Romney's Sons Surge to Support Him, Not Troops

Last Friday I wrote a commentary piece on the “Iowa Independent” about GOP Hawk hypocrisy. At the end of my commentary, I questioned Romney’s call for a “surge of support,” while his strapping sons drive around Iowa in a 30-foot Winnebago raising more money for his campaign – not the troops.

Yesterday in Bettendorf, Rachel Griffiths, a member of the Quad City Progressive Action for the Common Good, as well as the sister of an Army major who had served in Iraq, asked Mitt about this during an “Ask Mitt Anything”:



Griffith’s question and Mitt’s justification of his son’s call to his duty have taken off in the national media. "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Here’s the original commentary, “Wanted: GOP Hawks to Sacrifice Themselves for War,” posted on the “Iowa Independent”:

(Commentary) I honestly believe that I was born with irony and hypocrisy radar chips embedded in my cerebral cortex. And nothing sets the radar off more than a civilian hawk, especially one who vehemently calls for war yet is unwilling to donate, sacrifice, or spill his own blood or that of his loved ones in support of the cause.

My first face-to-face encounter with a hypocritical hawk took place in Jan. 1991 at the onset of the first Gulf War. I was a full-time student at the University of Iowa at the time, and I was also in the Army’s IRR ( Inactive Ready Reserves), meaning I could get called back into active duty should Bush Sr. decide my services were needed. I had already completed my active duty service, but as is the case with every soldier who enlists, I had to finish fulfilling my eight-year contract with Uncle Sam. I was feeling conflicted about the notion of having to leave school and return to the Army. I felt as if my life was moving forward and the military chapter of my life had closed behind me.

One snow-covered January day before the spring semester had begun, I was on my way to the University of Iowa book store when I heard shouting at the UI Pentacrest. A group of protestors had gathered to protest President Bush’s Jan. 15 midnight ultimatum and subsequent bombing of Saddam’s troops in Kuwait. Ironically, the shouts weren’t coming from the sign-wielding protestors, but rather, a group of counter protestors. Not only were the counter protestors yelling obscenities, but they were also throwing snowballs at the protestors.

I approached one of the ringleaders who had just heaved a tightly packed snowball at his intended target, while simultaneously yelling, “Support our troops you pussy commies!” When I asked him what was going on, the young twenty-something informed me that he was part of the UI College Republicans, and they were sick and tired of those damn hippies undermining our troops. “Besides, we have just as much right to exercise our free speech as they do.”

“Does exercising your free speech always involve throwing snowballs?” I asked.

“Why do you care?” he responded while his cohorts fired another round of snowballs.

“Just curious, that’s all,” I said.

“I support our troops, and that’s all that matters. They should be supporting them too,” he said.

“By support, do you mean you’re enlisting?”

“You mean join the military?”

“Yep.”

“I don’t have time to join right now. I’m in college, and I need to finish up here before I think about doing anything else.”

“I see,” I said.

As I walked away, I could hear the shouts fade in the background as thoughts of having to abandon college and go serve in Kuwait invaded the forefront of my mind. While walking to the bookstore, I pondered a quote from, “The Things They Carried,” a book by Vietnam veteran Tim O’Brien who wrote, “There should be a law, I thought. If you support a war, if you think it’s worth the price, that’s fine, but you have to put your own precious fluids on the line. You have to head for the front and hook up with an infantry unit and help spill the blood. And you have to bring along your wife, or your kids, or your lover. A law, I thought.”

This got me thinking about today’s metaphorical “War on Terror.” Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have yet to be officially declared by Congress, it’s only fitting that Congress pass legislation that institutes an Undeclared Draft---possibly adding it to the 22nd amendment. Here’s a working draft of the bill, The Undeclared Draft Act, which I crafted on Dec. 6, 2006 in response to Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who called for an additional 100,000–150,000 troop surge in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Congress, during times of Undeclared War, shall have the right to institute or reinstitute an Undeclared Draft. Using a lottery system, persons eligible for the Undeclared Draft will be randomly selected from a pool comprised of anyone over the age of 18 who supports any military actions ordered during a time of Undeclared War. The pool will also be extended to include anyone whose mother or father is an elected official and supports, whether it be directly or indirectly, said military actions.

Sounds fair to me, but I’m not sure this would bode well with the hawk-infested political community, especially considering most of their sons and daughters are serving tours on college campuses, while unrelated troops are serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The grenade, however, doesn’t fall far from the hawk’s desk, for they’ve managed to breed the same hawk-like hypocrisies into their children. In his documentary-style video, “Generation Chickenhawk: The Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour,” Max Blumenthal documents the next generation of Republican hawks and their hypocritical mentality when it comes to actually supporting the war.

After visiting Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery on July 13, 2007, Blumenthal headed across the street to the College Republican National Convention.

In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called "war on terror" as nothing less than the cause of their time.

Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. "Medical reasons." "It's not for me." These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them "over there." Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP's next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.

"Generation Chickenhawk: The Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour"



Generation Chickenhawk: The Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour from huffpost and Vimeo.

The other day I received an e-mail message from Mitt Romney, who’s calling for a “surge of support” to go along with the recent troop surge in Iraq. In doing so, Romney attacked the Democrats’ allegiences towards the troops:

While some Democrats in Congress say they support the troops who are making these sacrifices, many don’t support the work they are doing to make the surge a success.

By troop support, Romney means visiting and/or joining an organization that sends supplies, care packages and other moral boosters over to our deployed troops. This is great, but nowhere in his plan does Romney indicate that we should support our returning veterans as well or support Jim Webb’s congressional measure that would give our troops more down time upon their return before redeployment.

Nor does Romney, who has been blessed with five strapping sons, suggest supporting our troops with fresh meat from his own familial den of young military hawks. I received a campaign e-mail yesterday from Josh, one of Romney’s sons, who has been cruising around Iowa in his dad’s 30-foot Winnebago in an effort to raise support for his dad’s Ames Straw Poll.campaign.

Jesus Told Tom Tancredo to Bomb Mecca?

Somebody who feels compelled to publicly announce they’ve found Jesus and made Him his personal savior makes me really nervous, especially if that somebody is a politician running for office. (e.g. George W. Bush)

During the GOP debate in Des Moines this past Sabbath Day, the candidates were asked to confess a defining mistake in their lives and why. Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo stepped up to the plate and swung for the Holy fence.

Tancredo’s Defining Mistake: “It took me 30 years before I realized Jesus Christ is my personal savior.”

Now, I realize that people confess they found Jesus as a means of whiting out any moral ambiguities, indiscretions, and/or mistakes they may have made in the past, but this is not what really scares me. It’s what they do after they publicly announce their new relationship with Jesus Christ in front of a nationally televised audience that sends apocalyptic shivers down my spine.

Tancredo is no exception to this post-I-found-Jesus-and-made-him-my-personal-savior phenomenon. Similar to Bush Jr., I’m fairly certain Tancredo hasn’t read the "Dummy’s Guide to Making Jesus Your Own Personal Savior" from cover to cover.

