Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Since I haven't covered them yet, my first articles will examine the differences between the three frontrunners. I will use the same format I used previously to examine their positions, policy ideas, and websites.
I feel that such scrutiny is necessary, since the mainstream media are currently running in-depth stories from John Edwards' hairstylist. I wish I were kidding, but I'm not.
But, as I said, whatever the political price eventually is should not matter. Because some leadership is needed here. And that's what leadership is -- doing the right thing, while convincing enough of your opponents that it is the right thing... and then absolutely refusing to back down.
This war needs to end. If the Democrats don't do it in September, then they will be no better than the Republicans who led us into this war, and have enabled Bush ever since. Poll numbers show this, and Democrats know it. Enough Republicans need to be enticed or scared into crossing the aisle, in order to force Bush to get the troops out. Once again, here is what it will take: 60 to 70 in the House; 17 or 18 in the Senate. Once those numbers are reached, Bush's opinion ceases to be relevant.
Meet The Press' Tim Russert appeared on Conan O'Brien's show a few days ago, and mentioned that he had been at Woodstock. Tim Russert? At Woodstock? There's a mind-numbing thought. He said he made some money selling Stegmeyer beer for 80 cents a six-pack, so I guess he was there to exercise free market capitalism. Or something.
But my real question at this point is: will the chronic attention deficit disorder (also known as: having the attention span of a hummingbird) so prevalent in the mainstream media mean that they will accept four candidates in the "top tier" of Republicans, or will they drop someone to remain at three?
Do you support the concept of gay marriage?
That used to be an unimaginable question. Not "unimaginable" in a negative sense, but "unimaginable" in the original, neutral definition of the word: "unable to be imagined," or "not imaginable." The concept of two people of the same sex being married wasn't even raised in the American conscience until the 1990s (or perhaps late 1980s -- I haven't researched the actual date, this is from my own recollection). After that point, of course, the idea has grown in prominence in the American political debate, both pro and con.
But now, mostly due to a Mormon running for president, the issue of polygamy is also inserting itself into the political debate. So the question must also be asked: Do you support the concept of polygamy? If so, why? If not, why not?
This would, ironically enough, mean that the states at the back of the line suddenly become the crucial battleground states for the nomination. The only place left to get that "momentum" would be in the states which voted in the middle or at the end of the schedule. But even that's not assured. And if no candidate is the clear nominee by convention time, then we would have a real convention for a change. All the delegates' votes in the first round would go for the candidates they are pledged to vote for, but then in subsequent rounds of voting, we would have absolute pandemonium.
Now, let me be clear here -- I'm not making rash predictions that this is the way it'll turn out. Not yet, at least.
But wouldn't it be more fun to watch than four days of endless and meaningless speechifying?
The time has come to federalize presidential elections.
I do not call lightly for this step, and realize it would face an uphill fight to becoming reality. It would probably require amending the Constitution, which is always tough. This doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting, or that it won't eventually happen.
The federal government must take control of the election process for the presidential elections, including the primaries. This would simultaneously solve two problems that have been getting successively worse with each election cycle: the primary calendar race to the front of the line, and the questionable voting practices in certain areas of the country.
The symbolism of a Republican crowd sitting in "Geneva" is bad enough, given George W. Bush's penchance for ignoring international laws (especially those which emanated from Geneva), but am I the only one to see shades of Kafka or Orwell in GOP audience members sitting in "Moscow"?
Because it's hard to reconcile federal law which states that if you are a certain race (Native American) you are allowed to use an illegal drug (peyote) with your religious ceremony, the practice of many Christian sects which use a legal drug (wine) as a sacrament, and the fact that Rastafarians can be arrested for being caught using their illegal sacrament (ganja). Legally, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But then common sense has never been a strong point of the Drug War.
So forgive me for wanting to change the channel when I hear DiFi (as she is familiarly know to her California constituents) waxing indignant over Gonzales' actions on television news. I would much prefer to hear a more consistent and believable Democratic Senator. Like Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-VT), for example.