Factoid of the Day

Via GottaLaff:

...Until recently, the military has been a stalwart source of support for Republican hopeful Ron Paul. 

But in March, it was Obama that scooped up the most support from the armed forces -- about twice as much as Paul, in fact. Romney remains an also-ran when it comes to backing from the military... 

...members of the military who donated more than $200 have given Paul's campaign about $333,134, versus $184,505 to Obama and just $45,738 to Romney. 

But in March, Obama and Paul switched places. Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic -- only $8,630.

Compassionate Conservatism Redux

Former George W. Bush speech writer Michael Gerson once defined the phrase 'compassionate conservatism' as, "the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself." We all know by now how well that worked for the Bush administration.

Liberal commentator Joe Conason, noting Bush's policy of tax cuts, wrote in 2003 that "so far, being a 'compassionate conservative' appears to mean nothing very different from being a hardhearted, stingy, old-fashioned conservative." Similarly, former President Bill Clinton described the message of compassionate conservatism as: "I want to help you. I really do. But you know, I just can't" or similar variants.

The true definition of compassionate conservatism can be summed up as, "Yeah, that's a shame... wish I could help out but everyone should take care of themselves."

I've been in a self-imposed media blackout these last few days due to the September 11th anniversary 24 hour news cycle (I don't need to see that again) and decided not to watch last night's CNN Republican Primary debate because I saw all I needed to see during last week's debacle. Why would I want to subject myself to the motley crew that is the GOP nominees again? Unless they've changed their minds about climate change or evolution, or actually looked at the numbers to realize they're just flat out lying on the Recovery Act while hypocritically benefitting from it, there was no need for any more self-induced stress.

But then I heard (bad news travels fast) that a hypothetical question was asked of Ron Paul regarding a 30 year old man who chooses not to pay for health insurance, then suddenly needs it - what's to be done? And the audience yelled to "let him die." I couldn't believe it. So I had to see for myself.



More than anything else that has transpired in the world of American politics and the divisiveness we've gotten accustomed to this last decade or so, this truly breaks my heart. What has become of us as a society? Or I should rephrase, what has become of the Republican party as a societal faction of our population? This is the pro-life party? This is the party touting their Christianity? It's absolutely disgusting. And this comes on the heels of last week's audience strongly praising Rick Perry's execution record as Governor of Texas.

There are some criticizing the editing of this video because it cuts off Ron Paul's answer to the question. But the video isn't about Paul's answer, it's about the callousness of the audience. If you listen closely, Ron Paul says "no" when asked if society should let the hypothetical patient die before explaining about pre Medicare days and churches taking care of the sick, blah, blah, blah. Someone in the audience yells "YEAH!" at the thought of letting the patient die to hoots and hollers and it sounds like they're mostly in agreement. I'm sure if the dipshit audience member who yelled had a member of their family who was in that situation, he would think differently.

I also can't dismiss this as just two or three jackasses in the audience. They ALL applauded at the notion of letting the hypothetical patient fend for himself. It's not just two or three jackasses anymore. It's become mainstream GOP thinking. And if the nominees and the Republican leadership feel the need to kowtow to the Tea Party, then shame on them.

Just another example blowing apart the myth that both parties are the same.

Iowa Loves Them Some Crazy, Hates Milquetoast

CNN: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll Saturday, besting eight other Republican candidates in a nonbinding but politically significant vote in the first caucus state of Iowa.

"This is the first step toward taking the White House in 2012," Bachmann told the crowd. "And you have sent a message that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. This is a wonderful down payment on taking the country back -- and it started in Iowa."

Once again, Iowa shows its irrelevancy by dismissing any possible legitimate candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in their Ames Straw Poll and instead choosing Michele Bachmann as the person they'd like to represent Iowans, closely followed by Ron Paul.

The vote tallies were:

Michele Bachmann: 4,823
Ron Paul: 4,671
Tim Pawlenty: 2,293
Rick Santorum:1,567
Herman Cain: 1,456
Rick Perry: 718
Mitt Romney: 567
Newt Gingrich: 385
Jon Huntsman: 69
Thad McCotter: 35

Of course, this poll means practically nothing if you look at past winners. I mean, Pat Robertson won the thing in 1987, the same Pat Robertson that said Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment because of America's abortion policy.

The real winners of this Straw Poll were Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who didn't even have to spend any time in Iowa and let Bachmann knock off Tim Pawlenty, a more legitimate but intensely boring candidate, who decided to call it quits after coming in, not second, but a distant third behind Ron Paul.

I suppose when you shoot yourself in the foot by coining "Obamneycare" and then show you have no balls by walking it back the next day in Romney's presence during the GOP's first primary debate, have no money and no support, it's probably the smartest thing you can do. No Pawlenty can go back to being irrelevant and ignored on the local level.

