Hey Virginia meet your next Governor....and he's bat shit crazy.

Did you know theirs an election in less then 365 days? you didnt. Well if you live in Virginia, listen up, because not only is an election coming but its fairly important. And if your planning on voting republican doubly listen up see, up until a few days ago, two guys were running for that nomination, but one of them, Lt. Gov Bill Bolling just dropped out. Which means that for all you Virginia republicans Ken "The Cooch" Cucctinelli, the state's current Attorney General (AG), most well known for being THE guy who started the Obamacare lawsuit that went to the supreme court, is going to be your nominee, and quite possibly your next governor. But heres the problem....he's bat shit crazy.

Now what do I mean by bat shit crazy? well for once I'm not being [all that] partisan about it. For example did you know the first thing Mr. Cucctinelli did when he got his current office? He tried to change the state flag and did change the state seal of his office. Why the state flag has the state seal on it (as do all state offices) and the state seal looks a little something like this:

Now I'm not sure if you've noticed before, but if you look at the woman standing up, who is the goddess of virtue  you can see a TITTY. And of course to a true family values conservative like "The Cooch" (a nickname his supporters gave him, and by the way The Cooch is the VA AG....make your own joke) boobies are unacceptable. So he introduced this seal for his office (and wanted to replace the one on the state flag too with the same):

Now I realize its a bit low quality, but as you can see the breasts are now totally covered. There is however one small problem. You know how Virginia once tried to secede from the US? well they used a different flag back then and it looked a little something like this:

Yea look familiar? the confederate flag is the same design Cucctinelli choose to show his new moral Virginia. By the way, any one want to guess why he dropped his attempt to make this the offical Virginia flag again? Any one?

Nor is that the only crazy thing about "Coochie" (look mentally I'm five and I'm gonna enjoy his nickname, get over it :P) See he also wants to make a handful of changes to the national laws as well. Specifically the 14th amendment.

First he wants to take the 14th amendment and apply to Fetuses. Which is why he supported House Bill 1 last year, which attempted to do that last year. Now for those unfamiliar with the 14th amendment, thats basically where your citizenship comes from (in this context) and this was basically the Virginia attempt at a personhood amendment.

But that's not the only change Cucctinelli wants to make, see as a state senator (his job before he became AG) he called for an end to birth right citizen ship (which oddly also comes out of the 14th amendment), basically meaning that just because your born here doesnt make you a citizen. (which is his attempt to end the "anchor baby" problem where illegal immigrants have children here so as not to be deported)

Now yes, for those who are asking, there is a kinda a logical contradiction there. Under Cucctinelli's wishes. the minute an egg is fertilized it becomes a full and equal United States citizen.......until it's born, then the child may lose their citizenship.......Just think about that for a minute.....

And actually by the way, thats not the only set of crazy laws "Coochy Coochy Coo" (or should that be Koochy Koochy Koo if that flag thing was any indicator? ) wants to pass.

And since becoming AG he has decided he's going to pass/get parts of his agenda by  by any means necessary, even abusing his office.

Take Michael E. Mann, a researcher at the University of Virginia (at the time this happened). Now Mr. Mann specific area of expertise was climate change, and trying to see its effects. Which was a little bit of a problem for the Coocher since he doesnt believe in climate change.

So he sued him and the university of Virginia for fraud. Yep cause you know, using state funds for science to look into science is totally fraud if Ken "The King" Cucctinelli personally doesnt like it. By the way I should point out Mann sued to make The Cooch go away, and a court ruled in Mann's favor pointing out that Cucctinelli didnt even have Reasonable Suspicion of any real fraud. And the Cooch spend the next two years appealing and loosing all the way up to the Supreme Court costing UVA $600,000 in the process, because you know they actually support science.

Nor is that the only time he's tried to run roughshod over the state colleges. Back in 2010 he sent a letter to all the states colleges and universities informing that they were legally prohibited from having rules that discouraged discrimination towards Homosexuals, because the state of Virginia doesnt have those laws.

In otherwords on paper at least, all colleges in Virginia are required to discriminate against gays.

And its not just colleges either. The state of Virginia passed a law requiring new "health regulations" for abortion clinics (which are designed according to the people who wrote the bill specifically to be impossible to reach and force abortion clinics to close), and the state board of health (who does have the power to do this) decided that due to the US ban on Ex Post Facto (after the fact) laws, any existing abortion clinic was "grandfathered in" to the law (which is a common practice) and didn't have to comply. So the Coochmister went after the board of health and threatened to not defend them or any doctor in Virginia from medical malpractice suits (which is kinda his job) suits unless they reversed course....which they did.

And Cucctinelli's insistence on allowing forcing discrimination and his personal beliefs on every one extends even father as well.  See last year the Virginia Board of Social Services tried to adopt rules that would have protected Virginians seeking to adopt or foster children, and children those children from discrimination by licensed adoption and foster agencies "based on race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability and family status". And true to form the Cooch blocked them and forced them to drop the protections.

Which means in Virginia, if you want to adopt and your say a Conservative and the adoption agency is run by a Liberal, who doesnt think Conservatives are good parents tough shit, no baby for you. (or any other political difference)

If your say catholic and the adoption agency is say baptist and dont think Catholics make good parents, tough shit no baby for you. (or any other religious combination)

If say your Polish and you find a beautiful Colombian baby you'd love to adopt, but the guy running the agency has something against "Pollock" tough shit no baby for you.  (or well any other mixed race and ethnic combination)

And those are just the more "subtle" examples you likely didnt catch when you read the original statement

So yea, to recap in Ken Cucctinelli's Virginia, the minute you cum in a women, thats a citizen so she cant get an abortion, not that it matters since their is no where to go. But the minute that woman gives birth...well that baby may or may not be citizen, and lets say she doesnt want the baby so she puts it up for adoption....well what do you think the chances are of that baby growing up with any kind of loving parents if the parents must be of an acceptable race, county of origin, ethnicity, religion and political persuasion?

Oh by the way, I almost forgot, he's also in favor of abstinence only sex education and restricting contraception access so that above situation is likely going to be coming up ALOT in The Cooch's VA....


And by the way, even all of that arnt the two most bat-shit crazy thing about Coochie. He's also a birther. As part of an question and answer exchange he said this:

"Well... that's a good question. Not one I've thought a lot about because it hasn't been part of my campaign. I mean, someone is going to have to come forward with nailed down testimony that he was born in place B, wherever that is. You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility."

He later tried to walk it back by claiming it was a hypothetical answer to a  hypothetical question, but hey you be the judge.....

And now finally I have saved the best for last. Here is the single most bat-shit crazy thing about presumptive republican nominee for governor. He's considering NOT getting a Social Security Number for his 7th child. Why well I'll let him explain it......   (36 second video, you might as well watch it)

Thats right, the man who could be the next Governor of Virginia thinks the Government is out to get you.

Congratulations to all my Republican Virginian friends (of which I actually have many oddly) might I suggest this is one election y'all might want to consider voting either for the Democrat or 3rd party?

I mean come on, do any of you actually want someone this bat shit crazy to be your governor?   

Coming full Circle in Washington and the myth of fiscal responsibility

So maybe y'all remember about a year ago, the republicans threatened to shut down the federal government over something called the debt ceiling? Well guess what......IT'S BAAAACCCKK!!!!

Seriously. It's back. Now maybe you remember what happened the last time the Debt Ceiling came up. well rather then just raise it like they have done at least once a year since 1939 (when it came into existence) the GOP decided "fuck that we want budget cuts" and demanded the creation of a super-committee to get them. And just in case the Super-committee failed they wanted a "plan B" automatic cuts that would go into affect at the end of 2012....something generally called the "fiscal cliff", and now of course to avoid going over the fiscal cliff John Boehner is demanding an agreement for massive budget cuts next time we need to raise the debt ceiling (roughly in 2 months), so we are right back where we started. In fact Speaker Boehner is already calling raising the Debt Ceiling his "leverage" in the fiscal cliff argument. Meaning we would do this all again next year unless he gets his way....which isnt possible.

