Partisan political blogging

I have been trying to curb bluntly partisan posts, but I am compelled to react to this new poll of 2000 self-identified Republicans. The poll was commissioned by left-wing site DailyKos, but it’s a scientifically valid survey with statistically significant results.

It’s nearly impossible to imagine that President Obama will ever get any cooperation from a party that must answer to the constituents described by these poll results. Years ago, I thought of the two parties as having distinct ideologies, where I definitely had a strong preference for one party over the other. I may have had a strong dislike for the other party, but I’d occasional remember that, deep-down, most in the other party were well-intentioned and cared about the well-being of the country. In 2010, I’m afraid a majority of that party, the GOP, is just bat-shit crazy. If Obama continues to seek bipartisanship, I’m afraid his presidency is doomed. And the next decade or two or ten are doomed. Ironically, this is the same opinion that most Republicans have, but based on the premise that Obama might get something done.

The poll results

Highlights:

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53
No 14
Not Sure 33

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8

The Atlantic‘s Andrew Sullivan hopes for bipartisanship:

I do not believe that, given the fiscal and healthcare crisis we are in, that we should simply surrender to the basest impulses of partisanship. And I believe that was the core message of the Obama candidacy. And if this opportunity is simply thrown away, the bitterness will deepen, the polarization will widen, the public cynicism will explode and the country will truly pass the point of no return on its core and pressing problems.

Meanwhile, the President has submitted his 2011 budget, which Noble-winner Paul Krugman finds “depressing” and is indicative of “how sick our political system is”.

What we’re witnessing is an awesome national failure.

Why do I follow politics? There’s never any good news.*

* End of DADT is a good thing. It’s a stupid, offense policy.

UPDATE Apprently, pesky Al Qaeda is going to be attacking us on our own soil soon. Heard that one before, but not in a long, long time. Just terrific. Obama will be blamed if anything happens. Then we can really abandon all hope.

More crazy from Foxx

I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that [health care] bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country. — Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) (video here)

I posted back in July about Foxx having said, “There are no Americans who don’t have healthcare. Everybody in this country has access to healthcare”.

Previously, this North Carolina GOP caricature said that the notion that Matthew Shepherd’s murder had been a hate crime was a hoax.

Parrot Points on Punky, eh, I mean Palin

I hate that anyone out there in the enlightened U.S.A. might be think, “Ooh, a mommy who’s outdoorsy…sounds great to me!” and cast a vote for McCain based on such scant information. Americans like these women might. So here’s the moose-meat on Sarah Palin, as dictated by my liberal parrot points:

(Seriously, I believe all of the below. I won’t parrot something that I think is bunch of exaggerated moose shit. Ok, calling Sarah Palin a Punky Brewster is a bit of an exaggeration. The more amusing part of that joke, to me, is that McCain is like the befuddled Henry character poignantly portrayed by George Gaynes–the very-much-alive-George Gaynes–also known as the commandant in the Police Academy masterpieces).

Sarah Palin is or was

>> a religious conservative
>> a foreign policy neophyte
>> the mayor of a town of less than 9,000 people–half the size of Holly Springs!
>> a creationist who believes creationism deserves an equal place with evolution in school science cirriculum
>> a supporter of Jewish-fan-favorite Pat Buchanan in the 2000 presidential elections (did you hear that, Fort Lauderdale?)
>> a non-believer of the idea that humans are a cause of global climate change
>> someone whom John McCain had only met one time ever prior to last weekend
>> under investigation by the Alaska State Legislature for improper hiring and firing of state officials
>> staunchly anti-choice
>> firmly against state employees receiving benefits for same-sex partners

So much for Fred Thompson being the Great Right Hope

Fred Thompson has exited the race.

I wrote the following shortly after he joined the race, but I never published this for whatever reason…

Poor James Dobson and his merry band of bigots and dinosaurs. Dobson doesn’t seem too happy with the GOP front-runners, and one might think he’d be thrilled to have the Reagenesque Fred Thomspon in the race. Nope.

Dobson wrote:

Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?

He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent ‘want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!

I suppose this leaves the Christian Right without a candidate in 2008. [I wrote this pre-ascension of Huckabee].

Dems debate in Nevada

I made a point to catch the MSNBC debate in Nevada between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. Earlier in the day, I had sympathized with liberal outrage (expressed in the liberal corners of the airwaves and internet) that Kucinich had been excluded. When watching the debate, I must admit I didn’t mind that he wasn’t there. Sure, he would’ve challenge a lot of what the others said that I personally disagreed with. But one of the three on the dais is going to be the nominee, and I don’t want that one to get any more punches than necessary. I don’t sound like an idealistic liberal when I say that. Debates with eight to ten candidates are ridiculous. A debate with the three candidates with a chance of winning, with few time restrictions and the opportunity for some thoughtful conversation, this was very welcome to me.

I came away with the debate feeling a lot more comfortable with either Obama or Clinton as the nominee than I was before. This doesn’t help my motivation to do much else to voice support for John Edwards. At one point, Obama directed a comment to Edwards, the issue it was regarding I forget, but the message to voters and Edwards seemed to be, “John and I really don’t disagree on anything, and everyone likes me more, so it’s probably time for John to pack it in”. Edwards can’t draw sharp distinctions between himself and the other two without attacking two candidates that come across as excellent candidates, that should be electable despite the doubts that some want to cook up, doubts that I no longer have.

So there are Republicans who say they’d never vote for Clinton? I’m sure there are lots. But how many Republican women are there who secretly relish the idea of having a woman in charge, who will pull the lever for Hillary beyond the curtain and then pretend they can’t stand her to her husband and friends?

