I love to hear right-wing economists screaming and ranting and raving about the "free market" and "letting the market decide" and so on and so forth. Of course, the second someone's stock portfolio takes a hit, they're shrieking for someone, anyone (specifically the government) to come save them.

However, it's a disaster in slow motion for the economy when this actually happens (as we've seen over and over again). Bear Stearns is a example. The free-market advocates demanded a hands-off approach that allowed them to risk enormous sums of money in an area that anyone should have been able to tell you was a bad bad bad place to risk enormous sums of money. Of course, no one was thinking of the long term. They never do. When the inevitable crash came, they all looked shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED! How could this have happened? How could anyone have foreseen this?

So, as Bear Sterns was going down in flames, investors cried out for a life preserver from the Fed. "Save us!" they cried. "Save us from this catastrophe that has befallen us that we could not have foreseen or prevented, given our level of nearsightedness and greed!"

And the Fed stepped in. $2/share, $10/share, whatever. The business failed. It should have been allowed to go all the way down.

The argument, however, is that if Bear Stearns had been allowed to collapse, it would have sparked a chain reaction that would have devastated the economy. Uh, sure. Bear Stearns was trading at over $160/share the week before it imploded. What exactly is the difference on the grand scale between $10 and $0? Not much. The only thing the Fed did was dump a sandbag on top of the levee and pray that the hurricane would just go away. The next investment bank that goes down (and it's likely to happen soon) will simply expect a bail-out. And when this crisis passes, as they do, firms such as this will have learned an important lesson:

Fuck it up as much as you want, Uncle Sam will bail you out!

This will, of course, fuel the next economic crisis. Rinse, repeat. Act surprised the next time it happens. You couldn't have foreseen it. No one could!

Allowing entire sectors of the market to fail really sucks for business. However, it's not all bad for consumers. Take the airline industry. Back in 2001, the airline industry, under the weight of its own stupidity, was having a hard time of things. The new Bush administration, looking for some way to help out megacorporations, found the perfect excuse - 9/11. Holy shit, people! The airline industry is going to go under because no one wants to fly! (never mind that it was pretty fucked up on 9/10, that's UNAMERICAN TALK AND THE TERRORISTS WIN).

So, they bailed out the airline industry. What would have happened if they hadn't?

Well, in the short term, a lot of people would have lost a lot of money as the legacy carriers went bankrupt. Mergers, acquisitions and the resulting layoffs would have put thousands of of work. To gain some sort of revenue, airfares would have skyrocketed. And then, something strange would have happened. Consumers would have decided that this was bullshit.

Amtrak's and Greyhound's ridership would have jumped up (higher than post 9/11, and more steadily). Smaller carriers with lower airfares would have seen an increase in business. Larger carriers would have disappeared. Services would have increased as airfares lowered in order to attract customers. The market would have corrected itself in order to win consumers back, or it would have failed. And how, exactly, is that a bad thing? Isn't that what the "free market" is all about? Isn't that capitalism? If there is no allowance for an entire segment of the market to fail because of its own inability to meet the needs of the consumer, what is the point of a free market? What is the point of private enterprise?

In the end, these bail-outs hurt more people than they help. They immediately saddle the taxpayers with the money required to guarantee solvency, and in the long run, it only validates and perpetuates the validity of the stupid decisions that led to the need for a bail-out. In the case of Bear Stearns, the Fed handed the company over to J.P. Morgan and said "We'll cover 30 billion in losses that you might incur." So, Morgan gets Bear Stearns' entire profitable portfolio and next to none of its losses, while you and I get upwards of 30 billion in debt and no possibility of reward if that debt is less and the portfolio proves to be more resilient than expected. We get the risk, private enterprise gets the reward. And for all the people who were lent sums of money they couldn't afford and told that it was all good, they get eviction notices. Sorry, but the government can't be bothered to help you out. You're not a "market segment," you're just a consumer. And who gives a shit about the consumer? Well, the free market would, because if it didn't, it would collapse. Good thing the federal government won't let that happen!

-pb

I may be a liberal whackjob, but rare is the day that I am in agreement with Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos on pretty much... anything. However, he posted this:

Here's my top three picks for Obama:

1. Bill Richardson
2. Kathleen Sebelius
3. Chris Dodd

They've all got their plusses and minuses. But if we got any of those three, I'd be ecstatic.

And that right there is my list, in that order.

Obama/Richardson would be one of the most potent foreign-policy teams ever assembled. Obama/Sebelius would be a huge boost to gender and race rights, as well as showing the Midwest that they matter, and Obama/Dodd would be an impressive domestic team. All three are fairly progressive tickets. (Well, Richardson's got some crazy economic ideas, but socially, he was one of the more progressive contestants in the race.)

