The Marlboro Candidate: Smoking Harmful — To Obama's Presidential Ambitions?

Did you guys know that Barack Obama is a cigarette smoker? If I heard this before, I’d forgotten.

We could be about to see the true level of committment of certain liberals to their pet candidate. Smoking? Oh my God! It probably won’t be too bad, though. Hell, a good Democrat can even kill a voter and be re-elected time and time again.

I did some poking around, and it’s funny, because all of a sudden, when it’s their guy, Democrats don’t seem to think it matters that Obama smokes.

Hell, smoking can even help a candidate.

“How smoking helps Obama” is the title of this commentary in The New Republic, reprinted in the Dallas Morning News in full here. “Smoking may help Obama’s image” claims the author.

One commenter at Rolling Stone wrote “who the f*#k cares if Obama smokes?”

I certainly wouldn’t, as long as these same people were this passive as it concerns the habits of rest of us.

The Marlboro Candidate: Smoking Harmful — To Obama’s Presidential Ambitions?

Did you guys know that Barack Obama is a cigarette smoker? If I heard this before, I’d forgotten.

We could be about to see the true level of committment of certain liberals to their pet candidate. Smoking? Oh my God! It probably won’t be too bad, though. Hell, a good Democrat can even kill a voter and be re-elected time and time again.

I did some poking around, and it’s funny, because all of a sudden, when it’s their guy, Democrats don’t seem to think it matters that Obama smokes.

Hell, smoking can even help a candidate.

“How smoking helps Obama” is the title of this commentary in The New Republic, reprinted in the Dallas Morning News in full here. “Smoking may help Obama’s image” claims the author.

One commenter at Rolling Stone wrote “who the f*#k cares if Obama smokes?”

I certainly wouldn’t, as long as these same people were this passive as it concerns the habits of rest of us.

Gates To Success: The Lesson For Future Bush Nominees

Note to President Bush: Instruct all your future nominees, from the courts all the way to your cabinet, to say America isn’t winning. Confirmation guaranteed!

Case in point — Robert Gates, who will be the next Defense Secretary. Gates was asked by Senator Carl Levin if America was winning in Iraq. Gates said “no.” Levin nearly soiled his Mens Wearhouse slacks with orgasmic political glee. Here’s a short video of the exchange. (Note: Gates also said “we’re not losing, either,” but the Dems were willing to allow him one indiscretion since they already had their desired soundbite)

The committee then voted unanimously to send Gates’ nomination to the Senate floor for confirmation, and probably even offered to take him out for drinks.

Whether or not Gates is right doesn’t really matter in this case — it was the sight of Democrats nearly dry-humping a Bush nominee that was the story of the year, and it should serve as a lesson for future Bush nominees facing a Democrat controlled Senate.

Note to future nominees: Learn to face Senate Democrats and include one of more phrases like these in your responses, and you’re a shoo-in:

“America is not winning”

“The fault of big oil”

“…on the backs of the poor”

“For the children”

“To avoid future disenfranchisement”

“Lack of health care”

“Unfair distribution of resources”

“Unfair distribution of global power”

“Unfair distribution of methods of distribution”

“The unspeakable horror of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo”

“Wal-Mart’s low wages…”

“Exhorbitantly high CEO wages”

“The travesty of racial profiling”

“Corporate greed”

“Trans fats kill more people every year than ______”

“Behind in our U.N. dues”

“To ensure the continuation of a secular government”

“Lovely pantsuit, Mrs. Clinton”

Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer react after hearing Defense Secretary nominee Gates’ opinion that America is not winning.

———-

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

Bolton is Boltin'

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is a guy who carefully considers the genuine best interests of the United States with every decision he makes. This, of course, doesn’t fly with freshly emboldened Democrats who are filibustering a permanent confirmation, so Bolton submitted his resignation to Bush, and the president accepted.

That’s okay, because seeing a man of integrity like John Bolton in the United Nations was somewhat sad and uncomfortable — sort of like watching John Wayne in a Broadway musical.

Who’s next? No doubt the Democrats plan to force Bush to send the U.N. a holiday fruitcake they’re more comfortable with.

Bolton is Boltin’

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is a guy who carefully considers the genuine best interests of the United States with every decision he makes. This, of course, doesn’t fly with freshly emboldened Democrats who are filibustering a permanent confirmation, so Bolton submitted his resignation to Bush, and the president accepted.

