Clint Eastwood and Mitt Romney Talk After the Convention

"Hi, Mr. Eastwood. Thank you so much for delivering that wonderful speech last night."
"But Governor, it was widely panned. Everyone is mocking me today. They think I'm a crazy old man."
"That's true. But at least they're talking about you and not all the lies in my speech. I count that as a win."

Cory Booker

Every time I see or hear Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, I'm more and more impressed. On Meet the Press last Sunday, he seemed to be the lone voice in America willing to call out his own party. He called the Obama campaign's ad attacking Mitt Romney's previous professional experience "nauseating."

Having watched the ad, I agreed. I also found the campaign's bin Laden ad, implying that Romney wouldn't have had the courage to kill the world's most wanted man, to be in poor taste as well.

I thought Booker's comments were not only honest and accurate, but would ultimately help the campaign. The Obama campaign doesn't need to go unnecessarily negative to win the election. They can go two routes effective routes. 1) Clarify and explain President Obama's achievements during his first term. 2) Simply play clips of Governor Romney contradicting himself or making radically far right statements (those clips can be left in context). Election won.

Instead, Democrats have killed Booker for his comments. Have we become so partisan that a member of a party can't make one simple criticism? We get the leaders we deserve. We say we don't want negative ads. We say we want substance. Yet when a someone calls out negative ads in their own party and begins to talk about issues of substance, he's thrown under the bus.

Let me be clear, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats here. Both parties want their members to stay "on message" or face the consequences. Jon Stewart does a great job on The Daily Show of putting clips together where members of the same party spout the same inane gibberish.

Later in the election cycle, when we all complain about how the candidates are merely attacking one another and not talking about anything real, let us remember this moment.

Does Obama Really Support Gay Marriage?

I understand the symbolism of President Obama's statement in favor of gay marriage, but his current position is illogical. He's personally for gay marriage, but (somehow) is against making it federal law. He says it should be up to the states. So nothing changes.

His position is completely politically motivated. A WSJ/NBC poll has it at 49-40% in support for gay marriage in America, so he comes out for it, but Obama doesn't want to lose states that are against it in November, so he comes up with this irrational position.

His stance also helps with the youth vote. Right now, 18-35 years are not nearly as excited about President Obama as they were heading into the 2008 election. That age group overwhelmingly supports gay marriage.

I'm glad that society has reached the point where it's politically expedient to come out for gay marriage, but it was not a courage statement. If anything, Vice President Biden's comments on Meet the Press put pressure on President Obama to come out in support of gay marriage. If one of them can be called courageous on this issue, it's Joe Biden.

While his position change, coupled with his policy remaining the same, makes for smart politics, it makes for bad governance. His policy lends itself to the potentiality of having 50 different definitions of marriage. It also allows some states to discriminate and withhold the rights of citizens based on sexual preference. That is a dysfunctional policy.

Santorum is Racist

I believe Rick Santorum was about to call President Obama the n-word in a speech last week. When I listen to a song repeatedly on a CD, I begin to hear the next song on the CD instinctively. That's what happened with Santorum. He's so used to describing the supposed contradictions between Candidate Obama and President Obama in those salty terms, it just comes out naturally.

Remember, Santorum gives his speeches extemporaneously, he's not reading from a teleprompter. That lends more credence to the belief that he was in the middle of calling President Obama the n-word. Also, remember, his "blah people" gaffe. Santorum is no stranger to catching himself int he middle of a racially-motivated verbal attack. He also told Puerto Ricans that they need to learn English if they want to become a state. So, he has a history of racist remarks during this campaign.

Santorum has tried to portray himself as a goodie two shoes. But let us not forget that he unleashed a a swear word at a New York Times reporter not long ago. So salty language spewing from his mouth is not an unknown occurrence.

I's hard to imagine Santorum was about to say anything else. He was searching a noun. What noun starts with "nig" with that specific pronunciation? Then, after catching his mistake, he trails off with a completely unrelated sentence.

 We can only hope this spells the end of Santorum's public life.

GOP Candidates Race-Baiting

The Republican presidential candidates have consistently been antagonistic towards black people in the hopes of garnering the white racist vote. The white racist vote is not as important as it was before, but it was always remain an integral part of a Republican primary.