Better yet, Tancredo may want to revisit (or visit assuming he hasn’t read it) the “Old Testament” before joining a book club with Jesus. So when Tancredo made Jesus his personal savior, was it a two-way street? I’m wondering if Jesus had any say in the matter, but the point is really moot, since Jesus loves and accepts all mankind—yes, even Tancredo.

A spiritual source with Political Fallout did manage to intercept a memo sent from Jesus to Tancredo under the newly adopted FISA guidelines -- which permits the government to intercept messages from any entities outside the United States (i.e. Heaven) that are deemed a threat to American Imperialism and the spread of Democracy.

TO: Rep. Tom Tancredo, R.-Colo.
FROM: Jesus, Savior of Mankind
DATE: 8-6-07
SUBJECT: Personal Savior Status

Dear Tom,

While watching the GOP debate on the day set aside for praising my father and only my father, it came to my attention that you had found Me and made Me your personal savior. Although flattered, I don’t recall making this pact and after combing through my files, I found no record of you finding Me. Maybe you could help out by refreshing my memory and letting me know the precise date I became your personal savior. Hopefully, there’s just been a bureaucratic lapse on our end. You’d be amazed how many things get lost through the bureaucratic cracks up here. I mean, how else do you think Bush got elected not once, but twice?

Another thing, if our records do indicate that you have achieved saved status, I’d suggest you read my biography, “The New Testament,” so I know we’re on the same page. (After all, in this modern age of marketing and product branding, I do have to protect my image and how it’s used.) For example, there’s the bit about loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Well, Tom, I really meant those words. They weren’t meant to be taken at a literal level, meaning just love the folks on your street or in your neighborhood. Rather, I was speaking metaphorically and by neighbors, I meant mankind. Comprende, Senor Tancredo?

So, if we’re going to continue our relationship, I want you to promise me that you’ll stop treating your neighbors to the south like sub-humans who are hell bent on coming to your country to destroy your way of life by killing every one in their path. This is no way to treat my dad’s creations. If he gets a whiff of this, there will be hell to pay. Oh, and please stop threatening to blow up Mecca and other holy shrines to serve as a deterrent to war. Trust me, there are other ways to deter war, but I’m sure you’ve familiarized yourself with these teachings when you read my biography.

Like I said, I’ll look into my files for records indicating your saved status. In the meantime, be sure to send us a record of when you found Me, so my staff can update our records up here.

Love Always,

Jesus

P.S. As a gesture for considering Me to be your personal savior, I would like to send you one of my bumper stickers. I’ll send you your choice of the ever-popular “W.W.J.D?,” “What Would Jesus Bomb?” (BTW, I’m being ironic here, Tom: LOL:) or my personal favorite “Look Busy, Jesus is Coming.” Just let me know in your daily prayers, and I’ll get it to you as soon as possible.

Anything but the E-word: a Political Cautionary Tale

Just when you thought it was safe to support a presidential candidate based upon irrational factors such as qualifications, job experience, shared ideologies and values, the E-word reared its divisive little head. No, I’m not talking about evil or exit polls, but something far more dangerous to the electoral psyche: electability. There, I said it, but out of fear of saying it again, thus feeding its power, I will not say it again.

During the 2004 presidential election, the E-word managed to single-handedly destroy Democratic voters and their ability to think for themselves. And now, four years later, the political tables have turned as the E-word has seeped its way into GOP waters. As the second-quarter filing deadline neared last week, U.S. Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager sent out an e-mail soliciting donations from supporters, providing them with one reason to support McCain: "John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton.” Campaign manager Terry Nelson helped drive home this fear at the end of the message: “Please also pass this message along to your friends and family to remind them of the stakes in this election.” I assume by stakes he meant Clinton winning the nomination.

I imagine McCain’s rivals might have other ideas about this, not to mention Clinton’s Democratic rivals. Nonetheless, McCain’s stoking of the GOP base’s “Anybody but Hillary” fire is reminiscent of the “Anybody but Bush” mental quagmire that ensnared the Democrats in 2004, which ultimately devoured their chances of winning when they nominated Mr. Electable, John Kerry, who wasn’t so electable after all.

The question is how, when and why did the E-word pop into presidential politics. The short answers are Karl Rove, 2003, and to help get George W. Bush re-elected. I cannot prove that Rove was the mastermind behind injecting the E-word into the Democrats' camp, but it has the makings of a great theory in the mystical realm of political science.

Granted, I don’t have a well-financed think tank to gather selective evidence and conduct polls guaranteed to prove my theory, but I do have a hunch. And the last time I checked, hunches were free, unless they’re espoused by political consultants, who get paid well to be wrong. Just ask Bob Shrum, the Democrats' consultant whose abysmal 0-7 track record has yet to wield a winning presidential candidate, including his latest casualty, John Kerry. Besides, Rove plays a great Wizard of D.C., regardless of what levers he does or does not pull behind the political curtain.

Just before the 2004 Iowa Caucuses, the Democrats had been stricken with fear and had already succumbed to the “Anybody but Bush” mentality. The E-word consumed all of the other issues as the Democrats faced an identity crisis. Consequently, a number of Iowans went to the caucuses and voted for Kerry, despite the fact he was not their number one choice. I lost count of the number of times I heard voter say to me, “I really want ‘your preferred candidate here’ to win, but I think John Kerry has the best chance of beating Bush.” (Rove’s sinister laugh here as he pulls the E-word lever down.)

After caucus night, I put my hypothesis to the test when I attended to the 2nd District Democratic convention in southern Iowa. Throughout the day, I asked as many Kerry delegates as I could to give me three reasons why they or I should vote for Kerry. Most of Kerry’s supporters responded like robots, as if they had been transformed into a Rovian Stepford Voter: “Must beat Bush…Must beat Bush.” Any signs of reason had been replaced by vacant stares. It was at this point I knew there was something more to the E-word.

Regardless of the E-word’s origins, the fact remains that it did become an integral part of the voter psyche, handicapping Democrats as they raced to the middle and tried to go toe-to-toe with Republicans on their own turf. Instead of focusing on why their nominee should win the presidency, the Democrats’ strategy was to focus on why the GOP nominee should not win.

And now, with less than six months remaining until the Iowa Caucuses, the E-word has manifested in the GOP who, like the Democrats in ’04, are facing an identity crisis as they search for a candidate. Without a clear Democratic nominee, the Republican Party is shoring up its base by setting its sights on defeating the presumed front-runner, Clinton. Democrats aren’t immune to this as presidential hopefuls gear up for winning the party nomination. John Edwards, an E-word casualty in ’04, has already dropped the E-word in Iowa, proclaiming he is the best candidate positioned to win swing states and the general election.

The best way to eradicate the E-word from public political discourse is for voters to stop listening to the exterior voices and to pay attention to the voices inside their own heads. Granted, this is no easy task when the media keep perpetuating the presidential horse race with a bullhorn and pundits handicap the candidates, prognosticating like college football analysts.

