Playing not to lose

After receiving a thumping in Massachusetts at the hands of a state senator known for little more than owning a truck and having once been naked in a major women's magazine (a man who, I might add, has already angered Glenn Beck in the two days since his election), the Democrats are now tripping over themselves to back down on the health care legislation that they've spent the better part of the last year working on, and openly quivering in fear because, as Sen. Barbara Boxer of California put it, "every state is now in play."

And that is precisely why they will lose in November.

Anyone who thinks it's politically expedient to, as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana put it, "go back to the drawing board" on the signature legislation that the Democrats have fought and clawed for over the past year is absolutely out of his or her mind. Yes, there are voters who vociferously oppose the health care bill. There were even some of those in Massachusetts, but that isn't why the Democrats lost there. The Democrats lost in Massachusetts because: (a) their candidate ran an absolutely pathetic excuse for a campaign (Curt Schilling a Yankees fan, really? And, hey, if you can't spell the name of the state correctly in your own campaign ads, you don't deserve to win) and (b) President Obama hasn't delivered on the change or the leadership that he promised. Instead of embracing the mandate the American people gave to a progressive agenda, he went straight to the first page of the Democrat playbook, which reads in big, bold letters: "MOVE TO THE CENTER."

There have been a lot of mistakes made by the Democrats over the past year but, for the most part, they all fall under the same umbrella of "playing not to lose, instead of playing to win." Anyone who's ever been a competitive athlete knows that you have to be aggressive to be successful in sports, and that holds true just about everywhere else as well. It's no coincidence that the first of Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" is being proactive. While the Republicans have controlled the debate on health care by recklessly floating falsehoods like "death panels" and government takeovers and holding up for political reasons a bill that would save the American taxpayers a trillion dollars over the next couple of decades, the Democrats have fallen back on their heels, defending themselves against baseless attacks when they should be on the offensive about the lack of cooperation from the other side. You can't be reactive in politics and get anything done, especially right now. Period.

If the Democrats back down now on health care reform, not only will they fall in November (and, really, if you're so worried about losing your job that you can't effectively do your job, then you're probably not cut out for that particular line of work), but it will effectively put the nail in the coffin of the progressive agenda. If we give up on health care reform now, it won't be taken up later, it will die, and so will climate change legislation, and equal rights, and serious financial regulation, etc. Mary Landrieu is dead wrong that we can wait until tomorrow -- there is no tomorrow. In the words of Langston Hughes, "a dream deferred is a dream denied."

So, just for once, let's make like Republicans and play to win.

UPDATE:

Sarah Palin blows this joint

In what has to be the most bizarrely delusional move since Michael Jackson accepted the "Artist of the Millennium" award at the 2002 VMAs, Sarah Palin just announced that she is resigning as governor of Alaska, presumably so that she can get started on her 2012 presidential bid.

Considering that (soon-to-be-former) Gov. Palin is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics, this seems a bit like Hulk Hogan leaving pro wrestling to train for the Olympics, but I guess I shouldn't complain, being a Democrat and all. Still, if I have to listen to her babble about her foreign relations bonafides (Russia is "right over the border") and how David Letterman is mouth-raping her children for the next three years, I might seriously consider moving somewhere beyond the reach of cable news, like Mars.

Maybe she's on to something after all...

Source: [CNN]

Thanks for all the memories, Alaska:

President Rudy? Fuhgedaboutit.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure I understand how Rudy Giuliani isn't sinking in the polls like the freaking Titanic right now. What's that? He is sinking like the Titanic? Oh. That makes more sense.

See, while Republican rival Mike Huckabee is subliminally reminding you that he and the baby J are best friends in his holiday ads, Giuliani is using the Christmas season as an opportunity to let you know that a) he is a loudmouth from Brooklyn and b) he's that asshole who gives everyone a fruitcake because he's too wrapped up in his own shit to get real presents. Good strategy.

Look, I know that he's just trying to be cute in these ads (and God bless him for it) but, the thing is, Rudy Giuliani isn't cute -- he's a nasty, negative little man. And I think I've made my policy on conservatives trying to be funny abundantly clear: They shouldn't. Because they aren't.

I know these are the new wild and crazy Republicans who have YouTube debates and make ads with Chuck Norris but, somehow, I just don't see the Grand Old Party nominating one of the Jerky Boys for president anytime soon.

P.S. When did Santa become such a douche? Guess he's been spending too much time around the Giuliani camp...

