WuzzaDem

The Candidates Who Never Were

More shampaign, anyone?

Fred Tompson Drops Out Of The Race By The Local Starbucks

Welcome to Starbucks, what can I get for you?

 

 

Yeah, I, um...uh...uh...

 

 

That is to say, I...uh...

 

 

...

 

 

Uh...uh...

 

 

Did you want to order something, sir?

 

 

What the hell does it look like I'm doing right now?

 

 

Sorry - go ahead.

 

 

You know, if John Wayne was here I'd have him kick your ass.

 

 

John who?

 

 

Oh, I get it - you're one of those Chuck Norris fans.

 

 

Chuck who?

 

 

Never mind. Now you broke my concentration, so I'm gonna have to start over.

 

 

So...uh...uh...I, um...

 

 

You do serve coffee here, don't you?

 

 

Yes. Yes, we do.

 

 

Good, good. I got me a hankerin' for some coffee right now. I'm a little...uh...err...

 

 

Tired?

 

 

Yeah, that's it - tired.

 

 

Do you know what kind of coffee you want?

 

 

Now that I do know.

 

 

Excellent.

 

 

I'll have the uh...uh...the, uh...

 

 

...

 

 

I mean, the uh...uh...the, uh...

 

 

Sir...

 

 

No, don't tell me - I don't need help.

 

 

I wasn't going to help you. I was going to tell you that you're going to have to get out of line if you don't order something now.

 

 

Well if that's how you're gonna act then just forget it. I'll just...uh...uh...

 

 

Leave?

 

 

Right - I'll leave. Bye.

 

 

Goodbye, sir.

 

 

...

 

 

Too bad. Something tells me he would have been my best customer evah.

 

UPDATE: Werd.

UPDATE II: He wanted tea?

 

A Thank You Letter to Senator McCain from an ABM Republican

Dear Senator McCain:

I would never vote for you in a million years, but I want to thank you for doing whatever it is that you may have done to make the war in Iraq less of an issue in the 2008 presidential race.

And thanks for sparing other Republican candidates the agony of confronting an ill-conceived military strategy in Iraq (and those responsible for it) by trying to act all Commander in Chief-like.

Because of you, my candidate (the real conservative in this race) might actually stand a chance against Hillary or Obama this November. With Iraq off the table, he can now focus his campaign rhetoric on more important things.

Yours truly,
an A.B.M. (Anyone but McCain) Republican

Fields of Fool's Gold That, Like, Produce Totally Renewable Energy

How much corn could a corn stove burn if a corn stove could burn enough corn to keep the second floor of a three-story duplex "toasty at all times"?

The entire second floor? Really?

According to Mike TaRose, an upwardly-mobile cornhead from Minnesota, about 25 bushels (nearly three-quarters of a ton) per month. At the current price of $4 per bushel, Mr. TaRose figures that the small $2,500 corn stove he purchased will pay for itself in four years, assuming, of course, that increased consumption of corn will not result in higher prices.

And that's not all, TaRose figures he's not just decreasing the size of his carbon footprint, he's negativizing it!

"By the time summer comes around, the (grown) corn that I buy will have eaten the carbon dioxide that I put out the year before," he said. "So you really get a negative CO2 footprint."

But what about the gigantor soil-erosion footprint left in its stead?

And what of the adverse affects corn fumes have on the brain, like messing with one's ability to perform simple multiplication and division.

"It's a daily maintenance. I get off my butt and go downstairs to the garage (where he stores his kernels) and bring up about 60 pounds of corn in about two buckets."

Imagine all the people having 25 bushels of corn delivered to their door each month (transported by trucks fueled, no doubt, with ethanol) and running short because they can't multiply, requiring one or more additional deliveries? And what of the inability to even calculate one's carbon footprint?

It's not so much that cornheads will, if left unsupervised, pose a serious threat to global food supplies any time soon. At some point, grownups will step in and take away their corn stoves.

But in the meantime, couldn't the time wasted developing (and money spent subsidizing) corn stove technology be better spent on perpetual-motionology?

Tim Russert and Chris Matthews Get Paid the Big Bucks to Do What, Exactly?