-pb

It might be a little early in the game (what, with only 8 months left until the election), but let's take a look at the electoral map, broken down into Red and Blue States. Rasmussen just released a report outlining which states fall where:

Safely Democratic: California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New York (31), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11).
168 Electoral Votes

Likely Democratic: Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), and Wisconsin (10).
84 Electoral Votes

Leans Democratic: Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), and Ohio (20).
32 Electoral Votes

Toss-Up: Colorado (9), Missouri (11), and Nevada (5).
25 Electoral Votes

Leans Republican: Florida (27), Virginia (13).
40 Electoral Votes

Likely Republican: Arkansas (6), North Carolina (15), and Tennessee (11).
32 Electoral Votes

Safely Republican: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Texas (34), Utah (5), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3).
157 Electoral Votes

Let's look at the almost-worst-case scenario. Republicans win all Safely Republican states, Dems do the same with their same states:

168 - 157, slight advantage Democrats.

Next, let's say both parties win their "likely" states, as they are, well, likely to do.

252 - 189, big advantage Democrats.

Remember, the target number is 270. (269 throws the ball to the House, which is a less scary proposition today than it was four years ago, but not something to contemplate.)

So now there's the nebulous "leans" and "toss up" pool of 8 states that encompass 97 EVs. Let's just scratch the "Leans Republican" ones over to the Republicans and assume that Florida is close enough to cheat in, and this just isn't Virginia's year (although they just elected their second consecutive Dem governor, a Dem senator, and will likely make that a pair this year, let's just assume that they're not going to go totally blue).

252 - 229, still advantage Democrats.

This is worst-case scenario here, so let's give 'em the toss-up states.

252 - 254, razor-thin advantage Republicans

So, we're down to the "Leans Democratic" states with their 32 EVs. Iowa and New Mexico would be nice pick ups, but in the end, it comes down to Ohio. Whoever wins that (in this scenario) wins the race. It came down to Ohio in 2004 (again, this map is the same), and there's the possibility that it could happen again. Even though it's listed as "leans Democratic," Let's assume that it goes Red again. In fact, let's throw all 32 EVs from the "leans Dem" states over to the Republicans. Dems would have to grab 17 EVs to win. But from where?

Colorado and Missouri together would put them over. But let's scroll back up just a bit and make a few tweaks.

Republicans take Ohio and Iowa. However, on the strength of Bill Richardson aggressively campaigning in New Mexico, Dems take that state. And just South of the Mason-Dixon, an energized Democratic base turns out en masse for popular ex-governor Mark Warner's Senate bid and carries the state for the top of the ticket...

270 - 268, Dems.

I think that there needs to be an aggressive campaign to flip Virginia this year. While it's slightly more likely than that Ohio will go Blue, I'd rather not have to worry about 2004's Florida being the deciding factor. Flipping Virginia gives the Dems a fighting chance in what could again be a razor-thin margin of error.

Of course, my more favorable scenario has the Dems picking up all of the "leans" states and the toss-ups for a 349 - 189 drubbing, but hey, I'm a dreamer.


-pb

So, if you're confused by the labyrinthine process that is the Democratic Primary/Caucus process, don't feel bad. Seriously, there's like two people who understand it, and they live in a secure bunker in Area 51 and call everyone "Steve."

50 different news organizations are reporting 75 different delegate totals. Some states that have already had their contests don't have accurate delegate counts. Some states that have already had their contests have delegate counts tied to future state conventions, so their delegate counts could change. And then there's the superdelegates, who are all subject to change.

That brings us to Florida and Michigan. They broke the rules and jumped the gun ahead of Super Tuesday, because they wanted a bigger slice of the nominating pie. In retaliation, the DNC has stated that their delegates will not be seated at the convention.

Now, the DNC has these rules, you know, and they have to play by them or there's going to be this massive clusterfuck of states jamming their primaries (if things go well) into January 5th, 2016. Or so the going rate is. It is so imperative that these rules be followed that the DNC is risking the alienation of Democrats in Michigan, a state with a tanking economy that could well turn out big for them against any Republican, and Florida, a state who's voters could well decide the outcome of this election. So, I guess these rules are pretty fucking important! Let's review the egregious breaches of etiquette that has caused Michigan and Florida to lose their representation at the August Convention:

11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS

A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

Yeah, so take that Florida and Michigan! And, uh... Iowa... and New Hampshire... oh, and South Carolina.

