, non-Muslim Barack, and then, of course, the 9/11-superhero, occasional crossdresser Rudy, all on board for our consideration. Mixing it up in 2008!

What disturbs me about Giuliani is not his transvestism nor his drag queen diva alter ego. Go for it, dude. (He should probably rethink some of his fashion decisions, but that’s just my opinion.) No, the thing that disturbs me about him is his Republicanism, of course.

Nevertheless, I’m quite certain that Giuliani’s capability to continue this nation’s downward spiral would not be hindered by either tux or taffeta. I just hope he isn’t given the opportunity to prove me right.

I personally don’t get the whole crossdressing thing, but most straight people don’t get my penchant for boy-boy action, either. So who am I to judge? To each his own, live and let live, pick a platitude …

Still, some things might best be left in the proverbial closet, particularly if you’re Rudy Giuliani. Completely off the chart when it comes to garish and gaudy! Not a pretty picture. Practically nightmare fodder.

There is one thing, though, even more disturbing, and that is watching prick Dump Truck nuzzle the Queen’s boobies. Get a room. Preferably far from Pennsylvania Avenue. It may be time for a change, but let’s not go overboard.

rudy giuliani, giuliani in drag, 2008 election, donald trump, giuliani video, crossdressing

Yesterday the Republicans, today the Democrats. Their final respective debates before the Iowa caucuses to be held on January 3, and a combined three hours of my life frittered away. Must see TV? Hardly. Mind-numbing it was. The Republicans were in fact so boring that I actually dozed off for a few minutes. I did enjoy today’s Democratic powwow a bit more, but that’s probably simply due to my left-leaning proclivity. Not that there was much pow or wow, really. Both debates were pretty tame. And lame.

I was pissed off, too, that both my diminutive Dem Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were barred from the debate … because neither have a campaign office in the Hawkeye state. Well, that’s not quite true. Kucinich does, but he made the mistake of renting non-commercial space. Live and learn, I suppose. The devil is in the details.

On the other hand, hello??? That weird little Republican black dude Alan Keyes got his chance to rant yesterday (he apparently doesn’t understand the concept of questions and answers) and, as far as I have been able to determine, has neither qualifying commercial nor non-commercial office space in Iowa. I’d be surprised if he has a campaign office anywhere, for that matter. Maybe they allowed him to appear simply for the sake of comedy relief.

Having already been subjected to a marathon of debates thus far in this presidential campaign season, I suppose there isn’t really much that we haven’t already heard from any of the candidates, so it’s little wonder that the last two days of monotonous discourse were so snooze-inducing. Still, I watched.

Based solely on performance, I’d say that the red team champ from yesterday’s episode would have to be (pains me to even say it, but …) Huckabee. Certainly not a fan of the Huck by any stretch of the imagination, but as I said, I am simply making an objective assessment based on performance alone. Ken-Doll Romney (who in the real world is ever that perfectly coiffed?) did well, also, by the same criterion. Of course, the loser isn’t even debatable, so to speak. This is one team that would clearly be better off if it simply lost its Keyes.

As for the blue team, I would say that the winner this afternoon was probably Obama. Again, purely performance-based. I enjoyed Biden, too, and thought he did well. Clinton seemed to pick up steam only toward the end of the show, so she lost some points there. With Obama on her tail (there’s a mental image that ought not be), her strategy seems to be shifting a bit and she somehow came across as less confident than usual. I think the consolation prize would have to go to Richardson. Nothing against the guy, it’s just that his public performances are consistently subpar.

Of course, a one-off stellar performance or a one-time bomb probably won’t really matter much to the folks in Iowa when next month rolls around. All of the candidates have been ass-kissing their ways across the state for some time now, fluffing their fans before the voters head off to the polls. At the end of the day, specifically the third one in January, it will ultimately come down to which contender kissed the most. I think it’s still too early in the game to think that the results are all that relevant, but apparently the pundits put a lot of stock into these opening ceremonies, so I guess I’ll concede to those in the know.

To all of the candidates, get some sleep (try watching the most recent debates, that’ll help), and prepare to pucker up. There’s still plenty of requisite ass-kissing on the agenda. Next stop, New Hampshire.

2008 election, presidential debate, kucinich, gravel, huckabee, romney, clinton, obama, iowa caucus, democratic debate, republican debate, iowa debates, elections

Mike Huckabee. Until recently, a name not often recognized, a face probably even less so. Now it seems that the little engine that couldn’t is beginning to pick up some Conservative steam, and may prove to actually be capable of chugging alongside the bigger locomotives (or should I say, “loco motives” … we are talking about Republicans, after all) in the race to the summit of that Iowan Caucus hill come January.

In particular, the trainwreck of Engines 911 and LDS at last month’s Republican YouTube debate seems to have given the struggling Huckabee Express a chance to do some catching up.

It’s not like Giuliani and Romney have totally derailed, by any means. But their distracting, non-stop, childish fray at the debate certainly gave Huckabee a great opportunity to distinguish himself from the pack by actually behaving like a grown-up. One that might be worth listening to after all.

