Category Archive

Last night the husband and I were watching videos on Onion News Network, including one in which it’s reported that John McCain “vows to replace Secret Service with his own bare hands.” (It’s pretty funny, as “John McCain is one mean **********” jokes go, but it contains some language that doesn’t quite meet the standards of couth for this blog.)  So I was thinking about how we elect presidents, and how many folks base their votes on something other than a careful analysis of the candidate’s policy positions and resume.  Usually we speak of this pejoratively, like a person will vote based on which letter is after the candidates name (”R” vs. “D”), or which candidate you’d like to have a beer with, or which candidate is taller–you know, superficial stuff like that.  (Yes, party affiliation, height–it’s all just window dressing.  What happened to discussing the issues?)  And I was thinking that it’s entirely possible–nay, probable–that a large segment of the American electorate does in fact pick the president on the basis of who would be more likely to win in a fistfight.

Think about those elections in recent memory.  Say what you will about President Bush–say he’s unfit to be president, that he’s the worst leader of the free world you could possibly imagine–that could all very well be true, but can you seriously argue that he wouldn’t clean John Kerry’s clock in a fair fight?  Seriously, who couldn’t clean John Kerry’s clock?  Robert Byrd, maybe.  Maybe.  If Democrats did in fact hold fistfights instead of primaries, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004.  He still would have lost in November because the man is crazy and has no discipline–but it would have been a lot more interesting to watch.

I think Bush could have taken Al Gore, too.  Maybe not Al Gore today, as he’s bulked up a bit and under a lot less stress–plus, he has that Nobel prize he can clonk people over the head with.  But Al Gore in 2000 was another story; he hadn’t come into his own yet, he lacked confidence.  I would have been totally comfortable with a fistfight in lieu of a recount in 2000.  We could have left the Supreme Court out of it altogether and the nation would have healed much faster.  (Easy for us, as we weren’t the ones getting the old Texas one-two in the face repeatedly.)

And I think it’s obvious that Bill Clinton would have won both of his “elections.”  I mean, Bob Dole only had the one good arm, God bless him, and he wasn’t taking Viagra yet, so far as I understand it (which, admittedly, I don’t, and I don’t want to, so don’t correct me).  And even if George H.W. wasn’t the wimp everyone thought he was, how was a man of his genteel demeanor supposed to take on both Bubba and Ross Perot?  Not that Ross Perot is that tough, but how was “41″ supposed to concentrate on taking the big guy down with old H. Ross yapping at his heels the whole time?  What a nuisance!  Even in a two-man fight, though, I suspect Clinton would have prevailed.  Bush was out of touch, and Clinton would have helped him feel America’s pain, if you catch my meaning.

As for 1988, I think we all know that the only person Michael Dukakis could take in a fistfight is John Kerry.  And maybe Gandhi, but only because Gandhi is dead.  And a pacifist.

Ronald Reagan was 69 years old in 1980, but according to his doctors he was in amazing physical condition for a man his age.  He could have taken Jimmy Carter in, like, five minutes.  Reagan was even older when he ran for re-election, and less spry, but when your competition is Walter Mondale–no offense to him, but come on.  And anyway, what kind of American bets against the Gip?  (Oh, really?  Well, I guess we know which America you pledge allegiance to.)

I would venture that almost every president elected in the twentieth century would have won in a fistfight against his opponent, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter (unless someone kidnapped Gerald Ford and replaced him with Chevy Chase) and Woodrow Wilson.  Yes, even FDR would have won most of his bouts–not because his opponents were too “gentlemanly” to fight a disabled man, but because FDR had very good upper-body strength, and he would have used the wheelchair to his advantage.  (I came this close to minoring in history in college.  I bet you can tell.)

And by this measure–i.e. fisticuffs–we can see that John McCain is the rightful Republican nominee this year.  If we’d had fistfights instead of primaries, Mitt Romney would have been down for the count in Iowa and wouldn’t have dared to show his face in New Hampshire.  Huckabee would have gone a few more rounds, but never having mastered the roundhouse kick (despite all of Chuck Norris’s tutorials), he would have had to concede in Florida.  Ron Paul wouldn’t have been in competition because fistfighting isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.  And let’s face it, the other guys didn’t want it badly enough.

As for the Democrats, Hillary would be your nominee today.  Not because her opponents were afraid to fight a girl, but because she is just that bada$$.  I’m still half-expecting her to win in November.

So, just as an amusement–something to keep us entertained until the party conventions this summer–here is a 2008 Presidential Fistfight Poll for you:

Take my poll!

I’m calling Pennsylvania for Hillary. 

But I think Obama will beat the spread.  I don’t even know what that means; I just like the way it sounds. 

Once the Right decided to rally ’round McCain, circling the wagons and whatnot, they really went whole-hog–if I may use the expression “whole-hog.”  Is isn’t politically incorrect, is it?  Though I guess if it is, it’s still appropriate to use when you’re talking about Republicans, eh?  (Not because Republicans are pigs, but because they’re politically incorrect.  Or maybe because they are pigs.  Suit yourself.)  Anyway, as I mentioned in a recent post, I think they’ve been going a little overboard on their Obama-bashing–probably because they think he’s going to be the nominee. 

I myself am not so sure.  Random-jokes-I’ve-made-in-the-past aside, I really don’t favor one Democratic candidate over the other.  Policy-wise, they’re enough alike that I just can’t develop a real preference.  Yes, I know they’re not exactly the same.  I don’t think all Koreans look alike either, okay?  I’m just saying that when you don’t like peanut butter, you really can’t develop a hankering for Jif over Skippy or vice versa.  All I know is that I’ve never cared for Peter Pan, and I’m really glad John Edwards is out of the race, too.  Okay, the peanut butter analogy isn’t working for me because I love peanut butter and even though Peter Pan is not my favorite, it’s still way more appealing than John Edwards will ever be.  Unless John Edwards became mute.  Maybe if he were forced to eat a dozen Peter Pan peanut-butter sandwiches and he hadn’t got milk–no, wait, I’m just talking crazy now.  What was I saying?

Oh yeah.  I’m not sure who’s going to win this nomination.  I doubted Hillary once, before New Hampshire–but I won’t make that mistake again.  I knew she’d get Texas, but when she got Ohio, too, I thought, “Dude, I am totally never doubting the Hillster again.”  I call her the Hillster sometimes.  Like just now.  Anyway, it’s true that one of my reasons for never underestimating the Hillster is that I simply won’t put anything past her.  And by “won’t put anything past her,” I don’t mean like selling nuclear secrets to Iran.  I’m talking everything short of that.  (The Clintons may be sneaky, but they’re still patriots.)

On the other hand, Obama is still Obama.  He doesn’t have a name I can easily transform into something hip and ridiculous–unless I went with “the Obamanator” (hey, that’s not bad)–but he’s still very appealing.  For one thing, he seems nice.  Doesn’t he?  For another thing, he’s still the candidate of hope and change.  For yet another thing, he is not Hillary.  One should never underestimate the importance of not being Hillary.  But are hope and change and not being Hillary enough to propel him to the nomination?  I don’t know.  He doesn’t strike me as being ruthless enough to get those SuperDelegates.  But I don’t even understand what SuperDelegates are all about in the first place, so what do I know?

I have not read any of Obama’s books.  I haven’t read Hillary’s books, either, so they’re even.  I’m waiting for Hillary to write her real autobiography, at which time I will totally be reading it–unless Bill’s real biography comes out at the same time, in which case hers would have to take a back seat, no offense to her.  I’m not particularly interested in It Takes a Village.  Similarly, I’m not particularly interested in Barack’s The Audacity of Hope.  No offense to hope, I’m just not interested.  I have been meaning to read Dreams from My Father, but just haven’t gotten around to it yet. 

A couple weeks ago Hugh Hewitt started playing lengthy excerpts from the audio-book version of Dreams (read by Barack himself) on his radio program.  The first thing he played was an excerpt that had Barack using the F-word a lot.  (They bleeped it, of course, but it was still pretty obvious.)  Hugh Hewitt seemed to think that people wouldn’t like a presidential candidate who records his own book on tape and says the actual F-word actually himself–that being on audio record using such language is unbefitting the dignity of the office and Americans would be turned off.  Most of his callers (none of whom were Democrats and none of whom planned to vote for Obama) disagreed.

I disagreed, too (and I wasn’t even a caller).  While voters make decisions based on some pretty superficial criteria, I don’t think anybody makes a voting decision based on a candidate’s audio book.  Because you know, year after year politicians come out with these books, promising they’ll be interesting or educational, but they never are, and after years of hearing all these promises of interesting books and never seeing any evidence of it in their own libraries, folks get bitter and frustrated and cling to the stuff they know is constant, like guns and religion.  Obama understands this, which is why you can’t count him out. 

On the other hand, he does seem to be heading on a downward spiral as of late.  In my opinion, the Jeremiah Wright thing is on the back burner for now, but it would certainly resurface in the general election, whether it deserves to or not.  On the other hand, who really cares about Jeremiah Wright?  It’s impossible for me to gauge because I don’t care about Jeremiah Wright, but that’s because I don’t care about Obama.  However, Obama’s performance in the last debate was, by all accounts, lame.  I heard some clips on the radio and read the transcript on the internet, and I have to agree with all accounts:  he was lame.  Hillary was on her game–but when you consider the strength of her game when it’s on and the wind is blowing in the right direction, how much does that really mean?  She was less lame.  But what do I know?  I prefer Skippy.

I hope Democrats don’t mind that I’m poaching y’all’s primary–because there just ain’t nothing going on over at GOP headquarters.  Make that GOP-HQ, I like the sound of that, too.

Some commentators on the right seem to be laboring under the impression–or fantasy–that the Democrats are going to have a brokered convention and they could very well end up pulling a candidate out of their collective ass (pun intended–oh, like you wouldn’t have done the same in my position) and nominating some random guy like Al Gore.  The wonks over at National Review keep telling me it could happen, but I think they’re just trying to get attention.  Democrats seem to like the Al Gore, but I don’t think common folks would take too kindly to having all their primary votes ignored.  Also, I don’t think Al Gore wants to be president anymore.  I think he’s found his niche in life.  He seems happy.  Why would he run for President, when he’s already aging so poorly? 

