Mitt Romney is wearing the Emperor's New Cloths.
Like Rudy he is a blue state Republican trying to win over the red state heartland. Doing so his song has changed more times than an ex-boyfriends mix tape.
Though I have to admire his pluck when criticized by Sam Brownback about his pro-choice record he retorted "I am tired of being criticized by people who have been pro-life longer than I have". However, the man is a goon who has been campaigning and fund raising so much he has no idea what the issues are or where he has and will stand on them. It is a sort of incompetence that would make me forget about the guy.
But you can't ignore him. He is beating the crap out of everyone in Iowa and is beating Guiliani by 4 points in New Hampshire. This guy very well might win the nomination. Damn.
The Massachusets Democratic Party has started the site Romney Facts which documents his changes. Not on small issues ether. From all right to gay marriage, to against it. From pro-choice to pro-life. These aren't from documents from Mitt's wild and crazy college days. No, the change happens in the same year, sometimes the same day in the case of gun control. It is an amusing site to look through.
This is nothing to say of the man who believes the use of contraception is tantamount to abortion and that a morning after pill is the very same as abortion. I wonder if he passed high school biology or if he just got the Cliff Notes bible?
On a side note, this video makes me so happy I could cry
James's Journal
My Podcast Link
09/05/2007 15:20 #40949
Massachusets other Fliip-FlopperCategory: politics
09/04/2007 10:18 #40925
Super Size me... WITH WHISKEY!Howdy,
This journal has nothing personal in it. It is a single youtube video that I enjoyed briefly while here at work.
enjoy your tuesday, chumps
This journal has nothing personal in it. It is a single youtube video that I enjoyed briefly while here at work.
enjoy your tuesday, chumps
fellyconnelly - 09/04/07 20:11
i think i know that guy.
i think i know that guy.
09/03/2007 16:37 #40917
From the ironic fileCategory: queer
A school district in Marlton, New Jersey banned a video to help teach diversity.
First, if you don't use your own community to discus diversity and instead look to a video to do it for you... well, you kind of missed the whole point. You might as well be talking about cyborg diversity in Renaissance Flanders.
Well, the video itself was dull enough. It was designed for elementary school kids to teach them about many different sorts of families: bio moms and dads, single parents, step parents, foster parents, and the one that launched a thousand ignorant ships: a same-sex couple.
When I said the video was dull enough, I should have said it was innocuous. It shouldn't have riled anyone up. No single mother took a swig of malt liquor and proclaimed "I am so glad my husband had an affair with a hooker and left me and the kids for dead." No foster parent took precious-moments Christian children and circumcised the girls and threw them into burkas.
"When does Evesham Township or any school have a right to show to my grandchildren something I believe to be morally wrong," asked one woman.
Well, if one considers the fact that same-sex couples merely exist morally wrong... but this is silly. As if the very fact that kids saw a same-sex couple carried with it a seal of approval on homosexuality itself.
Furthermore, what if I find math to be morally wrong? The onus for morality education is thrust on the schools when it serves tawdry little purposes and often flies in the face or reason and research. New Jersey has civil unions and certainly has same-sex parents recognized by law. And yet, they have to go! Abstinence education has never worked and is more dangerous than reasonable education, as documented by decades worth of research. Forget about our children's safety, it has to go!
And surly, when the school district voted to can the video 7-1 it was not out of any real concern that the video would turn New Jersey's youth into drug-addled sodomites, but because of fear of a law suit. One that the district would win but couldn't afford to fight. Our schools are held hostage.
First, if you don't use your own community to discus diversity and instead look to a video to do it for you... well, you kind of missed the whole point. You might as well be talking about cyborg diversity in Renaissance Flanders.
Well, the video itself was dull enough. It was designed for elementary school kids to teach them about many different sorts of families: bio moms and dads, single parents, step parents, foster parents, and the one that launched a thousand ignorant ships: a same-sex couple.
When I said the video was dull enough, I should have said it was innocuous. It shouldn't have riled anyone up. No single mother took a swig of malt liquor and proclaimed "I am so glad my husband had an affair with a hooker and left me and the kids for dead." No foster parent took precious-moments Christian children and circumcised the girls and threw them into burkas.
