hradzka: Cassidy, from Garth Ennis's PREACHER. (Default)
I figure I'll do a few political posts from time to time this election year, just so all my lefty buddies in these parts know what the righties are thinking.

At the moment, there's considerable unhappiness with the candidates left. Mitt Romney has an accomplished resume and knows how to sort out problems, but he will literally say *anything* to get elected and conservatives don't trust him. Santorum has a consistent ideology, with which I strongly disagree; even people more socially conservative than I am dislike the fact that he has no compunctions about using gov power to compel his ends, rather than leave folks alone. Ron Paul, who's rumored to be suborning Romney delegates to vote for him on their *second* ballot, has ridiculous foreign policy ideas and has no compunctions against sidling up to lunacy if the lunatics'll give him money. And Gingrich, while The Smartest Guy in the Race, is unfortunately a narcissist.

Lots of folks are grumbling about a brokered convention. But who would step forward? Discontented righties have discussed it, and we think we've got a winner. Here, folks, is my chosen candidate for 2012.

Read more... )
hradzka: (lobo sam)
So I may be eyeing my Republican primary absentee ballot in despair (DRAFT MITCH DANIELS), but lemme just give you guys a tip: C-SPAN usually sticks cameras inside the Iowa caucuses, and if it's going to be anything like previous election years, it'll be the goofiest people-watching you've done in ages. I'm curious to see how the Reps shake out versus the Dems; my favorite caucus moment to date was watching a lonely young Dennis Kucinich supporter wander forlornly from one bunch of caucusing Iowans to the next, looking for some way, any way, to get even one delegate for his man. This year I am guessing that the Ron Paul nutjobs are the ones to watch. They are basically the equivalent of the McGovernites, in that they are *kind of obsessed with their guy,* and Paul's organization has had a hell of a lot of practice in running things. Paul's guys have the fervor, and Romney's have the money, so they're the ones to watch.

One thing the Ron Paul newsletter thing has cleared up for me was a minor mystery. The magnificently batshit gun-nut ideological novel UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, by John Ross, spends a lot of time on the erosion of various liberties in America. One way it does this is by having one major character go out of the country in the early sixties and return in the nineties to have the hero obligingly infodump him on how Everything Is Different Now, from gun laws to police seizures of cash to pharmaceutical restrictions. It's an effective bit of culture shock, and Ross does a good job playing up civil liberty concerns. Except part of that scene has the hero ranting about magnetic code strips implanted in US bills to track the flow of cash. It's just way-out-there nutbar stuff, and I always wondered where the hell it came from. Well, the current election cycle cleared my question up, because *just such a nutbar conspiracy theory was mentioned in Ron Paul's political newsletter.* My guess is John Ross was a subscriber.

It's a footnote of a footnote of a footnote, but when I read that solicitation letter it was like a lightbulb went off over my head. "Ohhhhhhhh, so *that's* why."
hradzka: (plane)
The reaction to the exposure of Tom McMaster as being "Amina," the putative "Gay Girl in Damascus," is interesting.

I was suckered by him, and I shouldn't have been. I remember my reaction to Amina's post "My father, the hero," in which Amina's dad turned back Syrian thugs by making a brave speech; folks were forwarding that link around, and I was thinking, "Yeah, folks, this only works in movies. Here's what happens in real fucking life: THEY JUST COME BACK TOMORROW." And in subsequent posts, Amina wrote about her and her dad having to lay low and dodge the thugs. And I thought, "Yep, there you go." That was the moment I bought it. Which is interesting. I wasn't suckered by her politics, or by her claiming identity; I was suckered when "Amina" hit my comfort zone, which is to be cynical based on things my experience has trained me to expect.

Belief works that way. Politics works that way. And anger works that way, too. People are comfortable with, or angriest about, things that fit into pre-planned mental channels. And so I shouldn't be surprised, but right now, I am finding it amazing and disappointing that I am seeing far more angry commentary about Tom McMaster pretending to be a gay Syrian woman than I have seen angry commentary about the Syrian government *actually shooting Syrians.*

Read more... )
hradzka: (plane)
I am, as I've mentioned a few times, a righty, and while my business travel keeps me from going to the range anywhere near as often as I'd like to, I'm also a gun nut. I also study mass shootings, because I think it's important to be tactically aware of them. All of which means that I'm paying a lot of attention to the Arizona mass shooting committed by 22-year-old Jared Loughner. I should say "allegedly" as he's not dead and hasn't been found guilty yet, but he was apprehended at the scene with the gun in his hand, so fuck that.

