The Weekly Weigh-in -- Foresight is 20/200

Yes, as this nomination thing really comes to head here, I think it's fair to say that my prognostications of only two months ago may prove to be way way off. Then again, that was what a lot of people were thinking, and, while the rather distasteful general election contest I then saw as likely may not come to pass, I do think I'd picked up on a few of the things that might keep it from doing so.

But let's get specific, shall we? In short, Clinton and Giuliani's respective roads to a nominationjust look a heck of a lot less clear than they did back then. Indeed, they look downright treacherous. In fact, the way things look now, I'd say there's a pretty solid chance that ol' Rudy will be nothing but an afterthought in a month or two. Put simply, it seems like his somewhat odious personal life, coupled with the fact that he wasn't much of a blood-red Republican anyway (oh, and maybe that the whole terrorism/war issue, upon which almost all of his supposed appeal was based, has, somewhat inexplicably, become far less of an important issue for primary voters), has finally caught up with him, and a month or two too soon for his lofty ambitions. Of course, his strategy for a while has been to ignore the first state or two and hope that no one else can pick up the momentum from wins there to stop him in bigger states where he was (until recently, at least) more popular than all the other contenders. And, that might yet work, but, given the way he's been sinking like a rock, polling wise, in even those states (Florida, for example) suggests that he will not be saved by them.

But, then again, things are still incredibly fluid in the whole Republican race. As there were hints of even back in October, the Right-wingers have been rushing towards Huckabee as he seems to be the only semi-viable option who isn't Giuliani, the Mormon, McCain, or some other RINO ("Republican in Name Only"). At least in Iowa, that is. There, I think it will be extremely difficult for Romney to stop Huckabee's surge, especially if he keeps making mistakes -- like saying he "saw" his father march with Martin Luther King, and then having to say he meant "saw" in a "figurative" sense because, well, that probably never really happened -- that point out the fact that he's, y'know, a liar. So, yeah, I see Huckabee taking Iowa pretty convincingly, in spite of the numerous negative stories that are now starting to surface about him (more on that later).

But, apparently the good people of New Hampshire don't have much use for Bible-thumping hicks, so Huckabee doesn't look like he's got a great shot there (unless, of course, he gets a huge boost from an Iowa win). As it stands, Romney still has the lead in polls in the Granite State. But, who's that, roaring up on the outside?! . . . Why, it's 98-years-young John McCain, making a last-ditch sprint for the prize that his, ahem, illegitimate black baby (Karl Rove was the mother -- go figure) kept him from claiming way back in 2000. Seems that with Romney faltering, folks who don't find the Huck-ba-crite too appealing are now giving the old man a seventh look. Coluld it be that he will ride a second New Hampshire win all the way to the White House? Well, probably not, but in any case, it looks fairly likely that the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire will not be one and the same individual, which suggests that things on the Republican side could remain up in the air for quite some time. And so, there might yet be some hope for hizonner Giuliani's big-state plan yet.

But, that's not what I'm predicitng (yes, I still dare to hazard wild, meaningless guesses). No, I think that, as nasty as he apparently is himself, and as unlikely as it might have seemed only few months ago, good ol' Mike "Gomer" Huckabee, will probably get the nomination, if only because I can't imagine any of the other contenders, with all their flaws (both utterly real and simply "in the eyes of" typical Republican voters), being able to stop his momentum. He is, far more than any of the others, truly one of them . . . even if he has helped release a murderer from prison, taken money from cigarette makers while in office (uh, see that same link above), helped protect his son from getting prosecuted for animal cruelty, helped a drunk driver get out of jail in exchange for political donations, and . . . well, the list, apparently, goes on and on. But golly, he shure does love him some Jesus, so, y'know, he's basically the perfect Republican candidate.