CPAC Straw Poll Is In

So the crazies at CPAC, you know, the ones who cheered and chanted for Dick Cheney, voted for their Republican nominee preference. Here are the results:

Ron Raul: 30%
Mitt Romney: 23%
Gary Johnson 6%
Chris Christie 6%
Newt Gingrich: 5%
Tim Pawlenty 4%
Michele Bachmann 4%
Mitch Daniels 4%
Sarah Palin: 3%
Herman Cain 2%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
John Thune 2%
Jon Huntsman 1%
Haley Barbour 1%

The Michael Steele Quandry

The latest foot in mouth moment for Michael Steele is developing into a very interesting situation. While on the one hand, he once again went against the grain of the entire party he is the supposed chairman, on the other hand, he actually spoke some truth.

To reiterate, Steele said the conflict in Afghanistan “was a war of Obama’s choosing” and “is not something that the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” Wrong on both counts.

Just to clarify, I didn't necessarily disagree with Steele's notion that history has shown the lack of success in previous Afghanistan occupations, but the thought that Steele would try to lay this solely at President Obama's feet, as if the previous six years before Obama took office never occurred, is absolutely ludicrous.

Now there are calls for his ouster.

"Frankly, I find Steele's remarks totally unacceptable," said [Rep. Tom] Cole (R-Okla.) in a statement Saturday. "He should apologize and resign. He undercut American forces fighting in the field, politicized further a war that two presidents of different parties have deemed in the national interest and embarrassed the party he purports to lead. It is time for him to go -- quickly."

There were criticisms by the usual suspects, Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol included.  So how wrong was Steele if the likes of those two disagreed with him?

Whether he undercut American forces is not ascertainable, but he did undercut his party. While trying to score cheap political points against the President, he managed to turn the GOP rhetoric on its ear, although there are a select few that agree with the RNC chairman.

“Michael Steele should not resign,” [Ron] Paul, a Texas Republican and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, said today in a statement. “Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.”

I don't know if Steele has walked back his comments before or after Paul's support, but walk it back he did, and judging by the reaction Steele has had to previous criticisms, you can tell even he thinks this time he's gone one step too far.

The GOP Florida Debate

Got home from work and prepared myself to watch the GOP Debate (I TiVo-ed it). So there I sat with my bottle of Tums and a waste paper basket next to me just in case.

Looks like Rudy "3% in the Primaries" Giuliani is front and center as I predicted he would be. At least MSNBC and the MSM plays fair and square in deciding who is to participate in these debates according to viability. I was wrong in my prediction that Ron Paul would be on the end podium.

• Let's see... McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent because people who are trying to figure out their budgets in 2010(?!) need to know sooner than later. I wonder if he knows that many Americans out there live paycheck to paycheck. He's worried about pork barrel spending and bridges to nowhere but doesn't mention the $11 BILLION we spend in Iraq. Each. Month.
  
  
• Giuliani... there's that vomit feeling in the back of my throat - also wants major tax cuts for... wait for it... CORPORATIONS AND CAPITAL GAINS.
  
  
• Huckabee: $150 billion stimulus package will be borrowed from China to buy Chinese products. Fix the infrastructure to fix the economy. The Huckster makes sense. He must have heard John Edwards say the same thing last week.
  
  
• Mitt Romney also favors the tax cuts because according to him, that's what got our economy going the last time. According to me, that's what got us in trouble in the first place.
  
  
• McCain: GOP lost the 2006 election because of their lack of restraint in spending. Silly me, I thought it was about the war.
  
  
• Hey! Ron Paul was finally acknowledged by being asked a question 17 minutes into the debate.
  
  
• Giuliani won't take blood money from a Saudi prince, but same prince can bail out the troubled US banks. Nothing like free trade, huh, Rudy? Actual Rudy quote: "How much can we sell to the rest of the world?" Well, products? I'm all for it. But selling our debt?
  
  
• McCain claims that even though the GOP fucked up the economy over the last 7 years, America should vote for a Republican because you can't trust the Democrats when it comes to spending. Pass the Tums, please.
  
  
• Actually Romney quote: " When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses." He says this regarding our economy after the GOP and Bush has sucked the treasury dry. Russert also prefaced the question by saying when Bush took office, we had a surplus, lower unemployment, lower inflation, and lower gas prices.
  
  
• McCain dismisses a question asking how we're supposed to stay in Iraq indefinitely (as he has suggested) with a broken military and the impossibility of keeping it up financially by stating that the military isn't broken and that we are winning in Iraq. Then takes a swipe at Hillary Clinton who would "raise the white flag of surrender." Romney jumps in on the Clinton bashing.
  
