Very Hottest Photos

Michele Bachmann's claim John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father is far more defensible than Barack Obama's statement there are 57 states.

Just sayin'.

Maybe when the media makes good on the threat to investigate her foster children, they will find out if either she or the president is smarter than a fifth grader.

UPDATE: Speaking of Bachmann's John Quincy Adams claim being defensible, American Power explains. Any Obama fans want to take a shot at naming our missing seven states as a retort?

UPDATE II: Mark Levin says George Stephanopolous should not be mocking Bachmann. I concur. The man has gone from advising a president to asking Elmo if he wants a play date with Katy Perry. There is one Rhodes Scholarship that was not wasted, huh?

The results of last week’s poll are in. A majority feel social values cannot be ignored when choosing a even as economic issues will be at the forefront of the 2012 election.

Social values important 66%
Economics only 34%

Pro-choice, pro gay-marriage Republicans will get no traction in 2012 regardless of economic acumen. Note to Rudy Giuliani--do not bother.

If you have not already surmised, I usually cast a vote these weekly polls, too. I play sporting and vote only once, and I also avoid polls in which the outcomes matter like the Star Trek: Voyager v. Babylon 5 review poll which made me question American cultural rot and democracy as we know it, but I do vote in the political polls. Except for this week. While I came up with the question regarding the importance of social issues in choosing a 2012 nominee, I have not come up with a good answer.

In my young idealistic days, I thought social issues mattered because I thought political leaders ought to set the cultural tone. I am not that dumb anymore, nor have I been for a long time. These days I recognize politicians are a reflection of the culture that put them into power, not the other way around. I not only have no faith in a politician to guide our country’s moral direction, I am not so sure he should. I am now a bottom up, not top down believer in where true change comes.

So what is the value of gauging a candidate’s position on social issues? It is a litmus test more than anything else. I want to know a candidate’s position on abortion even though I know abortion will be the law off the land for the duration. But I want to know because the rationale behind his belief speaks volumes. I think Bush 43’s sincere Christian beliefs convinced him to be pro-life. I think his father switched from pro-choice to pro-life in order to score points with southern and heartland conservatives wary of his New England blue blood. Barack Obama’s attitude that a baby is a burden speaks volumes about his character. You can tell what these mean and women are all about when you honestly look at why they believe as they do.

This time around, I am very much in the Anybody But Obama school of thought. I am even more adamant about it now than with John McCain in 2008. Back then, Sarah Palin allowed me some warm fuzzies in casting my ballot. The GOP has the best chance of winning the White House they have ever had in my 18 years of seriously following presidential elections. That is, assuming they do not blow like in 1996 when they handed the nomination to a candidate solely because it was ’his turn.” If they do not field a social conservative with fiscal responsibility, it will be time for true conservatives to jump ship for a third party.

This week’s poll is back to the less serious. I still want to know how many VOY fans there are out there. You guys and gals are awfully quiet compared to the detractors even though, according to poll results, there are a lot of you. So we are only the dedicated fans will care to answer. Was the character kes a waste of space or waste of potential?

At least that is the way I read it. Donald Trump just re-upped with NBC for $160 million. The two parties were most certainly negotiating over a sum that large for quite some time overlapping trump’s flirtation with seeking the republican nomination for president. He was going through the motions solely as a bargaining tactic. NBC called his bluff and told him he would be replaced on The Celebrity Apprentice if he did not take the offer and instead sought the white House. He gave in millions richer than before.

Joe Scarborough tried the same tactic a few months ago shortly before his contract with MSNBC was up. You may recall he lightly hinted interest in running for office again. You can be assured his deal was not as sweet as trump’s, but the strategy of threatening to leave a media career for public office has a decent track record.

More specifically, long shot White House bids can net big bucks. Pat Buchanan, Al Gore, Mike Huckabee, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Keyes come immediately to mind. Sarah Palin has proven a run at the veep can be lucrative. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain are banking--literally--on it for their future. As Trump has just shown, you do not even have to have any legitimacy to cash in, either. Anyone over the age of 35 whose fifteen minutes of fame have not yet been exhausted should take note.

Politics has been boring as of late, but here are a few items of note which do not merit a post of their own.

