"Former Presidential Candidate": Resume Padding for Losers

Every election cycle we see candidates enter the fray who know their odds of winning are about the same as the likelihood that Paris Hilton will ever complete a New York Times crossword puzzle.

“Why do they get in when they know they’re not going anywhere?” I sometimes hear people say.

The answer is, of course, a simple one: So they can forever have the label “former presidential candidate” appear under their names on any of the hundreds of news programs on which they’ll subsequently appear to, ironically, serve as an expert on what it takes to win a presidential election.

Consider a few of these who have thrown their hats into ring for the 2008 nominations. Connecticut’s Chris Dodd – better known as the top slice of a waitress sandwich at the “Ewww!” deli — is polling at only 8 percent in his home state. Will he drop out? Only after having spent the requisite amount of time as a candidate so as to have it stick to his resume.

Dennis Kucinich, who is slowly becoming the heir apparent to Pat Paulson in comedic runs for the White House (countered on the right by Alan Keyes), has a better chance of having a menstrual cycle this year than of finding himself in the top tier of candidates. Kucinich has called for a “Department of Peace” to counter the “Department of Defense.” In that battle, my money’s on the Department of Defense. Howitzer trumps Birkenstock, time after time.

As for Republicans, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo are all polling at around 1 percent — but they’re polling 100% at the odds that they’ll soon have “former presidential candidate” appearing after their names.

Don’t get me wrong though, not every candidate enters the fray knowing they have no chance of winning simply for the resume padding. Lower tier candidates often get involved and keep the debate focused and intense, and that’s a good thing — unless you’re Ralph Nader, at which point the debate falls asleep.

The problem for those few who enter the race on principle is that the Wizards can’t have curtain-pullers around, so the major parties smack their hands and they’re soon gone, and all the top dogs go back to chasing their own tails, and ours, with empty rhetoric.

But there are plenty of politicians — probably more than we think – who enter the fray not for their country or to engage in a battle of ideas, but to get some face time and to add the “former presidential candidate” line to the top of their resumes. If the politician entered the race only for this reason, no matter how you slice it, that line translates as nothing more than ”loser.”

Since we have such a law-happy government, how about one that says you can’t use a “former presidential candidate” label, or have it applied to you, unless you polled at a certain number for a certain length of time? This sounds like a job for McCain/Feingold! We might cut down on the number resume padding boneheads entering the fray simply for face time on news shows.

“Former Presidential Candidate”: Resume Padding for Losers

Every election cycle we see candidates enter the fray who know their odds of winning are about the same as the likelihood that Paris Hilton will ever complete a New York Times crossword puzzle.

“Why do they get in when they know they’re not going anywhere?” I sometimes hear people say.

The answer is, of course, a simple one: So they can forever have the label “former presidential candidate” appear under their names on any of the hundreds of news programs on which they’ll subsequently appear to, ironically, serve as an expert on what it takes to win a presidential election.

Consider a few of these who have thrown their hats into ring for the 2008 nominations. Connecticut’s Chris Dodd – better known as the top slice of a waitress sandwich at the “Ewww!” deli — is polling at only 8 percent in his home state. Will he drop out? Only after having spent the requisite amount of time as a candidate so as to have it stick to his resume.

Dennis Kucinich, who is slowly becoming the heir apparent to Pat Paulson in comedic runs for the White House (countered on the right by Alan Keyes), has a better chance of having a menstrual cycle this year than of finding himself in the top tier of candidates. Kucinich has called for a “Department of Peace” to counter the “Department of Defense.” In that battle, my money’s on the Department of Defense. Howitzer trumps Birkenstock, time after time.

As for Republicans, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo are all polling at around 1 percent — but they’re polling 100% at the odds that they’ll soon have “former presidential candidate” appearing after their names.

Don’t get me wrong though, not every candidate enters the fray knowing they have no chance of winning simply for the resume padding. Lower tier candidates often get involved and keep the debate focused and intense, and that’s a good thing — unless you’re Ralph Nader, at which point the debate falls asleep.

The problem for those few who enter the race on principle is that the Wizards can’t have curtain-pullers around, so the major parties smack their hands and they’re soon gone, and all the top dogs go back to chasing their own tails, and ours, with empty rhetoric.

But there are plenty of politicians — probably more than we think – who enter the fray not for their country or to engage in a battle of ideas, but to get some face time and to add the “former presidential candidate” line to the top of their resumes. If the politician entered the race only for this reason, no matter how you slice it, that line translates as nothing more than ”loser.”

Since we have such a law-happy government, how about one that says you can’t use a “former presidential candidate” label, or have it applied to you, unless you polled at a certain number for a certain length of time? This sounds like a job for McCain/Feingold! We might cut down on the number resume padding boneheads entering the fray simply for face time on news shows.

Hill Bill, Volume II: Why A 'Strong Independent Feminist' Keeps A Cheating Man

For those among us who were witness to the goings-on in the White House in the 1990’s and asked ourselves, “Why doesn’t she dump that guy?” Here’s why.