So the Republicans began to think that perhaps this little engine’s coal might be worth stoking. Yikes. Thanks, kids. See what happens when you bicker?

I’m sure a win by a Southern Baptist preacher would be a Neocon’s wet dream. For me, of course, not so much. His present-day stance on the issues pretty much tells me all I need to know, so there’s really no need to dig up dirt from days gone by. And anyway, I’m riding the blue train. Red is simply not my color. All aboard!

Still, it is interesting to note that back in 1992, when running for the Senate (unsuccessfully, as it turned out), Huckabee suggested isolating people with AIDS from the general public, opposed boosting federal funding in the search for a cure and said that he felt “homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.”

Even though by 1992, anyone with half a brain (maybe that was the problem) knew that HIV and AIDS were not communicable to the public at large, Mikey said, “If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.”

In addition to the quarantine, he also thought it might be a fine idea, in light of the extraordinary amount already being spent on AIDS research by federal health agencies, to perhaps staunch that by asking Hollywood celebs to foot the bill for any additional funding. They do have deep pockets, after all, and he apparently felt that federal tax dollars would be better spent on other diseases. Those ones that might befall breeders as well as queers.

I’m pretty confident that by 1992 most of us were also well-aware that the disease wasn’t just a gay plague. But, then again, we’re talking about Mike Huckabee which brings us back to that “half a brain” thing, so go figure.

Of course now, under a presidential-candidate type of scrutiny, he touts that his administration will be “the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals.â€?

That’s pretty ambiguous. As far as I know, “necessary financing” means he has a plan for how best to cover the costs of quarantining and isolating the afflicted, because Lord knows that can’t be cheap!

Okay, I’ll admit that that may be cynically presumptious of me. A bit extreme, perhaps. Or a lot. Whatever. Just making a point that I find such rhetoric hard to swallow given his past history.

Still, Huckabee has yet to tackle that first hill in Iowa next month anyway, so even if he does make it to the top with an “I think I can” attitude (that boost of confidence in large part courtesy of Rudy and Mitt, in my opinion), there’s still a lot of rail left to ride.

I really don’t care which of the little red engines peaks first, frankly. It’s not all downhill after that, as there are still many more mountains to climb. I just hope in the final stretch, when the last Hill to conquer is of the Capitol variety and we’re left with only two final contenders to chug it out - one red and one blue, that the red one runs out of steam and gets its Conservative caboose kicked. Particularly if, by chance, that little engine indeed happens to be the Huckabee Express.

mike huckabee, iowa caucuses, rudy giuliani, mitt romney, election 2008, gay rights, aids/hiv, presidential election, iowa voters

I’m suggesting that Dennis Kucinich doles out the $8.99 over at talltall.com for a pair of shoe lift inserts. I’d even chip in for the S&H. Maybe if my favorite wee presidential contender were just a wee bit taller people would pay a wee bit more well-deserved attention to the guy.

I think he and Hillary pretty much see eye-to-eye, if only in the literal sense, but she certainly hasn’t had any problem garnering her fair share of attention. What’s up with that? Of course, she has breasts. If Dennis is averse to height-modifying contraptions, falsies might work just as well. Whatever it takes.

One of his shining moments at the last Democratic debate, when given the rare opportunity to speak, was when he said that, well, yeah, he was the only one of the gang on stage who voted against the Patriot Act … because he read it.

A statement which, if you recall, none of the other contestants even bothered to dispute. I guess there’s no arguing with the truth. Reading is fundamental, as we’ve all been taught, but apparently it’s also optional. BSAlert.com shows the clip of my vertically-challenged pick for Pres taking to task his fellow Commander-In-Chief hopefuls.

I guess his compatriots up there on Capitol Hill didn’t get the hint. Or maybe they simply opted to forego the refresher Reading 101 course in lieu of Advanced Ass-Kissing class. Either way, for whatever reason, the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955/S. 1959), was approved in the House with an overwhelming vote of 404 to 6. Dennis being one of the six because he, of course, reads.

Call this one Patriot Act Part Deux. Constitution? What Constitution?

Speaking last week in New York, Kucinich, when asked about his vote, said, “If you understand what this bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest. This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.â€? He referred to the bill as the “thought crime bill.”

Enter the Thought Police. Yet another Orwellian prophecy fulfilled. The bill would create a national commission to make legislative recommendations on how to prevent, disrupt and mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Fine. No one wants that kind of behavior, homegrown or otherwise!

However, just like Act I, this proposition is worded quite vaguely, so that those of us who may have radical or “extreme belief systems” might be monitored lest a criminal act should occur. Because I’m critical of the Bush administration, I am suspect. A homegrown terrorist just waiting to happen.

Because I have bad thoughts from time to time about the bastard and his bastardly bastard friends, I am a potential felon. If one actually reads the bill (following the example of Kucinich and his five literate homies), it is obvious that this is one of the most “blatant attacks against the Constitution yet”, to quote RogueGovernment.com.