Read more... )
hradzka: "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." (sledge hammer!)
Apparently, I have some new readers in the wake of the Bechdel post. Thanks, everybody! And a special thanks also to [personal profile] cereta, who gave me essential feedback on drafts of it. If it didn't piss you off, she's probably why. As I said, I am a righty and so my flist and I tend to have wildly differing views and assumptions about things. While I keep most of my political bitching over on Twitter, but every once in a while I like to put up the righty take on something for y'all. So, here -- have my thoughts on the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

Read more... )
hradzka: (peej reads news)
Is it me, or have the political scandals been pretty entertaining recently? The Van Jones thing had some entertaining facets, but I have to say this week's have been glorious. First, the California state guy, a married Republican rep from oh-so-conservative Orange County, blabbing about his kinky adulterous sex with lobbyists *into an open mike.* I don't know if the best part is the horrifyingly graphic detail, or the fact that one of his lobbyist girlfriends didn't know about the other and got to find out through the news. That's just magnificent. And now there's the ACORN thing: the Census Bureau cut all ties to them after an undercover sting by a couple of right-leaning activists who pretended to be trying to get advice on how to handle tax fraud involving a brothel they were going to open. The best part is when the activists are left alone for a minute, because the "prostitute" tells her partner that she's vamped her way through all her material, and she can't figure out how to make things any more over the top; I can only imagine the partner panicked or went insane, because when the ACORN folks come back in he runs an *outrageous* line of bullshit about how they're going to be trafficking *thirteen underaged girls in from Ecuador to serve as prostitutes,* and can they claim the kids as dependents for tax reasons? AND THE ACORN FOLKS DON'T BAT A FREAKIN' EYE.

(Congressman Charlie Rangel giving campaign contributions to people on the House Ethics Committee that's, um, *investigating him for tax fraud* has the potential to turn into something pretty hilarious, too, if that ever gains traction. So far, one of them has realized this might look bad, and so he gave back Rangel's 20,000 dollars. CONGRESS, I LOVE YOU SO.)

wait, what?

Aug. 3rd, 2009 07:31 pm
hradzka: (commies)
Man, I thought the UK had taken the Nanny State as far as it was possible to go under a democracy, but I've just been proved wrong:

THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” in a bid to change their bad behaviour, Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.


Wow.

I just. WOW.
hradzka: (commies)
Health care stuff is all over my flist; I've cut-and-pasted the below from comments I left at [profile] marag's LJ, because I think it's something that is worth mentioning.

My pet item that nobody is even considering: hey, why not a *massive* deregulation of prescription drugs? I can understand some stuff like antibiotics and narcotics, from a public-health standpoint, but you can buy amoxicillin OTC in Mexico and the world doesn't seem to have ended. The last I checked, I am a frickin' grown-up, so why do I, a grown-up, need to pay another grown-up to give me a permission slip allowing me to give a third grown-up yet more money?

(Said with the extreme bitterness of an asthmatic who does huge amounts of business travel. IT IS ALBUTEROL. IT IS THE STANDARD MEDICATION. IT IS STANDARD DOSAGE. THERE ARE NO VARIANTS. And yet I have to get a permission slip to buy it, and pay a doctor in order to get said permission slip, before paying a specially-trained and licensed professional to get the item.)

It's not that the doctors won't give me the prescription. They unfailingly do. What I object to is that I and my insurance company often have to pay them for an office visit, just so they can agree with me that yes, I have the chronic condition that is plastered all over my medical records and has been since childhood.

Most doctors will renew a prescription based on a phone call, of course, once you're an established patient, but that still involves a waste of time for me and for them, because I have to make the call and their staff have to take it and relay the message to the doctor who approves it and has it called in to the pharmacy. Annoying as hell for me, a substantial waste of time and money for them, because with a practice's worth of patients it adds up quick. Deregulate, or deschedule, or whatever the term is, most of that stuff, and I'll go to the local Wal-Mart or order it online and have it shipped to my door, fewer headaches all around.