Reproduction! [Around the Internet] 12/12/07

-Coming to a theater near you: M. Night Shyamalan's latest train-wreck, The Happening. How is it that the Writers Guild can't get 4 extra cents per DVD and yet studios keep giving this genius a blank check? It's a head-scratcher. [Deus Ex Malcontent]
-Merry Christmas from fat Mike Huckabee! [Wonkette]
-Marking what is clearly a banner year for the English language, "w00t" is Merriam-Webster's word of 2007. [Pop Candy]
-Turns out that a bunch of Republicans arguing about a flat tax is mad boring. Go figure. [Wonkette]
-Jessica Alba is preggers. I don't even like Jessica Alba and yet, somehow, I find that thought incredibly depressing. [People]
-President Bush hates children. Especially poor children. [Huffington Post]
-Obama-mania sweeps New Hampshire. [Wizbang Politics]
-Why aren't Republicans supporting the most electable candidate? Because he doesn't hate Mexicans enough, obvi. So much for compassionate conservatism... [American Debate]
-And finally, glow in the dark cats! What will those Koreans think of next? [Breitbart]

Happy Hanukkah, bitches! [Around the Internet] 12/4/07

-The bra: Celebrating 100 years of male oppression. [USA Today]
-"Once a gynecologist, always a gynecologist": Ron Paul talks about killing babies on The View [Wonkette]
-Katherine Heigl apparently doesn't read the scripts of movies she stars in. Curious. [Cinematical]
-These whackjobs want you to believe that God hates the world, and yet their very presence in it makes me question God's existence. It's a paradox. [QuizLaw]
-The NRA wants a "viable" candidate. So do we all, fellas. So do we all. [The Hotline]
-And, if you ever needed a reason why the NRA shouldn't exist, here it is. [Wonkette]
-Mitt Romney fires his illegals. Why is it that when Republicans fight, it's always the immigrants that suffer? [Reuters]

Michael Savage got served

Apparently, turnabout is not fair play for Michael Savage.

According to the Associated Press, the conservative talk radio host and all-around loudmouth is suing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for their use of his one of his broadcasts on their website, which encourages a "letter-writing campaign directed against talk radio advertisers." The 4 minute segment in question includes the following rant, which the lawsuit describes as "provocative and strongly worded," but which might be better described as being outright racist: "What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate...Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation."

Savage claims that the excerpt from the show was taken out of context (he was actually "talking about Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his dangerous and violent brand of Islamic extremism, not about the religion in general," according to an interview with the AP) and that the CAIR's use of it without permission constitutes copyright infringement. CAIR and Savage appear to be in agreement that the campaign has resulted in advertisers pulling their spots from his show, which Savage claims has cost him at least $1 million in revenue.

As you might imagine, I am not a regular listener of Savage's show, although I have heard it before and remember thinking that, even among right-wing blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough, Savage was particularly reactionary and obnoxious. Honestly, I would love it if this situation cost Savage $1 million, but I have trouble believing that the kind of advertisers that would support his show would really care what the Council on American-Islamic Relations has to think.

I'm also not a lawyer, so I can't really comment on the legal issues here, but I can say that I find the whole thing kind of ironic. It seems to me that Savage was using his radio show as a platform to denounce an entire religion and the people who follow it (as far as I know, the president of Iran is not subject to deportation since he isn't a resident of the United States), so I don't see why those people shouldn't have the recourse of using his own hate-filled words against him. The suit also alleges that CAIR "is not a civil rights group, but a political organization funded by foreigners with ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups" (which, according to Wikipedia, is a charge that the group has been struggling with ever since its conception though, from what I read, the evidence doesn't really support it), but I'm not sure what bearing that has on his case.

In any event, I personally think it's nice to see one of these talk radio demagogues get what's coming to him because, in my admittedly limited experience of listening to their shows, they tend to toe the line between offensive and downright sickening. One can only hope that, next time, Michael Savage will take a moment and think really hard about what he's going he say before he blasts an entire religion on the air. Sadly, though, I have a feeling that's little more than wishful thinking.

Sources:
Radio Host Sues Group That Quoted Him [Associated Press]
Council on American-Islamic Relations [Wikipedia]
Michael Savage sues Muslim group campaigning for ad boycott [SF Chronicle]

Larry Craig might be gay

And the hits just keep on coming.

The Idaho Statesman, in the dirtiest newspaper article that I have ever read, has brought forward five men who are alleging homosexual encounters with embattled Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id.). The men, all of whom are homosexuals themselves, are apparently dismayed by what they see as Craig's "hypocritical" anti-gay attitude and voting record, and especially the emphatic denial he made on national television in August (shortly after the discovery that he had plead guilty in June to soliciting sex from an undercover police officer) that "I am not gay, I never have been gay."

The accounts are spread out over a roughly 25 year period, and range from being whisked away to a Capitol Hill house after meeting Craig in a gay strip club (and then being given $20 after sex and told "I can buy and sell your ass a thousand times over") to being propositioned in an airport bathroom in a manner similar to the one described by Craig's arresting officer. Perhaps the most damning allegation comes from Mike Jones, the former Colorado-based gay male escort most famous for destroying evangelical minister Ted Haggard's career, who claims that Craig paid him $200 for sex sometime between November 2004 and March 2005.

Now, Mike Jones must be the worst gay male escort ever because I'm pretty sure the first rule of prostitution is that you don't go around outing your clients (that being said, the dude is like gay-Republican kryptonite...) In all seriousness, though, this story is a lot of things (the word "disturbing" comes to mind quite often) but mostly it is sad, because even if some of these guys are lying, I think it's still pretty clear that Larry Craig is not a straight man. And there's nothing wrong with that, except for the deep-seated self-loathing that has caused him to be such an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and gay rights.