That’s okay, because seeing a man of integrity like John Bolton in the United Nations was somewhat sad and uncomfortable — sort of like watching John Wayne in a Broadway musical.

Who’s next? No doubt the Democrats plan to force Bush to send the U.N. a holiday fruitcake they’re more comfortable with.

Jimmy Carter Announces Funeral Plans, Wants To Be Buried In Foreign Soil

Why Jimmy Carter would want to be buried in foreign soil is anybody’s guess, but the former president, whose administration was the economic equivalent of root canal while in the throes of amoebic dysentery, has announced his funeral plans.

Carter wants to be buried in front of his home in Plains, Georgia. At this point, we can only speculate how many of brother Billy’s empty beer cans will be dug up by the backhoe. Any bets?

Jimmy also wants a funeral in Washington, which promises to be quite the somber experience. It’ll be like Ronald Reagan’s funeral without all the pesky people getting in your line of sight.

It’s often said that Carter “was a better ex-president than president,” but trying to decide if Jimmy was a better president or ex-president is like figuring out if you prefer the hemorrhoid on the left butt cheek, or the right one.

Carter is probably still in full-blown “Enzyte Bob” mode, as his pal and anti-American goon Hugo Chavez just won re-election as president of Venezuela.

The legacy that Jimmy Carter will leave behind once his funeral plans are fulfilled would be comical if it weren’t dangerous. The self-appointed Special Ambassador to Everywhere has spent the better part of a few decades using his platform as a former president of the U.S. to practice conflict resolution overseas, bash America, and encourage murderers and their victims to find common ground.

Not long ago, Carter monitored the Palestinian elections, where the Islamic militant group Hamas won an overwhelming majority in the legislature.

Here’s what Jimmy Carter had to say about the Palestinian election mere hours after the voting: “The elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence.” We can only wish Carter could offer that same type of knee-jerk deference to an American election.

Remember the days when Billy was the embarrassing Carter?

What Jimmy Carter, knowingly or unknowingly, said to the world that day was that suicide bombings and other violence at polling places won’t occur as long as terrorists are allowed a spot on the ballot.

There are two options with Jimmy Carter: He’s either a gullible fool in search of a legacy or a closet despot lover in search of a closet.

Back in 2002, Carter visited Cuba and hooked up with Fidel Castro for what almost resembled a creepy eHarmony.com ad. At the time, Carter’s visit rankled nerves in the Bush administration because it was thought that Castro had, at the very least, a limited biological-weapons program.

Carter came out of his trip doubting that Cuba had any such programs. Why? You guessed it: Because Castro told him he didn’t. Well, that and because Castro granted Carter “free access to any place that you may wish to see” (with 24-hour notice for “tidying up”). The Cuban government also told its people that they were free to speak openly with Carter, provided they were polite, courteous and willing to spend the next 20 years in a labor camp.

Why does Jimmy Carter seem to have a soft spot for less than desirable dictators and varied despots around the globe? Simply psychology. The malaise, stagflation, low morale, high misery index, bad leisure suit and disco years that were his presidency look great next to the human rights violations, oppression and violent iron fisted rule of the likes of Castro, Hamas, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, et al.

Carter has figured out what’s helped many an ex-president out of a bad legacy jam. You can’t change history, but you can alter your present company. As Rodney Dangerfield’s character eloquently put it in his movie Back to School, “If you want to look thin, hang out with fat people.”

Jimmy Carter has announced his burial plans, and word has it that he’s already down in Plains trying to mediate the dirt out of the hole. I’m a little surprised that Carter didn’t want to be buried in Venezuela, Cuba, or the Middle East — a little closer to home.

———-

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

John Kerry: Dead But Too Dumb To Lie Down

Recently, I was re-reading one of P.J. O’Rourke’s books, and this happened to be while John Kerry was on Larry King Live. As Kerry was trying to dig his way out of a hole with such vigor that he was about to reach China, I ran across the chapter title, “Commies: Dead but too dumb to lie down.”

I looked up at John Francois Kerry, and it was as if the gods of fortuitous timing were with me that evening. The chapter title, most of it anyway, was the perfect description of what has become of John Kerry’s presidential aspirations.

The next election is a little less than two years away, and I have no idea who the nominees will be. I do know who they won’t be, though. One thing is certain: John Kerry will not be among the finalists for the Democrat nomination.