In a society that usually champions underdogs, we’re quick to dismiss second- and third-tier presidential candidates, and are willing to sacrifice idealism for pragmatism. But who knows, maybe one day the Stepford Voters will be reprogrammed to think and speak for themselves: “Must vote conscience…Must vote conscience.”

Until then, I think I’ll adopt the “Anybody but me” mindset to help me decide whom I’ll vote for on the night of the Iowa Caucuses.

Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

Billary Tuesday: Two Clintons for the Price of One

Growing up within walking distance of a Taco Johns “restaurant” was dangerous for more than the obvious reasons. Nicknamed “Toxic Juans,” me and my high school chums made a “runs for the border” every Tuesday to celebrate Taco Tuesday. Why only Tuesday? That was the only day I could afford to eat there on my daily food allowance. (Note: ice water was free.) Taco Tuesday has become a mainstay of Midwest Americana, so much so that the two-word phrase has been trademarked by Taco Johns.

The lean, mean Democratic Leadership Corporation branding machine begins branding the Clinton name in Iowa

Good thing, for it looks like the Clintons have begun tapping into the product branding foundation built up by President Bill Clinton in the ‘90s. Hillary Just Hillary started branding Hillary at the beginning of her campaign, but it was only a matter of time before the political branding and marketing efforts merged together.

Nonetheless, the Clinton’s product placement of Bill in Iowa this week should help solidify the merger for retail political consumers. The key for Hillary Just Hillary, as in any other marketing campaign, is to make sure that Bill’s branding doesn’t consume Hillary. This would be the equivalent of the Donkey Just Donkey in Shrek overshadowing Shrek’s ubiquitous green ogre image in consumer land. Only in the Clinton’s case, the opposite holds true, for Bill is Shrek -- so Hillary Just Hillary better be careful when it comes to branding the Clinton name. Like Taco Johns, political consumers may not be so willing to digest both Clintons come Caucus Day in Iowa.

Is America Ready for Another Bald President?

Americans and the media have always been obsessed with the “haves” and the “have nots,” and this goes without saying when it comes to John Edwards’ hair and his $400 haircut. A recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll asked telephone interviewees: Do you happen to know which presidential candidate has been in the news recently for paying $400 for a haircut?”

The only answers proffered by the interviewer were the top three Democratic candidates, followed by two of my favorite responses to all poll questions: “Other” and “Don’t Know;” although my favorite and standard response is “Don’t Care.” The results showed that roughly 46 percent of the respondents did not know about Edwards’ $400 haircut, which, as Greg Sargent pointed out on TPM Café, is 4 percent less than the number who knew that Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded Iraq. But as FOX News very well knows, we cannot begin muddling viewers' lives with facts. In the television news business, Weapons of Mass Deception are vital in winning the ratings war. Facts are major downers and a literal turn off to the television masses.

Speaking of the “haves and have nots,” the mainstream media’s negligence goes beyond their cursory coverage of the news. John Edwards’ haircut is merely a manifestation of a deeper issue that has long divided Americans along hairlines. Yes, folks, the “Two Americas” I’m talking about are those Americans who have hair and those who don’t have hair. There, I’ve said it. It was just a matter of time before I slicked back the comb-over and revealed the truth. The reason the majority of Americans are obsessed with hair is because we still live in a baldist society. Baldism is the real issue here, not the fact that Edwards paid an unseemly amount of money for a haircut.

Unfortunately, the “Bald is Beautiful” campaign does not extend itself to presidential politics. Pundits have been asking voters: Are Americans ready for a woman president? An African-American president? An Hispanic president? A Mormon president? But when will pundits and pollsters begin asking the real question: Are Americans ready for another bald president?

We haven’t had a bald president in 35 years, not since President Gerald Ford (see photo). But before you Baldists start touting Ford’s candidacy as a means of supplementing your own baldist guilt (“But, but…I’m not a baldist. Some of my good friends are bald.”), keep in mind that Ford was never elected to be president, or vice president for that matter. Ford, a distinctly bald man, had to win the presidency by entering the back doors of the White House. Ford was nominated to take former Vice President Spiro Agnew’s when he resigned, and then Ford fell into the presidency when President Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

We have to go back 50 years to President Dwight Eisenhower’s re-election to note the last time the American people elected a bald president. Granted, Eisenhower (in case you've never heard of Eisenhower and or don't know what he looks like, see photo above) had to overcome the pervading baldism of the 1950's, but thanks to the positive “I Like Ike” media blitz, Americans were able overcome their inherent baldist bias. Furthermore, Eisenhower, a general and decorated war hero, was elected six years after World War II. People were still accustomed to bald men returning from the war and were able to put their baldist differences aside and take a leap of faith at the polls.

Fifty years later, however, baldism has reared its head in presidential politics and is destined to play an integral role, whether it's conscious or subconscious, in the 2008 election. We cannot deny this anymore. Looking at this year’s crop of well-groomed candidates, the Democratic " field has no bald candidates, while the Republicans have two bald candidates, Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both considered top-tiered candidates. Clearly, history is stacked up against these guys and, as is the case with most bald presidential hopefuls, they have insurmountable odds to overcome in the next year.

Knowing two of their top three candidates are bald, the GOP has been internally struggling to find a viable candidate. They’re still looking for their white knight, and it appears former Sen. Fred Thompson may come to save the day. He’s already generating a buzz among GOP circles, but before they get their hopes up too high, they may want to proceed with caution.

News flash: Fred Thompson is bald! There, I said what had to be said.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson strikes former President Ford-like pose

When my hairline began receding in high school, I knew then that my presidential aspirations had begun to recede as well. I’ve vowed to never buy into the illusion that I can overcome the obstacles of balding by gradually concealing my follicle shortcomings with a hairpiece, veiling it with a comb-over, or replenishing my hair loss by transplanting hair from other, unmentionable parts of my body. I knew if I wanted to become president, I would have to change the baldists and put an end to baldism once and for all. My job is to change the closeted behaviors of all the baldists out there, who claim they are not, but behind the curtain know very well they could never vote for a bald president.

It’s time to pull back the political comb-overs, throw out the hair pieces and blur the hairline between the Two “Hair” Americas. We, Americans, need to start focusing on the meat of the issues, rather than obsessing on our wait staff’s hair, or better yet, lack of hair.

So I ask again: Is America ready for another bald president? Possible choices: (A) Not Sure, (B) Don’t Know, or (C) Don’t Care.

If you answered "C," you are correct in the sense that you paid attention to the front end of the column and have followed my advice. I will give you partial credit if you guessed "C" – since that’s what most Americans have been trained to do when they have absolutely no idea as to the answer.

Don’t worry, if you answered or guessed "A" or "B," there is still hope, although, this is contingent upon divine timing and whether or not you’re home when FOX News calls and asks you some questions thinly veiled by a newsworthy comb-over.

