The Other Guys

We've been having a lot of fun with Republicans lately, and with good reason.  Republicans are notoriously fun.  There's like 300 of them, and some of them don't believe in science, and most of them do believe in being irrationally angry about things.  And they've got that reality TV guy with the "hair".  "You're fired", says he.  If the Presidential race was just Republicans it would be endlessly entertaining, and also terrifying. 

But see, there are these other guys.  I've heard people on cable news refer to them vaguely, in passing, as Democrats.  Am I getting that right?  Democrats?  They're a secretive second party, which also appears to have hopes of winning the 2016 election.  That lady Republicans are always bad-mouthing, Hillary something, I've heard she's one of them.  I've heard the current President is one of them too, but I've also heard he's a muslim so I don't really trust my intel.  I definitely needed to look into these "Democrats" a little bit more, so that's what I did.

First of all, it seems like they only have five candidates.  Do you even clusterfuck, bro?  How are you supposed to have a debate with just five people?  Viewers might actually hear what the candidates think and believe.  Seems like a bad plan.  Also, they haven't had any debates yet.  The Republicans have been debating the crap out of each other.  A couple of them have already bailed.*

*Sidenote...Scott Walker dropped out.  If you don't know a ton about politics, just take my word for it, you're really happy about this.  No matter who actually wins the election, you will be better off because it will not be Scott Walker.

So let's get to the Democratic candidates.  I broke them down into a category and then just some people, because there are only six of them (five candidates and one Biden), so I didn't really need a lot of categories.

Invisible Kids

Jim Webb
Jim Webb is running a very subversive campaign.  Did I say subversive?  I meant subterranean.  Has anyone seen Jim Webb since he announced his candidacy in July?  Are we sure he's OK?  Webb is a former Senator from a state with actual people in it.  He's got a military background and he actually looks like a guy who could be President, which you, sadly, cannot say about some of these other people and we'll get to that.  Webb seems genuinely qualified and his bio reads like that of a serious person, but he's polling below 1%.  What gives?  Hey Jim!  There's this thing called going on TV.  You should try it.

Lincoln Chafee
Lincoln is a former Republican Governor turned Democrat.  To be fair, he was the Governor of Rhode Island, so settle down, but still.  Lincoln's first campaign speech included advocating for the metric system.  It was one of many things he suggested in the course of that speech, and is by no means an integral part of his platform, but it's all anyone talked about after.  If Chafee had even one good advisor, they would have told him that would happen.  Americans hate the metric system because Europe is stupid, and now they hate Lincoln Chafee. 

Also, something about Lincoln Chafee reminds me of Scooby Doo.  It's like when I always say that Ted Cruz looks like a muppet.  He doesn't really look like a muppet, but that's what his face reminds me of.  Lincoln Chafee's face reminds me of Scooby Doo.

Martin O'Malley
Martin would win my home town in a landslide with that name.  It seems like he would lose the rest of the country though.  Hey Martin, how'd you like to be President of Rockaway?  We have a beach and also seagulls! 

Martin, Jim and Lincoln should start a punk band called the Margins of Error.  I feel like I'd buy that album.

Anyway, on to people who might actually do something.

Bernie Sanders
I have to admit to being very skeptical about Bernie.  I feel like we've been down this road before.  Remember the 2000 election?  In the primary, John McCain seemed really honest and mavericky and stuff, and people got pretty excited about him being something of an outsider.  By 2008, we found out that John was mostly a political hack like everyone else.  Bernie's been in Congress for a long time.  I get why he has some progressive street cred, and why he gets some benefit of the doubt, I'm just saying, Bernie's been in Congress for a long time. 

Bernie's history of votes on gun control bills is, to put it generously, troubling.  And the excuses he offers often sound a lot like the excuses Republicans offer.  I know Sanders isn't a gun nut, they don't even have guns in Vermont.  They just throw ice cream and syrup at each other when they get angry, it's safe and delicious.  So why does gun control make Bernie so grumpy?  It's a good question.

I'm also a little concerned about how a guy who looks and sounds like Doc Brown will do in a general election, and he'll probably need the political equivalent of 1.21 gigawatts of power to get the Republican Congress to do anything he wants to do with the economy.  I'm not saying I'm not voting for Bernie, but I'm not sold yet.

Hillary Clinton
I've made my thoughts on Hillary Clinton pretty clear.  I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton.  So let me just add this.  I really feel like Republicans need to stop talking about Benghazi and start just focusing on this thing with her emails.  My read on Benghazi is that it was always a fake scandal, but even if it wasn't, the party that gave George W. Bush a pass on 3,000 American lives doesn't get to throw stones about four.

The email thing is a real thing.  It seems like, when she was Secretary of State, national security information wasn't as secure as it should have been.  I feel like, if that statement is verifiably true about someone, that person shouldn't get to be President.  I think sometimes we make elections too complicated.  There are 320 million people in this country, and only one of them can be President at a time.  That makes me think that if we know someone scored, let's say, a B- on the keeping classified information safe test, maybe we should just look elsewhere.

I also think the Clinton Foundation stuff might be a real thing too, but Republicans seem to have dropped it.  Maybe just too much math.  I don't know.  Either way, we know Hillary Clinton is beatable because Barack Obama already did it, so somebody needs to step up because Barack is out of bullets.

Joe Biden
It's hard for me to imagine Joe Biden as President.  He just seems kind of silly to me, like a guy who just can't quite fill the big chair.  But maybe that's unfair.  Biden is very knowledgeable about foreign and domestic policy, he's experienced and likable and he knows Hillary's weaknesses as well as anyone who might run.  If we've been waiting for someone to save us from Hillary, maybe Joe Biden is who we've been waiting for.

So why can't I shake this feeling that he's actually going to help Hillary?  My read on the current state of the Democratic nomination process is that about half of Bernie Sanders' votes are "anyone but Hillary" votes.  Doesn't Biden take all of those while leaving Bernie with the people who just like Bernie?  Doesn't splitting the rest of the party really help Hillary?  What am I missing here?  Doesn't a Biden announcement now bury Sanders right when he has the momentum?  Aren't I asking a lot of rhetorical questions?

