Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Democratic Partying
From the Abbot Kinney Festival in Venice. She was a volunteer for the Democrats. Sorry if it's cruel for me to say, but how come the Republicans usually seem to look hotter?

screwshirt.jpg

Note the peace sign dangling from her neck. Now, I was, as I like to say, "against the Iraq war before I was against the Iraq war," but peace signs are silly. War is sometimes necessary to have peace, and to protect freedom and free societies. Once you're no longer a 14-year-old "revolutionary," it's time to recognize this.

Next slide? A flyer tacked up at the lady's booth:

westlademsbein.jpg

Yes, they're having a "Be-In," and suggesting people "Reveal (their) Inner Hippie!" (Please! We're frightened. Don't disrobe!)

Over in Republicanland, I believe they're wearing "business casual," and serving drinks that have actual alcohol in them instead of hemp.

Now, I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican -- more of what I call a "common-sense moderate" (for electing the least moronic and sleazy sell-out running) -- but whatever you are, you have to admit, Republicans seem to have more fun.

That said, please do vote your conscience, not your shot glass. Two questions: The presidential candidate you'd vote for right now. And vice-presidential candidate, if you could choose.

Okay, one more: Is there anybody not running whom you think should be?

Posted by aalkon at October 9, 2007 1:28 PM

Comments

Who should be running? Hillary. John Edwards....

Oh. You mean, for office.

Tom Hanks. If you're going for a popularity contest, how can one pick a troll promising to pay us with our own tax money - and who has apparently never read the Constitution - over a guy who's made 12 movies grossing over $100 million each, looks good in a dress, fatigues and a spacesuit and is regarded as a genuinely nice guy by the "little people" he works with?

We wouldn't even have to go vote. "Here, Tom, the keys. Enjoy your stay."

Posted by: Radwaste at October 9, 2007 2:20 AM

And if that naive thing with the shirt thinks that sex is the only thing wrong that went on in the Oval Office back then, ask the nitwit what she knows about John Huang.

Posted by: Radwaste at October 9, 2007 2:24 AM

Conservatism is more fun: http://urltea.com/1p7l

Posted by: Crid at October 9, 2007 2:50 AM

> ask the nitwit what she
> knows about John Huang.

Also what she knows about James McDonough, and why the sex wasn't bad enough: http://www.slate.com/id/1000183/

Posted by: Crid at October 9, 2007 2:57 AM

Look, people keep wanting to compare Bill Clinton to JFK. No. Kennedy banged Marilyn Monroe. Have you had a good look at the women that Clinton either bagged or felt up? JFK wins on style points alone.

Of all the candidates, there isn't a single one I can vote for. And it doesn't matter, since my state will slavishly vote for whichever Democrat gets the nod.

I'd prefer Ronald Reagan right now. But he's a bit pre-occupied.

We're doomed.

Posted by: brian at October 9, 2007 4:10 AM

I'd like to see another Clinton/Gore ticket. Are there term limits on the VP slot?

Posted by: Roger at October 9, 2007 4:46 AM

Which Clinton and Gore? And who's in what position.

My favorite line from the Powers piece Crid linked to -- about The Nation versus The Weekly Standard:

As gray and unappetizing as homework, The Nation makes you approach it in the same spirit that Democrats might vote for Gray Davis -- where else can you go? In contrast, The Standard woos you by saying, "We're having big fun over here on the right."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 9, 2007 5:04 AM

Tom Hanks??!! How totally frightening a thought though I can think of worse. But the ego on that guy alone puts you off. Ever since he did "Philadelphia" (which was a great movie), he's appointed himself the self-righteous moral indicator of what American conscious ought to be. Me, I wanted to vomit every time he called AIDS victims angels. Where was "God" when the angels were dying? I used to be a huge Tom Hanks fan 'til his ego grew to get in the way of his work. Someone needs to sit him down and force him to do about a two-day marathon viewing of Busom Buddies. The blond guy (Peter Scolari) always was the cute one. Hanks may be a good actor but enough already with the moralizing. If he were president, he'd be the "liberal" version of Bush. We don't need that either.


Posted by: Donna at October 9, 2007 5:18 AM

Who'd I'd vote for? I don't like anyone running. But I'm thrilled that Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away. She'd be a much better choice for our first woman president than (shudder) Hilary.

Posted by: Donna at October 9, 2007 5:18 AM

> I'd like to see another
> Clinton/Gore

Roger? Roger Clinton? We'd heard you were living in Marina Del Rey.....