That's right. Iowa held its caucus 33 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire's primary? 27 days before. South Carolina? 10 days before. All earlier than the earliest they could hold their contests within the rules. Penalty? None.

So why is the DNC trying to piss of 44 electoral votes?

-pb

(I'm forced to point out the irony of Michigan and Florida having a huge say in the process if they'd held their primaries yesterday</i>.)

John Edwards is out.

He indicated that he'd at least hold out until Super-Mondo-Blue-Oyster-Cultosauro-Erecto Tuesday, but apparently only 15% in the quasi-meaningless contest in Florida sealed the deal for him. Word is, he won't endorse right away, but might soon (read: before there's a nominee). Pundits are already frothing over the Edwards split - that is, which way will his supporters lean? Do they break across racial lines (with Edwards getting pretty much none of the Black vote) and head to Clinton, or do they break across the "change" and "progressive" line and head to Obama?

Edwards' rhetoric would suggest that if he was going to endorse, it wouldn't be Clinton, but I can imagine there's some heavy deal-brokering going on behind the scene.

Any way you cut it, I'm still standing next to a dead horse. I might be swayed to Obama if there's an Edwards endorsement, but it's probably Al Gore on my ballot at this point. I've got three months to mull over it.

-pb

As I wrote right in the thick of the Iowa Caucuses, my candidate was swirling the drain. What do you know, New Hampshire came and went and Richardson didn't hang on until Nevada like I thought he would. He didn't endorse, either, because he's still hoping to be VP.

So, I'm down to Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

There was a point a few nights ago where Barack Obama said something that made me want to vote for him. I'd never really experienced that. I'd never heard a candidate say something that flat out made me want to vote for him on the strength of what he or she said. This is from a interview on NPR:

At a debate in Nevada, Obama was asked about his weaknesses. He confessed that his greatest weakness is a lack of organization — a messy desk and office. At the debate, Obama answered the question first, followed by Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC).

"I think Sen. Edwards said he was too passionate about helping poor people, and Sen. Clinton said she was too impatient to move the country forward," Obama tells NPR. "I was trying to answer the question 'What's your greatest weakness?' as opposed to 'What's your greatest strength disguised as a weakness?'"

"I should have said I like to help old ladies across the street," he says.

But Obama says he would not want to redo his response.

"I think one of the hallmarks of our campaign is that I actually answer questions honestly and try not to engage in too much spin," he says.

Check out the audio for the full effect. It's about 2/3rds of the way through the segment.

Of course, that feeling faded quickly when Obama and Clinton (and Clinton) started mud wrestling. And then there was the debate. I didn't watch, but from the recaps I saw (and according to people who actually watched), John Edwards won. Media response?

OMFG HILLARY OBAMA CATFIGHT SHE FUCKING WENT FOR THE EYES AND HE GRABBED HER HAIR AND THEN BILL WAS TAKING BETS IN THE AUDIENCE AND SWEET JESUS THEY WERE LITERALLY TRYING TO FUCKING KILL EACH OTHER AND John Edwards was there too. He said nothing worth repeating.

People scream and yell for substance. The media keeps telling us that we want a candidate that will address the issues ("no shit," we reply). So, when someone actually tackles the issues, they ignore him. And this isn't Dennis Kucinich here being written off by the media as a troll to be ignored, it's The Incumbent Democratic Party Candidate For Vice President of the United States Whom Women Swooned Over not Four Year Hence. Now? Chopped liver. Speaking important things that are boring. Black Person and Female Person are fighting. More interesting. It's like American Idol.

Edwards' message was starting to get some traction with me. I like his stance on social justice, I like his (new) timetable for Iraq, I like the fact that he was right on the economy months ago. And now, of course, the media is shutting him out.

Now what? I won't vote for Clinton because I don't trust her. We've spent the last seven years under the rule of an Executive that has grabbed more power than any administration since Theodore Roosevelt, and moved to set itself up as the top of the government with the Legislative and Judiciary on a second tier that are directly answerable to the Executive. And then there's Cheney's "Fourth Branch." I look at Hillary Clinton and think "Hey, Republicans, when you were busy skullfucking the Constitution, didn't you even for a second think 'what happens if a Democrat becomes president and uses all of the powers we've grabbed against us?'" I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would abuse the Executive just like Bush did. I want a president who will undo that damage, not make it worse.

And while I like Obama in principle, I'm really souring on the fact that he is part of the fact that the level of debate has been lowered. "She distorted my record!" Get over it! Don't whine about it (I blame Clinton for this, too), go out and tell people what you're really about. The more you whine, the more the media is going to show you whining, and the less you get to talk about the issues. Or maybe that's the plan?

