Election

Nah, not me. That's the title of a new Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi.

Taibbi went 'undercover' to attend an Encounter Weekend at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in Texas. Hagee, you may recall, has been recently in the news for being batshitinsane, and oh yeah - for endorsing John McCain for president.

And Taibbi is not being metaphorical or ironic in his title. He is referring to the culmination of the Encounter Weekend, where:

Today Romney gave a speech on his Mormonism to squelch the effects of religious bigotry on his chances of receiving the Republican nomination for President. In the speech Glen Johnson of AP cites these three quotes in succession (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_el_pr/romney_religion_28;_ylt=...):

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

He assailed "the religion of secularism" he said was creeping into American life, and drew chuckles from his invited audience as he complained that Europe's picturesque cathedrals are largely empty amid societies "too busy or just too `enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer."

Romney said: "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders, in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

So let me get this straight. We should be tolerant of other people’s revelation of the divine.

But if your personal revelation should lead you to a secular worldview, then you should just accept that you are not a citizen. At least that is what I take from his condemnation of the enlightenment (which by the way the founders would have taken a dim view of) and his endorsement of the phrases In God “WE” trust (if you don’t trust God you are not part of WE) and “One nation” under God (if you don’t believe in God you are not part of this “one nation).”

Way to attack religious bigotry Mitt. By perpetuating that a significant percentage of the American public is less American than others because of religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

Tully

So, you've probably heard about the situation in Pakistan:

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN; and NEW DELHI - Two days after President Pervez Musharraf suspended Pakistan's stuttering transition to democracy by declaring a state of emergency and dismissing most of its Supreme Court, a familiar pattern has set in.

Lawyers who took to the streets were beaten and arrested by the hundreds. Meanwhile, the country's fractured political establishment waits to see what will happen next. It is a similar dynamic to the one that emerged eight months ago, when Mr. Musharraf sought to sack an independent-minded Supreme Court chief justice for his willingness to defy the government.

Now, let's take a look at another passage in that news article:

Via Political Wire:

Quote of the Day
"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

-- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), quoted by the Des Moines Register.

*Sigh* Another pol who is either talking to God, or willing to make it sound like he is in order to please the faithful.

kos is on it too.

Jim Downey

Ah, the drug war. Fuck the drug war. We waste billions of dollars on it to no avail. Legalize, regulate and tax drug production and consumption. People should be able to do what they will with their bodies. Now that that's said, I do believe there are limits. There are drugs that should not be allowed on the market. For example, PCP is a drug which should not be produced and/or distributed on the market. My criteria? Posing a threat to another humans life is my only criteria. PCP can make a person entirely unaware of the consequences of their actions. For a drug to be legal in my book you have to be aware enough to know if what you're doing is having consequences on folks around you and of course yourself. Employers should also be allowed to regulate drug use as a condition of your employment. That's their right. If they don't want you stoned while paving a road...fine. However, it should be limited to (as with alcohol) your functioning at your job. In other words, if you smoke pot on the weekend but don't come to work on Monday stoned...they shouldn't have anything to say.

Freedom of choice is not the only reason to stop the drug war in the USA. The cost of the drug war is disturbing and it's shown little by way of effectiveness. The USA should have learned it's lesson re: Illegal substances after Prohibition but that lesson seems lost on the current round of politicians. There's, of course, another cost outside of enforcement and that's incarceration. Every prisoner in jail for having or distributing drugs is a drain on our tax dollars.

I'm for a flat tax and a balanced budget. I'd like to see a constitutional amendment mandating both as well as a maximum percentage of your income that can be taxed. In my opinion no more than 15% of our income should go to our governance for federal, state and local taxes. That's it. No exemptions at all, and if the government(s) don't have the money to support a program it just won't happen. This applies, of course, to individuals income. A business and it's income could, and should be treated differently.

...I'd like your response to: Are you sick and disgusted already because of this insanely early presidential election campaign?

Yeah, I am. And I'm a hard-core political junkie, the kind of person who can wage a passionate argument with someone over whether the order of the state primaries can make a difference to the selection of candidates. I can get all wonky on obscure Senate procedures. I can tell you which of the national polls have what kind of built-in demographic bias, and how you need to balance raw numbers reported in the media in order to understand what they really mean. I can cite which states have been 'bellweather' indicators of likely election outcomes over the last 50 years. I'm addicted, and I know it.

Aurelius at The Atheist Seeker makes a great suggestion: why not pick our new President using a lottery system?

[Aurelius] Now that Hillary's 'in to win,' I can't help but fixate on a much better way to select a president in this fucked up country . . . lotto. Every four years we have a lottery to select a handful of cantidates from amongst the wealthy, white male population (just kidding) , then they have a few debates and we go push buttons on diebolt machines. Seems to me that a thirty-something pot dealer could run this country just about as well as anyone, and what they may lack in 'insider' connections, they would more than make up for with the fact that lack 'insider connections.'

Heh. I agree!