"When does Evesham Township or any school have a right to show to my grandchildren something I believe to be morally wrong," asked one woman.
Well, if one considers the fact that same-sex couples merely exist morally wrong... but this is silly. As if the very fact that kids saw a same-sex couple carried with it a seal of approval on homosexuality itself.
Furthermore, what if I find math to be morally wrong? The onus for morality education is thrust on the schools when it serves tawdry little purposes and often flies in the face or reason and research. New Jersey has civil unions and certainly has same-sex parents recognized by law. And yet, they have to go! Abstinence education has never worked and is more dangerous than reasonable education, as documented by decades worth of research. Forget about our children's safety, it has to go!
And surly, when the school district voted to can the video 7-1 it was not out of any real concern that the video would turn New Jersey's youth into drug-addled sodomites, but because of fear of a law suit. One that the district would win but couldn't afford to fight. Our schools are held hostage.
metalpeter - 09/04/07 20:00
I do think that it is good for kids to know that there are different kinds of families. But from the aspect of them selves feeling like there type of family is ok (again I don't think this is the schools place to try and teach that). I have to say though that I'm not sure if a kid gets it or not. But showing to men or two women as parents and saying that is ok is also saying indirectly that homosexuality is ok. Because they wouldn't be together unless they where gay. The same thing could be said about single fathers or mothers that it says that divorce is fine. The reason it says this is that the film endorses single parents (I assume). So even though the film doesn't come out right and say that these ideas is ok it does imply that they are. I think that people should try to treat everyone as equals. But I still don't think a public school should teach that directly.
I do think that it is good for kids to know that there are different kinds of families. But from the aspect of them selves feeling like there type of family is ok (again I don't think this is the schools place to try and teach that). I have to say though that I'm not sure if a kid gets it or not. But showing to men or two women as parents and saying that is ok is also saying indirectly that homosexuality is ok. Because they wouldn't be together unless they where gay. The same thing could be said about single fathers or mothers that it says that divorce is fine. The reason it says this is that the film endorses single parents (I assume). So even though the film doesn't come out right and say that these ideas is ok it does imply that they are. I think that people should try to treat everyone as equals. But I still don't think a public school should teach that directly.
james - 09/03/07 21:04
Jason: It is third grade. It is very fluffy and things like diversity are their subject matter. That is of course if the high-stakes-testing crowd gets in any deeper despite tons of research...
Also, what is the state imposing? The state sets a diversity curriculum standard but the individual district, school, or teacher chose the video.
Further, if homo-hating parents want to indoctrinate their own children, fine, that is what home is for. Ignorance like this has no place in a classroom. You can't hold a school hostage because a few Ludites can't take responsibility for morality education for themselves.
Jason: It is third grade. It is very fluffy and things like diversity are their subject matter. That is of course if the high-stakes-testing crowd gets in any deeper despite tons of research...
Also, what is the state imposing? The state sets a diversity curriculum standard but the individual district, school, or teacher chose the video.
Further, if homo-hating parents want to indoctrinate their own children, fine, that is what home is for. Ignorance like this has no place in a classroom. You can't hold a school hostage because a few Ludites can't take responsibility for morality education for themselves.
jason - 09/03/07 20:54
Damn. I will off a light touch on this one. Those kids had better be to a person aces in every single academic subject if they have time to get into this kind of thing. I am 1000% (no typo) against the state imposing itself in this way, giving the finger to parents, even if the cause is as innocuous as this.
It just doesn't work, and it isn't the school's responsibility to do this, as is evidenced by this scenario, and it will never work. The homo hating parents, and even the ones that aren't blatantly anti-gay are going to take control of their own families regardless of the social engineering the school tries and will instill their own family "values", whatever that means anymore.
Damn. I will off a light touch on this one. Those kids had better be to a person aces in every single academic subject if they have time to get into this kind of thing. I am 1000% (no typo) against the state imposing itself in this way, giving the finger to parents, even if the cause is as innocuous as this.
It just doesn't work, and it isn't the school's responsibility to do this, as is evidenced by this scenario, and it will never work. The homo hating parents, and even the ones that aren't blatantly anti-gay are going to take control of their own families regardless of the social engineering the school tries and will instill their own family "values", whatever that means anymore.
james - 09/03/07 20:38
Peter: Clergy are not compelled to perform any sort of union unless their church dictates makes them. So, gay marriage is all about civil marriage and not religious marriage.