In the interest of entertainment, though, I’ll throw this question out to the audience.  If the race were suddenly thrown wide open (short of a Constitutional change that would allow foreign-born citizens to become President–I mean, let’s not get too crazy), who would you want to run?  Nominate candidates for either party or both.  This is an open primary, so to speak.  An open primary in Chicago, where you can vote twice, even if you’re dead.  Maybe especially if you’re dead.  (But don’t tell me you’re dead just to creep me out.)  Mi comment box es su comment box.  (That’s a nod to you voters who are still hung up on the immigration issue.)  Go!

I’ve been out of the loop for a while, what with tap dancing and party planning and all manner of needless distraction, so I’m just now getting back into the news of the world.  Oh, okay, not the world, just my own country.  I’ll get back to the world tomorrow.  What’s the hurry?  The world’s problems will always be with us.  Sensationalized American news stories only stay relevant for so long. 

Tempest-in-a-teapot stories have the shortest shelf lives, so I’ll start there.  I’ve been reading about this remark that Barack Obama made at a fundraiser a little over a week ago:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Now, that’s offensive on a couple different levels, but not something I would have considered noteworthy, were it not for the fact that Hillary Clinton responded by calling Obama’s remarks “elitist.”  Excuse me for just a minute.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, sorry about that, couldn’t be helped.  Seriously, Hil?  Seriously?  I mean, I expect this sort of commentary from right-wingers, who are quick to take umbrage at lefties calling folks racist gun-nut Jesus freaks just because they don’t always vote their pocketbooks the way they should.  But are you really trying to tell me that you yourself don’t personally subscribe to every word of Obama’s ill-considered characterization of Pennsylvanians who aren’t buying what he’s selling? 

Oh, sure, you’d be smart enough not to say anything until after you lost the primary.  True, true, there’s a lot to be said for timely elitism as opposed to premature elitism.  But still.  Seriously?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ah, that’s a good one.

 

---

 

Speaking of Hillary and her famous non-elitism, I wish she’d stop dropping the g’s from her -ing verbs whenever she gets in front of an audience she suspects is less educated than she is.  Her husband can get away with that that.  He’s from Arkansas.  George W. Bush can get away with it, too, because he talks like an uncultured rube in front of everyone.  Hillary, on the other hand, needs to just stop it. right. now. because it’s getting on my nerves.  Seriously–no, really, seriously serious this time, no laughing–it is not even remotely endearing because it is so obviously phony and condescending.  As Obama might say, you’re likeable enough, Hillary.  Just be yourself and don’t try so hard. 

I said, no laughing!

 

---

 

This one is a little musty, but in the interest of bipartisan sniping, I am also going to condemn my fellow right-wing nutjobs for commenting on Obama’s recent remarks about the importance of sex education.  Speaking of his own daughters, ages 9 and 6, he said, “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”  He also said he wouldn’t want them punished with a sexually transmitted disease.  So naturally social conservatives jumped on this and said it demonstrates that Obama must think the following:

Baby = Punishment

Baby = STD

And then they said it was understandable, given that Obama has something like a 100 rating from NARAL.  If he favors abortion, of course he thinks babies are punishments!  They’re like STD’s! 

Okay, number one, that’s stupid.

Number two, just drop the “every child is a blessing no matter what circumstances he or she is born under” business because I don’t hear this kind of rhetoric when the subject is how much out-of-wedlock births hurt our society. 

Number three, Obama may be “articulate” and “clean,” but he’s still a mortal man.  Honest people should concede that this was just an imperfect way of saying, “Having a baby when you’re a teenager tends to screw up your life.”  Is it a death sentence?  Is it the end of the world?  No, but it’s still not every father’s dream for his little girl.  Nor is an STD, for that matter.  So let’s just drop this and focus on him being an elitist.  Hillary needs our help.

Well, that’s it for today.  I’ve got some lunch to make and some babies to be punished by.  Catch you crazy kids later.

This is old news, but I’m reporting it anyway because it’s also irrelevant news. 

The New York Observer reports that feminist icon Gloria Steinem was campaigning for Hillary Clinton in Austin last weekend and spent some time talking about how much it sucks to be female, what with all the gender bias in the media.  You know, that sexist media that fawns all over John McCain just because he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for several years, way back when.  Steinem think folks make WAY too much of that war service stuff. 

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

Gee, I never thought of it that way.  I mean, I really never thought of it that way.  So you were off serving your country (voluntarily) in a foreign war, you happened to get captured, you had the opportunity to be released early because you were a senator’s son but you refused to leave without your comrades, and you were beaten and tortured for five-and-a-half years.  Big frickin’ deal.  It’s not like it proves anything about your leadership qualities.  Anyone could get beaten up and tortured.  Problem is, a woman can’t benefit from such an experience because even if she were inclined to volunteer for a combat mission and endure five-and-a-half years of torture for honor’s sake, everyone would just heave a big, collective “whatever” because we all know no appreciates anything a woman does.  Talking of which, let’s see John McCain give birth sometime and maybe we’ll be impressed. 

Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises.

“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting.”

To The Observer, Steinem insisted that “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”

You know, she has a point.  Which makes me wonder, how come Charles Manson never became president?  He’s not Canadian or anything, is he?

Steinem said she likes Obama well enough and he’s a good guy, but he has to wait his turn:  “I would like very much to see him be president for eight years after Hillary has been president for eight years.”

But she also opined that “a majority of Americans want redemption for racism, for our terrible destructive racist past and so see a vote for Obama as redemptive.” Then, using a term for the mass killing of women, she added, “I don’t think as many want redemption for the gynocide.”

“They acknowledge racism—not enough, but somewhat,” Steinem continued. “They would probably be less likely to acknowledge that the most likely way a pregnant woman is to die is murder from her male partner. There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female.”

Well, that’s probably because, unlike men, they haven’t been trained to kill people.  So of course they’re going to die in greater numbers.  That doesn’t mean it’s fair, of course.  And greater upper body strength is no excuse for trying to wipe out half of the population, so shame on you, male murderers.  You’re probably a bunch of racists, too.  Not that racism is worse than sexism, of course.  We all know how tough it is being a white woman of privilege in America these days.  We’re just too busy carrying on about that silly war-hero business instead of smashing that big glass ceiling in the White House.

Steinem thinks a Hillary win will be a good thing for all women because folks will finally have faced the fact that women are every bit as competent as men, regardless of what their different experiences might be.

And she claimed that if Clinton’s experience as first lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might “finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss’s job and take it over.”

Again, another good point.  So remind me again why Betty Currie isn’t running for President?  She’s black, female and a former secretary to boot.  She could mop the floor with that John McCain.  Only in the metaphorical sense, of course.  She hasn’t been trained to kill people or anything.

Of course, none of this is a reflection on Hillary Clinton, who released a statement denouncing Steinem’s comments about Senator McCain, saying they did “not represent her thinking in any way.” 

Well, of course not.  Hillary Clinton is smart, unlike Gloria Steinem, who’s dumber than dirt and twice as old.  Or is it the other way around?  Anyway, I’d been holding on to my copy of Steinem’s Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions as a sort of memorial to my leftist youth, but now I’m thinking it doesn’t deserve to share shelf space with my copy of Is Elvis Alive?  I wouldn’t want people visiting my library and thinking I’m some kind of intellectual lightweight.  I have an image to maintain.

And in general, they’re saying to Mitt Romney, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Except in the South.  In the South they’re saying, “Go to hell.”  I think they’re just jealous.  What do you think?

So unless some unforeseen miracle or tragedy occurs, Senator McCain is going to be the Republican nominee.  Am I ecstatic?  No.  But I can think of far worse things.  I’m still hoping against hope that he doesn’t pick Mike Huckabee as his running mate.  It’s really hard to ignore the mutual admiration society they’ve established.  Get a room, guys.  Seriously.  (I mean that in the figurative sense, of course.) 

I know a lot of Republicans would have a hard time voting for a McCain-Huckabee ticket.  As for me, there will be some hard-core nose-holding in November if I’m forced into that corner, but I’m tough.  I can do it.  I just gotta steel myself.  I might pass out at the ballot box and they’ll have to perform CPR on me, but I’ll survive.  Except what if it happens before I make it to the ballot box?  What if I pass out while I’m marking my mail-in ballot in the privacy of my own home?  Who will call 911?  My kids aren’t Red Cross certified.  Will this be the end of Madhousewife?  Note to self:  Don’t vote alone.

But seriously, what’s the worst that could happen?  The Democrats win.  Or alternatively, the Republicans win, John McCain says, “F— you” to the wrong damn conservative, who in turn shivs him at some random state dinner, and Mike Huckabee ends up running the country.  Okay, I’m hyperventilating.  Deep breaths.  Hee.  Hoo.  Hee.  Hoo.  Okay, I’m fine.  I’m fine now.  See?  Everything’s going to be just…great.

No, seriously, it’ll be fine.

So it was interesting that James Dobson issued a statement on Monday that if the Republican party nominates John McCain, he would be forced to forego voting for President in 2008, for conscience would not permit him to contribute to the election of either Sen. McCain or his Democratic opponent.  Huh.  I had no idea immigration and ANWR drilling were such important issues for Dr. Dobson.  Which reminds me:  Who Would Jesus Deport?  I’m just being snarky now.  I really need to stay on message.

I guess I just don’t understand people who think there’s no significant difference between John McCain and a Democrat (any Democrat).  I’m pretty sure no Democrat holds that opinion.  I dunno.  What do you think, Democratic readers?  Is John McCain just as good as a Democrat?  Will he do in a pinch?  If you accidentally punch the wrong chad in November, how upset will you be?  I’m just wondering. 

