Self-Contradicting American Populace

The latest Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures the general mood of the American people has an interesting trend that is somewhat conflicting.

Concerns about personal finances, job security, safety and the direction of the country all eased at least slightly in the last month, brightening the outlook for Americans who had slipped into a funk around the holidays.

There were some dark clouds. For the first time, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, expect a recession in the next year, up from last month's 48 percent, as a housing downturn and credit crunch take their toll.

On a personal level, the general consensus among Americans was that times are getting better with their own situations. However, more Americans think we are heading into a recession as a country. Only one of the other can be true. If everyone's personal finances are generally doing better than they were a month ago, then the economy is on an upswing and not on a pathway to a recession.

My hypothesis is that people are generally right about their own situations, and in this case generally wrong about the economy. Housing and lending is one area of the economy not doing so well, but on other fronts, I think we're doing fine. In order for the Democrats to take the White House back in November, they have to convince the American people the economy is not doing well, and that they are the arbiters of change necessary to fix it. This strategy is working brilliantly, as demonstrated in this poll.

Put your policy where your rhetoric is

Another day in the Senate, another failed attempt by a liberal Democrat to initiate troop withdrawal from Iraq. This time, it's courtesy of Russ Finegold of Wisconsin.

Senate leaders pulled the bill from debate when it was obvious there was not support for passage.

"We'll be back. There are a number of things we're considering," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters in acknowledging Feingold's measure was doomed.

Let me get this straight. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate, a slight one, but still a majority. The Reuters article makes no mention of a filibuster, but rather debate and evident failure on the anti-war wing of the Democratic party to shore up support for a withdrawal bill. The two major Democratic presidential candidates left, have been engaging in a metaphorical pissing contest over who is more opposed to the Iraq War.

Republicans used this week's Senate floor debate to highlight progress of Bush's troop surge, which has quelled violence even as Iraq's political leaders continue to face difficult challenges.

My sneaking suspicion is that the Democrats aren't nearly as unified against the war in the inner-chambers of the Senate as their making it out to be in their presidential nomination process.

What Recession?

Hillary Clinton's campaign just announced they raised $35 million in February. Good news for the Clintons, but it begs the question: Where is the money coming from if you've been campaigning all along that we're on the brink of a recession?

The $35 million would be Clinton's biggest fundraising mark yet and represents a remarkable recovery for her campaign.

Obama's campaign reacted promptly, promising an even higher number, but divulging no totals.

"We've raised considerably more than that," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

Shouldn't your constituents be preparing for the eminent economic hardship and saving their money instead of donating it to your political campaigns? Obama has alluded to an oncoming recession as well.

Bloomberg Out

In what can be considered good news for John McCain and his supporters, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg finally said he isn't running for president.

In the opinion piece, Bloomberg said he's hopeful that the current Democratic and Republican campaigns will address an independent approach to governing.

"I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership," he said. "The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate."

Bloomberg could also play a role in the election if he makes an endorsement. He is good friends with McCain, and he also likes Obama, Halperin said.

I think Bloomberg's idea was to run as an independent if a more staunch conservative, along the lines of Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney would have emerged as the front runner of the Republican nomination process. Once McCain, the more moderate Republican, took the lead, he realized his campaign wouldn't have been necessary.

As far as the endorsement goes, I know the article makes it seem like it's pretty even between McCain and Obama, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't John McCain. McCain is much more in line with Bloomberg's positions. People tend to forget that Barack Obama is undeniably liberal on almost all issues. I think the more and more the campaign goes on, the moderate Republicans and some independents won't be as attracted to Obama.

The constituency Bloomberg represents are a canvas of independents and moderate Republicans who are put off by the Evangelical stranglehold on the RNC. Issue by issue, these types probably have more in common with McCain than Obama, with the only real potential exception being the war for some.

Clinton Liveblog

I'm currently in line right now to see Bill Clinton speak. It's hellaciously long, and isn't moving. Based on what I've heard through eavesdropping as well as the shirts people are wearing, I might be the only McCain supporter in the entire line. Having just posted my "Texas Libertarian" bumper sticker on my laptop, hopefully I'll be able to find some other freedom-lovers to chat with. The only other significant thing that has happened is that I've gotten a couple of hand-outs asking for my support in local elections. Both Democrats. More to come.