The video did not make a moral judgment on sexuality. It just pointed out the realities of their community. Namely, that families come in all shapes and sizes. No matter what you think of divorce, sex before marriage, homosexuality, or any number of possible issues this video could raise there was nothing inherently amoral in the video... with the exception of the stripper doing a pole dance. ^_~
Peter: Clergy are not compelled to perform any sort of union unless their church dictates makes them. So, gay marriage is all about civil marriage and not religious marriage.
The video did not make a moral judgment on sexuality. It just pointed out the realities of their community. Namely, that families come in all shapes and sizes. No matter what you think of divorce, sex before marriage, homosexuality, or any number of possible issues this video could raise there was nothing inherently amoral in the video... with the exception of the stripper doing a pole dance. ^_~
metalpeter - 09/03/07 20:06
I will be perfectly honest here this is where I'm devided. I personaly feel that same sex parents isn't a big deal and so what. I will extend that to say I believe that same sex mariage is fine as long as priets who moraly oppose it can't be forced or sued for not doing. I think that marriage is just a contract with the state and that it being in a church is different then that, but that maybe spliting hairs. I think that encouraging diversity is a good idea.
Here is the however. If I'm parent that thinks homosexuality, race mixing, or not being a member of the church I belong to is wrong then I don't want school teaching my kid that it is ok. If I had a gay kid and in sex ed all they mentioned was hetrosexaul sex I would feel the same way. The point is I don't want a school to tell my kid what is right and wrong moraly that isn't there job that is my job.
I will be perfectly honest here this is where I'm devided. I personaly feel that same sex parents isn't a big deal and so what. I will extend that to say I believe that same sex mariage is fine as long as priets who moraly oppose it can't be forced or sued for not doing. I think that marriage is just a contract with the state and that it being in a church is different then that, but that maybe spliting hairs. I think that encouraging diversity is a good idea.
Here is the however. If I'm parent that thinks homosexuality, race mixing, or not being a member of the church I belong to is wrong then I don't want school teaching my kid that it is ok. If I had a gay kid and in sex ed all they mentioned was hetrosexaul sex I would feel the same way. The point is I don't want a school to tell my kid what is right and wrong moraly that isn't there job that is my job.
james - 09/03/07 19:14
School is taxpayer indoctrination. Pure and simple. Everything taught in school indoctrinates kids in some fasion. It is the letter of the indoctrination that get people fired up.
This video, and I have not seen it I have only read a description, has absolutely nothing to do with sex what so ever. Family has nothing to do with sex on the level they are presenting it. It shows a wide range of families as they are and not how they came to be. The sexual reality of couples and individuals is as explicit with het, bio-parents as it is with same-sex couples.
Further, I don't think sex or coupledom should be a secret to kids, to be sprung on them at some age when deemed appropriate. There are thousands of kids who's reality is that they have same-sex parents, and that fact isn't shocking to them nor is it a topic to be addressed later.
Kids aren't dumb and they are well aware of people gay and straight. By keeping the straight in the school children's eye and not the gay says that gay people are inferior, taboo. If people were more aquatinted with the reality of their communities they might not try to pray the gay away when their son Billy doesn't turn out the way they hoped.
Also, heterosexuality it everywhere. Heterosexuality is compulsory and any other expression of sexuality is deviant. If one is to shield kids from homosexuality then they better shield their kids from heterosexuality as well. Anything else is bigotry.
School is taxpayer indoctrination. Pure and simple. Everything taught in school indoctrinates kids in some fasion. It is the letter of the indoctrination that get people fired up.
This video, and I have not seen it I have only read a description, has absolutely nothing to do with sex what so ever. Family has nothing to do with sex on the level they are presenting it. It shows a wide range of families as they are and not how they came to be. The sexual reality of couples and individuals is as explicit with het, bio-parents as it is with same-sex couples.
Further, I don't think sex or coupledom should be a secret to kids, to be sprung on them at some age when deemed appropriate. There are thousands of kids who's reality is that they have same-sex parents, and that fact isn't shocking to them nor is it a topic to be addressed later.