Dennis reads a lot, apparently. As he pointed out at his little NYC get-together last week, this latest proposal is similar to another bill passed in 2006, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (who knew?) which also criminalized dissent.

According to that bill, anyone who engages in any activity that would interfere or cause damage to businesses engaged in animal enterprises, could be charged with a felony. This includes acts that could cause a loss of profits to the business. Screw the animals, just don’t fuck with the profits. It’s all about the money, after all. Animal rights activists, beware. Protest = Terrorism.

Only six members of the House were present for that vote. Kucinich was the only one to oppose the bill. He noted that the bill was “written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of protest.�

We’ll have to wait and see what happens to H.R. 1955 when it makes its way to the Senate, of course. But I’d wager that the results will be similar to last month’s House vote … which means next stop, Dubya’s desk. I guess I’ll just have to work harder at thinking only good thoughts. The Thought Police cometh.

dennis kucinich, patriot act, hr 1955, homegrown terrorism, terrorism, george bush, thought police

I watched the rebroadcast of last week’s CNN Democratic debate over the weekend. (Why, I don’t know … other than I have no social life.) In watching the encore presentation, it seemed even more apparent that the audience participation segment was nothing more than a blatantly scripted sham. Pathetically obvious, and not particularly well-directed by the CNN powers that be. So poorly done, in fact, that I’m rather surprised they would have chosen to air it a second time.

One especially disappointing performance: LaShannon Spencer (the one with the big purple cape around her neck … quite an accent piece.) I hope she didn’t quit her day job, because the fledgling actress was certainly less than stellar the other night, no doubt much to the dismay of the CNN producers charged with casting the roles of Undecided Voters. She may have aced the audition, but when it came time for her limelight debut, she flubbed big time. In a brain fart moment, when given mike time by CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux, she totally missed what was supposed to the be the point of her assigned question. She started promisingly enough …

“We constantly hear health care questions, and questions pertaining to the war. But we don’t hear questions pertaining to the Supreme Court justice or education. My question is, if you are elected president, what qualities must the appointee possess?”

… but under pressure forgot to bring up that whole abortion rights, Roe v. Wade vote thing. And on live TV! No second takes. Thank goodness, Suzanne (pronounced with the classier “ah”) Malveaux was still standing by, her improvisational acting prowess saving the day. Theatrical disaster averted. Perhaps a bit awkwardly, but at least she got the storyline back on track so that we, the viewers, would not miss what was intended to be a key plot point.

After duly reiterating and directing the question to Christopher Dodd, she managed to clarify what Ms. Spencer really meant to ask by adding whether or not he would “require nominees to support abortion rights.”

Whew! Close call, that was. Dialogue back on track. A textbook-worthy example to all aspiring cable news talking head wannabes on how to handle a would-be debacle on live television. In fact, I was so impressed with Malveaux’s adroit handling of the situation, I thought I might peruse the official CNN transcript in order to better-appreciate such fine work.

But, wait … dagnabbit! Apparently the network’s own transcriptionist wasn’t able to document that particular exchange, including Malveaux’s savvy save, due to all of the crosstalk. From the published CNN transcript:

(CROSSTALK) DODD: First of all, thanks for your question …

Readers of the CNN.com transcript who may have missed the live performance might wonder … what was the question? Whaaa…? Because the question, well, just isn’t there. Damned crosstalk! Fortunately not all political pundits are quite so hearing-impaired as the hosting network’s own recordkeeper. Others were, surprisingly enough, indeed able to hear and report for posterity the dialogue in its entirety, in spite of all of the crosstalking mayhem.

Sarcasm aside, the situation was so appallingly handled by Suzanne Malveaux that I wonder if CNN simply decided to do some selective editing of the official transcript. Because really, it does kind of make them look rather stupid. Particularly with veteran reporter Malveaux on the scene.

For the most part, the majority of the audience members nailed their lines, although I think a few may have stumbled a bit. A teleprompter might have come in handy. Most recovered fairly well, however. Overall, I’d give the second act two stars … except, of course, for LaShannon, who may never act in Vegas again.

At least Maria Luisa, in the role of final questioner, didn’t falter! You know, the one who asked the “diamonds or pearls” question of Hillary Clinton. She came through like a pro, despite the fact that this was an apparent last-minute script change by CNN due to time constraints. But all performers have their critics, and she has apparently been taking a lot of flack for the frivolous nature of the question. Hey, y’all, back off! She was just following the director’s orders! That’s what great actors do.

As reported here by The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, according to Ms. Luisa, every question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN. She was asked to add some lighthearted and fun questions to the mix. Originally, it seems, TPTB had decided to weed out the frivolous, and instead approved Luisa’s prefered question, regarding the nuclear dump that is Yucca Mountain, an issue that she truly thought important.

Unfortunately, time ran short, and according to an excerpt from her MySpace page:

“CNN ran out of time and used me to close the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, ‘you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored … See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted.”