There are bigots who will never vote for a black person, so they’ll never vote for Obama. But then there are all these staunch conservatives who get this warm, fuzzy feeling from Obama kinda like they did with W eight years ago. They like the message of a “uniter” even if they’re ignoring his liberal record. They’ll cancel out the bigots.

And then the Republicans really won’t be presenting much of an alternative. Their best chances seems to be John McCain. In a year when the buzz word is “change”, a guy who’s been in Congress for three decades probably isn’t the best embodiment.

Time to look for close to home and see what can be done about unseating Liddy Dole…

Iowa ’08

Iowans take politics very seriously, and they’re far more interested in learning about presidential candidates than most Americans. I don’t know if this is a function of their first-in-the-nation status or the lack of anything more interesting to do in Iowa. Either way, they give careful scrutiny to candidates in way a national campaign will never allow for, so I don’t subscribe to the notion that it’s unfair that they get to decide. After all, Iowans are a reasonable-enough representative of Americans1. I suppose it might make sense to rotate primary schedules every four years. I’m mainly saying that having a more national primary would result in the campaigning having absolutely no substance.

I am hoping that John Edwards pulls out a win over Clinton and Obama. For me, he’s got the best combination of authenticity and ability. If it’s going to be Clinton or Obama, I do not have a preference. I like Obama more, but not as much as everyone else who’s in love with Obama. I believe that, of the three first-tier candidates, Obama is most vulnerable to losing in a general election, although my reasoning might be canceled out by the intangible element of first-time voters whom Obama may be able to motivate to come out in ways no other candidate ever has before. (My cynicism here comes from the part about how “no other candidate ever has before” ever truly gotten young people come out and vote. Sure, they register. But they never really do come out and vote).

On the Republican side, the Huckabee vs. Romney choice is quite frightening. Hard to believe that McCain, Giuliani aren’t even trying to compete given those horrific options. Huckabee wants to make history by defeating a guy who has outspent him by huge margins. That would indeed be impressive. But it would be a disturbing mirror of Iowans should they select a man who refutes evolution, once preached that women belong at home, and believed that AIDS victims should be quarantined. It would hardly be more flattering should they select Romney, a guy who believes in his heart of hearts absolutely nothing.

Dodd, Richardson, Biden are all much better candidates than Huckabee and Romney based on their knowledge, qualifications, and authenticity, and it’s unfortunate that one or more of them will probably be out of the reason within a week or two.

1 White, middle-class Americans

Huckabee’s hypocrisy

Huckabee calls for border crackdown in response to Bhutto’s assassination

It’s laughable reading about Huckabee decrying Islamic fundamentalism, and how we need to seal our borders to keep out those Pakastani fanatics.

Why is this laughable? Google up an old Huckabee sermon. (Maybe preaching that wives should submit themselves as gracious servants to their husbands isn’t as bad as telling the flock to blow themselves up and kill lots of Christians, but there’s plenty of fun to be found in Huckabee’s brand of fundamentalism).

Americans needs to do everything possible to prevent religious fanatics from destroying our country. The problem is, the fanatics are already here, and some of them are even running for President.

Of course, the leap from Bhutto’s assassination to building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border to keep out Pakistanis is also an astounding admission of ignorance about world affairs. Huckabee had not one intelligible thought about Bhutto and Pakistan. His attention switched immediately to the border, since that’s a place both he and his flock can find on a map.

A quick Huckabee aside, a quote from a 1998 book he penned:

Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.

That’s right, environmentalism.

And you thought George W. Bush gutted this country of all its reason and clean air…

Hey Dems, just let Rudy get the friggin nomination

Q: What would be more dangerous or despicable than a President Giuliani?

A: a President Huckabee or a President Romney

That’s my reaction to the latest Huckabee news– Huckabee refuses to retract ’92 remarks on AIDS patients — and Mitt Romney’s recent “freedom requires religion” speech.

Dems and progressives capable of rational thought ought to shelve the anti-Rudy rants and documentaries for the time being; the time for their relevance will come soon enough.

Bill O’Reilly, etc. like to paint progressives as haters of America. I don’t hate America. However, should eight years of George W. Bush be followed by four years of Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney, this nation will be so much under God that anyone with a secular thought will suffocate.

Folksy Huckabee just as dangerous as the rest

Back in 1992, Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients

Huckabee wrote [in 1992]: “If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.”

Huckabee said in a prepared statement released by his campaign Saturday afternoon that he called for quarantine when there was a lot of confusion about how AIDS is spread.

Yes, there was confusion about how AIDS is spread back in 1992 like there is confusion today over whether or not there is a climate change or how dangerous cigarettes are or if abstinence-only education works.

It is a bit relevant that Governor Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution, because it’s clear he has a pattern of ignoring science and would prefer to pander to his evangelical base.

Giuliani lies about cancer to scare Americans

Rudy Guiliani has a radio ad in Iowa in which proudly acknowledges being a survivor of prostate cancer (good for him, seriously). But then he does on to say that he’s mighty lucky not to live in the UK, where they socialized medicine, since the prostate survival rate is just 42%, compared to 84% in the U.S.

“You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat,” Giuliani says in the ad.

Nice argument, if it weren’t a pathetic, manipulative lie.

(I’m using good about not hot-linking/stealing stuff from other sites, like this one…)
Prostrate cancer survival same in US vs UK; Giuliani is fucking liar

More stats:
Cancer Research UK : Prostate Cancer survival statistics