Cross-Posted at "Iowa Independent"

Jesus H. Clinton Parts Red and Blue Sea

Last night, during a forum on faith and politics, Hillary Just Hillary came down from the political polls and performed an act of divine intervention by parting the Red and Blue Sea. Hillary Just Hillary’s audience, primarily comprised of religious leaders, was shocked and awed by Her polarizing move. In the wake of the ceremonial parting, members of the newly formed Red and Blue seas, in honor of Jim Wallis’s “God’s Politics,” were respectively labeled the “Why We Get It Wrong Lil’ Red Guppies,” and “Why We Just Don’t Get It ‘Lil Blue Minnows.”

Hillary Just Hillary first introduced her trademarked Jesus-like pose a few months back when she descended upon Iowans while campaigning at a Mega-Townhall meeting in Des Moines (see below), where she attempted to convert Democrat activists into DLC (Democratic Leadership Corporation) believers.

After Hillary Just Hillary left the auditorium last night, it was reported that the ‘Lil Red Guppies and Blue Minnows” were arguing over which fish group would be the next prototype for the Hillary Just Hillary Fish bumper insignia.

Read more about the forum at "Iowa Independent": Faith and Politics: Presidential Candidates Tackle the Tough Questions in CNN Forum

Fallout’s Mock the Hillary Theme Song Vote

In an attempt to tune in with voters, Hillary Just Hillary has launched a campaign theme song election, and she’s imploring YOU, “Time” magazine’s 2006 Man of the Year, to rock (and a little bit country) the vote. Sounds totally Hillacious, eh? You know, like, music totally transcends political boundaries and corporate ties and stuff, you know. Like, check out the Hillary Just Hillster in her latest YouTube cameo:

“Video Killed the Political Star,” by Hillary Just Hillary



To help sustain the illusion of a bottom-up Democracy, Political Fallout has decided to participate in the campaign. After intensive internal and external polling, extensive test-marketing research, and conducting blind study groups (led by James Baker), we’ve announced the top 10 songs recommended to help spearhead “Political Fallout’s 2007 Mock the Vote” efforts.

Top 10 Write-In Candidates:

“The Grand Illusion” -- Styx

“I’m Just a Bill” – Jack Sheldon (Schoolhouse Rocks)

“Don’t Go Chasing Waterfalls” -- TLC (not to be confused with the DLC – Democrat leadership Corporation)

“Dream On” -- Aerosmith

“Little Willy” -- The Sweet

“Special Secret Song Inside” -- Red Hot Chili Peppers

“God Save the Queen” – Sex Pistols

The Iraq War Trilogy

Part I: “Masters of War,” by Bob Dylan

Part II: “Highway to Hell,” AC/DC

Part III: “I Can’t Explain” – The Who

And the winner of Political Fallout’s 1st unofficial 2007 “Mock the Vote” campaign:

“Little Willy” – The Sweet ('cuz Little Willy, Willy won't go home...)



Help support Political Fallout’s “Mock the Vote” write-in candidacy for Hillary Just Hillary’s campaign theme song and SUBMIT your vote now: click here to vote.
_____________________________
More Fallout...

Wonkette is running a write-in campaign as well (Wonkette).

Check out John Deeth's take, "Hillary's Playlist: What, no Rage Against The Machine?" (Iowa Independent)

Tommy Thompson Makes Excuses for Condoning Bigotry

At a state GOP convention in Wisconsin, presidential candidate Tommy Thompson provided the audience and reporters with excuses as to why he said he supported an employer's right to fire a gay worker in private business. He told the audience that a dead hearing aid and an urgent need to run to the bathroom made him do it. Thompson later told reporters that he’d been battling the flu and bronchitis and this also added to his mistaken answer.

Tommy Thomspon’s response at GOP Debate at the Ronald Reagan Library



I didn’t quite see the familiar signs of one whose hearing aid is on the fritz and/or has to make a run to the bathroom. The whole post-debate-excuse affair is reminiscent of a note a school teacher may have received from an enabling parent, excusing her child for making inappropriate comments:

Dear Voters,

Please excuse Tommy for the inappropriate remarks he made the other night condoning bigotry in the workplace. His hearing aid was malfunctioning and we haven’t and a chance to get it fixed. I've just been so busy with the presidential run and all. Tommy’s very sensitive about his hearing aid, so I hope you’ll understand why he didn’t say anything earlier or ask for Mr. Matthews to repeat the question. I can’t tell you how awful I feel about this. Furthermore, poor Tommy’s had been battling the flu and bronchitis the days prior to the GOP presidential debate, and he really didn’t want to miss it -- so I decided to let him participate.

Unfortunately, between his hearing aid, the flu, and bout of bronchitis, Tommy misunderstood a question asked by Mr. Matthews and gave an answer he really doesn’t agree with. Believe me, I know Tommy better than anybody and he would never discriminate against the gays. In fact, he has gay friends who are hard-working employees in the private sector.

Just between you and me, the flu and bronchitis have had an adverse impact on Tommy’s bladder and bowels, whcih made it hard for him to concentrate during the debate. Tommy would die if he knew I was telling you this, so I hope you’ll keep it just between us. I’m not trying to make excuses for Tommy’s remarks; I just thought you would want to know. Thanks for listening and reserving judgment on Tommy. He’s had such a rough time lately.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Parent

When weighing the question asked, Tommy’s response, and what he thought was asked, it’s hard to reconcile these discrepancies and Tommy Thompson’s plea to voters to take a “leap of faith.” And given Tommy has proclaimed himself the Reliable Conservative, I’m willing to bet my “King James Bible” that his targeted base is not ready to make that big a leap.

Not to mention, Tommy’s excuses only serve to undermine his credibility regarding all of his other responses during the debate.

So when the moderator, Chris Mathews, called for a show of hands for those who own a gun or don’t believe in Evolution, did Tommy raise his hand indicating he’s really a gun-toting Creationist?

Or was Tommy really raising his hand to ask permission to go to the bathroom?
__________________________________

Cross-posted @ "Iowa Independent"

“Pimp Tax” Man Grassley Defends His Turf ‘Gainst Obama

The home front for the “War on Words” has shifted from D.C. to Iowa, where Sen. “Pimp Taxin’” Grassley is attempting to defend his home turf against Sen. Obama in the latest exchange of words over their stances on the Iraq War spending bills in Congress.

Senior Senatorial Player Grassley to Junior Senator Obama: “You want some of this? You wanna play in my house, you gotta play da rules, non-Senatorial Obama. Otherwise, you’re gonna pay da price. Just ask the Pimp Tax Man, man.”

Sen. Grassley has had the home turf advantage in Iowa for the past 32 years, while Sen. Obama has benefited from the media surge fueled by his presidential candidacy. Sen. Grassley is trying to fight the “War on Words” from D.C. with one arm tied behind his back.

News Capsules from the War Front:

May 6th: During a campaign stop in Waterloo, Sen. Obama said the Senate needs only 16 votes in the Senate to override President Bush’s veto. He called upon Iowans to help evoke change: "If everyone here makes the decision that they are going to bring about change in this country, change is going to come."