It’s been said and written on numerous occasions over the years that Hillary Clinton, champion “feminist,” wouldn’t be anywhere near where she is today without a man — specifically Bill Clinton. Like Jane Fonda, who billed herself as a “feminist” but yet had the audacity to get breast implants, Hillary Clinton is one of those “both ends against the middle” political hacks. In other words, if Hillary Clinton were black, she’d join the KKK to get the peckerwood vote and later spend some of the money she raised from the group on ads calling for stiffer penalties for hate crimes.

To many, it’s obvious and embarrassing. To an absolutely stunning number of people, this seems to be an attractive political feature.

Over the weekend in New Hampshire, Hillary reiterated how much her husband means to her in this election, and it isn’t due to accident or for the purposes of sheer spousal love.

“I know what Gingrich tells people privately, I know what DeLay tells people privately, I know what Karl Rove tells people privately. I’m the one person they are most afraid of. Bill and I have beaten them before, and we will again.”

Yes, Hillary will be lauding her husband more and more on the campaign trail in order to reel in the base that Hillary’s in danger of losing due to her “centering” on many issues, not the least of which is the backpedaling Hillary is now engaged in because of her initial support of the Iraq war. In New Hampshire, when confronted on her initial support for the Iraq war, Hillary responded, “Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it.”

And knowing what I know now I never would have put money on the Chicago Bears, but that doesn’t get me my capital back, does it? Hillary might have discovered the hard way that the same is true in politics, but now she’s obviously been told to bring in Bill from the bullpen to get the save.

Hillary needs Bill to shore up the left coast as well:

David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, Spielberg’s colleagues at the DreamWorks film studio, are backing Obama. It was thought that Spielberg was too, but sources say Bill Clinton prevailed on him to help his wife. All three men were generous backers of the former President.

So we see that Hillary Clinton needs her husband more than ever, which wouldn’t be a problem if she weren’t constantly reiterating what a “strong, independent woman” she is. Hillary Clinton is as “independent” as Siamese twins attached at the wallet.

Now watch out, voters, because Hillary’s obviously been working on that hypnotic, icy stare. The campaign trail witchcraft is starting to take hold on people:

And where did Hillary learn that “you will submit to my wants” trick? You guessed it:

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed here.

Hill Bill, Volume II: Why A ‘Strong Independent Feminist’ Keeps A Cheating Man

For those among us who were witness to the goings-on in the White House in the 1990’s and asked ourselves, “Why doesn’t she dump that guy?” Here’s why.

It’s been said and written on numerous occasions over the years that Hillary Clinton, champion “feminist,” wouldn’t be anywhere near where she is today without a man — specifically Bill Clinton. Like Jane Fonda, who billed herself as a “feminist” but yet had the audacity to get breast implants, Hillary Clinton is one of those “both ends against the middle” political hacks. In other words, if Hillary Clinton were black, she’d join the KKK to get the peckerwood vote and later spend some of the money she raised from the group on ads calling for stiffer penalties for hate crimes.

To many, it’s obvious and embarrassing. To an absolutely stunning number of people, this seems to be an attractive political feature.

Over the weekend in New Hampshire, Hillary reiterated how much her husband means to her in this election, and it isn’t due to accident or for the purposes of sheer spousal love.

“I know what Gingrich tells people privately, I know what DeLay tells people privately, I know what Karl Rove tells people privately. I’m the one person they are most afraid of. Bill and I have beaten them before, and we will again.”

Yes, Hillary will be lauding her husband more and more on the campaign trail in order to reel in the base that Hillary’s in danger of losing due to her “centering” on many issues, not the least of which is the backpedaling Hillary is now engaged in because of her initial support of the Iraq war. In New Hampshire, when confronted on her initial support for the Iraq war, Hillary responded, “Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it.”

And knowing what I know now I never would have put money on the Chicago Bears, but that doesn’t get me my capital back, does it? Hillary might have discovered the hard way that the same is true in politics, but now she’s obviously been told to bring in Bill from the bullpen to get the save.

Hillary needs Bill to shore up the left coast as well:

David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, Spielberg’s colleagues at the DreamWorks film studio, are backing Obama. It was thought that Spielberg was too, but sources say Bill Clinton prevailed on him to help his wife. All three men were generous backers of the former President.

So we see that Hillary Clinton needs her husband more than ever, which wouldn’t be a problem if she weren’t constantly reiterating what a “strong, independent woman” she is. Hillary Clinton is as “independent” as Siamese twins attached at the wallet.

Now watch out, voters, because Hillary’s obviously been working on that hypnotic, icy stare. The campaign trail witchcraft is starting to take hold on people:

And where did Hillary learn that “you will submit to my wants” trick? You guessed it:

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed here.

Monday's Column: Save The Planet, Win A Prize

Today’s column at WorldNetDaily deals with Sir Richard Branson’s $25 million prize offer for the “scientist” who can find a way to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

What could possibly go wrong? I discuss this and offer a few of my own ideas in “Save the planet, win a prize.”

Update:

I just got this email from a guy with the last name “Annis” (pronounced “Ay-nuss”):

Dear Mr. Powers:

Thank you for your interest in our “Save the Planet” contest. I regret
to inform you that we must reject your entries.