So, while Edwards is my current favorite in this rogue's gallery, I'm afraid that the media has ended his campaign for him. My last hope here is the brokered convention producing Al Gore. As it stands, I still don't know who I'm voting for.

If Edwards is still on the ballot come April 22nd, as of this writing it'll likely be him. If not, I'll write in Al Gore unless the polls show a close contest between Clinton and Obama, in which case I'll probably bite the bullet and vote for Obama.

I'm worn out and frustrated with the whole thing, and we're not even a month in.

-pb

Remember that bender you went on that one time? The one where you remember getting to the party and having a few drinks, and then the next thing you remember is waking up in a pool of vomit next to a naked pile of sprawling limbs that you're not exactly sure belonged to a human, but it was moaning and groping your crotch?

This is what Mitt Romney's looks like:



-pb

I'm on a message board discussing Stewart and Colbert going back on the air, and wow, out come the nutcases. Well, at some point, Bill Clinton came up (like he is wont to do when nutcases abound), and here's a little exchange I think you'll all get a kick out of:

hitlery clinton wrote:
ALL OF THOSE DEMOCRATS LIED WELL BEFORE THEY PUSHED BUSH INTO INVADING IRAQ

To which I replied:

Oh yeah, they pushed him kicking and screaming into invading Iraq.

Remember when Steny Hoyer and Frank Lautenbeg went over to the White House, strapped Bush to his own desk, and took turns punching him the the face and wailing on him with a belt while screaming "CALL THE PENTAGON! ORDER THE INVASION!"? Bush was sobbing and just kept saying "no, no, there's no evidence! Don't make me do it! THINK OF THE POOR IRAQIS!" But they wouldn't stop. They just kept hitting him.

And then Pelosi got on national television and was kicking Cheney in the stones and shrieking about how he was such a pussy for not wanting to invade one little country and that he should just man up. Poor Cheney almost had a heart attack right there, but he stayed strong. "We're not going in!" he declared in that voice that says "I've just been kicked in the stones with a five-inch stiletto heel."

They toughed it out, right up until Barney Frank shot Mary Cheney with the Gay-gun. Dick Cheney just collapsed and was blubbering and moaning "my poor daughter!" as she groped and fondled another woman in unholy lez-lust that no Cheney daughter would naturally come by.

Frank aimed that gun at the Bush Twins, and George, through bloody teeth, finally sighed and picked up the phone.

And that's how the Democrats pushed Bush into invading Iraq. True story. Happened right after that unicorn farted a rainbow on Tom Delay and made him do all those bad things.

-pb

Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, is running for the Republican presidential nomination. At the outset of the campaign, he was an also-ran with no name recognition and no real prospects of making a blip behind the combined names of Giuliani, Romney, McCain and the specter of a Thompson candidacy. Huckabee was lumped in with the likes of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, and Ron Paul out on the media-void fringe.

However, Republicans don't seem very happy with the top tier. McCain imploded early, and while he's gained back some ground, he's nowhere near the heir apparent to the Republican throne. Romney is still laboring under the "Mormon from Mass" label and his record that he's been desperately running away from since the campaign began. Thompson hasn't made a significant splash, despite high expectations. He looks like McCain. And Giuliani, the front runner, has just barely managed to keep the lead with his constant repetition of (to quote Joe Biden) "a noun, a verb, and 9/11." He's still dodging his pro-choice, pro-gay rights, thrice-divorced credentials. The evangelical right is no where near convinced that he's the guy, and they're making noise to suggest that they might bolt the party if he is the guy.

So, back to Mike Huckabee. He was essentially a backwater candidate. However, he's been tenacious. He's reached out to evangelicals by touting his record as "one of them." Now that the election season is in force, they're starting to listen.

Huckabee came in second in the Iowa Straw Poll behind Romney this past August. Granted, Giuliani and McCain skipped it, but Huckabee's placement was surprising. He's continued to move up the national standings as January looms, but in Iowa, there's talk now that he might actually come in first there. The further national exposure and the perception of winning would likely give him a boost among Republicans allowing him to roll into Super Tuesday where the Southern states are likely to give Romney and Giuliani a huge stumbling block. That could well be Huckabee's chance to shine.

So, why should you be afraid of Mike Huckabee? He's a right-wing fundamentalist, and that defines his campaign. If that doesn't scare you, well, I can't help you. But, all the Republican candidates are like that. Why should Huckabee be any more frightening?