Kids aren't dumb and they are well aware of people gay and straight. By keeping the straight in the school children's eye and not the gay says that gay people are inferior, taboo. If people were more aquatinted with the reality of their communities they might not try to pray the gay away when their son Billy doesn't turn out the way they hoped.
Also, heterosexuality it everywhere. Heterosexuality is compulsory and any other expression of sexuality is deviant. If one is to shield kids from homosexuality then they better shield their kids from heterosexuality as well. Anything else is bigotry.
joshua - 09/03/07 17:36
Hmm. This is a sticky situation. Many, many people consider something like that taxpayer-funded indoctrination, especially since this video was to be shown to elementary school kids. I think something like this should be reserved for high school - the bottom line is that elementary school kids are too young to be sophisticated enough about sex of any kind, let alone the "ebil gayness" that some parents are afraid of. Some might say that this isn't about sex, but ultimately, yes it is. Additionally, I think control of this sort of thing should be in the hands of the parents and not the school, but like I said - at some age these kids will have to be prepared for the world rather than protected.
This sort of thing happens all the time - its simply the issues that change. The ACLU targets and sues small municipalities on a regular basis because of Christian symbols in the city seal, or in a courtroom. School prayer? Outlawed. In these cases controversial issues are almost always have a specter of litigation surrounding them, none of which is affordable. So what do these schools and municipalities do? They cower. This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I hate lawyers and decided to forego law school.
The big picture is that gay folks aren't going away and its a reality in our culture that some people choose not to accept. That is their choice, similar to athiests, etc. choosing to erase any semblance of Christianity in our culture. Diversity is a slippery slope, and everybody has their own flavor of diversity (sexual but not religious, religious but not sexual, racial, or none at all) but like I said, in the end I don't think that this sort of thing is appropriate for elementary school kids - they are simply too young and parents shouldn't be forced to have to address such a topic with a 7-year old because of what the taxpayer-funded school board has on their agenda. When these kids are older I think that they shouldn't be shielded from the realities of the world, however... but in the end that should be up to the parents.
Hmm. This is a sticky situation. Many, many people consider something like that taxpayer-funded indoctrination, especially since this video was to be shown to elementary school kids. I think something like this should be reserved for high school - the bottom line is that elementary school kids are too young to be sophisticated enough about sex of any kind, let alone the "ebil gayness" that some parents are afraid of. Some might say that this isn't about sex, but ultimately, yes it is. Additionally, I think control of this sort of thing should be in the hands of the parents and not the school, but like I said - at some age these kids will have to be prepared for the world rather than protected.
This sort of thing happens all the time - its simply the issues that change. The ACLU targets and sues small municipalities on a regular basis because of Christian symbols in the city seal, or in a courtroom. School prayer? Outlawed. In these cases controversial issues are almost always have a specter of litigation surrounding them, none of which is affordable. So what do these schools and municipalities do? They cower. This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I hate lawyers and decided to forego law school.
The big picture is that gay folks aren't going away and its a reality in our culture that some people choose not to accept. That is their choice, similar to athiests, etc. choosing to erase any semblance of Christianity in our culture. Diversity is a slippery slope, and everybody has their own flavor of diversity (sexual but not religious, religious but not sexual, racial, or none at all) but like I said, in the end I don't think that this sort of thing is appropriate for elementary school kids - they are simply too young and parents shouldn't be forced to have to address such a topic with a 7-year old because of what the taxpayer-funded school board has on their agenda. When these kids are older I think that they shouldn't be shielded from the realities of the world, however... but in the end that should be up to the parents.
09/02/2007 22:54 #40899
Grey GardensCategory: work
I love my job, I really do.
My boss has a terrible habbit of chatting stream of conscious while giving no context what so ever. And these stories are repeated for months. Eventually you hear them enough that you can piece this fragmented, sloppy narrative together into something cohesive but still absolutely irrelevant.
For example.
She was someplace with some people. She may have been invited, she may have been trespassing. She may have known these people, they could be relatives. I don't know what purpose she had there, or really where that place was. But I do know they had delicious corn and that she put a frog in a plastic container to keep away from a child.