It's also worth pointing out that Joe Biden is, you know, not running yet.  Usually people who aren't running yet poll a little better than third if they're actually going to cause serious trouble once they do run.  Most of these guys do better before they have to start talking.  I'd be really surprised if Joe Biden becomes a serious contender.  To be honest, I'm starting to think I'd be really surprised if he runs.  I'm not sure he wants to. 

Hillary is still the obvious favorite.  If you forced me to put money on someone, I'd have to put it on her, but I wouldn't have to like it.

That's all the Democrats.  I know, seems like not enough.  Maybe Rand Paul and John Kasich can jump over to the Democratic field and see if maybe they can get some traction.  Kasich/Paul 2016!

Last Exit

Tonight's State of the Union address is basically the last exit on the politics highway before the bridge to the 2016 election.  Official announcements will start soon (Barack Obama announced in February 2007) and once one serious candidate announces, everything after that is about the election.  That's not to say this speech will have nothing to do with the 2016 election, but it's the last big political thing that isn't entirely about the 2016 election.  So, if you hate elections, this is pretty much it for you.

I watched most of the pre-speech coverage on MSNBC, just out of nostalgia for when they used to actually be a news network, but I managed to switch to Fox long enough to witness O'Reilly and John Stossel having a fair and balanced debate about whether or not the President (and his wife, for some reason) are true believers in socialism or if they're just dirty liars about it for political gain.  Bill thinks they're true believers.  I think Stossel's point was that it doesn't matter because what they want to do won't work either way.  Glad to see Fox hasn't changed.  Bill teased his next segment, which was about how you're not allowed to criticize Beyonce.  The inside of Bill's mind must be terrifying.

I switched to CNN for five seconds and their breaking news at the bottom of the screen was that Barack Obama was going to leave the White House.  Not that he had left the White House, but that he was going to.  Glad CNN figured that out for us.  I have to go back to MSNBC now because I just feel sad for CNN.  It's like how old baseball writers always talk about Willie Mays limping around in a Mets' uniform.  I don't want to remember you this way CNN!

I almost decided not to do this again this year, and after just about 20 minutes of cable news I'm already regretting my decision to do it.  We had better just get started.

8:53PM - 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices just walked in.  The other three are apparently way too busy and can't be bothered with this kind of nonsense.  I'd like to criticize them for being childish and petty, but I think if I was a Supreme Court justice I'd want to be one of the justices who's too cool for the State of the Union.

8:57PM - I swear I just saw Paul Ryan do the John Cena "you can't see me" gesture.  You probably think that's ridiculous and there's no way it happened, but I know what I saw.

8:59PM - Rachel Maddow on the Supreme Court: "They're all wicked old".  Did someone give Rachel a "be less smart and more folksy" note at some point?  You're from Massachusetts, we get it.

9:00PM - MSNBC just gave us a 6 second shot of a pencil on a desk.  Apparently Congress will be waiving them to express support for freedom of expression.  Congress is super into freedom of expression, as long as you're mocking gods they don't really believe in.

9:06PM - Here comes the Prez.  I would love to see the President just walk in and not shake any hands one year.  He could start the speech with "I'm here to give a speech, not shake hands with dumbasses".  These are the things that would entertain me.

9:11PM - We're starting with a quick recap of the first 15 years of the 21st century.  They've been....less than optimal.  But guess what everybody?!?  We're turning the page now!!!  YAY!!!

9:13PM - "Our combat mission in Afghanistan is over".  He added "I mean, ya know, sort of, for now at least".  Then he used the phrase "this 9/11 generation".  Can that not be a thing?  Please?

9:14PM - If you had "strong" for the state of the union, you win the pool.  If you had anything else, you really haven't watched one of these before, have you?

9:15PM - We just got a clear "woo" for "an economy where only a few of us do extremely well".  Who let Mitt in here?

9:17PM - The lady standing next to Michelle Obama is named Rebecca, and she's pretty adorable.  Apparently she goes to community college and her husband works in construction.  I'm not sure how that got her next to the First Lady at the State of the Union, but she seems super likable so it's fine I guess.

9:20PM - I had to switch to Fox because MSNBC's stupid real time polls are blocking the bottom third of the screen.  The question they're asking is "Do you agree with what the President is saying?"  What does that even mean?  He's mostly just stating facts right now.

9:21PM - The title of this section of speech would most accurately be "I fixed the economy and if you idiots try to pass something that will break it again I will veto the shit out of that bill".

9:22PM - "We need to set our sets higher than making sure that government doesn't just screw things up".  You gotta walk before you run though, right?  Can we try not screwing things up first and see how it goes?

9:23PM - Rebecca's kids are named Jack and Henry.  Jack is a solid name.  I'm not wild about Henry, but I think it works in Minnesota.

9:25PM - George W. Bush left hundreds of post-its with Presidenting advice lying around the White House.  The one Barack actually listened to?  Call people folks a lot.  Folks love when you call them folks.

9:27PM - Obama says child care isn't a "women's issue", it's a national economic priority.  The Republicans seem to disagree.  They aren't big fans of paid sick leave either, and don't even get them started on equal pay for women.

9;29PM - We've reached the point in the night when Democrats applaud loudly for raising the minimum wage and Republicans try hiding under their desks.

9:31PM - The President is talking about better job training for American workers.  I know for a fact that he told Joe Biden to take care of that during last year's speech.  Great job Biden!  You suck so hard!

9:32PM - The President wants to lower the cost of community college to $0.  Republicans are a no on that for some reason.  I'm a no on that too, because I work at a non-community college and I need money to buy food.  I feel like free community college might impact my earning power a bit.  Do all the Republicans work at non-community colleges too?  I never see them at conferences.

9:34PM - Wait, now the President says Biden did do some hard work on job training.  Well then why isn't it fixed yet?  What else is Biden doing?

9:36PM - We seem to be in the middle of a multi-part economic plan.  You know what voters love more than anything?  Multi-part economic plans.  Just ask Mitt Romney, or John Kerry.

9:39PM - Seamless transition from curing cancer to protecting a free and open internet.  I feel like both of those things are important, but one is clearly more important.

9:40PM - He just did a solid minute on the space program.  Just because Congress is too stupid to understand the space program doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't get to have one.  He should have said that.  Why can't I write for the President?

9:43PM - Uh oh.  It's foreign policy time.  Everybody get your spare pair of pants ready.

9:45PM - Looks like the pencil waiving was isolated to one lady.  I couldn't tell for sure from the camera angle, but that's what it looked like.

