Coulter-geist Voting for Hillary?

February 4, 2008

On the January 31, 2008 broadcast of Hannity and Colmes, Coulter said, if McCain won the Republican nomination for president, she would support and campaign for Hillary Clinton.

“If he’s our candidate, then Hillary’s going to be our girl,” Coulter asserted. “Because she’s more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism. … I absolutely believe that. … I will campaign for her if it’s McCain.”

Its an interesting endorsement.  Clinton laughed it off on George Stephanopoulos’s Sunday program.  But there is a point behind the crazy.  The conservative/liberal divide between McCain and Clinton is small.  Yes, Clinton is very liberal on health care and womens rights, but she is actually very moderate.  She definitely would be tougher on national security than Obama, I had never thought about comparing that to McCain.  I will have to read more about him, I am not very familiar with his voting record and stances.


Who Will Snoop Dogg Vote For?

February 2, 2008

Political activist / Media correspondent Snoop Dogg, oh wait, I mean Blunt Smoker/Rapper/#1 Pimp Snoop Dogg is torn up about who to vote for. Or at least thats the implication between CNN political ticker headline Snoop Dogg torn between Obama, Clinton. Now I have no problem with this article, I mean people are always curious what candidates celebrities support.  And with the rockstar like craze Obama has been using to help people look past his weak credentials and even weaker plans, it is refreshing to see a celebrity not just jump on the wagon.  Many celebrities with little to no political knowledge have jumped behind Obama helping to raise money and awareness.   Some how there is this implication if you don’t support Obama over Clinton you are some racist who hates change.

What I thought was funny is that the article is the top story on the CNN ticker, which is a blog I frequent several times a day.  If I were Snoop I would write a rap about the two candidates and switch between the verses who I was supporting.  Add in his characteristically smooth hooks and he now has new hit that every station will jump to play throughout the primary season.


Black Women: Black or Female?

January 21, 2008

CNN.com has an article by reporter Randi Kaye about the difficult choices facing African American female voters in South Carolina. The premise is who will black women vote for? Will they vote their race or their gender. Read the Article Here.

I think that is a degrading oversimplification about a group of people.  While I highly doubt Randi Kaye is a sexist (Randi is a women) or a racist (she has had wonderful coverage of Katrina and other potential race issues).  The article smacks of racism and sexism.  I expected to read the name of some 65 year old white man on the by line.

Black women are both black and female.  It is not trading on either to vote for the candidate of one’s choice.  The article does not acknowledge until 3/4 of the way through, and only then with one sentence, that black women are capable of voting on the issues.

The tone of the article just didn’t sit right with me.  It takes a serious topic (and a serious portion of the voters in South Carolina) and trivializes it into black and female stereotypes.

At Anjay’s Salon in Charleston, the only thing louder than the hair dryer is the chorus of political opinions.

Salons are a target for the campaigns — across the state they have turned into caucuses of sorts. They’re where women gather and gossip.

Why is it when women are gathered talking about politics a reporter has the nerve to call it gossip.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?  No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice.

Race and gender are not the two separate halves that compose black women.  I think if a black women is torn between the two candidates over race or gender, it is about race and gender issues.  There is a difference between voting for Clinton, as a woman, because you believe she will more vehemently right for reproductive rights, and voting for her because she is a woman and you think it is neat to have female president.

It could just be me reading too much into the article.  But I think a few revisions, better selection of quotes, and a little more caution in using stereotypes and this could have been  an actual piece of journalism.


Lions for Lambs for Losers

November 11, 2007

I love politics. I love movies. I love heated debates about the “war on terror”, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the importance of national service. I love Meryl Streep. I love uber liberal Robert Redford. I should have loved Lions for Lambs.

But I didn’t. In fact, I hated it. I thought it was one of the worst films I saw this year. Over hyped, over advertised, over acted, and over ambitious. In fact, I thought it was so bad I needed to post about it.

Problems:

It is preachy and self important. It tells you what is important and just how important it is. It had Tom Cruise just spouting the same Republican Party lines I could watch on CNN of the value of security and turning the Middle East into some Christian moral crusade. It had Meryl Streep as a weak, menopausal reporter who lost the spunk and dedication to truth journalists used to have. She was only capable of saying something needed to be done (and of course to compare the situation to Vietnam). Robert Redford was the worst; he was supposed to be the inspirational teacher who changes apathetic American kids into the proponents of change while having done nothing himself. Except it was so dry the only thing it inspired me to do was fall asleep. Intermittent through the two main conversations were some decent scenes of two soldiers, exploitation cinema at its finest. Although that was essentially to make you sympathize with the troops regardless of your political views by making them minority martyrs dying for our sins. Then after no plot, there was no resolution. I guess it was just to pose the questions you should be asking yourself about our government already. Except the problem is if you weren’t already asking those questions you wouldn’t have gone to see the movie, so it was preaching to the choir. It was also incredibly spineless, there was a general leaning towards anti-war sentiments, but it wasn’t strong or in your face. Just a terribly ineffective, boring tirade made my Hollywood to try to prove some sort of political awareness. I don’t care that you read the newspaper Robert Redford.

My advice:

If you are looking for a movie to make you ask yourself what is right and wrong, check out Gone Baby Gone. That is a fine example of movie posing moral questions while still having an entertaining and fast paced storyline.


How Nobel of You, Mr. Gore

October 12, 2007

al_gore_nobel_1011.jpg 

Al Gore, the former Vice President, and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a statement, Gore said he was “deeply honored,” adding that “the climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

The former vice president said he would donate his half of the $1.5 million prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a U.S. organization he founded that aims to persuade people to cut emissions and reduce global warming.

Most of us remember Gore as the stiff counter part to the charming Bill Clinton.  He ran against George Bush and won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college.  Many people think the election was stolen from him (because of some voter issues in Florida).  I think many of the votes he got were people voting for him just to vote along their party lines and/or because he was associated with Bill Clinton.  He didn’t really stand out for anything himself.  He had  a note worthy lack of passion about anything. 

After the election he decided to dedicate himself to a cause he championed his whole career, global warming.  All of a sudden he appeared alive, passionate, and like a true leader.  It begs the question where was this Al Gore during the 2000 election?  Maybe there would be no war, no dead soliders, no giant deficit, and no debate over whether innocent children deserve health care.  Maybe scientiests could do live saving research and unlock the potential of stem cells.  Maybe the world would be a better place.  The one thing we know would be different, our president would actually care about global warming.

As to him running for president.  I don’t think he will or that he should.  At this point that would make him a liar.  I also think running against Hillary Clinton would create a chasm in the party.  Can you say Vice President??? (Just an idea)


First the Gays, now the Jews?

October 12, 2007

Ann Coulter, the Anti-Christ

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Conservative commentator and best-selling author Ann Coulter may find herself in the midst of a controversy for comments Monday suggesting America would be better if everyone was Christian.

When CNBC host Donny Deutsch responded, “It would be better if we were all Christian?” Coulter said “Yeah.”

Deutsch, himself Jewish, continued to press Coulter on her remarks, asking, “We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians then?”

“Yeah,” Coulter responded, adding “Well, it’s a lot easier. It’s kind of a fast track.”

“You can’t possibly believe that,” Deutsch responded. “You can’t possibly. You’re too educated.”

Later in the interview Deutsch asked Coulter if she doesn’t want any Jews in the world, Coulter responded, “No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.”

“Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you,” Deutsch said. Deutsch said he was personally offended. Deutsch continued to call Coulter’s comments anti-semetic.

“No. I’m sorry. It is not intended to be,” she said. “I don’t think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don’t believe our testament.”

Sometimes being controversial just to be controversial blows up in your face. Earlier this year she drew fierce criticism from both sides of the aisle after calling Edwards a faggot. Now she is in hot water over these anti-semetic remarks. But the funny thing is I don’t believe she has any problems with gays or with Jews, she is just really really needy.

I’m what I’d like to call a rough around the edges Christian, I believe somethings and I don’t believe others.  I have my balance between faith and doubt.  I don’t ascribe to all of the church’s rules, it would be hard to without hating myself.  Some would say that makes me a supermarket Christian (I pick and choose what to buy), but I think it makes me realistic.  Whether God or evolution, I had no say in being gay and as such I don’t expect to be punished for it.  And while I am in no way a good representative of Christians in general, I do think I can speak for a lot of Christians and say I don’t view Christians as “Perfected Jews”.  I don’t view any people as perfected anythings.

Ann Coulter you are Tool Bag of the Day (she gets this title several times a year in my opinion)


Children’s Health Care

October 3, 2007

President Bush has vowed to veto the State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion. The program already helps 4 million children receive health care, but the expansion would increase the number to 8 million. It is designed to protect families that cannot afford to provide adquete health care to their children. Now before any starts those classist rants about people needing to get off welfare and get a job, this act is different. It is setup to help the millions of working families who make too much for Medicaid but don’t have enough for the rising costs of private health insurance. While I could understand a few reason for vetoing a universal health care plan, this makes no sense. If he were concerned about limiting the federal budget (clearly not a concern..cough..Iraq…cough) I would understand. If he were concerned it was too limiting and should cover more children (he claims the opposite) I might understand a veto. Or perhaps if had some alternative in mind (other than draining the education system, putting the country in economic distress, and telling families how they ought to live) I could understand.

What Mr. Bush fails to see is the bigger picture. These children are often without coverage because they fall between the extremes of poverty and the comfort of the middle class. But not giving them coverage does not force their parents to get better jobs, nor does it force insurers to lower prices, nor does it take away the rest of a family’s expenses. What it does is leave children without insurance. Children, you know those little innocent people who cannot go out and get insurance for themselves.


WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush certainly will veto legislation expanding a children’s health insurance program by $35 billion over five years despite Democratic pressure lobbying him to change his mind, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated Tuesday.

The Senate voted 67-29 Thursday night to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a measure Bush has vowed before to veto, saying it’s a step toward universal coverage. The program would double — from 4 million to 8 million — the number of children covered. Eighteen Republicans joined all of the Democrats in voting to expand the program from its current annual budget of $5 billion to $12 billion for the next five years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah was among those Republicans who split from the president. “It’s unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue.” Bush and many Republicans contend the program’s original intent would be changed under the current bill. They have said their concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage for their children to get cheaper coverage under the bill.

Such a veto would be the fourth of Bush’s presidency. After not using his veto power at all during his first term, the president has vetoed three bills in his second one, including two on stem-cell research legislation and one on a war funding bill with a Democratic timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

“If the president vetoes this bill, he will be vetoing health care for almost 4 million children, and he will be putting ideology — not children — first,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.

But Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, wasn’t buying that argument. “This is a perfect example of the type of partisan politics that goes on in Washington all the time,” he told CNN. “It’s not about trying to take care of the children; it’s about how can we get a political advantage.” Lott added, “Do you really believe Republicans don’t want to help poor, low-income children?”

Actually Mr. Lott, that is exactly what I believe.