Kerry is still assessing the impact of his “botched joke” on his ’08 prospects, as he was doing that night on the Larry King show. This is like Michael Richards assessing the impact of his botched rant on his chances to be president of the NAACP – It wasn’t going to happen anyway. Sorry, John.

Years ago, it all seemed so promising for Kerry, and then…

In 2004, Kerry came back from a distant third to win in Iowa, he had the best hair of any other Democrat seeking the nomination, and, most importantly, among core party voters, he had the only thing that they were looking for in a candidate: he wasn’t Bush.

According to polls before either party’s convention, the race between Kerry and Bush was a dead heat. This was the time for Kerry to make his move. Speculation swirled around who would be Kerry’s choice for a running mate. Would it be Hillary Clinton? Dick Gephardt? Would John McCain cross over? Kerry decided to add some youthful integrity to the ticket, figuring that nobody exudes this quality to Americans like a senator and attorney, if you’ll pardon the redundancy. A fellow wealthy liberal lawyer from an Eastern Seaboard state with a meticulously cared-for coif, Kerry’s choice of John Edwards as his running-mate was like adding salt to caviar.

The Dems convention in 2004 was another problem. Their week in Beantown was like a USO show in reverse, with the entertainers in the crowd, and the troops on the stage. Throw in Edwards reminding the crowd that “Hope is on the way,” and the USO feel was uncanny. Unfortunately, Bob and his trademark golf club didn’t make an appearance, and the constant reminders of what John Kerry did in his early 20’s turned off any voter with the audacity to be curious about anything that has happened since midway through Nixon’s first term.

Things got even worse shortly after the DNC gathering in Boston, when pollsters observed that, after an entire week of speeches and rallies, the biggest convention “bounce” any Democrat enjoyed was at a fundraiser and involved Alyssa Milano and a trampoline.

Just when things seemed to be heading in the wrong direction for Kerry, a hint of potentially good news energized his campaign. Dan Rather and CBS were going to air a report, complete with documentation, that would offer proof positive that George W. Bush received preferential treatment while in the Texas Air National Guard, which allowed Bush to skirt the usual requirements, keeping him out of Vietnam. At last, something for the Kerry campaign that would turn off Bush voters!

By the time it was over, the CBS flap cost Kerry in two key areas: 1) The documents ended up being forgeries, making Bush opponents appear desperate, and 2) In order to push this story forward, they had to admit that Bush was actually in the National Guard.

The loss, the Heinz, the flush, the plunge

Kerry, of course, lost to Bush in ’04, though I do believe some recounts are still being conducted in dusty corners of out-of-the-way polling places by chad-covered denial-addled liberal activists.

After the loss, Kerry went back to being one of the biggest lefties in the Senate, which you can get away with when you’re from Massachusetts, but it still doesn’t work nationally.

Kerry’s “botched joke” is only the final nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. There were and are many others, not the least of which is his wife.

Frankly, on the likability scale, Teresa Heinz Kerry managed to rank just below “genital warts.” Preposterous elitist meanderings, such as saying that Laura Bush has “never had a real job“ must have made teachers, librarians and mothers everywhere rejoice to discover they’ve never had to work in their lives. Heinz-Kerry later said she was sorry, but, just like an Ike Turner apology, it’s tough to accept because you know that, tomorrow, another slap is coming. The 2004 election may have been the first to be lost due to a candidate’s wife. At the polls, a few voters might have decided that America needed a “First Lady,” not a “Mommy Dearest.”

Other John Kerry factors, such as accusing US troops of terrorizing women and children in Iraq and any other number of insulting things the Senator has said are sure to keep him from having another shot at the Dems nomination. John Kerry has spent the last couple of years helping Republicans produce dozens of potentially negative and damning ads for ’08. It’s nice for the other side when a candidate writes ad copy for his opponent.

The saddest thing about John Kerry is that the last person to realize that he has no chance of ever being President of the United States will be John Kerry. If this particular “botched joke” wasn’t so much fun to watch, I’d suggest an intervention.

———-

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

Global Orgasm for Peace: Stroke of Genius for a Flagging Franchise

At long last, a peace movement that we can all get our hands around. I’d been wondering lately where the peace movement was headed. For years and years, there seemed to be no heir to the bed-in throne of John and Yoko — until now.