Anthony Weiner’s wife has returned home today. This is bad for him. Not only because she has been taking emotional castration lessons from Hillary Clinton over the past week, but because her return puts Weiner’s name back in the spotlight. Part of his plan was obviously to duck out of sight in rehab and hope he gets lost in the next news cycle. If the public forgets him, he can stay in congress. Not really a bad plan, that. The public attention span is pitiable.

Jon Huntsman has announced he is about to announce his run for president. If I am not mistaken, he announced last he was going to announce his announcement for a presidential bid announcement. I would nickname him Candidate Blue Balls, but I cannot think of anyone who is excited at the prospect of a Huntsman presidential bid. He is the Pierre DuPont of 2012--a bored rich guy whose ego cannot handle the fact his political career peaked as governor of a less influential state.

Rudy Giuliani has a similar problem, except his overblown ego demands he skip necessary steps towards becoming president. He cannot stand a mayoralty being his only legacy, but he also cannot tolerate a stint as governor or senator as an interim step towards the presidency. He has squandered eleven years because of it. He will never be any of the three as a result.

Barack Obama blames ATM and kiosks for high unemployment. Any comment on the stupidity of that statement would be overkill. I will just say it demonstrates the mindset of a wealth distributing progressive that it is perfectly acceptable to hire a person to do menial, low paying jobs rather than have them automated. Because it is perfectly fine for people to have low paying, menial jobs, as long as everyone has a low paying menial job. It is the progressive definition of equality.

When did Michele Bachmann suddenly become a strong intellectual candidate among progressive pundits? Right after Sarah Palin’s email hunt did not turn up anything to kill her potential candidacy. Coincidence? I have doubts. Bachmann is further to the right, far less compromising, and only has House experience. She is not even a better candidate on paper, but at least she is not palin. At least, that is how I read the mindset.

Yes, I still think Herman Cain will get no where with his candidacy. No, I will not stick to writing Star Trek reviews and posting hot babes instead of telling you so. Will you abandon the trolling handbook from which you cut and paste such responses? I assume not, as your blogs and comments would fall silent if you did.

What is Mitt Romney thinking?

"Why did I use so much mousse?"

No, seriously--Mitt Romney thinks his major competition leans too far to the right, so he is safe in embracing moderate positions like support for anthropomorphic global warming. He will let the far right Tea Party types bloody themselves until one emerges as the victor, then act as the ‘sane” alternative.

It would not be a bad strategy if Tim Pawlenty were not going to do the same thing. The two will have to walk a fine line appealing to moderates while trying to appeal to enough conservatives to put one on top of the other.

The fun part will be how they handle a John McCain endorsement. Knowing the media, they cover for both them by emphasizing the ‘snub” of his not endorsing Sarah Palin. Admittedly, it will reflect poorly on McCain to not endorse Palin. He ought to feel some loyalty and he has nothing to lose politically. But when is the last time mcCain demonstrated any political loyalty?

Well, not me specifically, but his column Dear Skeptics addresses the validity of his presidential campaign, ah issue I expressed skepticism over in a post last week. In short, I think Cain is realistic about his non-existent chances of winning the nomination, and is running for president to boost his profile as a political commentator. He if makes a decent showing in the polls, the least he can get away with is a book deal. I think he is aiming for national television, however. Yes, I know he is already very wealthy. We are talking ego here.

I think his column actually reinforces what I was saying about his campaign serving only to fire up a potential fan base. He is running against the establishment by claiming his lack of campaign finances, name recognition, and political experience is actually a mark in his favor. As proof, a touts dismissals of him by Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer he is a champion of the grass roots, not the beltway power brokers/intelligentsia. Granted, those points can fire up the ideologues who would just as soon put all progressives on a leaky boat bound for China, but not cannot encourage a general electorate.

Note Cain also mentions he is going to make mistakes, but does not specifically recall his ‘right of return” gaffe. Instead, Cain preemptively excuses any mistakes he is going to make in the future by saying he has a problem with political correctness. Yes, and to steal a joke from Pat Buchanan, Cain also has the problem of eating breakfast at the International house of Pancakes being the closest thing to foreign policy experience he has ever had.

My original belief still stands. I like Cain, but he has no serious intention, not less chance, of being elected president. He wants the loyalty of ideological conservatives, but not because they are going to give him an elected office. Frankly, if I am wrong and he thinks his numerous weaknesses as a candidate make him a strong presidential contender, then he has already disqualified himself from ever competently holding the office.