  
• Q: Was the war in Iraq a good idea and worth the blood and treasure?
  McCain: Good idea at the end of the day; badly managed.
  Rudy: Hillary was in favor of it; "I'm for it"; Islamic terrorist war -Boo!
  Ron Paul: Bad idea, not worth the sacrifice and treasure; Al-Qaeda wasn't there before, but NOW they are; no WMD. (Applause during his answer.)
  Huck: We owe George W. Bush our thanks. Just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean they weren't there.
  Mitt: The surge is working. I'm for the war and will always be for the war.

I can't take it anymore. Taking some Advil for my headache, Tums for my stomach and going to bed. I'll most likely have nightmares about one of these chumps in the Oval Office. Now that's one scary-ass nightmare.

Maybe I'll watch the rest tomorrow... but it's highly unlikely as I value my health and sanity.

CNN Debate in South Carolina

Quick note. I just finished watching the debate in Myrtle Beach, SC. I thought I would like the freer form... and I did! But I must say that Wolf Blitzer is absolutely useless as a moderator. There was really no reason for him to be there except as emcee.

It was nice to hear the candidates get passionate and defend their policies and positions against the rhetoric that's been thrown around... I suppose Barack Obama did the best in that sense since most of the arrows were aimed at him regarding his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature and his recent quotes on the Republicans and Ronald Reagan.

Two questions were completely idiotic (paraphrasing): 1- Asking Obama if Clinton was the best black president we ever had and 2- asking if we should withdraw from Iraq or win. Who the hell submitted that question, LIEberman? McCain? Giuliani? Karl Rove?

And once again, just like MSNBC and ABC, CNN excluded Dennis Kucinich from the debate presumably on the opinion that he is not a viable candidate.

So help me God, if MSNBC or CNN or any other "news" organization carries the next Republican debate and INCLUDES Rudy Giuliani, after Mr. 9/11 has gotten trounced in every primary so far by almost every candidate including a continual ass kicking by Ron Paul, I'm going to stick an ice pick in my eye. Let's see how serious these supposed serious news organizations are when the time comes to pick who will debate then.

I predict as always, they will kowtow to the corporate demigods and all six, SIX!, remaining Republican candidates will be on the stage. And just like they did with Kucinich and Mike Gravel early on (when they were still included), they'll place Ron Paul on an end podium and have Ghouliani dead center. And why? To have a man with a vote count average 3% seem like he has any shot at actually winning this thing? Please.

Enough of the media deciding for us who the viable candidates are. One more lackluster finish for John Edwards, and I can see them excluding him from the next Dem debate as well.

Armadillo Joe: ...I fear that [Edwards] is suffering from a tacit conspiracy to exclude candidates who could actually shake-up a system (for better or worse) that works really well for the people who run it; Kucinich and Paul also come to mind. Edwards is just the most high-profile, successful and legitimate of the group.

Time will tell soon enough.

Republican Voters

Well, here's the problem. Republicans have a lackluster block of candidates, and yet listen to the responses you get (emphasis mine):

NEW YORK TIMES:

Mr. Goulet, 38, a welder foreman, voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, then did not vote in the next two elections. He now likes Mr. McCain, because of his military background. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself,” Mr. Goulet said.

Josh Schultz, 28, of Lancaster, Ohio, who drives a bulldozer and also works as a mechanic, said was starting to like Mr. Romney "because he seems downt to earth."

William Sedlak, 47, a flight attendant who lives in Aliso Viejo, Calif., said he liked Mr. Giuliani because “he’s conservative enough but he’s still a little liberal enough.”

Wayne Horton, 53, who works in construction as a house framer and lives in Burton, Ohio, has been mulling the field and has decided he likes Mr. Romney because he looks presidential... Mr. Thompson? “I really don’t know much about him. I’m not that informed. Really, I just rely on TV and what my wife tells me from reading the paper, and then we talk about it over supper. We’re out
trying to make a living, so we rely on the media to tell us about the candidates’ qualifications.”

And there, in a nutshell is the mentality of the Republican voter. "He looks presidential" is a perfectly good reason to vote for someone to be President of the United States.

Mr. Horton relies on the media for the candidates qualifications but admits he's not that informed. Tells you something about the media, doesn't it? Do you think Mr. Horton knows much more about Paris Hilton or Owen Wilson than Sam Brownback or Ron Paul? Mr. Sedlak wants to be a conservative but is a closeted liberal and therefore likes Giuliani. Mr. Goulet likes McCain for his military service but his quote is confusing. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself.” Does that mean that since McCain has visited Iraq he knows what it's like and can send more troops or does he hope that McCain's Vietnam experience will prevent him from causing further chaos in the Middle East?

Someday, the GOP voters will start asking questions that matter. I'm not saying that issues like immigration and right to privacy aren't important but in my opinion, health care, the war in Iraq, our straining economy and diplomatic standing in the world are priorities over the wedge issues that the Republican party uses time and time again to divide the citizens of this country.