Politics and me…zzzzzzzzzzz

I am pretty much apolitical. Now that doesn’t mean that I don’t have any political opinions or leanings…quite the contrary, in fact. But it does mean that I find politics, as a topic, pretty boring and a guaranteed snooze-inducer if political commentary is going on around me.

One of the things I have come to dislike about politics is the mud-slinging and dirty tricks…the win-at-all-costs attitude that seems to have taken over the political arena. The Swiftboat shenanigans, the vote tampering in Florida, manipulating and lying to the electorate…I feel dirty just thinking about it. So, thinking about politics is something I very seldom do.

One of the interesting things about watching American politics from the perspective of another nation is the gift of relative objectivity. And the fascinating opinions of locals who, even knowing very little about the structure of the American government, have strong feelings about American political leaders. I cannot count the numbers of people who, not knowing that Americans cannot recall a disappointing president by voting him out of office before the end of his term, have come to the conclusion that Americans are utterly mad to have allowed Bush to remain in office for so long! When they understand that a President stands for the entire four years of his term unless he dies, resigns, or is impeached by the Congress, they are amazed…and then think Americans were mad to re-elect the man. Living next door to Mad Bob Mugabe, election fraud they understand…but it doesn’t make them think we are any less mad for allowing a fraudulently “elected” man to stay in office.

One of the things that disturbs foreigners most about recent American politics is how Bush invaded a foreign country without provocation and the electorate supported this outrageous act. If everybody in Africa could see the “reasons” were bogus and the invasion was without legitimate context, why couldn’t Americans see it? By re-electing him, Americans sent a message to the rest of the world that they accepted and supported Bush’s act of international piracy, something that made the citizens of smaller, weaker nations outraged…and nervous. To say this act gave America a global black eye would be understating the situation by several magnitudes. Nobody likes a bully, and that is how America has been perceived for the past five…almost six…years.

In my rare ruminations over American politics, I have come to wonder about a few things. What was going through McCain’s mind when he named that uncouth pea-brain of a loose cannon, Sarah Palin, to the ticket? Surely he did not so underestimate the female electorate to the degree that he believed we would change political affiliations on the basis of gender alone? My god, the woman’s mouth is bigger than her brain…we who supported the polished, well-educated, politically savvy Hillary Clinton would switch sides because McCain added boobs to the ticket? I do not think so!

What was he thinking? That he was too old to run the country and pull it out of the stinkhole of impending bankruptcy, so he could get out of it by appointing a political joke to his ticket? How, in a time that the average voter was tightening his belt in the face of impending financial doom, was McCain able to justify spending a bloody fortune to hang designer rags on his rugged, culture- and couture-challenged running mate? Oh…and whatever became of those duds? Did that shamefully expensive red leather coat ever make it to a charity shop? Or will Palin watchers see her parading about in it come spring and temperate climes in the frozen wastelands that make up Sarah’s little empire? Might be a fashionable substitute for a neon vest on her next moose-hunting foray, yes?

Will Bush go down in history as the worst president since the creation of the Union? I thought mad Ronnie was a disgrace, what with the astrologers and Nancy running things as his mind shuttered, but he’s been surpassed. In eight short years, under W’s watch, the nation went from peace and prosperity to invading a sovereign nation without provocation and near fiscal collapse. Those who, their heads still firmly buried in the sand, excuse and defend Bush’s actions evidently haven’t considered that more people have died in Iraq than in the Twin Towers and just ignore that it has been unequivocally proven that the “justifications” for attacking Iraq were…as anyone with a functioning brain knew back in 2003…were a pack of lies, trumped up to scare the American people into acceding to a pruning of their civil liberties and supporting Georgie’s personal vendetta against Saddam.

One person, it appears, did not buy into the bullshit and that person was Barack Obama. I find it amazing that his subtle but scathing attack on Bush’s administration has been ignored in favour of the literal interpretation of his inauguration address. Is no one willing to acknowledge the subtext of the speech? Where is this “liberal media” the neocons keep whining about? Shouldn’t a liberal media be jumping with glee and making a big fuss over Obama’s masterful message?

