Recently, I was slaving away at my desk. As someone who is always in the pursuit of the newest nuance in American culture that rocks the American political scene, I was looking for pictures of a very attractive starlet—without any clothes on. As a picture was beginning to appear on my computer screen, the lights on a long dead FAX machine flashed. The machine coughed and wheezed. Soon it was makin more noise than a two-dollar radio. Then the long dead FAX machine spit out a few pages of text.
Backstory
A wiser person would care more than I do about how and why the long dead machine came to life. Being the geek I am, I didn’t bother with anything like that. I read the FAX.
The FAX was mostly the transcript of a conversation between two people. One was that famous traitor from yesteryear we’ve all grown to know and hate—Judas.
The other participant in the conversation we know as a quixotic blending of twangy simplemindedness, verbal gaffes, and tactical blunders—G. W. Bush.
Judas and Bush are just gabbin away.
And they are sweatin more than a hooker in church. They’re sweatin because they’re in hell. For those of you who care, it doesn’t look at all like Dante’s hell—or even like Wal-Mart the day after Christmas. It looks a lot like a grid-locked freeway . . . somewhere in Georgia . . . in late August.
GW is appealing to move on up, if not to the right side of the big politician in the sky, at least to a slightly cooler locale.
Judas doesn’t have a whole lot to do. So he’s helping with GW’s appeal.
After reading the transcript, I did a little fact checking. It soon became obvious that the words Bush says are not rubba-dub-dubbed, shellacked and spit-polished, or even toilet flushed exaggerations. Bush has said all the comments attributed to him.
Just a Little More Backstory
Much of the dialogue addresses a proposal California and twelve other states championed. They petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency. Inside the Washington beltway, we call it the EPA. Rumor has it that GW calls it epa.
California and twelve other states petitioned the EPA to allow their states to create fuel efficiency standards that are more strict than those the Feds have. These higher standards would require automobiles sold in their states to burn less gasoline. This would make the air cleaner and reduce the demand for fossil fuels.
As you would expect from an administration that has excrement-for-brains, the EPA denied California’s request.
Because the story of the California petition and the EPA denial deserves a great deal more attention than it garnered, and because Judas—unlike so many in the media, asks not one but a series of follow-up questions—the transcript of the conversation follows.
Judas and GW
Judas began this way, “More than one person has whispered to me that they think your policies on the environment distill the essence of your administration. Would saying that be putting words in your mouth?”
"I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."
“Regarding the EPA ruling on the suit brought by California and some other states. Did Governor Schwarzenegger call you specifically to talk about this issue?”
"All I can tell you is when the governor calls, I answer his phone."
“Don’t you think it would be more fair to future generations if Americans did more to clean up the environment?”
“All of us in America want there to be fairness when it comes to justice."
Judas continued, “Would you say that the Bush administration has had a negative impact on the environment?”
"I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I'm smart on the subject."
“Would you like to comment on why it took so long for the EPA to issue it’s ruling?”
"This process has been drug out a long time, which says to me it's political."
“Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense supported the California initiative. He responded to the EPA ruling by saying, ‘This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze,’ Would you like to respond to comments like this?”
"There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say."
“Many say that the EPA ruling is a victory for the auto industry and that rulings like this will decrease the levels of trust people have about politicians.”
"There is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."
Cheney’s Clout
“Many say that rulings like this one by the EPA provide more evidence of the Vice President’s clout.”
"I think that the Vice President is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality."
“How do you respond to the assertion that this EPA ruling is ‘more of the same’ from your administration?”
"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"
“Other nations are taking profound steps to improve the environment. Many suggest the EPA ruling will cause the US to fall farther behind other industrial nations in this regard.”
"I aim to be a competitive nation."
“Many argue that the EPA ruling is further evidence that you have little idea what is really going on in the world.”
"[I]t's a myth to think I don't know what's going on. It's a myth to think that I'm not aware that there's opinions that don't agree with mine, because I'm fully aware of that."
“Many say this ruling provides more evidence that you aren’t fully informed on the issues.”
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."
“Many have criticized your support of the coal industry. Do you think that criticism is justified?”
"We're spending money on clean coal technology. Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal? Yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge."
“Won’t many view the EPA ruling as just another attempt by your administration to distort the facts regarding global warming.”
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
“Critics of your environmental policy suggest that it will cause long term harm to America. Do you have a response to that?”
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Finally, the Truth about the New Hampshire Polls
It seems like an eon has passed since the pollsters and many of the pundits were bollixed by the results of the New Hampshire Primary. Before the primary, polls (and plenty of pundits) shouted that Obama would win—and probably by a significant amount.
He lost.
Polls (and pundits) suggested that on the Republican side, that McCain would win—and he did. Many who are obsessed with politics wonder how civilization could continue while the mystery about the New Hampshire Polls remained unsolved. Just how could one series of polls (for the Democrats) be so wrong, while the other (for the Republicans) could be so right?
Clinton said listening to voters had helped her find her voice.
Many zeroed in on a teary moment Clinton shared with voters and the media the Monday before the primary.
Some suggested that it was the debates that had made Clinton the front runner before the Iowa
Caucuses, the debate that took place the Saturday before the primary had done it again.
The Bradley Effect was mentioned as another possible reason why the polls had been so wrong. The Bradley Effect is named after it’s first victim, former LA mayor Tom Bradley. The Bradley Effect suggests that voters overstate to pollsters about how likely they are to vote for a black candidate—which is a polite way of saying that a significant percentage of voters lie when they tell pollsters they will vote for a black candidate.
Other reasons were floated:
Pollsters stopped polling on Sunday; the election was on Tuesday.
Many voters, confident that Obama would win, didn’t vote.
Students didn’t vote for Obama in the numbers that had been expected.
Many voters were torn between Obama and another candidate became confident that Obama would win. So they had voted for the other candidate.
Some said the surprise was the result of a synergy of all of the reasons.
Finally, The Truth
Hours of investigative reporting—mostly spent plying people with booze—have led to other causes for this apparent polling gaffe:
A fundamentalist suggested that the polling screw-up happened . . . because God wanted it that way. He said if Senator Clinton appeared to be gaining influence, then the Republicans would have a Democrat to hate.
He then went on to explain why hating the Democrats was “the Christian thing to do.”
An aide to Rudy Giuliani camp attributed the polling gaffe to 9/11. No further explanation was given.
But after a few drinks, she showed me a card. It was titled, Responses for the Media.
1) This is a direct result of 9/11.
2) This is a result of 9/11.
3) Though all the data isn’t in yet, when it is, we are confident there will be a connection between this event and 9/11.
I told her that it looked as if she had a very challenging job.
I suggested we use the card she was given to replace the dartboard in the bar.
She smiled and said, “I’ve got something better than that.” She opened her Louis Vuitton Mirror Image Briefcase. Then she retrieved a series of pictures. She had pictures Huckabee, Romney, and Clinton. Some of the pictures had targets superimposed on the faces. She said, “These would be much better for the dartboard.”
“I can see you are a veteran campaigner.”
She smiled. Then she said, “This is my third New Hampshire Primary.”
A spokesperson for an association of anti-immigration groups blamed the polling problem on Hispanics who had come to New Hampshire illegally.
I asked him if he’d been drinking since the 2004 New Hampshire Primary.
He said, “I’ll drink to that!”
My guess is that he would have drunk to George Lopez being elected president.
I reminded him that Hispanics made up less than three per cent of the population of New Hampshire.
When he heard that, his expression made it obvious he was very surprised. Loudly he said, “These guys are organized!”
A small group of people from the International Community For Alien Research joined me for a few drinks. I thought they were making up the name—to get free drinks. After, I Googled the organization. It exits. (And you thought I was making these up!). They had boxes of buttons and a few signs that identified them as Kucinich supporters. They said the polling gaffe was the result of extra-terrestrials influencing the election.
When I told a political veteran about this comment, she replied, “There’s a group of Kucinich supporters?”
A nice guy from the Club For Growth looked at me with a dour expression on his face, then he said, “This so-called polling error is really the result of market forces doing what they do best.”
When I told the guy that I wanted funny comments, the spokesman smiled and said, “This is the result of market forces doing what they do best.”
A few drinks later, I told him that I’d seen his wife coming out of a hotel room with a tax and spend liberal.
He put on his glasses and said, “This is the result of market forces doing what they do best.”
A woman who described herself as a passionate Democrat told me an interesting story.
According to her, George Bush ordered former FEMA officials infiltrate the cadre of New Hampshire election workers. She said, it was a brilliantly executed plan to flummox the Democrats and their pollsters.
This provoked one of the Kucinich supporters to ask, “George Bush constructed a brilliantly executed plan?”
A spokesman for Liars Anonymous said he had data suggesting that the Bradley Effect wasn’t in play. “Voters didn’t lie to the pollsters; but they did lie when they voted.”
I asked him, “How do I know you’re telling the truth?”
He responded, “Is the Pope Jewish?”
He lost.
Polls (and pundits) suggested that on the Republican side, that McCain would win—and he did. Many who are obsessed with politics wonder how civilization could continue while the mystery about the New Hampshire Polls remained unsolved. Just how could one series of polls (for the Democrats) be so wrong, while the other (for the Republicans) could be so right?
Clinton said listening to voters had helped her find her voice.
Many zeroed in on a teary moment Clinton shared with voters and the media the Monday before the primary.
Some suggested that it was the debates that had made Clinton the front runner before the Iowa
Caucuses, the debate that took place the Saturday before the primary had done it again.
The Bradley Effect was mentioned as another possible reason why the polls had been so wrong. The Bradley Effect is named after it’s first victim, former LA mayor Tom Bradley. The Bradley Effect suggests that voters overstate to pollsters about how likely they are to vote for a black candidate—which is a polite way of saying that a significant percentage of voters lie when they tell pollsters they will vote for a black candidate.
Other reasons were floated:
Pollsters stopped polling on Sunday; the election was on Tuesday.
Many voters, confident that Obama would win, didn’t vote.
Students didn’t vote for Obama in the numbers that had been expected.
Many voters were torn between Obama and another candidate became confident that Obama would win. So they had voted for the other candidate.
Some said the surprise was the result of a synergy of all of the reasons.
Finally, The Truth
Hours of investigative reporting—mostly spent plying people with booze—have led to other causes for this apparent polling gaffe:
A fundamentalist suggested that the polling screw-up happened . . . because God wanted it that way. He said if Senator Clinton appeared to be gaining influence, then the Republicans would have a Democrat to hate.
He then went on to explain why hating the Democrats was “the Christian thing to do.”
An aide to Rudy Giuliani camp attributed the polling gaffe to 9/11. No further explanation was given.
But after a few drinks, she showed me a card. It was titled, Responses for the Media.
1) This is a direct result of 9/11.
2) This is a result of 9/11.
3) Though all the data isn’t in yet, when it is, we are confident there will be a connection between this event and 9/11.
I told her that it looked as if she had a very challenging job.
I suggested we use the card she was given to replace the dartboard in the bar.
She smiled and said, “I’ve got something better than that.” She opened her Louis Vuitton Mirror Image Briefcase. Then she retrieved a series of pictures. She had pictures Huckabee, Romney, and Clinton. Some of the pictures had targets superimposed on the faces. She said, “These would be much better for the dartboard.”
“I can see you are a veteran campaigner.”
She smiled. Then she said, “This is my third New Hampshire Primary.”
A spokesperson for an association of anti-immigration groups blamed the polling problem on Hispanics who had come to New Hampshire illegally.
I asked him if he’d been drinking since the 2004 New Hampshire Primary.
He said, “I’ll drink to that!”
My guess is that he would have drunk to George Lopez being elected president.
I reminded him that Hispanics made up less than three per cent of the population of New Hampshire.
When he heard that, his expression made it obvious he was very surprised. Loudly he said, “These guys are organized!”
A small group of people from the International Community For Alien Research joined me for a few drinks. I thought they were making up the name—to get free drinks. After, I Googled the organization. It exits. (And you thought I was making these up!). They had boxes of buttons and a few signs that identified them as Kucinich supporters. They said the polling gaffe was the result of extra-terrestrials influencing the election.
When I told a political veteran about this comment, she replied, “There’s a group of Kucinich supporters?”
A nice guy from the Club For Growth looked at me with a dour expression on his face, then he said, “This so-called polling error is really the result of market forces doing what they do best.”
When I told the guy that I wanted funny comments, the spokesman smiled and said, “This is the result of market forces doing what they do best.”
A few drinks later, I told him that I’d seen his wife coming out of a hotel room with a tax and spend liberal.
He put on his glasses and said, “This is the result of market forces doing what they do best.”
A woman who described herself as a passionate Democrat told me an interesting story.
According to her, George Bush ordered former FEMA officials infiltrate the cadre of New Hampshire election workers. She said, it was a brilliantly executed plan to flummox the Democrats and their pollsters.
This provoked one of the Kucinich supporters to ask, “George Bush constructed a brilliantly executed plan?”
A spokesman for Liars Anonymous said he had data suggesting that the Bradley Effect wasn’t in play. “Voters didn’t lie to the pollsters; but they did lie when they voted.”
I asked him, “How do I know you’re telling the truth?”
He responded, “Is the Pope Jewish?”
Friday, January 4, 2008
Ten Things We Should Take From the Iowa Caucuses
1) America is a great nation. Selecting a President is a very important process. Having the first event of that process take place in Iowa is absurd. Ethnically Iowa does not represent the US. Iowa’s economy is not microcosm of the nation’s. Because the event is a caucus and not an open primary—well, that doubles the absurdity of the exercise.
2) A day is a lifetime in politics. The ultimate absurdity of this year’s election process has been dubbed the Super Duper Primary. It takes place on February 5 when twenty-four states are scheduled to hold a primary or a caucus. The Super Duper Primary is thirty lifetimes away.
3) Since 1976, winners of the Iowa Caucuses have not done well. Of the five most recent presidents, only one triumphed in the Iowa Caucuses the year he was first elected president—G. W. Bush.
4) Over a hundred thousand more Democrats went to the caucuses than Republicans. Combine that with the electoral surge that the Democrats made in 2006 and you’ve got this: many Democrats are very happy right now, and there are more nervous Republicans than you can shake used Florida butterfly ballot at.
5) Huckabee and Obama won convincing victories. For that they garner the benefits of winning the Iowa Caucuses. In the hours after the caucuses, they will raise thousands of dollars. And the bright lights of free publicity will shine on them. The downside is that they will have a King Kamehameha-sized target on their backs.
6) In the immediate future, Huckabee has more challenges than Obama. Huckabee does not have the infrastructure in New Hampshire that he will need to make the most of his Iowa successes. There are not nearly as many evangelical Christians in New Hampshire as there are in Iowa. This group served as Huckabee’s base in Iowa. Republican economic conservatives loathe Huckabee. They’ll suggest Huckabee is crazier than a dog in a hubcap factory.
7) Huckabee and Obama gave very good victory speeches. But even here, the Democrats took the prize. Obama’s victory speech was incredibly good. More importantly it showed how unified and coherent his campaign is. Obama blended change, hope, and optimism into a whole that transcended anything the Republican candidates can deliver at this point. At this moment in space-time, Obama has the whole package: a Republican administration many dislike that Obama can run against, positions on issues that a majority of Americans favor, a sterling campaign, a Super Duper-sized recyclable container overflowing intangibles—he’s charismatic, he has a savvy wife with a winning smile, and two incredibly adorable children—and so much money he’ll be able to spend it faster than a jackrabbit on moonshine.
8) Senator Clinton took some very serious hits. Obama earned more votes than she did from the senators most prized constituencies: Democrats, women, Independents.
9) It’s refreshing that Edwards and Huckabee did well in Iowa—though they spent far less money than their opponents. (Huckabee won and Edwards came in second.) Don’t be derided by the talk of their success. Most of the time, in American politics, money remains paramount. After the New Hampshire Primary, money will be of tremendous importance.
10) The next stop in the absurdity we call the American political process is almost as bizarre as the first one. New Hampshire offers an open primary. This is a good thing. Voters may vote for any candidate. Sadly for those who prefer the absurd, this is not Cook County, voters will have to be alive to vote and voters will only be able to vote once. But considerable silliness remains. The primary is happening in a state that ethnically and economically does not represent America.
Last week in this space I offered suggestions to make the primary process more sane. Many wrote—and a few shouted—that I had it all wrong. They argued that we shouldn’t fix the process, we should make things more absurd. To that end I have two suggestions.
11) The first event in the 20012 primary season should be in Hawaii. It will blend the worst of a surfing competition—why not?—with a caucus—this way only a tiny percentage of the state’s population will participate. The winner will be determined by the loudest “Cowabunga” a candidate’s supporters may shout from the beach. They will shout in response to tricks a candidate—or a proxy—does on a surfboard.
12) As he did this year, every election year, Chuck Norris must endorse a candidate. Norris’ endorsement will insure that Chuck Norris jokes will continue to be created and told. This will add an appropriate leavening to the election process which, as we all know, is not silly enough. A few favored Chuck Norris jokes follow:
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
Some people wear Superman pajamas; Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas.
For those of you who while reading this were distracted by your lattes, cell phones, pagers, iPods, jobs, spouses, kids, families, or the latest crack about Britney Spears, the title of this piece suggested that there were ten things we should take from the Iowa Caucuses. The last two were items numbered eleven and twelve.
2) A day is a lifetime in politics. The ultimate absurdity of this year’s election process has been dubbed the Super Duper Primary. It takes place on February 5 when twenty-four states are scheduled to hold a primary or a caucus. The Super Duper Primary is thirty lifetimes away.
3) Since 1976, winners of the Iowa Caucuses have not done well. Of the five most recent presidents, only one triumphed in the Iowa Caucuses the year he was first elected president—G. W. Bush.
4) Over a hundred thousand more Democrats went to the caucuses than Republicans. Combine that with the electoral surge that the Democrats made in 2006 and you’ve got this: many Democrats are very happy right now, and there are more nervous Republicans than you can shake used Florida butterfly ballot at.
5) Huckabee and Obama won convincing victories. For that they garner the benefits of winning the Iowa Caucuses. In the hours after the caucuses, they will raise thousands of dollars. And the bright lights of free publicity will shine on them. The downside is that they will have a King Kamehameha-sized target on their backs.
6) In the immediate future, Huckabee has more challenges than Obama. Huckabee does not have the infrastructure in New Hampshire that he will need to make the most of his Iowa successes. There are not nearly as many evangelical Christians in New Hampshire as there are in Iowa. This group served as Huckabee’s base in Iowa. Republican economic conservatives loathe Huckabee. They’ll suggest Huckabee is crazier than a dog in a hubcap factory.
7) Huckabee and Obama gave very good victory speeches. But even here, the Democrats took the prize. Obama’s victory speech was incredibly good. More importantly it showed how unified and coherent his campaign is. Obama blended change, hope, and optimism into a whole that transcended anything the Republican candidates can deliver at this point. At this moment in space-time, Obama has the whole package: a Republican administration many dislike that Obama can run against, positions on issues that a majority of Americans favor, a sterling campaign, a Super Duper-sized recyclable container overflowing intangibles—he’s charismatic, he has a savvy wife with a winning smile, and two incredibly adorable children—and so much money he’ll be able to spend it faster than a jackrabbit on moonshine.
8) Senator Clinton took some very serious hits. Obama earned more votes than she did from the senators most prized constituencies: Democrats, women, Independents.
9) It’s refreshing that Edwards and Huckabee did well in Iowa—though they spent far less money than their opponents. (Huckabee won and Edwards came in second.) Don’t be derided by the talk of their success. Most of the time, in American politics, money remains paramount. After the New Hampshire Primary, money will be of tremendous importance.
10) The next stop in the absurdity we call the American political process is almost as bizarre as the first one. New Hampshire offers an open primary. This is a good thing. Voters may vote for any candidate. Sadly for those who prefer the absurd, this is not Cook County, voters will have to be alive to vote and voters will only be able to vote once. But considerable silliness remains. The primary is happening in a state that ethnically and economically does not represent America.
Last week in this space I offered suggestions to make the primary process more sane. Many wrote—and a few shouted—that I had it all wrong. They argued that we shouldn’t fix the process, we should make things more absurd. To that end I have two suggestions.
11) The first event in the 20012 primary season should be in Hawaii. It will blend the worst of a surfing competition—why not?—with a caucus—this way only a tiny percentage of the state’s population will participate. The winner will be determined by the loudest “Cowabunga” a candidate’s supporters may shout from the beach. They will shout in response to tricks a candidate—or a proxy—does on a surfboard.
12) As he did this year, every election year, Chuck Norris must endorse a candidate. Norris’ endorsement will insure that Chuck Norris jokes will continue to be created and told. This will add an appropriate leavening to the election process which, as we all know, is not silly enough. A few favored Chuck Norris jokes follow:
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
Some people wear Superman pajamas; Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas.
For those of you who while reading this were distracted by your lattes, cell phones, pagers, iPods, jobs, spouses, kids, families, or the latest crack about Britney Spears, the title of this piece suggested that there were ten things we should take from the Iowa Caucuses. The last two were items numbered eleven and twelve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)