To help instigate the “War on Words,” the “Des Moines Register” proceeded to stir up the hornet’s nest:

Obama did not name names, but he was likely referring to U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican. Iowa's other U.S. senator, Tom Harkin, a Democrat, voted with the majority of members of his party.

And for those of us who are familiar with the early beginnings of the Cold War (you know, the other Metaphoric War), nothing fires up a cauldron of fear and paranoia than implying a good ol’ fashioned naming names allusion.

May 9th: Sen. Grassley responded to Sen. Obama’s comments during a conference call with Iowa reporters:

"Let's say pretty much that it's not senatorial and if you can't be senatorial, how can you be presidential?" "Generally, when you're from another state, you don't take pokes at another senator," said Grassley. "I would find that very difficult to go and do in Illinois, and tell his constituents to get on him about something."Grassley added: "You know what really makes it less presidential is, I'm not running for president. I'm not one of his opponents."

May 10th: Sen. Obama stood his ground in Indainola, reiterating his previous position, and responded to the recent heat from Sen. Grassley:

"I believe that all of us have to take responsibility to make sure that we change hearts and minds.When I become president I will bring this war to a close, but I don't want to wait another year and a half to do it."

May 11th: Sen. Grassley’s Press Secretary, Beth Levine, delivered the latest attack in the “War on Words” by releasing the following statement in response to Sen. Obama’s comments in Indianola:

“Sen. Obama’s comments yesterday renew the questions about his readiness. Overriding President Bush’s veto of a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq would have to take place first in the House of Representatives because that's the chamber of Congress from which the legislation originated. It's been demonstrated that the votes aren’t there to override that veto, despite the fact that the House is controlled by Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Party. So, there isn’t an opportunity for a veto override in the Senate in this case and, as a result, there’s no way that Sen. Grassley holds a key vote. Sen. Obama might want to sign up for American Government 101 to learn about the veto process. Or, he could learn the job he has in the U.S. Senate before thinking he ought to be President.”

Or maybe Sen. Obama should sign up for Sen. Grassley’s “American Politics 101” and learn how to play the game of politics from a seasoned insider.

American Politics 101: Rules for engagement during an attack in a “War on Words”

Rule 1: Monitor threats and attacks during incubation period.

When you’ve been attacked or feel threatened, whether directly or indirectly, it’s essential to subject perceived threats to an incubation period, where they can been monitored for damage control. If the threat backfires, ignores it. If the threat gains no traction, ignore it. (e.g. Sen. Grassley initial response to Sen. Obama’s comments is that he likely willl "brush it off and ignore it.")If the threat does gain traction, it’s imperative to move on to the next rule of engagement.

Rule 2: Remove threat from incubation by publicly responding to or denouncing attack.

This should happen regardless of whether or not the attacks are implicit, explicit, true, or even partially true. If not denounced in a timely manner, the public will perceive them to be true or that you’re hiding something.

(Warning: Do not overplay your hand at first. Voters may perceive this as being defensive, as if the original attack hit home for whatever reason.)

Rule 3: If the threat continues to gain traction, despite your initial retort, send out the attack dogs and rev up the Spin Machine.

If the attack or perceived attack continues to gain traction, unleash your attack dog, who will issue an attack on your behalf, butt cannot be directly linked to you. After all, this is the main reason why we’ve created Vice Presidents, Lt. Governors, campaign managers and press secretaries in politics.

Rule 4: Keep repeating rule #3 until the media loses interest and/or a fresh, unrelated scandal breaks out.

Given the majority of voters have the attention span of Boo Radley, this shouldn’t take too long, assuming the attack process isn’t conceived within three months of an election.

So the big question now is whether or not Sen. Obama is going to “stay the course” and play Sen Grassley’s game of “American Politics 101,” or is he going to “brush it off and ignore him”?

Either way, there’s little doubt the media will ignore it. This much we’ve all learned from the Cold War, eh Sen. McCarthy?

Check out my other version, "American Politics 101: Grassley's Staff Attacks Obama" @ (Iowa Independent)

McCain Touts New Scapegoat: Mr. Potato Head

In a town hall meeting in Fort Dodge, Sen. John McCain appealed to voters by blaming Mr. Potato Head for the GOP’s election losses. Senator McCain has come under fire for his adamant support for the Iraq War and the surge of troops, and to help deflect these criticisms, he hired Mr. Potato Head to serve as his campaign’s obligatory fall guy. Mr. Potato Head’s agent said, “If anybody can take the heat, it would be my client, Mr. Potato Head. This won’t be the first game of hot potato he’s been in, and I guarantee that it won’t be his last. Through thick and thin, Mr. Potato Head is in to win.”

Senator McCain showcases his uncanny resemblance to his new campaign scapegoat, Mr. Potato Head.

Emulating McCain’s “Straight Talking Express” campaign motif, Mr. Potato Head has called for complete transparency and has openly disclosed some of the terms of his contract.

I, Mr. Potato Head, agree to serve as Senator McCain’s campaign scapegoat, and will take responsibility for all of the following:

Helping create the Civil War in Iraq, and had the President listened to me and sent more troops at the beginning of the war, this Civil War would have a lot more civil than it is now.

Any terrorist spud cells that manifest in the continental United States.

Any terrorist who follows our soldiers home (should the U.S. begin withdrawing troops before we actually win the war).

Anna Nichole Smith’s death. (Laugh now, but mark my word as a legal American spud, this will be McCain’s first Swift Boat incident.)

I’m the one who hired McCain’s character assassination hit team.

Any apparent flip-flops on Sen. McCain’s behalf between now and the ’08 election.

I wrote the lyrics to “Bomb Iran.”

Using ancient spud hypnosis, I made McCain completely forget the McCain-Feingold bill and its intent.

The tamper-proof ID card was all my idea.

1st Round of GOP Presidential Debate Goes to Reagan

Capitalizing on home-field advantage, former President Ronald Reagan dominated last night’s GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library, posthumously winning the first round. That said, the remaining field of living GOP candidates are faced with an uphill battle if they’re going to overcome “The Great Communicator’s” resurgence in the party. Although, recent history has been kind to GOP candidates who lose to dead people; just ask John Ashcroft, whose senatorial bid in Missouri was upended by a deceased candidate. Ashcroft’s defeat served as a stepping stone for landing an Attorney General a gig under President Bush.

Based on what I heard during last night's non-debate, my guess is that Nancy Reagan gave the candidates a motivational speech just before going on stage, reminding them where the GOP used to stand when her husband was President. Either way, the GOP hopefuls took the stage imbibed with Ronald Reagan’s presence and the collective game plan of injecting Reagan into everything. I felt like I was listening to Jim Zabel calling an Iowa Hawkeye football game, conveniently threading in commercials into his color commentary:

Zabel: “He’s got a man wide open in the end zone. The pass is up, it’s a beauty. The Hawkeyes are going to score. Touchdown! He dropped it! Nobody around him for miles and he dropped the ball. Unbelievable! Speaking of unbelievable and dropping, come on down to Nathan Arizona’s Unpainted Furniture, where prices are dropping as we speak. That’s Nathan Arizona’s Unpainted Furniture, proud supporter of your Iowa Hawkeyes.”