After hearing this a dozen times over the corse of the week I was able to figure out that she infact knew these people and that the corn was taken home as leftovers. But unlocking the mystery of this story yields no wisdom or quirky tale. They are all mundane and unrelated to what ever got her going in the first place. It is enough to wish power tools on your ears so you may never hear ever again.
Thankfully, I am scared of power tools.
But tonight I watched the documentary Grey Gardens and the charecters were just like my boss, two of them. Bat shit crazy, constantly chattering, and damned if you know what it is they are talking about.
Here is a clip.
crazy woman. Anyway, they turned this documentary into a musical. A Tony award winning musical. Here is a clip.
I need a real job.
My boss has a terrible habbit of chatting stream of conscious while giving no context what so ever. And these stories are repeated for months. Eventually you hear them enough that you can piece this fragmented, sloppy narrative together into something cohesive but still absolutely irrelevant.
For example.
She was someplace with some people. She may have been invited, she may have been trespassing. She may have known these people, they could be relatives. I don't know what purpose she had there, or really where that place was. But I do know they had delicious corn and that she put a frog in a plastic container to keep away from a child.
After hearing this a dozen times over the corse of the week I was able to figure out that she infact knew these people and that the corn was taken home as leftovers. But unlocking the mystery of this story yields no wisdom or quirky tale. They are all mundane and unrelated to what ever got her going in the first place. It is enough to wish power tools on your ears so you may never hear ever again.
Thankfully, I am scared of power tools.
But tonight I watched the documentary Grey Gardens and the charecters were just like my boss, two of them. Bat shit crazy, constantly chattering, and damned if you know what it is they are talking about.
Here is a clip.
crazy woman. Anyway, they turned this documentary into a musical. A Tony award winning musical. Here is a clip.
I need a real job.
fellyconnelly - 09/03/07 11:55
wow! only 52 cats? that is nearly not enough for a 25 room mansion...
wow! only 52 cats? that is nearly not enough for a 25 room mansion...
leetee - 09/03/07 08:54
Totally not the point of your journal... but... yay, Harvey Firestein rocks! :)
Totally not the point of your journal... but... yay, Harvey Firestein rocks! :)
08/31/2007 21:04 #40867
Larry Craig is Disappointing stillCategory: politics
So,
AP has a story letting us good citizens know that Larry Craig, the foot-tapping, wide-stance, closet case toilet queen senator from Idaho, will be resigning tomorrow. I for one, am underwhelmed.
It is like this. Larry committed a crime. Not a big crime. Lewd Conduct doesn't really call to mind abuses of his senatorial power. This crime does not prevent him from being an effective representative of the people of Idaho. So why have scores of Republicans jumped on his back demanding his resignation?
I mean, this is a fair question at any time, but under the current circumstances it is especially relevant. Senator David Vitter has committed an actual crime: he payed a prostitute to have sex with him. But no one on that side of the isle has demanded he resigned.
At first, it seems like homophobia would be the answer. Het sex with a prostitute < homo sex with anyone. And this would follow GOP logic (sorry to you hip, cool Republicans out there.) But I can't help thinking it is something else, something related to the nature of Larry Craig and this case.
Politicians need to be practical. And this is an issue of power and who retains power. Larry Craig is from Idaho, which has a Republican governor. David Vitter is from Louisiana which has a Democrat governor. When a Senator resigned the governor gets to appoint a replacement until the next election. Which, if both were axed that would leave the Dems up one. hm...
The GOP has waged a continual campaign of wedge politics where homosexuals are reviled and resigned to second class citizen status. But it really isn't because they are god's senators or because they morally have an opinion about homosexuality. It all comes down to power. Gay hate helped them win in 2004. But how many of their own lead double lives. Having the token wife and strong 'family values' conviction but enjoy a firm cock in their mouth? Craig, ultimately, has to go not because he tried to have gay sex (for the umpteenth time) but because his very presence in office taints the whole party. He is a liability and a victim of his parties disingenuous agenda.
To the GOP there is nothing greater than their own power. That is why Craig is a liability, his very existence in the party compromises the whole sham.
And Barbara Boxer, get off your pamper Dem ass and investigate a few people. Would that kill you?
