Top Ten Reasons...

A friend of mine had posted on Facebook that Sarah Palin, for some reason, said that she would be up to debating President Barry anytime and anywhere. Now, I wasn't so much aware that just regular citizens could debate the President. I didn't know that was something that we're doing now. But good for her if that's what she wants to do. Actually, I take that back. She needs to not say things like that as to not make herself look like a buffoon. And really, this is the woman who, when preparing for the Vice Presidential debate in 2008, couldn't stop herself from calling Joe Biden "Joe O'Biden". Does she really want to go up against President Barry? Because say what you will about the guy, you can't deny that he is a brilliant public speaker and would probably wipe the floor with Sarah Palin's hot little Alaskan MILF ass. But are there reasons why she should go ahead and debate him? (Hypothetically, of course, as a Palin-Obama debate is never going to happen.) Of course there are. There are at least ten. Here we go.

The Top Ten reasons that Sarah Palin should debate President Barry.

Number Ten: She'd show him a thing or two when the topic turned to snow machine racing or moose skinning.

Number Nine: Perfect opportunity to point out that none of his daughters are knocked up yet, while one of hers already accomplished that AND given birth.

Number Eight: Might finally have come up with an answer to that age old question "What do you read?"

Number Seven: Could point out Russia from her house.

Number Six: Perfect time to give Michelle Obama tips on how to improve her 'sexy librarian' look.

Number Five: It'd be a good time to finally break out her Tina Fey impersonation that she's been working on.

Number Four: Wouldn't accidentally call him "Grandpa" like she did with McCain that one time.

Number Three: Could always have a pit bull wearing lipstick stand in for her in case something came up at the last minute.

Number Two: If it was a foreign policy debate, they could have it at the International House of Pancakes in Wasilla.

And the Number One reason Sarah Palin should debate President Barry: Everyone loves a train wreck!

Sphere: Related Content

Literally, The Worst Answer Ever

Could someone please tell Rick Perry to quit while he's behind (and I mean very behind) and just get out of the Republican Presidential nominee race as soon as he can. If he's not going to do that, could someone at least explain to him how to use "literally" correctly in a sentence. (Here's a hint: It does not mean "figuratively".)

In Saturday's debate (which was a complete debacle in terms of any sort of substantive issues being raised, thanks to the overly proud of himself and his lefty stance, George Stephanopolous), Rick Perry stated "I would send troops back into Iraq." Wow! Really, Rick? You're going for this nomination by touting the re-start the war in Iraq platform? We've spent eight years trying to get the hell out of there and you're saying that you would unequivocally put us back there? That's a brave, albeit asinine, position to state. Out loud. Well, I guess you can't accuse him of pandering with that sort of stance. I will give him that.

And why does he want to send troops back into Iraq, you ask? He continues by explaining: "We're going to see Iran, in my opinion, go back in at literally the speed of light." Oh, Lord. Where to begin? I suppose I should start by saying that is literally the worst usage of the word 'literally' that I have ever heard. I think that if you think that the Iranians can go into Iraq at "literally the speed of light" then you are probably literally unqualified to be President. And I guess that if you interpret what he's saying to mean that we need to keep our eye on Iran just so that they don't go getting all froggy over there, well that's one thing. But if he's saying that Iran has the capability to go into Iraq at literally the speed of light, well then, we're screwed. If that's the case, I suggest that we all bow down to our new Iranian overlords right now because we, ladies and gentlemen, have been bested in the "Troops Having The Speed of Light" category.

Holy crap. Now, whether or not he actually meant literally isn't exactly the point here. (And that's mainly because I'm praying to God that he just doesn't know what 'literally' means. Literally.) The point here is that he sounds like a complete tool box. Go back into Iraq? Yeah, that's a winning platform there. I literally want him to drop out before the next debate.

Sphere: Related Content

The Donald Trump Debate

Can someone please explain to me this idiotic ritual that the Republicans who are running for the Presidential nomination seem to engage in when they pander to Donald Trump? Why are they meeting with him? Why do they feel it is so necessary to get his seal of approval (and probably to kiss his ring)? Since when does Donald Trump have anything at all to do with American politics and how they're run?!