Albeit a slight exaggeration, the GOP hopefuls made allusions to Reagan on several occasions. The Republican Party is still in a recovery mode after their political trouncing in the ’06 election. The GOP is suffering an identity crisis, and it appears they’re looking back to the GOP salad days of President Reagan to help find answers and conservative rebirth. During the first portion of the non-debate, I thought the Cold War was still going on. Although, maybe these guys are on to something; resurrecting a good ‘ol fashioned Cold War may be just the remedy to stamp out the War on Terror.

Before the non-debate I posed the question: Will the Real Conservative please stand up?

After the non-debate, the next question the GOP hopefuls are asking as a means of searching their party’s soul and presidential nomination is:

Will the next Ronald Reagan please stand up?

Ten Little Reagans: Which one of these lucky contestants will be the next Ronald Reagan?

GOP Debate: “American Conservative Idolatry”

In tonight’s GOP presidential debate, or “Epic Battle for the Conservative Voter’s Seal of Approval,” the candidates will be vying to establish themselves as The Conservative of the GOP Party. In order to gauge an accurate reading, it looks like Political Fallout will have to break out its Official Sam Brownback Christian Conservative Values Scale (Compassion Not Included). Although this scale only works on religious and some social conservatives, it will be a good tool for beginning the conservative vetting process. With all the different sects and branches of conservatism popping up underneath God’s umbrella (e.g. fiscal, cultural, neo-, etc.) it would be impossible to get an exact reading.

I hope the debate moderators hit upon the conservative labeling quagmire from the very beginning, just so the audience can rest assured that all of the candidates are indeed conservatives. I imagine a lightning round of introductions playing out like this:

(Note: Candidates have been ranked by their Political Fallout Conservative Score (PFCS), which is based on the candidates’ own perception of their conservatism and cross referenced with internal polling.)

Moderator: “Will the real conservative candidate please step forward?”

Top Tier Conservatives

Sam Brownback: “I’m God’s Senator, and I’m a Full-Scale Conservative.”

Mike Huckabee: “I’m a Genuine Conservative with genuine convictions.”

Second Tier Conservatives

Tommy Thompson: “Unlike others who say they’re conservatives, yet don’t act conservatively, I’m your Reliable Conservative."

Jim Gilmore: “I’m not just your ordinary, willy-nilly conservative. Why, I’m a Faithful Conservative.”

Duncan Hunter: "I hope to be the Most Conservative."

Born-Again Conservatives

Mitt Romney: "Not only am I a Conservative, I'm a Conservative Republican."

Conservative Flavor of the Week (formerly the Neoconservative Special)

John McCain: "I was a Conservative when it was cool not being Conservative and not a Conservative when it was cool, but now I assure you that I am indeed a Conservative. For now anyway."

Non-Practicing Conservatives (formerly L*beral Conservatives)

Rudy Giuliani: "I'm a Conservative (pause) no, really, I am."

Tune in tonight to watch the candidates battle it out for the no-holds-barred Conservative Rubber Stamp.

Taking the Gravel Road Less Traveled

The clear winner of last night’s Democrat Presidential “Debate” was, hands down, former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska).

Gravel details his political rebirth, explaining how he metamorphosed from underneath an Alaskan rock, where he'd been hiding for the past 10 years

Why was Gravel the big winner?

Choose the answer that BEST fits:

A) Before last night, most people had never even heard of Mike Gravel, including people who have lived in Alaska their entire lives*
B) He actually answered some of the questions asked with “candor” and “honesty”
C) He had absolutely nothing to lose but his dignity, which, for the sake of Democracy and mankind, he was willing to sacrifice early on**
D) Political pundits have dismissed the legitimacy of his candidacy by calling him “crazy,” which is a prerequisite for running for President in the first place, thus making him a bonefied candidate
E) Usng rhetorical precision skills worthy of Edward Scissorhand, he managed to not only distinguish himself from the other candidates but a “potted plant” as well*
F) Performance may have helped him seal Howard Stern’s endorsement
G) The Sanjaya Effect: Helped shore up his Loser voter base
H) ALL of the above

*In a post-debate interview, when asked where he’d been the last 30 years, Gravel responded, “Living under a rock for the past 10 years.”

**To end the Iraq War, proposed Congress should pass a law that would make it a felony for the Bush administration to continue to prosecute it. (Traditional thinking would indicate that Bush would VETO this bill, but maybe, just maybe, using reverse psychology and tapping into Bush’s hubris reserves, may prove otherwise.)

***In the world of grassroots politics, one should never underestimate the power of the “potted plant.”

A recent Political Fallout poll shows a Ficus Plant leading all GOP presidential contenders in Iowa

For those of you who didn’t get a chance to see Gravel in action, check out the video clip on “Crooks and Liars.”

Best live-blogging depiction of Mike Gravel goes to John Deeth:

“Mike Gravel made Dennis seem positively moderate; There were a few good lines and ideas that would have sounded fine in the calm measured voice of a George McGovern, but his overall tone through the debate seemed to be along the lines of Grandpa telling those darn kids to get the hell off my lawn, saying the other candidates “scared” him.”

After Gravel’s performance debut, I imagine the corporate bi-partisan National Commission on Presidential Debates is carefully sifting though their bylaws, trying to figure out how to create a loophole to silence him. If only our lawmakers implored the same vigilance before voting in favor of the Patriot Act; who knows, maybe Mike Gravel would still be living under a rock in Alaska...

Hillary Dodges Sanjaya Softball Question

Political Diva Hillary-Just-Hillary attempted to field a question during a radio call-in show in New Hampshire, only to bobble the ball before making her response all about her. When a listener asked Hillary what the United States can do about Sanjaya Malakar, the underdog “American Idol” candidate who critics contend lacks any shred of talent, she replied:

"That's the best question I've been asked in a long time. Well, you know, people can vote for whomever they want. That's true in my election, and it's true on 'American Idol.'"

Apparently fielding a question about Sanjaya’s fate is better than responding to questions about what the United States should do about the War in Iraq, the health care crisis, campaign finance reform, the budget deficit, genocide in Darfur, and irreverent bloggers.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Sanjaya’s performance abilities, check out his rendition of The Kinks' song “You Really Got Me.” Notice the effect Sanjaya has on a younger Hillary prototype in the audience.



Hillary-Just-Hillary finally gets a softball question and instead of swinging, she dodges the question. Had she wanted to get on base and/or score, Hillary should have used the following responses:

What should the United States do about Sanjaya Malakar?

Single Response: Who the hell is Sanjaya? And why the hell should we care?

Double Response: Turn off your television.

Triple Response: Nice try, Howard (Stern). You have your own radio show. Please hang up and give the people of New Hampshire a chance to ask questions.

Home Run Response: Give him a job as a consultant for a Democrat presidential campaign.

