I broke up with Obama

Dear Barack,

I liked you. I really did.

Then you fell in with the wrong crowd. You know who I'm talking about. That Donnie McClurkin fellow, a gospel singer who believes Jesus delivered him from homosexuality. I know he has a Grammy, and it's easy to get wrapped up in these things, but you didn't believe him, did you? Then why did you invite him to perform at one of your fundraisers? I assumed it was a phase and eventually you'd come out of it.

We all make mistakes, honey. I just wanted to hear you say you're sorry. (Really, I wanted you to fire a staffer, but a dozen roses or a box of chocolates would have been fine.) But then The Advocate told me what you'd told them:

One of the things that always comes up in presidential campaigns is, if you’ve got multiple supporters all over the place, should the candidate then be held responsible for the every single view of every one of his supporters? And obviously that’s not possible. And if I start playing that game, then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together.

And I fell for you all over again. It wasn't sorry, but I knew what you meant, in that special language that the two of us share.

And you made a new friend! Reverend Andy Sidden, a gay preacher! I like him. He's nice. I thought you might be coming around.

But what happened, Rocky? Why did you let Donnie say all those mean things at your recital? Why didn't you let Andy say anything more than a short prayer? Why did your aides hand out memos with the following statement:

MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS

I understand that you don't agree with McClurkin about everything. And I understand that politics is all about compromise, but why the all-caps? Everything else I can accept, but when you let lolcatz proofread your press releases, I don't think you can manage a successful campaign, much less a country.

It's over.

Yours,
Let's Get Paul

Um, What?

I rarely mock the Log Cabin Republicans for two reasons:

1. It's not a contradiction to be gay and be against the welfare state.


2. It's too easy.

Case in point, check out their latest national ad:



I don't even know where to begin with this ad. First, didn't we already know this? Anyone who has a passing familiarity with Romney knows his liberal record as governor of Massachusetts. Why advertise old news?

Second, are the Log Cabin Republicans anti-abortion? I had no idea. (The "gun lobby" line threw me too, but I suppose I should know better.) Since the Log Cabin Republicans represent a constituency that, for the most part, won't take advantage of legal abortions, is it fair or right or moral for them to weigh in on the issue? More to the point, I always thought the Republican platform on abortion pandered to its religious base, and the libertarian wing of the party (in which I thought the LCR belonged) would respect individual liberty on the issue.

And, finally, um, why? What I've always admired about Log Cabin Republicans is that part of their mission--even their very existence--works to make the Republican Party more inclusive. Indeed, if the Republican party ever becomes more reasonable on gay issues, we'll owe the Log Cabin thanks. So why take pot shots at Romney, and in doing so, alienate his supporters from the Log Cabin? Why make an ad that doesn't mention gay issues at all? Rather than elevate the discourse on gay issues, this ad pushes the Log Cabin further to the margins. No candidate will want to be associated with such a negative (yet entirely ineffective) ad.

Screw Paul! Nominate Giuliani!

Salon and The New York Times have articles claiming that conservative Christians are secretly plotting to support an anti-abortion third-party candidate if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination.

Wow. This would be even more promising than a Bloomberg campaign. Could someone out there on the interwebz please--pretty please--infiltrate these meetings and keep me posted? I'd gladly endorse Giuliani if I were promised a viable third-party candidate. Without one, I have the sinking feeling that Giuliani's just crafty enough to steal himself a presidency.

Pussy

It's a cliche, but it's true: this is a race for the Democratic Party to lose. And if there's anyone I trust to lose an election, it's the Democrats.

Here's another way they could do that: nominate Al Gore.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, he won the popular vote in 2000. He may (or may not) have won the electoral college vote. But he lost the election.

Why? Not because of the Supreme Court or Ralph Nader or black box voting machines or whatever other boogeyman conspiracy you'd like to dream up. (Although, sure, those probably helped.) He lost the election because he's fucking Al Gore.

Why the hell did he nominate Joseph Lieberman as his running mate? Why didn't he invite Bill along on the campaign trail? (Note to Gore's strategists circa 2000: Bill still draws bigger crowds than his wife does.) Until someone can give me an answer to these questions that doesn't amount to, "Gore is a pussy who let the media bully him," I'm going to continue calling him precisely that.

How can you be the Vice President to one of the most popular and loved presidents in recent memory and still lose to an Andover frat boy? Only Al Gore can work magic like that.

He made a decent Powerpoint presentation, but I hate to break it to ya, Al: Have you been reading the news lately?--Global Warming is the least of our political concerns.

And finally, is the Democratic party so devoid of talent that we haven't found anyone more qualified in the last eight years than Gore?

President of 9/11

Matt Taibbi's piece on Giuliani in Rolling Stone is dazzling. If Dracula gets elected, we're fucked.

Al Queda made heroes out of lame duck Republicans.

Oh, and I'm totally stealing that headline from my primary source of news: The Onion.

Thank God, an actor!

A Fred Thompson candidacy will be formidable indeed. You know who I blame for this? Al Gore. If he hadn't given up his Senate seat, we never would have known Fred Thompson the Politician.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, vice presidency, whatever...

Rebranding Iraq

I recently learned of Conrad Crane's Reconstructing Iraq. (I know I'm late on this. You can blame the fact that everything I know about, well, anything I learn from This American Life.)

Aside from all the dead horse discussion about how prophetic he was, how rebuilding the country would be more difficult than winning, blah, blah--it gave me the idea for a new catchphrase:

We won the Iraq War, but we lost the peace.

Because Americans don't like to lose wars. Military Moms and Dads don't like to hear that their sons died in vain. Jesus, even I cringed when Harry Reid said that the war was lost--don't you have strategists to tell you that?? We knew Bush's Mission Accomplished speech was a lie, but we reelected him anyway. Besides, if the real crime was merely a hokey publicity stunt, then every politician is guilty.

