More Action, More Jobs

Dearest Mr. Obama,

Barry, your economic message sucks. I think you've done a fine job, considering the "headwinds" and all, but you don't seem to be making that case very effectively to anyone but people who already support you. Everything you've offered so far is easily countered by your opposition and thus drowns in the din of the media. You need to simplify.

Do you remember Herman Cain, B.O.? I'm sure do. If you think hard enough you'll even recall he was once the frontrunner to the GOP nomination. Was it because he had good ideas? No, he was batshit crazy. Was it because he ran an effective campaign? Holy Christ no. It was because no matter what you had to say about him, he had an economic message everyone could understand and articulate. 

Even when the logical flaws inherent in his plan were pointed out, his numbers held and his message stayed just as effective as it had been. The Cain Train was unstoppable. I regret only that he was unable to quell the vicious, scurrilous rumors of personal mistakes...

In short, Bizzay B., I suggest you adopt and repeat the following phrase, as Latinos say, ad nauseam:

"More Action, More Jobs."

Just try it out. Read the following out loud: "Help me get Congress to stop fighting progress - we need More Action. Help me pass the American Jobs Bill - we need More Jobs. Stop the partisan gridlock; We need More Action. Stop the European austerity; We need More Jobs. Barack Obama: More Action, More Jobs. Re-elect me, muthafuckas!"

How good did that feel? You got to artfully suggest Congress is responsible for this mess while trumpeting your key economic initiative. You even got to tie Republicans to the shambles that is the European Union and maybe remind voters of how bad things could have been for us. 

And, if I were asked what your core economic message was, as a supporter, I would no longer have to ramble on about headwinds and cars in ditches and skipped tabs; I could simply say, "Barack Obama stands for more action and more jobs."

(It could also explain away some of your executive overreach, Mr. Constitutional Scholar. Congress wants less action - and therefore fewer jobs, as per our new message - so you, the man of action, have had to circumvent them for the good of your country and the jobs therein. More Action, More Jobs.)

You don't have to take my genius slogan word-for-word. Play with it, make it your own. But you do need   a simple argument that can cut through the clutter. And as of now you don't have one.

With Love,
-JD

Preparing for Panic Mode

Alright. I admit I'm a little worried. I'm not panicked - there are bright spots yet, the math is still in my candidate's favor - but I'm getting more concerned.

The media coverage of Obama has been decidedly negative. I don't say that in a whiny woe-is-me sort of way (I'm no conservative); the media is just seeking controversy. Presidential elections are their Black Friday - they'll coast on the investments and payouts of this cycle's coverage for the next four years. They need a close race. You can't blame a guy for feeding his kids.

In his effort to flip the evolving script, the President gave a big speech that was more picked apart and fretted over than discussed seriously on merit. So Obama pulled out the big guns and gave them lazy Mexicans all of our jobs.

This new immigration policy (or anti-policy) is foremost the prudent move for our country. It saves resources, saves money, and encourages good citizenship. And nobody cares. Screw that wishy-washy Hopey Changey crap, the fun part is in sussing out the politics.

In light of this announcement, for example, one has to wonder what the advantage would be of a Rubio Vice Presidency. And what issue do Republicans have to court Latino voters with now? It gives those of Latin persuasion magis causum (as their people say) to show up at the polls, an inevitable issue for the Democrat's Western strategy. And it forces Mitt Romney to either commit the cardinal sin of agreeing with the President, or essentially reverse course on yet another major issue and further alienate a crucial voting bloc...

What's Romney's response, you ask? So far he's punting, using Rubio as human shield, and no doubt there is some serious focus-grouping being conducted by his campaign. He's wisely fighting to stay on his only truly effective election message: The Economy Sucks and It's Obama's Fault.

The question remains, though. Romney's been hammering this singular point, excepting times when he swiped at the President for straying from that message, and Obama has been unable to articulate an effective counter-point. Is he capable of unveiling an economic policy or message that can cut through the clutter and reassure skittish undecideds he can steer the economy back on track?

That, uh... that's the part where I'm worried.

Walker, Wisconsin Danger

Scott Walker

Scott Walker is a douchebag. We can all admit that, I think. He's a slimy sort of politician who uses ham-handed tactics to push an agenda his consitentuency didn't really vote for, and his reign will probably shake voters' faith in reactionary election outcomes.