9:46PM - Every time one of these guys talks about supporting the moderate opposition in Syria I'm compelled to ask this question.  Have we just not been writing things down for the last 50 years?  Is it not possible for us to access the history of what happens when we back the lesser of two evils in an unstable country in the middle east?  What could possibly convince us that it will work out great this time?

9:48PM - On Cuba "when what you're doing doesn't work for 50 years, it's time to try something new".  Marco Rubio countered "Oh come on!  Just like 20 more years and I swear it'll work!"

9:50PM - The President sure has said the word veto a lot tonight.  This is going to be a feisty couple of years.  And by feisty, I mean gridlocked and pointless.

9:52PM - Biden and Boehner look positively frosty tonight.  I'm assuming they were taking turns insulting each other's moms and then Biden took it too far because you're not supposed to call Boehner's mom fat because she has a glandular problem and it's NOT FUNNY!

9:54PM - On climate change, the President says it's OK if you're not a scientist, you just have to listen to scientists.  But what about that one scientist Fox News found who says climate change isn't real and that opinion has nothing to do with the six figure consulting fee he gets from the coal lobby?  What about him???

9:57PM - "It's time to close GTMO".  Yeah, but we're not going to, sooo....

10:00PM - I feel like openly arguing with political pundits during the State of the Union address is a misguided effort.

10:02PM - Standing ovation from Democrats for same-sex marriage.  Look at them growing some balls once the polls show a position is overwhelmingly popular.  I can't wait for Hillary Clinton to tell me again how she evolved.

10:03PM - I think seven years in is a little late for "a better politics" and "appealing to common decency".  I don't know if you heard buddy, but there's an election coming up.  There will be no decency.

10:06PM - Hey!  I haven't seen Cory Booker once tonight.  Is it maybe because he's too busy buying plane tickets to Iowa?  Booker 2016!

10:07PM - "I have no more campaigns to run...I know because I won both of them".  For the 100th time, condescending and sarcastic Obama is by far my favorite Obama.

10:10PM - Coming in for a landing and we go back to Rebecca one more time.  I'm a big fan of Rebecca.

While we wait for one of the five (you heard me) Republican responses, here's a quick list of things that seemed to mostly get left out of the speech, except for maybe a vague reference (I apologize if I'm wrong about any of these, I admit I drifted away a couple of times):

-Wall Street reform
-Gun control
-Police shooting unarmed citizens
-The fact that it's 2015 and we don't have hoverboards yet
-Al Qaeda
-Russia

I actually give the President some credit for the last one.  Hard to resist kicking Putin while he's down.

I mentioned five Republican responses.  I'll be watching the official Republican response from Joni Ernst, which I'm not looking forward to.  There will also be one from the tea people, one in Spanish, one from Rand Paul and one from Ted Cruz.  Rand can get away with that because nobody agrees with Rand on everything and he can only really represent himself.  Cruz is just a malignant narcissist.
So, Joni Ernst started by first pointing out that while we may not always agree, it's good to hear other points of view.  I see she was in the debate club in high school.  Then, she openly admitted that she has no interest in actually responding to the President's speech, which is annoying because what she's doing is literally called a response, but it's also refreshing, because at least she's admitting it.

Joni Ernst only had one good pair of shoes growing up.  It's a good old-fashioned Republican poor-off!  Later Ted Cruz will tell you about his great-grandpa who was a turd miner in Cuba.

Apparently Republicans are going to start calling the Keystone pipeline the Keystone jobs bill.  Shit that's good.  Damn you Frank Luntz!

Give Joni Ernst some real credit.  Giving a nationally televised speech while staring directly into the camera in an empty room after the other guy just gave his speech in a huge and full room is a crappy job, and I'd say she did it pretty well.  She's a Republican, so a lot of what she said was silly nonsense, but still, she said it pretty well.

Another Round

You have to think the President is getting bored with this whole State of the Union thing.  You know at least once in the last week he sarcastically asked someone if he really has to do this every year.  I suggest he try breaking it up a little with some insult comedy:

"Good evening everybody...look at you weirdos.  I kid, I kid, but seriously folks, it's great to be here.  Paul Ryan's here tonight, give him a hand everybody.  Man looks like a muppet!  Haha, I kid Paul.  And Nancy Pelosi is here.  Nancy, why are you giving me the crazy eyes?  Oh that's right, that's just your face!  Zing!  I kid Nancy, she's the best..."

Here are some highlights from the pre-game:
1) Chris Matthews got through a whole sentence without saying the words Chris Christie.
2) Apparently there will be four Republican responses to tonight's speech.  Four.  Including one unsolicited response from Rand Paul on behalf of just Rand Paul.
3) Bill O'Reilly was yelling at someone.
4) Cory Booker arrived.  Booker 2016!!!

Most importantly, the President is going to announce that he's raising the minimum wage for government contractors.  That's fantastic.  You can't fix the whole economy by raising the minimum wage, and you certainly can't fix it by raising the minimum wage for just one group of people (though it is a big group), but the President, as the CEO of the federal government, is acting as a responsible employer.  Leadership by example, it's still a thing.

If the President is going to complain about Congress not doing anything (and I suspect he will continue to do that), then he has to be willing to do the things that he can do.  This is an example of a thing he can do and he deserves a lot of credit.  Especially since this wasn't some candy-ass 25 cents an hour raise. The minimum wage for government contractors is going up to $10.10 an hour.  That's not exactly ski trip money, but it might actually let people afford food every day.  I'm sure the Republicans will object.

And no, that isn't a cheap shot at Republicans.  If you oppose a raise in the comically low minimum wage while also supporting cuts to food stamps, then you don't give a shit about poor people being able to feed themselves.  Some things are really complicated, this isn't one of them.

9:04PM: The President's Cabinet has been entering the chamber for roughly 7 hours now.

9:05PM: Matthews says New York Congressman Peter King may run for President.  Please no.  I realize Peter King is what passes for a moderate Republican these days, but I promise you, he's still a crazy person.

9:06PM: By the way, I'm watching on MSNBC tonight just to see if they find ways to work Chris Christie into the actual speech.  I may switch over to CNN a few times just to check out whatever silly nonsense they're doing with graphics.