Contest rules specify that the prize is to be awarded for technologies
which EXTRACT carbon from the atmosphere. Your suggestions only limit
further carbon dioxide emissions INTO the atmosphere.

It is unfortunate that you have the reading comprehension of a 7-year
old.

You may submit another entry after the 90-day waiting period if you so
desire.

Sincerely,

Prize committee
Save the Planet Contest

I’m heart broken.

You’ll not be surprised to learn that this work of over-analysis of the somewhat satirical came from a State of Oregon employee, judging from the email address. Your tax dollars are hard at work.

Monday’s Column: Save The Planet, Win A Prize

Today’s column at WorldNetDaily deals with Sir Richard Branson’s $25 million prize offer for the “scientist” who can find a way to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

What could possibly go wrong? I discuss this and offer a few of my own ideas in “Save the planet, win a prize.”

Update:

I just got this email from a guy with the last name “Annis” (pronounced “Ay-nuss”):

Dear Mr. Powers:

Thank you for your interest in our “Save the Planet” contest. I regret
to inform you that we must reject your entries.

Contest rules specify that the prize is to be awarded for technologies
which EXTRACT carbon from the atmosphere. Your suggestions only limit
further carbon dioxide emissions INTO the atmosphere.

It is unfortunate that you have the reading comprehension of a 7-year
old.

You may submit another entry after the 90-day waiting period if you so
desire.

Sincerely,

Prize committee
Save the Planet Contest

I’m heart broken.

You’ll not be surprised to learn that this work of over-analysis of the somewhat satirical came from a State of Oregon employee, judging from the email address. Your tax dollars are hard at work.

Sex Sells Stem Cells: "Function Creep" At Its Hottest

The term “function creep” means something used for a purpose that was not originally intended. This happens in many areas surrounding our lives, but at the moment it’s stampeding across the arena of stem cell research and right on into the chests of test subjects.

From Fox News:

British women may be offered a “natural” form of breast enlargement that uses stem cells and fat from a woman’s own body, under plans being considered by doctors.

The technique, pioneered in Japan, results in breasts that look and feel smoother than conventional cosmetic surgery using implants. This is because the stem cells enable the fat to grow its own blood supply, thus becoming an integral part of the breast rather than a foreign lump.

Stem cells have the potential to change into any cells in the body. They are found in most tissues, especially fat.

Dozens of women in Japan have received the breast enlargements during trials. Last week German medical authorities gave approval to the process. Under Brussels rules, this means that the procedure is now legal throughout the European Union, including Britain.

The practical implications would seem to be this: Stem cell research has yet to help cure Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s Disease, but it can offer him a killer set of knockers if he so chooses.

Maybe this is just a clever sales ploy to get quicker approval around the world for embryonic stem cell research.

“Mr. Prime Minister, are you for embryonic stem cell research?”

“Well, there are many considerations, not the least of which is its effect on innocent human life and…”

“It’ll give your wife the finest set of knockers you’ve ever seen.”

“So in closing, yes, I’m all for it.”

You’ve gotta love science.

New research offers hope and promise for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients seeking a natural way to look like Pamela Anderson

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed here.

Sex Sells Stem Cells: “Function Creep” At Its Hottest

The term “function creep” means something used for a purpose that was not originally intended. This happens in many areas surrounding our lives, but at the moment it’s stampeding across the arena of stem cell research and right on into the chests of test subjects.

From Fox News:

British women may be offered a “natural” form of breast enlargement that uses stem cells and fat from a woman’s own body, under plans being considered by doctors.

The technique, pioneered in Japan, results in breasts that look and feel smoother than conventional cosmetic surgery using implants. This is because the stem cells enable the fat to grow its own blood supply, thus becoming an integral part of the breast rather than a foreign lump.

Stem cells have the potential to change into any cells in the body. They are found in most tissues, especially fat.

Dozens of women in Japan have received the breast enlargements during trials. Last week German medical authorities gave approval to the process. Under Brussels rules, this means that the procedure is now legal throughout the European Union, including Britain.

The practical implications would seem to be this: Stem cell research has yet to help cure Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s Disease, but it can offer him a killer set of knockers if he so chooses.

Maybe this is just a clever sales ploy to get quicker approval around the world for embryonic stem cell research.

“Mr. Prime Minister, are you for embryonic stem cell research?”

“Well, there are many considerations, not the least of which is its effect on innocent human life and…”

“It’ll give your wife the finest set of knockers you’ve ever seen.”

“So in closing, yes, I’m all for it.”

You’ve gotta love science.

New research offers hope and promise for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients seeking a natural way to look like Pamela Anderson

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed here.

The Road To The New Scamshire Primary

Hillary Clinton is already in New Hampshire throwing around promises to redistribute our hard-earned money if elected.

When confronted about her senate vote for the Iraq war, Hillary responded, “Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it.”

And knowing what I know now I never would have put money on the Chicago Bears, but that doesn’t get me my capital back, does it? Hillary will discover the hard way that the same is true in politics.