So what’s Ron Paul up to these days?  Mike Huckabee fights on because he wants to be Vice President.  Mitt Romney fights on because…he likes to spend money.  (Does anyone else find this odd behavior for a fiscal conservative with so much great business acumen?  No, Mad, just you.  Okay, just checking.)  Where is Ron Paul in all this?  I don’t hear much from him.  He came in second in Montana, third in North Dakota (impressive), third in Alaska (tied with McCain), and what do you know, he got 3% in Utah (better than Huckabee’s 2%, but not quite as good as McCain’s 5%–who says Mormons vote as a bloc?).  So this is good news, right?  I mean, if John McCain’s serious about building alliances, and he wants to woo those anti-war folks who live in sparsely populated states, he should consider Mr. Paul as a running mate, too.  Okay, I’m hyperventilating again.  Just kidding!  Like that would ever happen.  Let’s change the subject, shall we?

Oh, here’s another subject.  Elvis is throwing the hissy-fit from hell because I won’t take out his sister’s Barney video and put in Wallace & Gromit.  This is when I wish I had Wallace & Gromit on DVD so I could just have him watch it on the computer in the other room.  (Yes, rather than teach him that sometimes he has to wait his damn turn.  I wish you could hear the screaming.  You certainly can’t hear Barney over the screaming.  Maybe that’s a good thing.)  Then again, if I had Wallace & Gromit on DVD, it would probably be scratched up beyond recognition by now, and hence unwatchable anyway.  So whatever.  Did I mention the screaming?  And no, he hasn’t been screaming this whole time I’ve been typing this.  It just started after I finished the previous paragraph, and most of this paragraph has been typed with one hand.  And now he’s calming down.  “Popcorn!  Banana!  Mustard!  Chicken nuggets!”  No Jesus or salami today. 

Answer:  I have no beef with Mike Huckabee.  Not really.  I have nothing against the guy personally–he seems like a nice enough cat, and he’s not insane, like some presidential candidates who shall remain nameless.  I don’t think he should be President of the United States.  Could I live with him being President of the United States?  Sure.  (See “not insane” remark above.)  I could live with Hillary or Obama being president.  I mean, what else am I gonna do, leave the country?  Where would I go–Canada?  Saudi Arabia?  Where does a right-winger go when the elections disappoint her, what with America being the greatest country on earth and anyone who thinks otherwise being a no-good, rotten commie?  Seriously.

I am annoyed with people who stay in presidential races despite having no chance of winning.  What is the point, other than to annoy people?  It’s all about ego.  Or in Mike Huckabee’s case, possible Mitt Romney-loathing.  Who doesn’t hate Mitt Romney at this point?  I still wouldn’t run for president over it.

Just for clarity’s sake, that Mitt Romney stuff is a joke.  Mitt Romney’s fine.  I’m not crazy about him, but I have more confidence in his presidential capacity than I do in some others I could mention (but won’t, because I’m being nice).  Also, he’s pretty hot.  You know, for someone my dad’s age.  What do you know, I just grossed myself out, and there’s nary a chicken nugget in sight.  I only kid about him because I care.  I mock because I love.  He’d make a fine president.  He’s just not cuddly like Huckabee.  Or anybody.  If it weren’t against his religion, I’d say he should get a tattoo like that Jack on Lost:  “He walks among us, but he is not one of us.”  (That’s what it says, but it’s not what it means!)

I must say, if I were still a Democrat, I would be torn.  1992 Me would probably vote for Obama.  1996 Me would probably vote for Clinton.  (Or is it the other way around?)  If I were still a Democrat, which Me would I be?  See, this is why I had to switch parties.  The Dems were tearing me apart!

I know that Democrats feel very confident about taking back the White House this year.  I can’t blame them.  I mean, it is their turn.  People don’t usually go for twelve straight years of either party, 1980-1992 notwithstanding.  However, it’s my opinion that Hillary Clinton would be easier for Republicans to defeat than Barack Obama.  I don’t think he’s more qualified than she is; I just think fewer people hate him.  It’s just my observation.  As I commented on TR’s site a while back (sorry, too lazy to look it up), I don’t have a visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton.  I think she’s okay.  I don’t particularly mind her, nor do I think she is shrill and/or school-marmish.  I think she looks good in pantsuits.  I’m even starting to like that laugh of hers. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 

Incidentally, did anyone else think the Newsweek cover of her was the Least Flattering Picture Ever–excluding the ones you find on the internet with her looking cross-eyed and sporting devil horns?  I think she looks so much better when she’s smiling with teeth.  (And yes, I do analyze the Newsweek covers of male candidates in a similar fashion.  I thought John Edwards looked damn good on the cover of Newsweek–and I hate John Edwards!)  I really don’t understand why people loathe her the way they do.  Loathe her politics, sure; think she’s a mercenary ideologue, sure–but why make it personal?  I’m not the type to see sexism everywhere (not outside my own house, anyway), but it’s hard to discount the gender factor here.  There, I have gone on record. 

However, gender and personality aside, Hillary’s got baggage.  All candidates do, but Hillary’s baggage will not fit under the seat in front of her or in the overhead compartment.  She’s gonna have to check it at the gate, dig?  And the airline workers are not going to be thrilled.  Knowing Hillary, she will probably fly United with a layover in Denver, and are voters really going to want to follow her there?  I’m betting not.  If I turn out to be wrong, though, and she wins in a landslide in November, I’ll be the first to give her her props.  Okay, maybe I’ll be a little busy those first couple days, but as soon as the crying’s done, I’ll be giving her her props in a reasonably timely fashion.  And then I will move to Canada.  Oh, wait.

So yeah, when I say I’m counting on Barack Obama losing, do I really mean I want him to lose?  No, it’s a joke.  Obviously, I’m not a Democrat, I don’t want a Democratic White House for the next four years, so if I think Senator Obama has a better chance of winning than Hillary, the non-serious part of me says, “Go away, Barack Obama, and take your audacity of hope with you.”  The serious part of me, though, is really okay with Sen. Obama being the Democratic nominee because, well, if we must have a Democratic White House for the next four (or, fine, eight) years, Barack Obama seems like a good person.  What’s the worst that could happen?  The earth could explode.  Is that likely to be Mr. Obama’s fault?  Eh, not directly.  (Kidding!)  And I wouldn’t have to put up with x-number (sorry, it pains me to say “eight”) years of misogyny-informed carping about Hillary Clinton.  That in itself is a bonus. 

In short, I’m just depressed about Rudy and Fred being gone.  Especially since I really wanted one of these Fred Thompson shirts:

Not because I favor punching hippies, or think that punching hippies is intrinsically hilarious.  It’s the idea of the President punching hippies that’s intrinsically hilarious.  Unless it’s President Clinton.  President Clinton punching hippies isn’t funny.  President Obama punching hippies–that’s kind of funny.  I don’t know why he’d do such a thing, but I guess that’s where the humor lies. 

I don’t have a good way of wrapping this up, so I’m going to punt and answer the Xanga Featured Question, which is:

“If you had a magic key, what would it open?”–submitted by zisixi

I don’t get it.  Seriously, what does that mean? 

Dear Mitt Romney,

The main reason you’re losing is that people think you’re phony and “plastic.”  One of the reasons you come off this way is that you pretend that you’re too unflappable to ever get angry.  Instead you make snide remarks.  Despite all this effort to hide your anger, the bitterness still seeps through.  For the love of Mike, would you just lose your temper and tell someone to go to hell, even if it’s wrong.  Show some moxie. 

Also, some friendly advice:  stop trying to be funny.  You’re not funny.

Your sister (in the religious sense, not implying anything funny),
Madhousewife

P.S.  You still look fabulous.

---

Dear Mike Huckabee,

We all know the only reason you’re still around is because you’re sucking up to John McCain, hoping he’ll make you Vice-President.  Or, alternatively, because you just can’t effing stand Mitt Romney.  No offense, but you’re starting to get on my nerves.  I just had to say that.

Sincerely,
Madhousewife

P.S.  You’ll never be Vice President if I have anything to say about it.  Which I don’t.  But if I did, dude, you would and ought to be worried.

---

Dear John McCain,

Don’t you dare make Mike Huckabee your running mate. 

Love, Madhousewife

P.S.  You’re lucky I enjoyed your books so much. 

---

Dear Ron Paul,

Are you a Republican, or are you a third-party candidate?  Please decide.  Thank you.

X’s & O’s,
Madhousewife

---

Dear Barack Obama,

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m counting on you losing.  Everything depends upon it.

Yours truly,
Madhousewife

---

Dear Hillary Clinton,

There are worse things than you being President.  Like, what if the world exploded?  That would totally be worse.  Pay no attention to the haters.  You just keep doing what you do.

Your sister (in the quasi-feminist sense, not implying anything funny),
Madhousewife

P.S.  Muzzling your husband?  Not necessary.

---

Dear McDonalds,

Ordinarily I’m not a fan of your work, but this morning I found a package of cold Chicken McNuggets in the front seat of my car, and I ate them.  They were delicious.  Damn you.

In self-loathing,
Madhousewife

P.S.  Your cold fries, on the other hand–disgusting.

---

Dear Mitt Romney,

Yes, it’s me again.  You should seriously consider Frank J.’s advice over at IMAO.  There are still a few days before Super Duper Tuesday.  Plenty of time to change your image.

Yours in Mormanity,
Madhousewife

P.S.  Hair grows back.

I’m mourning the passing of Gordon B. Hinckley, the late president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It’s a strange thing to be so emotionally affected by the death of someone you never met, though I suppose this case is no stranger than perfect strangers mourning the death of Heath Ledger.  I’ve seen exactly one Heath Ledger movie (10 Things I Hate about You), so while I appreciate the tragedy of a promising and talented actor (and father) dying at the young age of twenty-eight, I don’t feel a sense of personal loss. 

There’s nothing tragic about the death of a 97-year-old man.  Pres. Hinckley lived a full life, active and relatively vibrant pretty much until the end, and now he can rest and be reunited with his dear wife, whom he lost a few years back.  It’s not sad that he is dead, but I am sad because even though I didn’t know him, I did know him.  He was president of the church for twelve years, but he’s essentially been the public face of the church for the last almost-thirty years.  Most of the men who preceded him in that office became severely ill and incapacitated in their final years, and the burden of leadership fell on Pres. Hinckley as a result.  I’m not qualified to give his eulogy, and this isn’t a religious blog, so I’m not going to say anymore, except that I will miss his humor and Christ-centered leadership.  And thus am I melancholy today.