9:09PM: MSNBC has Al Sharpton on the pre-show panel, because that's necessary.  Also, it's 9:09PM and I'm still listening to the pre-show panel.  One year this speech is just going to be an hour and a half of people entering the chamber and then the Speaker saying goodnight.

9:10PM: Here comes the Prez!  Why is Eric Cantor always right behind him?  It makes me nervous.

9:11PM: The President is dishing out some pretty aggressive handshakes.  If you've got a hand, the President is going to shake it.

9:15PM: We started off with heart touching stories about hypothetical Americans doing hypothetical good things.  Today in America, the President stood up before Congress and said things that were probably true.

9:22PM: When the President says he's building ladders of opportunity into the middle class, that's not a metaphor.  Congress will only fund him for ladders, so the President is going to send you one and you can do whatever you want with it to try and make more money.

9:24PM: The President just spent a minute praising someone in the audience named Michelle Obama.  I wonder if he knows her.  I know a certain President who's getting laid tonight.

9:25PM:  Boehner isn't wearing an American flag pin!  Why isn't he being arrested and questioned?

9:26PM: Closing loopholes in the tax code you say?  Man, that's a great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

9:27PM: The Republicans will clap for anything they don't have to do.

9:29PM: Did you know that small business owners are the greatest people in the history of the Universe?

9:30PM: Quick shot of David Vitter looking bored.  The State of the Union address is the longest amount of time each year that he has to go without a prostitute.

9:32PM: Biden and Boehner are exchanging fart jokes while the President talks about natural gas.

9:37PM: I swear I could watch Biden and Boehner for hours and never get bored.  The President just said he's appointing Biden to do something about job training.  Biden responded by looking at Boehner and shrugging his shoulders, then they both laughed about it.  What were they saying?  I have no idea, but I bet it was unintentionally hilarious.

9:38PM: After disarming everyone by mentioning Biden, the President quickly hammered Congress for cutting off long term unemployment insurance.  But the Congress has a good point here, unemployed people don't need money.  Food and housing are free, right?

9:43PM: The President points out that last year he asked Congress to make pre-K education available to everyone, and he's asking this year, because that shit didn't happen last year, and it isn't going to.  To be honest, I still don't see the appeal.  I think I learned to count in nursery school, but I suspect I would have figured that out on my own eventually.

9:46PM: "a mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child...and a father does too".  Look at the President being all gender inclusive and shit.  Next year he's going to try saying that line without it sounding like he almost forgot to add the part about the father and then just barely remembered it at the last second.

9:49PM: Here comes the part about raising the minimum wage.  This is such a no-brainer, but still only gets a sarcastic smirk from Boehner.  It's really a shame that both parties can't at least get together on this.  If you wonder why people are so cynical about government, this is a perfect example.  535 eight year olds could agree on raising the minimum wage, but that's only because there are no eight year old lobbyists....yet.

9:55PM: The President is openly challenging Republicans to come up with a health care reform idea of their own, and mocking their 40+ repeal votes.  Sarcastic and slightly mean Obama is by far my favorite Obama.

9:58PM: The President is in favor of calling your mom.  In about an hour, tea party Republican Mike Lee will tell you why calling your mom is an un-American part of the liberal feminazi agenda.

10:00PM: Congress will do anything they can to stop gun violence, as long as it doesn't in any way involve gun control.  I've come around to the sad conclusion that it's more likely Congress will fund buying a bullet-proof vest for every American than it is that they'll actually do something about guns, and I think the President has too.  He didn't hang around on gun control for too long.

10:03PM: Allow me to summarize the foreign policy part of every State of the Union since about 2002: "something something men and women in uniform...clap clap clap...ever vigilant...clap clap clap...ending whatever war we're currently fighting...clap clap clap...diplomacy...clap clap clap...nuclear and chemical weapons are bad...clap clap clap...Israel non sequitur...clap clap clap".

10:09PM: We seem overly concerned about Iran.  The President spent 15 seconds talking about gun violence in America, and half of that was Democrats clapping.  He spent at least 4 minutes talking about Iran.  Do you think Iran is 16 times more important then thousands of Americans being killed by other Americans?  I don't.

10:14PM: Republicans are all about helping veterans as long as they don't have to help them buy food.

10:16PM: I think we're coming in for a landing here, we've reached the touching human interest story part of the speech.  I'll give the President some credit though, he's not talking about some clown who opened a small business, he's talking about a veteran who appears to have had a hole blown in the side of his head.  Now that's a guy you point to during a speech!  That dude literally gave large pieces of himself for his country.  He got a two minute standing ovation.  Well deserved.

10:20PM: Chris Matthews immediately declared the speech "masterful".  Quick switch to Fox and the first word I heard from Charles Krauthammer was "embarrassing".  Cable news is fun.

10:26PM: I'm going to try and stick around for the Republican response, being given by Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who I have literally never heard of.  Apparently she's the highest ranking Republican woman in the House, so that's partially my bad.  But it's also partially MSNBC and Fox's bad because I watch a ton cable news and I've never once heard either network mention the highest ranking Republican woman in the House.

10:30PM: So far I've learned that Cathy McMorris Rodgers has three kids and used to work at McDonald's.  Not to be a dick, but if she was a dude would Fox feel the need to tell me how many kids she has?  Also, some guy on Fox just told me she's not the most polished speaker on Congress, which is sort of like when a guy gets picked in the NBA draft and the ESPN guys say he needs to work on his athleticism.

10:32PM: Brett Baier wouldn't shut up in time for Congresswoman Rodgers to start talking, so I missed her first sentence.  Didn't somebody tell her a man was still talking?

10:34PM: This is like some sort of middle-America nightmare speech.  I've already heard about apple picking and a county fair.

10:36PM: "Hi, I'm Cathy McMorris Rodgers and I apparently have no interest in actually responding to what the President just said so let me tell you my entire life story".

10:38PM: Republicans are working on a step by step immigration plan.  For those of you who aren't familiar with politics, that means doing all of the steps they want to do first and then forgetting about the other steps.

10:41PM: Hey, this lady seems perfectly reasonable.  Can somebody find out if she'd like to run for President?  Sure, she said god a lot, but so does every Republican.  In general, she seems not dumb and would definitely be a better option than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.  The speech was sort of blah, but she was pretty solid.

OK, that's it.  This gets a little less fun every year, but that's only because nothing ever changes and we pretty much have the same problems every year, and that's not really my fault.