Grand Slam Response: Impeach his talentless ass!

Now let's Play Ball! But first, a Sanjaya-inspired performance of the National Anthem:



FYI: Sanjaya literally means “victory,” while Hillary’s name was rated 882nd in the 2005 top 1000 baby names. The smart money is on Sanjaya.

“If You Exempt It, They Will Come…”

WANTED: Hollywood Filmmakers to Shoot Your Film HERE

The VOICE from the Iowa cornfields whispered into our collective ears: “If you exempt it, they will come.”

And the prophecy caught a gust of wind and blew beyond Iowa’s borders, eventually resonating in the corporate enterprises, who found the answers blowing in the wind. En masse, they descended upon Iowa, seeking profits to fatten their underbellies.

And along came the corporate hog-farm producers, Wells Fargo and their posse of predatory lenders, Wal-Mart, riverboat and nonriver-boat Casinos, and others who found the answer blowing in the wind before descending upon the field of opportunities.

“Is this a Haven?”

“No, it’s Iowa.”

Welcome to Iowa: A Field of Economic Opportunities

And now Iowa has opened up the pearly gates of its tax haven away from haven to Hollywood filmmakers by providing them with a tax emption (25%) to shoot their films in Iowa. The only two catches to this tax break is that filmmakers have to drop at least $100,000 in Iowa, and they’re not shooting anything “obscene” (a euphemism for porno flick). Knowing the Adult Film Industry hasn’t shot a big-budget pornographic film since they were teenagers secretly watching their parents’ collection of big-budget porno films, lawmakers figured $100,000 would serve as a good deterrent and would help promote their scientifically-researched abstinence-laden “Safe-Filming” education policy.

According to proponents of the new bill, the tax exemption for filmmakers will help feed the tourist industry as onlookers spend money during the filming and at gift shops erected upon the film site after the shooting. Opponents of the bill fear the exemption will tap into Iowa’s leading tourist industry: The Presidential Caucus and Campaigning Tourist Industry. There should be plenty of greasy elbow room for both, and better yet, the presidential hopefuls should exploit this new tax loophole by filming their campaign in Iowa, so they can right off 25% of their expenses.

Political Fallout’s Working-Title Productions

The following are working titles of films about the current field of presidential hopefuls who are planning on spending a lot of face time in Iowa. See if you can match the presidential candidate with the respective title:

1. Diva Las Vegas!

2. The Burnt Bridges of Christian Conservative County

3. Dennis the Menace Strikes Again and Again

4. The Rabbit Hunter

5. Fields of Dreaming Illegal Immigrants

6. A Mill Worker’s Son

7. The First Wives Club III

8. An Inconvenient Truth II

9. The Last Temptation of Newt Gingrich

Answers: 9. Newt Gingrich, 8. Al Gore, 7. Rudy Giuliani, 6. John Edwards, 5. Tom Tancredo, 4. Mitt Romney, 3. Dennis Kucinich, 2. John McCain, 1. Hillary Clinton

GOP Hopefuls’ April Fools’ Haikus

I Pity the April Fools’ Haikus

John McCain: Straight Talkin’ Panderer

McCain tours Iraq;
Finds silver lining in hell.
The surge is working.

Tommy Thompson: GOP’s Only “Reliable Conservative”

Screw Democracy!
Socialism in Iraq
Is the only Way!!

Mike Huckabee: GOP’s Marathon Man

A Spartan campaign
Running on shoestring budget:
I’m your Huckabee!

Rudy Giuliani: America’s Soprano

Pledges to clean up
D.C.'s dirty politics.
No? Just ask Kerik!

Tom Tancredo: The Gun Totin’ Xenophobe

Culture we imposed
On Indians is threatened.
Assimilate now!

Sam Brownback: "God’s Senator"

Look before leaping
Your faith in God’s Senator.
Iraq bed of nails.

DLC Merger Complete: Hillary, Inc. Adopts Vilsack

Tom Vilsack, Inc. Officially Merges with Hillary, Inc., Joining the "Other America"

The inevitable finally happened when Democratic Leadership Corporation Diva, Hillary Just Hillary, acquired former DLC Chair Tom Vilsack. Even though Vilsack, Inc. went into the red after its failed presidential bid, Hillary, Inc. went ahead with the merger, promising to help Vilsack pay off his $400,000 campaign debt. Wow, that’s some dowry, eh? Maybe Vilsack should throw in a couple of goats to sweeten the deal. Although this is a mere pittance when compared to the multi-trillion dollar debt our next President stands to inherit, not including the Iraq War Bush threw in for good measure. King George may want to consider throwing in his two daughters as a peace offering.

The world of corporate politics works just the same as the traditional corporate world, meaning there’s no such thing as “money for nothin’.” So how’s Vilsack going to earn his keep? In addition to cleaning Hillary's stables and tendering his public endorsement, Hillary, Inc. gave Vilsack (formerly of Vilsack, Inc.) a title, National Co-Chairman, and we all know that titles work as good political fronts for the laundering of dirty money (e.g. Political Action Committees). Short of having any dispensable goats, Vilsack sacrificed his wife Christie, who was given the title, State Co-Chairwoman. This should help seal the deal; well sort of -- an Iowa Caucus victory for Hillary, Inc. sure would pay dividends for the DLC’s shareholders. Having already sold his soul to the DLC, I’m not sure what else Vilsack could use for collateral, should Hillary lose in Iowa.

To hold up his end of the bargain, Vilsack had already sent a letter to his list of 1,159 (1,059 after 100 of them defected to Edwards during the “Blue Scare”) supporters last week, begging them to help pay off his debt. On Monday, he sent an e-mail to Clinton’s supporters saying he planned to help Clinton win Iowa’s leadoff nominating caucuses.

Golly, that’s all he has to do for $400,000? Where do I sign up? Hillary, if you, or any of your paid supporters are reading this post, Political Fallout would like to offer its services in exchange for $400,000. For the sum, Political Fallout will publicly endorse you, accept a title of your choosing, and send e-mails to all my and supporters and yours that documents the founder of Political Fallout, T.M. Lindsey, will help you win Iowa Caucuses next January. (Note: this is not meant to be satiric, but rather, a desperate plea on behalf of a starving blogger.)

According to Hillary, Inc. spokesman, Phil Singer, Vilsack’s endorsement had nothing to do with helping Hillary's promise to absorb his debt: "One thing's got absolutely nothing to do with the other. They've known each other for years. If she weren't running for president, she'd be doing whatever she can to help retire his debt." I wish I had friends like that. Oh wait a minute, I do. Hillary’s been a dear friend of mine on My Space for a couple of months now. We’re pretty close. I know this, because she sends me bulletins on My Space all of the time. So what do you say, Hillary, you ready to deal with Political Fallout? You know where to find me. I’ll be waiting. Oh the places we will go, Hillary.