I mean, what did Obama really say? I have never laughed during an Inaugural Address before. In fact, historically speaking, I have found Presidential inaugural addresses to be so boring and full of mealy-mouthed platitudes that I don’t think I have ever listened to one all the way through, let alone laughed through it and felt a bit disappointed that it was over! And I got quite a chuckle when the cameras cut to Georgie and his increasingly grim countenance as the indictments against him and his administration inexorably mounted.

“...our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.” I heard this as a promise that cronyism will not be part of the new administration, that the interests of a favoured few will no longer take precedence over the needs of the many. And a message from the new President to his predecessor that these corruptions did not go unnoticed.

“We will restore science to its rightful place...” The choices of the words “restore” and “rightful” were purposeful, a declaration that science has been sidelined in favour of special interests, progress impeded, discovery derailed. I expect it means a return to stem cell research and a removal of restrictions limiting it.

“...this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” If Obama believes his own watchful eye can influence the market and prevent it from spinning out of control, then clearly he thinks that W was asleep at the switch…or looking away while his cronies stuffed their pockets with loot…while the US economy imploded. I have not forgotten that one of Bush’s closest friends was Ken Lay of Enron infamy and that while Ken lived in opulence, the people he boondoggled lost their jobs, homes, life savings, and retirement plans. It was an omen too few of us heeded.

“...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man...we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” Well, I’m not sure if this references the Patriot Act or the horrors of Guantanamo Bay and related interruptions of Constitutional protections, but I’d like to think it covers both.

“...our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” I see this as a direct slap in the face, rebuking Bush for his invasion of Iraq. And he’s right…our status as the last Superpower didn’t prevent 9/11 and it doesn’t give us the right to trump up a bunch of transparent excuses to invade another nation without direct provocation. I mean, people have their panties in a wad over Israel’s actions against the Palestinians and Israel has endured years of Palestinian attacks. Is it surprising that world opinion views Bush’s foray into Iraq as a wanton act of aggression, an example of America the Bully doing whatever it wants?

“Guided by these principles once more...” This is my favourite quote from the address, a clear, unequivocal indictment of Bush’s ethics and wisdom. Rather than use America’s power with prudence and justice, rather than act with humility and restraint, Bush turned America into a jackbooted thug, a conscienceless marauder, a nation that turns a blind eye to the guarantees of its own Constitution in the pursuit of his nefarious purpose.

I suppose it is too much to hope that George W. Bush can and will be prosecuted for violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And I feel sorry for Obama and the massive mess he has inherited…had it been this bad when he first stepped on the campaign trail, would he have taken that step at all?

I don’t envy him the incredible task ahead, but I have hope. For one thing, he has already accomplished something I thought impossible: had you told me eight years ago that it was possible for a man to run a clean political campaign and actually get elected to the Presidency, I would have laughed out loud. It seems that American politics have not been irrevocably corrupted after all, and with a little luck, Obama’s ability to perform miracles will turn the country around.

Let’s hope so, because if he doesn’t, America will surely join the rapidly growing list of former Superpowers.

Visit http://www.angelsezine.com/ For women...by women...the finest ezine on the web!

Congratulations, Barack Obama!

Congratulations are in order...Barack Obama is America's first non-white President and that, all by itself, is a reason to celebrate.

This election had shaped up to be noteworthy in more ways than one as many of the presidential hopefuls were "firsts." Hillary was the first woman for stump for the highest office, McCain was the first man of his age to run for a presidential first term, and the Republicans fielded their first female candidate for a shot at the top job. Obama, of course, hit more than one first: the first African-American, the first non-white, the first person of Muslim heritage to even apply for the top job, let alone win it.

But the closeness of the popular vote is troubling, indicating that while some people who are losing their jobs and their homes and the lives of their brothers and sons are wanting a change, others in the same situation are putting political ideology ahead of the welfare of the country and their fellow countrymen.

I think Hillary was a better candidate all around: more experienced, more savvy, and with her husband, the architect of the most prosperous administration of the entire 20th century, at her side should she need an advisor with a proven track record. But the American people went for a pair of amateurs, ignoring the most experienced candidate. Fortunately for America, Bush's fiscal debacle combined with McCain's unfathomable choice of a person with no political acumen or ethical standards as his running mate, combined to taint his candidacy, giving Obama the win.

I hope Obama can pull off his vision for America. But as Bill Clinton can tell him, just winning the election isn't enough...when the other party is out for your blood, they will stop at nothing to find it, even if they have to spill it themselves.

