I will be glad when the Democratic nomination fight is over, so we can focus more on the general election. Obama and Clinton are getting free rides on their far left platforms, while being free to frame the public perception about John McCain with lies.
Something I've been hearing for awhile now, but has really picked up steam in recent days, is that McCain would be a "third term of George Bush," and that McCain is no longer the "maverick" that he used to be and that he has been "hijacked" by the right wing. What they mean by that is all lies.
They mean that McCain would represent a continuation of Bush's "failed policy in Iraq," when, in fact, we only started to see successes in post-invasion Iraq when Bush's policies matched what McCain had been saying all along, about increased troop levels and holding gained territory and so on.
They mean that McCain "wants to stay in Iraq indefinintely," which as we all know is false. This is the basis for the DNC ad, which falsely implies that McCain thinks being at war for 100 is acceptable, when in fact, McCain said precisely the opposite.
They mean that McCain is in favor of tax cuts for the rich (that is, extending existing cuts), even though he voted, and spoke out, against those tax cuts previously. But they are entirely aware of the fact that McCain will not vote for raising taxes -- especially when the economy is bad -- even if he was against the cut in the first place. Indeed, if he voted to raise taxes now, he would be pandering.
They mean that McCain is "in favor of torture," because he voted to not force the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual. That's about as honest as saying that I am a vegetarian because I don't eat bear meat. The Army Field Manual is not the only means to be against torture. He has steadfastly been opposed to torture, but just thinks, and for good reason, that the Army Field Manual is not the best tool to use for the CIA. He has reiterated -- and the law backs him up -- that the CIA is not allowed to use torture.
They mean that McCain panders to "right-wing Christians," simply because he has talked to them without attacking them. Apparently it is OK for Obama to want to do that with Iran and North Korea, but not for McCain to want to do that with Americans. Frankly, in 2000, I thought McCain was being extremely immature when he attacked some on the "religious right," and am glad that he has grown. You can be cordial and even friendly to people you disagree with.
They mean that McCain has "flip-flopped" on immigration. This is not true, at all. In all of his public speeches, McCain has never said he was wrong about immigration (much to the chagrin of many conservatives). What he has said is that he recognizes that his plan is politically infeasible. There's too much opposition. He hasn't changed his mind about what is best, but he realizes he needs to change his actions in order to make progress. This is what an intelligent politician does.
Pretty much everything that the left is saying about McCain is lies. It's not unexepcted, of course, but it is disappointing. As with the AARP in the previous post ... is honesty too much to ask? Maybe it is. 
The AARP is pretending to be non-partisan with its "Divided We Fail Platform. The basic message is: "let's put partisanship aside, and just agree with the Democrats." Which, incidentally, is largely Barack Obama's basic message, come to think of it.
"All Americans should have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations."
While I believe this is essentially true, the Republican is very different from AARP's. The AARP's answer is "government should pay for much, if not all, of it for many, if not all, of Americans." This is the Democratic view, not the Republican view.
"Wellness and prevention efforts, including changes in personal behavior such as diet and exercise, should be top national priorities."
I don't believe that at all. I think our national priorities should have nothing whatsoever to do with any of that, except to the extent that the federal government should work to prevent epidemics of communicable diseases, and I do not believe the government should ever try to change anyone's personal, non-criminal, behavior.
"Our children and grandchildren should have an adequate quality of life when they retire. Social Security must be strengthened without burdening future generations."
Social Security is unconstitutional and should be phased out over time.
"Workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans, and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age."
Government should have nothing to do with any of that.
"Americans of all ages should have access to tools to help manage their finances, and save for the future and better, easy to understand information to help them increase their financial literacy and manage their money wisely."
Government should have nothing to do with any of that.
I don't mind that the AARP pushes these things. Anyone can push any policies they want to. But I do mind that the AARP is dishonestly pretending that they are not marching in lockstep with the Democrats, and against the Republicans. You can push your agenda without being dishonest.
pudge posted a photo:
Me and some friends in high school play (1990 or 1991) on the quad during lunch. That's me on the left; Craig Billmeier (a.k.a. "Hot Lixx Hulahan," the 2006 U.S. Air Guitar Champion) next to me, and Bryan Gray (of The Blamed and many other bands) on the right.
Note that we are all three playing different chords.
I still play that guitar.
And wear that shirt.
An original love song to the Superdelegate.