Well I finally made it through the clusterfuck that was the line to get in. It turned into more of a mob than a line and everyone just crowded to the front. There were some people passing out Obama stickers, and I was tempted to ask if they had any transparent stickers to reflect Obama's speeches. Right now the student body president and vice-president are giving talks. Pretty standard. Pretty dull.

To anyone who thinks Hillary isn't almost entirely dependent on the Hispanic vote in Texas, they're playing reggaeton in between speakers. The chick who's the leader of the Students for Hillary organization sounds like a damn Valley Girl.

Now some Democrat state representative is speaking. Eddie Rodriguez. He's backing Hillary.

Rodriguez: "(Hillary) is most qualified and best ready to lead this country. We're in historic times not just here in Texas... We've had the opportunity to elect a woman for the first time as president of the US.... Economy we're getting worse and worse news." Now he's talking about Bill Clinton and the "glory years." He referenced "change" a couple of times.

Hillary is running, not Bill, the surrogates need to understand this.

Some Austin City Councilwoman is speaking now. She didn't say anything of note. Just more buzzwords like "diversity."

Now some crazy-ass Clinton campaign person is screaming and hollering some cheers, and giving t-shirts out. This really is a rally. I wonder why people are more attracted to loud voices than their own inner voice of reason. Oh well, politics wouldn't nearly be as fun if everyone was reasonable.

Oh yeah something funny happened while I was in line about an hour ago. A guy decked out in Ron Paul gear walked by and yelled "Hillary's hands are soaked in the blood of children!" Supporters like this are why I bailed on the Ron Paul Revolution a short while ago.

More Bush-bashing from a Hillary surrogate. What a surprise. It's easy to run against the previous administration. I think the Dems are going to have a tough time running against McCain, because of his record against many of Bush's positions. The Democrats need to realize they aren't running against George W. Bush. They did that in 2000 and 2004. They are running against John McCain, and I honestly can't take either candidate seriously until they realize this and start taking on McCain's positions.

Oh Jesus, Sam Gamgee from Lord of the Rings is about to speak. His real name is Sean Aston, but in the interest of cynicism, I'm going to refer to him as Sam Gamgee from now on. He's a lot taller than hobbits. Gamgee's mic is having problems, maybe he should get Gandalf to help. He didn't really say anything eventful.

I'm going to wander around for a little bit and rub some elbows but I'll post more when Bill takes the podium.

My efforts to find any Ron Paul or McCain supporters was futile. I guess I should have expected as much. This is a very liberal crowd. I did find a nice comfortable spot in the grass behind a myriad of Hillary signs.

There's a dog barking behind my. Thankfully it's on a leash. My only guess is that it's in heat because it smelled Bill Clinton's machismo in the air.

I noticed a couple of Secret Service guards while walking around. They look pretty imposing with their earpieces and trenchcoats. Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down" is playing over the loudspeaker. Ironic, because Sean Hannity sometimes uses this on his radio show.

One more remark about Sean Astin: Hobbits sure do look dainty in suits.

Some White House interns must have crashed the party, because a group of people started chanting "We Want Bill." Oh God, now it's "Texas! Fight!" Sometimes you just can't get away from it.

And here he comes..........His introductory music sounds like Enya or something. I'm half expecting the prophet Rael to show up. I think I'm the least excited person here. Honestly. Even the Obamaphiles like this guy.

My bad, the music is U2. Is anyone more pretentious than Bono? Fitting.

I take that back. There's some lady about 15 feet to my right who's about as enthused as I am.

The Secret Service agents are creeping through the back of the crowd, where I am. Clinton's introducers are boring.

Some people are heckling at the back. Bill attacked them head-on. Props for that.

He's starting the mat by going into the insane nomination process we have in Texas. It's pretty crazy, and that's something I agree with Bill on. This "two-vote" stuff is ridiculous. Oh wait, he just said it was "cool" that we can vote twice.

He mentioned that polls have her 3% ahead of Obama in the polls. He failed to mention that she had a double-digit lead mere months ago. I didn't expect him to though.

Clinton just said "I do love my wife. I plead guilty." He sure as hell fooled the American public during the Lewinsky and Paula Jones scandals. He just tied it in that "I love my country too." I hope he loves America more than Hillary.