Barack Obama, watch your back...the Republicans certainly are!

Petunia Palin

When I lived in California my mortgage (house bond) payment was about $1500 a month. It was an old mortgage which I inherited from my late husband who had bought the house with his then-wife during the mid Eighties. In Silicon Valley at the beginning of the new millennia, this was considered a low monthly payment for a 3 bed 2 ba ranch style house. So reasonable, in fact, that the people who bought the house in early 2004 had a monthly payment of over $4000 a month for that same house.

Today, the US is in financial crisis and people are losing their homes right and left…even devout Republicans who’ve pinched their pennies to be able to donate a few bucks here or there to their favourite political party. Some of these people are among those who have lost their jobs and are losing their homes but have not yet lost their faith in the Republican Party.

So, I wonder what they think of this : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html . Will the same people who, in the last election, excoriated John Kerry for a $400 hair cut, find a way to excuse the GOP’s spending $150,000 at Saks and Neiman Marcus to gussy up their favourite lipsticked pig? In a time when people are finding themselves being booted out of their homes, how does McCain explain spending more than $500 in campaign funds on a pair of designer shoes? And who got the benefit of the almost $5000 spent at a high end men’s retailer, Atelier, McCain or Palin’s husband?

Macy’s got almost $10,000, Bloomies got more than $5,000, and the campaign even spent money at a couple of baby stores. All in all, it adds up to more than $150,000…enough to pay my old mortgage for nearly two years…and they managed to disgorge this impressive chunk of money in just one month!

Who knew that getting on the ticket was a ticket to a whole new wardrobe at no personal cost? Is this a precedent set for the future, a way to allow a female VP or Prez to acquire a public wardrobe at a cost not borne by her own pocket? Yah, the article says that the clothes are ultimately destined for charity, but let’s get real here…my clothes are ultimately destined for charitable donation, too…but not until I have worn them…and worn them…and worn them some more. Exactly which charity is going to receive $150,000 worth of barely worn high-end designer labels from top retailers? And when? Cos honey, I want to be first in line on the day that happens!

Interestingly, the Dem’s monthly financial disclosure report doesn’t seem to have an “itemized coordinated expenditures” or “campaign accessories” category in which red leather jackets and Ferragamo shoes can be explained away. In fact, nothing in any of the Dem’s monthly financial statements indicates these kinds of expenditures on the candidates or any of their family members.

So what does this mean? I dunno…but it doesn’t surprise me that Palin is gaining personal advantage without spending a cent of her own money. “ …Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business…The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/palin_family_travel

I’m not going to go into the ethics of these revelations, but I do have to wonder if Palin can tell the difference between public and private funds and when is the appropriate time to use each one. I once had a sister-in-law who was afflicted with a similar condition: she simply could not draw a line between hers and anybody else’s…if you loaned her something, she took it as a gift and you never got it back. She couldn’t even tell the difference between your name…and credit rating…and her own. She once assumed the identity of a family member and financed a new refrigerator on that person’s credit…which she promptly “forgot” to make payments on. Palin reminds me of this (thankfully) former member of my family…rearranging right, wrong, and reality to her best advantage, regardless of the rules the rest of us play by. What part of the national budget is going to become the hiding place for her personal expenditures if she becomes VP or, heaven forefend, President?

Interestingly, Michelle Obama cuts a stylish figure…she reminds me of Jackie Kennedy when Jack was campaigning…on her own dime. In the same month that RNC forked over 150,000 smackers to drape the pit bull of the tundra, the DNC shows no personal expenditure for either of their candidates or the candidates’ families.

So, I am wondering…how does the RNC justify taking their pet pig to places like Nieman Marcus and Saks 5th Avenue for lipstick? Couldn’t she find decent clothes in places like Sears and JC Penney’s if she couldn’t afford Bloomies et al on her own income? Who dresses Michelle Obama? Where does she buy her clothes and, more importantly, who pays for them?

Most important of all, if you are a person feeling the pinch of today’s failing economy and you managed to squeeze out some money to donate to your favourite political party, how would you feel if your money had been spent to buy designer clothes from stores you can’t even afford to browse in? How would you feel if your party spent, in a single month, more than 100 times your monthly mortgage payment for fancy duds that they say they are going to donate to charity (I’m thinking $150K spent at Walmart would have clothed a lot more of the unfortunate than the same amount spent at luxe department stores)?