During today's debate, Rick Perry said Obama doesn't reflect the foundering fathers. Although explicitly the issue was socialism, this was a subtle jab at Obama's race. Rick Santorum touts his welfare-to-work program that disproportionately hurt poor black people. Newt Gingrich argues that black children should work because their families don't and scolds black people for their perceived reliance on entitlement programs. Ron Paul claims he's done more for civil rights than anyone in either party, but doesn't even believe in "black rights."

The Republicans are not even trying to court black people's vote. And they are attempting to appeal to white racists with this rhetoric. It's a subtle attempt to capitalize on the backlash against the election of Obama. The candidates deny the legacy of history as if we are all born in a vacuum. Hundreds of years of systematic bigotry have led to the current socio-economic inequalities. Those inequalities have not magically disappeared with the election of the first black president. Yet, the Republicans blame poor black folks for their plight. They show no empathy. It's quite disgusting.

A Rick Perry Thanksgiving Message

Here is a letter penned by Governor Rick Perry for this Thanksgiving.

Dear America,

Howdy, y'all! I'm thankful for many things this Thanksgiving. I'm thankful for America. I'm thankful to be governor of a great state. I'm thankful for all those jobs I'm gonna create when I'm prez-a-dint. I'm thankful there ain't a debate today. I'm thankful for that coyote I shot in the face when I was jogging a while back. I'm thankful for hair dye.

But there are three things I'm most thankful for. Without these three things, I wouldn't be me. I'm thankful for my wife. I'm thankful for Jesus. And I'm thankful for... um... uh... err... the EPA. No, not the EPA. I'm thankful for... the third thing is... shoot... can't remember. Oops. Sorry.

We don't know what Mitt Romney is thankful for. Is he the Mitt Romney who was thankful before he was before the second amendment before he was against it? Is he the Mitt Romney who was thankful before the abortion after he was against being thankful before he was abortion? I mean, which Mitt Romney is thankful? We don't know.

We know what I'm thankful for. Not that third thing though, because I still can't remember it.

Sunceerly,

Your next prez-a-dint, J. Richard "Rick" Perry

A New Republican Candidate

I'm throwing my hat into the Republican presidential campaign. I have the policy proposals the people want.

I think government sucks. I hate abortions and gay marriage. Mexicans should go back to Mexicano. I enjoy sexually harassing women and killing coyotes during my jogging sessions. I'm also a big fan of racist hunting ground names and praying away the gay. I'm for building three walls on the southern border and electrifying two of them. I wouldn't allow any Muslims in my administration or any government job for that matter. I would force Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other countries to reimburse us for the bombs we've dropped on them. Bombs are expensive. I'd cut taxes all to 4.5%. I'd also raise all taxes to 4.5% for everyone on everything. Lastly, and most importantly, I will flip flop on every single issue listed above.

This just in... I'M THE NEW FRONT RUNNER FOR THE NOMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which is Crazier, Bachmann or Baseball?

Michelle Bachman has argued that Iraq and Libya should pay the United States reparations for "liberating" those countries. Think about that statement. Try to make sense of it. The U.S. invasion has destroyed Iraq. It ruined the fabric of the country. It's as if someone flies from California to your house, wrecks it, kills your family, and demands you reimburse this person for the flight.

The initial reason for the war was self-defense from an imminent attack of weapons of mass destruction. The idea of "liberating" Iraqis from dictatorship only came about when the WMD line fell flat.

Yet, I argue that Michelle Bachmann's statement, as offensive and callous as it is, makes more sense than baseball's All Star Game determining home field advantage in the World Series. As a friend succinctly put it to me, Bachmann's reasoning is sound if not valid.

She believes that the rest of the world is filled with a bunch of children who need the guidance of the United States in order to prosper. Thus, in her mind, the call for reparations has some logic to it. It would be like if your parents sent you a bill for the money they spent on you as a child. Though harboring a dash of logic, it's hard to get ignore the degree of heartlessness Bachmann's statement possesses.

But baseball's All Star Game determining home field advantage in the World Series possesses neither sound nor valid logic. It makes zero sense. The All Star Game is an exhibition that requires a player from each team to be on the roster. The rosters of both leagues are comically enlarged. Players are allowed to come back. This farcical exhibition game helps to decide the champion of Major League Baseball! As we saw this year, the Cardinals indisputedly benefitted from a game they did not even play in. There's simply no logic to it. It is indefensible.

The worst part is that it's so easy to correct. The team with the best record should get home field. It's a question similar to 2+2; there is only one answer.