Now some typical life story stuff form Bill. Nothing of note. He just said he hopes the country works the way the University of Texas works. Jesus. Count me out. Our University system is blindingly inefficient.

He just mentioned Hillary as a "change-maker." How many times do I have to reiterate that she needs to distinguish herself from Obama? As far as I'm concerned, the election is over.

Now he's mentioning Hillary's post-law school career. Her work for the Children's Defense Fund is admirable, I'll give her that. More pandering to Hispanic voters by mentioning how she registered Hispanic voters. It's so obvious how badly Hillary, and the Democrats in general need the Hispanic vote to succeed.

Now Clinton is talking about the conflict in Northern Ireland. Bill is overwhelmingly popular in Ireland, just talk to my relatives over there. He really did do well there. He just attacked Republicans. If Hillary were to stand any chance in the general election, she's going to need some Republican support.

He's indirectly attacking Obama by referring to "the other candidate." Why doesn't he just address him by name? He's saying Hillary is the "change candidate." That tactic hasn't worked and won't work.

Now it's some global warming talk. Because of McCain's stance on global warming, one not popular with the other members of his party, this will be a nonissue in the general election.

He just used the "r" word. Recession. It was only a matter of time. Now it's subprime mortgage talk. People need to be more fiscally responsible and not take a mortgage on a house they can't afford.

A decent amount of people have started trickling out. I'm not sure if they were actually at the debate or just people getting out of class needing to get to West Campus.

He's talked a lot about healthcare, and I don't care to get into it. Now it's education time. If he mentions a voucher system, I'm getting shwasted tonight.

Nope, no voucher system. Ironically, he wants to raise Pell Grant funding. How is this different than a voucher system?

Man, the anti-war jab sure brought a lot of applause.

To take a moment away from the speech, it sure is a shame to see so many beautiful women buying into the Clintons' delusion.

Now Iraq talk. He's fallaciously making an analogy to WWII. His naivety is amazing.

HA HA! He's trying to say we've won in Iraq, so it's time to bring the troops home. This is a contrary position to the one the Democrats have had the past 5 years.

Well, it's about over. I'll post my final thoughts later tonight, when I get back to my apartment.

Bill Clinton Tonight

Billy the Lip Clinton is hosting a rally for Hillary this evening here at UT, so I'm going to check it out. Honestly, I'm thinking about live blogging the speech, but I'm not sure what the security and spacing is going to be like. At the least, I'll summarize what he said here. Should be somewhat conciliatory. I've even heard rumors of Hillary dropping out by Friday.

Anyway, in order for me to make it to the rally, I'm going to have to work on some school stuff, specifically Metaphysics, so my afternoon and evening updates are going to be limited.

Joel's Debate Blog

So I'm currently trying to find out what channel the debate is on here, and I am late, so it's already started. I have an excuse, but don't want to try to type up too much because I might miss the schedule channel, so I guess I'll save the excuses for last.

Thoughts, pre-debate. Obama is making hillary take it where the sun doesn't shine, she is just bent over right now, she needs a real spark here or else it is over come March 4th.

Ok, just found it, Hillary is talking about NAFTA...oh wow, fix NAFTA, good call, flip flop? Well, maybe she has seen the error or her ways, or maybe she is just sucking up and trying to get votes. Based on my opinion of her character, it is the latter. Obama is bringing up the flip flop right now...BINGO. It seems to me that Hillary talks the talk about wanting to help the working class American, but has many times failed to walk the walk.

On a sidenote while Obama talks about helping the economy, I hope Hillary tries to make some "change you can xerox" comment, so I can just laugh my ass off.

Baahahahaha, Russert is pointing out specific quotes. AWESOME.

LOL, I think Hillary is about to fucking kill him, this is amazing

Obama pwning Russert with his previous stances. I would like to be clear, I think that Tim is being a complete dick right now, its crazy, how is he a moderator? This is more like a Hannity and Colmes show than a presidential debate with a neutral moderator.

What I like about Obama, and he's talking about this right now as far as his plan for the economy, is that he sees the big picture. Some people may see this as him blowing hot air, or talking out of his ass, but I think otherwise, and see a candidate with the will, intellect, and drive to actually achieve real change and progress for our nation. I even remember reading an article where Bloomberg said that of all the candidates, Obama had the best plan for improving our national economy, that is including candidates who had dropped out, and I really wish I could find that, but I can't, so just take me at my word.

While finishing this, Tim bringing a sucker punch, and then Hillary with "I thought Gore was going to be president" BS response. Two thumbs down for both exchanges...

Also, Colin, while reading your blog, Obama's plan isn't mandatory, Hillary's is, and this has been pointed out many times by Obama.

Also, whatever Hillary thinks about bombing targets in Pakistan, it is already happening, and even Bush has come around. Again, in another article that I have no link to, but the military is starting to come around to the idea that Obama has had for quite a while. He just mentioned this, they took out the 3rd highest ranking Al Qaida official.

Tim Russert is the worst moderator I have ever seen, jesus christ. HAHA, seriously, this is quite possibly the worst structured debate I have ever seen.

Hillary making fun of Obama, nice stereotype. This whole making fun of Obama for "change" and being superficial is really superficial in itself because then that person doesn't know what he even stands for, but then accuses other people of not knowing either. Just look at his platform, go to his website, instead of pigeonholing him. Just my thoughts..

A friend of mine just walked in from down the hall and Obama was mentioning healthcare just now, and he goes "You can't just get it done, it will take years, ten years, many years, you can' just do it like that *snaps fingers*". I think he's pretty high.

Colin has dropped off here...are we done?

Ok, Colin hasn't posted, and I have some things to do, but I mean, this is what, the 56th democratic debate? What I'm saying is, we've heard this all before, and honestly, this debate is basically annoying me, so I'll make some more posts later on for sure. It might not be till Sunday maybe, because I'm doing stuff (lame excuse, I know) until then, but maybe I can sneak something in, especially if I come across a good article.

Also, Colin, stop making your posts so formal looking, it makes me look like a moron.

Colin's Cleveland Debate Liveblog

I guess I'll get my take on this puppy started with my expectations on tonight's MSNBC debate, which is set to start at 8 central. First, I really wish Chris Matthews was one of the moderators, because I think he'd try to get the sparks flying moreso than Russert and Brian Williams. As far as what I expect out of Obama, I doubt he's going to say anything controversial, because his campaign is smart enough to not screw up the momentum. He'll speak in generalities, and probably focus on the mortgage issues going on right now, because they've hit Ohio especially hard.

What's going to be interesting is what strategy Hillary Clinton decides to take. Is she going to be the passive, lukewarm wash she was in the Austin debate? I doubt it. I think she's going to come out firing, because she's on her last legs. It wouldn't surprise me if she focuses a lot on the differences between her and Obama, particularly in foreign policy. Hopefully this will be entertaining, and not full of too many below-the-belt attacks on Bush, in efforts to gain applause from the leftist audience.

Oh yeah, I'm also going to be drinking beer while the debate goes on to help me cope with the constant "the government can solve allllll your problems!" rhetoric, so the quality of this commentary is going to be getting progressively worse as the debate goes on.

Putting up with Olberman's garbage for about 20 minutes is about all I can handle. Keith Olberman is an anomaly. He's well-spoken, witty, innovative, but also a complete moron and a pompous jackass. Oh well. Debate time.

Drinking-game count:

Clinton: "shame" "let's get real" and her laugh
Obama: "we agree..." "change" "hope"
Either one: "the current administration"

::::Debate::::

Hillary is sporting some nice faux leopard-skin pant suit. Me likee. Obama's dresses relatively conservatively. The roundtable format is a lot more welcoming than the podium-style we've seen before.

I fucking love the "shame on you.....meet me in Ohio" quote they use to introduce Hillary. Jesus, did she seriously start with healthcare? She needs to open some new ground.

"My plan will cover everyone..." Hillary needs new talking points.

I laughed out loud when Williams referenced Obama's Halloween-costume African garb. This is such a non-story. Who honestly cares if he wore traditional African dress, seeing as how his father is from Africa?

"95% of our healthcare plan is similar"-Obama. He needs to stay as similar to Hillary as possible, because not looking at their differences has gotten him pretty far.

I'm surprised how Obama seems to be more on the offensive than Hillary in the early going. He doesn't need to do this. She needs to. This healthcare garbage is so played out. I'm going to give the liveblogging a rest until someone says something interesting, not dealing with who's version of socialized medicine is better.