Two words: Chuck Norris.



Huckabee picked up an endorsement from Chuck Norris and did two things that Democrats are scared shitless of doing: 1) was seen in the same time zone as anyone who has ever been in a movie and 2) was funny.

Most people don't know this, but Chuck Norris makes Sean Hannity look like a centrist. He's out there in whackyjob land. He thinks we need to homeschool all children, which could conceivably be accomplished if we just accepted that America is a Christian Nation and women should just stay home. But, like I said, most people don't know that. The most that people actually know about Chuck Norris is that he was Walker, Texas Ranger, and his tears cure cancer (too bad he doesn't cry - ever). Which is exactly what Huckabee plays on in this ad. This ad speaks to Republicans, but replace one line (the part about being a conservative), and it's ready for the national spotlight. People aren't going to be looking to see what kind of politics Chuck Norris espouses, they're just going to see Mike Huckabee standing next to Chuck Norris, telling Chuck Norris jokes and talking about how he's going to put the IRS out of business. The center is going to eat that up. Hillary Clinton is going to look positively shrill compared to that. Even Barack Obama, Mr. Serious With No Tie, is going to come off as stiff compared to a guy who said "there's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard, just another fist."

Democrats have bought into the right-wing noise machine assertion that they're completely controlled by their Hollywood masters, that they get policy direction from George Soros and Michael Moore. Because of that, no Democrat would even dream of appearing in an ad with an actor, even for the primaries. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that Republicans can say whatever they want in the primary to win the base and then roll on into the general and speak like a rational human being, but when Democrats play to their base, they get torn apart with those words in the general.

So, Huckabee is playing both sides of that coin. He's getting the watchwords out to the base using Chuck Norris, but in the general, the presentation is going to outweigh the message.

And that's why you should be scared of Mike Huckabee. Because even though the points in that ad make my skin crawl, I thought that this ad was fucking brilliant.

-pb

So, remember back in August, I took a long look at the field of Democratic hopefuls?

Well, I've got to change at least one of those numbers: Barack Obama. I had originally given him half a point because he supports civil unions. Now, it turns out that he's travelling with an anti-gay gospel singer who is campaigning for him. Pander, much? When they say "Obama just doesn't have experience," I think this is what they mean. Sure, he's been in politics for a bit, but it doesn't take a genius to know that you don't pander to the other side until you win the primary. I guess he didn't get that memo. At least Dems will get to decide before the general if they want a guy who tows along a hate-monger to represent them.

Dealbreakers: Obama 2.5/4 (Still better than Hillary)

-pb

So, the Senate undertook the enormous task of condemning 2/3rds of the First Amendment by a 3/4 majority.

Glad that's out of the way. I was getting anxious wondering when Congress was going get around to pissing on the Constitution again while not doing the job they were elected to do.

-pb

THE WAR PARTY - Ted Rall

Ted Rall tells it like it is, which is, incidentally, something I've been very annoyed about. Democrats are whining about how they can't stop the war because Republicans won't help them override Bush's expected veto. The truth is, if they didn't give Bush a defense budget to veto, they wouldn't have to override it. They'd just have to sit back, wait for the Pentagon to run out of war funding, and then bring the troops home on their own. Republicans like to spin it that Democrats attempting that would be leaving troops sitting in the field with no bullets, but all they're really doing is giving the Dems political cover. "We CAAAAAAAN'T end the war because Republicans won't let us! We have to fund the troops, timetable or not!" Bullshit. What Dems really want is to drag this fucker out until 2008, so they can batter the Republicans with the idea that we're still in Iraq because they wouldn't help bring the troops home.

Newflash: Democrats are extending the war be not cutting off the funding. They're in control. All Harry Reid has to do is say "Nope, we don't have time to work on your defense spending bill."

And, as Rall points out, the media is perpetuating the lie that their hands are tied.

-pb

I've got four things I consider "dealbreakers" when it comes to voting for a candidate:

• Candidate does not support reproductive choice
• Candidate does not support LGTB rights
• Candidate is in favor of capital punishment
• Candidate does not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and/or supports indefinite deployment of even a token U.S. force in Iraq

I have other dealbreakers, like environmental concerns and so on and so forth, but since these four uniformly eliminate any Republican candidate, but might also eliminate a Democratic candidate, we'll focus on them.