The whole thing stinks of elitism and a complete disregard for the sensibilities…and pocketbooks…of the average voter. I would have had a lot more respect for McCain and his entourage and sycophants if they’d told Sarah “You need to hire a stylist and get some new threads…but nothing too ostentatious because people who are worrying about losing their jobs and their houses might be offended if we look like insensitive spendthrifts...oh, and leave the kids at home with Grandma,” and then ignored her outstretched palm.

But that’s not the Republican way, now is it?

The Beatification of John McCain

And so it begins…the supposedly liberal US media has begun its escort of John McCain into the White House with this morning’s headlines: “McCain attends church, visits VA hospital.”

I kid you not…my husband thinks it must have been a very slow news day in America, but if that was the case, why was there no corresponding headline regarding the activities of McCain’s chief rival for the job, Mr. Obama? Where was the “Obama attends church, visits Eternal Flame” or similarly unsubtle attempt to show him as a man of the people?

My distance from America and her daily political angst seems to have afforded me a clarity, an objectivity, that is just impossible when immersed in it. It has been interesting to witness the Right Wing’s continued demonisation of Hillary Clinton, a woman of strength and intelligence and more experience in White House intrigue than all the other presidential hopefuls put together, and its attempts to characterize Obama as anything other than what he is: an educated, well-spoken Christian American male of black and white ancestry. If you believe the Right’s lunatic fringe, he is a black Muslim intent upon paving the way for Islam to dominate America…something I can’t see as being any worse, in the long run, than allowing these lunatic über-Christians to force their antediluvian notions upon the entire populace.

And so the media grooming of John McCain as a political saint has begun. Never mind that he plans to keep feeding young American men to the war machine, never mind that the economy is at its lowest ebb since the Shrub’s daddy held the throne and McCain has no recovery strategy…the media is now more about big business than critical analysis and hard reporting, and the Republicans are more about servicing big business than anything else. Even Jayzus.

Neither McCain nor Obama have White House-worthy credentials…that lone jewel sits firmly in Hillary’s crown. But Americans, ever eager to avoid anything that smacks of hard work…including the work of firing up the brain cells and actually making them think…have chosen to reject the only person with the experience and knowledge in favour of the smooth orator, the glad-hander, he of the polished charm and photogenic smile. It will be interesting to see if the media campaign to buff McCain into an American Saviour. With the media deeming McCain’s venture into a church to be a headline-worthy event, I’ll be waiting with bated breath to see what other kind of saintly behaviours the media chooses to showcase.

But one thing is for certain…you won’t be seeing the media shining up Obama’s halo.

Just a Huckin' an' a Jivin'

I thought that America could not be more shamed than when Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks came to light and he was forced to resign. Next, I watched the entire Republican Party and their sycophants turn a private, non-political act into a scandal, spending more than a billion tax dollars…money that could have fed hungry children or increased the meagre Social Security stipend to our elderly…and dragging the office of the presidency through the mud because of a brief marital affair…I didn’t think it could get worse than that! Then, the GOP fielded a complete moron whose history was one of profligacy, alcohol abuse, cheating the government, and who displayed the intellect of an amoeba, the compassion of a rock and the ethics of a starving lion. I never believed, especially after the outcry over Clinton’s non-political moral shenanigans, that someone so morally challenged and ethically bankrupt as George W. Bush could be elected to the presidency, but thanks to as little help from his friends…and most especially the friends and appointees of his brother (governor of Florida, the state that decided the election), a brainless, clueless, bumbling moron ended up in the White House.

At that point, I didn’t think it could get worse, but the Idiot Child’s handlers fooled me: They got the moron to lie to the electorate, start a war, and then engage in some sleight-of-mouth to make the citizens believe that the war, which had swiftly become a jungle-free Vietnam, was over despite increasing casualties. Surely, the Greedy Old Party could not top this!

Well, it seems they can. After eight years of being manipulated, lied to, and having their best interests ignored by the absolute worst president ever to tarnish America’s image in the eyes of the world, Americans are finally able to vote for a replacement. Unfortunately, one of the frontrunners in the GOP appears to be an even worse version of the brain dead moron who has been sitting in the White House for the last seven years: Mike Huckabee.