As you may have heard, a California couple have called for the population of the world (that has either a willing significant other, functioning hands or a modified electric toothbrush) to have simultaneous orgasms on December 22nd.

Here are the basics of the plan, the “spank plank” if you will, from GlobalOrgasm.org:

The intent is that the participants concentrate any thoughts during and after orgasm on peace. The combination of high- energy orgasmic energy combined with mindful intention may have a much greater effect than previous mass meditations and prayers.

The goal is to add so much concentrated and high-energy positive input into the energy field of the Earth that it will reduce the current dangerous levels of aggression and violence throughout the world.

The organizers are Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55. You may remember Donna Sheehan (no relation to Cindy), because about three years ago she and some friends protested the looming war in Iraq by stripping naked, laying down, and spelling out the word “peace.” This, obviously, didn’t stop the war, but it did confirm one thing most definitively: Newton’s Law of Gravity.

So, recognizing the age of interaction, Sheehan and Reffell are calling for us to have orgasms at the same time – and this will help end war, at least temporarily. I have no doubt that this would do the trick, provided there’s across-the-board participation. My problem is this: Who won’t be participating while the rest of us are sitting in front of a box of Puffs Plus watching a grainy VHS copy of Two Moon Junction?

But this is the entire problem with the peace movement. Their ideas always require the participation of everyone or they don’t work. Hell, there are no doubt teenagers in the U.S. who would love to participate, but are so lazy that they’ve decided instead to wait for XBox to release “Global Orgasm for Peace: The Game.”

Consider Yoko Ono, wife of the late John Lennon and “singer” whose shriek happens to be the mating call of the Tinnitus Warbler, and her lifelong efforts for peace.

John Lennon released the pacifist anthems “Imagine” and “Give Peace A Chance,” John and Yoko had “bed ins” (for which bags were worn on heads — ours) and Ono’s staged a “cut piece,” and through it all we saw a continuation of hostilities in Vietnam, the tragedy at the Olympic games in Munich, the hostage crisis in Iran, embassy bombings, hijackings, continuous violence in the Middle East and constant terrorist attacks around the world. Why didn’t it work? The answer is simple: Terrorists, criminals, warmongers and despots clearly don’t listen to FM radio, read back issues of “Rolling Stone” and attend Paris theater nearly enough.

It’s the same problem with the Global Orgasm for Peace. It won’t be global, so the odds that we’ll be killed by maniacs go up, and worse yet, the chances that it’ll happen while we’re in the john with out pants around our ankles while clutching the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue doesn’t add to the dignity of the passing.

In addition, as columnist Greg Strange observed, such a massive, lascivious act might actually further infuriate those who already hate us. Greg’s right. What’s worse than a Western infidel? You guessed it. A Western infidel who’s spanking the monkey.

But the ultimate nail in the coffin for the “Global Orgasm for Peace” movement may not be lack of participation. Heck, there are no doubt pockets of people all around the globe who are, at this very moment, furiously practicing striving for peace, and even paying $50 for it. No, the death of the “Global Orgasm for Peace” will be more religious in nature.

What happens very often when people have orgasms? With the exception of Michael Newdow, who yells out his own name, many people call out to, who? You guessed it: God.

This could be the downfall of the “Global Orgasm for Peace.” Millions of people suddenly calling out to God is bound to put some leftist undies in a non-secular twist.

Peace activists should also take caution in automatically assigning a label of harmonic tranquility to the orgasm. All through history, rapes have been committed, genocide inflicted, and torture performed, just because the despotic protagonist du jour got off on it. Sheehan and Reffell’s definition of what constitutes orgasmic behaviour could vary greatly from somebody else’s. Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe, to-may-toe, bloodbath.

That said, it’s good to see some fresh ideas and a more hands-on approach coming from the field of peace activism. There will still be wars and people trying to kill us, but for a couple of minutes, we won’t care. I pledge my full support. It’s time to give peace a chance.

———-

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

Rangel Up More Troops: Congressman Plays Politics With Lives As Payback For Bush Playing Politics With Lives

Democrats can often be heard saying that President Bush is toying with lives, in a political sense. That sending our troops to Iraq was and is an unnecessary political game in which people are needlessly and senselessly dying. So, in the name of equalizing the playing field, one Democrat plans to fight this by — you guessed it — playing games with peoples’ lives.