2016 Election at the Jersey Shore

I wasn't planning on saying anything about the 2016 election for a while because, first of all, I tried predicting who would get the Republican nomination in 2012.  I picked Haley Barbour, and remember that time that Haley Barbour didn't even run?  I also wasn't going to say anything about 2016 for a while because it's 2013 right now and are you fucking serious?  

But, according to cable news, it's definitely time to start talking 2016.  Chris Matthews almost pissed his pants on live TV a couple of weeks ago when something happened that made him think Hillary Clinton was definitely running.  It even distracted him from Anthony Weiner for like five minutes.  Meanwhile, Fox News is like 2 steps away from having Rand Paul followed around by a reality TV camera crew at all times.  So, that's the way it is.  This is happening.

Well, this is happening in a minute.  But first, what's with all the outrage about Anthony Weiner?  Matthews held what would be best described as a week-long penis vigil on his show about it.  Meanwhile, Matthews' two favorite Presidents (Clinton and Kennedy) nailed interns like it was their job.  Kennedy seriously might have thought it was his job.  I'm not saying Anthony Weiner isn't gross, I'm just saying that if you're going to get outraged about this stuff (which I'm not), actually banging the interns seems worse to me.

Anyway, Republicans first.  For starters, I don't think Jeb Bush runs.  He's never seemed super interested to me, and he's had the opportunity to watch his dad and his brother be President for a total of 12 years.  Even if you hate the President, you have to admit that guy has a tough job most days, and I can't imagine watching two family members try to do it for 12 years has left Jeb with much of a taste for it.

I know these early front-runners rarely end up winning, but I do like Chris Christie for this.  People say Christie can't get the nomination, but I totally disagree.  Christie would wind up in the same position as Romney was in last time.  He'll be in a primary with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and five other lunatics fighting to be named king of the clown car.  Santorum, Bachmann, Cain and Perry made Mitt look sane, reasoned, even smart.  And Gingrich was nice enough to make Romney seem like not that much of a dick.  

And by the way, Christie makes a pretty solid general election candidate.  I don't know a lot about Chris Christie in terms of what he actually knows, but if he turns out to be kind of dumb, that's not really going to hurt him in Republican primaries, or even that much in the general.  Meanwhile, I know Christie does all the superficial things that people love in Presidential candidates.  He talks tough, he doesn't take shit from anyone and he treats the press with the contempt that they've earned over the last 15 years.  I can't wait for him to go on Fox and sucker punch Sean Hannity.  

Also, if the Republican brand is anything, it's anti-government.  Specifically, the Federal government.  Ask yourself how the Republicans get the useful idiots in the tea party, who are mostly middle class people who, like almost everyone, are one lay-off from the poverty line, to protest against things like health care for poor people and slightly higher taxes for the wealthy.  They do it by equating everything they don't like to a robbery of freedom.  And since nobody is dumb enough to actually believe that more health care = less freedom, they inject the Federal government into the middle of the equation, so it's more health care + Federal government involvement = less freedom.  And that shit works like a charm.

So, if you're looking for a nominee from the everything the Federal government does = less freedom party, you may want to look for someone who isn't, ya know, currently holding a position in the Federal government.

And finally, if Christie ran against Hillary Clinton, I would absolutely vote for Chris Christie.  You can write that one down now.  Look, I even stopped calling him Governor Fatpants.  I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.  If Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul and a half-eaten meatball sandwich were running in a three way election, I'd vote for the sandwich.

You might ask, "hey Sean, you've always been a Ron Paul guy, so why no love for Rand?"  I just don't buy it.  People think Rand is a conviction libertarian like his dad, but I haven't seen enough evidence to believe it.  Ron Paul was never a serious Presidential candidate because he cared more about his beliefs than he did about winning, and you can't have it both ways.  Rand's level of ambition makes me think he's just another regular Republican who's trying to trade on his dad's name for extra votes by being a faux-libertarian and hoping people will believe it.  I don't believe it.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Where were we? Oh yeah, luckily for me, I don't think I'll get the chance to choose between Hillary Clinton and a half-eaten sandwich because I don't think she'll get the nomination.  She's in exactly the same position she was in eight years ago.  How did that work out?  Now she's eight years older, eight years less exciting and eight years more oh my god why won't she just go away.  

First of all, for every independent voter who loves Hillary Clinton, there's an independent voter like me who wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if you threatened me with violence.  A Clinton/Christie election puts people like me, who sprinted away from the Republicans once the tea people showed up, back in play.  Bad times for Democrats.  

Also, the far left doesn't like Hillary that much either.  Hillary Clinton isn't just an establishment candidate, she's THE establishment.  How does that play at a time when everyone hates the government (for both actual and made-up reasons)?  Not well, I think.  I'm not saying Hillary can't win, she's certainly the favorite, but I wouldn't put my money on her.

So who does get the Democratic nomination?  That's a tough one.  Normally the sitting Vice President would be a strong favorite.  And it's not like Joe Biden has never expressed any interest in running for President.  But, unfortunately, he's Joe Biden, so that's almost definitely not going to happen.  

What about Democratic Governors?  Can you even name a Democratic Governor?  I can name Duval Patrick (he's still a Governor, right?), but he really doesn't feel like a President to me.  Not everyone is cut out for the big chair, ya know?  Other than the Governor of the state I currently live in, I couldn't name another Democratic Governor, and I feel like most other people couldn't either.

Democratic members of Congress?  Yikes.  If Harry Reid ever runs for President, we should all probably kill ourselves just to be safe.  The Democratic nominee has to come from somewhere, but if he/she comes from Congress, it has to be someone who hasn't been there very long.  Which brings me to my pick.  Cory Booker.

Twenty years ago Booker would have been easily dismissed as way too inexperienced, but that's not the way it is anymore.  Barack Obama proved that if we like someone enough we're not willing to wait four or eight years while he gets more experience.  And if you hate Barack Obama, then I would submit to you that the fact that we're talking about Ted Cruz and Rand Paul for 2016 prove the same point.

Cory Booker is probably going to be a Senator soon, but when 2016 rolls around he won't have been in the Senate long enough to get that Senate stink all over him.  He's got executive experience as a mayor, and he's the mayor of an actual city, where people live, not some podunk middle-of-nowhere nightmare like Wasilla, Alaska.  And from what I hear he's a good mayor too.  Booker's good on TV, seems smart, he's generally pretty likable but he's also tough enough to not take the Republicans' shit.  