I thought that we would have heard the last from The Donald after the tantrum that he put on regarding President Barry's birth certificate. Trump did everything but come right out and say that he didn't believe that President Barry was born in this country. He even said that he had 'investigators' over the in Hawaii and that we wouldn't believe they things that they were finding. (And really, if the 'things' that they were 'finding' were that he was actually born in this country, I highly doubt that I would have been surprised by that.) He made himself look exactly like the tool that he apparently is.


And now what is happening? Why, he's holding his own debate, that's what! How does that happen? Why does he get to hold a debate? (Can anyone do that? Because I've got some questions! Oh, boy, do I have questions.) He's a reality TV show host/star. That's how most people know who he is these days. If he didn't have Celebrity Apprentice, would we be having this conversation? I don't think that we would. And if that is the case, why him? How is he any better than Kim Kardashian? She's a reality show star. Is she going to host a debate next?! Dear Lord. I can't even go there.



So far, however, some of the Republican candidates have shown at least a shred of common sense (which is a trait that has been absent from most of the previous debates so far). Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney have all said that they won't be attending Donald Trump's debate. The only ones who have committed to going are Newt Gingrich (who might be really smart, but seems to be a soulless, unethical weasel) and Rick Santorum (who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of locking up the nomination). I can see why Newt would go as him and Donald Trump both seem to be self-important blowhards who love themselves an awful lot. And as far as Rick Santorum goes, well, his showing up to this thing really accentuates just one more reason why we don't want him anywhere near the presidency.


This thing needs to not happen. Donald Trump needs no encouragement in this arena. We need serious debates with people that are actually invested in the process and not out for their own personal promotion. And really, I know we're doomed, but why speed up the process by letting Donald Trump do whatever he wants?

Sphere: Related Content

Rick Perry Is Texas Toast

Wow. Rick Perry is not going to be the next President as his performance during debates has been less than stellar. The guy just can't express himself and since that is one of the most important aspects of debating, he's really not doing himself any favors by getting up in front of everyone who gives a fat rat's ass at this stage in the game and sputtering out whatever he can come up with. Check out his performance at the debate on Wednesday. The real fun starts around 1:00.

Sphere: Related Content

Prop 8...Again

I had thought that if I heard one more word about Prop 8 in California that my head would explode. Turns out, that's not the case. Don't get me wrong; I do feel a wave of nausea come over me. But there is no cranial explosion, so that seems good. That doesn't mean that I have the stomach for some long and droning post, because I do not. That just means that I have the capacity to muse over a point that some guy who thinks his point matters is trying to make.

If you have been blissfully living under a rock or in a world where you don't have to hear about Prop 8 all the live long day, I envy you. But here's the scoop: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (probably related to Jimmie Walker...Dyn-o-mite!) essentially overturned California's ban on gay marriage, aka, Prop 8. And now a one Tony Perkins, who is the head of something called the Family Research Council, says that the judge never should have stayed on the case in the first place because of the judge's own alleged gayness.

A homo judge?! Blasphemy! Whatever. Tony Perkins (not Anthony Perkins; that was Psycho) says that Judge Walker "...should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality." Perkins was apparently on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday and said, "I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments...This is far from over."

Now, now, Tony. Let's just calm down a little. Try and keep your homophobia in check so that you can get your facts straight (no pun intended), all right? OK, then. See, Judge Walker is not openly gay. It's a rumor, but it's not an open secret and/or fact, depending on which moniker you prefer. Usually when there's a rumor that isn't true, especially if it involves one being gay, folks tend to speak out and set the record straight (pun totally intended this time). I'm not saying that means that Judge Walker is gay. I'm just saying.