The media pre-planning and censoring questions? Really? Well, surprise, surprise!

cnn, democratic debate, 2008 election, malveaux, cnn debate

Promises, promises. CNN moderator Wolf “Grizzly Adams” Blitzer at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas the other night:

“Everyone’s going to get time tonight. Don’t worry. We got a lot of time. Go ahead.” And later, just to make it perfectly clear, “Let me just point out, everyone’s going to have plenty of time tonight … we’ll bring everybody in, I promise.”

Okay, I suppose technically the razor-phobic Master of Ceremonies did live up to his word. All Democratic free-world-leader-wannabes were indeed given their time on the soapbox. Obama had his eighteen minutes. Clinton had her sixteen. Hell, even Richardson was allowed over fourteen minutes of stiffly delivered speechifying, topping Edwards’ eleven! How that happened, I have no idea.

My new bud Dennis Kucinich, though, got … five minutes. All right, it was nearly five and a half. Still coming up short (pun intended) to even Dodd and Biden, who respectively were permitted seven and nine minutes of chat time.

Nothing new, I guess. It seems that in every debate, Kucinich is routinely dismissed, although he consistently makes the most sense when given a chance to speak. I am becoming increasingly committed to tossing my hat into the DK camp when the primaries roll around. I will subsequently, no doubt, then have to decide whether to join the Clinton or Obama parade, but at least I’ll know I tried.

CNN’s debate moderators suck. Wolf in particular. I’d like to, just once, see a forum of potential candidates, each given the opportunity to respond to every question, given equal time, and not simply a parody of a debate such as what was aired the other night.

If for nothing else, Kucinich deserves props for snagging a hot wife, half his age and twice as tall. With a tongue stud, no less. Go, Dennis! Maybe those moderator guys asking the questions are just a wee bit jealous. You’ve got to hand it to the little dude, he got game. It’s just too bad he’s usually benched when it comes to these presidential competitions.

At least, when given the rare opportunity to speak last Thursday night, Kucinich did make the most of his limited time, as is summarily presented in the following video compilation of the man-who-should-be-president’s rationed participatory comments.

On a final note, I should probably apologize for being so critical of CNN and Mr. Blitzer. After all, had Kucinich been allowed to ramble on, there may not have been enough time at the end of the program for Hillary to respond to the question that we all desperately wanted answered … diamonds or pearls?

dennis kucinich, election 2008, presidential election, democratic debate, presidential debate, cnn debate, kucinich youtube video

My political archrival and commentor Mark Karr submitted this noteworthy link, in response to my previous Cheney-impeachment post. I’m glad he did. It was, in fact, a fine footnote to the article, justifying my expressed disenchantment with my own Democratic party. Of course, I could counter with similar switchback rhetoric from the rival side, too. Here’s a speech from the Dick himself apropos of Iraq, since he was, after all, the subject of the article and impetus for Mark’s comment. Just leveling the playing field. But Mark certainly made some valid points.

Political pandering, from either side, gets on my nerves, hence my proclivity to espouse the Kucinich manifesto per my previously referenced column. He doesn’t play that game. Of course, I certainly don’t want to waste a vote and give the NeoCons another turn at bat. That would suck. And, although runners-up to the little dude in my personal polling results (I sometimes talk to myself), I also like the woman in the pantsuit, the black guy sans flag-pinned lapel, and the man with the expensive hairdo, too. So they’re still in the game. Whichever one I think is most likely to win will be my candidate of choice, since I certainly don’t want to Naderize the end result. Still, I hope that Dennis will become a Menace within the Dem-squad. Miracles do happen.

Just look at Ron Paul, on the other side of the political fence. He stood no chance in hell, but lo and behold, he’s suddenly a contender!

Finally picking up steam and gaining some much-needed support in his campaign for the White House, even setting a one-day fundraising record. Talk about coming from behind! Now, if only Dennis can rally such support. I’ve said it before, it pains me to even begin to think of myself championing anyone with a suffixed (R) behind his name. Perish the thought! It’s actually quite distressing to even consider. But as I have previously, candidly confessed, I really, really like this guy. At least I’m not the sole liberal giving Paul props, of course. As the video in an earlier post corroborates, even my outspoken liberal compadre Bill Maher is a fan. Ron Paul simply makes sense.

And he hasn’t, doesn’t, won’t, under any circumstances, buckle to political pressure. He is extraordinarily steadfast and consistent. He and Kucinich have a lot in common in that respect. And, frankly, I agree with Paulie on pretty much all of the issues, too. Not such a surprise, really, considering that before committing to Republicanism, he ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in ‘88, and as it turned out, my test results put me in the Libertarian camp as well. I’m quite sure that the only reason he’s running as a Republican instead of Libertarian is that he knows, as do we all, that it really comes down to one of two parties that have any chance of coming out on top.

I can only hope that Kucinich will at some point garner a Ron Paul-like surge of support. I would like to be able to vote for him and know that it was a chad worthily punched. If not, I’ll probably go with Hillary, Barack or John. Or possibly Ron. There, I said it. Yikes.

dennis kucinich, ron paul, election 2008, presidential campaign, presidential candidates

Just the other day I was bitching about my pussy-whipped fellow Dems for not taking any action to depose the despots in DC. Then today, enter the little man with the big balls.