Plus, wouldn't an all-Jersey Christie/Booker election be pretty fun?  I feel like it would.  And as a citizen I'd like this election because neither one of these guys terrifies me, like a certain Mitt Romney did.  I think both of them would at least be an adequate President.  Imagine having two decent choices in a Presidential election.  Has that ever happened before?  The 2008 election doesn't qualify because of Sarah Palin.  1992 or 1996 maybe?  I can't remember if Bob Dole was really a decent candidate or not.  I'm digressing. 

Anyway, that's my call.  I don't know which side of the things I'd like to see happen/things I actually think will happen line I'm on here, but I feel pretty good about these picks.  So we're probably looking at Ted Cruz/Rand Paul vs. Joe Biden/Anthony Weiner in 2016.  Everybody get a helmet.

Undercard

I think it's perfectly fair to ask why we even have Vice Presidential debates.  What kind of person would decide who they're voting for based on what the VP candidates have to say?  And why would we let that person vote?  Honestly, I know they take over if the President dies, but who would bother to assassinate Mitt Romney?  He's basically just a Republican spokes-model, like Reagan was.  A conservative mascot.  It would be like assassinating Ronald McDonald.

So, why watch the Vice Presidential debate?  Well, because something might actually happen, and not just because Joe Biden is a gaffe machine and Paul Ryan lies every time he talks.  These guys only get one shot at this, and after the insane reaction to the first Presidential debate, they both have to feel like there's a lot at stake.  And also, yes, Biden's crazy sometimes, so there's that.

9:00PM: Before the debate on CNN, John King called Paul Ryan a strong advocate for smaller government.  No, that's still a lie.  Then some other guy called Biden "middle class, beer drinking Joe Biden".  He's not some coal miner from West Virginia, he's been in the Senate since he was 30.

9:00PM: OK, I'm going to start by admitting that I don't know who Martha Raddatz is.  I'm not the leading authority on debate moderators or anything, but I feel like that's not a good sign.

9:03PM: On the question of who the fuck the moderator is, my buddy Dave adds "according to Fox News, she caught the bouquet at Obama's wedding or something like that".  Well there you go.

9:05PM: It took approximately 37 seconds for Biden to mention that time when Obama ordered Navy Seals to shoot bin laden in the face.  Good move since Obama never actually got around to that last week.

9:07PM: Ryan says the Obama administration is projecting weakness abroad.  Yeah, all this face shooting and drone attacking looks really weak.  President Romney would go to other countries himself and kill terrorists with his bare hands.

9:09PM: Biden after a three minute Ryan ramble.."with all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey".  Biden is bringing the zingers tonight.  He could also be a little drunk.  Either way, this should be pretty fun.

9:11PM: We're spending a lot of time arguing about the terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago.  The fact that this is a political argument is really a pox on both of their houses, and I really don't want to talk about it.

9:12PM: Ryan says we should not be apologizing for standing up for our values.  OK, well nobody's doing that, but we'll keep an eye out.

9:15PM: Biden cracks himself up.

9:16PM: Biden keeps calling Ryan "my friend".  Important note, in Delaware, "my friend" means "this douchebag over here".

9:17PM: Ryan on Iran working toward a nuclear weapon.."they're spinning the centrifuges faster".  Wait, is that how building nuclear weapons works?  I honestly don't know.

9:20PM: Biden just called what Ryan was saying "a bunch of stuff".  I think we need an HBO VP debate so Biden can speak freely.

9:21PM: Biden on Iran.."if we ever do have to take action the world will be behind us, and that matters".  Well, not to Republicans.

9:22PM: Biden keeps trying to interrupt every time Ryan talks.  It's really funny.

9:24PM: Stupid question "can you get unemployment under 6% and how long will it take?"  The correct answer is, no, and I have no idea how long it will take before everyone realizes that.

9:27PM: Ryan.."I think the Vice President knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way".  Zing!

9:29PM: We're in the middle of a who can tell the saddest car accident story contest.  Biden won, I think.

9:33PM: I'm starting to think Paul Ryan might not actually be Joe Biden's friend.

9:35PM: Ryan says there's an "Obamacare board" that will be in charge of taking money out of medicare.  There's nothing Republicans hate more than Obamacare boards.  Biden agrees with me saying "it seems that every four years I hear the same thing about these panels". Ha! Although, no matter what you think of Paul Ryan, comparing anyone to Sarah Palin is a low blow.

9:38PM: We're drowning in a horrible discussion about medicare and vouchers now.  I promise to vote for whoever stops talking about this first.

9:41PM: So far I'm still voting for nobody.

9:41PM: It couldn't be any more clear that these two guys can't fucking stand each other.  Biden's five minutes away from ripping his shirt off and challenging Ryan to a wrestling match.

9:45PM: Raddatz finally ended the medicare discussion, so I'm voting for her.  I'm a man of my word.

9:46PM: Are we calling the 2008 economic disaster "The Great Recession" now?  Is that a thing?

9:47PM: Ryan says we shouldn't tax wealthy people more because it won't pay for anything anyway.  I don't really know what to say about that except, so?  Can we just do it for fun?

9:51PM: I'm sorry, I got lost in Paul Ryan's eyes for a few minutes.

9:55PM: Just to be clear, by Paul Ryan's logic, we would never cut the defense budget or make any branch of the military smaller in any way, because it would always be a sign of weakness.

10:00PM: Simple distinction on Afghanistan policy.  Biden (and Obama): We're leaving in 2014, so get your shit together.  Ryan (and Romney): We're leaving when you decide to get your shit together, and we're hoping you do it by 2014.

10:01PM: When Paul Ryan turns on his television these days, he sees the absolute unraveling of the Obama foreign policy.  He needs to check out some other channels.  Has he seen honey boo boo?

10:05PM: Biden is literally yelling at the moderator now about when they pulled the surge troops out of Afghanistan.  If Obama did that he'd get hammered by everyone, but I feel like Biden gets away with it.

10:07PM: Paul Ryan can name any city in Afghanistan.  Just try him.

10:07PM: Biden cracks me up too.

