Tag: "2008 campaign"
So saith some cornhole representative from Iowa:
An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be “dancing in the streets” if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.
Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama’s pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein. . . .
“His middle name does matter,” King said. “It matters because they read a meaning into that.”
On that latter point, King is undoubtedly correct, as these historical examples suggest:
Barry Morris Goldwater. Recognizing the hidden meaning of his middle name, cats and their human companions voted overwhelmingly in favor of the 1964 Republican nominee, based largely on their conviction that he would not urinate in their shoes and scratch the fuck out of their couches. Unfortunately for Goldwater, people who did not want to perish in a tornado of fire also voted that year.
Herschel Vespasian Johnson. When Georgia’s former governor ran with Stephen Douglas on the 1860 Democratic ticket, opponents correctly feared that he — like his imperial Roman namesake — would conquer southwestern England, subdue Jewish revolts, and succumb in office to a fatal case of diarrhea. Burdened by these and other unfortunate associations, the Democratic party lost that year to Abraham Lincoln, who wisely avoided having a middle name.
I agree with Scott that Samantha Power’s resignation was probably the expedient course of action, though I’m disappointed by the nonsense of it all. Power clearly should have been more guarded in her conversations with The Scotsman, but the feigned hyperventilating over the “monster” remark has been pathetic given the thousand-fold greater absurdity of the Ken Starr analogy.
How long does anyone seriously believe the Clinton campaign would have allowed Power to remain before mainstreaming Paul Mirengoff’s absurd smear that she seeks the destruction of Israel? I’d have given it about two weeks.
Althoug Uncommitted doubled him up, Alan Keyes prevailed in a tight race with Duncan Hunter last night and probably dealt a knock-out blow to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign. He spent pretty much the last month campaigning throughout Texas, and the effort clearly bore fruit.
Also, he appears to have totally thrashed Bud Cort.
This fellow is keeping hope alive today. When the Lord realizes that each name listed above Keyes’ is actually the illegitimate child of Satan, He will probably atomize them all.
As Dr. Keyes advises, “if you can’t see the change, be the change.”
On to St. Paul!
So Grover “Drown the Government in a Bathtub” Norquist looks forward to the possibility of depicting Barack Obama as a “shady Chicago socialist” in the general election.
An impressive and original strategy, but really — why stop there? I suggest trying to cast Obama as a “shady Chicago anarchist.” It would appeal to the authentic glue-huffers who believe the Senator is actually an agent of foreign terror, it would draw in the more moderate types who are merely nervous about the crowds of Obama supporters, and it would force the rest of American to relive the horror of the Haymarket bombing every day of the campaign.
Do we really need a President who’s worse than Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Al Capone combined?
Vote John McCain for President.
On the issue of appointments to the Supreme Court, McCain mentioned that Sam Brownback would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court. As models of who he would select, John McCain pointed to Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.
This is scary for so many reasons. First, because the next president will likely get to make at least one Supreme Court appointment. Second, Sam Brownback!? Does McCain have even a shred of good judgment left in his body after so many years as Bush’s butt boy? Yes, yes, I know the Brownback line is an appeal to religious conservatives, but still…
In all seriousness, if McCain ends up the nominee (as I believe he will), I think it’s going to be a tough general. I can only hope that the better people know him, the less they’ll like him.
Among the many, many disturbing moments in Sicko (and there were many), of the most enraging for me was among the least graphic: the moment when Moore indicates, with thought bubble-like images, how much money each of several elected officials has taken from the healthcare industry. The very same industry that profits from keeping people as far away from adequate health care as possible. The bottom line is that a lot of people have taken a lot of money, not the least of which is Hilary Clinton.
Which is why I was not at all surprised (though again, disappointed), to see in yesterday’s Times that Hilary is certainly not the only one in the Democratic presidential field to be taking money from the insurers and pharmaceutical companies with one hand while holding sick babies and promising universal single payer healthcare with the other, though she has amassed the most.
According to the Times article (source of this graphic):
Mrs. Clinton received $2.7 million through the end of September, far more than Mitt Romney, the Republican who raised the most from the health care industry, with $1.6 million. The industry’s drift in contributions toward Democratic candidates mirrors wider trends among donors, but the donations from this sector are particularly notable because of the party’s focus on overhauling the health care system.
Among all the candidates in both political parties, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the health care industry, having raised about $2.2 million, according to campaign finance records.
I want to choose a democratic candidate and wholeheartedly throw my support behind her or him. But with figures like this, whose campaign promises of a healthier America can I take to the bank?