Let me just go on a tangent here. Making government welfare programs voluntary is a perfect embodiment of the American ideal. We've established our society on choice. Both Clinton and Obama's plans for healthcare eliminate choice.

Clinton: "Let's have a debate on facts." You're about 6 months too late, sister.

NAFTA time. Let's see how Hillary strays from her husband on this one. I'm going to play the "too-uninformed to comment" card on this one. I wish more politicians would too. Hillary did seem a bit bitchy in her "I always get the first question" schpiel. It's good to know she watches SNL though.

Oh God, another "wall street, main street" analogy by Obama. Nice buzzword, but you need to get more into specifics in the general election, Barry.

Barack just referenced building windmills in Ohio to create jobs there. My question is, why are we so obsessed with sustaining dead local economies? I mean, it sucks that these places are going downhill, but if you don't like it, move the fuck out. We have great growing economies in places like Houston, Los Angeles, and others, and Detroit and Cleveland are shitholes, because of outsourcing and technological growth. People who live in those cities need to find a new industry.

Well, the liveblog died when Ross and I had an argument over my last point of dead urban economies. Oh well. I'll comment on the debate later.

Putting My Money Where My Keyboard Is

$5 down, $2295 to go in terms of how much I am allowed to contribute to the McCain campaign. I just bought the black oval sticker from the online store. A small amount, granted, but I plan on purchasing a lot more whenever he officially announces a running mate, and I can get mass quantities of McCain/Pawlenty(or whoever) merchandise.

Hurray beer!

On somewhat of a lighter note French courts have said that Heineken's website is illegal, because of their thought-policing on alcohol advertising.

Heineken’s French arm, Heineken Entreprise, has taken its website offline and called the Paris court decision “worrying”. The brewer was also banned from using its ‘for a fresher world’ slogan on ads, because it implied drinking could make the world seem a better place.

Heaven forbid a corporate entity would be allowed to give an opinion on the merits of their product. Does anyone besides this French court that moderate, responsible alcohol use wouldn't make the world a "fresher" place? If we look at all the places that wouldn't be considered the best places to live (Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Lubbock, etc.) alcohol is unavailable for purchase in the open market.

Now it's one thing to glorify living life in the bottom of a bottle of Jack Daniels, but to act like any alcohol use must be condemned in the public square, because of the unfortunate repercussions of alcohol abuse, seems to me to be fascistic in a slight way, and absolutist positions on any so-called vices have proven time and time again to do nothing to discourage indulgence.

For a jubilant ANPAA, the ruling was the latest in a spate of victories. It recently won civil suits against a French newspaper editorial and also Moët & Chandon, for “glorifying Champagne”. ANPAA says it is protecting public health by challenging irresponsible marketing.

Suing a newspaper editorial board, huh? I guess whenever you aren't nearly single-handedly fighting Islamofascist terrorism across the globe, your government has a lot of time to pursue more important things than "world-policing" such as ruling against a free press.

Liveblogging Tonight's Democratic Debate

I'm going to make an effort to liveblog tonight's Clinton-Obama debate in Cleveland. I hope it isn't the suck and fuck the last debate was. That is, each candidate metaphorically sucked each other off most of the time, and when they weren't doing that, they were fucking Bush.

Sorry for the profanity, but my hubris prohibited me for not using that insightful analogy.

I'm going to see if Joel and Ross want to liveblog as well.

Clinton's Foreign Policy Speech

Since much of the news media has been focusing on Barack Obama *gasp* wearing the native wardrobe of the country his father is from, less has been focused on Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday at George Washington University on foreign policy.

In a major speech yesterday at George Washington University, Sen. Clinton drove the wedge deeper: "If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries. But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions; until we have assessed, through lower-level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators."

Sen. Clinton added: "We simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to presidential-level talks that have no preconditions."

This is a hidden attack at Obama's lewd suggestions that we diplomatically meet with the leaders of enemy nations and try and forge some peace agreement. Clinton is shrewd and intelligent. In what I've read about her speech, I'm pretty sure she "gets it" so to speak. I think diplomacy is an admirable first option when dealing with world leaders in opposition to the American ideal, but many times, it is to little avail.