In fact, if he wasn't such a dick, I would feel bad for the guy. Like I said when a similar story came out earlier this week about Trent Lott (with whom Craig incidentally started a barbershop quartet called "The Singing Senators"), it's really unfortunate -- and we are all responsible for this -- that we live in a society so homophobic that some gay men still feel like they have to seek each other out in the anonymity of airport bathrooms. But, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets a 0 rating from the Human Rights Campaign and suggests -- as Craig did in 2005 -- that the flooded areas of New Orleans should be abandoned because "fraud...is in the culture of the state of Louisiana" deserves whatever he gets. And, if the last four months have been any indication, that's going to be a lot of negative press until he finally finishes out his term in shame.

I guess $20 doesn't buy what it used to.

Sources:
More gay men describe sexual encounters with U.S. Sen. Craig [Idaho Statesman]
Larry Craig [Wikipedia]

White-on-White Violence: The YouTube Republican Presidential Debate

For anyone fortunate enough to have missed it, the CNN/YouTube Republican Presidential Debate was held tonight in St. Petersburg, Florida. Something like 5,000 video questions were submitted by YouTubers from across the country (at least one of whom, naturally, bore a striking resemblance to Hank Williams, Jr.) and 35 were chosen by CNN's producers to be shown on a big screen above the stage. Candidates were also given the opportunity to submit their own "YouTube-like" videos (most of which were just campaign ads, and not particularly good ones at that), which were interspersed with the questions.

You might imagine that any forum involving YouTube and Republicans would be a mess but, while it sometimes verged on shitshowiness, the debate was usually just about as dull as eight old white guys arguing about politics should be. The issues ranged from reducing crime in the inner city to the ethics of waterboarding, but the debate focused primarily on the war, immigration, abortion, government spending and gun control.

I will spare you the pain of a full-blown recap, but here are some observations (in no particular order):

-Anderson Cooper was the Worst. Moderator. Ever. Whenever a candidate went over his time limit -- which politicians are wont to do -- Cooper, rather than forcing (or even asking) them to finish, would simply repeat the word "time" over and over again until they were done, as if saying it enough would magically make them stop ignoring him. Also, I find him kind of funny looking.

-Republicans really don't like Hillary Clinton. I'm not exactly sure how she came to symbolize everything that is wrong with the world, but boy do they hate her. In fact, I think that every single candidate, at one point or another, referred to her in some derogatory manner, several of them more than once. It's a sad state of affairs when a United States senator draws more ire in a political debate than Osama Bin Laden, but I'm sure she loved every second of it. Also, it turns out that the Clinton campaign planted one of the more controversial questioners of the night, retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, an openly gay veteran who asked why American soldiers aren't professional enough to serve with homosexuals. Score one for the Ice Queen.

-Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney seem to hate each other almost as much as they hate Hillary. At one point, during a heated discussion about illegal immigration, I was pretty sure that the ostensible front-runners were going to break out into fisticuffs, and that was only five minutes into the debate! I say we just get it over with and make the next debate a steel-cage match between these two (maybe Hillary could guest-referee...)

-What the hell kind of a name is "Mitt," anyway?

-And who the hell is Duncan Hunter? After two hours, all I know about the guy is that he loves border fences. In fact, his greatest accomplishment seems to have been building a 30-foot fence between San Diego and Tijuana (probably after the infamous Marissa Cooper incident of 2004). I'm not sure whether he's more qualified to be president or manager of the Home Depot.

-Republicans shouldn't try to be funny -- it usually ends badly. I'm looking at you, Giuliani...

-I'm finding it really hard not to like Mike Huckabee. I know he doesn't believe in evolution and all, but he's just so damn friendly, and his response to a (remarkably stupid) question about believing the Bible word-for-word was by far the most eloquent and progressive of the bunch. One of my roommates remarked that he doesn't seem presidential because he's "too nice." Plus, he lost more weight than the Subway guy.

-Ron Paul kind of looks an elf, but he has some good ideas about the war. Namely, that we should end it.

-Why are Republicans so squinty all the time? Is it because they hate the light?

-John McCain probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning this nomination, but I think he had the best soundbyte of the night: "We came to power in 1994 looking to change the government, and government changed us." Also, it's a really bad idea to argue with him about torture, something Romney found out the hard way.

-Speaking of Romney, I couldn't help thinking that he was the most presidential of the group, probably because he's really good at not answering questions. Also, he's kind of dreamy, if you're into the stuck-up, rich, Mormon look. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this race came down to him and Huckabee.

-Fred Thompson was pretty much a non-factor and, thank god, because he thinks that overturning Roe v. Wade should be our "#1 focus" (not, you know, ending the war or paying down the massive, crippling debt that it has caused.) Good call, Fred.

-Republicans love Bill Cosby. He is like their one black friend.

-Tom Tancredo is an idiot. For more, read this.

All in all, it was pretty much a waste of two hours. At least now I know what we're dealing with, though, and it isn't pretty. I know that the Democratic candidates aren't exactly the Founding Fathers or anything, but if we can't get one of them elected against this bunch of weirdos, I'm leaving. For reals.

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NATION/111290095/1002