See the budget math is kinda easy. If you want a balanced budget, then what you want is "Taxes(T)=Spending (S). Where it gets complicated is that both T and S have a maximum and minimum value attached to them. In short there is a set amount the government must raise in taxes in order to provide the most minimum of services. on the flip side taxes can only in theory go up to 99%, which limits the maximum number of services the government can provide. And in reality people will only accept a much lower tax rate (historically somewhere between 40-60%) making the limit that much lower

And the problem at the moment is that T is no where close to equaling S. So we have to borrow money and go into debt(D), making the new formula T+D=S. And most Americans agree on a certain level of servicing they would like the government to provide, and the problem is, even allowing for all the fights over entitlements and defense spending differences T is still not able to equal S on its own. So there is no possible way to cut spending down to T level's without dropping below the minimum allowable level of S.  Hence why we keep having to borrow money. Now yes to be fair raising T to the level needed to equal S without changing S would also be more or less undo-able since T has to exceed its maximum allowable value. Which means no matter what we do, if we only change the one value we are left with T+D=S....just to differing amounts.

So if you want D=0 and T=S you need to raise the T value and lower the S value (which is basically the Democratic proposal although clearly we can fight over the details of how exactly to do that). But see again republicans refuse to change the T value but also at the same time want D=0.

but here's the incredibly odd part about how they are attempting  to do it. The Debt Ceiling is actually all about the money we already borrowed to satisfy the D requirement in the current equation . See generally speaking when you borrow money you have to pay it back, and usually you have to pay it back when the lender says so.

But the law about the debt ceiling says we can only have a maximum value of so much for D. the problem is when the lenders want their money back doesnt always jive with when the federal government budgeting schedule, which in this sense is basically their paycheck.

Think of it this way, your rent is due today, and your paycheck is coming tomorrow.  So what do you do? well you go to your friend and say "dude can I borrow $800 and I'll pay you back tomorrow. And hopefully your friend says yes and you get the money, pay your rent, pay your friend back the next day and by tomorrow night are no worse off then you were yesterday.

Seems easy enough right? well except in this case your friend is the House Republican's and they just told you NO. And your landlord isnt gonna give you the 24 hours....so what happens?  well you already agreed to give him the money and now you dont have it. So your kicked out of your apartment. And of course your landlord tells every one he knows your a welcher so you cant get another place to live since no one thinks you can pay them back.

Except in this case, instead of your apartment, its more like the countries economy you lose. And just like your landlord the lender we dont pay back, tells everyone else we owe money too that we are welchers. So suddenly they all like their money back. And we dont have it.....so what happens? country goes bankrupt and the country's economy basically implodes.


In short the argument here is not "don't spend more" it's "dont pay the bill"

And keep in mind this is what the so called "fiscally conservative" party wants to do unless we as a country are willing to deny math. because again even if they got 10000% of what they wanted we would still have T+D=S. And in fact since they also want defense spending increases the D value might be larger then it is now. Which means in a year we will do this all again.....and again after that in an infinity loop from hell.

Of course personally I'm not shocked that they are advocating don't pay the bill, since fiscal conservatives arent really conservative.

Let's play a game here to show you the problem with fiscal conservatives argument in the first place. Everyone put your hand up. Now if you have student debt, put your hand down. If you have car payments or dont expect to be able to pay one lump sum of cash for every car you own for the rest of your life  put your hand down. And lastly if you have a mortgage on your or expect to  when you finally buy a house (so unless you can pay one lump sum of cash) put your hand down.

Now does anyone still have their hand up? yea ok Mitt Romney does, anyone ELSE? anyone who wasn't born rich? yea I didnt think so. What that means is that at some point or another all of us have been or will be in debt, because our personal income (which is the equivalent of T) isnt equal to our personal expenses (personal equivalent of S) so we have all be in T+D=S mode at least once in life. And we are all fine. and we all got out of it.

Now how did we do it? well we got jobs/promotions ect, basically found ways to increase our T value. and lets be honest we saved up, and in some cases gave some things up/couldnt get everything we wanted, basically decreased our S value. And lastly we also made damn sure to pay off all our bills while doing so, so as to not spiral into oblivion. We didnt do it overnight, we did it over years. in some cases 20-30 years.

Now why should our country be any different? its not. A real conservative will try to get us out of debt as fast as they can, will balance T and S as fast as they can. But that's the real point here they will adjust BOTH. values. And they wont expect to fix it tomorrow, since they know that's impossible.

And the only party actually advocating that plan at the moment? the Democrats, even if its not perfect, they are a hell of a lot closer then the Republicans or even the Libertarians (who basically in a nutshell want to just eliminate T and still have at least minimal S)

And heres the really sick part in all of this. Nobody actually wants to go over the Fiscal Cliff long term. Which means even the Republicans know their method of doing it is full of shit, since they dont actually want to carry thought and get the cuts, because they know it wont work and will just make things worse (the spiral into hell)

They know as well as I do, their idea is a sham, its why they wont see it through....they just dont care as long as someone other then them has to deal with most of the negative side effects and they can benefit short term.  Even if that means we gotta play this song and circular dance every year.

The Republican tantrum over Benghazi and Susan Rice is all about Scott Brown

So I think I owe John McCain an apology, in an earlier post I said John McCain was basically throwing a tantrum over Susan Rice's possible nomination to Secretary of State mostly to get attention for himself. Well I no longer think thats true, in fact I know think McCain was just trying (very badly) to be Machiavellian.

See it turns out, I believe, that John McCain's "tantrum" over Susan Rice is not a tantrum at all, and also has nothing to do with Susan Rice or Benghazi  Instead it has everything to do with outgoing Republican Senator Scott Brown.

I know. You dont see the connection between the current UN ambassador and a senator who just lose his reelection bid for his first full term. Bear with me it will all make sense.

Now first we look at what the alleged problem with Susan Rice is, in short McCain is annoyed she said something on a sunday TV show about Benghazi that McCain though wasnt true, but wound up being exactly what the CIA told her to say (see other post for more detail). Now despite no longer even having a flimsy case, McCain is no longer alone in this, Senators Lindsey Graham and  Kelly Ayotte have been standing with him since the beginning and recently he picked up support from Sen. John Barasso and Bob Corker. (all republicans)

And to be honest McCain's case hasnt gotten any stronger as recently said he thinks this is the worst cover up since watergate and also said ""We knew in hours of all the details when we got bin Laden, they're making a movie out of it, and [yet] here we are, ten weeks later [i.e., after the Benghazi attack] finally our ambassador to the United Nations, who appeared on every national Sunday show, is now saying that she gave false information concerning how this tragedy happened."

You know why we knew all the details of the Bin Laden raid hours after the fact Senator? 1) we didnt 2) it was OUR RAID WE PLANNED IT. Where as Benghazi was an attack on us. But then again, as my new theory says this actually has nothing to do with Benghazi so it doesnt have to make sense.

Ambassador Rice for her part spend the day meeting with Graham, Ayotte and McCain, all of whom now claim they are less likely to support her then they were before...oddly the few other senators in that meeting are now MORE likely. But then again, this has nothing to do with facts in the first place so maybe the McCain position isnt so odd.

Nor is McCain's "crew" the only ones attacking any more. Sen. Susan Collins (also republican) opened up a whole new line of attack today, suggesting that African embassy bombings in 1998 prove Susan Rice is unfit, since those bombings should have taught her how to avoid Bengazi....which is an odd line of attack, since while its true Rice has some authority over Africa back in 98, she had no power control or ability to do anything about Bengazi at all in her current post as UN ambassador, its totally outside her preview. Which means Collins' attacks have no more substance then McCain's.

So why are they doing this? well just read these excerpts from various tirades about how unfit Mrs. Rice is:

First we start with Bob Corker more or less proving they dont have a real objection to Rice:

"She strikes me as someone who is always on message, someone who is always exactly parroting whatever it is the administration's position is. And I think most of us want someone who is more independent minded. And I think that's how she got herself in trouble that Sunday morning, by coming on and being the head of the DNC instead of really showing that independence - and that's of great concern to me,"t's my understanding that she had access to the classified materials before she went on the air that morning. And it just fuels the perception that I have that she's far better for the administration as a political operative than she is as a secretary of state."