Also, it would make it a *hell* of a lot easier to comparison shop on prices.
hradzka: (wtf)
According to Politico,

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off the record, non-confrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health-care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

...

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama Administration and Congressional leaders …

“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama Administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ... An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. ... A Washington Post Salon ... July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m."


Washington: it's all about who you know. If THE WASHINGTON POST is literally selling political access, that instantly vaults to into the top tier of media malfeasance. It also illustrates a major downside of large government: it winds up being not so much power to the people as power to the people who are politically connected.
hradzka: (plane)
I seem to recall that a while back there were some supposedly serious people arguing that Iran was actually really quite democratic, all things considered. These people tended to ignore the fact that the reigning mullahs had veto authority over who was actually allowed to enter the race, but in their view, the US was creating an inaccurate picture of Iranian despotism. The related arguments include: Ahmadinejad is Not That Bad, and even if he is he's Not a Really Consequential Figure and also the Real Power Doesn't Support Ahmadinejad. I'm looking forward to their commentary on this bit of news. The level of fraud in Ahmedinejad's re-election is making Chicago politics look like a garden club election. There are crowds of people protesting on the street; it's reported that there are scores dead. God knows what's going to happen, but it won't be pretty. Really freaky insight at the previous link: Iranian law requires a three-day wait after an election before certification by the council of experts and final approval by the Leader (Khameini). No such thing happened. Iran's former foreign minister tells THE NATION, bluntly, that what we've just seen is not an election, but a coup d'etat.

President Obama seems resigned to having the Iranians getting nuclear power. I think this is a potentially cataclysmic error on his part, and that's not hyperbole.

(Not to say we don't probably need to focus more on the Norks right now. They're doing lots of nuke testing, and they've got a track record of exporting material and expertise, and they're perfectly willing to nuke Seoul just for the hell of it.)

Odds of a small-scale nuclear war in the next two years: dramatically rising.
hradzka: (plane)
President Obama thinks a guy named Chas Freeman is the right fellow to run the national intelligence council. This has raised some controversy. One person defending him linked to this interview, citing it as an exemplar of the sanity of Freeman's views:

Q. Are the Saudis winning or losing their battle against terrorism?

Freeman’s view: The answer is that they’re winning. (We, of course, are not.) So what is it that they are doing right?

1. They have essentially discredited the extremist ideology in their own mosques, by driving the radical imams from the pulpits.
2. They have co-opted or seduced or induced to defect a large number of people who were terrorists or were heading in that direction, and who are now going straight.
3. They’re killing anybody who’s left.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH. AHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAH.

Saudi Arabia. "Driving the radical islams from the pulpits." AHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHA AHAHAHHAHAHA.

...Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, Mr. President, DO NOT PUT THIS FOOL IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING. Saudi Arabia does not fight terrorism. They manage it. They export it. The royalty there lets the crazy whackjob imams *run their educational system,* indoctrinating the next generation of schmoes whose greatest dream is to blow themselves up for the Great Pumpkin. Driving them from the pulpits!??! IS FREEMAN INSANE?!?!?!

Well, no, of course. He's not. His views take "blame America first" to a rather remarkable degree, especially for a man who's forgiving enough to cheerfully state that hey, when you think about it, the Chinese government really had no choice but to send troops into Tienanmen Square. But Freeman is not insane; nor is he just an ideologue of the sort that I don't want to see in a position of power. Freeman is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which means he is bought and paid for. It's SOP for that nation, and one reason posts involving the Saudis are so desirable. The Saudis helped funded the think tank that he runs, like they help fund a number of Middle East Studies departments; it's an investment for them, part of their propaganda arm. I can understand President Obama wanting to have contrarians around, and because he and I differ on lots of things it's not surprising that his contrarians would be contrary in a direction I *really* disagree with. But having a Saudi puppet in a position like that is a bad, bad, *baaaaaad* call. So, um, Mr. President, might want to ask him if he's got tax problems. The way things are running so far, that's the way to bet.

