The party of "state's rights" and "strict constructionism" calls local democratic representation, freedom of speech and assembly "treasonous".
However, it is okay for a state to vote into law a measure that directly contradicts a Supreme Court verdict if it suits their political objectives.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Youth, Youth Vote, Wasted on Young
People who know me (all 4 of you) know how skeptical I am about Obama-mania, Hill-arrhea, Democratic "inevitability", and how Hope, Love, and The Youth Vote conquers all. It sounds nice and feels self-satisfying, but it didn't work in 2004 even though like now we were targeted by campaigns, mobilized, angry, eager for change, and running against a total turd sandwich.
To further pump people up and tell themselves and each other how great and inevitable and young and hip they are, along comes DKos to discuss the Youth Vote, and pooh-pooh any skeptics such as myself that the Youth Vote may not turn out like it did in 1972, or, 1992, or 2004.
Meteor Blades may need to review his/her history here because, Democrats lost 2 out of 3 of those elections he claimed were so dominated by the Youth Voting tsunami.
Sorry to be a downer here, and even more sorry to use a sports analogy, but weren't the Patriots talking about how inevitable their ascendency was?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Sen John McCain (D-AZ)
Faux News continues to prove to be a hilarious caricature of themselves. Much like Rudy 9iu11ani's constant refrain of 9/11 9/11 9/11 made him a punchline, so has Faux News continued to reinforce and outperform every criticism of it's "Fair and Balanced" catchphrase.
And the thing is, I grudgingly respect Faux News for their balls and unwavering commitment to reporting the news as they want it to be, rather than how it is (as Colbert said, "Facts have a well-known liberal bias"). But it's the people who actually look to Faux for their information and opinions that are maligned in my view by these rank shenanigans. I have as much respect for those people as I do for a steaming loaf of shit floating in a vat of diarrhea.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Spending Outside the Bun?
New Yorkers have spotted signs in shops reading "Euros Accepted". More of a shot to the pride than anything. Beware when you start seeing signs that read "Pesos Accepted."
Et Tu Coulter?
So with Romney out of the race, will Ann Coulter start campaigning for The Huckster to bring down McMaverick, or will she jump right on the back of the Clinton campaign and ride it all the way?
Is Mitt Romney Dropping out of the Race?
According to Raw Story, through reports from CNN and the AP, Mitt Romney will suspend his presidential campaign for the Republican nomination, effectively ceding the nomination to John McCain, according to reports by CNN and the Associated Press.
What's going on here? Is the GOP trying to do anything possible to make sure that its the Democrats who have a brokered convention and not the Republicans?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Crinch Pin Late Night Music Club: Jello Biafra and The Melvins
Here's a 21st century version of the Dead Kennedy's classic "California Uber Alles" performed by Jello Biafra and The Melvins. As you'll notice, this updated version goes after California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger. Always good to hear Jello Biafra...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Thinking Outside The Bun
Remember when Gore won the Presidency in 2000, but was denied the White House? He took to the political wilderness and grew a beard. It was taken as a sign by the Sean Hannities and Rush Limbaughs of the world as proof positive that he was unhinged.
Bill Richardson appeared on MSNBC tonight sporting a new goatee. Is he unhinged? Or is he just thinking outside the bun?
The C Word
Tonight, at 7pm Central, as ABC kicked off their Super Tuesday coverage, it was too early for any substantive results, so Charlie "Charles" Gibson, Diane Sawyer, and George Stephanopoulos joined each other in some vapid banter which went hilariously off-script for a moment when Diane Sawyer said there'd been "a lot of talk about the 'C' word" in this campaign.
No. Not 'Crinch.' Change! The other 'C' word.
No. Not 'Crinch.' Change! The other 'C' word.
Bad B.A.D. Hangover
It's a big week for me and my fellow Crinchers.
Today, Crinch Pin turns 3000 hits. I'm not sure if that's good or not, but it's sort of like your car turning 3000 miles. You get your first oil change and you're pretty sure you have many more miles to go, but knowing your luck you're going to drop the tranny before 4000 rolls around. It is what it is, so you'd better celebrate.
Coincidentally, it is also Fat Tuesday, and SUPER TUESDAY!!!! The day we Crinch Pinners have been awaiting with baited breath for at least a week. The election season is in full swing... and there is plenty of fodder for our ideological brawling. I wish you, dear reader, could see some of the emails. Anyhow, we four Crinchers will be watching the primary election results roll in, while we watch the beers roll down our throats at Schubas Tavern in Chicago. If anyone in snowy Chicago is reading this, please feel free to join us. We'll be upstairs, safely shrouded from the normal paying public's view. If you hear the sounds of shattering glass and splintering wood, you may want to decide how much you like your face. If you hear something that sounds like a bubble machine, you're probably safe.
All of this, and I'm still getting over my bad bad B.A.D. hangover. Apparently, I made a few to many links, and tried to take a blogroll in the hay with Brilliant at Breakfast and Blue Gal, both of whom denied my advances. Your loss ladies. We here at the Crinch Pin really took the tenants of B.A.D. to heart, and thus are equal opportunity linkers... B.A.D. to the bone. Ahem.
On the positive side we made some great new friends, including: bildungblog, Chuck for..., Drink Liberally in New Milford, Mike the Mad Biologist, Moue Magazine, The Impolitic, The Political Cat, and the infamous skippy the bush kangaroo.
I can't wait till next year's Blogroll Amnesty, but here at the Pin, it's B.A.D. every day! That's right! I don't give a fuck. Email me, and I'll add you to our roll.
Cheers, lads and lassies!
Today, Crinch Pin turns 3000 hits. I'm not sure if that's good or not, but it's sort of like your car turning 3000 miles. You get your first oil change and you're pretty sure you have many more miles to go, but knowing your luck you're going to drop the tranny before 4000 rolls around. It is what it is, so you'd better celebrate.
Coincidentally, it is also Fat Tuesday, and SUPER TUESDAY!!!! The day we Crinch Pinners have been awaiting with baited breath for at least a week. The election season is in full swing... and there is plenty of fodder for our ideological brawling. I wish you, dear reader, could see some of the emails. Anyhow, we four Crinchers will be watching the primary election results roll in, while we watch the beers roll down our throats at Schubas Tavern in Chicago. If anyone in snowy Chicago is reading this, please feel free to join us. We'll be upstairs, safely shrouded from the normal paying public's view. If you hear the sounds of shattering glass and splintering wood, you may want to decide how much you like your face. If you hear something that sounds like a bubble machine, you're probably safe.
All of this, and I'm still getting over my bad bad B.A.D. hangover. Apparently, I made a few to many links, and tried to take a blogroll in the hay with Brilliant at Breakfast and Blue Gal, both of whom denied my advances. Your loss ladies. We here at the Crinch Pin really took the tenants of B.A.D. to heart, and thus are equal opportunity linkers... B.A.D. to the bone. Ahem.
On the positive side we made some great new friends, including: bildungblog, Chuck for..., Drink Liberally in New Milford, Mike the Mad Biologist, Moue Magazine, The Impolitic, The Political Cat, and the infamous skippy the bush kangaroo.
I can't wait till next year's Blogroll Amnesty, but here at the Pin, it's B.A.D. every day! That's right! I don't give a fuck. Email me, and I'll add you to our roll.
Cheers, lads and lassies!
Why This Edwards Booster Voted for Obama
This morning I woke up and walked to my polling station and there I cast my vote for Barack Obama. I had the opportunity to vote for Edwards, who was still on the ballot, but I chose not to. Since Edwards suspended his campaign, I've been forced to do some hard thinking about who I would support in his absence.
One of the issues Edwards championed was universal health care. He came out early with a bold plan that set the bar for the other candidates. Clinton's plan is nearly the same as Edwards's, while Obama's leaves a little something to be desired (as I've blogged about before). So, strictly in terms of healthcare policy, I'd prefer Clinton. But of course, in politics, policy is only a piece of the puzzle. And in thinking about this, I realized that healthcare is actually a good lens through which to view the broader issues at stake.
Obama's healthcare plan is essentially the same plan that the "liberal utopianist" Bill Bradley proposed in 2000 when he ran against Al Gore--the same plan for which he was pilloried by Al Gore for going too far. Of course, those were different times. And it is reassuring to realize that the healthcare plan being critiqued today as insufficiently progressive is the same plan that was too progressive eight years ago. That's progress!
But of course, the President doesn't make laws, the President executes laws. It Congress who writes the laws, so when it comes to healthcare, whether Clinton or Obama are president, their policy proposals are only proposals, and it is the law that comes out of congress that they'll have to decide to sign or veto. And this brings me to my larger point: what kind of congress are we likely to see if Clinton is the nominee, and what kind of congress might we see if Obama is the nominee?
We all know how polarizing Hillary Clinton is. And we all know how many enemies the Clinton's have. One thing that seems clear to me is that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will unite a fractured republican party against her. She may win the Presidency, but it will be yet another close election, and it will cost the democrats scores of downticket seats as republicans, who's entrhusiasm has been lackluster in the primaries, will suck it up and go vote not only for the republican nominee (who will be McCain), but also for all the republicans running in theri district. I expect that if Clinton gets the nomination, Democratic gains in congress will be squelched. Further, I predict that she, like her husband, will lose democratic seats in congress in the 2010 midterm elections of her first term. If Hillary Clinton is working with a weak Democratic majority, or worse, a republicasn majority, we can be assured of several, more years of vitriol and acrimony with less than progressive outcomes.
And of course, if it's Clinton vs. McCain, the distinctions between them are minimal. And in a general, McCain will move to the left and Clinton will move to the right, further blurring the distinctions. I believe this scenario favors McCain as the anti-dynastic candidate.
What we know about Obama as a candidate is that he's energized the youth vote like no other candidate in my lifetime, which is a huge thing. These are people who might never have voted before, and Obama is bringing them into the Democratic tent, and most are likely to stay there. We also know Obama has appeal across party lines. Of course we remember Reagan Democrats, that bloc of voters who helped Ronnie into office in '80, and into a landslide in '84--effectively setting up the kind of republican party that would elect Bush in 88, and after losing the White House in 92, they would take back congress in 94...they would elect Bush in 2000, and take congress in 2002. Of course, many in the republican party viewed Reagan with suspicion. He had been, after all, an FDR Democrat. But it was his broad appeal that allowed him to build the party that has effectively set the agenda in this country for 26 of the last 28 years.
I believe that Obama can do the same thing for Democrats that Reagan did for Republicans. Obama at the top of the ticket agains McCain is a much clearer choice--youth vs. age, the party of change vs. party in power, a vote against the war vs. 100more years in Iraq. I believe Obama will have no trouble winning that matchup. And the wave of enthusiasm that would accompany Obama when compared to the suppressed republican turnout due to conservative suspicion of McCain will mean big gains for the downticket democratic races. With an Obama candidacy we can expect solid democratic majorities in Congress which will hold or grow in 2010 midterms, and the very real possibility that President Obama will be give a healthcare plan to sign into law that more closely resembles Edwards' plan than his own.
On foreign policy, Obama IS the best candidate. Clinton is a hawk. McCain is a hawk. Romney wants to double the size of Guantanamo. Only Obama has had the courage to say that we would engage the world like an adult, which is to say he'd use diplomacy rather than preemption. We know that much of the animosity the rest of the world feels towards the US is directed at our boastful neo-imperialism. Obama would soften that image with genuine global citizenship.
Obama is not the perfect progressive candidate in terms of domestic policy. I have many reservations about him on several issues. But I believe he is the candidate who will galvanize the Democratic Party and lay the foundation of a new progessive era and a better America.
Whgo else supports Obama?
Janet Napolitano, Governer of Arizona -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Kathleen Sibelius , Governor of Kansas -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Claire McCaskill, Junior Senator from Missouri -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Hillary can win in the bluest of the blue, and so can Obama. But Obama can turn the purple states blue, and start turning some red states purple.
One of the issues Edwards championed was universal health care. He came out early with a bold plan that set the bar for the other candidates. Clinton's plan is nearly the same as Edwards's, while Obama's leaves a little something to be desired (as I've blogged about before). So, strictly in terms of healthcare policy, I'd prefer Clinton. But of course, in politics, policy is only a piece of the puzzle. And in thinking about this, I realized that healthcare is actually a good lens through which to view the broader issues at stake.
Obama's healthcare plan is essentially the same plan that the "liberal utopianist" Bill Bradley proposed in 2000 when he ran against Al Gore--the same plan for which he was pilloried by Al Gore for going too far. Of course, those were different times. And it is reassuring to realize that the healthcare plan being critiqued today as insufficiently progressive is the same plan that was too progressive eight years ago. That's progress!
But of course, the President doesn't make laws, the President executes laws. It Congress who writes the laws, so when it comes to healthcare, whether Clinton or Obama are president, their policy proposals are only proposals, and it is the law that comes out of congress that they'll have to decide to sign or veto. And this brings me to my larger point: what kind of congress are we likely to see if Clinton is the nominee, and what kind of congress might we see if Obama is the nominee?
We all know how polarizing Hillary Clinton is. And we all know how many enemies the Clinton's have. One thing that seems clear to me is that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will unite a fractured republican party against her. She may win the Presidency, but it will be yet another close election, and it will cost the democrats scores of downticket seats as republicans, who's entrhusiasm has been lackluster in the primaries, will suck it up and go vote not only for the republican nominee (who will be McCain), but also for all the republicans running in theri district. I expect that if Clinton gets the nomination, Democratic gains in congress will be squelched. Further, I predict that she, like her husband, will lose democratic seats in congress in the 2010 midterm elections of her first term. If Hillary Clinton is working with a weak Democratic majority, or worse, a republicasn majority, we can be assured of several, more years of vitriol and acrimony with less than progressive outcomes.
And of course, if it's Clinton vs. McCain, the distinctions between them are minimal. And in a general, McCain will move to the left and Clinton will move to the right, further blurring the distinctions. I believe this scenario favors McCain as the anti-dynastic candidate.
What we know about Obama as a candidate is that he's energized the youth vote like no other candidate in my lifetime, which is a huge thing. These are people who might never have voted before, and Obama is bringing them into the Democratic tent, and most are likely to stay there. We also know Obama has appeal across party lines. Of course we remember Reagan Democrats, that bloc of voters who helped Ronnie into office in '80, and into a landslide in '84--effectively setting up the kind of republican party that would elect Bush in 88, and after losing the White House in 92, they would take back congress in 94...they would elect Bush in 2000, and take congress in 2002. Of course, many in the republican party viewed Reagan with suspicion. He had been, after all, an FDR Democrat. But it was his broad appeal that allowed him to build the party that has effectively set the agenda in this country for 26 of the last 28 years.
I believe that Obama can do the same thing for Democrats that Reagan did for Republicans. Obama at the top of the ticket agains McCain is a much clearer choice--youth vs. age, the party of change vs. party in power, a vote against the war vs. 100more years in Iraq. I believe Obama will have no trouble winning that matchup. And the wave of enthusiasm that would accompany Obama when compared to the suppressed republican turnout due to conservative suspicion of McCain will mean big gains for the downticket democratic races. With an Obama candidacy we can expect solid democratic majorities in Congress which will hold or grow in 2010 midterms, and the very real possibility that President Obama will be give a healthcare plan to sign into law that more closely resembles Edwards' plan than his own.
On foreign policy, Obama IS the best candidate. Clinton is a hawk. McCain is a hawk. Romney wants to double the size of Guantanamo. Only Obama has had the courage to say that we would engage the world like an adult, which is to say he'd use diplomacy rather than preemption. We know that much of the animosity the rest of the world feels towards the US is directed at our boastful neo-imperialism. Obama would soften that image with genuine global citizenship.
Obama is not the perfect progressive candidate in terms of domestic policy. I have many reservations about him on several issues. But I believe he is the candidate who will galvanize the Democratic Party and lay the foundation of a new progessive era and a better America.
Whgo else supports Obama?
Janet Napolitano, Governer of Arizona -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Kathleen Sibelius , Governor of Kansas -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Claire McCaskill, Junior Senator from Missouri -- a state G.W. Bush won twice
Hillary can win in the bluest of the blue, and so can Obama. But Obama can turn the purple states blue, and start turning some red states purple.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Brainwashed
Whoa! Looks like Willie Nelson has come out against the official story of 9/11. Appearing today on the nationally syndicated radio show of Alex Jones, Willie Nelson had this to say:
"I saw those towers fall and I've seen an implosion in Las Vegas - there's too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn't get hit by nothing,"
"How naive are we - what do they think we'll go for?"
"I saw one fall and it was just so symmetrical, I said wait a minute I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas and you see these implosions all the time and the next one fell and I said hell there's another one - and they're trying to tell me that an airplane did it and I can't go along with that,"
An mp3 of the interview can be heard here on the Prison Planet website.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Happy Blogroll Amnesty Day!
As a child I always kept my library books for way too long. It could have been because I was a slow reader, or just a dunce, but that's not the point. The point is that Library Fine Amnesty Day was always my favorite day of the year. The weights were lifted and I felt like I could come out of the shadows beneath the card catalogue. Now that I no longer read (even street signs, mind you) I've been looking for a new Amnesty Day which will liven the spirits and bring people with something to share out into the light of day. Happy Blogroll Amnesty Day!
If you want to be on our blogroll, we want to be on yours... just email us, and don't forget to save us some matzo.
(B.A.D. banner courtesy of skippy)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
