Your turn at the Soapbox

You know what they say about polls... nonetheless, I thought this was interesting.

Here's a recent poll that shows Mitt might not be doing as hot as you might like to think. In fact, it shows that Republicans would favor an actor who hasn't even announced his intention to run over good old Mitty.

Ouch!

Before I get started, this is a picture of me descending Leatherman Peak. The 2nd tallest mountain in Idaho. We did it this past weekend. Lots of snow, ice, and sore muscles. Staff, I wish you were there. Come do Rainer with us May of 08. Anyways, my first real mountaineering ice climb. The peak was 12,543 feet. Heinous.
And now...

While I enjoy a good scandal, (though it does no good for our country's image) I am pretty tired of Plame's situation being construed as a Dick Cheney fiasco. There is a lot of assumption going into thinking that Cheney was the master-mind behind the Plame ousting. Not that I don't think he couldn't come up with it, but I'm not sure what he would gain by leaking it. Rove might stand more to gain, but he is in enough trouble already. If Rove is as "tight" with Bush as is touted, again, what would he have to gain also? I think it is way too late to think that anything could be gained politically by this. I can guarantee that she will use her looks and situation to get at least a dozen interviews, a few speechs, and two books. No doubt it will turn into a money and popularity contest with her. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it seems too coincidental that this happens almost every time. Clinton ring a bell.

Now, on to more important things, our future Pres. Romney.
Still, Romney is making a significant impact on the American people. As Josh so dutifully pointed out, Romney took the majority vote from the recent PAC convention.(Glad to see you coming around.) He beat out Guliani, McCain and the others. He also is gaining significant ground in Michigan and believe it or not, Ohio.

Shocking, I know. But why should it be so shocking? In a recent interview that Mitt Romney had on Fox News, he was confronted by the interviewer as to his position change on abortion, Mitt did not back down. He said that he did change his position about 4 years ago and is now pro-life. No other candidate can say with clear diction why they changed a position. He made no excuses as to why he changed his view. America is about learning and educating one's self for the improvement of others. Mitt has done that. If I learn valid things that would change my opinion, I might consider making a modification to my view points. As would any of you I would imagine, where there is credible proof. His view points will directly influence the outcome of the next election for the better. No other candidate, neither Dem nor Reb, will be able to stand toe to toe with him and be secure in their position.





Sorry it took me a while to get this one posted. Work is out of control right now. And Courtney jsut got Sara's scissors and cut half of her hair off. Nice.

On my ride into work I pass this little barber shop in a seedy area of town. I have never seen a soul in there but I couldn’t help but notice the sign that hangs in their front window.

If we can’t make you look good, you’re ugly!

While I doubt this brings in too many customers it has stuck in my mind.

I can’t help but think that the same is true for the situation in Iraq. No matter how much we try to pretty it up, it is just plain ugly. No amount of hand-wringing or optimism will change the fact that we are in a situation that we should never have gotten into in the first place.

I think it is telling that we don’t even know what it would mean to ‘win’ this conflict. Deposing Saddam, we thought that was winning. Helping the govt. to be established, thought that was winning too. The sad fact is, there is no way to ‘win’. The reasons we went there have changed so much that I don’t think we really know why we are there anymore. The world isn’t safer, Iraq is arguably a breeding ground for terrorism. Saddam is gone, which is great, but the world is full of tyrants and I fear that another type of tyranny will take his torch and run with it.

In America, our lives are comfortable enough that we can sit around and pontificate about the virtues of democracy. But in other countries, as many of us know from our missions, having enough to eat is a more pressing matter. Historically, the only democracy that people from the Middle East have known was imperialism which was synonymous with exploitation. So we are now trying to reform their country in our own image, afraid that if we left them to do things on their own, they would choose to have a government that we could not support.

Is the Middle East thirsting for democracy? Arguably, no. Is it always what is best for them? That’s a tough one. In Russia I met scores of people who cursed the democratic changes that took place in the 90’s because now they have nothing to eat.

Democracy is not something you can give to people. They have to want it, make it for themselves. If not, if you try to force it on people they either reject it or use it in ways we don’t like. Case in point: Hamas.

I wish I had some brilliant point to all of this. The sad truth is I have no clue what I think we should do from here. I don’t think there is a good answer, the only options are ugly from here on out.

I don’t want any more of our soldiers to die fighting a battle we can’t win. A battle they never should have been put in. But, I don’t want Iraq to regress any further than it has. I fear, though, in spite of all our best efforts, we cannot prevent it.

I remember one professor I had at the University of Utah who talked about what he thought would happen in Iraq if we went to war there. He drew a big map of Iraq and split it in three pieces. He talked about how the borders of Iraq were drawn by an British civil servant who had no understanding of the different peoples who lived there, he was just concerned with divvying up the land for the British installed leaders in the region. Here we are, now, still trying to get three different groups to be one homogeneous group. You would think we learned some lessons from British colonialism, but ten again, maybe not. I agree with my professor, it just isn’t going to happen.

I don’t want to be partisan but I am frustrated with those who got us into this mess without thinking it through. There was no justification, and trying to sow democracy was just an afterthought.

I’m just a s patriotic as the next guy, I like to think that I am a little more, perhaps. I want victory, success and prosperity. But isn’t it time we admit we really screwed up. As mistakes go, this one is a biggy, monumental. even. Again I have no solutions, I don’t pretend to think anyone in politics has any great ideas, and I surely don’t have any better ones. I’m just sad and frustrated that fellow Americans are dying for the country we love, and doing it for reasons that were either false or contrived.

So my friends run this blog called “Your turn at the Soapbox.” Which is cool. I like the fact that my friends have such varied political views and that they are willing to talk about them. The want me to post on that blog too. And I guess I will. I am a little pissed that they decided to call me a long-haired, emo-sissy. Not that their calling me names bothers me per se. I’ve known this bunch of guys since high-school. I am however bugged that this is what political discussion has come to mean. If I disagree with you, you simply call me names and try to make me look bad so that you look right. There is no cooperation, no attempt to persuade, no chance to work together on finding a common solution. I think it hurts more that my friends call me a liberal. I have never posted on the blog, and frankly my political views are not well formed and all over the map. They do not fit neatly into one ideology. Despite this fact my friends think that they have me all figured out and they are ready to pull out the labels and names and say things like “...spew out all that liberal sissified poetry you call art...” I am not sure that even makes sense. It’s just an attempt at fancy name calling. The thing that is even sadder is I know that my friends are only half serious. But the people who discuss politics for a living and want to be taken seriously are even worse. Ann Coulter’s calling John Edwards a “faggot” is a perfect example. If I called one of my co-workers that word, I could be fired; and yet somehow it’s o.k. to use it in public discourse. I hate talking politics with anyone because the response I get from people is always the same if they agree with me, they call the people who don’t names. If they don’t agree with me they call me names. It’s always discouraging. In fact I think there are two major problems with Americans my age. The first is what I have been describing. If I disagree with you, you are (insert political, racial, sexual, intelligence insult or other slur or slander here). The other is if I am messed up it’s someone or something else’s fault, and I am not responsible. We need to own up to these things. Our grandparents would be ashamed of the way we act. Oh and my hair was never really that long.

Something James said earlier made me think.

We have so many more important and pressing matters to attend to than to constantly attack Bush during the most crucial time in our nation's history........I'm telling you right now, I would even support the vile Clinton's if they were still in control.

I have heard this idea before, here and elsewhere, that we should support our President in anything that he does. The justification for this idea is, as I understand it, that we are Americans and shouldn't doubt our leaders. While this is obviously necessary for those in the armed services, this is a ridiculous thought for the rest of us.

In this "most crucial time in our nation's history" (which I'm not too sure about. I think the Civil War was a might bit more crucial) we should be doubting everything our President says and does, especially when much of it flies in the face of our history and constitution.

I've tried to trace where this thought has come from and I have discovered it's source. Yup, that's right, the source of all brilliant contemporary political thought: Britney Spears. Here's what she said:

Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

That was shortly after she stated, brilliantly, "Would I (ever kiss a woman) again? No! I would not do it. Maybe with Madonna, but..."

Instead of prescribing to blind obedience, let's hear what Thomas Jefferson said:

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

When we convince ourselves that we should not question the acts of our leaders we allow ourselves to be mislead. The patriotic thing to do is question, disagree, propose alternatives and doubt our leaders.

Sometimes I say things and regret that I have said them. I guess that the buffer that usually exists between brain and mouth is malformed in my physiology. I suppose that is the danger of talking politics, especially the way that I do it. I specialize in parody and sarcasm. And, too often, parody can be mistaken for hatred or vitriol. Simply reading someone else's thoughts (like on a blog) it is hard to sense where the sarcasm is and where the true belligerence is. It's easier when I draw cartoons because no one takes me seriously, but people still choose to get angry.

In a round about way, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone by what have said here. The original intent of this site was for us to have a place where we can share our thoughts, however disparate and undefinable they may be. Hopefully understanding one another better, and perhaps becoming more open-minded to each others positions. In the process, I think we are able to maintain the relationships I so value but sometimes unabashed fraternity comes through.

Just as when we have the rare opportunity to actually see one another, we joke and tease, bringing up dirty laundry and calling each other names. While an exercise in immaturity, I consider it a harmless manifestation of our brotherhood. When I call my friends names, I do so in full parody mode (ie when James blew me away in Halo, I called him a jerk, didn’t mean it, but I said it anyway). I think you all know that I am probably the biggest long-haired emo-sissy on the planet, I am unabashed Death Cab for Cutie and Weezer fan, and love reading Ralph Nader and Michael Perenti (collective gasp). And have you seen my hair lately?

I do consider what we do to be different that Coulter in that she means it when she says ‘faggot.’ When I call you guys names I say it with no more hatred than familial teasing. I don’t know how that got lost, but I am sorry that it did.

But, there is one person in my family that my wife has forbidden me to speak about politics with because said person cannot leave personal feelings out of the conversation. I cannot have a political conversation with this person without them taking everything I say as a personal insult. They become belligerent and hold it against me for months. It’s a loss, because I think we could find a lot more in common if we just talked more. I hope that won’t happen with us.

I think that we in this country must be able to openly disagree and too often we aren’t willing to do so. As I have said here before I think most people don't fall into the two categories 'liberal' or 'conservative, and I surely don't. It seems that so many people are stuck behind their point of view and unwilling to talk. In a politically disparate time, people stand behind their party stances and lob canned attacks at each other. But at least here, we are talking, and having a good time at it. I get to hear things from James that are FAR from my thinking. I have to try to understand it, and think of what it means to me. Maybe he will make me vote for Mitt in ‘08 (don’t count on it, I just haven’t made my mind up yet!) and I don’t know of anyone else with whom I could have such open political conversation, blatant disagreement even, and still love you guys to death.

If there is name calling, which, there has only been one instance of, it is not a political attack. It’s teasing, and I'm sorry if it was hurtful.

This picture belongs in the editorial section or political cartoon segment.......but the front page on a "responsible" newspaper????? It's funny.....here I am minutes from where he gave this speech, and the local papers haven't even covered this. Interestingly, he has lots of hispanic support down here--the Miami-Dade County Commissioner among them. It is a funny picture though.....especially after (a few weeks ago) Romney gave his thoughts on Castro........particularly his "I can't wait until he's dead" thoughts.

I stand corrected, by fighting the terrorist abroad--we have not kept war from our shores.

Here’s a thought for you. How long will conservatives have a real grip on this country? Not long judging by the field of Republican presidential candidates. The front-runner is pro- choice and pro-gay-marriage for heavens sake! Let’s take a closer look at their personal lives and see how much they value their families. From Greg Seargant of the Horse’s Mouth:

How many divorces have their been among the men -- and women -- in the Democratic field? Let's run through them real quick, just for the fun of it. None of the following liberal Dem candidates has gotten divorced:

(1) Hillary: You know the story. No need to repeat it

(2) Obama: Married to Michelle, whom he met when she was just out of law school, for 15 years.

(3) Edwards: Married to Elizabeth since 1977; they've had four children, one of whom was killed in a car crash. As Andrew Sullivan recently observed: "Most couples never survive the death of a child. The Edwards family did — and went on to have two more."

(4) Richardson: Married to his high-school sweetheart for 33 years.

(5) Biden: First wife killed in car accident in 1972; married to his current wife for almost 30 years.

Yeah, you have to really scrape your way to the bottom of the Democratic field to find divorces. The only Dem Presidential candidate with any kind of credible shot who has gotten divorced is...Chris Dodd, who divorced in 1982.

In fact, if you think about it, the entire field of Dems deemed credible boasts fewer divorces than Rudy Giuliani alone!

What does this mean for Republicans? I don't know, but it's a sad day when you compare your candidate to a Clinton and are left wondering about their morals.

I want to reserve judgement. I would like my conservative friends to help me not think so poorly of the Head of State. Please, clear this up for me. I don’t want to, really, truly don’t want to believe that our President is an idiot. But, listening to him whenever he opens his mouth I can’t help but think he ain’t too bright. I’m not saying this to be mean or to disparage him. I just cannot stand to listen to him talk simply because I get embarrassed for him. It’s like watching a kid giving an oral report in class who spent his time playing XBOX instead of studying. I’m sure he is knowledgeable, he graduated from a prestigious school. I’m sure he has an understanding of world issues and politics, he is the Pres after all. But, then, why does he sound like such an idiot?

A few examples.

Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die.

Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?

I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein.

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."

Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country.

Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.

You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.

Here’s a great exchange.
President Bush: Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?
Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times: I can take them off.
Bush: I'm interested in the shade look, seriously.
Wallsten: All right, I'll keep it, then.
Bush: For the viewers, there's no sun.
Wallsten: I guess it depends on your perspective.
Bush: Touché.

Exchange with legally blind reporter Peter Wallsten, to whom Bush later apologized, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

No question in my mind these are tough times for America. But there's no question in my mind we'll prevail. Right is on our side. And we'll prevail, because we're a fabulous nation, and we're a fabulous nation because we're a nation full of fabulous people.

It’s not just these occasions. I have a habit of not listening to his addresses because it is just too painful.

Is it too much to ask for a President who doesn’t sound like an idiot? To the rest of the world, he is our spokesman. That thought alone makes me want to cry. Now he is spouting about how he doesn't want his aides to appear in front of congress under oath because it would be a ‘show trial’ (Yea, I digress). First off, has anyone asked the President if he knows what a show trial is (doubt it), and second, has he no understanding of how common this is? Since Republicans are so fond of harking back to the Clinton days, lets look back and see how many White House aides appeared under oath before congress. In total: 31.

So is the the testimony part that they are so afraid of, or the under-oath part? Strange, in this case, Clinton appears to have a higher moral ground than Bush.

And he could put two sentences together.

My praises go out to Josh for an awesome updated site. Well done buddy! It looks fantastic. The drawings are hillarious. I love them. I am proud to be associated with such talented people.

Let the fun of the '08 election begin. Believe me, there is a lot more at stake then partisan politics. It is scary to even comprehend the tragedy of what would happen to our country if the wrong person gets to the White House. I am not condoning Pres. Bush with that statement, I am only verbalizing the need for the Winston Churchill of our times. It is going to get really intersting...

I'm done tweaking the site, for now at least. I left room in the graphic at the top of the page for any of our other friends who want to start posting. Also, the traffic to the blog has increased a lot the past week so I just wanted to say welcome to our guests and invite anyone to post comments. Oddly, it seems like the biggest jump in traffic is coming from visitors in Malaysia- don't have a clue why but, welcome anyway!

Things might get a little wonky around here. I'm trying to update the site to give it a cooler feel so be patient with me. When I'm done, we'll have little caricatures of us up top- there's an old one of me right now, but I should have yours done soon.

Other than the visual stuff, it's basically the same, but comments are now located on the top of the post instead of the bottom. Let me know what you think!

Instead of responding to James' post about Valerie Plame in the comments I thought I would just start another post because, well... I'll admit it, I'm long winded.

I think it is hilarious how Conservatives have tried to downplay the Plame affair. Really, though, it shouldn't be a surprise. It is potentially the largest scandal to hit the Bush administration- quite an accomplishment since this administration has taken to scandal like a fat kid to spaghetti-o's.

Let’s lay out the facts. First, Valerie Plame was not only a covert agent but had a ‘Non-official cover’ or NOC, one of the most difficult (but not the most difficult-deep cover )type of cover for the agency to create. She wasn’t a desk jockey. She was an intelligence officer posing as a private energy expert. She was a spy.

The second fact is that she was outed to damage her husbands credibility. Someone (not exactly sure who- but I’m guessing Rove was the genesis of the idea but Cheney probably gave birth to it) wanted damage Wilson's credibility and knew the easiest way to do it. The White House was on course to invade Iraq and no amount of truth was going to stop them. They were willing to do anything to get there.

This is a unique situation because it is the only time in our history that an undercover agent was outed by the White House during a time of war.

Oh yea, outing an undercover agent, that’s a bad thing to do. Treason, in fact.

If she had been outed because she was a double agent, or working for the soviets, that would have been one thing. But outing her because her husband disagreed with the administrations policies? That is such an appalling disregard for the safety of those who dedicate their lives to our country that any undercover agent should be shaking in their shoes.

It looks as though this leak wasn’t even authorized or done through proper channels.

The last person to get caught leaking classified information was Daniel Ellsberg in 1971 who did it to prevent the United States from getting into further wars. He faced multiple life sentences.

Cheney (probably) leaked info in a dirty political trick. I’m calling it treason.

Not only did that expose someone who dedicated and risked her life to this country, but also years and thousands of dollars in building her front company "Brewster Jennings & Associates" and all the people who work there.

It is disgusting disregard to anyone who sacrifices for this country. The idea that the White House will destroy your career, put your life in danger and commit treason because your spouse dares to point out the fact that the President is either lying or uninformed is a blight that cannot be forgiven.

As for the book deals, she looks pretty, etc. If you were the only person be on the receiving end of a treasonous act by a White House official, you would write a book too! Also, is the act of writing a book a sign that you wanted to end up in a current situation? Right! I’m sure that Sgt. Bryan Anderson became a triple amputee just so he could get on the cover of Esquire.

Cheney makes Spiro Agnew look like Robin Hood.

John Kerry video

I don't know if you can follow this link, but I watched this on the net and thought it was interesting.......check it out.

What do you guys think about this mess?

I was hoping to hear some evidence of foul play.......so far, all we know that their was a leak. But to imply a conspiracy..........is the left blowing this out of proportion (this case definately has a partisan feel)? Honestly, I'm legitimately curious to what you guys think. It's a shame it happened, but the case just seems to be lacking anything of substance.

No one can deny this is yet another partisan affair......Reid is ticking me off--his accusations before any evidence is so Gulf-War like.

It seems like Plame is glorifying her past with the CIA. She wasn't as covert as she claims. Does she have alternivative motives.......she's coming out with a book, she's in the limelight, she's pretty............it seems like this "blow to the gut" was the best thing that's ever happened to her.

Is this case anything more than a moment(s) of incompetence by Libby.....maybe Cheney?

I'm trying hard to understand the Rove situation as well......do I have to be more patient to understand the "meat" and implications of this case. What exactly, was done illegally......help me out. Is it illegal to fire people........I thought Rove's job was appointed by the President--to a certain degree it makes sense to have people that share common ground. I don't understand what's going on. It sounds like the President wasn't even involved.

This is a politcally incorrect essay.....especially since I'm White focusing on Black issues......oh well, just know that I realize their is a bigger picture to what I've written.....My focus is just that many Blacks should at least consider leaving the Democrat Party.

It’s been since Kennedy that African-Americans have been glued to the Democratic Party. This relationship is like a bad marriage. The honeymoon is over and ended in the 70s.

Ya' know, a marriage should be a companionship where each spouse is able to share their love in a give-and-take relationship. The Democratic Party is like the husband on the recliner waiting for his wife to bring him the newspaper, his remote control, a nice cold beer, and expecting a foot massage……….in the meantime, taking his wife for granted and giving nothing back in return.

What have the Democrats done for Blacks lately?

The Democratic Party should be exposed for capitalizing on the misfortune and dysfunctions of those they “represent.” By exploiting the crises the poor face, they promote “entitlements” and ignore the prospects of self-sufficiency or the hope of a better future. Kind of sounds like leeches thriving on the bleeding wounded doesn’t it?

What have these entitlements produced…..hard to say exactly, but 70% of African-American children are born out of wedlock—their daddies have been replaced by the welfare check apparently.

The low expectations the Democrats place on Blacks is pure and simple bigotry. It’s wrong, it’s conceited, it is why affirmative action is wrong……..let’s stop undermining people’s vast potential! Let’s start giving people a hand and not a hand-out!

I don't think it will be long until more Blacks join the Republican Party. Let's face it--the majority of Blacks are already social conservatives (abortion, gay marriage). It can't be long.

Next short essay will be on our flawed Welfare system.

Guess who's movin' up in the polls?

Yep! 22%.........just 7% behind frontrunner Rudy (in New Hampshire).

1st place in having the strongest character.
1st place in his stance on major issues.

Not bad........Not bad at all.

Just imagine what some name recognition would do--only 50% of Republicans know who Romney is!

Man I'm glad all the bogus stories on him have almost been exhausted......especially when his profile was pretty low. The liberal media will be hitting themselves for their bad timing in the months to come.

Although, look for an upcoming story from the Washington Post: "Romney's Mormon Force in Iowa." Well, that's what the reporter might call it. This reporter has been harassing BYU graduates in Iowa trying to dig up a story of Romney mingling church and politics.

It's funny, I bet black ministers are preaching from their pulpits to vote for Hillary or Obama, and evangelicals are preaching support for Brownback or Huckabee........but Mitt is the one getting crapped on for not separating church from politics.

Off the subject:
I really want republicans to stretch out their hands to african-americans more........it's ridiculous that 90% of them vote democrat. Personally, I think it's from ignorance and heavy political sway from idiots like Jackson and Sharpton.

Dems take minority votes for granted........I can't wait until it's exposed.

I can't wait for the day the blacks realize that many of them are in this perpetual state of living in the slums because the dems keep them there. Don't worry--someday I'll write an essay to express my views on this subject in depth. But right now I should get back to studyin'.

Here's one where I had to bite my tongue to keep myself from laughing out loud.

I had just laid Lincoln down to sleep after we read our scriptures and he said his prayers. We were just talking (he is a master at postponing bedtime) and I thought I would talk to him about his primary lesson.

I said something about the Holy Ghost not having a body when he came up with this perfectly logical conclusion based on his understanding of how prayer works.

"Daddy. If I get lonely I can pray!"

"That's right Lincoln, you can!"

"Yup, and after I pray, I'll hear a 'ding-dong'!"

That made me pause. I don't think he's seen It's a Wonderful Life so I had no idea where he was coming from.

"You would hear a 'ding-dong'?"

"Yup, and I would open the door and Jesus would be here! Then I wouldn't be lonely!"

At that moment, I had to feign a coughing fit. I had no brilliant answers and didn't feel like explaining the Crucifixion and resurrection right before bedtime so I left it at;

"Well, Jesus couldn't come to the house because..... he's..... very far away. But if you do get lonely the Holy Ghost can help you feel better."

I know, brilliant. I thought I was in for another doozy but he just stared back at me with fixed eyes and said,

"That's right daddy. He doesn't have a body."

Thought I would beat you to the punch.

I might have to start another site if this keeps up.

I could call it 'Mormons against Mitt'.