Two of MSNBC's most excitable political analysts, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, were jumping in their jammies over last night's election returns in New Hampshire. One, deliriously giddy; the other, ready to throw something at somebody, anybody.

One caucus, one primary, one week into the 2008 presidential primary race and these two appeared genuinely astonished that no one candidate had locked up his/her party's nomination yet.

"This race is wide open!" Mr. Russert declared gleefully.

In sharp contrast, Chris Matthews scowled and pouted, demanding answers on why there was such a disparity between pre-election polling numbers and the actual vote count. And he wanted these answers NOW!

No wonder Mr. Matthews was miffed. Based on polls indicating that Hillary Clinton was a goner in New Hampshire, he (and other Democratic shills on MSNBC) extrapolated those numbers (and Iowa's) nationwide and thus concluded that they should spend all day Monday and Tuesday crafting Senator Clinton's political obituary live, on camera.

Alas, there are more things in heaven and earth, Tim and Chris, than are dreamt of in your cockamamie fantasies based on poll numbers, especially six days into a considerably longer primary process.

For one thing, polls are nothing like elections, which should be obvious to seasoned political analysts (pulling in six and seven figure annual incomes) but apparently isn't. For the record, polling results from various sources are not interchangeable with, or a substitute for, the actual ballots cast and counted in a federally-regulated election.

Isn't that a good thing?

Shouldn't we be thrilled that pollsters are not spot-on in every single election? If they were, what would be the point of voting? Why leave the house to cast a ballot if Zogby or Rasmussen have already determined the winners and losers based on a small sampling of "likely" voters polled the day before?

The truth about polls? Pollsters don't just call up registered voters and ask, "So, who ya' gonna vote for?"

First, those called are asked a series of qualifying questions in order to ascertain other information about them, which is then used to categorize these folks into various target groups. (Why not just ask them for a photo and post it on the Internet)?

Not quite the same experience as entering the privacy of a voting booth and casting a confidential ballot.

And, oftentimes, depending on who's conducting the poll and for what purpose, poll questions are cleverly crafted in ways that ever-so-subtly promote/discourage various points of view, or are designed to manipulate the responses of those polled, i.e., tweak poll results for effect.

And what about the caucus process, in which supporters of various candidates flock to designated corners of a room or auditorium? How can pollsters anticipate the effect/influence Obama Fever (or other contagion) may have on caucus participants?

Suggestion to Messrs. Russert and Matthews: To avoid these roller-coaster highs and lows over the next ten months, try spending less time reporting (and basing your predictions) on a candidate's poll numbers, and devote considerably more time to analyzing the candidates' respective overall appeal, performance, message, and effectiveness of his/her campaign organization.

And please note that a considerable difference between poll numbers and elections results does not constitute a "stunning political upset". For a "political upset" to occur, a candidate must have consistently won/lost a series of actual elections and then, for whatever reasons, suffer/enjoy a resounding and unexpected defeat/victory.

Update: Cassandra wrote a great post on the subject of polls some time back and, yet, it couldn't be more timely.

What Have Some of Our Cultural Icons Been Up to Lately? An Election Day Diversion...

Gwyneth Paltrow's husband, Cold Play's Chris Martin, is suffering from Post Traumatic Songwriting Syndrome and has been undergoing hypnotherapy to help him cope with all the pressure he's under to cleverly misspell the title of his next album.

Retiring Microsoft chairman Bill Gates is doing his best to dispel the myth that aging, self-indulgent baby boomers pose a bigger threat to Western civilization than the dependence on/over-consumption of foreign oil.

Speaking of aging, self-indulgent baby boomers (and the era in which their perpetual immaturity flowered and continues to stagnate), Stephen Spielberg is teaming up with screenwriter Aaron Sorkin to produce a film about the Chicago 7, with Borat playing Abbie Hoffman and Truman Capote tackling the role of William Kunstler.

After that, it looks like Spielberg's next project is "Lincoln", with "Kinsey" star Liam Neeson to portray the Great Emancipator, which is even creepier because of Neeson's uncanny resemblance to the director's real hero, the Great Incarcerator.

According to British tabloid reports, Sir Paul McCartney is winding down the magical mystery tour of life by slowly drinking himself to death.