Lyrics:
Chorus:
Superdelegate, I don't know you, but I love you
Superdelegate, you make me feel warm inside
Superdelegate, I didn't vote for you
But I really think you're super, Superdelegate
We can't trust ourselves to choose
'Coz we've got so much to lose
So we ask you, please
Protect us from ourselves
Chorus
I will use my voice
I will state my choice
I will stand up and be counted
But not as much as you
Chorus
This is the Longest Concert Evar, starring Pudge. Send requests to concertrequest@pudge.net, or post them here.
When the Supreme Court decision in favor of the "Top Two" primary came out, which allows anyone to designate themselves a Republican or Democrat in the primary, I humbly suggested a somewhat crazy idea:
About names. Why not create a new party, called "Republican Nominee"? That is the name of the new party. And if someone who is not the actual nominee of the party uses that name, well, they are falsely claiming to be the nominee. Now the confusion argument that Roberts, Alito, and Thomas said wasn't obvious, is perfectly obvious. So not only could I-872 be overturned on such grounds, but anyone not the nominee who uses that designation could be sued for misrepresentation.
Normally, you couldn't have a party called "Republican Nominee," because the Republican Party would sue over the confusion. But in this case, obviously, the party would choose to allow it, since it would be used for their benefit.
Apparently, the Washington State Republican Party is doing this, in the nomination system they approved last week:
Authority to Use the Name "GOP Nominee." Only candidates who shall have been nominated pursuant to these rules shall be authorized by the Republican Party to designate themselves as GOP Nominees or have Party approval to appear on the election ballot or in other election documents using the designation "GOP Nominee."
WA State Rep. Hans Dunshee (D-44) was on Up Front yesterday, defending pork projects. We have more than a $2 billion deficit for the next budget, and a Washington Policy Center -- the "Piglet Book" -- identified more than $160 million of pork that could be cut. It's a good start.
But Dunshee was hearing none of it. When Robert Mak asked, regarding the state regulation of animal masseuses, "isn't this the way government grows and grows, by getting involved in these things?," Dunshee shrugged and said, "people come to ask us to do things, you know?," as if this in any way actually responded to the question. That was his response to pretty much every waste: "if people want it, and they come and ask for it ... ." The idea that he could, let alone should, say "No" was completely absent in his mind. He reminded me of the government officials in Ididocracy:
Joe: "For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff." Secretary of State: "But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."
Attorney General: "So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops."
Joe: "Yes."
Attorney General: "Water. Like out the toilet?"
Joe: "Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, yeah, that's the idea."
Secretary of State: "But Brawndo's got what plants crave."
Attorney General: "It's got electrolytes."
Joe: "Okay, look. The plants aren't growing, so I'm pretty sure that the Brawndo's not working. Now, I'm no botanist, but I do know that if you put water on plants, they grow."
Secretary of Energy: "Well, I've never seen no plants grow out of no toilet."
Joe: "Okay, look. You wanna solve this problem. So why don't we just try it, okay, and not worry about what plants crave?"
Attorney General: "Brawndo's got what plants crave."
Secretary of Energy: "Yeah, it's got electrolytes."
Joe: "What are electrolytes? Do you even know?"
Secretary of State: "It's what they use to make Brawndo."
Joe: "Yeah, but why do they use them to make Brawndo?"
Secretary of Defense: "'Cause Brawndo's got electrolytes."
The whole Up Front segment is worth watching. I especially love that Dunshee said he is "sort of insulted" that this $160 million is considered "priorities," because the real priorities which get most of the money are education, health care, and so on. Well, I am insulted that he thinks my tax money is not valuable enough to spend on more important things, and that the Democrats are wasting money on these and other projects while claming there's no more money to fix U.S. 2. If you are spending my money on these things instead of other more worthwhile things, then yes, it is a priority, by definition. And I am insulted that he is insulted almost as much as I am insulted that he is wasting my money.
T-Mobile is my cell phone provider. I "upgraded" my old Nokia 6600 (four years old now, at least) to a Nokia 6263 for free. But when I got it, I found that -- with the exact same SIM card, same account, same network -- it would not run downloaded network apps like Google Maps.
This makes it subuseful.
So I call them up, and they would apparently rather have me return my phones and cancel my service altogether than give me a working phone. Oh they say they can give me a Blackberry, but it will cost more, and I don't want a Blackberry. And I would rather go phoneless than use a Windows phone.
So I need to either get this phone uncrippled, or find a new cell phone provider. Suggestions welcome.