On a lighter note, it would appear that I will shortly be mourning the passing of Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, a most unfortunate demise that is all the more regrettable insofar as it was avoidable.  (I know Iowa was a lost cause, Rudy, but why did you forsake New Hampshire and Michigan?  Why did you forsake me, Rudy?  Why?  Why?  Why?)  With Fred Thompson gone and Rudy not long for this world–and not so much as a Duncan Hunter to kick around–all I’ve got left is Romney and McCain.  A sorry state of affairs, indeed.  Insert heavy sigh here.  Oh, well.  Things could be worse.  Bob Dole could be running.  (Insert bad Viagra joke here.)

Which brings me to another point:  Whichever one of you cats ends up winning the nomination, DO NOT pick Mike Huckabee as your running mate, no offense to him.  And by “whichever one of you” I really mean you, John McCain, because I think the Mittster is too smart for that numbskull idea.  (I’ve taken to calling him Mittster in an attempt to inject some humanity into him.  Is it working?  Well, at least I’m doing something.)  No offense to Gov. Huckabee, who seems like a nice enough guy, and he’s folksy and plays the guitar and whatnot, but like the original cast of Saturday Night Live, he is not ready for prime time.  Some of you in this race–who shall remain nameless–are 72 years old, and that whole one-heartbeat-away issue should figure heavily into this particular decision.  Don’t blow it.  And by “don’t blow it,” I really mean, “You don’t blow it.  You don’t blow it, John McCain.”  That’s all I have to say.  (Except P.S. Sylvester Stallone would not be a good choice either.)

In other news, Elvis inches ever-so-slowly toward toilet-trainedness.  Sugar Daddy reports that on the last couple trips to the Safeway, which has wheelchair-accessible automatic doors on its restrooms, Elvis has joyfully pushed the button to open the door to the men’s room, gone inside and used the potty, washed his hands, and returned triumphantly, proclaiming, “I had privacy.”  I asked SD how much he thought it would cost us to put one of those automatic doors in our house, but he insists on sticking to that six-month moratorium on home improvements.  Not one to pander to special interests, that SD. 

It snowed last night.  The kids have the day off school anyway, so it was kind of a waste, that snow.  And you know, several weeks ago I made a special point of buying all the kids new gloves because whenever it snows, I can never find their gloves.  And so here we were today, snow on the ground outside and kids home from school, wanting to play in said snow, and where were the gloves?  Heck if I know.  Stupid snowy day.

I haven’t had a shower since Tuesday.  And now the painters are here to finish up my bathroom, and Thursday’s not looking good for a shower either. 

Good thing my social life is already non-existent.

Speaking of non-existent, I’ve decided that Mitt Romney does have a Mormon problem.  It’s just not the Mormon problem he thinks he has.  Yeah, there are people out there who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon if he were Barack Obama himself, but I still think those numbers are exaggerated.  No, Mitt Romney’s Mormon problem is about him.  People make fun of his hair and say he looks like a used-car salesman, which is funny because, as someone on one of the Mormon blogs said recently, he really looks just like most of the stake presidents* I’ve had over the years (though handsomer than the average).  As far as I know, LDS stake presidents are not disproportionately used-car salesmen.  They do tend to share a couple common denominators, though, which are pertinent to the discussion because Mitt Romney was a stake president himself for nine years.  (*A stake president in the LDS church is roughly equivalent to a Catholic bishop, as I understand it.) 

I was not surprised to learn that Mitt Romney was a stake president.  As I said, he looks like a stake president.  And he’s the type of man who gets asked to be a stake president, i.e. he’s competent and business-like and looks most comfortable in a suit and tie.  Now, I’m not saying that all stake presidents are the same.  I’m saying they all look the same.  Mitt Romney was also a bishop (roughly equivalent to a parish priest), for two or three years, and that impressed me somewhat more.  Bishops work very closely with the members of their ward (parish) on a daily basis, spending upwards of thirty hours a week (on top of their day job) ministering to the flock, if you’ll pardon the pastoral metaphor.  Stake presidents, on the other hand, are executives.  They’re big-picture guys.  They’re the dudes at HQ who give the orders.  Theirs is an important job, but it’s far more remote from the people they serve. 

Stake president is a job that seems well-suited to Mitt Romney’s particular talents.  I have difficulty picturing him as a bishop (though stake presidents are often former bishops, just not always).  Which doesn’t mean I think he would have made a lousy bishop, just that it’s easier for me to see him in a remote leadership role, not down in the trenches with the rest of us.  I’m not trying to paint stake presidents as detached, because they’re certainly emotionally invested in their jobs.  But it’s like this:  I’ve always been very fond of all my bishops.  I often have trouble remembering who my stake president is.  (Although it’s easy to remember who my current stake president is, as he’s a prominent OB/GYN in Portland, and I think he’s delivered half the Mormon babies on the west side.  Not mine, of course.  Ew.) 

Which brings me back to Mitt Romney.  It’s really hard for me to tell who Mitt Romney is.  Not because he changes his positions on certain things.  That actually doesn’t bother me.  I care what people do now and what they plan to do in the future, more than I care about what they did x number of years ago.  No, it’s hard to tell who Mitt Romney is because he seems always to be wearing his “church face.”  It’s a common mindset among Mormons that one is always being scrutinized, and that one’s actions inevitably reflect on the church itself.  That is a suffocating responsibility.  The natural response is to hide.  Is Mitt Romney hiding something?  I think he is–though it’s hard to say whether I suspect he’s hiding or I just hope he’s hiding.  Because if he isn’t holding back, if this is all there really is–I don’t know.  I just don’t know.

I think that’s why I’ve been so put off, watching him go negative in the campaign, because he’s such a bland personality otherwise.  John McCain is a mean SOB, and everyone knows he’s a mean SOB, but he’s a compelling candidate (not the “best” candidate, not the one I’m supporting) because he just puts it all out there.  He’s obviously passionate and sincerely determined about certain things.  He’ll follow Osama bin Laden “to the gates of hell.”  I mean, golly, that is disconcerting, but you know he means it.  I say if you’re going to be an SOB, be an SOB.  You know what I’m saying?  Let your freak flag fly.

On the other hand, a few right-wing Romney-loving pundits, noting that the other Republican candidates seem to genuinely dislike Romney, have speculated that those other guys are just jealous.  I mean, let’s face it:  the dude’s a millionaire; he has a wonderful family; he’s been wildly successful in his life; I think he made People magazine’s list of most beautiful people in 2002; he’s got a kid named “Tagg”–what’s not to hate? 

Am I jealous of Mitt Romney?  I confess I tend to gravitate toward people who are deeply flawed.  People like Rudy Giuliani, they have that rock star quality that I find so irresistible.  Mitt Romney is a star of a different genre.  He reminds me of those guys in the romantic comedies–the good-looking, successful guys who expect to get the girl, but the girl ends up going for the lovable loser instead, because they have such good chemistry.  It’s interesting that I would be that girl, because I’m not usually that romantic.  I’m frequently yelling at the screen, “What are you doing?  That guy doesn’t have a job!  He can’t even bother to shave, for Pete’s sake!”  But here I am, faced with the obvious choice of the competent and upstanding Mitt Romney, and who am I going for?  The cross-dressing adulterer?  Are you yelling at the screen yet?

I can bring this post full-circle by quoting Mike Huckabee’s recent exchange with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, which wins an award for creepiest joke by a politician this year:

Leno: So you were going to do an ad.

Huckabee: Right. So we put together an ad and taped the tape, got it all ready. We were going to release it at a press conference, and Monday I just didn’t feel right. We had gotten where we are by being positive and talking about what this country needs to be rather than what’s wrong with the other guys, and I just said –

Leno: As you were making it did you feel like –

Huckabee: I needed to go take a shower or something like that or give Romney a shower maybe. I don’t know.

On the one hand, ew.  On the other, I’m jealous.

And now it’s time to clutter up the blog with a YouTube video:

Scratch that last post–we’re back to beating Hillary again.  Yay!  Just kidding.  The Democrat I really want to beat is John Edwards.  With a sledgehammer.  Kidding again!  Some pundit posited today that John Edwards is gunning for the vice-presidential slot again.  Note to Hillary/Obama:  DON’T ENCOURAGE HIM.

The other person I’d like to go away now is Mitt Romney, because that scintilla of enthusiasm I was feeling for him a few weeks ago?  Evaporated.  I know politics is a dirty business, but wow.  Expletive deleted, he is annoying me.  Brother, take some charm lessons from Mike Huckabee.  Scratch that.  Take some charm lessons from John McCain.  Or Hillary, for that matter.  I used to think, all liabilities aside, Mitt could take Hillary in a national race, but seeing the way he goes after his fellow Republicans, I shudder to think of what he’d do to Hillary.  Even Dick Morris would have to feel sorry for her. 

And let’s see, where did Duncan Hunter place in New Hampshire?  Behind McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Paul.  Yet he is still standing, at least until his next press conference.  God bless him. 

Lately I’ve only been following the primary election through the corner of my eye because it’s too painful to look directly into.  Sometimes I wish someone would wake me up after the conventions.

Duncan Hunter seems to be just begging for someone to pay attention to him, so I thought I would finally see what he was all about.  I visited his web site.  I noticed right away he’s one of those people who puts abortion at the top of his “Issues” page.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  I care about the abortion issue as much as the next person, but I don’t like to see it taking center stage in a presidential election, when there is only so much a president can do in terms of the abortion issue.  Yes, a president appoints judges, and that’s pertinent to the abortion issue.  Judges are pertinent to a lot of issues.  So let’s talk about appointing judges, not (necessarily) about abortion.  That would be so refreshing.

But Duncan Hunter is by no means the only Republican candidate guilty of giving abortion the prime real estate on his Issues page. So I gave him that freebie.  I tried to get a sense of the man as a whole.  And I would hate all that research to be for naught, hence I give you the following presentation:

Let’s All Get To Know Duncan Hunter!  (He’s running for President of the United States, too!)

Day job:  U.S. Congressman from California since 1980.  Many years on House Armed Services Committee, chairman of HASC since 2002. 

Other pertinent career info:  Vietnam veteran.  Served in 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers.  Worked in farming and construction while attending law school.  Opened store-front law office, offering legal services to many in Hispanic community before running for Congress.

Personal:  Married.  Two sons, one of whom served two tours of duty in Iraq as a U.S. Marine.

Where Duncan Hunter stands on the Issues!

Abortion and other “values” issues (e.g. same-sex marriage, parental rights aka homeschooling, etc.):  Impeccably conservative in the non-federalist sense of the word. 

Second Amendment:  He’s for it, and not because he hunts–though he does hunt, of course.  Wouldn’t want you to think he was one of those pansy New Yorkers afraid to handle a gun.  Am I mocking Duncan Hunter?  No.  Yes, a little.  Only because I hate hearing about how much politicians love to hunt, even if it’s only in a desultory fashion.  In this Duncan Hunter is no more offensive than John Kerry.  Except he gets bonus points for supporting the second amendment and not holding press conferences with his kill.  You all know this.  I’ll move on.

Taxes:  This is where he shines.  Anyone who says, “I do not support efforts to identify segments of our society that are more deserving of a tax cut over another and I believe political stereotyping in this area hinders the goal of providing efficient tax relief,” is my kind of right-wing demagogue.

Balanced Budget:  He supports it, as well as limiting growth in non-defense areas.  We all know what that means.  Wink wink, nudge nudge.

Property Rights:  He’s for them.  Sweet.

Obscenity:  Against.  (Duh!)

Gambling:  Against.  You know, me too, but I can’t remember the last time I asked myself whether a candidate supported gambling or not.  I think it was “never.”

NEA:  Disses the NEA but doesn’t say the magic words, which are “What the *#$(# are we doing spending tax dollars on the #$&*# (non-defense) NEA?”  Probably because he’s against the whole obscenity thing.  Still.

Health Care Reform:  This is a very long section.  Essentially, he favors allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, public disclosure of fee schedules (for consumer empowerment), and innovation of treatment protocols (to save money).  Well, that’s reasonable.  No, I’m not being snarky.

Middle East:  Israel good, Islamic dictatorships bad.

Security and Prosperity Partnership:  Not cool.

Illegal Immigration:  No amnesty.  Border fence.  No automatic citzenship bestowed on children born of illegal immigrants on U.S. soil.  I have just one question:  If being born here isn’t good enough, what should the criteria for citizenship be?  I anxiously await a response.

{I’m going to interrupt this Get-To-Know-Duncan-Hunter presentation to say that I am extremely weary of the illegal immigration issue.  That’s all.  Back to the program.]

United Nations:  Blah blah blah blah blah.

Free Trade:  Put same charges on foreign goods that they put on ours.  Not sure what that’s supposed to accomplish, but he’s no fan of China, that’s for sure.

So that’s Duncan Hunter.  I understand his appeal.  I just don’t understand why he’s still running for president, since so few people like him well enough to vote for him.  It looks a little desperate.  Not very presidential. 

Speaking of presidential, I’ve decided that if I had to vote for a candidate based strictly on personal dignity, I would have to choose Fred Thompson.  But I don’t think I will end up voting for Fred Thompson.  It’s kind of a non-issue, because by the time the Oregon primary rolls around, no one will be left standing. 

It looks more and more like Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee, which is not good news for Republicans.  I think we all know why.  Republicans used to put a lot of emphasis on who could beat Hillary in November.  Answer:  Who couldn’t?  (Besides Ron Paul, of course.)  I mean, fair or unfair, Hillary really just isn’t likeable.  I know some of you like her, and I’m not judging you for liking her.  I myself don’t mind her.  But lots of people really, really don’t like her.  And when you consider that a sizeable portion of the electorate refuses to decide who they’re going to vote for until the very last possible minute because they have no core political philosophy–well, would you buy Hillary Clinton on an impulse?  Would you?  Okay, maybe you would.  But not if you didn’t like her. 

But Hillary is passe now.  Now it’s all about who can beat Barack Obama.  So we have to put on our thinking caps because Obama actually has charisma, unlike some people I could mention.  (I’m talking about our guys, of course.  Didn’t I just say Hillary was passe?)  Regardless of who the Republicans put up, though, I think the election’s all going to hinge on us getting out the “anti-hope” vote.  Here’s hoping.  Doh!

I’ve always been a little miffed that Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention.  What’s so awesome about Iowa and New Hampshire?  Why should we care what those cats think any more than we care about what, say, Wyoming thinks?  Wyoming had a (Republican) caucus, too, you know.  Oh, yeah.  Mitt Romney won it–as if it mattered.

It’s not often that I give Anna Quindlen an amen, but a few weeks ago in Newsweek she was lamenting how old-fashioned this primary system was, and I think in this same column she proposed something I found terribly reasonable.  I hesitate to say for sure it was her because, you know, Anna Quindlen, but the proposal, be it hers or someone else’s, was that we hold a series of nationwide primaries.  The top finishers from the first go on to the second, the top finishers of the second go on to the third, etc.  I guess we wouldn’t need to hold more than three.  It would certainly change the way people campaigned.  No, candidates wouldn’t be able to go in and get all personal and shake people’s hands, but heck, I’ve lived on the west coast my whole life and no politician’s ever shaken my damn hand, so ask me if I care.  And the bonus would be that we could all stop talking about ethanol as an alternative fuel source. 

This just occurred to me:  Who at the Luvs diaper company (which is Pampers, which is Proctor & Gamble) thought it was a good idea to put perfumes in their baby diapers?  Not only is it an unpleasant scent to begin with, but once you add human waste to the equation, it becomes an ungodly odor. 

So it is with our primary system.  I don’t know what that means, but I knew there was a political metaphor in there somewhere, and I thought I’d let you all fill in the poetic gaps.  (It’s still a free blog.  I can’t afford to waste my skills.) 

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney:  Stop Giving My Party and My Religion a Bad Name

For one thing, we don’t need your help.

Moreover, I am so sick unto death of your respective Jesus problems that I could almost vote for Hillary.  Almost.  Oh, who am I kidding.  I’d vote for Lucifer himself if he cut the capital gains tax.  That’s what Jesus would do, right?  Oh, I’m so confused!

---

Fred Thompson, thou art the man

Heretofore I have not really understood the appeal of Fred Thompson, whom I quite liked on the Law & Order, but as a candidate, I didn’t think there was much there there, if you dig my meaning.  As was the case with nearly all of the GOP candidates, I was pretty sure that I could support him if push came to shove, but he’d have to buy me dinner first.  Or something.  However, he rose about ten points in my esteem after the last Republican debate in Iowa (how many of these things are they gonna do?), when he shot down moderator Carolyn Washburn (editor of the Des Moines Register) who asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed that “global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity.”

Fred “I’m in Third Place and I Just Don’t Care Anymore” Thompson:  I’m not doing hand shows today.  No hand shows.

Carolyn “We Only Have So Much Time and I Don’t Care What the Candidates Really Think Anyway” Washburn:  Is that yes or no for you?  Do you believe that global climate change is —

Thompson:  Well, do you want to give me a minute?

Washburn:  No.

Thompson:  Then I’m not going to answer it.

Washburn:  How about thirty seconds?

Thompson:  No. You know — you want a show of hands. I’m not giving it to you.

I’ve officially decided that I couldn’t care less what Fred Thompson actually thinks about climate change.  I can definitely vote for someone who will stand up to these debate moderators.  Enough is e-freaking-nough, kids.  As long as he buys me breakfast in the morning.  (I eat a lot of breakfast.)

Also, I have no idea what god Fred Thompson worships, and that’s definitely something I could get used to.

I used to think that the reason people couldn’t have constructive disagreements was that they talked past each other.  You know, not addressing each other’s concerns, not using the same “language,” misunderstandings, blah blah.  This morning I was visiting one of the big Mormon blogs and read a comment that I disagreed with, and I was going to respond to it, but then the only words I could come up with were, “How do you not see what a sanctimonious p**** you are?”  And I don’t even use the word “p****,” which made it all the more disconcerting. 

Take-home message:  the reason people don’t have constructive disagreements is that so few of them think like me.  Is this the end of the innocence?

I feel obligated to comment on Mitt Romney’s Big Speech that took place yesterday.  I wouldn’t, except that so many other people have commented, and so many of those comments have been dumb.  Maybe I don’t want to comment on the speech itself but only some of the comments.  Actually, I don’t have much to say about the speech, except that it was definitely the most compelling thing I’ve ever heard come out of Mitt Romney’s mouth.  Well, technically I didn’t hear it come out of his mouth.  I only read the transcript.  And having heard a lot of Mormons speak in my day, I felt as though I could recreate the delivery pretty accurately in my mind (accounting for the fact that Mitt Romney speaks twice as fast as the average Mormon–must be an east-of-the-Rockies thing). 

Anyway, generally I liked it.  Granted, my expectations were low, because frankly I didn’t see how such a speech could do anyone any good, least of all Mitt Romney, whom I don’t support as a candidate (yet), but as a fellow human being, I had my concerns.  (Okay, as a fellow Republican I had concerns.  I really don’t worry too much about Ted Kennedy screwing up a speech and destroying his career.  That’s probably because Ted Kennedy’s career was born covered in a thick layer of asbestos.  I seem to be picking on Ted Kennedy a lot lately.  That’s probably because I’m hoping that if I stop mentioning John Edwards, he will eventually go away.  So far it isn’t working.  But I’m a patient woman.)

Originally I was in that camp that said the speech was pointless because if he was trying to appease people who had misgivings about his religion, he was fighting a losing battle.  It’s possible to overcome one’s misgivings about a religion–happens more often than you’d think, actually–but such developments usually require divine intervention, or a psychotic break with reality, depending on your point of view.  Anyway, a speech doesn’t usually do the trick, no matter how nice it is.  It’s far more realistic to dispel people’s misgivings about individuals, including individuals who happen to be Mormons, but I thought that Mitt had had plenty of time to dispel people’s misgivings about him personally, and if he hadn’t dispelled mine yet, the likelihood that he would dispel those of people who were hung up on his religion was vanishingly small. 

While the speech wasn’t perfect, I was still impressed.  I could nitpick if I were so inclined, but I confess that I’m moved to view the weaker passages charitably.  (As a fellow Republican and all.  I was going to say fellow Mormon–I’m not above a little denominational cronyism–but then I realized I don’t really care if Harry Reid screws up a speech either.)  Also, I’m a sucker for that God Bless America stuff.  For the first time during Romney’s long campaign I felt a scintilla of enthusiasm for the man.  (If you’ll excuse me getting caught up in the moment there–we Mormons are emotional types.)  

So there you have it.  It doesn’t bother me that other people didn’t like the speech as much as I did, or that they’re less inclined to view the weaker passages charitably–especially if those people aren’t religious people because, really, there was not much there for Americans who are confirmed secularists, and there were a couple lines that I would not expect to sit well with non-believers (unless they were possessed of a superhuman maturity or, possibly, apathy).  “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom” is one such line.  That was clumsily written, possibly ill-considered, but on the scale of offensiveness, it probably ranks higher than it ought to.  (I respect your right to respectfully disagree.) 

And I concede that as long as he was praising other faiths, it would have been nice to throw a bone to some eastern religions–but only if he’d been Mike Huckabee.  When it comes to religions with polytheistic pantheons, a Mormon politician really can’t afford to go there.  (You probably have to be a Christian to understand why.  But if you’re a Christian, you’re probably not lamenting how often Buddhism gets overlooked, either.)  Also, it’s very possible Mitt doesn’t know the first thing about eastern religions, which should be forgivable, as a large percentage of Westerners don’t know the first thing about western religions, and certainly not about Mormonism.

And here’s where the dumb criticisms come in.  One particular quibble was that Romney was supposed to be addressing the issue of his own faith, but he only mentioned the word “Mormon” once.  (Contrast this with JFK’s famous speech, wherein he used the word “Catholic” twenty times.)  My reaction?  Um…whatev.  Yeah, not even worth a whole “whatever.”  And I never shorten “whatever,” so you know I really mean it.  I think lots of people may have been expecting Romney to talk more about Mormonism per se, but those people were expecting a speech that Romney was wise not to give.  Also, here’s a little secret:  as a general rule, Mormons don’t say the word “Mormon” nearly as much as Not-Mormons do.  I say the word “Mormon” a lot, but I say it with self-conscious irony, usually when I’m making fun of us.  (Yes, I know, I’m a subtle one.  We all are, but that’s another secret I won’t explicate at this time.)  Walk into one of our church meetings, where we–hold onto your hats–talk about our religion a lot, and we still don’t use the word “Mormon” all that much. 

Maybe this is a product of twentieth-century assimilation, but I actually think it’s because our religion isn’t actually Mormon-centric.  Yes, Mormon is the name of a person–or alleged person, if you prefer, and he compiled a group of holy writings that eventually became the book that bears his name.  But we never intended to name the religion after him, mainly because we’ve always labored under the delusion that we worship God.  As I’ve written here before, Mormons have an uneasy history with their third-party-imposed moniker and what with people getting all huffy about us calling ourselves “Christians,” frankly we’re not sure what we should call ourselves, even among ourselves.  Hence the relative infrequency of “Mormon” in our speech.  Not that we’re hung up on it.  We’re far too busy with the whole food-storage thing.  (Or in my case, the lack of food-storage thing.)  That’s why this criticism is so curious.  It would never occur to me to expect Mitt Romney to say the word “Mormon” a lot in a speech given to anyone, let alone an audience of diverse religious preference, and I’d be astonished to learn that Mitt’s underuse of the word was pre-meditated.  (And I believe very little of what Mitt Romney does is not pre-meditated–surely a strength in his professional career, but perhaps not in his political one.)

Another criticism is that he didn’t talk about specific Mormon beliefs.  As though that would be reassuring for anyone.  Yes, that’s a recipe for unifying a party:  focus on our differences.  Oh, wait, that’s a different recipe.  I forget what for…doesn’t matter.  Bill Bennett said it was a fine speech, but that it could have been given by any one of the candidates.  True enough, but as several others have pointed out, Romney was the only candidate who had to give such a speech.  (Arguably, Rudy Giuliani might have had to give a similar speech at some point, but probably not, as JFK did the heavy lifting on the Catholic front, and Bill Clinton did the heavy lifting on the “that’s between us and our God” front.  No, I’m not fishing for Lewinsky jokes here.  Save them.)  And if the purpose was to allay people’s fears of creeping Mormonism, getting into Mormon theology–which is complex and not altogether settled–would have been counterproductive.  Because who really cares about Mormon theology, other than Mormons?  No one.  Sure, others might be curious, but you don’t elect a President who can satisfy your curiosity; you elect one who can lead.  And people who waste time explaining the inexplicable to people who don’t care make very poor leaders.  In my opinion.  Take that for what it’s worth. 

And now the final criticism, that Mitt Romney’s given in and made his religion an issue and now has no right to expect the media (and voters) to leave it alone:  I can only say, for God’s sake, give it a rest, people.  (That is a politesse spin on “Why are you such a sanctimonious p****?”)

I didn’t even address the myriad of MoCriticisms of the speech, but in other Mormon news: 

In an interview Tuesday Harry Reid declined to give Brother Romney any advice on his Mormon speech, but that doesn’t mean he himself was speechless:

“Well,” Mr. Reid said, “I believe Mitt Romney, who’s a man I’ve never met — don’t particularly want to — a man I’ve never met, that I would hope that his running for president would be determined on his politics and not his religion.” (emphasis added)

You know, Mitt Romney may be a lot of things, a Mormon and a flipping phony among them–but at least he’s not small.  I’ll give him that.

So last week I casually asked  a question about requiring prospective voters to pass a test similar to the one prospective citizens take.  Most people thought it was a dumb idea, which I can dig.  I myself have no dog in this fight; it’s just always been curious to me, much the same way it is curious to others that you need a license to fish but not to have children.  One of those funny things about life.

The primary objection people have to such a qualifying test is that it would seem designed to create a sort of voting aristocracy, assuming that only the elite would have a) the leisure time to take such a test and b) the knowledge to pass it.  What would be the purpose of such a test, other than to keep the unwashed masses from voting?  Personally, I fear the unwashed masses much less than the overeducated and overfed; therefore, I should be more opposed to this test than the next person, and yet I am strangely indifferent.  In a world where Ted Kennedy can vote, why should not knowing the number of stripes on our flag disqualify you?

I’m sure you’re all breathing a sigh of relief, knowing that I am not set to lobby any legislative bodies to pass laws against the riff-raff voting.  If people want to vote based on their horoscopes or just randomly punching chads here and there, it is really no skin off my nose–I mean, there’s a fifty-fifty chance that they could vote my way, right?  And then what would I have to complain about?

Actually, now that I think on it, I might should start a movement for people voting their horoscopes.  Hm.  More on that idea as it develops.

In the meantime, I want your opinion(s) on this political ad:

Mike Huckabee:  Chuck Norris-Approved

Honestly, first reaction:  “That.  Is freaking.  Awesome.”  There is a new number-one reason to vote for Mike Huckabee for President–not only does he have a nice name, but he is Chuck Norris-approved!  Does it get any better, boys and girls?  Answer:  no.  No, it does not.

But then I remembered that I’m a serious voter.  I don’t make political decisions based on my horoscope, or by blindly following Chuck Norris, roundhouse kick notwithstanding.  (My favorite Chuck Norris fact, incidentally:  Chuck Norris doesn’t sleep.  He waits.)  And what does Governor Huckabee have to offer me besides Chuck Norris?  Or is Chuck Norris enough?  These are the questions that perplex.

More detritus from the political junk drawer:

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are sparring!

Hillary:  “There is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for - our next President. That could be the costliest job training in history.” 

Oh, now I see where President Clinton gets his reputation for fiscal responsibility.  Those eight years were training two presidents for the price of one.  Clever.

Barack:  “My understanding is she wasn’t treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. I don’t know exactly what experience she’s claiming.”

Ooh, a little below the belt, dude.  But right on target.  Point to Senator Obama.

Round two!

Barack:  ‘‘Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia.’’

Way to sell it, Senator.  Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Hillary:  ‘‘Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’’

Body slam! You go, girl!

Barack: 1
Hillary: 2

Plus, according to Dick Morris, she has W on her side:

In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton “No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand.”

By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.

Granted, the President is no Chuck Norris, but Dick Morris thinks he’s sabotaging the Republican campaign by repeatedly “rescuing” the Clintons.

After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.

But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort t o raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.

As if that weren’t enough, W let his Justice department drop its investigations of the Clinton scandals and accept a plea deal with Sandy Berger (he of the smuggling-classified-documents-in-his-pants fame).  Quoth Dick Morris (he of the toe-sucking-prostitute fame), “Without [Bush's] generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.” 

O, bitter irony!

Do you think George W. Bush secretly wants Hillary to become President?  You know, he hasn’t endorsed anyone else.  I don’t know.  The President is a sly one, I’ll grant him that.  Crazy like a fox and all that jazz.  He just might know what he’s doing.  Or he might not.  What difference does it make?  Did I mention Mike Huckabee is Chuck Norris-approved?

“Chuck Norris doesn’t endorse.  He tells America how it’s gonna be.”

Preach on, Brother Huckabee!

A recent survey by NYU’s journalism school found that 66 percent of NYU students would trade their right to vote in the 2008 election for one year of free tuition.  Twenty percent said they would trade their vote for an iPod.  About half said they would give up voting forever for $1 million. 