And regardless as to how I feel about Prop 8, I really do hate it when something is voted on by the people and then it is struck down by a judge. That frustrates the hell out of me. Aside from the incredible waste of time and money, the right of the people to vote is kind of an important element in this country. Having it taken away or essentially nullified by one judge could be doing more harm than good. And I realize that the people can be as dumb as a box of hair a lot of the time. That isn't up for debate. What's up for debate is when people vote for something and then they're told by a judge that they can't do that. Well, if they can't do that then don't have them vote on it in the first place. Why don't you folks get those ducks in a row and stop spending my money on rearranging your ducks?

But Tony Perkins isn't the only one with his boxers in a knot. No, according to The Huffington Post the American Family Association called the decision "outrageous and unconscionable" as well as saying that it "...should never have been allowed to happen." They insisted that "Walker...should have recused himself "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Hmmm. Interesting.

OK, I get their point. But the problem here is that there point is coming from their interests and from what they want. Of course they think that a gay judge is going to rule in favor of the gay side of things. But why wouldn't the same litmus test be applied to the other side of that argument? If it had been a straight judge and the straight judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8, wouldn't gay folks be saying that a straight judge should have recused himself because his judgment would have been "clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity"? I think that's a fair argument to make.

The thing that the AFA and that Tony Perkins guy are overlooking is that Judge Walker is just that. He's a judge. It's right there in his title: Judge Walker. Part of being a judge is being impartial. That's the inherent underlying implication of being a judge. You're supposed to be impartial. I have no idea whether or not Judge Walker's alleged gayness had anything to do with his ruling. I do know that his ruling was 136 pages long and that seems a little meticulous for someone who is just flying by the seat of their pants.

But don't worry Tony Perkins and AFA folks. You're right. This isn't over yet. Of course it is going to go to a higher court. And after that court rules (and it won't matter either way because it will be appealed by the losing side) then it will inevitably end up with the Supreme Court. Is that a good idea? I don't know. I think it's poor strategy, personally. I think that the tide is slowly turning in California in regard to gay marriage. I think that there were several factors that contributed to Prop 8 being passed. And the majority of those factors could be eliminated or remedied at another election. Giving the whole thing time might have been a better way to go. This way, even though the judge has ruled Prop 8 to be a no-go, there still isn't gay marriage in California. No, it's going to be put on hold for years. Several years. And when the Supreme Court rules, there is a fifty-fifty chance that they're going to rule in favor of state's rights. And if it comes down to that, then it's done. It becomes a Roe v. Wade situation which will be highly and hotly debated for future years, but will never change.

In conclusion, I expect Judge Walker's ruling to be overturned by one of the higher courts. I base that on the basis of his ruling which is something called "rational basis". He said that there was no "rational basis" for Prop 8. From what I can tell, rational basis is one of the easiest rulings to overturn. Therefore, it will be. It won't be soon, but it will likely happen. And you know what will happen then? I'm going to have to figure out how to soundproof my walled-off compound because people will never stop talking about it ever when that day comes. Maybe I need some sort of a dome. Like in The Truman Show? I'm open to suggestions. All I know is I can't take much more of the incessant debating on either side. I just want it over already.

Sphere: Related Content

Vice Presidential Debates And Parlor Games

Oooh, oooh, oooh! Just in time! Plenty of time before the debate tonight to get in on this one. Finally! Someone has come up with a way to, at the very least, help people to try to focus on what is being said during the debate. Let's face it, most politicians? Windbags. Old, boring, pasty white windbags. And what do windbags do best? That's right, they blow wind. Cliche filled wind, usually. "Would that it were." "The war in Iraq." "Weapons of mass destruction." "Is it over yet?" OK, that last one was mine, but you know what I mean.

The folks (or folk, really. I know nothing about them and the site only popped up a few days ago from what I can tell, and that's not very much either.) over at Palin Bingo have come up with a grand idea to keep people interested in the debate without having to get face-planted drunk via some collegiate drinking game format. The guys over at Times of the Internet say that "Palin Bingo is the latest craze to the sweep the Internet. Trundle on over to the new Palin Bingo website in order to learn the rules to play yourself." And so I did just that. It was exciting. I'd never trundled before.