In other words totally qualified just not for this specific job. They dont have an issue with HER they just dont want her as Secretary of State.

So who do they want? well for that we go back to John McCain:

"John Kerry came a whisker of being president of the United States, and that's working in his favor, But I would love to hear him make the case. I don't have anything in his background like this tragedy in Benghazi that would make me really want to carefully examine the whole situation."

And John Barasso:

“If the president wants an easy confirmation hearing and an easy confirmation process, what he would do is nominate John Kerry – who is eminently qualified to be Secretary of State – and I believe he would sail thorough in the nominating process,”

And Susan Collins: “I think John Kerry would be an excellent appointment and would easily be confirmed by his colleagues,”

So what's with all the John Kerry love? well first there is the fact that Kerry IS unquestionably qualified to be Secretary of State....but there is more to it then that as well. (remember Scott Brown still has to get connected to this).

Susan Rice is already a cabinet level official in her current role as UN Ambassador (although that position is only cabinet level under Democrats not Republicans) so moving her to Sec. of State doesnt really shake up much of any other part of the government.

John Kerry meanwhile is a Senator, and not just any senator, he's a Senator from Massachusetts. Now the other Senator from Mass was Scott Brown but is soon to be Elizabeth Warren.

Scott Brown for those who dont know was the "darling" of the tea party movement, the first tea partier to be elected to congress in 2009 when he won a special election to kill the late Ted Kennedy's seat and finish the two years left in his term. So if nothing else Senator Brown has very high symbolic status to the current republican establishment (given his tea party roots). Add to that that Brown was the first republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972 and you can see why they desperately wanted to hold on to the guy. But as you might have gathered he lost to Elizabeth Warren in the last election.

But heres the glue that pulls this whole thing together. He barely lost. he lost by about 6%, which at least for a republican in Massachusetts is an exceptionally tight race. And Warren was something of a celebrity candidate, she created the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was expected to head it. Except she was the "victim" the last time the republicans tried to stonewall a nomination, so she withdrew and used her through the roof profile and name recognition to beat Brown. And there is a very good argument that shes the only democrat who could have done so. And now shes in the Senate.

And this gets up back to John Kerry. If he becomes the Secretary of State he has to vacate his senate seat.

Which Scott Brown can then run for and likely win. Which means the GOP gets their "golden boy" back, undoes one of the highest profile defeats they took in the last election and gets a fairly right wing popular republican, who will be hard to dislodge again in what should be a solidly democratic seat.

All they got to do to have that happen is make Susan Rice impossible to nominate, and "force" the president to go with the only other qualified choice... John Kerry.

Oh and one last thing, just to make sure all the pieces fit (so to speak), in his failed reelection attempt Scott Brown only allowed 3 republicans to campaign for him, Ayotte, Collins and McCain....the 3 people leading the charge against Rice.

So yea it turns out, I was wrong, McCain's not cranky and this has nothing at all to do with Susan Rice, shes just collateral damage in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And the winner of the craziest excuse of the week is......

....Stuart Stevens, chief strategist for Romney's campaign, trying to explain why Romney lost and why he was actually a great candidate. He wrote an op-ed piece this week, that tries to explain why Romney lost (in theory at least thats the idea)....and proves the real reason Romney lost is divorce from reality.

For starters "Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate."

Yes, the Democratic voters have been so disloyal the Dem's have only won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.

"I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. "

Yep remember when all the DC insiders thought Ron Paul and Rick Santorum had legitimate shots at becoming president? or Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann? Yea me either. I do remember them thinking though that those guys might win the nomination.......which they also thought about Donald Trump. But the reason they though those guys would win wasnt that they liked them more, its that your candidate couldnt seem to connect with voters.

It fact the voters liked him so much, he lost the presidential race getting only 47% of the vote....and actually the least popular candidate either party has run since we started polling on that.....

"What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney."

Cause you know, that whole running for president in 2008 thing doesnt cout. And that whole being governor of a state thing? never happened right? To be fair I dont disagree that it was Romney and not your campaign that fueled your limited success....mostly cause your campaign was incompetent.

"He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency. In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did."

Wait so, Mitt Romney isnt a republican? cause that seems to be what your statement is implying. Either that or you mean Romney raised more money for his campaign then the RNC raised for his campaign. Which you know is kinda THE WAY THAT ALWAYS WORKS OUT for both sides in presidential elections. But then again, thanks for the example of how clearly you and the campaign staff are incompetent idiots.

"He trounced Barack Obama in debate."

Note the sentence here "debate" singular. not "debates" plural.....so yea apparently we just had the one. Then again if my candidate got fact checked on live TV and humiliated I wouldn't want to bring it up either. And I'll even concede the 3rd "debate" wasnt a debate, it was Barack Obama explaining his foreign policy and Mitt Romney telling us how much he liked it and I think you have to have differences to have a debate.

"He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics."

And he lost. Which I guess means people didnt like the moral case for conservative economics.....

"When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. "

And he lost. Specifically on Medicare/Social Security he lost by 8% according to exit polls. Or in other words the "political intelligentsia" was right.

"The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same."

White senors. He lost Black 93 to 6% and Latino Senors 65-35%....but I guess those are just 47%er's who dont count right?

"On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters."

Damn it, if it wasnt for the 47% of moochers in this country we could have president Romeny (although I must admit the point is in fact true. However since people making 50,000+ a year is also 60% of the electorate, it was pretty narrow wins)

"While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift."

However Romney lost minority voters and white women by much more then McCain. But hey congrats on getting a whiter male party. GO DIVERSITY!!!! By the way, I should also mention that this time Whites were only 29% of the electorate, as opposed to McCain when it was 31%.... won even though you won a higher % of them, there are actually less of them.

"Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain."

But you still lost. But hey I guess not getting beat as badly as the other guy is a win....the same way being the skinniest kid at fat camp is a win...he's still fat and you still lost.

"The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins."

Actually this is by far the truest statement here. Because again your campaign WAS INCOMPETENT. You nicknamed your own candidate Etch a Sketch, you sent him into that second debate without the actual facts behind his Libya attack, you NEVER actually figured out an answer to his taxes or to economic plan. You have your candidate take a 2 week vacation right after the convention....ect.

"But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire."

I dont feel like running the numbers so I'll assume your right on the electoral vote....that said the electoral vote doesnt actually mean you had majority support if you it....as W or Clinton, neither of them got above 50% at least once.

So it doesnt actually mean your ideas are that close to being accepted by even half the country.

Also how is it when Bush beat Kerry everyone (including you) called it a landslide yet when Obama thumped you by more then that (both in popular and electoral vote) you "lost fairly closely?" Just wondering.

"In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America."

True.... unfortunately for you millions more weren't captured. And by the way, Mr. Stevens you do know you lost right? I mean this is the 3rd of 4th time your point can be defeated by "but you lost". I'm starting to get the impressing you wrote this BEFORE the election when you were expecting a win, they made a couple of tweaks after the fact.

"He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics."

Ok yea I got 3 words for you here: "Forty Seven Percent" I dont really think thats graceful. And actually I got 7 more "I like being able to fire people" I dont think thats good humor....Oh and canceling your staff's campaign credit cards in the middle of his concession speech? that was neither

"There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory."

You know, maybe its just me, but since as you yourself point out you totally owned the white vote and still got your ass kicked I dont think being dependent on minorities is a problem. And the same was basically true for McCain, so its not a new thing.

"But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?"

Oddly enough, your campaign outspend his $1.054 BILLION to $947.7 million. Now admittedly that's really close, but its not at all like he spend you under the table like your implying. So yea EXCUSE FAIL.

"Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right."

General rule here: Not if your losing, that usually means your doing something wrong. And you lost the presidential race, the senate and got less total votes in the house even if you kept a majority.

"When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day."

Carried the day? again YOU LOST! Are you sure you didnt write this before the election?

"On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future."

Wait didnt you just say Romney carried the day? and your saying it wasnt enough? OUCH CONTRADICTIONS GIVE ME HEADACHE. (although I think you've proven my case you totally wrote this before the election.....)