During his announcement of his decision to run for President the Senator encourages us to look to history:

"Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to embrace decline for a nation," Brownback said. "To embrace Him leads to renewal, for individuals and for nations." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_el_pr/brownback2008_2

OK, I’ll bite Sam. How about Rome? Starting in about 500 BCE Rome becomes a republic. It then grows, becoming a great republic and then the largest empire in history.

I found this article that mostly focuses on the electability (or lack thereof) of Mormons. Since the survey was conducted by an outfit called Rasmussen Reports, that oughtn't to be too surprising. If you're wondering what chance a Mormon has running for president, I'll go ahead and quote it here.

Some 43 percent of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for a Mormon for president

That, of course, isn't why I'm posting this. Now the good news.

Some 61 percent of likely voters would not even consider voting for a Muslim presidential contender while 60 percent wouldn't vote for an atheist, the poll found.

Squee!

Check out Paul Fidalgo's new political blog, FifteenNineteen and scratch your political punditry itch!

[Paul Fidalgo] The name for the blog comes from the Fifteenth and Nineteenth amendments to the Constitution, giving all races and both sexes the right to vote. Yes, there are other amendments that expand the right to vote to even more Americans, but adding more numbers to the site name would have made it way too long and harder to remember.

...just in case you missed them in the news. And besides, everyone needs a quickie now and again.

First off, from CNN comes news that the Marines in charge of the annual "Toys for Tots" campaign have resolved what to do with an offer for 4,000 verse-spouting Jesus Dolls. The company which makes the dolls just couldn't understand why the dolls wouldn't be suitable for everyone. *sigh* Show the Toys for Tots folks a little love, if you can.

Next up, Dan Savage has a great column in The Onion about why the whole Ted Haggard thing should be cause for rejoicing. I'm not gay, but I've seen what my GLBT friends have suffered at the hands of the ravin' fundies, and it is all due to the bullshit of "Give your heart to Jesus, and he will change you" mindset they have. The money quote from Dan:

If giving his heart to Jesus couldn't cure Haggard, what hope is there for the likes of me? If Jesus can't be bothered to work a miracle for the most powerful evangelical minister in the country, what "hope" is there for the average dyke?

First, I thank everyone who stood up and made their voice heard on Tuesday, regardless of who you voted for.

I am sure that all of you share my glee over the election results. It has renewed my faith that our system can actually work sometimes. We all know that this is no miracle cure or that is going to make everything better, but at the bare minimum the American people were able to voice their opinion loud and clear, despite the best efforts of the Republican spin machine.

Of course, we all know that Bush and the remaining Republicans must publicly attempt to work with the Democrats, and Rumsfeld's resignation and Bush's breakfast with Nancy Pelosi bear that out. However, I do not believe that the Republican Party is going to take this is the wake-up call that they need to change the way they do business. Rather, I think that that is going to be a signal to them that they need to redouble their efforts to slander Democrats, force partisanship, and make sure they win back control in 2008 so they can continue their work of making this a Christian nation.

I am from the really old school of political conservatism, Which is to say I have nothing in common with the yahoo's who currently call themselves the republican party and my blogs bear that out.
The unexpected even historic swing back toward the left is a welcome event in the Burton house hold. Oh I still think liberal ideology is silly and like Marxism only works on paper but like a good hearted yet tad slow favorite cousin those who profess an ardent passion for all things liberal will always need looking after in the real world.

Political Conservatism has nothing to do with religion or family values or who your fucking. It is more about my wanting to keep what I carve out of the pie and yes Virgina if I can gain an advantage in the sand box of life I will take it and wish you the best if providence favors your mouse trap.

I would wish for a world where everyone enjoys equal opportunity to participate and prosper, but it does not and I want my slice.

Life and Liberty you get just for showing up, happiness you gotta earn on your own and it comes with some shit day dues.

Hope you all voted and if your candidate or cause got slapped down last night you should still fee

This election is not about a botched Kerry joke.

It's about a botched war (two, considering that since Junior cut and run from Afghanistan, the Taliban have taken over basically everything except the Kabul green zone) that has pointlessly sacrificed thousands of our troops and trillions of our tax dollars.

It's about botched foreign policy, with Iran and North Korea going nuclear while the US is an international leper, the most hated nation on earth.

It's about a botched hunt for Osama bin Laden, whom Junior lost interest in. And botched national security, with the regime putting nuclear cookbooks on a public accessible website! Good friggin' grief! How infinitely stupid are they? This is a thousand times worse than Al Qaqaa.

It's about a botched response to the Katrina disaster, with Junior more interested in rebuilding Trent Lott's beachfront summer mansion (on our dime) than the city of New Orleans.

I heard him say it again. It was in the last couple of days, but when he said it doesn't matter. In fact, exactly what he said doesn't matter. He once again equated the war in Iraq with the "War on Terror". If, by some odd chance, you don't recognize who I'm talking about...it's Bush.

