The Tomb of the Unknown Republican
In a recent Pew Poll, a whopping 41% of respondents could not name a single Republican Presidential Candidate without being prompted. For the sake of fairness, 19% couldn’t name a Democrat either, but this is still an extremely embarrassing number for Republicans.
After god knows how many debates, political maneuvers, press conferences, mini-scandals, etc. a full 41% of the population still has no idea who the Republican Party is trying to run for the upcoming presidential election. I mean, I’ve read about how apathetic Republicans are over the Iraq War, the failing domestic policies of the Bush Administration, and (most importantly for this conversation) the poor showing of viable Republican candidates for the ‘08 elections, but this is off the deep end. This is completely off the charts. Needless to say, I’m ecstatic.
So let’s play Who in the Hell is that?!
Rules are simple. In each picture you’ll be presented with 4 people. Guess which ones are running and which ones aren’t (there can be more than one candidate or non-candidate in each question). Award yourself one point per corrent answer.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Answers:
1) A:Yes, B: Barbarian, C: Yes, D: Appalled at who they let into heaven
2) A: Still High, B: Yes, C: Fake Running, D: Yes
3) A: Yes, B: Yes, C: Has a wide Stance, D:Yes
4) A: Yes, B: The Office, C: That’s a monkey, D: Bush Sr. loves him more than W.
Scoring:
0: I’m not sure you’re even literate. Can you even read what I’m writing? Did you just come here for the colors?
1-4: 2008 Presidential whaaaa?
5-8: May have looked at a newspaper on the ground or flipped through TV channels recently
9-12: Actually watched the Republican debates
13-16: Know enough about the candidates to know the Republicans aren’t going to win
Click here to read more.
California to Outlaw Mommies and Daddies
Recently, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger approved a law that baned “discriminatory bias” against homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles in public schools (officially named SB 777). Most notably, the new law will dictate that school texts must either include everybody in the fold (i.e. when you mention “mom & dad” you also have to mention “mom & mom/dad & dad”) or not mention them at all.
Now, as you have probably already guessed, this law did not pass by the religious-right unnoticed. Did they:
A) Calmly and rationally consider the mere inclusion of a considerable portion of the population (i.e. homosexuals and those of alternative lifestyles) into public education’s mindset a reasonable move.
B) Disagree with law, but know that even if they didn’t approve of this inclusion (which in many ways resembles the addition of “he or she” into our language) they could easily spend time outside of school teaching their children whatever values they wanted.
C) Go crazier than a Dance Dance Revolution fanatic on crack and declare a jihad on public schools and Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Thats right, Christian groups across the board are encouraging parents to pull their kids out of public schools. Although the school texts and learning materials haven’t been chosen yet, Christians groups have been able to roughly approximate what the lessons will look like:
It will arguably be spliced with images from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Will & Grace, Top Gun, and Batman 4 (the one with the nipples).
Lets look at some quotes that exemplify the Christian-right’s reactions:
“Apparently, the governor now feels the freedom to favor the pro-homosexual message and to disregard conservative voters and traditional values.” -Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council
Thats right Ron. By including (in anyway) people that aren’t from “Leave it to Beaver”, the governor is actually favoring them. Just like how having gay pride parades is discriminatory against White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
Here comes the clue train so hop on if you can. Every day is heterosexual pride day and inclusion of a minority group doesn’t mean you’re favoring them.
“Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality.” -Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families
Thoughts like this should be laughable, but when you really think about it you can understand their concern. After all, the very survival of religion depends largely on a group of unquestioning sheep who’ll believe anything they’re told (i.e. the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaur bones are a plot by the devil, invisible sky wizards answer your wishes when you’re on your knees with your hands together, etc.)
They’re so used to an impressionable audience that its hard for them to imagine that someone might not take to heart everything that someone at the front of a classroom (or church) says. Despite this misconception, learning about something doesn’t mean you live it. Example: I was told I could be president, but now I’m writing a blog that no ones reads.
“It is simply unconscionable to force young children to deal with such confusing matters as transgender, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles in their classrooms.” -Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute
I love this quote. Being the classical religious fanatic, your deepest concern and greatest fear is that children actually be forced to think. God knows if they did, they might begin to see the glaring holes, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies pervaded by modern religion.
Forcing people to understand that life is complex, diverse, and difficult to comprehend is probably one of the nobler pursuits available in life. The fear of complexity, whether one hides it from others or from oneself, is one of the most dangerous forms of cowardice.
