Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
But my real question at this point is: will the chronic attention deficit disorder (also known as: having the attention span of a hummingbird) so prevalent in the mainstream media mean that they will accept four candidates in the "top tier" of Republicans, or will they drop someone to remain at three?
Do you support the concept of gay marriage?
That used to be an unimaginable question. Not "unimaginable" in a negative sense, but "unimaginable" in the original, neutral definition of the word: "unable to be imagined," or "not imaginable." The concept of two people of the same sex being married wasn't even raised in the American conscience until the 1990s (or perhaps late 1980s -- I haven't researched the actual date, this is from my own recollection). After that point, of course, the idea has grown in prominence in the American political debate, both pro and con.
But now, mostly due to a Mormon running for president, the issue of polygamy is also inserting itself into the political debate. So the question must also be asked: Do you support the concept of polygamy? If so, why? If not, why not?
I could see Bush, after being told flatly by Republican congressfolks that it was time to pull out, picking up the phone and telling Maliki that it was time for the Iraqi government to ask us to leave. This would give enormous political cover for Bush and the Republicans, and would provide a convenient scapegoat in case the pullout created a bigger disaster: "Hey, they told us to leave, what were we supposed to do?"
But one way or another, in the September/October timeframe, I foresee the end of the Iraq war being written into law by Congress. And that's a real and honest reason for optimism now. We may be at the lowest point of the process -- emotionally -- for the anti-war cause right now. But things are going to be looking up very soon now.
This would, ironically enough, mean that the states at the back of the line suddenly become the crucial battleground states for the nomination. The only place left to get that "momentum" would be in the states which voted in the middle or at the end of the schedule. But even that's not assured. And if no candidate is the clear nominee by convention time, then we would have a real convention for a change. All the delegates' votes in the first round would go for the candidates they are pledged to vote for, but then in subsequent rounds of voting, we would have absolute pandemonium.
Now, let me be clear here -- I'm not making rash predictions that this is the way it'll turn out. Not yet, at least.
But wouldn't it be more fun to watch than four days of endless and meaningless speechifying?
Because naming an Independent Counsel to investigate the Bush White House means giving them unlimited power to investigate anything and everything they feel like (which is how Ken Starr went from Whitewater and Vince Foster to blowjobs in the White House). An Independent Counsel's investigation could be the first step towards impeachment -- and maybe not just of Gonzales.
So if Senator Specter turns out to be wrong and Gonzales isn't putting his diplomas and his coffee cup into moving boxes this week, then Democrats need to immediately up the stakes. And all it will take for Bush to fold is hearing those three powerful words: "Independent Counsel Law."
Best Democratic entry:
9. DENNIS KUCINICH
Pro: Solid anti-war stance; adorable; strong to the finich.
Con: Election laws limit magical pixies to only one term in office.
Best Republican entry:
8. NEWT GINGRICH
Pro: Well known.
Con: See above.
It seems a member of the Baltimore City Council would like his city to be run by the police. As City Council Vice President Robert W. Curran originally told The Baltimore Sun, "Desperate measures are needed when we're in desperate situations."
Here is his proposal, from the AP article:
Under Curran's plan, the mayor could declare "public safety act zones," which would allow police to close liquor stores and bars, limit the number of people on city sidewalks, and halt traffic during two-week intervals.
Police would be encouraged to aggressively stop and frisk individuals in those zones to search for weapons and drugs.
"I do congratulate the Prime Minister for being a -- when he gets on a subject, it's dogged. Witness his patience and resolve regarding Northern Ireland. And congratulations for your leadership."
This week's news from Iraq is actually good news, for a change. Good for Democrats in Congress, good for congressional Republicans, good for (assumably) the Iraqis, and good for the seven-tenths of all Americans who want to see an end to American troops in Iraq. Good for almost everyone, right?
Well, not so good for the Bush White House and their "stay the course" echo chamber, but then they've really had their moment in the sunshine already, haven't they?
Secondly, letter-writer to the Washington Post Kenneth R. Insley Jr. proposed a truly innovative, original, and downright brilliant idea for how to solve the presidential primary schedule mess for good:
I believe the fairest way to conduct the presidential primaries would be to rank the states according to voter participation in the previous election and have the primaries in that order until the winners become obvious.
He gets a bit snarky at the end, but still, his idea has a lot of merit, and is worth considering:
This change might rankle the chosen people of Iowa and New Hampshire because they would have to finally earn their coveted positions of influence. As soon as either of those states acquires an actual city, a diverse population or even a major sports team, I might actually feel the opinions held there should count for as much as my own.
Of course, like many good political reform ideas, it probably makes too much sense to ever become reality.