The concept and the rules are simple (as the term "bingo" would imply already). Each player receives their own Palin Bingo card. Instead of the usual bingo numbers, the Palin Bingo card is filled with terms that it is assumed she is likely to utter at some point during the debate. Whenever the Governor of Alaska (that would be Sarah Palin for those of you who are new to consciousness) says one of those words or phrases, you mark off that box. Get five in a row going up or down, across or diagonal, and you win!

They even included a center space that you get to check off automatically. But instead of calling it the 'FREE' space like in traditional bingo (because really, nothing having to do with any politician is ever 'free'), they call it the 'Air Space'. I don't know if that's supposed to be a play on the term 'Air Head', but it is clever. And there's a lovely picture of Sarah Palin right there in the Air Space. You know, just in case you forget who you're supposed to be listening to. Or to give you something pleasant to look at when Joe Biden is speaking.

And if you'd like to see more words or phrases added to these cards, they even provide you with a blank Palin Bingo card so that you can make your own! So I did. Because I started thinking about it and if you've seen Tina Fey do Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, you know that the similarity in their appearance is remarkable. And if you've seen Tina Fey do Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, you know that the similarity in their speaking ability is almost zero. What if they try and substitute Sarah Palin with Tina Fey? (You know, sort of a last ditch effort for something. I don't know what exactly. I hadn't thought my hair brained conspiracy theory out that far. But it would be funny! I did think of that!) You're still going to want to play bingo, aren't you? Of course you are. So I came up with a bingo card just in case Tina Fey gets slipped into the mix some how. (And if Sarah Palin utters any of the items on my card, it's going to be a hellaciously amusing four years in the White House if her and McCain get elected.)

Those guys thought of everything. How come I'm not thinking of things like this? Oh. Right. Too busy wiping up drool. Got it.

Anything that can keep people watching something that has the potential to be informative in regard to their decision at the polls in November is a good thing. If it still doesn't do it for you, then by all means, add some alcohol to the mix. Because really, being drunk around election time? Not so bad. Being drunk when it's not election time? Still not so bad.

Sphere: Related Content

Moderate Fakeroversy

Ah, another day, another fake controversy (also known, by me, as a fakeroversy) rears its head in the election world. A world which, quite frankly, I'm really glad I'm not a part of other than that of annoyed and distrusting spectator. Today's fakeroversy brought to you by that Michele Malkin chick. Yes, shocking. I know.

Do you know who Gwen Ifill is? No? Good, then that makes all of us. Gwen Ifill (pronounced, I'm assuming, like the Tower) is an author and, according to a one David Bauder of the AP, a PBS journalist. Now, I don't know if there is a difference between a PBS journalist and a journalist who works for PBS, that's just what the article said. Regardless, this Gwen woman seems to be very accomplished, having held positions at "The New York Times, the Washington Post and NBC News." In addition to that "She moderated the 2004 vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards." And after the vice presidential debate on Thursday, she'll be able to add moderator of that to her resume as well. That is also the dock from which the USS Fakeroversy will be launched.

See, Gwen is writing a book, scheduled to be released on January 20, 2009 the day of the Inauguration, and is tentatively called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama". Catchy. "Age of Obama". Is that like the Age of Aquarius? Probably not, huh? Well, whatever it means, the book itself, according to the description over at Amazon.com "...surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power." OK, fair enough. So what's up Michele Malkin's ass about it? Guess.

You got it. She thinks that Gwen should not be the moderator for the debate because, according to what she wrote in the New York Post, Ifill is "so far in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out." Um, wait. What?

First of all, that analogy, that simile, that comparison, allegory, whatever the hell it was, that doesn't make any sense. I mean, this hypothetical "tank" that she mentions.....there's no oxygen there? What kind of a "tank" is it, exactly? Fish? Septic? Sherman? (It's clearly not a THINK tank.) She needs a delivery of oxygen, via a line? What the hell is an "oxygen delivery line"? Each one of those words conjures up a different image for me. Oxygen = Oxygen TV Network. Delivery = childbirth. Line = conga. So, in my head, I have a conga line of pregnant women giving birth on the Oxygen channel. It's not pretty. Nor is it accurate. But that's about how much sense that comment made.