Sean Penn's idea of a romantic weekend in Lake Tahoe with the wife?

Park the little woman her own hotel suite. Find a trendy Tahoe bar to strike a pose in. Get wasted. Pick up a couple of Russian party girls. Take the celebrity sluts up to your hotel room so that when the old ball-and-chain comes knocking on your door looking for a little romance, she won't have to walk too far.

Wouldn't it have been much easier to simply ask the mother of his children for a divorce, or considerably kinder to just punch her in the stomach?

(Who knows what goes on between Penn's ears? Maybe he's angling a gig to drunk-blog for Pajamas Media).

Mitt Romney Has the Most Tsunami Experience (and Other Political Realities)

In the real world, winners are the people who deftly navigate reality, while losers tend to daydream a lot with toes and fingers, arms and legs, crossed in total-body contortion.

So, in this presidential (and congressional) election year, what are the political realities that conservatives should pay attention to if they really want to win big in November?

1. Polls are always accurate within three to five percentage points. It's just a coincidence that they change so dramatically in the days and hours before an election.
   
   Remember, pollsters would never tweak a poll question to produce a particular result, consciously or subconsciously, so keep on formulating strategies based on these whimsical numbers.
   
   Be aware, however, that hitching your wagon to polls that fluctuate without warning could result in a severe case of whiplash, especially on election day.
   
   
2. The Clinton Machine (Bill Clinton) will do whatever it takes to win the White House, so watch out! There is nothing Bill Clinton wants more than for Hillary to become the first woman president in U.S. history.
   
   As a nouveau riche, free-range, international superstar who currently enjoys the perks, privileges and prestige afforded former presidents of the United States, Bill Clinton is totally amped about the prospect of having his every move, every rendezvous, headlined on Drudge.
   
   And, needless to say, he can't wait to be the butt of all those First Lady jokes coming his way, which can only help his tarnished (albeit, on-the-mend) legacy.
   
   
3. Obama can't possibly continue shredding that honker wave he's been riding since the Democratic convention in 2004, especially all the way to Inauguration Day and Beyond. And just because his meteoric rise into the stratosphere continues to baffle Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly doesn't mean that his campaign isn't going to tank any day now.
   
   
4. If, by some miracle, Obama does make it to the general election, the best chance Republicans have to defeat him in November is to pit a flip-flopping, rich white guy (with even less foreign policy experience) against him.
   
   In the setting of a presidential debate, it would be unwise for Republicans to juxtapose Obama's weaknesses and naiveté on foreign affairs, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror against John McCain's strengths (an Annapolis graduate with twenty years of distinguished military service, over twenty years in the U.S. Senate, and extensive knowledge of, experience in, national security and intelligence issues).
   
   It goes without saying that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are the only two Republican candidates who can articulate the threat of global jihad effectively to American voters.
   
   
5. Yeah, Democratic turnout in Iowa was more than double that of Republicans, but not to worry. Even if Democratic voters turn out in record numbers this November to support Obama, this will not effect the outcome of any congressional races, i.e., Republicans needn't be concerned about losing any seats in either house.
   
   
6. Mitt Romney is NOT the Neiman Marcus version of Mike Huckabee.
   
   
7. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani have ran two of the most effective political campaigns in recent history, and both campaigns should start snowballing any time now. God only knows why they haven't yet.
   
   
8. Speaking of effective campaigns, why utilize the unbridled enthusiasm of ardent supporters who have volunteered to work for your campaign tirelessly (and for free) when you can just hire "grass-roots activists" from God knows where and bus them in from wherever?
   
   
9. Mitt Romney is right. Republicans shouldn't overemphasize the terrorist threat at the cost of ignoring others; or, place too much focus on the experience a candidate may (or may not) have in dealing with terrorism.
   
   There are, after all, numerous unforeseen challenges that the next president will face over the next four to eight years, not least of which is the threat posed by tsunamis (00:30).
   
   
   
   
   And, God forbid, were our next president be faced with this challenge, nothing beats the kind of executive experience Romney acquired during his one-term as governor of Massachusetts (often referred to as the Tsunami State).
   