Now I'm sure Barack himself knows this. However, he knows that the whole "give peace a chance" type of rhetoric will attract the kumbaya-singing peaceniks of my generation and those before me. (As a funny aside, the first spell-check suggestion for "kumbaya" is "scumbag".) These beliefs show a shocking naive idealism we should have grown out of after the Cold War and more recently, 9/11.

Anyway, I think Clinton, too many times, has been passive in her debates with Obama, and I hope this speech is a bit of foreshadowing to tonight's debate in Cleveland.

Speaking of Endorsements

I'm definately guilty of asynchrony here, as I mentioned the Dodd endorsement in the last post, but oh well.

Dodd, a veteran Connecticut senator who dropped out of the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in early January, announced his support for Obama at a news conference with the Illinois senator.

This is a relatively insignificant endorsement, as Dodd was much of a nonfactor while he was running for the nomination. He was about as engaging and interesting as Joe Biden with a constituency comparable to Mike Gravel. The only real point that can come out of this endorsement is that it somewhat gives Obama a little credibility when it comes to experience as Dodd has been in Congress since Watergate. Then again, much of Obama's attraction is that he brings change to the politics of yesterday and is a fresh face on the scene. Let me repeat, Dodd has been in Congress since Watergate. If Obama is such a bastion of change and representative of an attack of the politics of old, why the hell is a guy like Chris Dodd endorsing him?

Dodd represents much of what Obama supporters hope to change; that is, career representatives who don't really care about anything other than their own reelection. Ironic that he endorses Obama.

Richardson Endorsement

Bill Richardson, a former challenger for the Democratic nomination for president is set to endorse someone soon.

Both Clinton and Obama have heavily sought Richardson's backing since he dropped out of the race in January. Richardson, one of the highest ranking Hispanics in the Democratic Party, could give either candidate a boost in the Latino community ahead of Texas' primary on March 4. Latinos are expected to play a big role in that contest.

Anyone familiar with Richardson, the current sitting governor of New Mexico, knows he has a good relationship with the Clintons. This is where things get hairy. Obama is obviously the front runner, and in a week may all but lock up the nomination. Richardson, somewhat of a moderate Democrat, would help either candidate from attacks of being too liberal, much how Chris Dodd's endorsement of Obama have curbed some of the "lack of experience" attacks.

Based on his past history, I'd say Richardson will probably endorse Clinton, in her final push for candidacy. However, this severely hurts his chances of getting Obama's VP spot, something he is obviously vying for on a Clinton ticket. This said, his vice-presidential aspirations, in combination with Obama's status as the solidified front runner, may make him lean towards an Obama endorsement. That won't sit well with the Clintons.

Colin's Oscar Predictions

I'm currently in Dallas right now for my grandfather's funeral, so I haven't been able to really do any reading or research for a new post, so I thought I'd give a run-down of which films/actors I think are going to do well tonight at the 80th Academy Awards. Of the movies nominated for significant awards, I saw There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, and Charlie Wilson's War. Granted, this is a very limited selection, but I'll give this thing a shot anyway.

Best Picture: No Country for Old Men
It was hard choosing between this and There Will Be Blood, but ultimately I have to give the Coen Brothers the nod for this film. Every single scene is this movie is gripping, and frankly, it is probably the best movie I've ever been privileged to see in theaters.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
The only nominees I have seen are this and then Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd, so this was sort of a no contest type of thing. Even of people who have seen all the nominated actors, the consensus has been for Day-Lewis.

Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Now I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman might be my favorite actor currently in Hollywood, and he was hilarious in Charlie Wilson's War, but Bardem was absolutely captivating as the antagonist in No Country. He easily wins this for me.

Best Director: The Coen Brothers for No Country for Old Men
Again, this is also a close call with Blood's Paul Thomas Anderson, but I can't say enough how much I loved No Country.

The N Factor

Ralph Nader launched an exploratory look at running for president a while ago when the only true populist in the Democratic race, John Edwards, dropped out. Nader's scheduled to appear on Meet the Press this Sunday morning, where I have a hunch he may be announcing his official candidacy for president. Interestingly enough, on the donations page for his exploratory committee, the limit for individual donations is $2300, the exact limit for individual donors in any national election campaign. Now I'm sure he set this amount a while ago, but I am also sure he has been planning to run for president again from the get-go, but wanted the herd to be nearly completely thinned out. I'm in class right now, so I can't expand any more, but I might add more later. Let me just say that a Nader candidacy is an absolute dream for this passenger on the straight-talk express.

