As a movie, Meet the Fockers, in addition to being mildly funny, has a reasonable liberal bent. Stiller’s parents, elder statespersons of the hippie revolution, get a free pass throughout the movie. Meanwhile, conservative avatar Robert De Niro (aka Francis Ford Coppola’s new enemy) learns to soften up his hard-line ways thanks to advice from the hippies. Plus, Barbara Streisand assumes a leading role. By all rights, the movie should have been a shoe-in for the Palme D’Or.
Despite these gracious overtures to lefties, nobody I know has given the movie a second thought. We’re apparently too busy sipping on Darjeeling Limited and cheering for Obama. Meanwhile, millions of undercover lefties that nobody knew existed are spread across our country, sitting back in their La-Z-Boy chairs, donating big bucks to Hillary and cackling uproariously at repeat Focker viewings.
Clearly, the only way to defeat Hillary is for upcoming Little Fockers to be SO hilarious that her supporters simply die laughing.
Given that you know a lot about politics, maybe can help me out here. Why shouldn't I donate my time to Ron Paul? I know he's so crazy he makes moon-bat lunatic Dennis Kucininininch look like wizened statesman Mike Gravel. I know his most ardent supporters are 16-year old pothead, redneck, cowboy, nerds. I know he looks like a Keebler Elf.
But consider the following. He's representing Congress, which has an 11% approval rating. But Dr. No always votes against Congress. Therefore, he must have a 89% approval rating! I'd better hop on this bandwagon!
More importantly, he has the best stance on both Iraq and Iran. He and Obama are among the few credible candidates who opposed the war from the beginning. On most of the important issues, he's spot-on: Iraq withdrawal, not bombing Iran, and among the lone voices in favor of returning to the gold standard (not itself important, but a welcome warning against the dollar hegemony). He's not a perfect match on everything, but I do trust him to act thoughtfully. Most importantly, whenever he's in a fight, he has a habit of standing up for the little guy. He's always questioning dogma.
At this point, it seems he can't win. But then again, neither does Obama. Support for either is a protest move. But supporting Ron Paul is a more effective protest. With his newfound wealth, he'll become a major force in the Republican party. He has the potential to revolutionize the party. A Republican Party without the evil! Could you imagine! Having an election in which there were two candidates that weren't completely evil. An honest choice!
Anyhow, I've made my case for Ron Paul. I look forward to having you point out what I'm overlooking. In the meantime, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is Romney's election to lose. He's either vastly ahead or gaining rom-entum in Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Giuliani would drop mighty quickly in the polls if he lost most of those states. Plus, he's realized his religion could become a campaign issue, and he's taking the necessary steps to win points with evangelical crazies. This is especially exciting news, because in the spirit of rooting for the underdog, it would be very cool to see a Mormon president. Also, and more importantly, Romney is the best target for humor:
A great read from Kos over at Daily Kos, the flagship liberal blog on the net, on the Obama ex-gay flap. Although this particular issue seems like a non-starter to me, his willingness to attack leadership and hero worship is a great example of why I like Kos. For starters, he's a talented and entertaining blogger who knows how to put fire into the belly of the left. More importantly, he's a rare leader who's willing to challenge the dogma within his party. His message empowers his readers to think for themselves rather than blindly follow this or that flawed leader. This is especially impressive given the fact I suspect he's secretly on the payroll of the DNC.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of "Kossacks" have utterly failed to pick up his message of challenging authority. In their monthly straw poll of their favorite Democratic presidential candidate, Chris Dodd went from 0% to 7% to 21% over the span of three months, making him the second place favorite. Really? Chris Dodd? A long-shot policy wonk? What could compel a fifth of Daily Kos readers to suddenly shift their allegiances to a full-time DC insider? The reason is that Kos voted for him in a previous poll. What an utterly pathetic collection of sheep. Sigh.
In my state of Washington, a court ruled that pharmacists are allowed to withhold the morning-after pill if it violates their religion. Idiots!