Here's my main beef: Why does the public continue to allow Bush to equate the "War on Terror" with the war in Iraq? It's madness. It's more than clear now that the terrorists did not arrive in Iraq until after our attack. No no...let me stop you there. I'm not saying that removing Sadaam wasn't a good thing. But let's call a fish a fish. Removing Sadaam has no bearing on the "War on Terror".

The "War on Terror" started as a response to an atrocity. 9/11 was a tragic, terrible event. The initial response was appropriate. But by allowing the Bush administration to add Iraq to the tally they've been given a free pass. The Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan. If we'd not stopped paying as much attention to our initial objective (The Taliban), who were clearly involved in harboring terrorists, instead of redirecting our efforts towards Iraq, who only had the potential of maybe helping terrorists along the way (and turned out not to have to much to do, if anything, with the attack against the US), perhaps we could have "won" on that front.

The point is that the correlation between Iraq and terrorism is clearly dishonest and should be readily ignored. What should not be ignored is that the Bush administration should not be allowed to make this assertion unchallenged. We've wasted too many resources and lives chasing the phantom of terrorism in Iraq and the waste should be stopped.

We must be honest with ourselves. The "War on Terror" is a nebulous war and one that can never be won. All we can do is work to minimize the threat. Unfortunately, the current American response doesn't come close to mitigating the possible damage. A change in leadership is in order, if only to stifle the damage that could still be done.

Not long ago I was on a business trip, alone in a hotel room with my guitar. That evening while watching the evening news I saw yet another story about US soldiers killed in Iraq. At that moment all the anger, fear, shame and hurt that I had been carrying for so long consumed me. Out of instinct I grabbed my guitar and notebook, and this song just burst out of me – that is the only way I can describe the process. When I was done I was exhausted and my emotions were spent.

After listening to what I wrote I realized that this song did not belong to me. I wrote it, but it is not mine. It belongs to everyone who can no longer accept what is going on in our government. With our elections only two weeks away, I need to make a difference, to do something to help fix what has gone so horribly wrong. The best I can give is this song, so I give it to everyone – no copyright issues, no royalties, no ‘terms of use’ restrictions, no record industry lawyers waiting to sue your children. This song, born out of love for this country and what it stands for, belongs to everyone.

The song is called “I Won't Wait”, because waiting is something we cannot afford to do anymore. Those to whom we gave our trust have failed us. We have an obligation to remove those failed leaders and send a message to Congress. Let them know we are watching, we are not stupid, and we are tired of the lies.

The song has been attached to this blog entry, and you can download it here.

(The zipfile above contains the tablature and the lyrics as well as the MP3. Here's the bare MP3. - Brent)

So, nothing is more important than stopping 'teh gays' from getting married, according to this petition from the nuts over at the Family Research Council.

Well, as the Rude One says:

Meanwhile, in heaven, Jesus is rolling his eyes, waving his arms, asking, "What the fuck? What about the poor, motherfuckers? The starving? Hello?"

Go read the Rude Pundit. Do not go to the FRC links unless you want to court madness, or need to raise your blood pressure by reading about how they want to control the government.

Jim Downey

Hat-tip to The Commissar: Doug at Below the Beltway links to an article on RealClearPolitics predicting that the Republicans are going to lose the interior west to the Democrats because of the region's libertarian streak and the GOP's excessive social conservatism.

[Link] In fact, it's looking more and more likely that the eight states of the Southwest and the broader interior West -- Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming -- are on their way to becoming the next great swing region in American politics. As the Republican Party tilts on its South-West axis, increasingly favoring southern values (religion, morality, tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, privacy), the Democrats have been presented with a tremendous opportunity. If the Republican Party doesn't want to lose its hold over all of the West, as it lost hold of once-reliable California more than a decade ago, its leaders are going to have to rethink their embrace of big-government, big-religion conservatism.

Why? The interior West is not the South -- not by demography and not by ideology.

The article goes on to explain why the Republicans are slowly losing the interior west, and gives some evidene of Democratic gains in that region. An additional fact it doesn't mention is that in most of the interior West, Bush did worse or no better in 2004 than in 2000, despite a 2% improvement in the national popular vote.

The article also does not mention a fact that helps explain the Democratic gains in Colorado and Montana but goes against the author's admitted libertarian view: environmentalists are finally connecting to American voters outside New York and San Francisco. Voters in the interior west are slowly realizing that mining corporations don't have their best interests at heart, and environmentalists are learning to hash out policies that clearly help average people.

Hat-tip to Debitage: Washington Post columnist Richard Morin has elevated the practice of shooting the messenger to an art. In a short miscellany, he talks about the evils of The Daily Show, which has been shown to make people more cynical:

[Link] Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.

That's particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don't bother to cast ballots.

(...)

"Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls," they wrote.

In related news, it has been shown that people who read about American atrocities in Iraq tend to be less sympathetic to the occupation, that people who find out that they're being robbed tend to vehemently seek vengeance, and that people who learn about the Holocaust tend to oppose the Axis.

Maybe Stephen Colbert should invite Morin to his show to talk about these pesky liberal cynics at the Daily Show.