So yea for pointing out that Mitt Romney did exactly what he needed to do, won white and middle class voters, and "carried the day" while apparently totally unable to explain how you can do exactly what you need to do to win and lose.....Stewart Stevens your this weeks winner of craziest statement of the week.....and if you'll just sign on the dotted line we can formalize your divorce with reality.

(and by the way, I'd link to the original article but I quoted every single line of it, in order, just with my interjections so I think that would be redundant)

Outreach? we dont need no stinking outreach

So about the only thing everyone can agree on coming out of the 2012 elections is that the GOP got thumped by any and all groups that were not old white men. Now to be fair they cant agree what to do about it. One school of thought it change the message to appeal to minorities. Another school of though is change the messenger, that is get someone more female and/or brown to say exactly what the old white guys have been saying. And then their is the school of thought that seems to have taken hold in the house of Representatives, put your head in the sand and do nothing.

At least I assume thats the explanation for this:  

Thats a picture of the NEW committee chairmen for the upcoming congress. And yes that is basically a group of middle aged and old white dicks :P. Seriously though, I mean I get not having any minorities since you cant appoint what you dont have (yea by the way, might I suggest the fact that in the house at least you have no minorities is the first sign you've got a problem?). But still about 10% of your caucus is female....now I admit thats only 20 people, but damn guys (emphasis on guys). Look I'm sure if you asked nicely Mitt Romney would have let you borrow some of his binders full of women and you could have found a qualified candidate out of there. And lets be honest, given that the outgoing congress has 24 female GOP congresswomen, you clearly need the binders, cause you kinda went in the wrong direction on that whole "diversity" thing.

I mean remember on the other side of the aisle, this is the first congress in history where the democratic congress is majority minority, and as a result is expected to have at least 9 (of 19) if not more minorities in the "ranking member" position (the closest equivalent for chairman for the minority)  I mean again outreach fail GOP.

And guys heres the thing, you all have the perfect excuse to add a woman or two. Unlike the democrats your party decided to impose term limits on your committee chairmanships (and ranking membership's when your in the minority) specifically to ensure new "blood" always had a chance to run the committees, have their voices heard and gain power and influence and what have you. So you had a built in excuse to maybe not select the most senior members for some committee's and actually appoint a woman or two.    

And you know what I understand that some of the women you lost in the last election were some of your more senior, and that the majority of the women left (12) are in their first of second terms. And even then of the 8 left, two of them, Michelle Bachmann and Virginia Foxx are bat-shit crazy. But come on that still leaves you 6 qualified women.

In fact one of them is Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who is already the highest ranking republican woman from either house in congress right now, and was a possible VP pick (according to rumor) in the last election. Your telling me you werent smart enough to put her as chair for a committee? I mean I get the one major committee she was on didnt have an opening, but lets be honest you can put anyone anywhere you like whenever you like (given that shes been on and off other committees in the past, although never as chair)

Or what about Jo Ann Emerson and Kay Granger? they have both been in congress since the 90's.....

I mean look fairly or not part of politics is "show" and "presentation" which means you gotta know enough to put at least one women out there somewhere, and given that you've got 3 (at least) who are also legitimately qualified, I mean guys OUTREACH.

I mean lets not forget this picture either:  

Remember that? thats the picture from last year that sparked the "War on Women". That's a picture of a House hearing on Contraception (run by the Republicans), and this picture was pretty rounded blasted given that every single person at the table to testify at the hearing were men. Now yes I admit this got somewhat overshadowed by the whole Shandra Fluke slut controversy. She by the way was woman who the republicans refused to let testify at this hearing, and then Rush Limbaugh spend 3 days calling her a slut.

Now there's a lesson in optics here for the republican's I know you all (republicans) remember this picture and you all remember the ass whipping you took from the resulting war on women. Why? because people could point at a picture and go "dudes? WTF? where are the women?" yet you decided that, hey, against the most diverse Democratic House Caucus in history lets do it again...and lose the one black guy.

Oh and heres the thing, the narrative associated with the contraception hearing picture isnt technically true. See the 6 people sitting directly behind the group at the table? yea they were testifying in the afternoon, and that group includes 2 women. So it was only the morning group that had 0 women. Now I admit a 2:9 ratio is still fucking horrible, but it wasnt quite as bad as the GOP took flack for. THAT simple fact alone should have taught them to NEVER EVER get caught with an all male group again (let alone an all male white group).

But I guessed the stuck their heads in the sand and missed the memo....either that or they dont think we can see them......

And the winner for pathetic news story of the week: Fox "News"

So on the Fox Fiction Network....err the Fox News Network yesterday there was a very interesting and unique interview. See it only lasted 90 seconds. (thats it above, and I suggest you watch it, introduction has been cut off but otherwise thats the whole video).

Now clearly the guest here (Tom Rich) was NOT here to be friendly to FOX. But what makes this especially interesting is not actually what happened on camera, but what happened afterwords.

Michael Clemente, executive vp, & news editorial at FNC, is claiming that after the interview Mr Rich Applogized. He says: “When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself -- and his book, He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."

Rich for his part is denying the apology claiming "Clemente is making it up, and it is sloppy of Hollywood Reporter [who broke Clemente's comments]to not ask him for specifics — what exactly am I alleged to have said? — and also to seek a response from me. Why are they [FOX] doing this? Because their MO is that when the facts aren’t on their side, they attack the person.”

Which is kinda funny since you know Rich DIDNT ignore the question, either question that he was asked.
Question was, Why do you think McCain is backing down on his objection to Susan Rice as Sec of State over Libya, Rich said in short " because the story is mostly hype by your network " followed by "how to you call it hype"? replied with "well how many people have died in this much more serious problem?...the fact you dont know proves my point"

But hey, lets be honest, Mr. Rice went on FOX and told the truth as he sees it and not as the network wants it to be seen, and that's an unpardonable sin.

And clearly the best thing to do when a guest has a the balls to argue with the corporate line is to lie and say he apologized.

But even this misses the larger problem here on FOX news....how do you book a guest for a show and actually not know what he's going to talk about/what his opinion is on the question your gonna ask him? that's just sloppy work......well unless you believe Mr. Rich (which I do) who claims FOX news knew the comment was coming the whole time. See again quoting Mr Rich, "I had told the producer before I went on that I thought the Benghazi story had been hyped. So it should have been no surprise when I said it and the anchor pushed back that I defended my view,” He also mentioned that after the fact “One staff person said she thought I had been rude. My feeling was that they asked my opinion and I gave it.”

So FOX actually should have known the question was coming, still had the guy on the air and then threw a hissy fit about the guy actually saying what he told them he would say. And then apparently their employees are offended the guy actually had the balls to speak his opinion, and apparently they are so offended and shocked that they felt the need to fake an apology for the guy.

So yea, welcome to FOX news, where we are so thinned skinned and so worried our viewers might hear opposing opinions to our own we will claim you apologized for not agreeing with us, so as to not pop the bubble our viewers live in.

On the upside, if they feel the need to be this petty and this freaked out about a different opinion, I think we can all agree they cant be considered a news station anymore (since you know that occasionally involved showing different opinions) and at least now even they are willing to admit it.

That and well as a liberal, I find fox acting this pathetic fucking hilarious.

And actually lets be honest, the whole damn story is hilarious. either FOX doesnt have competent producers to check their guests out, or the producers cant communicate with the rest of the organization. And in either case their failure at one or the other, OR fox's absolute insistence in not hearing any fact or opinion they dont like has now caused a days worth of news stories.

Which I guess means I'm gonna have to declare this whole post interview sequence of events the most pathetic story of the week.

Hypocrisy thy most recent name is DesJarlais.

Ok I'll start by answering the first question your thinking right now "Who the hell is DesJarlais?" DesJarlais is Scott DesJarlais, Republican congressman and currently caught up in an unfolding scandal. Specifically DesJarlais who is to use his own words from his 2010 campaign website, "pro-gun, pro-life and pro-marriage and PROUD OF IT" may not be as pro two of those things as he claimed.  (for the record the fact that Petraeus was not an elected official is the reason I'm using DesJarlais as the example even though the Petraeus story got more coverage,  DesJarlais helps me make my case better)

According to the scandal while married to his first wife, DesJarlais, then a doctor screwed pretty much anything he could, including at least one patient who got pregnant. So DesJarlais encouraged her to get an abortion to "save his marriage", and unrelated supported his first wife in getting two abortions.  And of course despite having just won reelection last week people are calling for him to resign, which he is refusing.