I’ll eat crow when I have to. So I’ll admit, I have on more than one occasion been rather unkind to the diminutive fellow who would be President, Dennis Kucinich. I have been rather dismissive of the guy, but not because I don’t like him. In fact, I’ve also said that I think he makes the most sense. I agree with virtually his entire platform. It’s just that I haven’t really considered the possibility of him having a chance in hell of being a finalist in the competition, so I’ve been concentrating on the three front-runners.

Then, yesterday on Capitol Hill, stood Dennis Kucinich officially calling for the impeachment of one Richard B. Cheney. Huzzah! Even if tippy-toeing to clear the podium on the House floor, here was someone, at last, taking a stand and proclaiming the need to excise the first, and most dangerous, of the two malignancies that have been allowed to aggressively spread for far too long. Cliff’s Notes version (well, my synopsis, not so much Cliff’s) of House Resolution 333, Articles of Impeachment Relating to Vice President Richard B. Cheney, a paraphrase of my elfin hero:

“Despite all evidence to the contrary, Richard Cheney had purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the US armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security. Preceding the invasion of Iraq, was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The vice president pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and the Congress.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida in order to justify the use of United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security. Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, a fact articulated in several official documents.

Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and despite the turmoil created by the United States’s invasion of Iraq, openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States’s proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security interests of the United States.”

Now if only my party pals will support the resolution. Likely? I’m not getting my hopes up, but at least it’s finally on the table. I’m afraid most will continue to prefer idle chatter instead of actually taking any action, lest they step on unfriendly toes. But at least it will go down in history that someone in Congress took the initiative to publicly recognize and attempted to eradicate the corruption that defined the US of A under the Bush-Cheney administration.

As an aside, I am increasingly impressed with Mr. Kucinich’s consistency on the issues, without pandering to the dissenting, without flip-flopping or spinning rhetoric to appease the noncommital, unlike his competing candidates. I can only hope that things may change, and he might in the end be a contender, although I’m pretty sure that’s still pretty iffy.

He may not be the biggest man, but he sure as hell has the biggest balls. The rest of the Democrats need to grow some. That includes Hillary, although the pantsuits might require some customized tailoring.

impeachment, dick cheney, dennis kucinich, articles of impeachment, george bush, iraq war, government, election 2008

Prez George W. Bush and Veep Dick B. Cheney clearly need to be institutionalized. I’m not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but it doesn’t take doc smarts to make that diagnosis. The behavioral symptoms of the two-headed monster obviously indicate clinical psychosis. As summarily defined by our friends Merriam and Webster: PSYCHOSIS - “Fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and behavior.”

Well, there you have it. No need for a second opinion. Even I am able to call this one, sans medical credentials or framed diplomas. Forget impeachment, that’s probably a pipe dream anyway. The Democrats won’t do anything, haven’t stepped up to the plate to even bunt, much less hit a home run, and no doubt have no intention of doing so, despite their Bush-bashing rhetoric. They have disappointed, big time. Even a base hit would have been appreciated. A little less talk and a lot more action, maybe?

Instead, the war of words, Dems vs. Commander-in-Chief and cronies, has proven to be about as successful as BushCo’s own wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So because of my impotent and spineless fellow party members, the Mad Cowboy-Hatter with dick in tow still has free reign, sucking us all deeper into the cesspool of warmongering insanity. Next stop before going down the drain, Iran.

Rattle the sabers and beat the drums! Watch out, Mahmoud, here we come. Why? Um, well, because … that’s a stupid question. Madmen need no reason. They make shit up, and all subordinate lemmings of patriotic citizenry are expected to, and usually do, follow blindly.

Needless, pointless, unwarranted hundreds of billions of dollars spent (tallying continues) and hundreds of thousands of dead folks sacrificed for the worthy cause that is Iraq isn’t enough to appease these psychos. The game hasn’t gone as well as planned, and being sore losers, their dementia takes control and they decide that now might be a fine time to start a new game. Never mind that we’re already running short on game pieces.

Quiz time. Why should Iran be our next wargames-marathon opponent? Multiple choice again, kind of like in Iraq: WMDs, Hussein-Bin Laden collusion … nope and nope. Regime change, well, that happened, but now it’s even worse, if that’s possible. Iraqi Freedom? Please, give me a break. Spreading democracy? That certainly has not worked out so well, despite all of the purple fingers. Nothing really stuck there, no correct answer to the question “why”, in spite of multiple choices. Maybe they’ll have better luck with Iran. So here are your options for this round of play. Cast your vote for the best reason to shock and awe yet another oil-pumping country.

A - Last week’s Bush-babble: “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III … you ought to be interested in preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

(Knowledge is a threat? We not only know how to make, we do make. If anyone could start WWIII it would be, well, never mind … don’t want to give the insane any crazy ideas. It’s probably too late, anyway.)