Meanwhile, things are almost as wacky with the Dummocrats (heh heh, "Dummocrats") . . . Seems like the once "inevitable" Hillary is suddenly looking a lot more evitable. Indeed, she just may not come out of Iowa with a win. Obama has surged, and what's even wackier, even John Edwards looks to have a pretty good shot -- in the Buckeye state, at least (and if he can win there, well, who knows?). In short, it's looking like a three-way race down to the wire, after Hillary had a huge lead only a couple months ago. As it is, I'd say her odds of still getting the nomination are considerably better than Giuliani's, but that said, I wouldn't say they're significantly better than Obama's or more than mildly better than Edwards' at this point. She's been trending downward recently, while the two guys have been on the rise. She may be able to halt her slide sufficiently to pull it out, but frankly, I hope not. I think both Edwards and Obama would be better candidates in a general election, and since my main hope (such as it is) is that one Dummocrat or another will win next November, I've definitely got a preference for those two.

The good news, far as that goes, and as I've noted before, is that I don't think the eventual Republican winner, whoever it may be, will have good odds of beating the eventual Dem nom, whoever that is. And that includes the Huck-ba-crite, especially as the aforementioned skeletons would get far more scrutiny in the long, long general campaign. That said, I would definitely feel a lot more relaxed about things if it's Obama or Edwards against Huckabee or whoever, given Hillary's own extremely high negatives.

In any case, the one thing I'm certain of, with only a week and a half to go before Iowa votes, is that no prediction at this point would be anything but guesswork. It is just too jumbled up to say anything with much certainty. Which, when it comes to the flaming-car-crash spectacle that is politics, should make things fairly exciting in the weeks to come.

My own preference, to say it again, would be for an Obama-McCain matchup (especially since McCain, for all his past hypocrisies, is the only Republican contender I could actually stomach being the next president -- though my gut has built up an incredibly strong tolerance in the last few years for some reason), but I guess I'll just have to call that an Xmas wish at this point.

And that being said, I think I'll hold off on commenting further on the whole wacky process, at least until after the Iowa results come in. In the meantime, I just wanna sit back and watch the flaming wreckage :^) . . .

Weekly Weigh-in - Shams and Charlatans

[Heh heh -- I actually wrote this post last weekend but hadn't gotten around to posting it yet because I still wanted to add some links. Anyhow, I still haven't added the links -- and it's a little too late this evening to do that -- but I wanted to go ahead and post it anyway...I've got a little more commentary on this at the end of the post...]

-- As news broke this week about the agreement to think about someday reaching a peace agreement for the Middle East, I was mildly amazed, yet again, by how the media continues to treat these things as if they were anything other than completely pointless political theater. I don't wanna dwell on this - frankly, it doesn't deserve more than a passing mention - but anyone who thinks that whatever Abbas, Bush, and Olmert agreed to will amount to anything substantial vis-a-vis peace between Israel and the Palestinians is - how shall I put this? - an idiot. Moreso, because not one of those three "leaders" is in any position domestically to dictate the shape of future negotiations. Nonetheless, the media in general treated their b.s. summit like it was the big news of the day. Collective stupidity.


-- On another subject, watching the Republican debate the other day made me realize that I despise Mitt Romney nearly as much as I do Giuliani. Or maybe "realize" is not the word. Maybe it just confirmed it for me.


Anyone who knows even a little bit about Giuliani's extremely shady friends will understand why I detest the little creep. Frankly, it would be hard for anyone to sink as low in my estimation, but Romney is certainly taking a shot at it. One need only look at clips from his debates when he ran for senator and governor and then listen to what he says now to see him as the lowliest of political weasels.


For example, it was only in 2002 - yes, only five years ago - that Romney basically insisted that he was pro-choice and would never, ever, never change his support for a woman's right to an abortion. Indeed, he struck an extremely sanctimonious tone when his opponent dared to question his commitment to that position. Yet now, after he's decided that he's pro-life (on account of he figures he has to be to win the GOP nomination), he acts as though he is equally offended when someone questions his commitment to pro-life policies. And it's not just on abortion that Romney has taken vastly different opinions in the past to the ones he now professes.


In short, he is a liar, pure and simple (that is, an even more brazen one than his competitors). He has no convictions whatsoever. His only interest is in power. Well, Joseph Smith, at least, would be proud.