So here's what a savvy Democrat should tell us: we did win, we toppled Saddam, we created a new government. Sure, Iraq is still a bloodbath, perhaps worse than under Saddam, but that's not because we're losing a war. It's because we're engaged in a futile mission of nation-building. (Ooh, icky, unpopular, nation-building. Yuck.)

It also provides cover against lame "support the troops" attacks. See! We support the troops! We won the war! The failure in Iraq has nothing to do with hard-working American soldiers but the failure of statecraft.

By the time you're reading this, the phrase "We won the Iraq War, but we lost the peace" has been copyrighted. Democratic contenders, it can be yours for $50 per use. Republicans with brass balls must pay $100 per use--except you, Ron Paul, it's yours for the taking.

Look it up in your gut

Ron Paul walked into a National Press Club junket with three books? Jesus, this man gets more unelectable by the second! A President doesn't need to read books!

CIA Operative Michael Scheuer alarms me:

"Ayatollah Khomenai tried for a decade to instigate a jihad against the United States on the basis of our degeneracy and our debauchery, our movies, our women in the workplace. It didn't work. No one blew themselves up because of R-rated movies. Al Qaeda and its like have gone to school on the abject failure of the Ayatollah. They have focused on U.S. foreign policy and they've found it to be a glue of unity, a glue of cohesion across the Islamic world."

Oh dear. Ron, please don't repeat these talking points. Here's the deal: the people in this country who actually believe the Islamists hate us for "our degeneracy and debauchery" also hate our degeneracy and debauchery, our Hollywood values, our homosexual agenda, etc. Unfortunately, these are also the people who will decide the Republican nominee.

Actually, strike that. Ron, don't repeat these talking points until after the primaries. At that point, feel free to alienate your base as much as you like. If we can get the war nuts and the family values nuts to stay home on Election Day, we'll be in good shape.

Have you reconsidered your position on abortion, by any chance?

Ron Paul is Ronald Reagan is Ron Paul

I saw this cartoon on Salon. This Modern World nailed it.

Any thoughts on how we can convince Ron Paul to wear a Reagan mask for public appearances?

He should take a cue from (our inspiration) Sanjaya who's pretending to be someone else these days too...

An Open Letter to the Mayor

Dear Mayor Bloomberg,

Please run for President! I know your detractors don't think you have a hope of winning, and I know that you've said you aren't running, but c'mon, that billion dollars you set aside just in case must be burning a hole in your pocket. I have no idea where you stand on Iraq, health care, education, iTunes reform, mandatory gargling or any other issue--but I think your third party voice would be a valuable contribution to the national debate.

Oh, and if you siphon enough electoral college votes to prevent any candidate getting the necessary majority, then the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives would get to decide.

Pretty please?

Yours,
Let's Get Paul

Ron Paul blames Dick Cheney for 9/11

Now, I blame Dick Cheney for a lot of things, but on 9/11, I haven't quite nailed him yet.

"I blame them for the policy," Paul said, referring to a dozen neocons, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

Man, he's just determined to make my job as hard as possible...

Everything Paul

Oh, yes! Everything you ever wanted to know about Ron Paul.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Not a racist...

So apparently the rumors that Ron Paul made racist comments were merely a smear campaign. What a shame, I'd hoped they might mobilize the Republican base to vote for him. Perhaps we can reignite these rumors once he wins the nomination? If you've ever wanted to spearhead a 527, now's your chance!

(No, I'm not sure how seriously I take "Free Market News"--but until something more substantive comes up...)

But what if he wins?!

True, the Democrats do have an uncanny knack to lose elections. Given their inefficacy in 2000 and 2004, a squid candidate seems to have a better shot than a Democratic contender. In 2008, however, a squid candidate would make a better choice for the Republican nomination than Ron Paul.

Are you kidding me?? He said American brought 9/11 upon itself. So what if it's true?--what red-blooded Republican wants to hear that?

If Democrats don't know how to spin that to their advantage, they deserve four years of Ron Paul. Bring on the squids.

So Here's The Plan...

I read this blog, and I was inspired. Jonathan David Morris writes:

The 2008 presidential election is now less than 19 months away. As far as I’m concerned, that means now is the time to start planning how to destroy it.

You had me at Hello.

Here's the gist: Sanjaya Malakar managed to stay on American Idol for nine long weeks, not because he was talented, but because Howard Stern and votefortheworst.com endorsed him.

More than just a passing fad, I believe Sanjaya’s unlikely success means something. A hundred years from now, I predict historians will credit him as the reason a little known Republican congressman from Texas became our next U.S. president.

Ron Paul, he's already my favorite Republican for being so madcap and zany, but here is where Morris and I part ways:

I don’t want to discuss whether Ron Paul is what’s “best” for America. I do believe it, but I’m not going to say it, since that’s the kind of thing a Hillary Clinton supporter would say. Instead, I want to focus on this idea of voting “for the worst.” There isn’t a doubt in my mind that Ron Paul would be the establishment’s worst nightmare.

Ron Paul would be (and already is!) the Republicans worst nightmare.

DailyKos had the right idea, encouraging its readers to vote for Ron Paul after the Fox debate, but that doesn't go far enough: Register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

Imagine the droves of "Support the Troops" nutjobs who wouldn't even bother to vote if they only had a choice between anti-war candidates.

Let's face it. It doesn't matter who gets the Democratic nomination. Even if the Ice Princess herself gets it, her reign of terror will be a cakewalk compared to the last six years.

However, if Romney or Giuliani or McCain (or Fred Thompson) gets the nomination, the Republicans could hack voting machines or lose absentee ballots to steal yet another election. With Ron Paul, they wouldn't even bother.