Where's your excitement for Herman Cain?

It is nonexistent. Herman Cain is not going to win the nomination, much less ever be president. He is polling in the single digits right behind Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. Trailing a has been pariah and a never was frequent candidate is not a promising place to be. Arguing lack of name recognition puts Cain behind unfairly is rationalizing his inevitable loss. The fact is, that is where he is and is likely to stay.

I am with Charles Krauthammer on Cain. He is not a serious presidential candidate. He is one of those who is running to boost his media credentials. He will say all the right things to get conservatives all fired up while paying little to no attention to independents--an indication he does not care about the general election--enough to make him a favorite among them. He will stay in the race as close to super Tuesday as he can, then get his own show on FOX sometime in 2013

He will wind up like Mike Huckabee. His show will be a decent sized hit for its kind. He will attack Barack Obama and the general decline of America due to progressivism, both playing on his supporters’ regret he did not win in 2012 while toying with them about a run in 2016 just enough to keep them hanging and earn some bargaining clout to re-up his contract with FOX.

I like the guy. He might even make a decent president, though I suspecyt he is too much of a political novice at the moment to start out as president. Note his mistake on ‘right of return“ last week. Foreign policy certainly is not his gig. I cannot get passed the reality of his situation. His supporters think he is a dream candidate. The thing about dreams is how often they do not come true.

I did not think so. There have been some rumblings in the republican side of the 2012 presidential race. I cannot get excited about either one, but at least there is something to talk about besides Donald Trump’s hair and Ron Paul’s attempt to be the next Pat Paulsen.

Newt Gingrich finally announced his bid for 2012. It is pitiful, since his window of opportunity, which I think was always sealed shut by a sloppy paint job in the first place, was about fifteen years ago. The guy is an idea man, and those rarely make good leaders in these day and age of style over substance. Gingrich is an intellectual who is not comfortable outside the lecture halls of academia. I figured he knew that. His teasing over a potential presidential run would be a sales pitch for his books. His actual run may still be. He is at least pitching a fifty state strategy--an impossible task for a presidential considering cash flow and ideology of various state populations, but not too out of the question for a book tour. The fun will come in watching the thrice married Gingrich attempt to appeal to social conservatives.

Mitt Romney finally put all his cards on the table over healthcare. If you recall, Romney was behind a mini version of ObamaCare in Massachusetts when he was governor. By most accounts, it has been a costly, ineffective failure. That would be bad enough, but ObamaCare is unpopular regardless if RomneyCare works. Romney has done the only thing he can do--come out against ObamaCare. Repealing it is to be his biggest priority on the remote chance he becomes president.

When it comes down to it, I suspect his chances are even worse than Gingrich’s. Romney is a rich guy who won the Massachusetts governor’s race while riding a wave of popularity for organizing the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. Do people even remember the Olympics were hosted in Utah nine years ago? Apparently not, since Romney opted not to seek reelection. His facesaving reason was because he wanted to run for president, but the truth is was not going to let a republican ease into two terms even if he is pro choice and all for universal healthcare. Let us face it--he is stiff, boring, and going to face loads of accusations of racism considering the Church of Latterday Saints’ controversial views on blacks up until 1979. It is not happening for him, folks.

I have read quite a bit as of late about Republicans quietly despairing over the lack of a solid candidate. The party wants someone to swoop in and rescue their 2012 opportunity to take the White House. To that, I think it is way too early in the game to be fretting. Half the candidates which any serious pundit gives a chance of winning to have not even declared. Until they do, no one will pay any attention. That is the primary reason Trump is getting any press--bored journalists need to say something about the 2012 race and Barack Obama’s low poll numbers amid rising gas prices does not with their approval. That said, it does pay to speculate on who this dream candidate could be. Sadly enough, I got nuthin’.

Political insider are oddly surprised Gov. Haley Barbour has declined tun run in 2012:

Haley Barbour said Monday that he won’t run for president in 2012, removing a fundraising powerhouse with establishment clout from the Republican primary field.

“This has been a difficult, personal decision, and I am very grateful to my family for their total support of my going forward, had that been what I decided,” the Mississippi governor said in a statement.

“A candidate for president today is embracing a 10-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else,” Barbour added. “His [or her] supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate. I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.”

Barbour’s decision to not run does not surprise me. He is using the buzz words of avoiding a decade’s worth of commitment being too much for him as a cover for the more specific truth--he is identified as being ’too Southern.” A neo-Confederate, really. Deservedly or not, (I do not believe he is a racist) he would wind up fighting off accusations of racism from the day he announced a serious bid for the White House.

I have only had a passing awareness of some of the accusations towards Barbour of being connected to, shall we say “Old South myths,” but I note he is more vilified than fellow southerner Mike Huckabee as far as potential presidential candidates from the old Confederacy go, so it would obviously only get worse for him as he hit the national campaign trail.

While I am not a political insider, I never thought Barbour had much of a chance at winning the nomination. I figured he would be among the first to bow out once he realized his appeal did not extend beyond the South. Perhaps I should lament Barbour’s withdrawal, but there nothing about the (remote) prospect of him becoming elected that ever excited me in the first place.

The more obvious answer is to agree with Charles Krauthammer that Donald Trump is the Al Sharpton of the GOP. Krauthammer’s rationale is that trump will have enough juice to make it into early presidential debates where he will force the discussion into fringe red meat issues like birtherism. There is plenty to critique barack obama about, but where he was born--which would be Hawaii--is not one of them. However, what can the other candidates on stage do at that point? Trump will have his time, and the press will eat it up. Nevertheless, I doubt trump can be dismissed so easily. He may very well have Ross Perot influence.

Allow me three caveats here. One, the GOP establishment will never let Trump get anywhere near the nomination. For that matter, will the Council on Foreign relations even bother to listen to Trump, especially given his limited discussions of foreign policy have been mind-numbingly stupid? Militarily seize Arab fields stupid. Two, I do not think trump is all that bright on economic policy, either. The guy has won and lost fortunes out of sheer luck and ex-wives. People reluctantly pay attention to people with money solely because of the money. Do people doing business with people think highly of his intellect, particularly his opinion on current affairs? I doubt they care about anything other than the location of his check back. Finally, even if he can go as far as Perot, we lost the presidential race twice. Neither time is it conclusive his run threw the election to wards the winner.

(Digression: I will concede the 1992 election has a better argument for his throwing ther race towards Bill Clinton, but I do not give the idea much legitimacy. The economy was killing Bush 41. It did not help he looked out of touch while Clinton was young, hip, and felt our pain. There was a lot of pain to feel, too. In terms of winning factors for Clinton, Perot as a spoiler ranks down their with the electorate desiring to see Hillary Clinton in more, tighter pantsuits. I was fifteen at the time, so not much of a contemporary political observer. Feel free to offer arguments that Perot threw the election towards Clinton. Until convinced otherwise, I am sticking to my guns. End of digression.)

In spite of all that, I am not so sure we have not changed so much as a country since 1992 and 1996 that someone like trump has not got a decent shot at political power. Would we have elected an unknown black man with questionable ties to known violent radicals and mysteries surrounding his birth and religious beliefs as president? Welcome to the 21st century.

We are a country obsessed with celebrity. Candidates like Sarah Palin and mike Huckabee have their own television shows. Second and third tier candidates run solely so they can land radio and television deals. There are always a handful of celebrities at the center of speculation for running for office. In recent years, it has been Kelsey Grammer, Dennis Miller, George Clooney, Warren Beatty, Ashley Judd, Rob Reiner, and Ben Affleck, et al. that does not count Arnold Swartzenegger and Al Franken who have sought and won office based exclusively on celebrity. Wisely or not, we are open to it no matter how unqualified the candidate, or what baggage they might be dragging with them. Why is that? Probably because being famous equals legitimacy in out culture.

Sure, Trump has been on some awful television projects like Celebrity Apprentice. he has also greased the palms of various Democrats over the years. Do not fortget Ronald Reagan starred in a B-movie with a chimpanzee and was once a democrat who adamantly supported FDR.

You know why reagan won in 1980? Because in 1976, the Gop realized it made a horrible mistaker in nominating a weaker candidate in Gerald Ford. As a weak candidate, Ford allowed an inexperienced liberal Jimmy Carter to be elected. Carter failed at energy policy, foreign policy, particularly towards the Muslim world, and nearly destroyed the economy out of incompetence. As a nation, we were happy to elect a candidate with a celebrity past who once supported Democrats because he talked tough.

I am certainly not putting Trump in the same league as Reagan. Reagan had a political track record as both Governor of California and President of the Screen actors Guild. But that was thirty years ago. Like I said, potential candidates do not have to have done anything significant in life before we will put them in power. Otherwise, just how different is the Reagan/Carter in 1980 scenario I described above different from Trump/Obama 2012? Not a whole lot, honestly. So much so, it might even be what is weighing on Trump’s mind.

I am not a Trump supporter. I do not think he is going to win even if I was. My real issue is wondering what will get him first, crashing and burning the same as Rusdy Giuliani in 2008, or will the germophobia overwhelm him as he shakes hands with the unwashed massses in New Hampshire and Iowa? But is he really a joke candidate, or have we elevated celebrity so much, he is the kind of thing we look for these days? How far he goes in the race will tell the tale.

What do you think about Michele Bachmann forming a presidential exploratory committee?

It will not get her anywhere, but she is making all the right people mad playing the game, so I am amused.

I would rather have her as president than Barack Obama.

I pulleth not thy leg:

“The first time around it’s like lightning in a bottle. There’s something special about it, because you’re defying the odds. And as time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States,” Obama said. “But we should never take it for granted.”

“I hope that all of you still feel that sense of excitement and that sense of possibility, because we still have so much more to do.”

I do take heart in the realization he is asking for campaign donations under the rationale uber-Democrat fundraisers should not take it for granted voters will buy his fluff a second time around.

Note also he is urging supporters to think back on his early potential--such that it was--rather than what he has done in his time as president. Not a very auspicious start to a reelection campaign, no?

I have made no secret I do not like Mike Huckabee. He is a big government Republican with more than a little snake handling Christianity in him. The guy literally thinks he is a rock star by playing guitar and hanging out the increasingly conspiracy minded Chuck Norris. I am quite certain his star in the south will quickly fade. It is my contention is current popularity below the Mason-Dixon is because “he is on teevee just like our favorite wrassfers! Yee haw!” if you catch my drift. Norris’ Walker: Texas Ranger has not exactly faded from memory, either.

But let us get back to more concrete reasons Huckabee is not presidential material. He exercises very poor discernment in who he casts his judgmental eye upon. Namely this time, Natalie Portman, whom he has criticized for glamorizing out of wedlock children. Nearly twenty years ago, Dan Quayle ruined his political career by critiquing the out of wedlock pregnancy of fictional Murphy brown. Not only has Huckabee not learned from Quayle’s actions, he escalated it by attacking an actual person.

To set a few things straight, I do not advocate pre-marital sex. I think it does cheapen the institution of marriage by making sex solely a recreational activity. I also think getting pregnant without being married breaks down the integrity of the family unit. Both effects are a detriment to our culture. Nevertheless, it happens. It is what comes after that is important once it does.

I will be frank. Portman has made a mistake getting pregnant out of wedlock. We all make mistakes. We often make very big ones. But she is making the right choices now. She is not going to abort her baby. She is going to put her baby above her acting career, which is a big risk considering the short shelf life a pretty young actresses in Hollywood. Her child is going to be loved, too. What Huckabee called glamorizing out of wedlock children was a genuine display of happiness. Portman is a woman who thanked the lowest ranking technicians on Black Sawn by name in her Oscar acceptance speech. How rare do you think that is among arrogant Hollywood stars?

There is a more important underlying issue with Huckabee’s attitude beyond anything he said about portman. That is an underlying contempt for women who have made the mistake of getting pregnant outside of marriage. If Christians do not embrace such women, then we are pushing them towards the abortion clinic. Even a woman who keeps her baby can become a pariah. Those things happen not because a star like portman glamorizes her mistake, but judgmental Christians like Huckabee are not willing to forgive and offer help after the deed is done.

UPDATE: Huckabee is backtracking, but has not changed his mind.

UPDATE II: Was Huckabee taking a jab at Sarah Palin over her daughter Bristol, another young lady who has made all the right decisions after a mistake, for her out of wedlock baby?