All of this said, it does make me a little more concerned for the Dems chances of winning the Whitehouse next fall. Truth is, I would like nothing better than to see either Romney or Giuliani take the nomination because I am fairly sure that either would sink in the general election when closer scrutiny is given to the things they have said and done in the past. As it stands, however, that scrutiny may be coming early enough to prevent both of them from even getting the nomination. Huckabee, who seems more and more like the likely alternative, doubtless has baggage of his own (google the name Wayne Dumond, for one thing), but, as far as I know, it really can't compare with the dead weight that Giuliani and Romney are dragging behind them, and Huckabee, being more genuinely conservative (or so it would seem), should be far better able to unite the right side of the electorate in a way that could be more problematic for the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Clinton. I'd still like to think that people wouldn't want to elect some bible-thumping Huck-ba-crite, but if it's a choice between a clearly cynical, unlikable former first lady and a relatively charming former lard-ass, I'd certainly be a little more worried.


As it is, I kinda hope one of the two scumbags - um, talking about Romney and Giuliani again here - will actually manage to hold off Huckabee for the nomination. Given their amazing negatives, I'd think that would almost make it a lock for the Democrat, even if it is Clinton.

[So...that little parenthetical about Wayne Dumond...looks like now that Huckabee's aiming for the lead, turns out he's getting a little scrutiny of his own. And it's revealing some pretty ugly things about the Dumond case. Besides the fact that Huckabee pushed for the release of Dumond, a convicted rapist, from prison, and Dumond then went on, after his release, to rape and murder another woman -- all of which I knew -- it now sounds as though Huckabee has repeatedly lied about his efforts to get Dumond released, and -- this is the really crazy part -- that Huckabee pushed for the release at the behest of a bunch of right-wing Bill Clinton haters who thought Dumond was innocent (or something?) because one of his victims was a distant relative of Clinton! Whaaaaa? Yup, it is some super crazy sounding shit, but the info I read on it sounds pretty much on the up and up...In any case, it's definitely clear that Huckabee pushed for Dumond's release, in spite of Dumond's victims telling him that Dumond would attack again if released, and Dumond went on, as those victims had said he would, to rape and murder another victim...Looks like Huckabee has his own Willie Horton.

And the upshot of it all, at least in broad political terms? Well, I'm a lot less worried that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will have trouble beating the Republican nominee...That is, at least, assuming it's Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee, which it looks like it will be at this point (there really isn't enough time for anyone else to get the nom, it seems, unless it's that wacky old McCain, and I really don't think his odds are good). Looks all the top three Republican contenders have some really gnarly skeletons in their closets, so that should make things pretty easy for the Dem.]

The Weekly Weigh-in - Racism by Proxy

You may have heard about the recent "swiftboat" style attacks against Obama. There's the critique that he's not patriotic enough because he didn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. Besides the fact that this is about as close to a non-issue as one can get (and, by the by, the pledge is a jingoistic bit of idiocy better suited to a police state than the United States; I never say it), Obama pointed out that the photo in question was actually taken during the playing of the national anthem, not the pledge. Nonetheless, stupid people continue to ask him about it during his campaign stops.

More disturbing still, I think, is the email suggesting that Obama is some sort of closeted Muslim. Besides the fact, once again, that the charge has no basis in truth, the fact that it has gotten a fair amount of traction has forced me to rethink the race issue as it relates to Obama's candidacy. See, I have felt since before he announced that while there are doubtless some people out there who won't vote for Obama for the simple fact that they are racists, I figured that the majority of Americans were evolved enough, so to speak, that he could still win in spite of the troglodytes. And, I still believe that, so long as the attacks are transparently racist.

This "he's a Muslim" attack, though, as loathsome as it is, makes me wonder if Obama's adversaries haven't found a way, whether inadvertently or intentionally, to subtly make Obama's race an issue. Call it racism by proxy. See, they can't, successfully anyways, get people not to vote for him by calling him the N-word. Indeed, I like to think that might cause some people to vote for him who might not have otherwise, if only to take a stand, of sorts, agains racism. But, lots of people wouldn't have a problem with not voting for someone purely b/c he's a Muslim. And, come to think of it, that Obama feller kinda looks like one o' them Muslims - kinda brown, if you catch my drift...

