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.