AP has a story letting us good citizens know that Larry Craig, the foot-tapping, wide-stance, closet case toilet queen senator from Idaho, will be resigning tomorrow. I for one, am underwhelmed.
It is like this. Larry committed a crime. Not a big crime. Lewd Conduct doesn't really call to mind abuses of his senatorial power. This crime does not prevent him from being an effective representative of the people of Idaho. So why have scores of Republicans jumped on his back demanding his resignation?
I mean, this is a fair question at any time, but under the current circumstances it is especially relevant. Senator David Vitter has committed an actual crime: he payed a prostitute to have sex with him. But no one on that side of the isle has demanded he resigned.
At first, it seems like homophobia would be the answer. Het sex with a prostitute < homo sex with anyone. And this would follow GOP logic (sorry to you hip, cool Republicans out there.) But I can't help thinking it is something else, something related to the nature of Larry Craig and this case.
Politicians need to be practical. And this is an issue of power and who retains power. Larry Craig is from Idaho, which has a Republican governor. David Vitter is from Louisiana which has a Democrat governor. When a Senator resigned the governor gets to appoint a replacement until the next election. Which, if both were axed that would leave the Dems up one. hm...
The GOP has waged a continual campaign of wedge politics where homosexuals are reviled and resigned to second class citizen status. But it really isn't because they are god's senators or because they morally have an opinion about homosexuality. It all comes down to power. Gay hate helped them win in 2004. But how many of their own lead double lives. Having the token wife and strong 'family values' conviction but enjoy a firm cock in their mouth? Craig, ultimately, has to go not because he tried to have gay sex (for the umpteenth time) but because his very presence in office taints the whole party. He is a liability and a victim of his parties disingenuous agenda.
To the GOP there is nothing greater than their own power. That is why Craig is a liability, his very existence in the party compromises the whole sham.
And Barbara Boxer, get off your pamper Dem ass and investigate a few people. Would that kill you?
ajay - 09/01/07 22:41
Carter expressed anti-semitic views?
I know he has criticised some of Israel's policies; and I don't think it's right to brand him as an anti-semite for that. It just cheapens the meaning of the word. And Israeli government, like any other man-made institution (let alone being a bunch of politicians), isn't above reproach by any means.
Carter expressed anti-semitic views?
I know he has criticised some of Israel's policies; and I don't think it's right to brand him as an anti-semite for that. It just cheapens the meaning of the word. And Israeli government, like any other man-made institution (let alone being a bunch of politicians), isn't above reproach by any means.
james - 09/01/07 19:30
John and Jimmy are good guys. Sure, both have their flaws. John was a slimy trial lawyer and Jimmy has expressed anti-Semitic views. No one is perfect, especially not a politician.
John and Jimmy are good guys. Sure, both have their flaws. John was a slimy trial lawyer and Jimmy has expressed anti-Semitic views. No one is perfect, especially not a politician.
drew - 09/01/07 18:19
I don't know about John Edwards, and I would agree that most politicians are all about imagae and power, but I can tell you that Jimmy Carter is the real deal. I know people that have worked beside him for weeks at a time.
I don't know about John Edwards, and I would agree that most politicians are all about imagae and power, but I can tell you that Jimmy Carter is the real deal. I know people that have worked beside him for weeks at a time.
james - 09/01/07 17:21
Felly: ya, he performed so poorly it is amazing he was a senator. Again, pathetic
Ajay: Wyoming has a law I really like where the Governor is obligated to replace a senator with a member of that senators party. LA does not. So... Even if Craig did run again in '08 he wouldn't have been beaten by a Dem just lost his parties primary Joe Leiberman style.
And on that broader topic. Some naive little part of me wants to believe they aren't, just power hungry. It is the same part that makes me believe John Edwards doesn't really care about poverty, or the Jimmy Carter ever built a house for anyone other than his dog.
Felly: ya, he performed so poorly it is amazing he was a senator. Again, pathetic
Ajay: Wyoming has a law I really like where the Governor is obligated to replace a senator with a member of that senators party. LA does not. So... Even if Craig did run again in '08 he wouldn't have been beaten by a Dem just lost his parties primary Joe Leiberman style.