Now, it's become apparent that with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, none of the Democratic candidates currently in the race are free of all of those dealbreakers. Dealbreakers aside, Gravel has some crazy ideas that I'm not down with (like the FairTax initiative, which is anything but), but I agree in principle with 99% of Kucinich's platform. The problem is, he's such an outside candidate that it's not even worth discussing him. I voted for him once, but I'd like to not have to do that again. Also, he's been getting on my nerves with his "Any media, any time, at any moral cost" stance, to the point of being the only Dem candidate to actually call FOX News a legitimate news organization (especially in the face of Edwards calling them on their increasing disconnection from reality).

So, I'm left with ranking the actual viable candidates against my dealbreaker list. And this is what I've come up with:

John Edwards - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. "Uncomfortable" around gays but supports civil unions. Supports death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely. (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Dealbreakers: 2.5/4.

Barack Obama - Opposes ban on late-term abortion, supports prevention education, is against Constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. In favor of civil unions that are "just like marriage". Fought against death penalty in legislation but is on record defending it in some cases. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 2/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for wishy-washing on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Hillary Clinton - 100% NARAL voting record and supports education and prevention, but has engendered some pro-life sentiments depending on her audience. Uncertain on death penalty except to mandate DNA testing, so not obviously against. Supports civil unions, but not marriage. Supports blowing up more shit in Iraq.

Deal breakers: 3/4 (.5 for anti-choice chatter, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Joe Biden - 34% NARAL voting record. In favor of civil unions, voted against same-sex marriage but calls it "inevitable". No real position on death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 3/4 (1 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for no position on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Chris Dodd - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but voted against same-sex marriage. Called for a moratorium on capital punishment. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 0 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Bill Richardson - Supports Roe v. Wade. Supports civil unions with full marriage benefits, would call it marriage if possible, aims for "achievable". Supports death penalty. Favors 6-month withdrawal from Iraq with no remaining troops.

Dealbreakers: 1/4 (0 for reproductive rights, 0 for civil unions as a first step, 1 for death penalty, 0 for Iraq)

And just for shits and giggles:

Al Gore - Supports Roe v. Wade, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but against same-sex marriage. Supports death penalty in certain cases. No official stance on an exit from Iraq, but strongly opposed to involvement there.

Dealbreakers 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 on death penalty, provisional 0 for Iraq)

So, that's what I'm left with. Up until this soul-search evaluation, my favorite candidate in the race was Edwards, but he's hitting over 50% of my dealbreakers. Next would probably have been Obama, hit he's right at 50%. Even my ideal candidate is has 1½ of them.

I want a voice in the primary, a voice other than "none of the above". I want to point to one of these people and say "that one..." Ideally, I'd like to end that with "is the best choice," but right now, I'm going to have to settle on "is the least objectionable." And barring a complete policy shift (which I wouldn't likely trust anyway), that one is Bill Richardson. Aside from his downsides, he's got a number of upsides, too. He's the only Dem candidate with a detailed environmental plan. That detailed plan is also far better than Clinton or Edwards "wish list". Richardson's been to Darfur and has been trying to do what he can to bring an end to the genocide there (a big step for a governor who doesn't have the federal government behind him). He's been to North Korea. He's got actual foreign policy experience. He supports a federal minimum wage for teachers of $40,000, and wants to scrap "Every No Child Left Behind." At the federal level, he's been responsible for the return of Native American land rights and has served as an advocate for them in both the House and at the Cabinet level. He made New Mexico the first state to offer $400,000 in life insurance coverage for active duty National Guardsmen. He's a supporter of regional rail and private space program development. He signed medical marijuana legislation while running for President despite calls that it might hurt him, because it was "the right thing to do". He's a supporter of gun rights. He cut taxes. (Hear that? He's a pro-gun, tax-cutting Democrat.) At the moment I'm writing this, I'm actually more excited for Richardson than Al Gore.

I still want Gore to get into the race, but if that's the case, I want Richardson as VP. Gore was a very hands-on VP, and with someone as well in line with his beliefs as Richardson, I think they'd make a very dynamic team that would get a lot done. But, until Gore gets into the race, I think I've found my horse.

-pb

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/16/wife.killed.ap/index.html

A man threw his seriously ill wife four stories to her death because he could no longer afford to pay for her medical care

This man's wife was dying from neurological problems and uterine cancer, was partially blind, couldn't walk and weighed 75lbs. He could no longer afford to pay the $700-$800/week for her treatment, had sold off all of their assets. He carried her to the balcony of their apartment, kissed her, and tossed her over.

But there's nothing wrong with our healthcare system.

-pb

Rudy Giuliani says that Democrats want to give us a "nanny government".

Well, I'll take the nanny government over Rudy's vision for America, which sounds more like an abusive alcoholic stepfather.

"I'm hungry! I haven't eaten in days!"

