posted by perkiset on Feb 25

Ralph Nader is responsible for the war in Iraq.

And just when we thought the race was really getting interesting, Ralph Nader steps in to make a mockery of it all.

Let’s face it: The name “Ralph Nader” used to be synonymous with consumer protection, safety issues, consumer advocacy… he was practically a household name in this arena. But in the last 3 presidential elections his name has been mud at best – criminally negligent at worst. Well, at least morally negligent.Simple math: if Nader’s name was not on the Florida ballot in 2000 Al Gore is president. Iraq never happens. Thanks a lot Ralph – lots of great safety and advocacy props there pal.

Ralph you have lost your way. You know it is flat out impossible for you to become president – and if you don’t then you shouldn’t be anyway because you’re completely delusional – so why not spend your time in advocacy of a important topics rather than this boneheaded, ill conceived notion YET AGAIN. It concerns me to think that you do not take personal responsibility for the state of our nation today – indeed even the world. You may personally be the largest single Gum In The Works that has ever existed. Stop it. Right now. Please while there is still some good legacy left of you.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.
Strike One: Slams Obama repeatedly about plagiarizing a component of one of his speeches. Doubles down with a crappy Xerox that obviously one of her writers thought of. Gets booed, but stays with it. Then essentially re-quotes Edwards concession speech closer with her “We’ll be fine” closing to the Texas debates. Shrill and hypocritical rhetoric unfortunately classic for the Clinton team.

Strike Two: “Shame on you Barack.” A new low. Sorry Mrs. Clinton – you cannot take credit for all of the good things that occurred during your husband’s administration and yet be absolved of responsibility for the not-so-great things – particularly when you have been so vocally pro-NAFTA in the past, for example. The Obama campaign’s flyer that went out does not cite anything untrue or explosive – it states the facts of how you have supported things in the past yet take no responsibility for them now. Your sudden explosion about it smacks of desperation and tactics, not real political anger.

Strike Three: Making fun of Obama and his supporters? Now that is really politically dumb and frankly, insulting. You and Bill – the eternal optimists… trading on hope and a vision for the future that was better than today – making fun of Obama and his supporters as kool-aid drinking rose-colored glass wand wavers? (OK, that’s not what was said – but that was the timbre) That is playground politics at the worst. To have shifted from someone purporting her vision of the future to someone talking about how hard it’s going to be and “[with Obama as president] The skies will open everything will be alright” is the mark of someone that has clearly hit a desperate point.

Thank you, for having proven exactly what kind of character you have while under pressure – you’ve made my choice ever so much easier. Since it’s either you or Obama, he gets the support. You lose and rightfully so.

posted by perkiset on Feb 4

Consider this, my right-wing warmongering friends:

If we honestly believe that one of the reasons Dubya went to Iraq was to avenge the contract put out on daddy, then is it too far a stretch to imagine that a President McCain would keep us in Iraq as long as necessary to vicariously repair the damage done to him during his 5 year imprisonment in Viet Nam?

Clearly, with his rhetoric about 100 years or more, “We are making progress,” “We will win regardless of what it takes.” “With honor” and such he is reliving his Viet Nam through the middle east and feels the pain of the soldiers there. Would it not be better for him to care for his military brethren  by bringing them home and retask the money he would put into bullets towards hospitals and care for those that have given so much?

Why must we be subjected to McCain’s mental torment over losing Viet Nam at the expense of our economy, our future and most importantly, the lives and health of our youngest and strongest?

To our future president: Please, for the love of god, country and countrymen, get us out of that quagmire. Let us start to endure the inevitable embarrassment and national shame we deserve for our imperialist excursions and FINALLY start to learn how to behave as an international citizen nation, rather than the school bully. Let us begin to scab over the wounds we have gut in our national body and our relationships with the rest of the world. Let us begin the process of growing up.

posted by perkiset on Dec 19

OK, so that’s the fashionable thing to say. “Any Dem over a ::shudder:: Republican. I am not so sure. In fact, I’m downright creeped out.

First, let me piss Pinkhat off, who is pro-Hillary. I am not, and getting more so everyday. Pinkhat would love to see a woman President and frankly, so would I. I am of the opinion that there would be much more caring and less war in our country, except every 28 days when we’d go bomb some little country for not picking up their shoes beside the bed. But I digress. Women are just more level headed, yes? More rational. More considerate and less hawkish.

Um, that is unless you’re the Iron Lady of the Realm, Madge “Mad Dog” Thatcher herself. Perhaps Evita Peron was another example of a female that just wasn’t quite of the same cut as Mother Theresa. Given Hillary’s tough talk about torture, her support of the war thus far and her unwillingness to even talk about when the troops will come home makes me question her progressive qualifications and her Democratic orientation. Perhaps shes sort of an Auntie Tom.

Another fine example is Bill “Can’t we all just be friends” Richardson. I really liked the policies he put forth in New Mexico. He was a solid executive. He’s got the resume, let me tell you. And asked direct questions about virtually anything of substance in a debate he’s like a deer in the headlights or and old man fumbling for the keys in his pocket. Disoriented and disjointed, that is NOT that man I want at the helm when it’s time to decide if we need to push the big red button.

I could go on about what pisses me off about some of the Democrats and why I wouldn’t vote for them, but let’s take just a moment and reflect on the thinking of some of our Dumbercrats. Consider, for example, the Progressive and Democratic credentials of our own political Uncle Tom, Joe Lieberman. Who is a proponent of the war in Iraq. Who thinks we can “win over there.” Who is now endorsing John McCain for President. Endorsing John McCain for President. Who slipped him a glass of Koolaide? Is he freaking kidding? I mean, he pissed me off with his whiney just-on-the-edge-of-crying kind of voice during the Gore campaign, but I never thought he’d be so blatantly obtuse. If this is what Democrats look like today I’m REALLY frightened.

So what’s a thinking progressive to do? Well, some of my friends think that Ron Paul is the answer. It is true that he holds some interesting ideas about protecting American people before other countries. I like that. It’s also true that he wants to eliminate almost all federal programs and world organizations that we participate in and allow a corporatacracy to consume our country. A Ron Paul Revolution in many ways is like a duck making a lateral move to ala Range (Thanks, Donald Sutherland).

It is unfortunate that Frodo whoops, I mean Kucinich, will not get many votes because he, in many ways, is to the Dems what Ron Paul is to the Repubs. And I don’t know that I’d be unhappy with a President Dodd or Biden – although my father would be pissed off at that.

Then again, if the Repubs put up “Yuck Yuck Yuckabee” or perhaps John “The Terminator” McCain, or the Stepfordesque Romney or … oh can I even say it… that greaseball wad of horsepoop Ewlianni, Then I’d probably vote for just about anyone else.

Even Hillary.