Posted by: Crid at October 9, 2007 5:28 AM

Someone needs to sit him down and force him to do about a two-day marathon viewing of Busom Buddies.

This is now our military policy for captured Al Qaeda terrorists.

And that was very funny, Crid (Roger Clinton).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 9, 2007 5:37 AM

Re: women presidents

Ladies, vote your conscience, not your labia.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 9, 2007 5:38 AM

Donna - Please turn in your voter registration card now. If you think Hillary is worse than Pelosi, you aren't paying enough attention to be allowed to vote. Sure, they're both corrupt commies. But Pelosi is as dumb as a box of rocks. Hillary's only evil.

I'll take evil over stupid any day. At least with evil you can appeal to ego to get them to do something useful.

As far as Clintons, the only one I'd vote for is George. Is America ready for a funky president?

Posted by: brian at October 9, 2007 6:22 AM

Is America ready for a funky president?

Indeed, but those days are past. RIP James Brown.

As far as candidates go, I'm anti-impressed by the lot of them. It's hard not to find Mike Huckabee personally appealing, but the guy's social views scare the heck out of me. Romney's a huge phony; Giuliani and Clinton are authoritarians; Thompson doesn't seem to care enough learn about the issues or policy; Obama is bright and seems to have some character, but isn't ready for prime time...

I'll need to see more before I decide who will screw things up least. So far, no good.


Posted by: justin case at October 9, 2007 6:41 AM

I'll need to see more before I decide who will screw things up least. So far, no good.

Right? I'm in total agreement, justin. It seems to me that ones who should be running are smart enough not to - they don't want the responsibility of trying to clean up the freakin' mess that Bush has made.
(And just for the record, I still wear tie-dye. Once a hippie, always a hippie. But I'm not a stupid hippie. o_O)

Posted by: Flynne at October 9, 2007 6:53 AM

The picture you posted: a woman who looks like that, wearing a t-shirt like that, with a message like that, splayed over her chest like that, with a peace sign like that...a work of art.

Posted by: doombuggy at October 9, 2007 6:55 AM

And can we note that it's pretty fuckin' cynical? It's not like we have to choose between have the interns exploited and any other misconduct....

Posted by: Crid at October 9, 2007 7:02 AM

Flynne - you're not right about the reason for smart people not running. The so-called "mess" that Bush has made is a mere pittance compared with the damage done by Jimmah Carter, and Reagan cleaned that up fine.

No, the reason is that nobody wants to go in for the character assassination and the media anal examination when they can do so much better in the private sector.

Or, as Rush says: "I don't want to take the pay cut."

Posted by: brian at October 9, 2007 7:04 AM

And Bloomberg wants to legalize the illegal immigrants.

And Hillary's health care plan is disastrous.

Piss-poor choices.

And my boyfriend threatens to divorce me every time I say I'd probably vote for Newt.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 9, 2007 7:06 AM

> Which Clinton and Gore? And who's in what position

That would be Hillary (top banana) and Al (VP). She could cure the health care woos and he could reinvent the internet.

As for Newt, I could never vote for a lizard.

Posted by: Roger at October 9, 2007 8:07 AM

Well, if you voted for Carter, you voted for a pet rock!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 9, 2007 8:09 AM

No, the reason is that nobody wants to go in for the character assassination and the media anal examination when they can do so much better in the private sector.

Ah yes, there is that, then, so I stand corrected, Brian. But we still need someone with at least half a brain and an ounce or two of common sense in office, rather than any of these piss-poor choices who are comin' down the chute, eh? o_O

Posted by: Flynne at October 9, 2007 9:08 AM

Newt is the first choice. I'll never understand why he was forced out in 1998 just because the Republicans lost 5 House seats. Four years prior he delivered the House to the Republicans for the first time in FORTY years.

I'd vote for any one of Romney, Guiliani, or Thompson. Probably in that order of preference.

I have no preference for VP. It doesn't matter.

Posted by: snakeman99 at October 9, 2007 9:09 AM

So far I'm going for Guliani (I know I just butchered his name). So far he's in line with the most of my views, and I've not seen anything truly scary with him.

As for Hilary? Not no, but hell no. I'm sick and damned tired of the government passing laws to "protect me" from myself. I'm not a child, I don't need the gub'mint telling me which video games I can buy and whether or not fast food restaurants should be allowed to sell XYZ. You'd *think* they'd have more important things to think about, but evidently not.

Posted by: Anne at October 9, 2007 9:25 AM

"Of all the candidates, there isn't a single one I can vote for."

Isn't it a little early for this level of cynicism? I love the early goings of an election season without an incumbent. Its like a two-year long playoff series in the modern pentathlon: fundrasing, debating, soundbyting, speech-making, and . . . uh . . . fundraising?

Seriously, though, as voters, we never have as much choice for President as we do right now. I'm not ready to throw them all away and vote for the Perot/Nader ticket just yet.

Posted by: snakeman99 at October 9, 2007 9:49 AM

Brian, I'm about ready to turn it over to you for the asking after reading Amy's other blog on her. But don't worry. I'm so fed up with the two party system I usually throw my vote away on a third party anyway. But I really, really hate Hilary. She pissed me off big time with her it takes a village crap when I was raising my daughter Atheist and had every one and their uncle telling me that I just wasn't being fair and impartial not sending my daughter to church/Sunday school (as if my daughter and I never talked about what others believe). My reaction was your village can stay out of it! They never would get the analogy when I'd say well, then, you're just not being fair not teaching yours Satanism. Also, lost me with the every child born a god believer statement. No, actually, no one believes in God until they are taught to.

Posted by: Donna at October 9, 2007 9:58 AM

And my boyfriend threatens to divorce me every time I say I'd probably vote for Newt.

But couldn't you stay on as his mistress? :)

I dunno....Bill the Cat and Opus are looking more appealing all of the time. Though, I did get a chance to see Giuliani in person recently, and he was impressive. Hey, I'm shallow.

I notice that no one is mentioning Edwards. My theory is that he reached the apex of his political career at the introduction of his debate with Dick Cheney, and it's all been downhill since that precise moment. But I've been wrong before...

Posted by: marion at October 9, 2007 10:00 AM

But couldn't you stay on as his mistress? :)

Actually, I like to think of myself as his mistress.

He is on the phone now and says if I vote for Newt, he'll have to do something I find reprehensible...such as voting for Garrison Keilor.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 9, 2007 11:04 AM

Gregg said Edwards' hair looked very, very pretty yesterday.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 9, 2007 11:05 AM

> how come the Republicans usually seem to look hotter?

Like Ann Coulter, you mean? Ugghhhh.....

Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at October 9, 2007 11:30 AM

Duncan Hunter and JC Watts

Posted by: Smarty at October 9, 2007 1:25 PM

"Okay, one more: Is there anybody not running whom you think should be?"

Colin Powell. I'm (marginally) a democrat with libertarian leanings, but I would vote for that man without hesitation....

Sadly, he's too smart to run.

Posted by: Arianne at October 9, 2007 1:51 PM

... how come the Republicans usually seem to look hotter?

Allow me to explain. There is a little understood principle at work here called "conservation of hotness". Take a close look (or not) at some of the Fundie preacher's wives (such as Tammy Faye Baker) and you will be enlightened. Their existance actually strains the fabric of the universe causing a correction elsewhere. My theory is that the bubble headed, leftie college girls suck the cuteness out of women such as the female in your picture. Thus the balance is preserved.

Posted by: Green Artifex at October 9, 2007 2:24 PM

Most recent example of Democratic electoral incompetence:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html

You would think they would try to court, not alienate, Michigan voters, considering how essential MI was to the last presidential election.

Posted by: snakeman99 at October 9, 2007 4:05 PM

Sadly, he's too smart to run.

Plus, Powell pretty much blew his credibility with that godawful UN speech. I'd still be more inclined to vote for him than anyone running, but his performance as Sec of State in GWB's administration showed him to be a bit of a coward in my book.

Posted by: justin case at October 9, 2007 5:35 PM

His rep was always a tad inflated. He was an excellent administrative functionary and office-politics type. He only "blew" the speech to the UN if you thought the UN was good for anything anyway.

Posted by: Crid at October 9, 2007 6:08 PM

He only "blew" the speech to the UN if you thought the UN was good for anything anyway.

He blew it because you could see that he didn't believe what he was saying.

You're right that his rep was inflated; from what I could see he was always a little too cautious and too much of the good soldier (i.e., a follower of orders) rather than a leader.

Posted by: justin case at October 9, 2007 7:40 PM

That Colin Powell believes that the UN is a force for good disqualifies him from any serious public discourse.

Next victim please.

Posted by: brian at October 9, 2007 7:52 PM

Republicans have more fun? really? I wonder if your gay friends agree (maybe Tammy Bruce, I guess)

Remind me again which party doesn't want girls to get a cervical cancer vaccine for fear that it might encourage them to have premarital sex.

And I do happen to believe that someone can think war is bad yet still believe it necessary sometimes. There's no shame in advocating for higher ideals even if we don't always live up to them.

Posted by: LYT at October 9, 2007 8:06 PM

> he didn't believe what
> he was saying

His interior life is his own beeswax, but...

> too much of the good soldier

He was an organization guy, absolutely.

Posted by: Crid at October 9, 2007 8:33 PM

> There's no shame in advocating
> for higher ideals even if we
> don't always live up to them

You're conservative now! That's fabulous! Welcome to the Dark Side of the Force! Speak to me at the next party, I'll make sure you get the lapel pin and dinner certificate (redeemable at participating Red Lobster® restaurants).

Excellent. Luke Y. Thompson. Great news.

Posted by: Crid at October 9, 2007 8:39 PM

VPres: Ron Paul
That way I get to hear Paul lecture Senators on why every bill is unconstitutional without having to deal with the ramifications of a return to the Gold Standard. Plus, I can't help but giggle when he gets grumpy, which, as President of the Senate, he's likely to be.

Pres: Jessica Alba
How can any male foreign dignitary sit across from her and not immediately acquiesce to whatever demand she makes?

Posted by: Steve at October 10, 2007 12:26 AM

"...trying to clean up the freakin' mess that Bush has made."

Well, that's another one giving Congress a pass. How depressing.

Tell me: how can we bitch about any abuses of executive power when we turn right around and excuse Congress from its Constitutional duty every chance we get?

Posted by: Radwaste at October 10, 2007 2:45 AM

How about because Bush totally ignores what Congress says or wants anyway, and just does whatever the hell he pleases? o_O

Posted by: Flynne at October 10, 2007 7:38 AM

"Bush totally ignores what Congress says"

Read the Constitution? Articles I and II define the responsibilities of the Congress and the President. I'll point out that there is nothing in Article II about doing what the Congress says or wants.

Posted by: MarkD at October 10, 2007 7:53 AM

Then what the hell is his purpose?

Posted by: Flynne at October 10, 2007 7:57 AM

"How about because Bush totally ignores what Congress says or wants anyway, and just does whatever the hell he pleases? o_O"

Totally. Just like Joaquin Phoenix in "Gladiator," right? Congress is just so, like non-existant, you know?

Seriously. I think the Senators who defeated his "guest worker" program and other immigration reform policies just a few months ago would disagree with you. If you're talking about the war in Iraq, then you're really pissed at your own congressman for continuing to fund the war without an exit strategy. Oh, and for not having the stones to test the constitutionality of the President's (ANY President's) unilateral war-making powers as prescribed by the War Powers Act of 1973.

Posted by: snakeman99 at October 10, 2007 8:04 AM

Well, yes, when you put it that way. I stand corrected once again. I'm sure it won't be the last time. But Snakeman, Joaquin Phoenix in "Gladiator"? Ewwwwwww. Couldn't you have picked a better example?

Posted by: Flynne at October 10, 2007 8:20 AM

If there's something Congress doesn't want Bush to do (up to and including being in Iraq), all they have to do is withhold funding. They don't have the courage, as we've seen. They'd much rather scream and yell about it, to try to make political points and raise money from their supporters.

Sorry, as has been pointed out already, the President is not required to respond to screaming and yelling. An actual vote, yes. But not posturing.

Posted by: cpabroker at October 10, 2007 9:04 AM

No preference among anyone running. The problem is, the only ones who are serious candidates are those not ashamed to beg for money about 3/4 of the time. Money and the constant raising of it has become the be-all and end-all of candidacy, and until this changes, no one with any shame or scruples will likely be running. A shame. We could use someone like that right about now.

Posted by: cpabroker at October 10, 2007 9:09 AM

I heard about the revival of "Hair" for the WLADC benefit, and it make me sort of chuckle with disgust. I guess it's a good strategy, if the objective is to completely kill off any interest that someone under the age of 60 might have in their organization. What a bunch of idiots. I guess this is evidence of the long-term brain effects of LSD.

On a lighter note, the photo also made me chuckle WITHOUT disgust, as it reminded me of Fran Lebowitz's assessment of the musical "Rent":

"I don't need to see 'Rent.' 'Rent' is 'Hair' with AIDS."

Posted by: Lena at October 10, 2007 10:21 AM

I love that! And you're absolutely right about their demographic.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 10, 2007 11:05 AM

Brilliant.

Posted by: Crid at October 10, 2007 11:13 AM

Leave a comment