Now I want to get a few things out of the way real quickly. First I actually support DesJarlais' refusal to resign, I honestly dont think he should. I'm pro choice so I cant really go after him on the abortion. And to be honest dont really think the cheating thing is a dis-qualifier either. I mean in every other walk of life people cheat and then we as a society basically assume they can still be successful actors, musicians, athletes, business people ect.  Now to be clear this doesnt mean I condone cheating, anyone one who knows how my relationship with my college girlfriend ended can vouch for that. But the thing is like in everything else, personally being a "gutter slut" doesnt become your only defining characteristic.

And since the DesJarlais scandal first broke before the election I have to assume he's doing something right (at least as far as his voters are concerned, and they are all that matter) since he got reelected. So my point in bringing him up is not that I think he's a gutter slut who needs to resign. Its more that I believe he is the most recent example of the GOP's love of "self inflicted gun shot wounds".

What do these names all have in common?  DesJarlais, Petraeus, Cain, Weiner, Massa, Pickering, Ensign, Vitter, Craig, Foley, Clinton, Thurman, Hyde, Gingrich, Edwards, Livingston, Schwarzenegger, Paladino, Spitzer, and Sanford? They are all the names of people involved in high profile sex scandals in the last 14 years. (a line I'm drawing quite intentionally)

Now you know what else is shocking about that list? well Massa, Spitzer, Edwards, Clinton and Weiner are the only Democrats (Petraeus is actually a registered republican).  Of that list, Weiner and Massa's "sex scandals" didnt actually involve any sex. So really that leaves Clinton, Edwards and Weiner.

Which means at first glance cheating appears to be a "republican problem" since they have 15 names up there to the democrats 3. But historically thats not true, LBJ, FDR and JKF are famous for basically nailing anything that moved, and they are all democrats. (and to be fair Enisenhower was also known to have affairs and is a republican). And hell one of the first major sex scandals in this country involved Alexander Hamilton and the famous scandal (although not a huge deal at the time) is Thomas Jefferson's. But again as common as affairs were and always have been, until recently no one really gave a damn unless something made the affair extra special (IE payoff's, murders, using political power to punish/reward cuckhold so he wont catch on ect)

So why the 5:1 discrepancy against Republican's these days? well if you are a republican your probably screaming  "MEDIA BIAS" and thrilled I finally proved it. Except I dont think that covers it.

Remember that 14 year's line I drew? well see just a few weeks short of 14 years ago President Bill Clinton
was impeached, unofficially for having an affair.

Now check this out: At the time of the impeachment the Speaker of the House was named Gingrich, who would resign, and turn the Speakership over to Livingston who had to resign before taking it. Livingstons seat would go to Vitter (although not the speakership) during the proceedings. the Chief Prosecutor was named Hyde. The impeachment was voted on by Sanford, Vitter  Pickering and Foley (as well as Reps LaTourette, Barr, Burton and Helen Chenoweth-Hage all of whom would have minor sex scandals for adultery in their own careers). Then in the Senate found Guilty by Craig and Thurman, and then candidate for Senate Ensign had just run his campaign in part calling for the Clinton Impeachment.

And yes in case you didnt notice, most of those names are the same ones listed above. And again to be fair I dont think they were "targeted" for revenge because of what they did to Clinton, I do however think they created the problem (or a good part of it)

I mean go back to DesJarlais' statement from the beginning about how he's "pro-gun, pro-life and pro-marriage and PROUD OF IT", when quite clearly he's not. In fact while I mostly focused on the "pro marriage" side above (or at least the adultery aspect, cause divorce would take forever), the list of hypocrites on the "pro life" side is pretty long as well (Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney might likely appear on this one as well, given their support for their wife having one(Santorum) or son's surrogate agreement that allowed for it for any reason(Romney)).

But see here the thing ever since they more or less made up idea they were the "family values" party in order to impeach Clinton, republican candidates HAVE to say that kind of shit to get elected. Yet none of them are any more likely to practice actual family values then any given democrat. ALL they managed to do was put a spot light on themselves so that every time they get caught its a massive scandal and every time Dem's get caught no one cares (take for example David Wu who resigned last year after a sex scandal and no one noticed) since you know Dem's dont claim they dont do that kinda thing. In fact Dem's even manage to steal "credit" every time a Republican gets in trouble they hit the TV's and talk up all the people they have who have awesome family lives (these days they like to use the Obama's as an example)

And when you add in the "pro rape caucus" of the 10 defeated GOP candidates in the last election who said stupid things about rape and abortion that likely a lot of them dont believe, in order to attempt to get elected, you gotta wonder when is the GOP gonna wake up? Cause really, the whole family values thing? kinda like they built a barrel, gave the world a gun and then climbed into said barrel.

Cause clearly being the "party of family values" may sound great and admirable on paper, but lets be honest, in reality trying and failing to live up to that label everyday has done a whole lot of harm to the the republican party and possibly even to the country as a whole (given the laser focus across the board on sex scandals of all kinds since 98/Clinton). Republicans dont get elected because of it and the country as a whole gets distracted and misses real news stories because the media's focus on it.  Yet to this day the "HEY LOOK AT OUR FAMILY VALUES" is still massively pushed as far as it can go by the GOP.

I guess maybe masochism is a family value? cause otherwise I really dont see at all how this helps them appeal to anyone outside their base (who will always vote for them anyways).

"President for the day", why Barack Obama might not actually be the next President

So if I asked you who the 12th president of the United States was you would tell me Zachary Taylor, even if you happened to be a presidential historian. But see heres the problem, technically you'd be wrong.

In the same vein if I asked you if Obama will be the next person sworn in as president because he won the election, and we will assume the electoral college vote, you would tell me yes. And again technically no, not necessarily.

See January 20th is inauguration day according to the US Constitution, but if you notice all the tickets being sold and all the TV time put aside this January are for the 21st. Now why is that? well see January 20th is a Sunday and traditionally Americans don't do jack shit on Sunday and that includes the inauguration of the president.

The problem is the current Presidential term ends January 19th at 11:59pm, no matter what. So while Barack Obama will be president on the 19th, and on the 21st, so what will happen on the 20th?

Well this isnt the first time, or even the second time that has happened, either with the current inauguration date (Jan 20th) or the original inauguration date of March 4th. So as a country we've been through this before (7 times) and we've developed two different options.

The first option is the one used by Monroe, Hayes, Wilson, Eisenhower, and Reagan, and can be called the boring option (and to be honest the one Obama is probably gonna go with): The Constitution ONLY requires the oath be administered on the 20th, there is no requirement of any of the usual trappings. So on Sunday January 20th, someone (likely Chief Justice Roberts, although it doesnt have to be) will swear in Barack Obama in some backroom in the White House, then the next day they will go through the whole song and dance, with all the pomp and circumstance, publicly in the televised inauguration ceremony.

Basically think of it like this: your wedding day may or may not be the day you get married. For most people I'm sure it is, but everyone knows you gotta get a state marriage license to get married, and maybe you filled that out the night before or after your wedding. Which means thats the day you were officially married. But the thing is no one (including you) cares and everyone just pretends your wedding day was. That's basically all that's happening here. And like I said its fairly dull and boring (even if infinitely more likely), so lets move on to option 2.

The second option has only been used once, by the aforementioned Zachary Taylor. Taylor just flat out refused to take any oath of office on a Sunday, so they couldnt actually swear him in. His Vice President future president Millard Fillmore took the same hard line and refused to be sworn in.