Boss: Excuse me, why are you doing your nails and reading Cosmo? Employee: Oh, I just converted to Christian Science. Boss: Um, congratulations? Employee: Thanks. Boss: So, there's customers waiting at window 1. Employee: Right. About that, I decided that I don't have to do my job. Boss: OK then, you're fired. Employee: You can't do that. Boss: Excuse me? You're not doing the job. So you're fired. Employee: Christian Scientists don't believe in using any kind of medicine. It would be against my moral beliefs to distribute this medicine. Boss: Right, so I fired you. Employee: That's discrimination on the basis of my religion. Boss: Your JOB is to give people the medicine they ask for... Employee: ...within the bounds of my religion. I'm actually doing my job very well. So well, in fact, I think I deserve a promotion.
It's tough to not be a fan of Harry Reid. Ben K throws us this link about how he's scheduling micro-sessions of the Senate to keep Bush from appointing Neanderthal judges over Thanksgiving. Just like when he scheduled a closed session of the Senate to give the finger to Republicans, he's always finding incredibly nerdy ways to make me proud. Plus, between Tagg Romney and John Heder, Mormons are IN right now... and Harry Reid is to LDS what hippies are to LSD.
Best Harry Reid fact of all time? The bespectacled little poindexter used to be a boxer.
In lieu of another fantastic 2Log Live Blogging event (this one, ironically enough, sponsored by You Tube, or YOU-get-ask-the-highly-moderated-Questions-Tube) I received a rallying email from team 2Log. Interestingly enough, there were a series of sponsored links on the side of my gmail, targeted to prick my interest and go directly to my soul based on the e-conversation that was unfolding in front of me.
A few samples:
Why mommy is a democrat
The book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read! littledemocrats.net
Ann Coulter's Column Free
Get Ann Coulter's weekly column delivered to you Free via email
Mike Huckabee 2008
Faith. Family. Freedom. Conservatives are choosing Huckabee www.mikehuckabee.com
And Last but NOT at all least:
Impeach Cheney Better World Links
Informations & Resources www.betterworldlinks.org
If nothing else, you have to commend Google for its scope. Its breadth. Its... depth? But I have to say that this seems a little scary to me. Can I really no longer mention politics in my emails with out being barraged with political ads!? I demand a return to Penis Enlargements and other more overt spam!
Maria Cantwell, the ineffective and useless half of my state's Senate delegation, has maybe done something right. She was an early endorser of Clinton, but seems to be softening that stance.
But reading it, who can tell? What in blazes does that statement even mean? She's speaking in riddles. Fetch the Rosetta Stone, so we can decipher her twisted doublespeak. Peace means war! Freedom means slavery!
Dictionary.com defines the word Elite in the following manner:
(often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
(used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare pica1.
representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.
I have read and re-read this definition, searching for any possible explanation of where and how the current political climate has turned against "elite"-ism. What, exactly, is bad about being the best? The highest class? Do we, or do we not, want greatness from our presidents? As a good friend of mine, PGP, has says: WE CARVE THE BEST PRESIDENTS INTO A F*&%^-ING MOUNTAIN! DON'T WE WANT THEM TO ASPIRE TO BE GREAT??
I raise this point only because I see an alarming trend once again rearing its ugly mug on the political scale. Once again, being smart and intellectual and, yes, Elite is starting to be synonymous with effeminate and bad and out of touch. Now, I am not Elite. Not even close. If I were in an armed forces metaphor, I would not be a green beret, I would be the soldier forever getting demerits for not having his uniform ironed, and whose gun always jammed in in-opportune moments. Yet I feel no qualms about saying that I want my President to be Elite. Just look at what happened in 2000 and 2004! When Elite=Bad, then Bush=Electable.
To Heighten the absurdity, we have spent the last 8 years being force fed a diet of Elite = Bad by a crew of multi-millionaires living in the Devilish and Horrible big cities like New York, L.A. and Washington. The people telling us that we hate people who are Elite are, in fact, equally definable as such! In an backhand sort of a way, I realize that I am complementing the Bill Kristol's and Bill Reilly's of the world by calling them "elite"... I'm not sure I think they are... but going under anything close to their definition, they fit their own bill! Is anyone else's head starting to hurt? Being out of touch is a bad thing. Being Smart and Elite is not. Lets all remember that Elite means "representing the most choice or select" and stop using it as a bludgeoning device.