Aside from the colorful parables that she tries to spin, is she unaware of what a debate moderator does? The only reason that they're called "moderators" is because "question asking person" didn't sound important enough. That's what they do. They sit there at that little table, shrouded in mostly darkness with a heavenly light shining down upon them and they shuffle their papers a lot. (I think that's because they really need more light than just that one beam they're getting there. You people can't light the place up? Is this some environmental, go-green, save the planet thing? Can't you just use those swirly ass light bulbs and make it so they can see?) Then they ask the question. Then they sit there while the question is answered. Then, when the little egg timer goes off, they get their egg and then they tell the other person that they can answer the question. It's not hard! It's very simple.

And it's very simple for a reason. That's because, in general, people in politics are idiots. A lot of the debates tend to play out like a bad episode of "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" (And the answer is almost always "No".) The only people more idiotic than the politicians themselves (usually) are the commentators, the analysts, the talk show pundits and Michelle Malkin. Not necessarily in that order, mind you. Anyway, it HAS to be a simple format otherwise instead of a debate, we'd be treated to something that would turn out to be akin to a WWF match with suits and ties flailing about. And I will totally admit, I would rather see THAT than the debates that we do end up seeing. Absolutely. I'll take WWF Debating over BAP (Boring Ass Politician) Debating any day. But I am, sadly, the only one voting for that format, so instead they go with a moderator.

What does Malkin think Gwen Ifill is going to DO at the debate, exactly? I guess I can assume that, since she's "in the tank for Obama" she would do things like.....what? Flirt with Joe Biden? ("Close enough! And might I also say that is a lovely tie you're wearing tonight! Did you do something with your hair? Get your teeth whitened? You look great!" ::wink:: ::wink::) Give Joe Biden really easy questions like, "Senator Biden, what is the name of your running mate? Barack Obama IS correct! Very good, Senator!" And then give Sarah Palin questions like, "Governor Palin, what is the cubed root of 54,321? NO. You can't use a paper and pencil OR that fancy little calculator on your Blackberry. Maybe you should show Senator McCain how the Blackberry works, since he keeps talking into a basket of fruit whenever he hears the phone ring and he goes to answer his Blackberry. And while I have your attention, would you please stop saying 'Well, this is how we do it in Alaska.' I'm tired of reminding you, Governor, you're not IN Alaska anymore! Get over it!" I find all of those things extremely unlikely to occur at the hands of Gwen Ifill, the impartial debate moderator.

When asked to comment on the fakeroversy, Ifill responded (in a way that should make anyone who might have thought that maybe they should be concerned about this realize that she's extremely intelligent, sees what's going on, and will do a fine job), "I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation. The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job." A most excellent answer. I DO like pudding!

I don't understand some people. Actually, I don't understand a lot of people. But the ones that really have my scratching my head are the people who try to make something out of nothing, seemingly for the purpose of promoting themselves. The problem with that is there are too many soft-headed individuals out there who will fall for anything and believe anything that they read (assuming they can read. Soft headed individuals? Not the sharpest tools in the shed.), especially if that something is on the Internet.

Gwen Ifill also has a broken foot or ankle or some bone below the knee. Since she's not moderating Dancing With The Stars, I think that will also be a non issue as well. So with no controversies surrounding the moderator, just watch the debate. After all, Joe Biden is a rather charming fellow who has an excellent sense of humor. And I've heard that Sarah Palin is a kick ass debater. And I'm hoping that she really is. But I'll tell you this much right now: If she mentions that she can see Russia from her house, someone needs to call time out and get Tina Fey in there in her place immediately. After all, at that point, we might as well get some entertainment out of the whole thing one last time before the election rolls around.

Sphere: Related Content