Which was kinda a problem since the Constitution DEMANDS we have a president, so they just took the next guy in line and claimed he was President. See at the time, the laws of Presidential Secession made the "President pro tempore of the Senate" the acting Vice President whenever the Vice President was unavailable and made the Vice President the acting President when the president was unavailable. So Fillmore's refusal elevated the current "President pro tempore of the Senate" David Atchison to the Vice Presidency and the refusal of Talyor to take his oath elevated the Vice President (which was now Atchison) to the acting President. Now of course Atchison was fired the next day as Taylor and Fillmore were now willing to take their oaths. But still for one day, March 4th 1849 David Atchison could have claimed he was the President. In fact his tombstone bears the inscription "President of the United States for one day: Sunday March 4th 1849".  Now it should be noted in fairness there was a small problem, at the time Congresses term also expired and was renewed with the presidency/vice presidency. And in order to officially be sworn in as "President pro tempore of the Senate", you have to be sworn in, which he hadnt been Now Atchison was the "President pro tempore of the Senate"  of the outgoing congress as well, so they just pretended he had been resworn, but technically speaking he was ineligible to be "President pro tempore of the Senate"  and therefore the VP or President....and the same situation would be true for everyone else in the line of Succession. So its also fair to say, that for one day we just didnt have a President.

Now the second half of that would be avoided under current US law. The 20th amendment moved the inauguration dates for the President and VP from March 4th back to January 20th but also moved the inauguration dates of the congress from March 4th back to January 3rd. Which means by the presidential inauguration members of congress will be sworn in.

So if we pretend Obama will follow in Taylor's example, who would be president the day of January 20th?
Well turns out thats a bit more complicated now. See we've also changed the line of Succession. The new number 2 in that line would be the Speaker of the House, which presumably would be John Boehner, although doesnt have to be since he has to stand for reelection to that position January 3rd.

So yes it is hypotheically possible that John Boehner could be president for a day.

And actually he's not the only one.

See in the few cases (with nixon mostly but others) when the number 2 in line has been from the opposition party he's shown a reluctance to want to take the job even temporarily, and in theory Boehner could take "a pass" which would pass the job to the current President pro tempore, Daniel Inouye, who otherwise would be the "VP for a day"

So yea, it turns out that despite having won the election, it is theoretically possible that Barack Obama wont be the next person to take the oath of office. Now like I've said a few times, he isnt going to go with the second option, simply because why go though all of that if you dont have to?

But heres the insane part, although Obama will likely take the Oath of Office in private on Sunday  its not usually the kind of thing any president stays up for. Even when the actual inauguration ceremony is able to be held on the 20th its held late in the day. Which means there will be at least 12 hours between the expiration of one term and the official beginning of the next. Which also means that John Boehner will actually be the acting president (just as Nancy Pelosi was before him or Denis Hastert and Newt Gingrich were before her) for several hours.  Granted no one is gonna care, but still its trivia you can use to amaze and wow your friends (or well more likely get an eye roll and called a nerd).

The Men who WONT be President.

UPDATED 11/25/12 at 5:34PM accidentally reverted to draft and then republished unchanged excpet for minor punctuation changes. Sorry about that

So I dont know if you noticed, but the 2016 presidential race is underway....or at least the media speculation about the race is underway. To that end your already hearing names tossed around as candidates for both parties in 4 years. On one side youve got Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Jindal and Bush. The other; Cuomo, O'Malley, Clinton and Biden. And over the next two years (Until the race actually starts) your going hear these 8 names  tossed around as political commentators who want you to think they know something with a "years ahead of time prediction" as to who the next president will be in what a ploy to justify their paychecks and self professed importance in the next couple of years.

And you know what, I could do that too. But I'm not going to because it would basically be bullshit I was making up. Instead I'm going to talk about the two names on that list that will likely never ever be president while also dispelling one of the most prevalent political myths of our time (not to mention a personal pet peeve :P).

So which of those 8 names do I believe least likely to ever be president? Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. Why them? simple, both of them either are or ran for Vice President, and despite what the media wants you to think (mostly so they can chew up airtime by discussing the possibilities) being Vice President or even worse the losing VP candidate pretty much assures your political career is over.

Now I know if your conservative or my age or older your probably already screaming "George Bush" or "Pappy Bush" or "Bush senior" at your computer or iPhone as proof that yes the VP can become president.

And yea I admit it happens. In fact 14 out of 44 Presidents have been Vice President. And at first glance the list seems really impressive. Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, T Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, L Johnson, Nixon, Ford, H. W. Bush.  So it seems like Biden would have a 1 in 3 chance.

BUT....watch what happens when we remove all the Vice Presidents turned Presidents who only became president because their predecessor died in office, was assassinated or resigned. Now the list becomes Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Nixon,  H. W. Bush. So when you look at the VP's who earned their first term via winning an election your down to 5.

BUT...in 1804 congress passed the 12th amendment, which changed the way the Vice President was selected. Prior to 1804 the VP was simply the runner up in the electoral college, meaning if that system was still in place John McCain would be our outgoing VP and Mitt Romney would be our incoming VP. However since 1804 we have used the system of "running mates" that we are a lot more familiar with. This also means to be fair we cant actually count any VP turned president from before 1804 since the system was so radically different. Which means our list is now only Van Buren, Nixon,  H. W. Bush.

BUT...there is another consideration as well. Joe Biden wants [at least according to speculation] to be president immediately after his term as Vice President. Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President, but although Nixon ran after Eisenhower's term he lost to Kennedy. He would become president only after Kennedy's successor, LBJ left office 10 years later. In other words he failed to do what Biden would have to do, so he's off the list.

Which leaves Van Buren, and H.W. Bush as the only two Vice Presidents to become president as soon as their terms were up. And since Van Buren was president in 1837 and Bush was president in 1989 that should give you some idea of how common that is to even happen.

BUT...there is still one more little difference. I dont know if you know this, but Barack Obama is the 44th president. Joe Biden however is the 47th Vice President. See the reason for this is that, historically its not that uncommon to replace the Vice President between terms, in fact at least 9 presidents have had two VP's, FDR had 3. So it more common then the 3 digit "gap" would make it seem, its just we have had several periods in this country were we didnt have a Vice President, if we had a law requiring a VP at all times, the difference in the numbers would be at lot bigger. Why does that matter? well one of those VP's who was added for the second term only was Van Buren. Meaning that he had only been VP for 4 years before he ran, not 8.

Meaning also that the only 8 year VP turned president directly following his VP term in history is George H.W. Bush. So if your Joe Biden you gotta be honest with yourself those are some really really long odds.

And there is something else to consider too, In my opinion the reason VP's have so much trouble getting elected right after their terms end (cause to be a fair a lot of them run, they just lose, in a lot of cases in the primaries) is because even if people like the direction the incumbent party is going, after 8 years they are tired of the same people calling the shots and want fresh faces, even if they keep the same party. Which probably explains why only 3 former VP's since 1804 have actually served anything close to two terms, that being T Roosevelt, Truman and Nixon. But heres the thing, 2 of them came into office on the death of their predecessor. And the last Nixon was elected 10 years after leaving office and also didnt get to finish out his term.

So no vice president in history has ever actually won 2 terms in office on his own right after being VP. So even if he got elected the odd's look really bad for Biden in the long run.

And what about the other name I said would never be president? that of Paul Ryan? he's doubled screwed.

First Paul Ryan is a member of the US House. In our history we have only ever elected one Congressman directly from the House to the presidency, James A. Garfield. To be fair we have also elected one former Congressman who had not held another national office afterwards to the presidency as well, Abe Lincoln.

Now the good news for Mr. Ryan is both men are republicans and both come from the same part of the country he does (Illinois and Ohio respectively compared to Ryan and Wisconsin) so at least his part of the country is open to nominating Congressmen for president. The bad news for Mr. Ryan is Lincoln and Garfield have one other thing in common as well. Both men were assassinated. So that's probably NOT a great precedent for him.

But more on point this is supposed to about why having just been the VP candidate means Paul Ryan will never be president. And that can be summed in in 3 letters; FDR. See FDR is the only failed VP candidate in history to ever win the presidency (although many have won the nomination). And it should be noted their as massive differences between FDR and Ryan (and I dont just mean their politics).

See FDR lost his bid for the VP in 1920 (alongside James Cox, they lost to Warren G Harding) and became president 12 years later in 1932. Now whats notable is what FDR did in those 12 years. To be fair he spend most of them fighting what was most likely Polio, but he recovered by 1928 and ran for governor of New York and won two terms. Now being governor is a much better predictor of being president then pretty much anything else, as 10 presidents had also been governors prior to their elections (11 given that we tend to count Gover Cleveland twice in the presidential numbering since his terms were not sequential) and another 9 who had been governor at some point previously in their careers. Compare that to Ryan, whos got exactly the same job now he had before he lost, and likely would be in pretty much the same spot in 2 years when 2016 gets started.

Which means short of Paul Ryan resigning from the House next year, so that he can run for Governor of Wisconsin and hold it for half a term so he can resign to be President, with that half term basically given over totally to the presidential campaign, he's basically got no chance in hell historically of winning. And lets be honest, how many of you thought of Sarah Palin more then you did FDR when reading the last sentence? yea that could be a problem for Mr. Ryan even if he tries to do that. In fact if history is any indication Mr. Ryan's career is basically over. He might be able to jump to the senate and possibly some day get a cabinet position but the honest truth is most failed VP candidates who held office at the time they lost the race fade out of politics within a decade.

And one other challenge both these men would share....they are catholic, and fairly or not thats a problem. The first and only Catholic President was JFK, which every one knows, but what you probably don't know is the name of the first catholic VICE president......Joe Biden. So thats just another historic hurdle for them both to deal with

Now of course their is a caveat on all of this, history is a horrible predictor of presidential elections, used to be a black man would never win the white house....until Obama. Used to be you could never become president again if you were voted out of office after one term, till Cleveland. Used to be a sitting congressman could never win, until Garfield, ect ect. So its possible either Ryan or Biden could basically make history and win. I just dont think its remotely likely, and it has nothing to do with what either man believes, as much as what either man has done in his life. The two things Americans don't like is more of the same old shit from the same people, that seems to come with an 8 year tolerance, (which is Biden's problem) and a high profile loser who hasnt done anything different since he lost (Ryan's problem).

Now I dont know who either presidential nominee is going to be (my guess is at least one of the nominees names has not been mentioned so far in this rant) but I can pretty much bet you who it wont be. From now on dont believe the myths, being picked for VP or being VP is NOT the "on deck" position for the White House, instead its the "on deck" for fading into obscurity and never being heard from again.                          .

The overdue death of an insane fake political institution

So I have a question, who here knows the name Tim Pawlenty? Anyone? Anyone at all?

If you do, its likely you know him for one of two reasons, you remember the early Republican primaries this year and either you remember the guy who coined the term Obamneycare.....and then wouldnt say it to Mitt Romneys face, or you frequently bring up his name to express regrets that he didnt stay in the race. After all he might have won, and in short has all of Mitt Romney's strengths and none of his weaknesses and compared to some of the other crazies in the race would have had a really good shot at getting the nomination, better then Ron Paul or Newt or Santorum in all likelyhood. he might even have been able to become president, given his [comparatively] social moderate/fiscal conservative record. In fact after leaving the race he went to work for Mitt Romney, leading a lot of republicans to hope he and not Ryan would be the Vice Presidential pick as well, because by that time a lot of them believed (correctly in my opinion) he'd have been a much better candidate.

But the honest truth is, unless your a political junkie like me, you probably never heard of him, and the reason for that is that he dropped out of the race really early, specifically in August 2011, after losing something called the Ames [Iowa] Straw poll. By losing what I really mean is he came in 3rd out of 10, but that only got him 13.6% of the vote leading him to say this (from a larger quote but you'll get the point):

"But obviously that message didn't get the kind of traction or lift that we needed and hoped for coming into and out of the Ames straw poll. We needed to get some lift to continue on and to have a pathway forward. That didn't happen. So I'm announcing this morning on your show that I'm going to be ending my campaign for president"

Now clearly of course if a 3rd place finish means you'll never get traction and need to exit the race, Mitt Romney, the eventually primary winner, and the guy who won the most states, came in first right? No actually try 7th. And the other "big 3" of the republicans? those who actually won states in the primary? Well Newt came in 8th (won the least states) and Santorum came in 4th (second most states). Which means they all did worse then Pawlenty but stuck around. (Ron Paul for the record won 0 states, but picked up several states majority delegates anyways due to the odd nature of the primary system in the GOP...also came in 2nd in the straw poll)

It should be noted too by the way that Rick Perry wasnt in the presidential race at the time of the poll, so was not officially entered, but a as a write-in came in 6th....beating the eventual nominee Mitt Romney. And his comparative success in the poll was a major factor in his entering the race.

But who actually WON the thing? That would be Michelle Bachmann, who was considered and treated as the front runner for several months following her won...well at least until she came in 6th in the Iowa primary and dropped out.

Now look clearly there are other reasons Pawlenty dropped out when other candidates didnt, but still the straw poll was a major part of it. And it's probably true for Perry as well. But still a single event that has the power to cause one candidate to leave, another to enter, and make a frontrunner out of someone who has less change of ever being president then I do, you gotta admit thats power and influence.

And lets be honest you dont amass that kind of power and influence without having a pretty good track record right, so the fact that this year was so far off must have been a fluke right? Not really no. In 2008 the winner of the Straw Poll was Mitt Romney ironically enough, the eventual nominee that year, John McCain came in 10th (of 11). Other previous winners of the poll include Texas senator Phil Gramm and Pat Robertson (yes the wack job on the 700 club).

Now if you look at that list of candidates compared to the fields that years you notice the winners tend to be very very far to the right. And you might also note, except for the first poll in 1980, every year there has been a straw poll (not a Republican incumbent) the democrats have carried Iowa (in fact except for 2004 they have carried in every election since 1980, straw poll or not) And some in the party believe that part of the reason candidates in the republican primary have to go so far to the right is to play for the usually wrong voters in the straw poll. So for people who want a viable competitive republican party (like me, even though I'm a democrat I want at least two strong parties) they tend to be very much against the poll.

In fact in 33 years the straw poll has only predicted the Republican nominee twice ( Dole in 96 and W Bush in 2000) and the president once (Bush 2000). Which means in all honesty I have a better track record of picking presidents (my guesses over my life time have been Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama so I'm at 50% at least), as do several wild animals

In otherwords its track record SUCKS. And actually to let you in on a secret, it's also rigged. What do I mean by that? well in order to attend the fundraising dinner you go to in order to vote in this thing your supposed to pay $30, but the tradition with all the campaigns is that they will pay the fee (and usually the transportation costs) of all of their supporters. So instead of being a "popular" vote, its really just indicative of who has already raised enough money to bus in a ton of people to vote for them.  But since no one wants to admit to that, the candidates still have to appear to move right to pretend to actually play for the votes

but the rigged system explains most of the other reasons Pawlenty dropped out (he was broke after the poll since he spend all his money on the poll), and why both Bachmann and Romney dropped out 5 months after their wins and why the massive losers those years (7th place Romney and 10th place McCain) won the nominations. Generally the winners and dropouts spend way too much money on a vote that is basically wrong and irrelevant, only those who dont give a damn about the poll (like Romney said this time around, or McCain the last time) tend to actually have any real money left afterwards to get anywhere.. 

In otherwords its not really helping anyone....well except the state of Iowa, cause it makes them seem important. See the Iowa straw poll is the first of many state straw polls in the primary (and the only one anyone gives a damn about) so its the first event of any kind that in theory could show the feelings of the electorate to any candidate. Basically its informally the same thing and same justifications used by Iowa for the Iowa caucus...the first actual VOTING event of the primary.(although the caucus has a similarly bad track record, over the same 33 year period the only two times they predicted the nominee were the same two years the straw poll did). So traditionally Iowa politicians love both the caucus and straw poll and fight to keep, and promote both as a way of ensuring Iowa is both importantly politically and that national politicians have a reason to promote Iowa friendly issues.

Or at least thats the way its been until now. See the current Republican Governor of Iowa Terry Branstad is taking a page from the late great pro wrestler Owen Hart and saying in short "“Enough is enough and it's time for a change".

Specifically what Gov Branstad is saying is "I think the straw poll has outlived its usefulness. It has been a great fundraiser for the party but I think its days are over...You saw what happened the last time. I don’t think candidates will spend the time or money to participate in a straw poll if they don’t see any real benefit coming out of it.”

Now to be fair Branstad is taking massive push back from other republicans in his own state, who still crave the attention they get for the straw poll. As an example the head of the RNC in Iowa A.J Spiker said “Gov. Branstad is wrong, and this is not a decision he will make anyway, It is a decision the party and the candidates will make.” adding [totally incorrectly] “There is nothing like it in the country and I am surprised any Iowan would ever talk it down.” And sadly it appears at the moment Spiker speaks for more official republicans in Iowa then Branstad.

But Branstad is a pretty conservative republican (to the point this is likely the only thing he and I will ever agree on), and a high ranking Iowa official, so the fact he is openly opposed to the straw poll is extremely newsworthy. And while I'm sure there will be a 2016 Iowa straw poll Branstad's opposition (and hopefully the opposition of others like him) I believe signals the beginning of the end of the Iowa Straw poll (by 2020 maybe or 2024)

And without the straw poll one of the major publicity reasons for republican nominees to run far right also vanishes, which means they are much more likely to embrace a more mainstream Republican approach and play much more to that group of Republicans. Which in turn will create a stronger and more viable and inclusive republican party. And stronger more inclusive parties are good for the country overall.

So for taking the first steps to kill this worthless, usually wrong, cheap excuse for a publicity play, I'm actually going to have to give my thumbs up of the month to Gov Branstad.

See never let it be said I cant say nice things about Republicans :P.

Turns out supporting the Constitution doesnt mean you have to READ the consistution

So everyone knows Barack Obama is flagrantly violating the US Constitution right? and if you don't just ask the far right, they will be more then happy to explain it to you. You see unlike the rest of the country, the right wing has actually read the Constitution, AND they know the intent of the founders because they did so. This is how they know the founders intended for us to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness above all else, the most common rhetorical example of their constitutional expertise. And yes I know, you think they are wrong, but a little known fact, the Declaration of Independence is actually officially titled "US Constitution: Section -I: The British Menace." and was intended as a prequel to the better known and more "US Constitution".

Well it turns out that utilizing that same constitutional expertise, the right wing has noticed two other major constitutional issues Obama's reelection has brought up:

First, the 2012 election isnt over yet, and Mitt Romney could still win.
How does this work? I mean didnt we just vote the other week? and didnt Obama beat Romney by what ironically appears to be 52% to 47%? Yep. But heres the thing, that doesnt matter worth a damn.

See the thanks to Article II of the US Constitution the popular vote is useless. See the founders figured we would be too stupid to pick the right president, so they designed a system that would actually do it called the electoral college (which of course picked Bush instead of Gore in 2000 even though Gore won the popular vote....glad to see the american people were protected from getting the stupid candidate....). And the electoral college hasn't convened yet. In fact when you thought you were voting for Obama on election day (or Romney, or Jill Stein in my case) you were actually voting for an elector from your state who will vote for a candidate, that in theory reflects your pick in the electoral college next month.

It's worth noting by the way that the electors dont actually have to follow the wishes of the people who voted for them. Notably as an example in 1820, James Monroe won all but 1 electoral vote after an elector named William Plummer said "the hell with the popular vote in my state, I think John Quincy Adams would be a better president" and cast the only opposing electoral vote against Monroe, however the instances of this happening are few and far between, and I dont believe has happened at all in the last century plus, and even when it did never really in a large amount (with the sole exception of 1876, which was a giant ball of "what the fuck?" in terms of elections).

Now you see for most people, this is where any speculation would end. Romney in theory could win, the electoral college might just say "fuck it" and vote for Romney. But doing so would likely destroy the American Election system, so I think we can all agree it's not gonna happen and move on.

Well except for the Constitutional experts over at World Net Daily (the same people who brought you the Birthers), they accept every thing I said above as true, but they noticed something all of the rest of us missed. See according to them the 12th amendment changes the rules of the electoral college (which in fairness it does, as it requires the President and Vice President to be on the same ballot) by requiring a 2/3rd majority of the Electoral College to convince to elect any President. And of course Article II and the 12th amendment both make it clear if the College cant reach a decision the choice for President goes to the US House of Representatives and the Vice President will be chosen by the senate. Now of course given the make up of the Senate that would likely result in Joe Biden remaining Vice President, however the Republican controlled house would of course select Mitt Romney for president.

And all that has to happen is for enough electors to not show up for the convening of the college, and since the republican's did win the majority of the states (even if not the electoral vote) thats easy enough to do.

So BOOM Mitt Romney is president, and its all legal.

So the real question is, how did the rest of us miss this? well see it all revolves around a typo, here verbatim is the 12th amendment

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

now you'll note if you read that, the words "two-thirds" appear only twice: once in describing how many Representatives are needed to vote for President and once in describing how many Senators are needed to vote for Vice President. And note as well there are no restrictions at all in how many electors are needed to convene of the college. And that presumably was a typo. We have to assume the founders would want all the restrictions to apply to anyone picking the president right, clearly that was their intent.

Really a typo is the only option, after all given the credibility of the people who believe the president wasnt born eligible to be president, and only got there due to a 40 year pilot involving both parties, what other choice can there be?

And now the next major pressing constitutional issue: Obama is gonna win reelection in 2016.

To be fair actually this one doesnt seem to have originated with the right wing, instead it draws from the other group of constitutional scholars, the libertarians (specifically Porter Stansberry), its just being pushed by the right wing. Still though they noticed something in the law the rest of us never considered so they should likely at least split the credit. Actually to be honest the right wing should get all the credit, see if you listen to Stansberry's presentation (like I have for the last hour :/ ) you realize something really quickly....its a sales pitch to use his company to invest in oil and gas. So its was never intended to be a political theory, just a ploy to scam right wingers. See out of the hour + of the presentation about 5 minutes are actually about Obama and how hes bad, the rest is all trying to convince you that oil and gas are about to reach unimaginable heights and make a ton of money so buy now.

But the right wing is pushing it for one simple reason, they have been alerted to the idea Obama might win again in 2016. And that is a crisis you need to know about. In short the "theory" is this: Thanks to about 50 different factors all converging at once (none of which have anything to do with Obama) Obama is going to be president in 2015 when this massive historic oil boom happens. And the profits and great economy this generate will cause people to demand he run for reelection in 2016....and maybe 2020. As proof they point to the last time this happened, when the great economics of the 1930's got FDR elected 4 times (um WHAT?).

Now to the normal person there would seem to be a problem in this theory....a problem that should be evident by the 5th word that followed "issue" 3 paragraphs ago: Reelection. See according to most of us there is this thing called the 22nd amendment and it reads:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

So it would appear at first glance that your term limited to two terms (maybe two and a half if you serve 2 years of your predecessors term). But see according to right wing constitutional geniuses have a pretty obvious solution....believe me you'll be kicking yourself's for not seeing this one:

Change the Constitution. DUH!

I mean after all we've done it 27 times already, whats a 28th? and we even have a precedent for using one amendment to repeal another (18th and 21st amendments). So its all good right?

Now if your a moron like me you probably point  to Article I Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution which says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Ex post facto, means "passed after the fact" in other words if your bound by two terms when you enter office, you cant unbind yourself after you get in.

So no matter what Obama does, he would be limited to two terms. So HA I win right? Wrong.

See I forgot the most important thing, the magical thing only the right wing (and select libertarians) can see, the "founders intent" and see the thing is the 22nd amendment was passed in 1947. And clearly I'm not a historian (since I thought the 1930's were a Great Depression and not a time of massive economic growth, so what do I know?) so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure all the founders were dead by then. Which means they clearly had nothing to do with the 22nd amendment. And if the founders had intended term limits they would have done it when they were alive.

Which means terms limits arnt actually law, so Obama can violate them. Which means we need to fear a 3rd or 4th or dare I say it 5th Obama term in the future. Which is why we must boycott the electoral college so that we can make Mitt Romney the president now, before the Second Obama Term happens.

Arnt you glad we have such consistutional scholars on the right wing? looking out for us and our great country and making sure we stay focused on the important and relevant problems in the world? I know I am.