B - Sunday’s Cheney-chatter: warning of “the Iranian regime’s efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power … we cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions.”

(I had to look up hegemonic. Apparently being delusional does not preclude one from possessing a highly-developed vocabulary.)

C - Tuesday’s Bush-blather: insisted on the need “to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat.”

(What? Who knew Iran is a major threat to Europe? Is Ahmadinejad mad at anyone in Europe? As far as I know, not really so much. Even if he was, what would he do … nuke’em with that missile that he doesn’t have? Come on, definite lunacy behind this one. Only crazy people would consider something like that.)

Is it unconstitutional to commit the country’s leaders to an accredited mental health facility for treatment against their will? Now there’s an amendment I would fully support, because these two psychos could apparently use some professional help. A lobotomy would be an excellent start. I’m sure the rest of the world would thank us.

iran, iraq, george bush, dick cheney, nuclear weapons, world war iii

As I write this, we’re taking the first of three bathroom breaks scheduled for tonight’s two-hour Democratic debate. Even presidential candidates apparently have to occassionally pee. Who knew? They’re done now, I hear Tim Russert asking the next question. I’ll be back.

All righty then, we’re at break number two. So far, so good. What is so clearly obvious is that the three real candidates are receiving the most questions, and are also positioned front and center. We’ve got Chris Dodd and Joe Biden stage left, and Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson stage right.

Center stage is, of course, John, Hillary and Barack. No surnames required for the stars of the show. Think Cher.

At the third break, I myself had to take a time out to visit the little boys’ room, so now the debate is over, and the media analysis has begun. I’ve switched channels, not so interested in others’ opinions after this one. I think the winner of this round is clearly Barack. At least amongst the three leading stars of the show. I have decided that I do like Keebler Elf Dennis Kucinich, I really do, but he doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning the nomination. He may have made the most sense of anyone else on stage tonight, from what little we heard from the tiny man, but keeping it real, we all know it’s going to come down to one of the three major players. I think in this evening’s debate, Barack decidedly came out on top.

I was rooting for Hillary, and I know she leads in the polls, but her lackluster performance tonight was a bit disappointing. I still like her, and would like to see a woman as President, and will support her if she makes it through the primaries. But for now, I’m siding with the black dude.

The complete transcript is here in case you missed it. Hillary did stumble quite a bit, but then again, the big boys were pushing her around. I’m sure it was hard for her to keep her footing.

Of course I missed elimination night of Dancing With The Stars. I’ll have to check online now to see who was voted off … I hope it wasn’t Jane. Fingers crossed.

presidential debate, democratic debate, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards, dennis kucinich, joe biden, chris dodd, bill richardson, election 2008, presidential election

I suppose Republicans deserve their opportunity to waste precious airtime, too. Of course, it played out on Murdoch’s right-wing propoganda-spewing cable news network, FOX (surprise!), which is a complete waste of the airwaves 24/7/365 anyway, so I guess last night was nothing out of the ordinary. They had their fifth round of debates in New Hampshire, sans NBC’s Law & Order star Fred Thompson who opted, instead, to skip out and make his late-to-the-race presidential bid announcement on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show.

Is it a good idea for a potential leader of the “free world” (well, I’ll let that one go for now) to make such an important announcement on a comedy show? Particularly when fellow-candidates are shoulder to shoulder on the other side of the country answering questions, trying to garner votes?

Maybe so, if you’re Fred Thompson. He’s certainly getting more attention the day after, than any of the debating candidates. Both positive and negative attention, but you know what they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

Most people certainly don’t associate the name Fred Thompson with his former gig as Senator from Tennessee. (Who knew?) To pop-culture America, he’s simply NYC attorney Arthur Branch on Law & Order. And a damn fine attorney at that! That should win some votes. An actor in the White House is always a fine idea. (Yeah, that whole Reagan thing worked out well.)

So choosing an entertainment venue to announce his intentions probably gave him more exposure to his potential constituents, his TV-dinner fan base, than had he shown up in NH. Smart thinking. He apparently has a good agent.

Taking the Leno route certainly gave his fellow candidates fodder to exercise their standup comedy skills. Republicans can be funny! Or maybe not. At least they tried.

I think Thompson may be one of the smarter candidates, actually, from a strategic standpoint. God knows I certainly don’t want him, or any of his GOP rivals, homesteading at the White House, but as far as being one of the smart cookies, he’s probably at top of the list, Republican or Democrat. We’re already suffering from debate fatigue, and there is well over a year to go before the votes are tallied! Every debate, every question, every answer, same old same old. We’ve heard all of their pat answers on health care. Iraq. Civil liberties. Abortion. Terrorism. Gay marriage. Fill in the blank. Same questions from the moderators, same answers from the candidates. And more of the same to come in every future debate, no doubt.

Except from Fred, of course. In future debates, the other candidates could certainly make do with a cardboard cutout and a pre-recorded tape. Fred, though, no, he’s going to have to define his platform from scratch, and people will listen. And being the new kid on the block, he’s hoping everyone will want him to be their new best friend. They’re bored, already, with their old friends.