Could we have a military draft again? Rep. Charles Rangel of New York says “yes,” which instinctively sent Bill Clinton to the tool shed to grab a sledgehammer and pound his feet flat.

Rangel, a Korean War veteran who apparently had his scruples shot off at the Battle of Kapyong, wants to introduce a bill requiring military service for men and women, 18-26, with no exceptions for college or the fact that they’re too busy playing “Grand Theft Auto” on Playstation 3.

This is, of course, being done not in the interest of the country, but as yet another move in a political chess game. Rangel doesn’t think you hold the lives of others in high regard, and if members of your own family were at risk of going into battle, you’d rethink your pro-war stance — if you have one. If you’re against the war, so what, your kid’s going too.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.

It’s not like the good old days when there was a draft, such as during Vietnam and Korea. It was nice and fair then, with rich and poor gallantly fighting side by side. Oh, wait…

It’s said that any “fair” draft wouldn’t have an out for the “privileged,” but as long as they remain politicians with outstretched hands, otherwise known as “loopholes,” there can be no such thing as a fair draft, taxation, or anything else. When you put hucksters in charge of fairness, you’re ensuring that there will be none of it.

In the early ’90s, the U.S. military was much larger, and no draft was in effect. That meant that there was an ample amount of people willing to voluntarily serve their country — and did so honorably. They weren’t forced to join, and they did so for their own reasons.

Rangel must also think that all these new soldiers to be drafted are going to work for free. Rangel voted “no” on 1999’s $266 billion defense appropriation bill and SDI. 

If that’s not bad enough, Rangel also feels the need to remind us of what heartless, inhumane jerks we are. When he first started talking about a military draft in late 2002, Rangel said, “I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve — and to be placed in harm’s way — there would be more caution and greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq.”

Rangel voted “no” on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. “No” on banning physician-assisted suicide (getting killed in the back of a rusty VW van may be “death with dignity,” but only if you’re Cheech and Chong). “No” on reducing the marriage tax. “No” on banning partial birth abortions. “No” on banning human cloning even for medical research reasons. “No” on barring the transportation of minors to get an abortion. And we’re the ones who don’t value the lives of others?

Let’s first draft some new politicians, then we’ll talk.

———-

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

Reforming His Way to the White House: A Cunning Senator McCain

I’ve long written of the joke that is called “Campaign Finanance Reform,” and it’s starting to rear its illogical yet carefully planned head again.

From the A.P.:

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Friday said potential 2008 presidential rival John McCain’s campaign finance reforms gives the Republican senator an advantage over other candidates by allowing him to transfer money easily.

“If you’re a senator, you can take the money you raise in a Senate campaign and transfer it to a presidential, but you can’t take money you raise in a state campaign and transfer that to a federal campaign,” Huckabee, a Republican, told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.

Real surprising…

In a Washington Post article titled “Money’s going to talk in 2008,” Michael Toner, chairman of the FEC, is quoted from an interview on the price tag for running for president in 2008: “There is a growing sense that there is going to be a $100 million entry fee at the end of 2007 to be considered a serious candidate.”

McCain-Feingold sure did get the money out of politics, didn’t it? Since John McCain is considered by many to be among the candidates to beat for the GOP nomination, he may be both surprised, yet pleased to discover, that the law he co-sponsored contains more loopholes than the wall between a high-school girls’ locker room and the wood shop. This can’t be an accident.

A quick look at even the seemingly noblest of intentions of McCain-Feingold and the failings (to us, but successes to bureaucratic authors of these bills) are obvious. Did the “stand by your ad” provision, which requires federal candidates say “I approve this message,” bring about a huge decline in negative ads? The thought behind that was, if a candidate had to say “I approve” visibly and audibly, the candidate would be less likely to permit negative or false material in the ad.

Since one must be forced to undergo a compunction-ectomy before entering politics, assuming the threat of personal shame can be used to lessen negative ads is naive at best. But this was the smoke-and-mirrors end of CFR, a red herring style distraction from the real issue of what happens to the money, who it can come from, and where it can be transferred, all of which just happen to favor John McCain.

John McCain will be a front-runner for the Republican nomination, and he will be greatly assisted in this quest by a bill-turned-law he co-authored, and he’s now in a position to “reform” politics until he ends up in The White House.

———-

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