So, in effect, I think the Muslim charge is a way to piggyback on some (perhaps subconcious in many cases) racist sentiments that some voters have, allowing people to attack Obama's skin color, in effect, withoout attacking it directly.

To put a finer point on it: obviously the charge rests to some degree on the fact that Obama was raised briefly in Indonesia and attended a school there that happened to be majority Muslim, but I don't think the charge would receive nearly the same attention, or any, really, if Obama were white. I mean, a white Muslim - who ever heard of such a thing? (And yes, I realize that there are white Muslims - I'm just trying to outline the thought process of some of the more manipulable voters.)

In the end, I still hope, and think, that enough people would reject this kind of demented attack that he could still win in the general, but, given the degree to which such scurrilous claims, in spite of being completely baseless, do sometimes stick with people, I have to admit that it makes me a little more concerned about his g. e. viability...

Meanwhile, more news recently that seems to suggest that the ole "Huck-ba-crite" might well be a serious contender come caucus time, with a sufficient number of religious conservatives coalescing around him to give Romney and Giuliani a run for their money. And, I also have to wonder if, given the length of this process and Republicans' general inablity to settle on a frontrunner, old McCain might not make a comeback after so many people (myself included) had pretty much written him off. Ultimately, I don't think he has enough time to get back in voters' good graces, but I do think there's a glimmer of hope. And, on a personal note, though I do think he's a hypocrite and an idiot for some of the things he's said and done, I have to admit that I would prefer McCain over all his (legitimate) Republican rivals. I mean, he still sucks, but the thought of him being president is not nearly as stomach-turning to me as the notion of a president Giuliani, Romney, or Hucakbee.

The Weekly Weigh-in -- The Enemy of My Enemy

So, Pakistan seems to be sliding ever closer to calamity. In fact, for the hundreds of activists who have been beaten and arrested in the past few days, things probably feel pretty calamitous already.

All of which -- surprise, surprise -- kind of puts the lie to Bush's endless platitudes about freedom and democracy being the aims of his foreign policy. Doing the only thing that it seems he can be counted on for doing, Bush and his cronies have successfully backed the United States into a corner in yet another Middle Eastern country. Having spoken at such length -- ad nauseam, if you will -- about his administration's dedication to spreading democracy, Bush and company can't very well just say nothing while Musharraf suspends the constitution, arrests the Supreme Court, and sends his soldiers out en masse to crack some skulls. At the same time, it's also true that Musharraf, as bad as he is, might be better than, well, democracy for the US, particularly if democracy would mean a radical Islamist government controlling the country's nuclear weaponry. But again, if Bush doesn't protest when a dictator is having people beaten in the streets, it kinda lets the world know that he was full of s*** when he said all that stuff about freedom (that is, to the extent that they don't know he's full of it already). Ah, what to do, what to do?

Well, apparently the answer for Bush, Rice, et al. is to cluck their tongues reproachfully but not make any serious efforts to punish Musharraf for his naughtiness, lest they inadvertently help to topple his government (which might happen anyway). Frankly, I doubt the world in general will fail to see the hypocrisy, particularly as it comes so close on the heels of the administration's far harsher language and actions against Burma's junta...but of course, the US isn't an ally of that repressive dictatorship.

At this point, though, I'm not sure what else the administration can do.

At other points, however, say starting around six and half years ago...Well, first of all, don't lie so egregiously about your motives and the allies you choose. Don't pretend that our military actions in the Middle East are all about spreading freedom when they're clearly not. People tend to see through that. Also, just because in the push and pull after 9/11 it might actually be expedient for the country to ally yourselves with a dictator here and there, don't fall all over yourself kissing said dictators asses and pretending they're something they aren't. Calling such people your "friend," as Bush has done with Musharraf, kind of makes you look a like a **** when your "friend" starts having his political opponents tortured.