Maybe he’s hoping the last one in the pool can stay afloat longer than the others already thrashing about. Of course, I hope he eventually sinks, too, but still, smart move, Freddie. And the Leno stint? Probably genius.

fred thompson, republican debate, 2008 election, presidential election, jay leno

I am very confused. For whom should I cast my next Presidential vote? Frankly, just about anyone would be better than the smirking chimp. But still, I want my vote to count and, at least at this point, I think only the front runners, Hillary and Barack, will have any chance of winning for the Democrats.

I’ll admit I am beginning to get a bit annoyed with the feuding between the two. Of course they both know they’re the most likely candidates as it stands now, so they make a point to bicker with one another. Still, a bit annoying. And although I do like both of them, between the two, I would probably punch Hillary’s chad if I had to choose today, although neither one of them has totally won me over. Too much typical and predictable political rhetoric.

All campaigning politicians spew the same, I know. But even when I agree with something either Clinton or Obama say, I get the impression it’s just another banal platitude.

Here’s the dilemma. When it comes down to the wire, I think I’ll be left to decide between one or the other. Because, like I said, I want my vote to count, and not waste a vote for someone who doesn’t stand a chance in hell. Remember Ralph Nader? I could just as well vote for myself as a write-in, but that wouldn’t be wise.

The two candidates in the race that I agree with most, and both of which I think speak most honestly (probably because they know they really don’t stand a chance and feel free to do so), are Dennis Kucinich and, well, it pains me to say it, but a Republican, Ron Paul. I think he needs to switch parties.

Kucinich is the only candidate who has voted against the war in Iraq and against funding its continuation. I like that. As I’ve pointed out before, he’s also only one of two Dem candidates who support full marriage rights for same sex couples, not just civil unions. I like that, too. The rest of his platform seems pretty spot on, also, in my opinion.

Ron Paul, well, is a Republican, as I said. That pains me, because I do like him. And there are some issues on which I completely disagree with him, like his adamant pro-life stance. But I’ll cut him some slack, he was an OB-GYN for 40 years, delivered lots of babies, so I’m sure that would probably have some pretty major influence on his opinion. However, for the record, those of us who are pro-choice, well, that doesn’t mean that we are pro-abortion or anti-life. We’re simply pro-choice, and want that right protected. Is it that difficult to understand? I am pro-choice but personally anti-abortion. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

The thing I do like about Ron Paul, though, is best said in his own words in this video, from Real Time With Bill Maher, about this country’s need to rethink international policy. By the way, Bill Maher is one of my heroes, probably more liberal than I am (if that’s possible), and yet even he has become a Ron Paul fan.

ron paul, bill maher, presidential election, election 2008, foreign policy

Elizabeth Edwards is getting on my nerves! Big time. When she and her husband, presidential candidate John Edwards, of course, made the public announcement a few months ago that her cancer had returned, I think most of us sympathized with both of them, and their family. I was surprised that he (or they) decided to continue with his campaign. I’m glad he’s in the race, though, because he is a contender.

But she needs to just shut up. I like John Edwards, and as I said, I think he might be a potential candidate. I’m not completely on board with him at this point, but he’s certainly not out of the question. Liz, though, I think is doing more harm than good when she opens her mouth to slam the other candidates. John’s a big boy, playing in a big game, and I’m sure he’s quite capable of speaking for himself. He’s been here before.

Are they trying to play the sympathy-vote card because she has the big “C”? If so, it’s certainly not working. Let John speak, but, someone, please make Elizabeth shut up. Duct tape might work. She’s already been dissing Hillary for “lack of leadership”, and Barack for being “holier than thou”, because they’re both ahead of Johnny-boy in the polls.

But most recently, she did an interview slamming Barak Obama in Progressive Magazine:

“You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John’s 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John’s mantra as well as anybody could know it. They’ve moved from ‘hope is on the way’ to ‘the audacity of hope.’ I’m constantly hearing things in a familiar tone.”

So what? Is “hope” off-limits now? I remember during Bill Clinton’s campaign the phrase “a place called Hope” being used quite frequently. Maybe during John Edward’s last failed run for office in 2004, he might have been blamed for the same sort of copycat rhetoric.

By the way, Barack Obama used the phrase “audacity to hope” in his 1995 memoir “Dreams From My Father“, the phrase taken from a sermon preached by Rev. Jeremiah Wright titled, well, “The Audacity To Hope.” Nearly ten years before Edwards’ own “hope is on the way” mantra.

Maybe John Edward’s speechwriters in 2004 took a page from Barack? Hmmm.

Elizabeth needs to step back and let John run his campaign. He can speak for himself. Do her opinions matter, anyway? Hardly. I don’t dislike her, but she should really just be concentrating on taking care of herself and getting well. And on learning how to keep her mouth shut.

john edwards, elizabeth edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton, election

I never thought it would happen, but it’s official, Karl Rove is leaving the White House at the end of the month! It’s been like a parade of departures during this President’s lame duck second term, but I never thought Rove would leave. I thought he’d stick it out.