Considering the way some people vote, I’d call that last one a bargain.

But seriously, folks, Jonah Goldberg cites this survey in his latest NRO column, wherein he posits that perhaps young people are willing to sell their vote cheap because it is cheap.  In his words, “A heartbeat and existence on this planet for 18 years are the only qualifications to vote for American citizens.”  He then asks the following:

Would it be so awful if voters had to pass the same test of basic civic literacy that immigrants must pass to become citizens? What if we made the right to vote something to brag about? Something to aspire to? Is high turnout among people willing to hawk their vote for an iPod really that much better than high turnout among people who hold their franchise dear?

I have often wondered this same thing.  If just living here makes you qualified to vote, why do immigrants have to know what year the Constitution was written and which rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?  I mean, they’re already swearing an oath that no natural-born citizen has to make.  If it’s so important for Joe Foreignborn to know who our enemies were in World War II and how many stripes are on the flag, why is it totally unimportant for those of us who were merely born here and have done nothing to demonstrate our loyalty to the government of this land?  (For a sample of the U.S. citizenship test, click here.)  I would happily give my blessing to taxpayer-funded civic literacy courses for all.  Maybe while we were at it, we could teach some people to read, too.  Heck, throw in a lecture on how to use a condom, for all I care.  What’s time to a hog?  (No, I don’t know what that means.  I just felt like saying it.)

Do you think requiring a basic civic literacy test before (initial) enfranchisement is unjust or unconstitutional?  (Or is that un-Constitutional?)  I won’t ask you whether you’d sell your vote, or how much you’d sell it for, because that’s just tacky.  I will give you some friendly advice, though, if you decide your vote is for sale.  You have to have a lot more than $1 million in the bank before it stops mattering who makes the laws.  That’s all I got for you.

So I got my voter pamphlet in the mail yesterday, as Oregon is having a special election on November 6–why?  Well, why not?  Do we need a special reason to have a special election?  Can’t we just have a special election just because?  Which reminds me, I need to figure out how to lay my hands on a ballot, since I don’t think they’re forwarded (at least I hope they aren’t, but maybe I’m hopelessly naive).  Anyway, the burning issues on the table this time are property rights (or if you prefer, property privileges) and a tobacco tax.  Oh, so this is why we’re having a special election.  Wow.  When’s Arbor Day again?

I won’t bore you with any commentary on the property rights measure because a) it’s complicated, b) it really is boring, and c) it even bores me.  Instead I’ll bore you with commentary on the tobacco tax.  (Why?  Well, why not?  It’s still a free country.  So far.)  Then maybe I’ll bore you with some random factoids that have nothing to do with anything.  I’m just going to play it by ear.

It should come as no surprise to most of you that I am not a smoker–never have been a smoker, never wanted to smoke, never had any relatives who smoked.  Well, I had one relative who smoked, but he’s been dead for twenty-five years and I didn’t know him all that well anyway.  That’s not the point.  The point is that I don’t buy tobacco products, as I have no use for them and they don’t make suitable gifts for anyone I know.  I also don’t own any RJ Reynolds stock that I know of.  I don’t know.  I think RJ Reynolds owns just about everything that isn’t owned by Proctor & Gamble, or do they own Proctor & Gamble, too?  All these mega corporations, I can’t keep up with them.  Anyway, those are my disclaimers.  I don’t smoke.  I don’t hang out in smoke-filled bars.  Even the one relative I had who smoked died of non-smoking-related causes.  I belong to a religion that says tobacco is a big no-no, and for that I’m kind of grateful because if I was ever tempted to think that smoking would make me look cool, I had my faith to remind me that I could never be cool, so why bother with the death sticks? 

Despite the fact that smoking is pretty scandalous in the Mormon community, I’ve never been a big anti-smoking crusader.  I mean, I’m not in favor of smoking.  I think not smoking is healthier.  I’d be concerned if my kids took up smoking, mostly because I don’t think I could ever get the smell out of the laundry.  Just kidding!  I totally want their lungs to stay nice and pink.  Lungs are just better that way.  Then there’s that whole cancer/emphysema thing.  I’ve never been a risk-taker.  NutraSweet and driving is about as dangerous as I get.  But I’ve never thought of smoking as a sin.  It would be a sin for me because as a Mormon I am required to abstain from tobacco.  But even if I should decide to take up another sin and randomly chose smoking, I wouldn’t consider it a major sin.  But even if it were a major sin, it’s sort of irrelevant as far as public policy goes.  The way I see it, adultery is a big sin, but it’s not illegal, so why should I get het up about smoking?  I don’t. 

What I do get het up over is this asinine idea of amending our state’s constitution to increase the tobacco tax in the name of funding children’s healthcare.  That bugs me, for the following reasons: 

1.  Why do we have to amend the constitution every time someone gets a bright or not-so-bright idea?

2.  There’s no way a single tax on a single type of product is going to provide adequate funding for a program this big. 

3.  It’s just not fair. 

Yes, smoking is bad for your health.  It’s annoying to non-smokers.  It can affect the health of children and other vulnerable non-smokers.  Which is why it makes sense to practice common courtesy–as in “mind if I smoke?” and “I suppose I can wait until I’m finished grocery shopping before I light up.”  (Incidentally, if you can’t wait until you’re finished grocery shopping, you should seek help.)  At the same time, I think non-smokers need to lighten up a little.  I admit, I personally am not sensitive to cigarette smoke.  (Although fresh cigarette smoke smells about twenty times better than stale cigarette smoke, that’s neither here nor there.)  I’ve known people who were, and I appreciate the extent of their irritation and discomfort.  It’s not unreasonable to want to breathe fresh air.  Smokers should understand that.  But non-smokers should understand that a) smoking is legal and therefore totally permissable in the comfort of one’s own home and other designated smoking areas, and b) it isn’t the fault of smokers that some children don’t have health insurance.

I’m not even going to touch the fact that most of the revenue from this tax isn’t even earmarked for kids’ healthcare.  (That’s sort of a no-brainer, isn’t it?  Since when is most of the revenue supposedly earmarked for something actually intended for that thing?)  I won’t even address the issue of whether or not health insurance is an appropriate pie for governmental fingers to be in.  Let’s say that all the revenue goes to pay for kids’ healthcare.  Let’s say that kids’ healthcare is a noble cause that taxpayers should support.  Shouldn’t all taxpayers be expected to shoulder this burden?  Why must the onus be on smokers particularly? 

Because smokers are a minority–and for what it’s worth, they tend to skew lower-income and non-white–and since most people do not smoke, a tax on smokers doesn’t negatively affect most people.  A win-win situation, unless you happen to be a smoker, and if you are, well, you deserve to have higher taxes because you’re doing something socially unacceptable. 

Ever notice the lack of extra taxes on things like alcoholic beverages?  Say what you will about the health risks of smoking, but they don’t begin to approach the damage that alcohol can do.  To be sure, most people drink responsibly.  But that doesn’t change the fact that alcohol impairs judgment, and tobacco does not.  A driver can be distracted while smoking, but he or she can also be distracted while talking on a cell phone or looking for something in the glove box or threatening to put the hurt on some kids if they don’t stop fighting and whining about when they’re going to get there.  Your ability to drive is not impaired by smoking a cigarette before you get into the car.  Generally speaking, tobacco abuse does not contribute to automobile accidents, nor to sexual assaults, nor to domestic violence, nor to violent crime, nor to drowning, for that matter.  Alcohol abuse contributes to all of those things, in addition to health problems like cirrhosis and cancer of the liver, as well as heart disease and circulatory problems. 

And yet you don’t see much support for taxes on alcoholic beverages.  Why not?  Because most people drink alcohol at least occasionally, and it’s an activity that occurs with more or less equal frequency among different socio-economic (and racial) groups.  You would have more success trying to pass a tax on Big Macs.  Speaking of which, why not tax Big Macs?  And Fritos and pork rinds and Oreos and Mountain Dew?  Non-organic baby food?  Maybe you do favor a tax on these items, but good luck getting it passed.  Wait, I’m having a psychic moment:  It Will Never Happen.

There’s another, practical problem with a tax like this:  the revenues inevitably dry up.  I know smokers who say they don’t mind the tax because they know they shouldn’t smoke in the first place.  I know people who have quit smoking because they just couldn’t justify the expenditure anymore.  I don’t know anyone who keeps smoking because they know the state really needs the money.  Funny how that works.  Or doesn’t work, depending on your point of view. 

Boring you with my commentary has become tiresome.  On to the irrelevant factoids:

• My children could eat a two-pound brick of cheese in one sitting if I let them.  Each.
• Mister Bubby wants to have a Rampage party for his birthday.  If only his birthday had been last month, we could have had the party guests destroy our burnt-up bathroom.  500 points to the monster who takes out the shower!
• I am currently stealing wireless internet access from my neighbors, and I feel guilty about it.  I keep meaning to call to get our internet turned on here, but I know that when I do, they’re going to try to sell me a billion other things that I don’t want, and I’m going to get frustrated and want to scream at them.  I could tell them about the fire, but they will probably only want to sell me fire insurance.  Because if you bundle your fire insurance with your internet and your telephone and your wireless, you can save twenty percent for the first three months. 
• Nearly a year after Newsweek last told me my subscription was about to expire and I would receive no further issues unless I took immediate action, I think it has finally stopped coming.

And now, lunch.

I found this candidate calculator (via Sisterblogger JustRandi) which promised to tell me which 2008 candidate “best aligns with my beliefs.”  I don’t usually put much stock in such things, and this particular “calculator” just reaffirmed my belief that voting must and should involve more than just plugging your public policy variables into a particular formula and solving for Candidate X (or if you prefer, Candidate Y).  Why do I say this?  Because the Candidate Calculator just told me that my guy for 2008 is…Rep. Tom Tancredo of California Colorado!  (Thanks, JustRandi!)