(Also, seriously: kill Abdul Qadeer Khan.)
hradzka: (plane)
I don't post often on politics. In part, this is because fandom is my refuge; in part, this is because I differ from my friends on a wide variety of issues, and I'd rather talk about things that we have in common, or things many of y'all may not know about -- like, politics surrounding gun issues, because I know a lot of the people on my flist don't know any other gun owners, so I provide a point of view you guys may not be familiar with.

On December 30, there was an anti-Israeli demonstration in Fort Lauderdale. No big deal, right? One sees these things. (I remember some street theater on campus a while back when the local pro-Palestinian Arab group set up a mock Israeli checkpoint for students to go through, to demonstrate their view of those things; unfortunately, the campus police wouldn't allow *me* to go through it -- hey, man, it was a FAKE suicide bomber vest!) But this video had a moment that made my vision blur into a field of red. If you are so inclined, skip ahead to 3:25. You will see an attractive young woman. She is yelling at the Jewish counter-protestors.

This is what she is yelling:

"GO BACK TO THE OVENS!"

I try to keep a very temperate tone in politics. Part of my rationale is that I think it's nyekulturny to wish the opposition to be drowned in fire. I had my flamewar days; I got tired of them. I also am mindful that gun owners are stereotyped as violent, crazed individuals, and that intemperate rhetoric from me only aides political opponents.

But let me just say this, as a calm, temperate statement of fact: I am perfectly willing to respect even raucous protests championing views I disagree with, but if I happen to be in the vicinity of one and there's somebody yelling that, then that person is losing teeth.

And right now, *I want that bitch's name.*
hradzka: (commies)
A few days back, I discussed "getting Zumboed", which is the term gun geeks use for "so outraging the community of one's customers that the backlash jeopardizes one's livelihood." The term, if you missed that post, is for Jim Zumbo, an outdoor columnist who took such umbrage to the AR-15 that he described it as a "terrorist rifle" in a blog post. That rather upset a demographic that advertisers find desirable: an AR-15 is not an inexpensive piece of hardware; it's not unusual for people to have fifteen hundred to two thousand dollars invested in their ARs. People who shoot in competition, with ARs they've built to be highly accurate match rifles, can have considerably more than that. It's a sizable investment, and people who own sizable investments take them seriously. And Jim Zumbo told everybody in the United States who owns an AR-15 that they could go fuck themselves. This did not turn out well for him. More recently, we've seen people get Zumboed in the gun industry and in the gay community; the founder of the cruising site Manhunt came in for some trouble after it came out that he'd donated to McCain/Palin 2008. This strikes me as an interesting and noteworthy political development, and so I made a post about it.

Well, it's not a grass-roots reaction any more. It's officially a political tactic now.

My post turned out to be timelier than I'd thought. )
hradzka: (commies)
I usually stay away from politics posts, but I thought this was an interesting item. A few days ago, USA TODAY ran an "Obama's making inroads with Republicans!" article. The piece focuses specifically on business executives, and one of the guys they quoted was a fellow named Dan Cooper, who lives in Montana and owns a company that makes custom rifles. They've got a very good reputation among gun aficionados. Cooper started sending Obama money after his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, and decided to vote for him this year, he said.

The reaction of gun enthusiasts was immediate, and strongly negative. Within a few days, the complaints had led to Cooper getting ousted from his own company.

This story is noteworthy for multiple reasons, and I thought it might be interesting to folks on my flist who occasionally wonder what gun nuts think. Because you may see some commentary on this in some other places, and I wanted to give some background on things you might miss if you're not familiar with this particular corner of society.

It's an interesting issue. )
hradzka: (lobo sam)
Yeah, a rare politics post. I thought it was a pretty good debate. Both candidates did well. Obama, who's much better as an orator than as a quick thinker, really rose to the occasion here; he prepped like crazy, and it showed. Good for him. McCain was a little slower to warm up, but was excellent when he did. I thought Obama's best stuff was on the economics; very weak on specifics, but he came across as caring, which the electorate likes. McCain wasn't as strong there, but his suggestion of a spending freeze was actually a really good moment, and when it came to foreign policy he was terrific. How the stuff involving Iraq and Afghanistan shook out depends on who you were backing, I think; they actually displayed their separate philosophies there, and that was nice. I think McCain's best answer of the night was on Russia, where he left Obama in the dust.

I was glad to see I wasn't the only person trying to envision what the parody would be like. National Review's Jonah Goldberg suggested that the Saturday Night Live spoof should involve a bling-off. "I've got this bracelet." "Well, I've got *this* bracelet." "I've got this tie tack." "I've got this nipple ring!"

Other things I thought were spoofable:

-- All the times Obama said, "Senator McCain is absolutely right." The McCain folks cut an ad with those clips before the debate was even over. (Though I thought it would've been better with the tagline: "Barack Obama thinks Senator McCain is right. Shouldn't you?")

-- All the times McCain opened a sentence with, "Senator Obama doesn't understand."

-- Obama's simultaneous acknowledgment that the crisis was serious, and inability to make one spending cut. You could totally get a sketch about the Obama household budget meetings out of that. (That would be funny as hell, actually: comparing how the candidates run their household budgets. Michelle Obama trying in vain to get her husband to save money, while he just keeps buying stuff; McCain asking for the AmEx black so he can get a new car, and his wife saying, sorry, she just got another house. Tagline: "McCain -- he's bad with money too, but at least he can afford it.")

-- All the times some remote location was mentioned, and McCain piped up, "Well, I've actually *been* to Waziristan..."

And this may have been just my location, but the video feed had odd pauses and stutters, to the point that it was like watching a debate between Max Headroom and Max Headroom, with Max Headroom moderating. That would be funny in and of itself. ("Senator McCain, we need you in Washington for these crisis talks." "The public doesn't want the debate postponed. I'm going." "But -- wait. There's a way around it. Gentlemen, are you thinking what I'm thinking?" "Yes. Get Bryce.")

All in all, good show by both candidates.
hradzka: (lobo sam)
After more false starts than a whole season's worth of track and field, the Supreme Court is finally getting around to releasing its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. For gun nuts, this is a biggie, and so, gun blogs have been watching the court like a hawk, convinced that TODAY WILL BE THE DAY. The court finally announced this week, after a couple more false starts, that today would, in fact, be the day. If you see a gun nut before the opinion comes out, and they're snappish and nervous, be nice to 'em, because inside they're having shpilkes.

I'm going to deal with my own shpilkes by posting about something on an entirely different hot-button political issue. You know how I know we're not having a serious immigration debate in this country? Because neither side is talking about stuff like this. I've known people dealing with the vagaries of immigration problems -- for school, for work, for becoming Americans. And it made me think the ATF was actually on top of things, compared to the INS.

You'd think that, if we're going to make new immigration policy, making things easier and more streamlined for people who actually make efforts to follow the law would be a priority, wouldn't you?
hradzka: (plane)
...so, that Mike Huckabee's an asshat, huh?

Seriously, one of the reasons I post about guns on my LJ is that I think it's important for gun owners to put a good public face on our obsession wallet-destroying vice hobby. And a major part of that is being damn careful about the things we say and the jokes we make. People who don't like us are eager to paint us in a bad light, and the best way to handle that is to not give them any opportunities. It's important to set a good example and show ourselves to be good citizens. I try to keep an even tone online for that reason, even when politics pisses me off. Maybe especially. Because if I don't, not only does that make me look bad personally, but it gives folks something to point to and say, "See? Look at that crazy gun nut there!" I'd rather have people -- all sorts of people, especially folks who may be 180 degrees from me politically -- point to my crazy gun nut posts and say, "Wow, that looks interesting and fun." When y'all hear "gun nut," I don't want the first thing you think of to be some crazed loon. I want you guys to think about dorks like me.

Which is why Huckabee's stupid, failed, unscripted attempt at a joke pisses me off so much. The video shows it: during Huckabee's speech at the NRA convention, there's a loud *thunk* as something falls over backstage. Huckabee jokes that it was Barack Obama tripping over a chair; then he adds that Obama hit the floor when somebody pointed a gun at him. The clip I linked cuts away just after Huckabee's comment, but he sure as hell didn't get a laugh. You can hear the moment of stunned silence -- "Did he *say* that?!" -- followed by the audience murmuring in apparent disbelief and dismay.