He’s one of many, of course, who have jumped ship including White House counselor Dan Bartlett, budget director Rob Portman, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, political director Sara Taylor, deputy national security advisers J.D. Crouch and Meghan O’Sullivan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, forced out immediately after the election as the war in Iraq dragged on. Finally, he was out of there. Not to mention the first term departures, Ashcroft, Fleischer, Powell.

But I didn’t expect Rove, also known as “Bush’s brain“, to leave. He’s been friends with G.W. and family since the early ’70s, and has been involved in every Dubya campaign from governor to President, calling the shots, making things run, spewing whatever BS it takes to get the job done. Hey, he managed to put an unelected idiot into the White House, so he probably is actually one of the brighter Crayons in the box, and obviously knows how to play the game. Not to mention protecting his own ass, getting off scot-free during the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, and most recently, avoiding the Alberto Gonzales fiasco subpoena because his good bud George W. rejected the subpoena citing “executive privilege.” As usual.

At least he’s leaving, thank God. Too late, of course, but at least one more arrogant, lying, cocky ass is gone. The two biggest arrogant, lying, cocky asses are, of course, still in charge. But I’ll take what I can get.

By the way, has any other President in history had such a mass exodus of cabinet members during their administration? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

Rove isn’t stupid, he knows when to cut and run, and I’m just glad he’s out, even though his damage has been done. Mission accomplished. He looks like Jabba the Hut from Star Wars, kind of freaks me out.

Finally, Republicans should never rap. Or dance. Particularly Karl “MC” Rove. Valerie Plame and subpoena avoidance aside, this video is enough to justify his resignation. Might I suggest that all other Republican officials consider resignation as well, if this is representative of their party. Pun intended.

karl rove, george bush, iraq war, 2008 election, politics

Six of the eight Democratic presidential candidates had the first debate in history dedicated solely to queer issues for an LGBT audience and panel. It wasn’t really a debate, I guess, it was a forum, called The Visible Vote 08. It was kind of like a gay Oprah show.

Great idea, because I’ll tell you, if you win over us gay folks, we’re a loyal bunch, and we will turn out in droves on election day. Sure, we’re a low percentage of total voters. But I’ll guarantee it is worth it. There’s a pathetically low number of the other registered voters who bother to show up at the polls. We will be there en masse, though, because this group of Dems is willing to pay attention to our issues and concerns. It’s not that we don’t care about other issues, but we have questions that need to be answered about where the candidates stand on our community’s issues as well.

By the way, Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd declined to appear. Scheduling conflicts. I’m sure the other six, who did show up, have busy schedules, too, though. I would wager that if Biden or Dodd were courting the Hispanic vote, the black vote, or the Union Labor vote, they would find a way to resolve that scheduling conflict. Oh, that’s right, they’ve already found the time to do that.

I watched the forum on Logo last night, and notice they have posted the videos on their website if you’re interested. It was great, and I admire the candidates who agreed to come and address the questions and to let us know where they stand on the issues. They all did well, in my opinion, except for Bill Richardson. He actually seemed a little uncomfortable, particularly when he was asked whether he believed one is born homosexual or if it is a choice, and he blurted out that he thought it was a choice.

Dude. You should think before you speak when you’re being grilled by a gay panel, in front of a gay audience, all who know that that’s not true. The answer didn’t go over very well, but at least he was there, and he seemed to recover fairly nicely.

By the way, the gay panelists asking the questions were outstanding, too. Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post, singer Melissa Etheridge (love, love, love her!), and Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. Melissa’s questions seemed the toughest to me, but maybe that’s because sometimes lesbians scare me, and I wouldn’t want to be interrogated by her for fear of giving an unacceptable answer! I love you, Melissa. I just wouldn’t want you angry with me.

I’ll also need to humbly retract what I said about Dennis Kucinich in a previous post about the YouTube debates. I said:

“Dennis J. Kucinich, he just needs to stop. Of course, there are the others, he just came to mind because he’s so tiny and for some reason I remember his name. No offense to tiny people.”

No, he doesn’t need to stop after all. Not only from his responses to the issues addressed last night, but on other issues as well, he makes sense and seems to not dodge questions or avoid being up front about where he stands, as much as some of the other candidates. He is also only one of two candidates who support gay marriage. The others all apparently support civil unions, with partner’s rights. Well, is it the same? To our community, no, it’s not. And only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel support full marriage rights for same-sex couples, so I give them much credit for that. I appreciate the other candidates’ reasoning for civil unions instead of marriage but, well, not so much.

Who knows, I might just vote for a tiny person after all. Black, female, or tiny, it’s kind of a draw at this point.

In the end, all did well, and it was outstanding to see the LGBT community’s issues publicly addressed by the candidates for the first time in history.

On a final note, the Republican candidates were invited to participate in a similar forum, but they all declined. Hmmm.

gay rights, gay debate, gay forum, democratic debates, LGBT, dennis kucinich, gay marriage