"Shut up, you ungrateful little fuck! Do you remember what I did for you on 9/11? DO YOU EVEN REMEBER 9/11! Get over here you little shit! I am going to beat you so hard! I'm getting my belt. Let's see how you like spending some time in Gitmo, you little son of a whore. Fucker! After 9/11 this is how you treat me? Stupid little shit, GET OVER HERE!"

Yeah, I'll take nanny over that.

-pb

Wow, these are the assholes I get to chose from?

Can I have the sampler, please?

I'll have the Richardson Education Plan, the Gravel Brutal Honesty, the Obama Charisma and some of the Biden and Dodd Withdrawal Strategy. Pack that up in one candidate, please.

Just about all of them has said something I agree with. All of them have said something I disagree with. And all of their records have pros that I'm all in favor of, and most of their records have what I consider deal-breakers. What sucks is the ones with the ideas I'm the most excited about have the biggest deal-breakers.

-pb

Ok, so, let me get this straight:

The U.S. called on the Palestinians to hold free and fair democratic elections.
The Palestinians held free and fair democratic elections.
Hamas won the elections.
The U.S., not liking the outcome, cut off all support payments in an effort to starve out the Hamas government.


Palestine essentially has a two-party system: Fatah and Hamas. Fatah was in power. When Hamas won the election, the U.S. didn't like it. So that begs the question:

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE POINT OF CALLING FOR ELECTIONS IF THE PARTY YOU WANTED IN POWER WAS ALREADY IN POWER?

It also begs another question:

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH DEMOCRACY?

Can someone please name for me one point since the founding of our democracy that the United States has actively engaged in "spreading democracy"? Various administrations have talked about it ad nauseum, but I can't think of a single instance where our global policy has been the fostering of democracies.

And, because of this, when democracy does happen despite the government's best attempts to crush it, it's a democracy that hates our fucking guts. I wonder why that is?

-pb

Apparently, I made a confusing poll and got interesting results. The idea was to only vote in one of the polls (I'm supporting candidate X...), not all of them.

But I am seeing a lot of Gore support there...


EDIT: The idea here is today, I'm supporting [Biden|Clinton|Edwards|Gravel|Obama]. If Al Gore entered the race tomorrow, I'd [switch support|stay where I'm at].

-pb

Ok, so, looking over the answers from my complete unscientific 2008 Primary Straw Poll, I can see that I'm not entirely alone in my support of Edwards, but I'm certainly not in the majority of you Obama supporters. So, here's a question, and it's only for registered Dems (unless you happen to live in a state with an open primary) - Whichever horse jackass you're supporting, how would Al Gore's entry into the primary affect your vote?

Please feel free to discuss/rant/whatnot.

-pb

Poll #1006696 How would Gore's entry into the Democratic Primary affect your vote?
Open to: All, results viewable to: All

I'm supporting Hillary Clinton - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting Joe Biden - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting John Edwards - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting Mike Gravel - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

I'm supporting Barack Obama - If Al Gore entered the race, I'd

So, apparently, Vegas has 6-1 odds on Gore being the 44th President, matching Grover Cleveland's record of holding two presidential succession numbers (Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President), and even one-upping him by not skipping a term inbetween!

I walked past a TV shoing CNN running a story "Will Gore Run?" Pundits have been prognosticating that Gore's entry into the race would put him as the frontrunner, instantly overtaking Hillary and dropping Obama to number 3. Polling seems to indicate that a great deal of Edwards support is just Gore support in disguise (i.e., people like me) who would jump to Gore's camp right away. That would be devastating for Edwards' campaign, and probably drive him from the race, lending Gore even more support. Hillary's base seems to have some Gore supporters that would flee her scene if he came along, too.

And then, there's the general. Gore, as an undeclared candidate, matches toe-to-toe (and has the advantage) with Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner. That's without Gore spending a single campaign dime. He won't have any trouble raising cash, either. Gore's no stranger to the internets (probably because during his service in the United States Congress, he invented the internet "took the initiative in creating the internet"), and he's no stranger to Howard Dean (who he endorsed in '04), who's online campaign is the new model for netroots fundraising.

Gore has obviously learned from his failings in 2000. The old "Lawkbawx" Gore is gone - replaced with a self-deprecating, funny, engaging Al Gore who can light a fire under the base while talking actual strategy and policy. Al Gore doesn't just tell you what would be nice, he has actual ideas as to how to accomplish them, and he knows how to actually deliver that message now. He's also got a disenfranchised electorate that, at least on one side, sees him as a man who was unfairly robbed of the Presidency in favor of a man who has bungled every single thing he's done - America's looking back now and thinking "Huh, maybe we should have gone the other direction on that one".