The thing people seem to have a hard time agreeing on, though, is what the implications of a continuation of the Walker dictatorship may be. Whether he wins or loses the historic recall battle could very well predict, or even dictate, how Wisconsin will swing this Fall.

One argument asserts that Walker's numbers going into the recall, and that he looks likely to squeak out a victory, mean the state will be more likely to go for Romney than the President. It's hard to counter -- if Democrats lose this hard-fought battle, and one that once looked to some like an easy victory, it's hard to imagine them not being demoralized. It could depress turnout noticeably. It also leaves the levers of government in WI in the hands of the GOP, which could be a substantial boost to the Romney campaign in the state.

Right. Sure. But here's where I have a problem; it's my favorite paragraph from an article on this very subject.

"Whether Walker wins or doesn't is going to be a big indicator of how Wisconsin goes, and how the whole upper Midwest goes," said Iowa's Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.

 A few things, here. First, this guy's a Republican, so what the hell does he know? Er, I mean, y'know... he could a little biased. Is all. Second, Wisconsin is not a proxy for the Midwest. If it were, Obama would already be failing miserably there, and that probably isn't the case yet.

Scott Walker

The only real problem I have with the theory is the small matter that I disagree with it entirely. I think a Walker re-elect would actually be a good sign for Obama. This may be wishful thinking (if you can't tell, I support Obama in the upcoming elections), but it seems to me the headwinds in Walker's favor are more of a pro-incumbent attitude than we saw in 2010, and not some dramatic Republican wave just starting to crash.

Nate Silver (or Natty S, as he's known on the streets) recently broke down the Walker polls, essentially blaming the economy. Things are getting better in Wisconsin, and about the same degree that they're getting better for the nation as a whole. People just aren't as pissed off, and, as Big Nat Platinum put it...

If Mr. Walker’s approval-disapproval ratings were even, he might be a favorite to win the recall election because some voters who are on the fence might nevertheless object to the idea of removing a governor from office in midterm.

Not that Obama has a 1:1 correlation here, what with his less-than-stellar approval rating, but I think Nat-A-Tat-Tat's point can be expanded a bit. If Obama can make the argument that his administration has promises to keep, and miles to go, that may just give him the small edge he needs to tip the scales.

Now, I'm a fatalist at heart. At the first true glimmer that Obama will lose, I'll probably be the first one wringing my hands. But I don't see it yet. And if it comes to that, I'll wait until all the pieces are in play before I get truly frightened. Everything I've seen of Obama's political style is chess; he patiently positions himself on the board and corners his foe, always on the offensive but never impatient.

Scot Walkers

The Bain attacks are a good example of this methodical style, I think. They haven't proven terribly effective so far, perhaps, especially after a self-concerned mini-mutiny among some Democrats. But if you look at it as a piece of a whole, it's yet another piece in an overall strategy of denying Romney any possible qualification for office. Romney did most of the work, disavowing more or less his entire record as Governor at various points in the past few years. Obama has since added education, civil rights, women's health, and now (perhaps) Romney's record at Bain to the list of subjects perilous for Romney to discuss.

More important is that Barack now has some wiggle room when debating the economy. His campaign may not convince a lot of voters that Mitt is evil with these attacks, but they've nonetheless provided an excellent (and much-needed) rhetorical pivot point. "Oh, my job numbers, you cannibalistic vampire capitalist kitten eater? Yeah, let's discuss job numbers."

Sidenote: Most fascinating about all this is that part of the strategy seems to be trying to get Romney to defend his record as Governor, which could begin the process of tamping down enthusiasm for Romney among the GOP base, and the crucial process of more easily defending legislation like the Affordable Care Act through the lens of Mitt's record. Romney's response has been that he'd rather take the beating on Bain than so much as touch his record as leader of a liberal state.

I'm still convinced the game is Obama's, and I don't think I'll change my mind until, y'know, there's an actual reason to. Kudos to the news for fabricating this narrative, though. It's riveting.