But there are better wrong answers than the current situation. The team with the best attendance could get four World Series home games. You could go back to alternating leagues. Fans could vote to decide home field advantage. Again, these reasons are all stupid and wrong. They just aren't as stupid and wrong as the All Star Game determining home field in the World Series. To the question of what is 2+2, baseball has answered: 1,394, 638.

So to reiterate, Michelle Bachmann's assertion is insanely stupid, but still not as crazy as how baseball determines home field advantage in the World Series.

Why Rick Perry is Losing?

Oh to be a fly on the wall behind the scenes of one of Rick Perry's catastrophic debate performances. I actually was. Well, metaphorically speaking. I was working for a catering company serving the staffs of the various presidential candidates during the Fox News Google debate on September 22 in Orlando, Florida. I saw Rick Perry's campaign manager during the candidate's famous flip flop flub.

Rick Perry: "I think Americans just don't know sometimes which Mitt Romney they're dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it, was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe vs. Wade before he was against vs. Roe vs. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he's for ObamaCare, and now he's against it. I mean, we'll wait until tomorrow and, and, and see which Mitt Romney we're really talking to tonight."

In a back room, after that monologue, Rick Perry's campaign manager raised his head, pumped his fist, and exclaimed, "Nailed it! Yee Haw!"

Ron Paul Won't Get My Vote

I will never vote for Ron Paul. I agree with his foreign policy in terms of bringing home the troops from our numerous costly and destructive wars. I agree with his assessment that Iran is not a genuine threat; instead it is a boogieman used to justify an agressive foreign policy in the region.

I happen to disagree with his opinion that government is inheritently evil and an entity to be limited at all cost. Surely inefficient bureacracy can be wasteful and a hyper-partisan climate in government can halt progress, but government by itself is neither negative nor positive. But that is not why I would never vote for Ron Paul.

I will never vote for Ron Paul because I hear he has a screen on his front door of his house. I disdain anyone who has a screen on their front door. Back door is alright.

But what is the purpose of a front screen door? If you keep the door open and just have the screen closed, then anyone on the street can look in your house! So you wouldn't do that. In which case, the screen door is nothing more than an annoying obstruction that serves no function. Anyone who would have such a devise is clearly an idiot and cannot be trusted to run the country.

Why Tim Pawlenty Lost

I tend to be a good prognosticator when it comes to predicting presidential races. In 2004, I said John Kerry would be the perfect candidate for the Democratic nomination when he was wallowing away in single digits. While he turned out to be far from the perfect candidate in the general election, many other Democrats felt during the primary, as I had, that he would be perfect. Kerry won the nomination on that peculiar quality called "electability."

More impressively, I was sure early on that Barack Obama and John McCain would win their respective nominations in 2008. Though Obama was trailing Hillary Clinton by 20 points nationally, I knew he'd win. McCain was trailing more candidates, but, especially when Huckabee won Iowa, it was clear that McCain would get the nod.

I thought Tim Pawlenty would win the nomination in 2012. I was dead wrong. While the other candidates all have a glaring weakness heading into the general election, should they make it that far, I figured Republicans would go with the most "electable." I figured that was Pawlenty, who has had a track record of being reasonable. He also "looks the part."

When Pawlenty failed to capitalize on his attack of Mitt Romney, Republicans had a vision of Pawlenty rolling over in front of Obama during the general election and refused to get behind him. Pawlenty's shift to the right hurt him as well. Michelle Bachmann's conservative cred is higher. Pawlenty could have beaten her by staying moderate. Republicans will eventually wise up and realize that Bachmann would have no shot at winning the presidency because of the numerous crazy statements she has made.

Pawlenty would have been the candidate tfor Republicans who wanted a Romney-type to represent them, but balked at Romney's Mormonism. But he didn't portray himself as the anti-Bachmann or the non-Mormon Romney. Instead, he became a weak flip flopper. No Republican is going to get behind bizarro John Kerry.

Rick Santorum Supports the Gays

Former Senator Rick Santorum exclaimed his support for the gay people of Iran last night at the debate held in Ames, Iowa. Santorum used the Iranian regime's poor record on gay rights and women's rights in an attempt to show the seriousness of the Iranian threat.

It's interesting that a Republican Presidential candidate has so much concern for Iran's gays and women, but no compassion for those groups in America. Santorum is one of the most outspoken anti-gay activists in the country. He has worked tirelessly to deprive gays of their due equal rights.

Similarly, Santorum is strongly in favor of denying a woman's right to choose. He is even against abortion in cases of rape or incest, a position that shows disdain for the victimized woman.