From everything I have read, Huckabee is a rigid right winger who not only believes that his personal set of beliefs and prejudices should be the moral compass of the country, he believes that the individual rights of the citizens should be subordinate to those prejudices and beliefs. Herewith a recent news article about Huckabee and my thoughts on the points highlighted:

Now that he's a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, he's being asked anew about some of the views and comments he expressed in the survey by The Associated Press. Over the weekend, he said he wouldn't retract answers in which he advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased funding for finding a cure and said homosexuality could pose a public health risk — though he said today he might phrase his answers "a little differently."

So, he would soft-peddle his delivery without changing his position, a position that has no basis in fact and violates the very freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution. How does homosexuality pose a public health risk? If I sit next to a person on a bus who has active tuberculosis, I stand a chance of catching the disease…that’s a public health risk. But homosexuality? HIV/AIDS? Not a chance.

What the man wants to do is create ghettos into which HIV+ people and homosexuals, regardless of their HIV status, thrown. Then, he opposes funding for a cure for AIDS. So, in the plainest language possible, he wants to put everyone who is HIV…babies who were born with it, women who contracted the disease from their husbands, homosexuals, people who were infected through a blood transfusion…in a place isolated from the rest of the citizens. Then, because homosexuals might pose a health risk (how? does he think homosexuality is contagious or that being homosexual automatically predisposes one to AIDS?), they get to be unwilling guests of government as well. And then, to top it all off, after all these people are isolated from the rest of the population because of either their sexual orientation or their disease status, Huckabee doesn’t want to spend any money on finding a cure for the disease.

OK…so how are these people to live? Who will care for them as their untreated disease takes them inexorably towards death? And as the disease continues to spread in the general population (you can’t identify them all, HIV doesn’t give you pus-filled vesicles on your face or purple buboes by which you can be easily identified), more and more people will be forced to leave productive jobs and enter the isolation camps, who is going to pay for their upkeep?

Wouldn’t the burden to the tax payer ultimately be less if the homosexuals and HIV+ citizens were left as they are and the government devoted serious funds to finding a cure for the scourge? But, why would a presidential candidate want to think that far ahead? Let’s just throw the faggots, diseased or not, into a ghetto and let them die of their affliction! Oh, and anybody else who contracted “their” disease, regardless of how. Moron.

Some of the words in his answers to the questionnaire are indeed strong.

Asked about gays in the military, for example, he didn't just reject the idea but added: "I believe to try to legitimize that which is inherently illegitimate would be a disgraceful act of government. I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

We don’t know any such thing. First of all, the fastest growing HIV+ segment of the US population are heterosexual teens. Secondly, here in sub-Saharan Africa, we know that HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual disease. If you look at the education campaigns, you find that they are universally directed to young heterosexual couples. In fact, in many of the black communities, extremely thin women are shunned as possibly being AIDS victims! Homosexuality poses no public health risk until and unless it can be proven that homosexuals can passively infect people…with anything.

Secondly, one would think that a homophobe of Huckabee’s magnitude would welcome gays in the military…even conscript them. Instead of spending boatloads of money on safety gear and expensive technological toys, just send the gay guys out to find the mines, the bombs, the sniper nests. Huckie could get them out of the general population permanently that way, save a few heterosexual soldiers lives, and a bunch of government money in the bargain.

But the reality is, why shouldn’t homosexuals serve in the military? Is there something inherent in homosexuality that causes the inaccurate aiming of a rifle? An inability to drive a tank? Or perhaps Huck fears that a gay contingent in the military would bitch and moan about the drabness of the uniforms, causing discontent among the troops? It can’t be the fear of the gay men being sexually available to the other men, could it? I mean, there are female soldiers available to the men (and getting pregnant, for crying out loud!), so it can’t be sex between the troops that has him all cranked up, can it?

It’s just his homophobia talking…and he’s so punitive in his viewpoints, so draconian in his beliefs as to what to do with homosexuals (lock them in a ghetto with HIV patients), as to make me wonder just what it is he really fears. Maybe he has these urges…

Called for the elimination of political action committees and campaign contributions from lobbyists. He also said candidates should not be allowed to receive contributions until one year before an election and said there should be limits on the amount of out-of-state money they could accept…As Arkansas governor, Huckabee formed a political action committee based in Virginia to raise money for non-federal candidates that allowed him to travel and raise his profile for a potential presidential run. The Hope for America PAC shut down earlier this year as Huckabee entered the White House race.