But speaking again of those Middle East adventures, could it be that this is another area where if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball that is Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, things might not be so screwed up today? Like, maybe if we'd stuck to the utterly legitimate goal of wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not only would, say, bin Laden be dead or captured by now, but the Musharraf government, not having had to do so much of the military activities along its border for so many years now, might have a much stabler situation on its hands and be much better positioned to handle any internal opposition, particularly from Muslim extremists? Oh, and speaking of extremists, could it be that maybe, just maybe, by attacking a country that most of the world (rightfully) thought had nothing to do with 9/11, the administration might have increased the strength and numbers of radical Muslim groups in the Muslim world, including in Pakistan?

Just wondering.

A Little Loaded Language

So this article from msnbc.com about last night's Democratic debate uses the phrase "a gang assault" to describe the rest of the field's verbal attacks against Hillary Clinton. Is it just me, or is that kind of a loaded phrase to use in regards to the female front-runner vis-a-vis her male opponents? I don't think it's me.

Of course, I don't want to impute any particular intent to the writer because I find that even writers in the, ahem, esteemed field of professional journalism ain't always too bright. So, it might have just been a somewhat poorly chosen metaphor. If there was some slightly sneaky intent however, what might it have been? To garner some sympathy for the Senator by painting her male interlocutors as a gang of vicious thugs? There's no knowing for sure, but personally, I find such a phrase a bit overwrought and tendentious, whether or not it was intended to be.

In any case, it strikes me that these sort of linguistic explosives might be something to keep one's eye out for as the race progresses, particularly if Clinton advances, and it becomes a mano-a-...uh, womano kinda contest.

Weekly Weigh-in - What it is

Yesterday, I received some correspondence from a reader, and while I probably won't generally bother answering such things directly - preferring to let these posts speak for themselves - I haven't got anything I want to write about in particular today, and besides it might be useful to answer a question now so as to preempt the need to do more answering in the future.

So...this reader asks, "Do you think it's really good (journalistically speaking) to throw down an ad hominum [sic] such as 'that hypocrite Huckabee' without just a tiny bit of supporting evidence[?]"

Ah, where to begin? Well, first of all, I'm not a journalist in the typical sense. This is a blog, which means that I don't have to pretend, like MSM journalists do (because they are afraid of losing their precious "access"), to accept the phony pretexts of statements made by politicians and gov't officials. On the contrary, I can say what I damn well please without fear of any significant consequences because I am not obliged to be obsequious with the figures I write about. And so, somewhat absurdly, you will find far more truth in this blog - just as you will find more in comedy news shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report - than you will ever get from mainstream journalists.

Secondly, I actually do spend a decent amount of time researching the things I write about (and providing relevant links), and I don't feel like I should have to footnote or elaborate on everything little thing I say. If you feel like I've made an unsubstantiated claim, why not just substantiate it yourself? You've obviously got the Internet at your disposal, which means you have a hugely powerful tool for finding evidence yourself (assuming you can distinguish between facts and opinions, lies and truths, etc., etc.). Rest assured, anyways, that I have a good reasons for just about everything I say.

But, just to be extra helpful this one time...consider this clip from The Colbert Report (if the link doesn't work, search for "medium matters" on the Comedy Central video site). Obviously, no politician on either "side" should be obligated to defend or condemn the idiotic statements of private groups or individuals. But of course, huge numbers of Republicans, Huckabee included, blasted Democrats for not condemning Moveon.org's ill-considered ad but then cited free speech in defense of Limbaugh, just as lots of Democrats - also hypocrites - did the exact same thing, except with the nouns in a different order. So anyways, yeah, Huckabee is indeed a "Huck-ba-crite," just as Colbert was saying (though you're gonna have to be able to understand satire to not take him literally). Huckabee's typical-politician pandering to right-wing voters led him to make contradictory statements about situations that were essentially the same (except insofar as they were viewed by said right-wingers). Ergo, he is a hypocrite.