And on that broader topic. Some naive little part of me wants to believe they aren't, just power hungry. It is the same part that makes me believe John Edwards doesn't really care about poverty, or the Jimmy Carter ever built a house for anyone other than his dog.
ajay - 08/31/07 23:32
Louisiana may have a Dem governor, but the convention is for the Governor to appoint a replacement from the same party.
I don't think it has to do with who's the Governor. It has to do with the fact that Craig would have been creamed in next year's election; so might as well get rid of him and let his R-eplacement get enough of a name recognition to win next year.
On the broader topic: Republicans *are* anti-gay and homophobic. They are of the same mindset as the racists from a century ago.
Louisiana may have a Dem governor, but the convention is for the Governor to appoint a replacement from the same party.
I don't think it has to do with who's the Governor. It has to do with the fact that Craig would have been creamed in next year's election; so might as well get rid of him and let his R-eplacement get enough of a name recognition to win next year.
On the broader topic: Republicans *are* anti-gay and homophobic. They are of the same mindset as the racists from a century ago.
fellyconnelly - 08/31/07 22:22
did you hear the tape of the interrogation? the guy actually
a) refused an attorney
b) said he was not propositioning the officer, but trying to pick up TOILET PAPER OFF THE GROUND! (who does this?)
the point which amused me was when he spoke of how he has to spread his legs wide when he poops so his pants dont hit the ground.
did you hear the tape of the interrogation? the guy actually
a) refused an attorney
b) said he was not propositioning the officer, but trying to pick up TOILET PAPER OFF THE GROUND! (who does this?)
the point which amused me was when he spoke of how he has to spread his legs wide when he poops so his pants dont hit the ground.
Joshua: All Politicians do that. But this man has gone through a positive metamorphosis in the last year. He makes Jeff Goldbloom in the Fly look like glacial movements. Also, Fred has said he will be announcing soon for months. I recall being relieved when he said he would make an announcement on the 4th of July. Must be nice being able to hide your financial records until the first few states have had their primary. I am also not too impressed with Fred. Then again, I am not too impressed with any of the candidates.
Oh, and the Massachusetts missing a 'T' is frickin hilarious! I wish I did that intentionally.
Jason:Ya, it is a shame Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, as he makes a lot of sense on a lot of issues. He is the rogue candidate in the field, like Kucinich... but not frickin crazy! (I love him, but the man is out of his gourd)
Lauren: Yesterday began a renewed love affair with the B52's. This makes like the millionth time I have had a renewed love affair with them. The video makes me feel guilty because I think Ricky Wilson is so smokin' hot in it. (for the uninitiated, he the guitarist who died in '85, not Fred Schneider who is their quirky male singer.)
I'll admit to knowing a damn thing about whats going on in politics or what the hell you are talking about, but sure do love the kinda guy who can talk about the prolife prochoice debate only to follow it with a sweet B-52's video.
Oh (e:james) remember when I caught the name confusion in the title of one of your journal entries? I simply had to mention the missing T in Massachusets here, not because I'm anal but because I thought you'd appreciate the reference.
Unfortunately, that's what happens in politics. The only Democrat I can think of with any principles at all is Kucinich. The Republicans, I am not so sure anymore, I don't think there is really a small government minded one among them.
In fact, I don't think there is a single politician alive who just can't wait to use government power to limit our freedoms in some manner or another. Maybe, MAYBE Ron Paul, but his candidacy is DOA.
I absolutely marvel at the ability of Mass voters to install a Republican Governor, let alone a Mormon, when they outright reject Republicans in virtually every other type of election. That's like a true blue San Fran liberal bamboozling people from Alabama into voting for them. Unbelievable.
Mitt Romney isn't my guy, thats for sure. He reminds me of Ron Popeil for some reason. Still though, I can't figure out how he got elected in Mass. to begin with.
Fred is declaring tomorrow and I still believe that he'll be the candidate. Mitt is in the lead because he is the least offensive of the group - in my view anyway I think the lines are drawn far more permanently in the Democrat camp than in the Republican and so its truly open ended... unless you are Sam Brownback.
As far as flip flopping goes, all career politicians (or those who are wannabes, hi Hillary) are masters at it. In Mitt's case I'm not particularly surprised, as at some point I can't see how he could have placated the libs in Mass. without saying things he didn't actually mean.