OK…so he can have a PAC to make himself visible enough to be able to float his name as a presidential candidate, but nobody else can. Can anybody pronounce H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

Said he would not support any tax increases if elected to the Senate. Huckabee's record of raising some taxes as Arkansas' governor has drawn fire from fiscal conservatives in the presidential race.

Well, he can follow Georgie’s footsteps and float the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world. You can reduce taxes to nothing as long as you are willing to increase the deficit. But it would seem Huck’s even more traditional than that…with a history of raising taxes during his governorship, he now asks us to believe that the Huckabee leopard has changed its spots. Either way, it’s a bad deal…either he is lying or he’s looking to increase Georgie’s record-breaking deficit. Perfect presidential material…a profligate or a prevaricator…or both.

When asked whether the U.S. should take any action to kill Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Huckabee replied: "The U.S. should not kill Saddam Hussein or anyone else."

Except HIV/AIDS patients, who should be quarantined and no attempts be made to find a cure for their disease.

Rejected the idea of women in combat "because of my strong traditional view that women should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat."

His strong traditional view trumps a woman’s constitutional right to self-determination? OK, so what other traditional views about women does he thinks he has a right to impose on the female half of the population? Send them home to stay barefoot, pregnant, and tied to the kitchen sink? Restrict them to “traditional” female occupations like nursing and teaching? Rescind their right to vote? One man’s “treated with respect and dignity and not subject to…abuses…” may well be seen as patronizing paternalism by the object of his “respect.” I’m flesh and bone and have a fully functioning brain…how about letting me make my own choices, Mikey?

Said living together out of wedlock "is demeaning to the highest expression of human love and commitment. I reject it as an alternate lifestyle, because it robs people of the highest possible relationship one can experience: marriage."

Huh? In a country that sees half of its marriages end in divorce, (and nobody with more than two brain cells believes that the other half are blissful), marriage is “the highest possible relationship one can experience”? Not bloody likely. People cohabit for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is a mock-marriage. Who knows why couples live together, sometimes for decades, without formalization? Whose business is it but theirs?

Said he believed no one has a constitutional right to an abortion and supported requiring minors to obtain parental consent. Huckabee also said he supported requiring doctors to discuss abortion alternatives and a waiting period...Huckabee's vocal opposition to gay marriage and abortion have attracted evangelical Christians' support and vaulted him to the top of the field in Iowa.

One of the most precious of American freedoms is the right to freely choose you own religion. But some people seem to think that, hand-in-hand with that right to choose comes a right to impose one’s own religious sensibilities on others. This is the crux of the abortion issue, believe it or not. You see, if your religion believes that personhood is bestowed at conception because the soul is infused at that moment, then you believe the product of conception, regardless of its state of development, is a person and killing it is murder. If, on the other hand, you don’t believe the soul is infused until a later time…or you don’t believe the soul even exists…then abortion is simply a medical procedure. Either way, one’s religious convictions drives the opinion, and none of us have the right to impose our religious convictions…or prohibitions…on others as it violates their religious rights.

Notifying parents of a teen’s abortion? For something that seems so right and so simple on the surface, this really is a knotty issue. The argument goes that if a parent has to be notified and consent taken for something like an appendectomy, why does an invasive surgical procedure like an abortion not require parental consent?

Well, the simple fact is, many teens don’t live in benevolent, understanding, compassionate families ala TV sitcom households. And if you have never been a teen who was legitimately afraid of her parents, then it may be difficult to wrap your mind around the fact that there really are kids out there whose safety…even lives…could be endangered by the revelation of a pregnancy. And, until a reliable crystal ball is on the marketplace, we simply have no way of knowing which teens are just exaggerating the presumed reaction of their parents and which teens literally face terrifying consequences if they tell. http://noon43.com/dearabby So, until that crystal ball is in hand, the safe choice is to allow the person who got pregnant to decide what to do about it…including whether or not to tell her parents.