10:10PM: Paul Ryan wants to arm the freedom fighters in Syria.  Right, because arming the rebels in the middle east always works out well and never backfires in any way.

10:14PM: Ryan says you only put troops on the ground for national security interests.  This from the party that invaded Iraq for shits and giggles.

10:15PM: We're talking about religion now.  BOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

10:16PM: I should be able to hit Paul Ryan with a shoe whenever he uses the word faith in the same sentence as the words science and reason, unless the sentence is something like "Faith is completely incompatible with science and reason".

10:18PM: Biden says he refuses to impose his religious beliefs on others.  Paul Ryan is baffled by that whole concept.

10:20PM: Republicans believe that reproductive rights (and marriage rights, for that matter) should be up for a majority vote.  I wonder if they'd feel the same way about freedom of religion if they suddenly found themselves in the minority.

Closing statements, mostly nonsense, but I really liked how Biden framed his demeanor.  After seeming kind of angry all night, Biden said, if he seemed a little frustrated, it's because of how Romney and Ryan see the American people.  I don't know if that's bullshit or not, but it was a hell of a way for him to wrap it up.

I'm not sure how to sum this debate up, except to say this.  Every time Paul Ryan was talking, Biden's face was saying "I hate you, I hate you, I'm gonna punch you, I hate you".  Every time Biden was talking, Ryan's face was saying "Oh crap, oh crap, he's telling people all the things I don't really want them to know about".  I would say that Biden was passionate, tough and didn't let Ryan get away with anything. I'd also say that Ryan came off as more affable and maybe more likable, although I think Biden helped himself out with likability at the end, and he's always kind of likable anyway.

I would have bet just about anything on the media saying Biden won tonight no matter what happened, so I assume that'll be the prevailing wisdom.  I kind of don't care because it's a Vice Presidential debate and it doesn't really matter.  See you Tuesday for the next real debate.

Alchemy 2012!

So Mitt Romney finally has a running mate.  I can't wait to find out who Barack Obama decides to pick (what?  Is it still Biden?  Well, OK then).  Get ready for three months of soundbites from conservatives that basically boil down to "well, I mean, sure Mitt Romney sucks, but, but Paul Ryan!".  Conservatives are excited about Paul Ryan, like kids on Conservative Christmas.  Conservative Christmas, by the way, is a lot like regular Christmas, only instead of giving toys to all the good little girls and boys, Conservative Santa takes all the toys from the poor kids and gives them to the rich kids who really deserve them.  Those poor kids need to get a job, or an inheritance.

Personally, I like this pick for the Republicans.  Honestly, I do.  First, let's start by comparing him to the lowest possible running mate standard, which is obviously Sarah Palin.

Paul Ryan understands enough about the federal budget to, ya know, propose a budget.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan comes from a state where people actually live.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan possesses the ability to speak in full sentences.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan is, at least, vaguely familiar with reality.  Advantage Ryan.

Next, what's the worst thing about Mitt Romney as a candidate?  I know it's hard to choose, but I think you'd have to say it's the fact that nobody likes him.  He's just a really unlikable guy.  When he's talking, instead of listening to what he's actually saying, most people are just daydreaming about running up onto the stage and punching him in the face.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, is genuinely likable.  He has an ability very few 2012 Republicans have, the ability to sound reasonable.  When you see Paul Ryan on TV, even as he's saying things you completely disagree with, he doesn't make you want to throw things at the TV, or, I don't know, spend an hour writing an entire blog post just making fun of the things he's saying http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-arguments-are-bad-and-you-should.html

Now, Democrats are pretty excited about Paul Ryan too, and I understand why.  Yes, Paul Ryan believes that the rights of women are less important than the rights of religious institutions to impose their values on everyone else.  Yes, Paul Ryan believes you can budget cut your way out of a recession. And yes, Paul Ryan is an economic alchemist.

All 2012 Republicans are economic alchemists.  They believe they can magically turn tax cuts for the wealthy into a thriving economy for everyone.  It's just like how you build a house starting with the roof.  The roof is the shelter creator.  Without the roof, your house is just a small park with high walls.  So you build the roof first and just wait for the roof parts to fall down and magically form the rest of the house.  That's how you build a house, right?  I don't know, I've never done it.

You can't blame Mitt Romney for choosing a Republican to run on the Republican ticket with him.  And, in 2012, you can't really ask Mitt Romney to find a Republican to run with him who doesn't believe things that are stupid.

I also think the Romney campaign deserves some credit for picking someone who really does seem interested in talking about policy.  We'll see if I'm right when he starts making campaign speeches, but I've always seen Paul Ryan as a guy who is much more interested in having an honest policy debate than he is in suggesting that Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan muslim terrorist.

I don't know if Ryan helps the Romney campaign win any states, but I don't think that's the point.  Selecting Ryan represents a decision to make this an election about base and turnout, and I think that's the right move for Romney.  The Republicans don't have policies that appeal to truly independent or moderate people, they just don't.  They need to win this election with base energy and turn-out.  Paul Ryan helps with that as much as anyone, and he does it with much less negative baggage than you'd get with someone like Santorum or Palin or Gingrich.

For Ryan, this is obviously great.  I don't think Romney wins, he's just too unlikable (I know it wasn't that long ago that I said I thought Romney had a better than 50% chance, but have you seen how they're running his campaign?  Right now, I think Romney would do better if he spent the next three months traveling around the world and avoiding the media).

So Ryan gets national campaign experience and he gets to blame the loss on Romney.  After the election, he'll be in the same position Sarah Palin was in four years ago.  Palin had the opportunity to go away for a while, learn stuff, and come back as the clear favorite for the 2012 nomination.  Now, Palin possesses neither the ability to go away nor the ability to learn stuff, so that didn't really work out for her, but she had the opportunity, and Paul Ryan will have the same opportunity.  And he doesn't have to go all the way away, he just has to stop himself from chasing every TV camera he sees for a couple of years.

In 2016, Paul Ryan can be the clear favorite for the Republican nomination for an election that's wide open on both sides.  Additionally, since this country is really too stupid to stick to a budget, our debt is only going to be worse four years from now, which only makes Ryan (who, whether you like his ideas or not, is one of the few people to at least suggest something) more attractive in four years.