While reading Dr. Suess's "Oh, the Place You'll Go," Hillary took a break to capitalize on a "teaching moment" by giving the Greenwood Elementary students a mini-civics lesson. When asked how many major political parties were in the U.S., most students replied either one or two, but Hillary informed them that the correct answer is three: the Republican, the Democrat, and the Corporate (DLC).

‘Fallout Poll: Most Think U.S. Ready for Cuckold President

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." -Mark Twain

Is the country ready to send a cuckold back to the White House? A majority of Iowans think so. What about an adulterer? Or a grown man who still goes by Tommy? Not yet.

Helping feed American’s addiction for useless information, pie charts, and multi-colored bar graphs, the “Des Moines Register” conducted a poll which revealed:

Two-thirds of the state's adults believe the nation is ready for an African-American president in 2008. A smaller majority - 55 percent - says the American electorate is open to choosing a woman. But just 40 percent believe the country is ready for a president who is Hispanic.

Inspired by the malaise of the electorate and expending energy collecting useless information, the staff at Political Fallout thought it was in the best interest of the blogsphere to help feed America’s addiction to polls by conducting its own poll. (Note: The poll of 100 adults who had nothing better to do with their lives than respond to seemingly baseless poll questions by a Political Fallout operative was conducted Monday and Tuesday evenings.)

Political Fallout’s Polling Ad Nauseam:

A majority of those polled – 63 percent – said the American electorate is open to electing a cuckold for the highest office in the land. Leading cuckold rights activist, Jane Seller, said: “It’s about time people recognized the hardships cuckolds face in their daily lives, especially women cuckolded by high-profile adulterers. Besides, cuckolds know what if feels like to be betrayed and are less likely to use their office to commit adulterous sins.”

Speaking of adulterers, Iowans were lukewarm – 22 percent -- about the idea of choosing an adulterer, fearing this would not only stain the reputation of the highest office but would blemish America’s moral standing in the global community. “Iowans already weighed in where they stand on adulterers when they opted not to elect Jim Nussle for Governor,” said Jesus, a documented worker from Mexico. “And now Nussle’s hooking up with fellow adulterer, Rudy Giuliani? It won’t be long before Newt Gingrich jumps into bed with them.”

Other findings revealed that the majority of voters were okay with electing a “Tom” or “Thomas” -- most of the them (17% more) preferring “Thomas” because of the name’s historical precedence (i.e Jefferson), while most voters viewed “Tommy” unfavorably (94%). “Tommy? Are you kidding me?” said longtime Democrat Thomas Rutherford, “Tommy is a boys’ name, not the leader of the free world. I grew out of ‘Tommy’ when I was seven, although my mommy still calls me Tommy whenever I disappoint her -- meaning whenever I vote Republican.”

Oddly enough, when asked if they could support a “dead white guy” for president, a small majority (51%) said “yes.” “Why not?” said Max Overton, a Classics Professor at the University of Iowa. “We’re so quick to revere the literary canon in education, yet when it comes to promoting “dead white guys” for elected office, the electorate is under the illusion we can do much better. Had we elected a “dead white guy” for President in 2000, I guarantee we would be a lot better off than we our now.”

Finally, a slight majority (50.5%) of those polled said they would be more comfortable with a having a woman president than a woman god. “The thought of female god scares the crap out of me,” said John Kimball, a devout Christian. “With a woman president, we would only have to feel her wrath for no more than eight years, whereas a female god has an eternal term to unleash her wrath. Believe me you, we have a lot to atone for; especially all of the goddamn men out there who have royally screwed things up.”

In trademark Hillary fashion, Senator Clinton attempts to appeal to both sides of the poll, while campaigning at a Mega-Town Hall Meeting in Des Moines, Iowa. Hillary couples her female and God-like presence by striking a womanly, yet Jesus-like pose for gathered Hillary worshipers.

SNL’s “Chris Matthews vs. Hillary” Spot On

In case you didn’t catch this past weekend’s episode of “Saturday Night Live,” the opening sketch was definately the highlight of the show. On the day that Hillary announced she would seek the Democratic presidential nomination and that “She’s in to Win,” SNL was already locked and loaded with a “Hardball” sketch, which exposed some of Hillary’s political vulnerabilities:



What are your thoughts on the sketch? The portrayal of Hillary? I want to hear YOUR thoughts: "Let's start a conversation..."

’08 Caucuses: Drafting Britney Violates “Separation of Politics and the Arts”

In the culture of fear-driven politics, it appears Iowa is afraid of losing its first-in-the-nation status. But hold on folks…

Have no fear, the Greater Des Moines Convention and Visitors Bureau is here!

The bureau’s film commission wants to mix politics with entertainment, which, by the way, is a direct violation of the unwritten clause of the Constitution which calls for the “separation of Politics and the Arts.” Both parties have already been pushing the limitations of this unwritten statute with their National political conventions -- glorified Infomercials filled with political speakers who’ve mastered the glazed-over Infomercial look that tells viewers “if you buy this product, you too will be perpetually stoned.”

The aim of the bureau is to spark nationwide appreciation and understanding of the presidential-nomination process. Organizers have already added Britney Spears and Lee Greenwood to their wish list to help communicate these objectives. So when Britney Spears breaks into a tawdry rendition of “Toxic” and belts:

There’s no escape/ I can’t hide /I need a hit/Baby, give me it /You’re dangerous/I’m lovin’ it …

People ignorant of politics and the caucus process will have a full understanding of not only how precinct delegates are chosen but what their specific duties and responsibilities will entail at the county level.

But again, the film commission is walking the fine line separating politics and the arts, claiming in their press release, “politics will be left at the door, but the window will be open to positive political satire.” Hmmmm…positive political satire, eh? This pretty much puts the kibosh on Stephen Corbert and pretty much any other satirist/comedian except Iowa’s very own Tom Arnold. (Anybody else smell a conspiracy theory here? First hosting Culver’s inaugural festivities in Iowa City, and now…)

(Disclaimer: The following attempt at political satire is meant to be taken in a positive light. The reader is solely responsible for anything that may be construed as negative and should read at their own risk.)

In lieu of a celebratory love fest, we should treat the presidential hopefuls as up-and-coming celebrities by hosting a political rendition of “American Idle.” Using the similar format to the ever-popular, “American Idol,” the hopefuls will perform a series of political acts such as an extemporaneous speaking game of “But I Don’t Have the Poll Numbers in Front of Me,” followed by an improvisation round of “Whose Democracy Is It Anyway?,” and then the final round when contestants get a chance to showcase their unique talents in “Stupid Politician Tricks.”

For all of you political paparazzis out there who hope the Greater Des Moines Convention and Visitors Bureau gets their wish, so you can snap a glimpse of Britney’s panty-less crotch, this should help appease you for now:
Don’t hold your breath too long; Political Fallout was able to contact Britney at home via telephone earlier today:

PF: What is your opinion about Iowa's Caucuses?

Britney: (long pause, babies crying in the background) I don’t know. I’ve never had one before. (hangs up)

Although if the gig does fall through, be sure to keep your cameras loaded; there’s always Hillary: