men of the people

Even I secretly believe that John Edwards is correct to suspect something is rotten in the state of the American Dream, I really, really don't like him. I figure politicians with youthful good looks have made their Faustian deals and have it coming. Exhibit 1 is JFK, who really wasn't that great of a president. But he made a good-looking corpse. Exhibit 2: Lady Di. And so it goes.

So my question: Is it wise to build a mansion when you're running for President on a populist platform? Won't people be curious where you got all that money? And question two: How big is Bush's ranch down there in Texas? And how much in taxpayer money has been spend to 'secure' it?

[The link may break: the article on Edward's house was dugg and was moved to the site's front page. Also, CarolinaJournal's parent company is the John Locke Foundation which, based on its support for free markets, should approve rather heartily of Mr. Edwards' new domicile.]

No Kerry

Kerry isn't going to run in 2008. So they say.

Why in Sam Hill are we (America) talking about that election already?

Speaking of Weird

Did anyone else notice who was sitting at Hillary Clintons' right hand at the State of the Union address? In front of her?

100 Posts

And still going strong!

Come one and all to This Party, where the cool people party!

in case of rapture, this country will be liberal

Okay, so I'm mainly posting this here because my blog is down at the moment, but haven't you always wondered what the effect of the rapture will be on US politics?

barack inhales

Tobacco, that is. And it's given him his sexy gravely voice, which makes him a knockout among women, and a god among men. (I refuse to agree that Obama's charisma stems from lighting up; more likely, it's from the fact that he's not Hillary Clinton or any one of those other slick-haired Senators all 'considering' presidential bids.)

Besides, listening to NPR earlier today, I tuned in during the middle of a segment where different politicians announced or sidestepped their presidential ambitions. I thought they were doing a retrospective of past-century political campaigns--the voices of Goldwater, maybe, and Bobby Kennedy--until the voices were identified as Chris Dodd, Obama, and Hillary. To my ear all the voices sounded incredibly unfamiliar; I though of actors from the Casablanca era. So maybe I'm just having hearing trouble, but I thought all of them had a similar level of 'graveliness'.

This is the same type of quality political analysis as the opinion (statistic?) that tall candidates with full heads of hair are more likely to win. Not that I think (being short, balding--and therefore politically cynical) that such analysis is wrong. I'd just like to see it developed a bit: maybe compare our most- and least-aesthetically-pleasing presidents with their 'greatness'. Then we could assemble composite picture of our next ideal president, print out copies to post on every corner telephone pole, and hunt down Mr. Right. Or just co-opt the next American Idol winner.

Dobson and McCain

Last week it was all over the news-- James Dobson would never vote for John McCain because McCain doesn't value the traditional family.

I was terribly bothered by this, not just because Dobson is perpetuating the "there are only two issues Christians should care about" nonsense, but also because it is absolutely wrong. Here, is something more accurate:

McCain has said gay marriage should not be legal, but he has angered some conservatives with his opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. He said the issue should be left to the states.

This is the John McCain that I've heard and the John McCain that Dobson heard. Dobson isn't misreading, but rather has given away his political ideal. To Dobson, it is not whether one supports the traditional family but rather whether one supports the government at the most fundamental level defining the family at the most fundamental level. In other words, this isn't about Dobson the moral champion. The moral doesn't matter. This is about Dobson the fascist. You're only on his side if you think the government should be controlliing people.

Worse, though, it's Dobson the fascist hiding his fascism under a blanket of morality. I doubt that anyone from my church besides me noted Dobson saying "McCain doesn't support the traditional family" instead of "McCain supports the traditional family but not a constitutional amendment against gay marriage." Dobson twisted McCain's political ideals into moral ones, something that will make a huge pile of Americans think something different from the truth, and the bastard should repent for it. Christians should be examples of truth and honesty, not shady dishonest slippery morons polluting the public sphere with crypto-fascist crap under moral blanket.

Dobbs: Federal wrongs and states' rights

here

This Congress has made a laudatory beginning, but it is only a beginning. It is far too early to suggest, let alone conclude, that this House and Senate will be any more representative of the will of the people than the previous. I remain hopeful, but skeptical.

Fishy Unawareness

House Republicans are upset about American Samoa being excluded from the minimum wage bill. Their reason-- the main employer in American Samoa, paying 75% of the territory's workforce, is Del Monte Corp., headquarterd in Nancy Pelosi's district.

I'm more distrubed, though, by this statment in the article:

Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.

"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."

So much goes on during active legislating sessions that individual House offices, with staffs of 10 or fewer, sometimes simply cannot keep up with the changes in the legislation. This isn't usually a problem in the Senate where there is less legislation about and the office staffs are five times larger, but an organized caucus can still schlepp around and confuse everyone.

A year ago Democrats were absoluely furious about Republicans using the chaos of quickly forcing legislation, including waiving safeguards like the minimum time between calling for a vote on a bill and voting on the bill, to get what they wanted. It is kind of skunky of them to use the tactic themselves. Of course, this sort of thing is normal, but it buggers me that my representative can vote on bills without knowing the contents. In the old days, when committees had more power than caucuses, as things should be, this was less common.

Stem Cells Again

Seems that the new Congress has passed the stem cell bill. There were still not enough votes to clear a veto, but the sequel in this case was better than the original.

If you find any analysis that breaks down the old and new vote compared to the parties represented in the chamber for each (and the Yahoo article might eventually end up doing that itself), link it in the comments.

(how to) say what you think

Finally, some political analysis that isn't afraid to lay into John Edwards.

"If Mrs Clinton stumbles, several less famous feet are waiting to step forward. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was John Kerry’s running-mate in 2004, has the necessary charm, looks and uplifting life story. But he is the most superficial of the serious contenders. He says America is two nations, one rich and the other so poor that its little girls cannot afford winter coats. His solution is to throttle free trade and pillory efficient retailers that sell cheap imported winter coats. With health-care costs exploding, do Americans really want a president who made his fortune suing doctors?"

The rest of the article is also pretty ruthless, but that 'poor little girls without winter coats' bit is heartrending.

Sorry for the Bad News

Everyone...that is, all two of you. I have some bad news. There are going to be terrorist attacks late in 2007 resulting in mass killings. How do I know this you ask? Well, Pat Roberston was told by God "during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September." September...we're good til September, then we're in trouble. Be prepared. This is the same guy who told us the meteor was coming to Florida because of the gay rights parades. He doesn't just shout out stupidity to get publicity.

I'm sorry, but if God told Pat Robertson there is trouble, then there is going to be trouble. To learn more of the impending doom, go here.