Which brings me to my final point. When are politicians not hypocrites? Name me one politician who isn't a two-faced opportunist, and I will happily dispel your delusion. Even when one comes along who somehow gets a reputation as a truth-teller, ala McCain with his "straight talk" in 2000, rest assured that it is only a matter of time before he shows his true (chameleon) colors, ala McCain kissing the thank-God-he's-dead Jerry Falwell's fat ass after having once called him and other evangelicals "agents of intolerance." In short, calling any politician a hypocrite is hardly something I should have to back up . On the contrary, you'd have far more cause to call for evidence if I had said "Huckabee isn't a hypocrite." I mean, c'mon, "politician" and "hypocrite" are practically synonyms, and anyone who has ever paid even a little attention to politics should know it.

But, if you genuinely need to have your eyes opened to the lies and chicanery of politicians, then just keep reading this blog. If you have the eyes to see, you will see...After all, that's kinda one of the main themes here...y'know, "bloated body politic" and all that? The deep-rooted ugliness and human folly of it all is pretty much right there in front of us on a daily basis. One simply has to choose between reality and fantasy. Granted, I know that for most people the latter is preferable - there is some comfort in it - but this blog is more about the former, and ultimately I do think that facing it will do us more good than denial.

The Priest in Giuliani's Closet

Okay, so only a few days ago, I speculated about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, predicting that hizonner Rudolph Giuliani would probably take the thing only to lose in the general. But, not being a complete fool I threw in the old caveat that anything can happen with so much time left to go. A story I learned about this very day demonstrates the wisdom of that cliche.

Turns out that Giuliani is bosom buddies with a defrocked priest accused of multiple counts of child molestation. And when I say bosom buddies, it's not an exaggeration. The guy, one Monsignor Alan Placa, was apparently the best man at Giuliani's first wedding, and then officiated at his second one. They were in high school and a college frat together, and when Placa was forced to give up his priestly duties, Giuliani promptly gave him a job with his consulting firm.

But let's get a bit more specific. The ABC report says that the Suffolk County grand jury that looked into the allegations against Placa (along with slew of others against other priests in his diocese) believed the accusers, and that Placa only escaped a criminal trial because the statute of limitations had run out. Perhaps even more disturbingly, for both Catholics and Giuliani supporters, it turns out that Placa was for years one of the church's main officials charged with dealing with allegations of abuse against priests, which he did, according to the grand jury, by means of "deception and intimidation." And so, even if one were to doubt the abuse allegations against Placa (and I personally see little reason to do so), it seems clear that he was, at the very least, a protector of clerical abusers, cut from the same mold as Bernard Law and Roger Mahoney. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is just about as despicable.

What is most bizarre about this story, however, is that Giuliani has apparently known about these allegations for some time now and yet has done nothing to distance himself from Placa. Indeed, he defended the man in a campaign appearance just last week.

Well, Giuliani apparently has a reputation for being deeply loyal to his cronies (remind you of anyone?), but I'd say he runs the risk of destroying the whole enterprise if he doesn't throw Placa under the campaign bus (ala Romney with Larry Craig) as quickly as he can. Only a couple weeks ago I explained how it was already apparent that Giuliani surrounds himself with some real dirtbags, but I was only talking about belligerent, racist neocons then -- most Republican voters wouldn't have a problem with that. But a pedophile priest?! Good luck with that one, Rudy. Or wait, not good luck. Only a f****** idiot and complete a****** would defend and pay a guy when there are credible allegations of child abuse against him. So you stick with him, Mr. Mayor, and watch your f****** campaign implode...

Only problem with that would be that it would kinda mess up my predictions. Maybe the Huckster's odds aren't looking so bad, after all.

But, then, I doubt Giuliani is that much of an idiot. I imagine this Placa guy will be persona non grata tout suite if the mayor's advisers have even half a brain among them. Even still, this will be another black mark (and rightly so, in this case) against Giuilani in the minds of far right primary voters. He probably shouldn't get too comfortable, then, with his front-runner status.