When you look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of Rick Santorum. And when you look up Santorum in the dictionary, you'll see, "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

The Jon Huntsman Press Release

The pundits and paid opinionists had ruled out his campaign for the highest crown in the world. They whispered bittersweet nothings, "He has no experience," "No one knows who he is," "He has no chance." But they failed to account for his fighting spirit. How could they have missed the signals for it is right there in this noble steed's surname? One day, the winds of history will whisper his name in the same gust as Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson. Who is this man bold enough to ignore the naysayers and run this country? Huntsman.


Wait, who?

Thoughts of the 2012 Election

Newt Gingrich is in. Unless the Republican primary voters desperately want an intellectual as their candidate at all costs, certainly a possibility, he has little chance. He is not an ideological conservative, which should make him a better candidate, but it doesn't. We've entered an era where Republicans demand strict conservatism. Any position outside of strict conservatism is seen as a liability within the Republican primary. Gingrich's personal life, the constant adultery, won't sit well with conservative voters.

Mitt Romney would be the choice for the nomination except for two damaging points. The fact that he is a Mormon will continue to be denigrated by many evangelical Christians. His support for universal healthcare while governor of Massachusetts, though it helped the citizens of his state and is his greatest political achievement, will kill his chances.

Tim Pawlenty has a chance to steal the nomination. He's moved to the right, which could end up causing the issue of flip flopping. He probably should have kept his stance in favor of cap and trade, which made him seem like a man of conviction instead of ideology on an issue that wouldn't hurt him to any great degree.

I've always thought that Sarah Palin's best chance was to have a big lead based on name recognition and try to hold on. But she doesn't have a lead at all. Her name recognition and her folksy appeal were her major assets. I don't see her pulling a rabbit out of hat and attracting any new voters.

Donald Trump had no chance and wisely backed out.

I'm surprised Mike Huckabee didn't enter the race. I think he had a real shot to win the nomination. He had no chance of winning the general election though.

Sarah Palin in 2012

Sarah Palin tends to make gaffes. She said that North Korea was our ally. She made up a word "refudiate." And she recently pondered whether the war in Libya was a "squirmish." My spellchecker is not a fan of Palin.

But just because she says stupid things doesn't mean she's totally stupid. Certainly though, it shows a specific kind of stupidity. Palin also is apparently not much of a policy wonk. In the book Game Change (a book that relies extensively on anonymous sources), it is reported that the McCain team needed to teach Palin basic facts about World War II and other elementary information.

So, perhaps Palin isn't the smartest candidate running for the 2012 Republican nomination. She does have a unique ability to connect with a certain kind of person. That kind of person will be voting in the Republican primary. She no doubt has charisma. Many voters would want to have a beer with her. For those reasons, she is a serious candidate for the nomination, should she decide to run.

Here's the problem for her. She came onto the scene as a divisive vice presidential candidate. People have strong feelings about her. She has name recognition. Yet, she is not doing better or worse than anybody else in early polling. She would need to wow the electorate in the primary in order to win the nomination.

The Republican voters will appreciate the way she goes after Obama. Many will swoon after she gives a speech. But questions about her knowledge, experience, and her propensity to commit gaffes will hamper her chances. If she had a big lead, I could see her potentially holding on. But I don't see her breaking away from the pack.

President Gingrich?

Forget the fact that Newt Gingrich poses himself as a moral candidate despite his numerous wives and affairs. There's a better reason he shouldn't be president.

Gingrich claimed that President Obama has "a Kenyan, anti-colonial worldview."

President Obama wasn't born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, according to his birth certificate. Gingrich knows this, but his comment is a not-so-subtle nod to the Birthers, people who think Obama wasn't born in America.

Obama was born on August 4, 1961. Kenya gained its independence on December 12, 1963. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, (which he wasn't!) he would've had to develop "a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview" at a very early year. He would've been the most prolific anti-colonial toddler in Kenya.

Furthermore, what is "a Kenyan, anti-colonial worldview"? Would Gingrich prefer Obama to favor colonialism in Kenya? I thought the debate over whether or not Kenya should be independent was solved several decades ago.

It's a cynical group of words that in reality doesn't say much, but the meaning to an ignorant ear is to portray Obama as un-American, socialist, and radical. The worst part of it is Gingrich knows better. He has a PhD in history and has taught at the college level. He knows exactly what he's saying and the meaning he intends to convey. And that knowing disingenuousness should disqualify him from the presidency.