As you know, we don't like Republicans, and don't ever want any one of them to be elected to any office ever again.
Having said that (and having said, "having said that") we must also confess that we like every Democrat running for president this year. But this crop of GOP haircuts and power ties is the least inspiring group we've ever seen trying to play on a national political stage. Turd blossoms come to mind, as do monkeys and footballs. So today we present our picks for the GOP nomination- starting with the guy (they're all guys, naturellement) we'd like to see at the top of the ticket, and descending to the candidate we're most afraid of.
1. Ron Paul
He's our all. Run, Ron, run! His impressive gravitas deficit and his geezerly, turkey-neck demeanor give him the edge over all the other be-white shirted losers that dot the Republican field like so many cowpats. It's true that a run by the homuncular Ron would be priceless for the late night talk shows, but we Americans gotta quit electing presidents just for that! We must remember that behind that ill-fitting collar is a guy who believes the New World Order with the help of Jewish neoconservatives are working secretly to turn our sovereignty over to Canada and the Mexicans.
2. Tom Tancreado
He sounds like a cartoon because he is one. He's a one-issue candidate and boy is he pissed! Unfortunately, (for us and for him) Americans don't like angry candidates, and this scare-mongering
honyock with his squirrel gun loaded for Mexican can't hurt anybody. But he sure stirs up the Latinos against the Republicans- not that they aren't stirred up against them already . Come on people, nominate this goofball!
3. Rudy Giuliani
Evangelicals would
admit to coveting Michael Jackson's buttocks before
they'd than vote for this guy. And it's more than just because his name
sounds like something Tony Soprano might order at Artie Bucco's
(although that probably plays a part). First of all, the pop-eyed mayor is as liberal as we are on abortion,
gays and guns- that alone is a deal breaker for the born-agains- but
wait, there's more! This guy's got more baggage than Bergman's. Where
to start is the problem: the taxpayer-supported ass-ignations
with someone other than his wife? His cavorting with Qatari terror-masters? The recommendation of penitentiary-bound
buddy Bernie Kerik as a cabinet level director of the largest agency of
the federal government? If all of this doesn't shake the very
fundamentalist soul of the GOP- how about his much video-ed propensity
for wearing women's clothes and letting Donald Trump noozle his ersatz
nipples?
4. Mitt Romney
This guy has taken the fact that he's not Giuliani, added $12 million
of his own money and made himself into a front runner. He's so slippery,
it's a wonder he could stay in bed long enough to sire all those kids.
He made the finest speech money could buy last week to convince the
evangelicals that he was the same as them, but, of course, they weren't buying it. That's because he's unforgivably a Mormon, not a Christian, and orthodox Christians
believe that any religion that makes any claims on God and doesn't
precisely follow their read on the New Testement is Satanic. Mormons have all
manner of goofy beliefs that are different than the goofy beliefs of
the evangelicals, but that's only part of the problem. Romney was the
governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the country, and to get elected, he had to slither to the left: first he was pro-choice and
friendly to gay rights; then he had a sudden revelation- something like the
one that his LDS church had in 1976 letting in the Negroes. Now
he's profoundly pro-life, and for "the protection of traditional marriage"
(read anti-fag). These flip-flops won't pack it with the Christian base
who have been bamboozled many times before by more credible Republican liars than
the handsome Mitt.
(The GOP's pandering to the religious right has come back to bite them: two top-tier candidates, (Romney and Giuliani) both capable and probably electable, have been essentially neutralized because they fail the religion-based social issue litmus tests that trump, for these people, the real problems facing the next president).
5. Fred Thompson
If this man were elected, we'd have to give up the teevee. Besides the
annoying lizard-like way he works his lips and tongue, he's the most
soporific droner since Hoobert Herver. He slowly erects a wall of
verbiage around any question he's asked and keeps building it until the
questioner forgets what they were talking about. He should be left to
his favorite pastimes: making money, and taking naps. Besides, as a
First Lady, Jeri Thompson will never make it- as any Republican woman
knows, anyone with breasts that large must be a slut. (and that
goes for Giuliani's decolletage as well).
5. John McCain
The right wing of the GOP isn't smart enough to nominate McCain. He
could win- he's sufficiently conservative, and he attracts moderates- even some libs like him. God knows why- he's more right-wing than Joe Lieberman. But the conservatives and the evangelicals got turned off to him
long ago and they're not known for letting go of grudges. We're glad,
we think he'd be hard to beat, if they ever nominated him.
6. Mike Huck-a-Bee
Once the Great White Whale, now he's the Great White Hope. Huck-a-Bee
lost a hundred pounds to run for prez, and now he's the flavor of the month-
we hope. (ever wonder what happened to all his extra skin?) We've put
him into this position of dead last which means that we, for lefty
partisan reasons, want him least to be nominated. Despite
his roughness, he
scares us. His preacherly communications skills, scary sense of humor, and underdoggedness could spell trouble. (maybe he's comfortable in his own skin because he's got so much more of it...) But remember
those who knew nobody and came from nowhere to be president: Jimmy Carter, and Bill
Clinton come to mind. They were losers, too but they got elected. We're hoping he'll get nipped in the bud like
Howard Dean. Let's hope tough guy Rudy, or rich guy Mitt can
dispatch him with some dirty tricks in the next few states.
Ah, way to demonize and stereotype any and all people that don't agree with your point of view. Thank you for demonstrating some of the true hallmarks of good, open-minded and oh-so tolerant Seattle liberals.
Posted by: OP | December 10, 2007 at 10:13 AM
So the truth is considered demonizing, close minded and intolerant now? This blog article seems fair albeit unflattering. You're the one who is demonizing Seattle liberals.
Posted by: Andrew | December 10, 2007 at 10:38 AM
So,let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe that we should live in a country ruled by a single political party. I think there is a name for that type of goverment-TOTALITARIAN. I guess after that we should all only have one religious belief as well. Will you be the one dictating that choice too? And I thought it was the conservatives that were the fascist. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Posted by: Ron | December 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM
"ruled " by one political party? hahaahahaa No one is being ruled by anyone. The people had a cahnce to vote for Republican cnadidates. Your guys were just too stupid or sick and wrong to get elected. Tough luck. If it was the other way around you would be crowing about how wise our voters are and not a peep about one-party rule. Hypocrite. Hypoctite.
Posted by: Tommy008 | December 10, 2007 at 10:54 AM
I'm feeling pretty tired now, think I'll go home.
Posted by: Fred Thompson | December 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I'm feeling pretty tired now, think I'll go home.
Posted by: Fred Thompson | December 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM
The R's were happy enough when they controlled all the branches of government, but they didn't have the ability to govern.
Posted by: simmy | December 10, 2007 at 12:31 PM
I'm definately not promoting a single party government. I could like the Republican party if they became more socialy liberal and less theocratic. I won't vote for an Republican at the moment, not even on the local level, because the party as a whole is too radically conservative for me to want to lend it any kind of endorsement whatsoever.
Posted by: Andrew | December 10, 2007 at 01:00 PM
I wholeheartedly agree, OP...next thing you know, those conservatives will be bringing out a line of, oh I dont know, Hillary nutcrackers,,,
Posted by: sparky | December 10, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Well once again some folks want to thow out "the baby with the bathwater". Tom008,I happen to be one of those people that both parties want to impress you know one of those-independent voters! I do not vote for a party I vote for a person regardless of party. However I have grave doubts about anyone that tells me that they are the only ones with the answers to all the questions,and that the other guy is always wrong. In fact I will tell you straight up that is total BS! This nation has been very well served by some republicans and just as well served by some democrats. It also has been poorly served by members of both parties. When you think that one person or party are the only ones with the "right ideals" you show yourself to be either a fool or worse yet a tyrant. I hope that good republicans continue to get elected in this country,just as I hope that good democrats are the same.
Posted by: Ron | December 10, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Ron,
Well said.
Posted by: holodeck | December 10, 2007 at 01:46 PM
In his continueing crusade as self-appointed watchdog for the middle class tacpayer, Dori is goign after Governor Gregoire for her several flyovers over the flood rea, which Monson says is too expensive The more Dori continues with this taxpayer's crusader schtick, the more he reminds of, and sounds like, Floyd R. Turbo, 100% American, the character Johnny Carson used to play in one of his regular skite. Turbo would give guest "Joe sixpack" commentaries at the local television station, dressed up in a plaid hunting coat and a big fleece-lined plaid hunting cap with earflaps.
Posted by: Tommy008 | December 10, 2007 at 02:05 PM
I'm not exactly sure how it all works but I think if you donate to one Republican and they are deemed to have enough funds to win a given race than somehow those funds will find their way to Republicans in closer races who need the money more, so when you combine that with the party allegiances, you can't realy vote for a particular Republican without benefiting the entire party as a whole.
It's for that reason that I think independant voters have weak values. What set of values do you believe in and which do you not? If you are pro-life but decide to donate to a Dem candidate in one particular race, how can you put money in the hands of person who you know will eventualy hand it off to a pro-choice cause?
Posted by: Andrew | December 10, 2007 at 02:06 PM
So the truth is considered demonizing, close minded and intolerant now? This blog article seems fair albeit unflattering. You're the one who is demonizing Seattle liberals.
Thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point, Andrew. Really, I couldn't have said it better myself: Of course it "seems fair" to you, it bashes every GOP candidate to your liking.
Statements like "The guy's got more baggage than Bergman's" and "it's a wonder he could stay in bed long enough to sire all those kids" while very funny I admit, would be seen, if we reversed the scenario, as what they are: ad hominem attacks. It's clever writing, no doubt. But it's ONLY that.
In short, it's OK if Bill Clinton gets a blow and shoots a load onto the blue dress of a White House intern (among other well-known extramarital excursions) and embarrasses and humiliates the First Lady yet again, but Guiliani can't be married three times, the last being the most controversial for it being an "extramarital affair" that started after at least 4 years of well-known strain between he and his second wife. But I thought it didn't matter what the President (mayor) did in his private life? It's his business, right? Or is only our business when it's a conservative? The moral double standard and hypocrisy are glaring.
I wonder just how clever Mr. Hood can be if asked to perform the same exercise on Democratic candidates. I doubt he's up to THAT challenge.
Posted by: OP | December 10, 2007 at 04:39 PM
ANDREW! "I won't vote for an Republican at the moment, not even on the local level"
Are you kidding me?
Have you been paying attention to how this State, King County and the City of Seattle are being run under Democrat leadership? I can't understand anyone putting good sense aside in fear of the Republican party when our area has been screaming for change for the last 20+ years. Please tell me how our local government would be worse off after getting rid of the tax & spenders...
What ever happened to the new 520 bridge & viaduct we were going to get from the nickel gas tax?? Or the 9 cent gas tax?? Don't get me started.
Posted by: Brian | December 10, 2007 at 04:48 PM
brian, maybe they should run as independants or libertarians instead of aligning themselves with the religious pandering evil Republican party. I am still very very bitter about the numerous things the adminsitration has done to harm bipartisanship in the past six or seven years and feel very uncomfortable about showing any support for them whatsoever.
Posted by: Andrew | December 10, 2007 at 05:29 PM
OP, I know those attacks seem below the belt but they realy aren't given that they are asking to represent the Religious Right on election day, and past elections have proven that such dirty details won't inevitably go unoticed. The claim that Fred Thompson takes extra naps and looks funny will be pointed out by many bumper stickers if he gets the nomination. You might as well prepare now for what is sure to come.
Posted by: Andrew | December 10, 2007 at 05:35 PM
"Hillary nutcrackers"
Hilarious.
Posted by: Dana | December 10, 2007 at 06:22 PM
I thought Senator Clinton was the nutcracker in the race...
Posted by: KO | December 10, 2007 at 08:12 PM
I didn't think I'd say this a year ago, but McCain may be about as good as it gets. The reason...we need a president who is respected by both parties. Even though he has made some gaffs since Bush was in office - who hasn't ? he would be respected on both sides (as Bla'm says) - it is tough to say that about any of the others. It is sad that McCain did not take out Bush in 2000.
On the left side - Obama may also be respected on both sides, especially with Oprah campaigning for him. The rap on him is not enough experience - or is just because he is younger than all of the rest and dares to think outside the box ? Hillary, sure as hell is not respected and would create continued polarization between the two parties. She has derived much of her campaign strategy from the Nixon playbook (well documented in "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein). When it gets down to it noone sticks out - although the "Nutcracker" has more blind ambition in addition to being the best poser.
Posted by: KS | December 10, 2007 at 08:42 PM
I didn't think I'd say this a year ago, but McCain may be about as good as it gets. The reason...we need a president who is respected by both parties. Even though he has made some gaffs since Bush was in office - who hasn't ? he would be respected on both sides (as Bla'm says) - it is tough to say that about any of the others. It is sad that McCain did not take out Bush in 2000.
On the left side - Obama may also be respected on both sides, especially with Oprah campaigning for him. The rap on him is not enough experience - or is just because he is younger than all of the rest and dares to think outside the box ? Hillary, sure as hell is not respected and would create continued polarization between the two parties. She has derived much of her campaign strategy from the Nixon playbook (well documented in "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein). When it gets down to it noone sticks out - although the "Nutcracker" has more blind ambition in addition to being the best poser.
Posted by: KS | December 10, 2007 at 08:44 PM
Please excuse the double post - again.
Posted by: KS | December 10, 2007 at 09:09 PM
Laugh it up all you want at Ron Paul and his supporters.
No one else has such dedicated folks behind them. How many cHillery stickers have YOU seen? LOL. The "leading candidates" can't even get 5,000 people to overwhelm Paul for a post debate poll. LOL again!
Come October 08, smart (R)s and (D)s will be trying to convince the Paul people to sellout and vote for a warmonger (R)or (D). And they will fail.
Paul has won something already:
He's given a vision of a US at peace to the young.
And you've not heard the last of it.
Posted by: Paul Supporter | December 10, 2007 at 09:47 PM
Ron Paul is a lunatic and doesn't have a chance in Hell of becoming president. I'm glad to hear that Hillary is not respected because I don't respect her. Obama is not presidential material. We DO NOT need another creationist, ANTI-CARBON DATING, ANTI-SCIENCE moron like Bush in the WhiteHouse, so that rules out Huckabee. Juliani is too mean, BUT COULD POSSIBLY BE TOLERATED. Edwards or McCain look like the best two out of the lot. Yes, if McCain could have taken out Bush, just think, but Bush was able to derail him in South Carolina by a vicious Rove operation that spread lies , about him having a biracial child out of wedlock or some such crap that pandered to the racists.
Posted by: Tommy008 | December 10, 2007 at 11:05 PM
It's interesting to see responses of bung-ed up Right Wingers on this thread. Have any of you heard of humor? You sound like a bunch of crotchety gasbags.
We've seen your broken record a few times in this thread: blame Clinton and change the subject.
With respect to the Clinton/Ghouliani comparison, you are aware that Rudy is trying to pander to a right wing religious base, right? See the difference? Like it or not it pisses of a significant part of the Republican base that he is basically a liberal in many social aspects and is an adulterer (something you guys all diss Clinton for). You'd have to be a hypocrite for hating Clinton but giving Rudy a pass...this is about YOU not liberals.
Why do you guys cry so much when somebody satirically mocks candidates with statements like "behold the vile left?" You think there aren't far worse things being said on right wing blogs? How droll.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | December 11, 2007 at 07:51 AM
The Drudgereport says the DNC sees Huckabee as "easy kill" and are not criticising him at all hoping he will make it to the general election.
They all see like easy kill to me with the exception of John McCain. It's like a painter's pallet of unelectability.
Posted by: Andrew | December 11, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Dave is talking about the State Ferries, another example of our fantastic leadership dropping the ball and ignoring the warning signs that these boats needed replacement years ago. Any of you remember Bryan Suits breaking the story of the Steel Electric ferries back about 4 or 6 months ago? I guess he was just a little smarter than our Governor. It's also quite the coincidence that Suits was let go one day before the state announced they were pulling the ferries from service. Something is fishy here and that's not just seagull dung you're smelling.
Posted by: Brian | December 11, 2007 at 12:02 PM
It's true, Suits was fired by a cabal organized/black ops vis a vis Ferry System and the Governor who is busy finding more nuts to crunch.
Posted by: National Enquirer news | December 11, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Now you’re talking.
Gov Chris ignored the ferries so she could justifiably use the “emergency” clause to raise taxes for it. Then she’ll tack on the whole RTA at the last minute & shove it through the next session. The voters will pay for denying her tax increase, Whaaahahaha!
Posted by: Brian | December 11, 2007 at 12:51 PM
All aboard the WorldNetDaily Party Boat!
Let's see: So Farah will run a wingnut conspiracy contest on the promenade deck... Liddy will bug passenger phones.... and Corsi will ride alongside in his swiftboat.
Duffman: sounds like your Shangri-la! Imagine getting to talk to your WND brethren about the evil UN tax
Posted by: mercifurious | December 11, 2007 at 01:06 PM
KS I did not read the Hilary book, but Edward Klein is the "Walter Scott" who answers Middle America's fan mail on the inside of Parade Magazine. He is no doubt a tried and true Conservative.
That being said, I would not put anything past Hilary in her quest for the White House.
I would like to see Patrick Kennedy throw his hat in.
Posted by: Mike Barer | December 12, 2007 at 12:42 PM
" but Edward Klein is the "Walter Scott" who answers Middle America's fan mail on the inside of Parade Magazine. He is no doubt a tried and true Conservative."
The back cover of the book states: "Edward Klein is the author of The Kennedy Curse, Farewell Jackie and several other New York Times bestsellers. He is also the former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine. He is a frequent contributor to Parade Magazine and Vanity Fair. He lives in New York City."
That does not sound conservative. Since when has an editor in chief of the NY Times magazine been conservative ? Sounds like a more like moderate Democrat. Noone of sound mind should put anything past, let alone trust her.
Face it, there are a number of Democrats who don't care for Hillary because of who she has shown herself to be. She would make Bill look even better than he does now - She would be running the show, not Bill - although he would advise her on more important matters, when he isn't tied up philandering - lol.
Posted by: KS | December 12, 2007 at 07:05 PM