Sunday, February 3, 2008
Pack it Up Boys: Lake Wobegon has Spoken
Senator Clinton, thanks for playing. However, the game is now over. Now that Garrison Keillor has endorsed Obama, nothing can stop the Obama machine. Between Mr. Keillor and Ken Burns, it looks like Obama has the PBS staple vote all locked up. If only those damn Brit-coms would come around and support senator Obama.
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Children's Table: The (most likely) last GOP Debate
The second, and most likely last, GOP debate at the Reagan library was a very excruciating exercise. The four remaining men vying to lose to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton simultaneously looked like giant children and codgers. It was not a pretty site.
For one thing, the setup of the debate was just awkward. They put Anderson Cooper and the two panelists perpendicular to the candidates, which created an odd looking angle. In addition, the desks the candidates were sitting at looked like kindergarten desks, adding to the childish atmosphere.
In addition, CNN didn't comport itself very professionally, deciding to minimize the participation of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Feeling that they, and not the viewers, were responsible for seeing who was the best candidate, they focused on the battle between Romney and McCain.
Mitt was his typical sleazy country club self, continuing to make me wonder why anybody who wasn't a robot would support this guy. His argument with McCain over what he said about timetables in Iraq seemed pointless. This was his last, best chance to make a mark to distinguish himself on Super Tuesday, and he failed.
Somehow, McCain was even worse. Every time he spoke, he almost put me to sleep. Apparently he was a foot-soldier, and not a leader, of the Reagan revolution. Because a follower is what we need for our Presidency, not a leader. How this man, who is a horrible debater, horrible speaker, and is despised by many portions of the GOP is the unfettered front-runner I have no idea.
When he got a chance to speak, Huckabee seemed like the best candidate of the bunch. Of course, he didn't get a chance to show off his biggest weakness, which is the belief in making the Constitution fit to "Gods Laws", a position that makes a lot of people, both Democrat and Republican, very nervous.
Ron Paul was his usual self, even managing to bring up the gold standard in one of his answers. His rant on Iraq was genuine, and his position was the most reasonable one to me. A note to all Republicans: If Ron Paul is looking reasonable, you need to look closer at yourself.
In the end, this was a pretty standard affair for the GOP. Chaotic, stupid, and full of too much arm wrestling and pointless chest thumping. The GOP has lost its way, and needs to reclaim its soul, a soul that speaks to conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Nevertheless, this mess might still pull off the victory in November. That thought is truly troubling.
For one thing, the setup of the debate was just awkward. They put Anderson Cooper and the two panelists perpendicular to the candidates, which created an odd looking angle. In addition, the desks the candidates were sitting at looked like kindergarten desks, adding to the childish atmosphere.
In addition, CNN didn't comport itself very professionally, deciding to minimize the participation of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Feeling that they, and not the viewers, were responsible for seeing who was the best candidate, they focused on the battle between Romney and McCain.
Mitt was his typical sleazy country club self, continuing to make me wonder why anybody who wasn't a robot would support this guy. His argument with McCain over what he said about timetables in Iraq seemed pointless. This was his last, best chance to make a mark to distinguish himself on Super Tuesday, and he failed.
Somehow, McCain was even worse. Every time he spoke, he almost put me to sleep. Apparently he was a foot-soldier, and not a leader, of the Reagan revolution. Because a follower is what we need for our Presidency, not a leader. How this man, who is a horrible debater, horrible speaker, and is despised by many portions of the GOP is the unfettered front-runner I have no idea.
When he got a chance to speak, Huckabee seemed like the best candidate of the bunch. Of course, he didn't get a chance to show off his biggest weakness, which is the belief in making the Constitution fit to "Gods Laws", a position that makes a lot of people, both Democrat and Republican, very nervous.
Ron Paul was his usual self, even managing to bring up the gold standard in one of his answers. His rant on Iraq was genuine, and his position was the most reasonable one to me. A note to all Republicans: If Ron Paul is looking reasonable, you need to look closer at yourself.