Now, the subject of gay marriage is another of Mikey’s issues. Absent any intelligent debate on the matter, Americans have been herded towards the notion that there is something inherently wrong with same-gender marriages. The reason they have been fed it that it somehow threatens marriage which, in and of itself, is a ludicrous notion. If anything, gay marriage strengthens the whole concept of marriage in a time when many heterosexual couples find no reason to enter the institution. Same sex couples who marry are proclaiming to the world that the institution is desirable, not something to be shunned. Of course, Mike Homophobee may just be wanting to punish gay people by robbing gay “people of the highest possible relationship one can experience: marriage.” http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

But some of his earlier comments offer a harder-edged presentation of those stances than he has presented as he's tried to portray himself as a conservative who won't "scare the living daylights" out of moderates and independents…I think the model he saw that had been successful in other Southern states was this very hard right message and that's what seemed to be the most natural for him," … “He's become much smarter about successfully using language that expresses views without being hard-edged”…

Can we say “shuck and jive”? Or should that be “Huck and jive”? Cloak the truth in dissembling language but step not back from the punitive, paternalistic platform. Let’s try another applicable phrase: “control freak.”

Huckabee's 1992 comments on isolating AIDS patients run counter to a statement he released last month calling for increased federal funds to find a cure. Huckabee says the earlier remarks came at a time when there was confusion about how AIDS could be transmitted.

If I roll my eyes one more time, I’m afraid they are gonna get stuck up there. Gimme a break here…the man cannot admit he was wrong and make appropriate apologies? I was around in 1992, in fact I was working at a company that was doing research into HIV. Even then we knew that you didn’t get AIDS by sitting next to an HIV positive person on a bus!!

Can’t he just say “I was ignorant, I said stupid things in my ignorance, and I’m sorry. I’ll try to be more enlightened in the future.”? No, the gasbag has to try to rationalize and justify what he said rather than just admit he was wrong and apologize for it.

Said he had never smoked marijuana or "experimented with any illegal drug." In fact, he said he had never used any tobacco products because of "a very sensitive allergy" and would support a smoking ban in public places.

And this is important because?? I also duly note that he is careful to say he has not experimented with any illegal drug. Is this some clever dissembling to hedge against someone alleging he may have abused legal drugs? Otherwise, why bother to make such a clear distinction?

Opposed passing a law that would give workers time off to care for an ailing family member.

So, if your child is dying of leukaemia, or your wife is confined to bed rest during the last weeks of her pregnancy or your father is gasping his last from a brain tumour, tough nougies, buddy, get your nose back to that corporate grindstone or you’ll be unemployed on top of all your other troubles, right? Gee, this shows some serious compassion for the individual American, eh?

When asked about the nomination hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Huckabee said: "I watched or listened to many hours of the Thomas hearings and was firmly convinced that the preponderance of testimony backed up Clarence Thomas."

The analytical portion of his brain must have been on holiday in Thailand when Anita Hill was testifying…

Called the federal welfare system "disgraceful" and said the burden should be shifted from the federal government to local communities.

Oh, that makes all kinds of sense. So, GM or Ford pulls out of a region, taking the majority of the local jobs away. Or a major manufacturing facility sends the work overseas, closing the main source of work in an area. Or a mine is closed or some natural disaster occurs, sending the local economies into a tail spin, leaving the people hungry and unemployed and needing government assistance just to survive. Exactly where is the tax base that is supposed to fund that welfare burden?

The whole concept of a federal system is to allow richer communities to help the poorer ones, a burden which may remain constant in some areas, but inevitably fluctuates with changes in the economy and natural phenomenon. To cast such a burden back onto the local economies, which may have been flattened by a series of tornadoes or desiccated by the jobs being shipped offshore, is to further stratify the society, creating increasing layers of poor and marginalized people while allowing richer communities to increase their wealth. The milk of human kindness clearly does not flow in Mike Huckabee’s breast.

So, the question becomes, does America need another Dubya, this one with a brain and agenda of his own? And will Americans actually elect a rigid, inflexible, unfeeling control freak who will be their friend and supporter only as long as they can continue flowing tax dollars into his government? Will the Republican Party find some ethics and try to field a candidate who will actually be good for America…or will they pick the guy they think will win the presidency by fair mean of foul. I mean, it worked with Shrub, didn’t it?

Since we don’t have those crystal balls yet, only time will tell.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_survey