The Insanity of Ron Paul

Like other people on the internet, I like Ron Paul. I'm with the majority of my generation in supporting his opposition to our wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror and Drugs. I like the idea of personal liberty, and his staunch support for what is a fundamental right forgotten all too often. I find the way he talks to be, quite frankly, goddamn adorable - like he's about to give me a chocolate bar and a copy of The Fountainhead and pinch me on the cheek. I want to have Thanksgiving dinner with him and get into a long discussion about the role of government in a modern society.

The down side to Ron Paul, though, is that he's fucking crazy.

Pictured: Mel Gibson

You might be thinking that's just a biased opinion - and you might be right, ahdunno. But I have evidence to support my assertion, so hear me out. Imagine, just for a moment, he's nothing more than a doddering old fool with a hardly a legislative achievement to his name who, much like Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory,  happened to stumble on an actual impending crisis and that happenstance unleashed everything that followed. With that frame of mind, don't a few things make a little more sense?

His racist newsletters, for example. There are two possible versions of events here. Either he knew about the hateful language and was okay with it, or he published multiple newsletters with his name on them without a single care as to their actual contents. I tend to believe Paul's just a racist old guy, like nearly every other old guy I've ever met, but either way that's some crazy stuff. Note also that for his official explanation he picked the crazier of the two already-crazy options; His name and reputation were on the line and he was making millions of dollars off these newsletters, but he never had the wherewithal to actually read the darn things? How quirky.

Jackson contemplating
unilateral invasion of Canada

It should be noted, also, that his first response to the newsletters as campaign fodder wasn't to disavow his bigoted statements, but rather to defend them, as a campaign official told the Houston Chronicle the statements, "mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson." (This respect for Jackson coming despite Paul's apparent disdain for the Civil Rights movement.) Also, there's video of him acknowledging the newsletters in 1996, and again not so much as distancing himself from the hateful language in them. Curioser and curioser.

But that's not all! Some people are starting to actually talk about some of Paul's batshit economic ideas as he rises to prominence. Like, switching to the gold standard - a move the entire world has been moving away from for a variety of reasons. Or abolishing the Federal Reserve, something not done since our last lunatic President, Andrew Jackson.

I like the fact that even when he's saying something loopy, Paul says it with practiced conviction. I like that he stands up for what he believes in despite political headwinds. But that is not a good thing in the face of an impending general election - Paul will be forced at some point, inevitably, to either defend a crazy belief until its absurdity is clear, or hedge and lose credibility as the tough-talk candidate. Can't you just imagine Barack Obama nonchalantly devastating Paul by pressing him on his belief that the Civil War shouldn't have been waged? Or, similarly, that equality is a state's rights issue?

Of the entire GOP field, Paul is one of maybe two guys I genuinely like. I would love to see him win his party's nomination. But part of that conviction has nothing to do with our similar beliefs, or my fascination with his Furby-esque speaking presence, but rather my abiding conviction that he would lose handily to Democratic opposition in a national election.

The Grand Ol' Party (or: How Republicans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)

Let's flash back to 2008 for a moment. Spirits are high across the nation, and Democrats are fat with power and pride. It seems as if the excess of the Bush Administration has stirred a powerful backlash that, combined with the political and rhetorical skills of the newly-elected President, might just cause an era of Democratic control.

That, uh... that didn't seem to last long.

Just before Obama's landslide, the Republican machine went into full-on panic mode. Like a cornered animal, starving but resourceful, they lashed out full-force in a desperate bid to survive. Almost immediately, the Right-Wing Echo Chamber wrenched the debate away from silly trifles like economic recovery in a global market to important issues like the decades-long conspiracy to hide Barack Hussein Obama's international citizenship. Republican operators FreedomWorks and FoxNews seemed to spur the growth of teabaggers, the Tea Party Beta.

This proved most effective. The original mantra of the group was actually agreeable, on its face. They were tired of Democrats and Republicans and all the useless ideological quibbling. They demanded their government sober up and focus only on one thing: the economy. Jobs and revenue. Cutting waste, trimming bloated government, and - most intriguing to me - saving fights over social policy for a brighter day. This was the party that loved Ron Paul, after all, and he openly criticized government restrictions of liberty, and even the War on Drugs.