I seriously did physically recoil from the computer screen when I saw this because, to be perfectly frank, although I don’t really “follow” the campaigns of the lower-tier candidates, I’ve always been under the impression that Rep. Tancredo is a little nutso.  No offense to him.  He has some admirable libertarian tendencies, and I can see–I guess–why the calculator would say that his beliefs line up largely with mine.  Except that I’m a reasonable person who doesn’t tie every social and economic ill to the issue of illegal immigration–and therein lies the problemo.  There’s nothing in the Candidate Calculator to account for reasonableness versus unreasonableness. 

To illustrate my point, there is no way in hell I would vote for anyone who says, as Rep. Tancredo did in yesterday’s GOP debate, “I am absolutely tired and sick and tired of being forced to go to the polls and say I’m going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils.  I really don’t intend to do that again.”

Rep. Tancredo said this in response to a question about supporting his party’s eventual nominee (assuming that it would not be him)–which just goes to show that the man may have it “right” on certain questions of federalism, but he lacks the fundamental quality most important in any candidate who wants to be leader of the free world, and that’s a desire to engage reality.

In the real world we don’t get many choices between totally evil and totally good.  If that’s what life were about, we wouldn’t even need the political process because the solution to every problem would be so obvious.  I would be scared to death of having a president who refused to choose between Bad and Not As Bad.  What on earth would happen to him the first time he had to make a decision about something consequential?  Would he spontaneously combust?  Or would he just sit there and fold his arms until he was miraculously presented with an option that didn’t require him to “choose evil”?  Thanks, but I think I’d prefer a lesser evil.

Ron Paul was another candidate who said that he wouldn’t support a GOP nominee who wasn’t willing to end the Iraq war and brings the troops home.  “You won’t want me then, pal,” said John McCain.  I try not to vote for a candidate strictly on the basis of personal charm, but I have to tell you, Sen. McCain continues to grow on me.  I can’t help it. 

Speaking of Sen. McCain, here is a candidate whose views certainly don’t match up perfectly with mine, on a few issues I consider relatively important.  (For one, I wince every time campaign finance reform comes up.  First Amendment, anyone?  Anyone?)  And yet I would be much more comfortable with President McCain than President Tancredo because I think John McCain strikes an acceptable balance between principles and pragmatism.  After he lost the GOP nomination in 2000, some floated the idea of McCain running as an independent or possibly as the Reform candidate.  McCain, of course, didn’t do this.  Instead he campaigned for George W. Bush–because he thought W would make a better president than Al Gore.  Better, not best.  That’s the way a grown-up thinks.  A third-party run by McCain would have been pure vanity on his part, and at least McCain had sense enough to realize that.  It gives me hope that he would have similar sense about a host of other choices, even if he didn’t choose perfectly. 

I don’t have similar confidence in Rep. Tancredo.  Refusing to support your party’s candidate is called “voting for the other guy.”  Which is fine, if you think the other guy (or gal, as the case may be) is the better choice, but I don’t think that’s Rep. Tancredo’s reasoning.  He just doesn’t want to choose the lesser of two evils; he’d rather have the evil chosen for him–in which case he is either too silly or too dangerous to be president, and that Candidate Calculator can just kiss my Inner Libertarian’s big toe. 

---

You all will be relieved to learn that reports of my favorite saucepan’s demise were premature.  I was able to save it last night with a combination of elbow grease, S.O.S pads and the ever-popular love.  Yes, I’m sure you’re relieved, but probably you also feel a teensy bit used, after all that fuss I made–if you wanted a ride on that emotional roller coaster, you would have just followed the link to the ferret post.  Well, I’m sorry.  I promise not to blog “wolf” again.  Okay, maybe I shouldn’t promise.  I don’t like to lie so blatantly.

So Senator Clinton has unveiled her (new) health-care plan.  I have no comment.  I am philosophically opposed to government-run health insurance, so there is no sense in me critiquing the particulars of her plan versus anyone else’s.  Heck, I don’t even have to look at it if I don’t want to.  (I did anyway, just for giggles, but turns out it isn’t so funny.  Eh.) 

The reason I bring it up is that whenever people start talking about “universal health care,” one side talks about Canada and Great Britain and how awesome their health-care systems are, and the other side talks about how those awesome systems are actually very crappy–six-to-twelve-month waits for MRIs, rationed services, lotteries for family physicians, women with high-risk pregnancies turned away from maternity wards, live-saving operations refused, people doing their own dentistry–just every socialized-medicine nightmare imaginable.  Even for someone like me–philosophically opposed to government-run health insurance and prepared to believe the worst about Canadian and British health care–it seems a little over the top.  Lots of people who live (or have lived) in countries with nationalized health care swear that it is in fact totally awesome and not at all crappy.  These are people I’ve met in real life.  Yet there are all these other people who live (or have lived) in these same countries and are willing to go on the record–in print or before TV cameras or on live radio–saying that nationalized health care is in fact totally crappy and not at all awesome, and they proceed to tell their own stories about the nightmare scenarios I alluded to earlier. 

While it seems reasonable that your mileage may vary with these government-run systems, I can’t help but think that it must be possible to make some generalizations.  I’m thinking about the LDS Church and how one’s experience can vary greatly, depending on which group of Mormons you find yourself surrounded with.  My experience with the people and even with the leadership has been generally positive, but I have heard the nightmare stories and don’t disbelieve them–they seem entirely plausible, given the nature(s) of cultural and institutional Mormonism, which has potential for both great good and great evil (or at least great annoyance).  Since I can’t have everyone’s experience, or even learn about everyone’s experience, I have to go with what I know first-hand and temper it with what I know secondhand.  Personally, I’ve concluded that the Church is mostly pretty good, though it could stand to improve in some areas (and could stand to improve a lot in other areas).  I’m not philosophically opposed to it…I guess…so such practical considerations are not beneath me.  I can live with it. 

So I’m curious about the experiences of you folks who have live or have lived in countries with “universal health care”–how much you like or don’t like it, whether you think it works, whether you think the nightmares are isolated incidents or endemic to the system, et cetera, blah blah blah.  No need to proselytize either way, as my philosophical opposition is about as deeply entrenched as my religion.  In other words, I don’t need to hear from Americans campaigning for or against Hillarycare, Obamacare, or Romneycare.  But if you have any good stories where health care and Mormonism intersect, feel free to share those.  And since laughter is the best medicine, you can also leave jokes here.  So everyone is welcome in my comment section, so long as they follow my guidelines. 

Should the comments get too unwieldy, of course, I’m going to have to start rationing.  You might have to wait a few weeks to make your comment.  I may decide that your comment is “elective” and not necessary for saving my blog’s life–you know, that sort of thing.  Just kidding!  It’s still America on the old Giraffe page–comment as much as you like (as long as your premiums are current).

So there is a lull in the 2008 presidential campaign, I’ve noticed.  I’ve taken this opportunity to reconsider Mike Huckabee.  As you already know, I’m very fond of his name.  It makes me want to like him.  There are a handful of things I don’t like about him, including his proclivity–disturbingly common among “conservatives”–to tout constitutional amendments as the solution to our moral ills.  You know, I think burning the flag is terrible.  But I don’t want to amend the constitution to put a stop to it.  While I think Roe v. Wade was a legal catastrophe, I’m not to keen on a Right-to-Life amendment, since my opposition to Roe is based largely on my belief that abortion is not a constitutional issue.  Like most Americans, I have a moderate political position on abortion–though NARAL and the South Dakota legislature would have us believe such a thing isn’t possible–and I think that, barring a Mt. Sinai event, such dicey ethical issues should be worked out legislatively.  And while I’m a big fan of heterosexual marriage–have one myself, you know–I’m not a big fan of the Definition-of-Marriage amendment because a) I really think marriage laws should be hashed out by state legislatures and b) as with abortion, I think it’s folly to engage the issue on these terms.  “Wrest the fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendements, will you?  Well, we’ll just add another one!  Deal with that–ha!”

Aside from those academic issues, I have a very practical reason for opposing these constitutional amendments:  they’re non-starters and a complete waste of time.  And any politician who says he’ll make one or more of these amendments a priority in his administration is not catering to me.  Let’s be adults, shall we?

Of course, Mike Huckabee is hardly alone in his constitutional amendment fetish (Rudy Giuliani being the major exception among Republicans, which is one of the reasons I lean toward him), so I try not to hold it against him too much, because I still really like his name and all.  And he’s got kind of a jaunty smile.  Also, I’m very impressed with his support for the Second Amendment, which, for those of you who went to public school, is the infamous right to bear arms. 

It’s not that I’m some kind of gun nut.  I don’t own any guns, I didn’t grow up with guns, I’ve never fired a gun, I don’t plan on buying a gun any time in the near future.  But even during my “progressive” years, I’ve never been a gun-control nut, either.  Maybe I’m thick this way, but I’ve never understood the logic of placing restrictions on law-abiding folks owning guns.  People who are prone to shooting innocent people are not prone to obeying laws, so…?  It’s not that I think the gun industry should be totally unregulated–I don’t think we should be selling pistols to children, for example–but every time there’s a gun-related tragedy, people start talking about how we need more gun control.  “Flout our laws, will you?  Well, we’ll just make more!  Deal with that–ha!” 

So gun control is not important to me, but one thing I hate about election season–not hate as in moral-outrage hate, but hate as in extremely-annoyed hate–is the way politicians try to suck up to the gun lobby by going hunting with some NRA members, hoping to score a big AP photo of themselves dressed in orange vests and holding up some dead birds, thinking it will make them look more macho.  I guess.  It’s not that I’m against hunting per se–I mean, I don’t have strong feelings about hunting.  It seems rather a dubious “sport” to me, but, you know, whatever.  Shoot your birds, shoot your small varmints, it’s really no skin off my nose.  But only do it if you really want to shoot birds and small varmints.  If that really is your idea of a good time, just knock yourself out.  I don’t need to see pictures of it.  I don’t care.  What bugs me is how everyone feels the need to pretend that they just looooove hunting, and that is why they would never do anything to undermine our precious Second Amendment–because America without bullet-ridden animals is like America without baseball or apple pie. 

It’s especially lame when the politician in question clearly is not big on hunting in real life.  I don&#