Al Gore might be looking to give America a do-over. The wild speculation (and attention) might be going a long way in that decision.

-pb

So, just for my own curiosity, I'd just like to get a sense of you people stand on the 2008 primaries. I've only included the Democrats and Republicans, because the other parties don't tend to have huge nationwide primary battles. I've also only added announced candidates. I'm going under the assumption that this is the field. I'd like one more addition (and about 12 or so subtractions), but what I want and what is currently the lineup are two different things.

Please feel free to make impassioned soliloquies for your favorite candidate.

-pb

Poll #1005379 2008 Primary Straw Poll
Open to: All, results viewable to: All

Who do you support for the Democratic Party nomination?

Who do you support for the Republican Party nomination?

Dean to Dems: Get your shit in order

"The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that we end this war," Dean said during the weekly Democratic radio address. "So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we may find ourselves the minority again."

Yeah, ya think?

-pb

I'll have to wait until I get home tonight to view the clip, but from what I hear, Al Gore gave his most solid "maybe" yet under the pressure cooker that is Keith Olbermann. I missed hot Al on Keith action last night. I are saddened!

Anyway, here's what some of the pundits on teh intartoobs have postulated:

1) He's really not going to run. Yet, having decided that, there's no sense in letting the world know until the primaries are over. Let the Republicans waste effort on a guy who's already out of the race. Less money to waste elsewhere.

2) He's going to run, but why bother annoucing it now? Wait until September or October, let Hillary and Obama wear themselves out on each other, and then come in like a shining white horse, unscathed by the mudslinging. Al's got a crapload of money already, and he'll have no problems raising gobs more.

I'm hoping for option #2.

-pb

In discussing the Democratic capitulation on the Iraq war spending bill, Rahm Emanuel said "The way I would view this, I view this as the beginning of the end of the President's policy in Iraq in this way. It ends the blank check on more troops…"

Rahm apparently didn't understand that he voted for a blank check on more troops and a continuation of Bush's policies in Iraq. Oops! Your bad.

-pb

So, we're following this car today. It's got a Joe Hoeffel sticker and a Kerry Edwards sticker. Its left blinker is on, but it's not slowing down and is passing every left turn.

I say "That right there is the very definition of the Democratic party: Left turn signal on, no intention of using it."

-pb

So, here's the rant you've probably all been waiting for:

Fuck you, Democrats. Seriously, fuck you. If it weren't for the fact that Pennsylvania doesn't haven an open primary, I'd tear up my registration card into 280 pieces and send one to each Democrat in the House and Senate. They might be trying to convince us that either of the two major bills right now are coated in lube as they shove them up our ass, but no, they're red-fucking hot.

Back in November, America rose up and said "fix this shit". Dems took over at the end of January, and all they've accomplished so far is loosing a game of political chicken with a lame duck moron with approval numbers in the toilet. How fucking dumb do you have to be? They lost a chess match to a blind guy playing on a different board. Great job, assholes. Great fucking job. And you wonder why this annointed Congress has approval numbers just a few points higher than President Fucktard?

Since taking over, Dems have:

• Caved to Bush's demand for unlimited war.


• Blubbered along while Alberto Gonzalez is revealed to be a corpse-fucking vampire who can't tie his shoes without kicking a puppy.


• Claimed that their steaming pile of dogshit immigration legislation was a "great comprimise" and we should all go gaga over it.


• Failed to provide even the illusion of leadership.


• In trying, made themselves look worse and then didn't bother to call anyone on it (Pelosi in Syria)


• Played to the tune of the most corrupt administration since (at least) Nixon's Crooks'r'Us

Way to win, Dems. Way to parley that great victory in '06 into... jack fucking shit. You'll be lucky to hold those seats in '08, and you'll be lucky if this fiasco doesn't drag the eventual nominee down with it.

I'm back to Edwards as my guy. Not only is he the one that I agree with the most (I'm starting to find Kucinich's desire for media at any cost to be a bit desperate), he's one of the few Dems not tainted by this by being in Congress at the moment. Yes, he voted for the war, but he's taken his licks for that. Obama can scream all he wants about not voting for the war, but at the end of the day, he's already said he'll vote for a bill with no timetables because Bush vetoed the first one. That's not leadership. That's not standing up for morals, no matter how unpopular. Fuck that. And Hillary? Not a fucking chance.

So yeah, fuck you, Dems. If you give me someone else besides John Edwards t