PARTY OF NOTHING

That turned out to be far from reality, but it was a potent platform. Combined with non-stop, unprecedented, vicious attacks on the President, and the (totally not racist) gutteral loathing many (in the South) seemed to have specifically for Barack Obama, 2010 saw the Democrats taking a huge political hit. The GOP as a whole had embraced the Policy of No, the art of opposition, and it had worked.

So far, the 112th Congress has passed less than 1% of the nearly 4,000 bills introduced. That's a bit misleading, perhaps, as their session is only part-way through, but the 111th passed only 3% of the bills introduced during their's. Most concerning, though, is that those numbers are owed, in part, to a surge in cloture votes. The 111th Congress used the filibuster in unprecedented numbers, and were it not for a corresponding historic rise in cloture votes, the recent inactivity would have been that much more glaring. The number of filibusters may fall in the 112th, but only because the House has greatly reduced the need for such measures by coupling opposition and inactivity with an urge to pass bills they know won't become law.

That's all political infighting and Congressional criticism. But there's a much more immediate and insidious side to these current politics, giving rise to a disturbingly interesting conspiracy theory. What if, the idea goes, the GOP has seen political oppurtunity in sabotaging not just their political opposition, but the constituency thereof? Put more bluntly: Are Republicans purposely destroying America?

This is a purely intellectual excercise. It would be wrong to assume that anyone could be craven enough, or deluded enough, to use their power in such a way. The members of Congress are in Washington to work as part of the government - you have to assume they're doing their jobs, and doing so with the best interests of our nation, this Grand Experiment of ours, in mind. Right? Right.

PLOTTING

But, what would you have to do to actually destroy America? If your aim was to tear down the framework of our nation, how would you go about it? Let's say you're a powerful politician whose sole aim is making life miserable for the people you govern, ultimately in hope they'll take their anger out on those you oppose. More specifically, the President.

It's a herculean task, really. You'd need a groundswell of popular support. You would have to somehow develop a rabid constituency, if not manufacture one altogether. No matter how corrupt your vision of government may be, it's still impossible to legislate without the power of the ballot behind you. Palpatine dissolved the Alliance to thunderous applause, I'm sure we all recall.

If you wanted to take out the President, the best way to do that -- historically -- is to make sure there's a bad economy. In our evil plot, here, there would be all sorts of other benefits to a declining economy, but the most dramatic, immediate and important would be the impact it would have on control of the White House.

Now, if we're deliberately maneuvering government to directly oppose the interests of our constituency, we need some sort of cover. Whatever we do, we have to create a general sense of panic, anger and frustration. Political crises can be manufactured, for example. Disasters of any sort would be beneficial, really, but must be accompanied with appropriate political spectacle.

Lastly, and least intuitive, it would be important to diminish the populace's opinion of Congress itself. The more they see the body as a collection of lazy, bumbling fools in a distant capitol building, the better. This is a sinister and far-reaching plot, and a perception of impotence or incompetence will only make things easier. It would be ideal if all useful government activities ceased to function. Failing total shutdown, any blows to efficacy or even efficiency would be beneficial.

THE CONSPIRACY

Let's slip off our corrupt politician hat and put on one made of aluminum. We've identified the steps one could take to sabotage a nation for sake of political expedience. Now, let's pretend the plot is real and people in the government are acting it out.

Congressional Republicans have quite a bit of support for crazy, destructive policies thanks to an outbreak of extreme conservative activists, most often calling themselves the "Tea Party." (To confuse things further, they actually belong to the Republican Party.) The movement started with a successful, screaming conservative on national television, and was supported, often even funded by major media outlets (most notably FoxNews, the most influential network on television).

As for economic sabotage, examples of GOP activity that has directly and negatively impacted the economy are many and varied, and date back to the previous Republican administration. Here's one of the theorists propagating this particular aspect of the Grand Ol' Conspiracy for HuffPo.

Then, of course, there's panic. Luckily enough for conservatives, though, we've existed in a culture of fear for about a decade. The Right has used every failed terrorist attack as a talking point, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the current administration and the agencies established to protect us from such threats. Numerous disasters have also been used to further political interest, most notable being calls to abolish FEMA.

As for evil mastermind credibility, have you seen Congresses approval ratings? They wish they had Obama's numbers! Every day another congressman does something so awful, so craven, we all shake our collective heads and swear aloud. If it was an evil plot, mission accomplished. Everyone hates Congress.

And don't even get me started on efficacy and inefficiency...

VERDICT

It's interesting to think about. And, though I hesitate to admit it, I would not be the least bit surprised if there were actually people in powerful positions who have actually see the political benefits of sabotage. When I hear talk of dramatic defecit reduction in an economic crisis worse than any since the Great Depression, I do wonder if the person making the argument is just oblivious to history, or economics, or if they genuinely want to see a double-dip.

But it isn't all insidious. A depressing number of people honestly believe, almost religiously, in certain ideals that are truly harmful to government and society. There's some hope; people yearn to be good, and to do good. If we just gather together, and work to share our beliefs, and the logic behind them, maybe -- just maybe -- we can talk some goddamn sense into these morons.

Osama's Dead. Now What?

On Sunday, the White House announced a sudden and mysterious late-night speech by the President. For about an hour, the subject of the speech went unstated - causing a feeding frenzy among the media.

I sat with some friends of mine, all enjoying some old-school thrills, switching off on Super Mario 64. I - ever the nerd - was browsing the internet while the others struggled to find all eight of Big Boo's red coins, when I noticed a Breaking News alert on HuffPo. It said something to the effect of, "President to give speech; subject withheld." I announced this to the room, and the speculation was on! What could he be announcing? Why so late at night, so sudden? Why the secrecy?

Then it was announced it was "national security related." Cue full freak-out mode. We were all, apparently, going to die. Finally, finally, someone read the news on Facebook. Osama bin Laden had been killed. And that was totally awesome. I clicked "like," cementing my approval for the ages.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

We watched the President live on the White House web page. Obama swaggered to his podium, read the announcement, and footage started popping up of spontaneous mass patriotism outside the White House and in Times Square. Mario, long forgotten now, was fast asleep in Peach's courtyard. The rest of the evening was spent researching exactly how grisly Osama's death had been. (In the eye? Yikes. So much for kidney failure...)

The speech was brief, and as the President receded into the ominous Cross Hall, we all wondered aloud what this would mean for our country. Is this the end of the war in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? How did it all happen? Did we really have the body, or was this an elaborate ruse on the level of pretending to be an American citizen so you can run for President? How will this affect the election?

On the last point, some prognosticators have predicted that this news could bump up Obama's approval some 10 points or so, which might be sustained for up to six months. Seems sensible enough - even Republicans were having a hard time criticizing the President's handling of the operation.*

No, it's the liberals attacking the President this time. I had thought the execution of Osama bin Laden was a universal desire - he had masterminded at least one plot that resulted in thousands of deaths, possessed the ability to do so again, and stated his clear intention to do just that. I'm not the biggest fan of the death penalty, but goddamn if this isn't a worthy enough argument in favor. Osama's death wasn't just retribution, it wasn't murder, it was justice. More than that, it was the intelligent thing to do.

I understand some hesitation. We essentially committed an act of war in Pakistan. No matter how cool our equipment was, how smoothly the operation went, you can't change the fact that we flew troops into their country and rushed in, guns blazing. Hell, we blew up a helicopter on our way out - exactly the wrong sort of thing to do on the sovereign land of a nuclear power. Could this further anger the military of Pakistan?

IMPLICATIONS

Bin Laden was found not far from the Pakistani capitol, in a prominent, even affluent, military town. The "Pakistani West Point," Kakul Academy, is a stone's throw from where Navy Seal Team 6 exploded a cutting-edge stealth helicopter in Osama's walled-in compound. It's hard to imagine such a feat from the most wanted man in the world without some assistance, or at least a few turned heads, from the nation's powerful military. Will this lead American war-hawks to put more pressure on Pakistan? Could actual complicity come to light? And, if so, will our relations with the country, already frayed, prove irrevocably severed?

And, so long as we're asking questions, what does this mean for al-Qaeda? Without its founder and leader, can it remain the galvanizing, frightening organization it has been? Further, after this blow, and continued reports about what seem to be al-Qaeda's death throws, with the Taliban a distant memory in the national consciousness (hell, there's an entire generation now that doesn't even know who Osama bin Laden was), what purpose are American troops serving in Afghanistan? Isn't this grounds for immediate withdrawal?

All this ruminating, and no answers. Just question after question. The death of a madman is inarguably good news, and seems somehow to resolve so much. But it seems everyone seems stuck in the same loop as I, pondering mysteries that always seem to resolve themselves in the unshakeable refrain of, "Now what?"

_______________

*UPDATE 5/8: Not that it stopped them from trying.

Republicans Celebrate Status-Quo

I'll admit, even I -- a die-hard Obama worshiper -- had my faith shaken when I first heard about the extension of the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It seemed nonsensical -- why would Republicans, who have shifted their entire brand toward closing the budget deficit, fight to keep the single largest non-defense aspect of said terrifyingly large spot of red ink? And, what's more, why the hell would Obama, that supposed fascist commie socialist, let such a thing happen despite it being the driving thrust of his election campaign?

I was bewildered. I grabbed the nearest bottle of alcohol and began what can only be described as a drug-fueled descent into madness. There was property damage, yes, and a few people may or may not have been mortally wounded (one should never, in those circumstances, stick around to hear the prognosis), but when I finally awoke and replenished my fluids, I had an epiphany. This is what I voted for.

Not this, specifically. I voted for the opposite. Screw the wealthy - they can have their tax cuts when my friends and family can exist without government aid. But this process, the idea of political compromise, of both sides getting what they want, that's what I wanted.

RATIONALIZATION

First, it's important to remind my fellow liberals that this is how government is supposed to work. It was a compromise between right and left, and Republicans -- still basking in the glow of victory after decisively retaking the House and reversing many Democratic gains in the Senate - got the better end of the deal. Welcome to Democracy.

And when one picks this tentative framework apart, there are quite a few things there that Democrats wanted that would have, under any other circumstance, resulted in a drawn-out battle with these supposed budget-hawks on the Right. The extension of unemployment benefits being the most ready example - it assured economic stability to families just before the holidays.

Liberals are grousing, nonetheless. In the modern view of legislation as win/lose for Republicans or Democrats, this seems to be chalked up as a win for the Right, not a product of bipartisan negotiation. But criticism so far seems purely reactionary, and a little thought on the political strategery shows this single deal could be the most significant step toward a possible second term for the President.

I know, it sounds hyperbolic, but hear me out.

This bit of legislation will essentially act as another round of stimulus. The bill amounts to more than $870 billion, and though liberals like to complain that tax cuts are an inefficient way to gin the economy, it will help. At least a little. And the economy is a notoriously effective barometer for presidential political success. Recall the fierce debate from the previous rounds of stimulus and the Republican inability to allow Congress to function and multiply it by a few hundred billion, divide that by its own square root, carry the two, then do nothing for a few months. Congratulations, you've just acted out what Congress would have done were Obama to propose such a stimulus under any other circumstance.

THE IRAN STRATEGY

The act of inviting Republican leadership to the White House and essentially brokering a back-room deal is beneficial, too. Obama may have sowed seeds of good will among Republican legislators (unlikely, but possible), and looks at the very least to be attempting bipartisanship. If this is but the first of a series of such efforts, he can take either of two possible beneficial positions. One, he lead the charge in a new, more prosperous era of bipartisan legislation. Or, more likely, Two, he reaps the political goodwill as Republicans reject his overtures yet again and keep their image of Do-Nothing obstructionism.

Call it the Iran Strategy. Just like our policy toward Iran, alluded to in the most recent Wikileaks dump of diplomatic cables, this could be a play-nice-then-stab play. If Obama at least appears to exhaust all other options, he can make a show of throwing up his hands just before declaring all-out war.

The President's also tacking toward the center in light of a Right-leaning election. This is an important and difficult task, but one that nonetheless has to be taken by anyone seeking national election. He seems to be using the spirit of bipartisanship to ease into the hearts of moderates. He may be angering his base a bit, but there are minimal risks to that (it's not like they'll vote Republican anyhow), and any of a handful of legislative actions could offset any ill-will. And, let's not forget, this is the sort of thing he said he would do if he were elected President.

Before you join in the chorus of criticism, remember compromise, not idealism, is the key to negotiation. And, when voting for a candidate, one must be careful what one wishes for.

I Like Ecchh!

Every so often, even on the smallest of scales, history repeats itself. I can still remember the heart-rending decision I had to make way back in 2004, choosing whether to support Kerry or Bush. On the one hand, Bush was the worst president of all time. We all remember that video surfacing that apparently showed him killing an infant and imbibing its blood for power.

On the other hand, John Kerry looked dorky even when he was doing cool stuff. My grandma could hop on a wakeboard and still look kind of rad, but seeing Kerry out on the waves made me think of the time I put my cat on a foam floaty and set her adrift in a wading pool. They both seemed to have the same look of confusion and desperation, the same awkward body language.

I'm at the same crossroads today, but on a smaller level. Voters are never satisfied with their choices, I suppose, but it's getting downright ridiculous. I'm talking, of course, about Scott Eckersly.

THE REAL ISSUES

Let's get to the important stuff first, the real issues. Like, the dude has a horrible last name. Eckersly is proud of his misfortune, it seems, making a slogan of “Give 'Em Eck!” I should say I usually have a pretty firm rule about voting for people who use the word “heck,” and I'm less inclined to like someone who makes a pun of it. But – and maybe this is just because I read Mad Magazine as a kid – all I can picture is Alfred E. Neuman campaigning to “Give 'Em Ecchh!” or something.

It's the most unfortunate advertising since MSU's ill-advised “I Heart New York” rip-off, where they plastered campus with a slogan that seemed translate to “I Bear MSU.” How true, MSU.

This Dem In Name Only flipped parties a few years ago, because ideology apprently means little to him. And this supposed fiscal conservative once essentially sued our state, costing taxpayers nearly $2 million, counting legal costs and the settlement.

He was doing the right thing, suing Roy Blunt's Chief of Staff over some Sunshine law email kerfuffle. But suing the government is sort of like (and by that I mean literally the same as) suing your neighbors. I see it the same way as I see protesting – sure, it'll make you feel better, but that's only if you ignore the facts that you're accomplishing nothing and generally annoying everyone around you.

So that's the Democrat. An anti-choice fiscal conservative who cost the state millions, whose plan to save the local economy is having a “hard look at the Federal deficit,” according to the Springfield Business Journal. He wants to gut healthcare, can't decide if individual freedom outweighs the threat of terrorism (uh, in Missouri?), and thinks “taxes are too high.” (Uh, in Missouri?)

BILLY LONG

But then there's Billy Long, Eckersly's opponent. I don't vote for anyone who wears a cowboy hat, first off. It's just bad policy – I'm a firm believer in the Separation of Hick and State.

The first thing you'll learn about Billy Long, should you decide to do a little research, is that his webmaster has never heard the word “Favicon.” Things seem to go downhill from there – he wants to dictate tax law through the Constitution. He figures, were he in charge, he could would scrap healthcare plans and save you up to ten percent by outlawing medical malpractice suits, or something.

(Don't worry about losing the house because of the surgery, Granny, just remember we saved up to ten percent! So, really, those blankets were free. If you think about it, the sicker you get, the more you save!)

The guy is so against a woman's right to choose he wants to block foreign aid to nations that allow the practice. He thinks the current tax code, which allows the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us to grow daily, “penalizes success.” And, most damning of all, the goddamn cowboy hat. He's wearing it in every picture! And it's one of those nice ones, too – the kind you can't even work in. I grew up in a honky-tonk, and I'll tell you that kind of cowboy hat would cause many a real cowboy to strap on what they affectionately call their “shit-kicking boots.”

Scott Eckersly is an imperfect candidate. He's right-wing and smiles like a goober. He spends too much time trashing the colleagues he's campaigning to work with. But Billy Long is a moron. And when choosing between a flip-flopper and an idiot, I think Kerry/Bush taught us all that we should ignore the shivers in our spines and pick the flip-flopping, dorky lesser of two evils.

(Originally published in The Standard)


UPDATE: I just found out, via an internet-obsessed friend, that an anti-Billy Long blog picked up on this post and reposted it in its entirety. I'd sue, except the author stroked my ego just the right way. Check it out: Long Is Wrong