Let's get ready to rumble

First off, I think Colin doesn't give us enough credit. I certainly hold him in higher regard than Sean Hannity, and I hope he holds me on a higher intellectual plain than Mr. Colmes. Anyway, a little short background info on myself. Born and raised Catholic, 6 brothers and sisters, was homeschooled and went to private school until 7th grade, then public the rest of the way. Currently a sophomore at Texas A&M, haven't gone to church voluntarily in over a year and a half, I lean a little left of center. Basically, my usual thinking on most issues is that too much of anything is a bad thing, and that the government's purpose is the common good, so if whatever achieves that is conservative or liberal, it's whatever. Some issues are grey for me, and I don't know a lot of technical or statistical facts about the economy, wars, etc, and my views are sometimes changing, so I might even admit defeat sometime during the course of this blog, but we'll see what happens. This might even turn into a mirror image of our Lone Star Showdown, basketball style, with us just trading complete assbeatings, depending on the subject.

My first message is this...GO VOTE. Don't forget to look up info about your local elections such as judges and congressmen..that's all.

GOP Porker is Corrupt

When someone scores an impressive 0% support for anti-pork legislation from the Club for Growth, it comes as little surprise that this legislator is corrupt. Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was indicted today for a series of corruption-related offenses.

The indictment stem from Renzi's efforts to use his position in Congress to promote land deals in Arizona by a former business partner, according to the sources.

The Arizona Republican has been under an ethical cloud ever since a family business was raided earlier this year by the FBI, which is investigating whether he used his federal office for personal gain.

A congressman noted for having absolutely no backbone in opposition of needless government spending on local pet-projects, a practice I view as a slippery slope to corruption, is probably more apt to use his power for personal gain, the essence of earmarks. I'm glad he said he's not going to run for reelection again. A state that boasts anti-pork legislators such as John McCain and Jeff Flake can do a hell of a lot better than this lowlife.

NYT aids McCain

John McCain has oft had trouble this primary season recruiting conservatives in the media to support his candidacy. The New York Times' baseless smear piece has finally given him something to unify the conservative base around him. Notably, Rush Limbaugh has, albeit finally, come to McCain's defense.

Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail to Politico: “The story is not the story. The story is the drive-by media turning on its favorite maverick and trying to take him out. The media picked the GOP's candidate, the NYT endorsed him while they sat on this story and is now, with utter predictability, trying to destroy him.”

Limbaugh added: “This is what you get when you walk across the aisle and try to make these people your friends. I'm not surprised in the least that the NYT would try to take out John McCain. Predicted this, in fact, way back in the early 2000s. Sen. McCain courted the media, cultivated them, even bragged that the media was his ‘base.’ I cringed when I heard it because the media turning on McCain was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.”

Limbaugh was one of several influential conservatives who, to the delight and relief of the McCain campaign, immediately decided that the behavior of the Times — not the senator — should be the issue.

This is borderline hilarious. The Times, a champion of McCain's fights against conservatives in his own party, delay an unsubstantiated quasi-investigation into a possible affair and indications of corruption, so they can discredit him when he becomes the front runner. Instead of some "I told you so" type of backlash the so-called journalists probably expected from the Limbaugh crowd, McCain actually gets support.

What's even funnier is the fact that the story itself is receiving less attention than the questionable journalistic practices employed prior to its publication. Frankly, I'm not surprised the Times chose to publish the piece; their bias is laughable. I expect more hit-pieces against McCain in the future. I am somewhat surprised at Limbaugh's quick support. In a lesser-of-two-evils sense, I'm sure he prefers McCain to the NY Times. I think it's only a matter of time before he uses this approach in a McCain-Obama conflict and supports McCain more and more. This is a promising first step in uniting all factions of the GOP to McCain's defense.

Let's give this another whirl

My last attempt at blogging went well...for about two days. I lacked direction, motivation, and accountability. By starting a bi-partisan political blog with Joel Chipley, I hope to slay these demons and actually put out a consistent product. By adding another voice, the amount of work on one person is considerably reduced. Furthermore, the fact that we differ on many issues and topics ensures (at least I hope so) a motivation for each person to compete and be heard. Anyway, if this lasts longer than I week, I'll chalk it up as a success. Now where to begin....