I am an NRA Life Member, I own really a lot of guns, and -- I know this will be a shock -- I think Obama's stance on gun control is a) wrong and b) wussy in that he knows it might hurt him with some segments of the electorate and so refuses to admit where he stands and stand up for his opinion. And right now, I'm going to make a rare departure from my even tone and state for the record that I would *love* to kick Mike Huckabee in the nuts. Because for at least a couple of days, when people watching news across the country think "gun nut," they won't be thinking about dorks like me. They'll be thinking about that asshat Mike Huckabee.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled geekdom.

Maybe I will just post a bunch of pictures of my dog.
hradzka: (lobo sam)
ABC's Rick Klein, liveblogging the New Hampshire primary, had a close encounter of the Kucinich kind. Quoth Klein:

So I'm in the ABC workspace at the Radisson in Manchester, and who walks in but ... Dennis Kucinich. No big deal, right? Lots of candidates milling around these parts these days. But then he proceeds to RAID THE MIXED NUTS CAN on the ABC snack table. Not like a cashew or two — big handfuls. His wife is munching too. This would be the same Dennis Kucinich who FILED FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ABC over the weekend to try to block our debate from going forward, arguing that he was being unfairly excluded. I walked over to his wife, Elizabeth, who was also enjoying the snacks. "So sorry," she said, "but we're absolutely starving." I said to her, "Come on, now, you sued us, and now you're stealing our nuts?" She shrugged — semi-apologetically, in my estimation. And with that, Rep. Kucinich grabbed a mini-can of Pringles and walked away.


The internet being what it is, a commenter quickly piped up that "Elizabeth Kucinich can have my nuts any time she pleases." YOU STAY CLASSY, INTERNET.
hradzka: Cassidy, from Garth Ennis's PREACHER. (Default)
The random goofy stuff. In this case, a dude in New Hampshire decides to take advantage of the political season: just for the heck of it, he decides to find out whether he can get a picture of his baby daughter with *every single one* of the presidential candidates. He got everybody except Fred Thompson, who hasn't spent much time in New Hampshire. And Mike Gravel, because the dad in question considers him "creepy." But everybody else is there.

The resulting pictures are adorably entertaining Americana: Giuliani, alarmed when the baby starts to cry; Hillary Clinton, looking a little uncomfortable but still game; McCain, the old pro, in a great contrast with Giuliani, laughing when the baby is upset to be handed to a strange old man. The best of the lot is a picture of Obama cradling the baby: it's a great picture, and a nice side of Obama.

(And yes, he got Huckabee and Chuck Norris.)
hradzka: (lobo sam)
via FARK, I bring you the Republican presidential candidates, as Buffy villains. (Sample: Fred Thompson = The Judge. "His backers got all excited and made a big effort to assemble him. When they finally put him together, he turned out to be a lethargic mess and didn't accomplish very much.")

There is, of course, serious debate in the original poster's comments and on the Fark forums over these picks. My favorite Fark comment is "Ron Paul = The Gentlemen: tall, gaunt, ready to take a scalpel to government, and surrounded by galloping lunatics in straightjackets." But I think it's wrong. Ron Paul is Spike. He's interesting at first, becomes more sketchy as you get to know him, and he's got tons of extremely vocal fans who JUST WON'T SHUT UP.

Folks are also working on the Democratic picks; so far the only one that works for me is Kucinich being Clem: big ears, strangely adorable, and you wouldn't want him in charge of anything in a million years.

(Someone actually suggested that Hillary was Darla. BLASPHEMY I KILL YOU.)

Profile

hradzka: Cassidy, from Garth Ennis's PREACHER. (Default)
hradzka

November 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

YOU NEED A BOOK

A POEM EVERY DAY

The collected poems from my descent into madness year spent writing daily poems are now available from Lulu as the cheapest 330-page book they would let me make ($16.20). If that's too pricey, you can also get it from Lulu as a free download, or just click on the "a poem every day" tag to read them here. But if you did buy one, that'd be awesome.

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 27th, 2017 06:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios