Monday, October 30, 2006

Endorsements and Predictions--or--Brouhaha 2006

by Escutcheon Blot

Reading from afar, as I am wont to do on a daily basis, I have formulated a useful list of endorsements in the various gubernatorial, senatorial, and house-of-representativatorial races next Tuesday, November 7th. Bear in mind I have not seen one commercial, and only know what I can read online(I have no patience for videos). This is by no means an exhaustive, or even informed, list. I expect it, however, to be obeyed.

My first endorsement is for the opponents of all former professional football players:

Lynn Swann (R)-a lightweight bit of obvious tokenism. Ed Rendell is no treat, but Swann is running because he's famous, and the Republican party gave him a pass in the primaries because he was black, and the Steelers had just won the Super Bowl.

Heath Shuler (D)-one of the worst ever quarterbacks this lifelong 'Skins fan had to endure(and we've had lots to endure lately--to hell with firing the coach--let's fire that damn Boy Wonder of an owner!).

and for the noble amateur:

George Allen (R) and James Webb (R-D-whatever)-both (if I recall correctly) race-baiting college players. One is a dumb jerk, the other is a mean jerk. There is an independent in the race who could, by endorsing one of them, ensure the election of the other (her idea: massive new spending on light rail in one of the stingiest states in the union).

Lightweight sons of famous (and often better) fathers. NB: there are no Bushes or Kennedys on this list.

Tom Kean, Jr (R)-nice guy, bit dim, jumped with unseemly haste on the NJSC gay marriage decision. I am sick of the use of gays as punching bags by both parties.

Bob Casey, Jr (D)-a pro-life son of a famously pro-life father who has assured his fellow Pennsylvania Democrats that although he's pro-life, he doesn't really mean it. Professional politician who seems to run for office for lack of anything better to do. Unqualified.

Lincoln Chaffee (R)-unlikeable little nitwit. (Oh yeah, and Carter's son out in Nevada, can't remember his name.)

Self-Righteous Church Boys

Harold Ford (D)-does commercials in front of church pews, apologizes for liking Jesus. Rants against gays like a Trent Lott(vote against him too). Oh yes...thinks that a nuclear Australia is grave risk to national security.

Rick Santorum (R)-certainly better prepared than his opponent, but a little too Falwellesque with his direct line to God. Does get on Hillary's nerves, though(vote against her too).

Ted Strickland (D) and Ken Blackwell (R)-more of same from above.

Race-baiters-by-proxy

Bob Corker (R)-should have spoken up loudly and clearly against stupid(if not actually racist)Playboy Bunny ad. To be fair, any ad on that topic would have been construed by some Vanderbilt academic as racist.

Ben Cardin (D)-has let his colleagues, his own campaign employees and his party use outrageous racial innuendo against the only really promising senate candidate in the country. Also clueless career politician; twenty years in Washington is sufficient.

William McKinley complexes.

John Hostettler (R)-who seems to think that it is 1896 and he can run a porch front campaign. I am not a fan of the unseemly lust of the professional politician after his sinecure, but the Hon. Mr. Hostettler shows a little too much noblesse oblige in his re-election attempt. Also another gay-baiting church boy.

Special cases.

Ned Lamont (D)-one Paris Hilton in the Senate is enough. Jay Rockefeller doesn't need the competition.

Robert Menendez (D)-Corrupt Jersey Political Machine Boss.

Ted Kennedy (D)-aside from Chappaquidick, he's now a known Cold-War-Quisling. Andropov in televised debates with Ronald Reagan? Please...dumb too. And an environmentally-threatening largeness of face.

Robert Byrd (D-KKK)-how long does the Senate need a conscience, anyway? Isn't that sort of thing an anachronism?

Nancy Pelosi (D)-wants to put the gavel of the House "in the hands of America's children". No thank you Helen Lovejoy.

Tan Nguyen (R)-a naturalized immigrant himself, countenanced an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise legitimate voters, other foreign-born citizens like himself.

Loretta Sanchez (D)-above's opponent. Won first House race against B-1 Bob Dornan on the strength of illegal immigrant voting(an unproven allegation I am repeating anyway). One is just as bad as the other.

That is the list of my negative endorsements. The list of positive ones is lamentably, far shorter. I am not sure whether this reflects the paucity of honorable characters in politics, or my own misanthropy.

Michael Steele (R-A in scarlet)-(see above) could be a truly great Senator. Also--despite obvious tokenism in the Pennsylvania race--it is not healthy for a multi-racial nation to have one race a seemingly wholly-owned subsidiary of one political party.

Joseph Lieberman (I-D, we'll see)-another obnoxious church(temple)-boy, but seems to realize that the War on Terror is truly about our continued existence. His trust-fund opponent appears not to think it likely.

Conrad Burns (R-cattle caller)-precisely because he is an unlikeable jerk. The Senate needs one. Just one, though. Vote against any of the others I have forgotten.

Nancy Johnson (R)-the only race which actually means anything to me personally. I have met and spoken at length with the Connecticut congresswoman, and found her not only sympathetic, but an enthusiastic booster of the arts, not only officially, but personally(and intelligently--unlike so many dimwit political poseurs--nicely skewered by Camille Paglia recently and regularly).

And finally, for the sake of Euphony, and in consideration of the Reverend Jackson's declining years:

Chris Choccola (R) and Kathleen Harris (R)- for where would Jesse be without being able to rant about 'Draccola and Choccola'?


By my count that leaves the Senate (assuming all other races follow poll predictions) at:

Republicans: 55
Democrats: 39
Independent/Socialist/Will vote with Dems: 2
Vacant: 4

On second thought, vote against a few more Republicans. They shouldn't keep a 55 seat majority after the supercilious demagoguery and lard-lined appropriations of the last few years. I'd like to see the vacant seats hold the balance of power.

Perhaps they could be filled by a new reality show on Fox, American Super-Senator. Just as long as Clay Aiken doesn't get in.

But seriously, remember that not voting is also a vote...against the entire system. This is a point that people forget when politicians are constantly urging them to participate, as they (the pols) have no legitimacy otherwise. An election where only a minority of voters participate isn't truly valid in a democracy. Fortunately, we have a republic. Ha.

Yours in disgruntlement and disaffection,

Escutcheon Blot


P.S. my actual predictions:

Senate: R-52, D-46, I/D-1, S-1 (I think either MD, MT, or NJ will surprise)

House: No idea who will have the nominal majority, but it will be too small to be workable. Hastert will not be speaker.

Governors : Clear Democrat majority--first time since 1994.

Of course there will be some unsurprising November surprise which will then make all of these predictions invalid.

4 comments:

Jeffrey said...

They [GOP] shouldn't keep a 55 seat majority after the supercilious demagoguery and lard-lined appropriations of the last few years.

Liked your post, Scutch, but I can't get behind that entire sentiment. Lard-lined appropriations are a problem, sure, and supercilious demagoguery - well, that's just the Senate, pacaderms and asses both. But it seems that 55 wasn't high enough to get that GOP rubberstamp the anti-Bush crowd promised. I'd be content for the GOP to simply hold both house, but I also feel that having 39 or 46 or even 20 Dems in the Senate these days just isn't responsible given their various worldviews. Maybe, when the war is won and our great great grandchildren want to give the party another go, the day will come when voting for the Democrats will be the right thing to do.

Finally, just a question: is there a difference between old wariors of the grid-iron getting shined up and running for office and old warriors doing so? Quality men can certainly come from both areas, but there's also the tendency to ride on past exploits alone.

EscutcheonBlot said...

Jeffrey,

I was feeling as anti GOP as I was Dem, until John F****n' Kerry opened his big dumb arrogant mouth--working that old black magic of his. Now I can't separate the party from the pr*ck. (can I write that?)

As far as old warriors go; sports heros have a huge advantage over soldiers, in that sports is a (largely) individual effort, even on teams, and with TV, films and stat sheets, one KNOWS if an athlete was good.

With soldiers the issue is far less clear cut. Look at Kerry and Bush, and the manifold controversies over their service. The truth will never be known about either one. A mediocre soldier who is a good politician is more likely to climb the ladder to a general's star than a great fighter and leader of men...who is likely to get stuck at full colonel. (I am drawing from my own very military family's history). Look at Wesley Clark or Colin Powell. Neither has ever been accused of being a great soldier. In fact, men who served under Clark in Germany, with whom I have spoken, said that he was an insufferable ass, with one eye always out for personal political advancement. That, of course, is hearsay, which is why I am saying here. heehee.

Lynn Swann was a demonstrably good football player who has proved to be a disastrously unprepared candidate. If I were voting in Pennsylvania, the choice would be a clear one.

Heath Shuler was a demonstably catastrophic NFL quarterback who, in a much lower profile race(making it hard to judge),has consistently ducked debates. He is also running so hard to the right that he would be a little too conservative for the REPUBLICANS in New England.

And how many great leaders have come from either one, really? Ike and who else? Grant was a disaster. McClellan had the chutzpah to match himself against Lincoln. From sports, Steve Largent?!?? How a republican managed to lose Oklahoma in a Republican year is almost as great a feat as John Silber's(D) being so insufferable that Massachusetts has elected GOP governors for 12 years running.

So I'm not really sure that either is a great source of political leadership. Maybe I'm forgetting someone. (George Washington, our greatest president, was always more of a politician than a soldier). And anyway, the exception of Washington would tend to prove the rule, wouldn't it?

EB

Jeffrey said...

Ah, Scutch, you've been in Germany too long! Of course you can say pr*ck and F*****n' and whatever you want. There are no words that are verboten in America. Not by law, anyway. Heck! you can even question the patriotism of others here - if you so desire. I trust the contributors at Liverputty Inc. to maintain a reasonable level of decorum voluntarily.

Jeffrey said...

Re: Steve Largeant – Heh. I was a fan of his when he was with the Seahawks. His run for governor, however, was poor. He played it way too safe, and took victory for granted. That attitude was very distasteful to me – though I admit that I voted for him simply for his party alignment (plus Henry’s main issue, a state lottery, did nothing for me). As it turned out, Brad Henry has been a good governor, and I’ll be voting for him next week over Istook.

Re: Kerry’s remark - While I sincerely believe that Kerry is a giant self-absorbed ass, and I’m thankful every day that he is not our President, his latest remark and subsequent ham-fisted confused defense of it did not upset me at all (though I relish any moment he puts his foot in his mouth). I think 2004 pretty well defined his relationship with the military for most people (whether you liked him or not), and his comment didn’t change any of that. I was a little surprised at how quickly Bush pounced on it – though I completely understand why radio show hosts are making fun of him. The GOP could use the gaffe as a clarifier, but they shouldn’t bank on it as if it were the most outrageous thing anyone’s ever said.

Re: Warriors turned politicians – I agree with most of what you said on the matter. A favorite comparison for me is Lincoln vs. Jefferson Davis. Lincoln has barely any military experience to speak of (and he made fun of it himself) while Davis was a West Point grad that served in the Mexican War. So far as wartime presidents go, Lincoln bested Davis in just about every aspect imaginable.

Unrelated comment about the election coverage - I am now officially tired of the phrase “October Surprise.” Rightwing pundits (and others, to a lesser extent) have over-used it to describe everything that has happened in the last two months. It’s equivalent to questioning the timing by Rove for every bit of news about troop levels. As a result, the term has lost its meaning.