In the end, this was a pretty standard affair for the GOP. Chaotic, stupid, and full of too much arm wrestling and pointless chest thumping. The GOP has lost its way, and needs to reclaim its soul, a soul that speaks to conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Nevertheless, this mess might still pull off the victory in November. That thought is truly troubling.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Bush's Last State of the Union Address (Huzzah!!)
I don't have much to say about President Bush's address, other than it was painfully boring. No crazy thank yous to Dikembe Mutumbo, no references to man-animal hybrids, and more of the same old crap about Iraq.
The Democrat's response was just as boring, if not more so. You are supposed to take what the president said and respond to it, not make vague statements about unity and cooperation. Sure, I'm a believer in those things, as evidenced by my support of Senator Obama. However, even he made sure in his response to point out specific disagreements with the President's address.
Oh well, at least we won't have any more of these "speeches" with President Dubya. Unless he decides to sneak one in before he leaves office.
The Democrat's response was just as boring, if not more so. You are supposed to take what the president said and respond to it, not make vague statements about unity and cooperation. Sure, I'm a believer in those things, as evidenced by my support of Senator Obama. However, even he made sure in his response to point out specific disagreements with the President's address.
Oh well, at least we won't have any more of these "speeches" with President Dubya. Unless he decides to sneak one in before he leaves office.
Those Grapes Sure Are Sour
Calm down now
I can understand that the New York chapter of NOW would be disappointed in Ted Kennedy endorsing Barack Obama. They are passionate supporters of Clinton, and it has to be a bit of a letdown that he threw his support behind her opponent. So expressing their displeasure at the turn of events isn't out of the ordinary.
However, calling his endorsement a betrayal is a bit much. It isn't like he had promised to support Clinton, only to switch candidates at the last minute. From his speech at the event where he endorsed Obama, it certainly doesn't sound like he endorsed him only because he was a man.
If Obama was anti-choice, or a known misogynist, I could understand their sense of betrayal. If Kennedy had endorsed Mike Huckabee or any of the other GOP candidates (save for Mayor 9/11), not only would I understand their sense of betrayal, I probably would be right there with them. However, Obama is thoroughly pro-choice, and Kennedy did not take leave of his sanity.
Living in a democratic-republic means accepting that sometimes people support someone other than your favorite candidate. This country isn't dominated by one issue, and anybody who makes their decision on that one issue is dangerously short-sighted. Making a statement like that demeans the organization, as well as dishonors the candidate they are supporting. The next time they feel like making a statement like that, maybe they should sleep on it.
I can understand that the New York chapter of NOW would be disappointed in Ted Kennedy endorsing Barack Obama. They are passionate supporters of Clinton, and it has to be a bit of a letdown that he threw his support behind her opponent. So expressing their displeasure at the turn of events isn't out of the ordinary.
However, calling his endorsement a betrayal is a bit much. It isn't like he had promised to support Clinton, only to switch candidates at the last minute. From his speech at the event where he endorsed Obama, it certainly doesn't sound like he endorsed him only because he was a man.
If Obama was anti-choice, or a known misogynist, I could understand their sense of betrayal. If Kennedy had endorsed Mike Huckabee or any of the other GOP candidates (save for Mayor 9/11), not only would I understand their sense of betrayal, I probably would be right there with them. However, Obama is thoroughly pro-choice, and Kennedy did not take leave of his sanity.
Living in a democratic-republic means accepting that sometimes people support someone other than your favorite candidate. This country isn't dominated by one issue, and anybody who makes their decision on that one issue is dangerously short-sighted. Making a statement like that demeans the organization, as well as dishonors the candidate they are supporting. The next time they feel like making a statement like that, maybe they should sleep on it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Obama Speeches: 2004 Democratic Convention
Part One
Part Two
Here is the momentous speech where Senator Obama entered the national stage. I must admit that before this speech I had not heard of him, even though he was the leading candidate to be my next senator. His speech, and the subsequent victory in November, was the lone bright spot in a very disappointing election year.
From the bitter disappointment towards President Bush, to the incredible apathy towards Kerry, I really was not all that engaged in the 2004 Presidential race. It certainly wasn't very interesting, as Bush ran unopposed for the GOP nomination, and Kerry had it wrapped up after Super Tuesday. As the Democrats headed towards Boston for their four day festival of balloons and bullcrap, I yawned in anticipation.
For a while, I decided not to really pay attention to the conventions. I rethought that decision when I started hearing the buzz about the keynote speaker on one of the nights. He was a relatively young state senator from my home state. His name was Barack Obama.
I tuned into CNN that night, hoping for an entertaining speech. Senator Obama did not disappoint. His speech was heads and shoulders above anything I had heard from a political candidate, ever. It was a speech that spoke to a different type of politics, a philosophy that was so vastly different from the politics of the day. Instead of "wedge issues" and "swiftboating", Obama spoke to a sense of purpose, a sense of unity. He spoke to the idea that although Republicans and Democrats may have differences, what unites us is much stronger.
Needless to say, I was hooked. The moment he finished his speech, I was looking forward to 2008. When Kerry went on to lose to Dubya in November, the thought that Obama would be there in four years made it sting less. Many times in the four years since that warm July night I have watched that beautiful speech, and renewed my hope for the future. My only hope is that the speech is eclipsed by his acceptance speech for the nomination in Denver, and at his inauguration on January 20, 2009.
Part Two
Here is the momentous speech where Senator Obama entered the national stage. I must admit that before this speech I had not heard of him, even though he was the leading candidate to be my next senator. His speech, and the subsequent victory in November, was the lone bright spot in a very disappointing election year.
From the bitter disappointment towards President Bush, to the incredible apathy towards Kerry, I really was not all that engaged in the 2004 Presidential race. It certainly wasn't very interesting, as Bush ran unopposed for the GOP nomination, and Kerry had it wrapped up after Super Tuesday. As the Democrats headed towards Boston for their four day festival of balloons and bullcrap, I yawned in anticipation.
For a while, I decided not to really pay attention to the conventions. I rethought that decision when I started hearing the buzz about the keynote speaker on one of the nights. He was a relatively young state senator from my home state. His name was Barack Obama.
I tuned into CNN that night, hoping for an entertaining speech. Senator Obama did not disappoint. His speech was heads and shoulders above anything I had heard from a political candidate, ever. It was a speech that spoke to a different type of politics, a philosophy that was so vastly different from the politics of the day. Instead of "wedge issues" and "swiftboating", Obama spoke to a sense of purpose, a sense of unity. He spoke to the idea that although Republicans and Democrats may have differences, what unites us is much stronger.
Needless to say, I was hooked. The moment he finished his speech, I was looking forward to 2008. When Kerry went on to lose to Dubya in November, the thought that Obama would be there in four years made it sting less. Many times in the four years since that warm July night I have watched that beautiful speech, and renewed my hope for the future. My only hope is that the speech is eclipsed by his acceptance speech for the nomination in Denver, and at his inauguration on January 20, 2009.
Friday, January 25, 2008
OMGZ!!!1! OBAMA TEH MUZLIM!?!?! WTF?!?!
This email is patently false
My fellow readers, if you get this moronic email in your inbox, delete it as soon as possible. Before you do that, you might want to reply to the sender, especially if it is someone you know. Tell them politely that it is utter hogwash, and cheerfully point them to this link.
If you ever forwarded this email on to someone, except for the purpose of making fun of its stupidity, shame on you. This is the political equivalent of the garbled spam promising FREE VIAGAARA HOT ENGORGEMENT!!!! Please show some common decency and sense, and stop forwarding on crap without verifying its accuracy.
The very fact these emails are still making news months after they were roundly debunked is troubling. Barack Obama already has an uphill battle to begin with, and he doesn't need outright falsities clouding the way.
My fellow readers, if you get this moronic email in your inbox, delete it as soon as possible. Before you do that, you might want to reply to the sender, especially if it is someone you know. Tell them politely that it is utter hogwash, and cheerfully point them to this link.
If you ever forwarded this email on to someone, except for the purpose of making fun of its stupidity, shame on you. This is the political equivalent of the garbled spam promising FREE VIAGAARA HOT ENGORGEMENT!!!! Please show some common decency and sense, and stop forwarding on crap without verifying its accuracy.
The very fact these emails are still making news months after they were roundly debunked is troubling. Barack Obama already has an uphill battle to begin with, and he doesn't need outright falsities clouding the way.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Don't tread on me
As anybody who knows me understands, I love this country. I love our sense of independence, and our vast freedoms to be who we choose to be, not what someone tells us to be. I love that we have no state religion or language, and that we refuse to dip our flag to foreign leaders during the Olympics. Although not as easy as it used to be, I love the idea that any American can rise from obscurity just through hard work and determination. I have read the Constitution, and marvel in the words of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
However, there is one thing I do not do, one thing that might result in some people questioning my love for my country. I don't put my hand over my heart during the national jingoistic displays.
Yes, I don't put my hand over my heart for "The Star Spangled Banner" or "The Pledge of Allegiance". I haven't since high school, and I don't intend to start doing it now. Instead, I stand respectfully with my hands clasped in front of me.
Why do I do this? The symbolism, of course. I don't need to be told how to show my respect to my country. Saluting flags and standing at attention and all that other crap is something far too militaristic, far too anti-democratic to my tastes.
As far as the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, I go even farther and don't recite the pledge. After all, this isn't some fascist police state (yet). Our rights are derived from nature, not from the benevolence of Uncle Sam.
Thus, I can't understand why people jump all over Barack Obama for not kowtowing to the American flag during the national anthem. If he so chooses to stand with his hands at his waist, so be it. I'm certain he loves this country, and respects those who have died for it.
If you choose to put your hand over your heart, by all means do so. If you wish to stand respectfully, go ahead and do it. Hell, if you wish to stand disrespectfully, or not even stand at all, go ahead. Some people may not like it, but that is the way it goes in a free society. They'll get over it, in time.
To me, patriotism is standing up for what you believe. I believe in a free and open society, one where your love of country is shown through actions, not just hollow words and salutes. We fought a war over sixty years ago against two nations built upon jingoism and hollow nationalism. I'll be damned if I let this country that I love turn into one of those nations.
However, there is one thing I do not do, one thing that might result in some people questioning my love for my country. I don't put my hand over my heart during the national jingoistic displays.
Yes, I don't put my hand over my heart for "The Star Spangled Banner" or "The Pledge of Allegiance". I haven't since high school, and I don't intend to start doing it now. Instead, I stand respectfully with my hands clasped in front of me.
Why do I do this? The symbolism, of course. I don't need to be told how to show my respect to my country. Saluting flags and standing at attention and all that other crap is something far too militaristic, far too anti-democratic to my tastes.
As far as the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, I go even farther and don't recite the pledge. After all, this isn't some fascist police state (yet). Our rights are derived from nature, not from the benevolence of Uncle Sam.
Thus, I can't understand why people jump all over Barack Obama for not kowtowing to the American flag during the national anthem. If he so chooses to stand with his hands at his waist, so be it. I'm certain he loves this country, and respects those who have died for it.
If you choose to put your hand over your heart, by all means do so. If you wish to stand respectfully, go ahead and do it. Hell, if you wish to stand disrespectfully, or not even stand at all, go ahead. Some people may not like it, but that is the way it goes in a free society. They'll get over it, in time.
To me, patriotism is standing up for what you believe. I believe in a free and open society, one where your love of country is shown through actions, not just hollow words and salutes. We fought a war over sixty years ago against two nations built upon jingoism and hollow nationalism. I'll be damned if I let this country that I love turn into one of those nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)