   
10. If something isn't broken, for heaven's sake, don't try to fix it. For instance, if a Republican congressman or US senator has the hots for underage boys, or likes to get it on in public restrooms, DO NOT, under any circumstances, do anything that might suggest you, as a conservative, don't want to be associated with sleazy horndogs.
    
    To do so could really hurt that whole family-values thing that helped Republicans win three national elections in a row.
    
    
11. Most importantly, we must never succumb to defeatism.
    
    Just because Dems can get away with stuff Republicans can't, that doesn't mean we should stop trying. With continued effort, we can be just as sleazy, hypocritical, and/or shameless as Democrats have been over the last decade.
    
    And with Obama inspiring all that integrity, hope, and change baloney, victory is ours for the taking.

Imaginary Gods, Imaginary Numbers

Ahem, Mr. Dawkins, you seem to have made a fool of yourself...once again.

An Open Letter to a Composite of Disgruntled Conservative Whiners Who Hate Huckabee But Can't, In Good Conscience, Support Any of the Other GOP Candidates with Much, if Any, Enthusiasm

Dear Crybaby:

We all know how distraught you are over Iowa, and why, and your points are well taken. No need to keep blubbering or throwing empty pizza boxes at the wall. We get it. Now what?

If I may be so bold, I'd like to make a suggestion.

Try mustering up enough composure to cope. And if you can't, maybe you should give it a rest. Like it or not, the clock is ticking, i.e., the opportunities to champion an alternative to Huckabee (or any other potential nominee you can't stomach) decrease as each day passes, and writhing uncontrollably on the floor with your blanky will do nothing to extend this time frame.

Yes, you can still eviscerate the candidates you despise (and those who support them), but enough with the flip-flopping and one-night stands. Why don't you try picking and sticking with one candidate for at least a couple of weeks?

I know, I know...It's difficult for any self-respecting Dude with Integrity to support a presidential candidate who doesn't share the same values, sophisticated tastes, and reason for living.

Sorry, guys. I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but an openly-adolescent fortysomething porndog who will ban abortion and waterboard James Dobson just isn't in the cards, at least not this time around.

So, what are your choices?

1. You can support the least objectionable candidate on your top-two list. If you don't have a top-two list, make one and go from there.
   
   
2. You can continue to pitch hissy fits and/or cry in your vodka.
   
   
3. You can support a third-party candidate (but the time clock is ticking on that one, as well).
   
   
4. You can, as some have already threatened to do, vote for the Democratic nominee in November.
   
   ( That should teach the rest of us Republicans a lesson. If only we had hired a psychic to divine which candidate would have made you happy and then worked our tails off to make his campaign a viable one).
   
   
5. You can kick back and sit this one out. (Think of all the extra time you'll have to fondle images of Scarlett Johansson's breasts).

Bottom line: If it just feels too uncool to go with what's available, please, by all means, stay cool. No one would want you to do anything that might jeopardize your hoody-under-the-$1200-leather-jacket online persona. After all, what would Scarlett Johansson's breasts think?

But if you must rag on, perhaps you can ease up on those projectiles of bile you've been spewing at hardworking, middle-class Republicans in Iowa, many of whom earn their living by producing all that stuff in your freezer, refrigerator, and pantry. (From what I understand, producing sustenance is thankless work that isn't particularly easy, pleasant, or lucrative).

When you think about it, all these folks did was get up off their asses and exercise their right to support and vote for the candidate of their choice. I'm sure most of them were completely unaware of how adversely their actions would affect you, Mr. Real Conservative, who refuses to come out and support any candidate because to do so would seriously harsh your cool factor.

And, who knows? Maybe some of these Iowans, in the months and weeks leading up to the caucus, actually visited your blog or read your comments hoping to find some guidance, but all they found were pictures of boobies and the accompanying TMI journal entries.

Yours truly,
Mrs. R.

McCain by Default/Sobriety

The fog hasn't exactly lifted for this Republican voter but given the choice between the three GOP front-runners (pictured above), I gotsta go with (I can't believe I'm writing this) John McCain.

Yes, it's difficult to embrace John McCain, what with all those prickly thorns protruding from his hide. On the other hand, it takes a mighty tough hide to bear that kind of thornage.