I'd be really interested in a debate between Barack Obama and Paul Ryan.  I think it would be fascinating.  Unfortunately, unless Romney goes back to his planet soon, we're still stuck with three horrible Romney/Obama debates and one semi-fascinating Biden/Ryan debate (people forget how smart Biden is because he's so goofy, but he's a bright guy).  So, I'm not sure this choice makes the election any more watchable, or tolerable, but it does bait an interesting trap for the Democrats.

I've said before that Republicans are stupid for making constant personal attacks against Barack Obama because he's so likable.  I think the same is true for Ryan.  Democrats seem to be getting ready to tell you that Paul Ryan eats babies for fun (and, since he's from Wisconsin, he fries them and covers them in a thick, cheese-based sauce, which is even more cruel and delicious), but when you meet him, he'll seem like a good guy, and the Democrats will just look mean and stupid.

I probably would have preferred Tim Pawlenty, just because I kind of like Pawlenty, he seems like a nice guy, but Paul Ryan was probably the right choice.  Don't worry, I'm sure the Romney campaign has already fired whoever it was that actually did something right.

The Search For Meaning

I've become fascinated by today's special election in Massachusetts. This is for the seat Ted Kennedy held since he took over for the guy who took over for his brother. JFK won it from a guy named Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., which sounds made up, but it isn't. Apparently, that was just one in a series of electoral ass kickings the Kennedys dished out to the Lodges. OK, this doesn't really sound that fascinating so far.

Actually, I'm not fascinated by the election so much as by the coverage. Fox is in the middle of some kind of teabagging orgy right now (wow, that must sound super dirty to anyone who doesn't follow politics and doesn't know what I'm referring to). MSNBC is in full panic mode, if this doesn't go well for them, Ed Schultz might set the building on fire.

I find myself asking one question. Why? Come to think of it, I find myself asking my TV some variation of that question quite a bit lately? Like this weekend when I was flipping around and wound up watching about 10 minutes of MTV's Jersey Shore. Why aren't those people in prison? Or at the very least, exiled to Saint Helena like Napoleon? I have no idea. Or, if you prefer something more related to today's topic, last Friday I heard Sean Hannity refer to the possibility of the Republican winning this special election as a "political earthquake, magnitude 9.9". I don't think Hannity was trying to offend anyone, it's a pretty widely used figure of speech, and I've got plenty of better reasons to call Sean a bad guy, but damn dude.

Let's meet the candidates first. The Democratic candidate is Martha Coakley. As far as I can tell, she was trying to become, possibly, the first U.S. Senator to win her seat without campaigning. If a bad campaign is a train wreck (hello John McCain!), the Coakley train didn't even leave the station until sometime last week. I've seen her make one speech, on Sunday. It was awful. The only thing I learned about her platform is that she likes applause. On top of that, her campaign apparently spelled Massachusetts wrong in an ad. At this point, I wouldn't vote for her if she was running against a plate of nachos, because at least the nachos would be delicious. She doesn't even have a good Boston accent. It's like the Democrats were trying to win with a degree of difficulty. Also, I think her campaign slogan "Red Sox suck, Coakley for Senate" may have been a mistake.

The Republican is Scott Brown. It seems like he emerged a few months ago from a laboratory that creates politicians. I know he owns a truck and plans to vote against the health care bill. Seriously, how bad have our politics become that a guy can become incredibly popular and exceed all reasonable expectations by pointing to one thing and talking about how he has no intention of doing it. I've seen him standing in front of signs that say "jobs", but I have yet to see evidence that he has a plan for how to create jobs. Except, of course, the Republican magic of tax cuts. People say every problem looks like a nail to a guy with a hammer. For Republicans, every tax cut looks tax cut a tax cut. TAX CUT!

Democrats will have you believe this election means next to nothing (I mostly agree with them, but it's funny how every political defeat is so meaningless if you ask the losing party. If Coakley was up by 30 points, something tells me Democrats would be squawking about how this is a firm endorsement of their agenda). Well, the one Martha Coakley speech I saw, she was introducing the President. He went to Boston on Sunday to campaign for her. By the way, this was a good move by the President. You could say if Coakley loses he'll look weak. But the truth is, if Coakley loses, he is weak. So I'm not really buying the Democrats' whole this isn't that important line when they're bringing the closer out of the bullpen. "Oh, this election isn't a huge deal, Barack just really wanted to see Boston in January".

Meanwhile, Republicans will tell you the fate of world rests on this election. Scott Brown will kill Obamacare and end socialism once and for all. If Scott Brown wins, then every Republican will win in November, all of them, no matter what. I was looking forward to what Barack Obama was going to do with the next three years, but apparently a Brown victory will force him to immediately resign in shame. Tough break. Especially since it would leave us with President Biden. I'm not sure what a Biden Presidency would look like, but I feel like we'd start blowing more stuff up.

What this election really means, of course, is that both parties, Democrats especially, can't take anything for granted at this point. Midterm elections are all about turnout, and turnout is all about energy. Democratic energy is pretty low right now, because even when we elect the people they want, they still don't get anything done. Republican energy is high right now, I'm not sure why. I think it has something to do with socialism, or death panels, or tea. I really don't know. I mean, I like tea, but I don't think I'd vote for Scott Brown.

More than anything else, I'm struck by what seems to be a desperation for every little thing to have meaning. In November, two Gubernatorial races and one upstate New York House seat were the end of the political world. Back then, the Republicans lost the House seat because the original Republican wasn't conservative enough for the teabaggers, so some empty vessel third party guy jumped in and the Democrats took a seat they had no business winning. Simultaneously, the Democrats had two awful candidates who ran two awful campaigns and they lost two Governors, as they should have. What we learned then, and what we're learning now, is simply that bad candidates make bad candidates, and they often lose.

Some say this Senate special election is more important because it's the 60th seat. Scott Brown can kill health care. Really? The leadership won't just find some other way to buy the 60th vote from someone? Olympia Snowe's always been on the fence, maybe we can give Maine 100 million dollars for lobster subsidies. Honestly, I'm not super worried about health care, especially since the bill's pretty crappy by now anyway.

What happens today isn't a referendum on the President or his agenda. It isn't a valid indicator of what will happen in November. I don't think it'll even have a great deal of policy impact. It's not like the Democrats knew what to do with 60 votes when they had them. All today's election means is that it's important to find good candidates who run solid campaigns. If both parties didn't know that already, I don't know what to tell you.