Odds and Ends: October 12th
1) Non-issues
If you read my column this week, than there’s not a lot of room for doubt about how much media coverage has bothered me recently. Check out Lewis Black laying down the smack on the politicians that create non-issues and the media that perpetuates it:
2) Group calls for secession from the Union
In anger over both the Iraq War and the Bush Administration, a secessionist group has popped up in oddest of places. Secessionist tendencies have been around since the Civil War, but seriously…in VERMONT? It’s the home of the Killington ski resort, quaint small towns, and uhh…..uh……awesome autumns?
At any rate, you might be asking yourself whats the beef?
They argue that the “US empire” is unsustainable and have tapped into a growing well of anger over the war in Iraq, fears for the global environment and anger at the administration of George Bush.
Even stranger is the fact that they’ve partnered up with secessionist groups in other states, most notably those still hoping that the South will rise again.Click here to read more.
3) Creationists use jar of peanutbutter to “disprove” evolution.
“The entire food industry depends upon the fact that evolution doesn’t happen.”
It’s one of those moments where you wonder whether crazy people know that they’re crazy or not. To think these people have a real influence on politics. God help us.
Quote the Craven, “Terror War”
I’m fairly certain the world has gone absolutely Topsy-turvy. Black is white. Up is down. Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch are getting back together.
A recent ad by Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton shows her at ground zero and makes reference to her support for a medical screening and monitoring program for the disaster workers and National Guard members, a bill which she co-sponsored.
Here’s the weird part. CNN does a little ditty on it and then asks the hard hitting question:
“Is Hillary politicizing 9/11?”
They’re kidding right? It’s either an elaborate joke or I’m dreaming. I feel like I should be waking up to my alarm blasting Led Zeppelin any second now.
Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani has been running around relating every issue in American politics to 9/11 and HILLARY is questioned for politicizing it?
Rudy’s comments to the NRA on Gun Control:
“I also think that there are some major intervening events — September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn’t change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it. “
Rudy on inappropriately answering phone call from wife during speech he was giving:
?And quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other.?
This is also from a man who is vehemently opposed by many groups highly connected to 9/11. In fact, many groups wanted his speaking invitation at the 2007 commemoration of 9/11 to be rescinded. Even more than that, the International Firefighter’s unions came out against him:
Of course, I’m obviously not the first person to bring this up, as many members of the media have already done so. In response to these allegation, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign released the following statement:
“9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 . 9/11 9/11 9/11, 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 - 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 - 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 . 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 , ‘9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 !‘
9/11 9/11 9/11 ?
9/11 9/11 9/11 ?
9/11. 9/11 !”
Seriously though, anyone who could question whether ANY candidate is politicizing 9/11 without first going after Rudy is either disingenuous or horrifically ignorant. Should anyone be doing it? Not really, but a little of it is almost unavoidable. The important thing is, as the New York Times was keen enough to point out, we don’t need another 9/11 president. We need a 9/12 president.
Libertarian…Like a Fox
Here’s a riddle. Which Republican candidate has garnered tremendous online support, gets about 49.5% of the military vote among Republican contenders, and regularly places well in straw polls?
Giuliani? Romney? McCain? Nope, its Ron Paul and despite all those positive stats, our dear Ronny hasn’t made it over 4% in the gallup polls. Even so, he’s probably one of the most respectable candidates in the field (and the most fun too).
Officially a Republican, Ron Paul is also a staunch libertarian - a fact which has often brought him into conflict with fellow right-wingers. Now as much as I’d like to dislike the guy - if only on principle- what he’s saying just sounds too much like what comes out of my mouth on a regular basis. Granted we don’t always see eye-to-eye ( typically when he’s calling for the dismantling of government as we know it), but at least he makes sense some of the time.
On the Iraq War:
“Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”
“Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs. We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq, all at the expense of the poor and the middle class here at home.”
On the War on Drugs:
“We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 70s and it’s wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work; prohibition on drugs doesn’t work.”
“Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36% of those arrested are blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons, we have to repeal the whole ‘War on Drugs’– it isn’t working,”
On Politicians for the past 6 years:
The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.
If we had to throw a Republican into the White House, Ron would definitely be better than Romney or Giuliani. But with support in the single digits it’s unlikely that we’ll be seeing a President Paul anytime soon.
Feed for The Spectrum