Some other considerations that favor McCain:

• John McCain has never articulated this theory:
  
  

  Young men fighting in Iraq = Young men traveling around Iowa in a Winnebago, campaigning for their father, a former governor who's running for president.

  
  
• McCain hasn't argued both sides of the abortion issue with equally convincing waves of passion. (Video segment starts at 4:01).
  
  
• To my knowledge, John McCain has never tied a caged dog to the top of a station wagon during 12-hour road trips with his family and later recounted (as an example of his crisis management skills) how he hosed the dog/station wagon off at a rest stop after the dog's resultant diarrhea spoiled the view for those riding inside the vehicle.
  
  
• John McCain is not a slick-talking former governor of Arkansas who hails from Hope. (Granted, this may not be a problem for those who pooh-pooh eerie coincidences).
  
  
• McCain hasn't tarted up God for political gain. As a person of faith, I prefer more substance, less lipstick.
  
  
• McCain's campaign hasn't attracted any Nazi stormtroopers, at least none that I'm aware of.
  
  
• The only other palatable Republican in the race may be a Reagan conservative, but so is the guy who used to live across the street from us.
  
  And, unlike this particular candidate, I sense that McCain really wants to win this thing, i.e., he won't poop out or suffer any debilitating bouts of ennui en route to the general election.
  
  (Added bonus: McCain doesn't pepper unscripted trains of thought with flurries of "uhs", nor does he stare at the floor while he's talking to would-be caucus supporters at a house party in Iowa. For a sampling of some uh-and-floor-staring action...).
  
  
• I like Rudy Giuliani's toughness, but his style of governance (and campaigning) is better suited to Gotham City or ancient Rome. For better or for worse, the rest of the country just isn't there yet.
  
  
• As disappointing as McCain's record has been on various domestic issues, it is no worse (and considerably more substantial and consistent) than those of the two GOP front-runners/virtual surprise packages.
  
  
• As much as I hate to admit it, McCain was dead-on about Donald Rumsfeld's "less is more" strategy in Iraq. Thankfully for the men and women serving in Iraq, he had the courage (and hide) to tough this one out.
  
  
• While a number of congressional Republicans have succumbed to the political heat generated by the war in Iraq and the war on terror, McCain's support has never wavered on either front.
  
  
• McCain stands the best chance of defeating whomever the Democrats send into battle, and a McCain win in November is a helluva lot better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
  
  
• Despite his pledge to not to waterboard known terrorists under any circumstances, I suspect that this is one campaign promise McCain might reconsider in, God forbid, a worst-case scenario.
  
  
• John McCain is not an artful liar and he seems to be aware of this, so I'm guessing that pulling wool would not be at the top of his Options List when treed or cornered.
  
  
• McCain once told then-NBC reporter Maria Shriver and her overbearing camera crew to take a hike.
  
  Added bonus: Brian Williams' reaction (shock and awe) after watching the exchange, which was televised live. (Sorry, couldn't find any video of this memorable moment).
  
  
• For better or for worse, John McCain does work well with Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  
  As much as I'd like to stick it to Democrats where it hurts (really, really hurts) for the treacherous tactics they've employed over the last seven years in their effort to regain power, I prefer One America to Two. And unless someone in a position to do so makes a concerted effort to bridge this gap, America remains bitterly divided, incapable of accomplishing much of anything, and increasingly vulnerable to those who would do us harm.

And last, but not least...

When it comes to war heroes, McCain's s the genuine article. This bloodline doesn't automatically earn him his party's presidential nomination, but spending five-and-a-half years in a Vietnamese POW camp certainly merits him a bump in the line.

While various political operatives may question the military record of any presidential candidate who has served his country in uniform, such service (especially wartime service) tends to blur lines most of us never have to negotiate.

And when a campaign advisor for Hillary Clinton alludes to McCain's captivity as a POW with vile snark like this,

"Privately, Hillary’s camp was not overly upset by the McCain swipe because it suspected he was doing the bidding of the White House and that he ended up, as one adviser put it, 'looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crew mates.'”

Other lines snap sharply into focus.