A lot of LIberals are speaking out against Bob Rae's apparent move to secure the permanent leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Of course, it goes without saying that a lot of Liberals are very stupid, which is why they're Liberals in the first place.
Those people are also the reason that the LPC is on its deathbed today. Unlike most political observers, I'm willing to state the obvious and say that it's incredibly unlikely that the Grits will ever hold government again. I think it far more likely that
they'll be swallowed whole by the New Democratic Party in five years. And I believe it likely that the Liberals will destroy that party as well.
This is because Liberals love nothing more than going to war with one another. At this point, they love it more than winning elections. The party has been fighting their retarded leadership wars since 1975 and is divided into two factions: the Trudeau-Chretien-Rae wing and the Turner-Martin-Ignatieff wing. And each faction has acted as suicide bombers against the other for almost the entire time.
Granted, this didn't stop them from running the country. But that's only because conservatives were such an unmitigated goddamned mess most of the time. And when even a semi-competent Conservative leader appeared, the Liberals lost to him every time. They were beaten by three very different Conservatives; Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. The numbers show that it was only a divided conservative movement that allowed Jean Chretien to become prime minister at all. When the movement unified under Harper, the Grits were first reduced to a minority, removed from power altogether, and finally robbed even of their Official Opposition status.
The LPC is the most overrated political force anywhere in my lifetime. For at least forty years, they've only won when their opponents are so disorganized and dumb that they can't be trusted to run a profitable rub and tug, let alone a major industrial nation. And even under ideal circumstances, their own infighting does them in, as we've seen over the last decade.
Here's the thing. If I was a Conservative Party supporter (which I'm not. I last voted for the federal Progressive Conservatives in 2000, after voting Reform in '93 and '97), I'd be afraid of facing Bob Rae in a federal election.
Rae is easily the smartest and most experienced viable candidate in the party today. In a party of lifetime politicos, academics and bureaucrats, Rae is also the only person in the LPC who has ever run anything before.
Which brings us to Rae's time as Ontario's NDP premier, which the anti-Rae forces feel is disqualifying. That's a record that can and should be examined, if only because times have changed so much that it might actually work in Rae's favour during a campaign.
(For the record, I voted against Rae twice in Ontario, casting ballots for Progressive Conservative Mike Harris in 1990 and '95. After the 1999 campaign, I've voted exclusively for minor parties and independents provincially.)
Rae, as even he will tell you, was an accidental premier. He was elected because David Peterson's almost awesome arrogance - fighting no fewer than three elections in a single five-year mandate - finally blew him up, and the fact that Mike Harris had been leader for less than a year and no one knew who he was.
He was a socialist who was elected at the beginning of a worldwide recession, so he governed predictably, trying to spend his way out bad economic times. In the process, he created what was then record deficits.
But then Rae did something very unpredictable. He attacked those deficits and in the process destroyed his own political base. Instead of passing massive tax increases, which you would expect from an NDP government, he instituted austerity on the heavily unionized provincial civil service. That, you might have noticed, is conservative orthodoxy today. Indeed, the widely-hated Rae Days remain well to the right of what Republican governors like Scott Walker and John Kasich have attempting in the United States over the last two years. Walker and Kasich, like Paul Ryan in Washington, are trying things that won't produce savings for a minimum of fifteen years. Rae Days inflicted immediate pain on the bureaucracy and went a fair way in reducing the deficit.
I've spent that last five years trying to figure out exactly how the Harper Conservatives (or Harper's probable successor, Jason Kenney) runs against Rae. And I've got to tell you, I'm fucking stumped.
Bob Rae isn't a political novice, like Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff were. Indeed, he's been running bigger campaigns for longer than anyone currently in the Conservative Party. He also survived the Liberal Armageddon of last May, which few other national party figures managed to. That alone makes makes Rae a formidable opponent in ways that no other Liberal is. He understands what it is to run a major campaign, having done so four times in Canada's largest province.
Then there's his Ontario record, which is heavily mitigated by the way politics has changed over the seventeen years since Rae was ejected from Queen's Park. The Harris-Eves Conservatives left office with a fairly large deficit, and the current Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, has racked up deficits that dwarf Rae's. And the Harper Conservatives have pissed away money at a rate that would impress even Pierre Trudeau.
Yes, the Tories will almost certainly dive-bomb Rae with millions of dollars of negative advertising demagouging his record at Quuen's Park, which a broke and demoralized Liberal Party will be unable to counter. It worked maginificently against Dion and Ignatieff, so there's no reason that they won't go to that well again.
But at some point, the Tories are going to have to debate him on national television. And that's dangerous for them. Rae is smarter, a more experienced politician and a better speaker than Harper is. And if Harper leaves office before 2015 (which I think is a distinct possibility), Rae will almost certainly face Jason Kenney, who is a ward-heeling retard that only got where he is today by stealing the disgusting concept of identity politics from the fucking Liberals.
One can reasonably expect Harper or Kenney to start a debate by immediately attacking Rae's by then twenty year old deficits. If I was Bob Rae, my first answer would be "Yes, I was socialist who governed during a deep recession in the early 1990s, so I did what socialists are expected to do. Sir, what is your excuse for spending a $13 billion surplus on nothing and creating deficits that made mine look frugal by comparison?" That alone will be devastating because there is no plausible answer to it.
Then one can expect the attack on Rae Days. That's problematic in so far as if the Tories are even halfway serious about their deficit reduction plan - which they say will not include a tax increase - they'll have to do something that looks a lot like Rae Days, if not actually be more draconian. Remember, Harper pledged to reduce spending only down to 2009 levels, when the country was already in deficit and spending was at a high. If the Conservatives bar themselves from raising revenue and continue to use the tax code to buy themselves votes, the civil service is the only place left to save money. As a very smart guy, I expect that Bob will rattle off the facts and figures and look very credible doing it.
Also, by 2015 the Tories will have been in office for nine years, the standard exhaustion point for a government. Both Mulroney and Chretien were done at that point, and Trudeau was doing everything he could to postpone the election that would ultimately lead to his defeat. I think that Stephen Harper knows the history well enough to get the fuck out of Dodge and make some money before the next election, leaving a half-wit like Kenney as a sacrificial lamb that serves only to burnish his his own legacy, much like Mulroney did with Kim Campbell.
If the Liberals could mange to stop being Liberals for three whole years, I think that Bob Rae has an even chance of beating Harper, and could almost sexually humiliate Jason Kenney, even with a bankrupt and demoralized party. If Thomas Muclair wins the NDP leadership and takes Quebec off of the table for the Grits and Tories, I think that Rae could form at least a minority government. If the NDP falls apart, and Rae manages to keep Denis Coderre in line, the Grits could possibly win as many as forty Quebec seats and govern with a majority.
But the Liberals can't stop being Liberals for three whole minutes, let alone three whole years. As you're already seeing, there are factions of anti-Rae chuckleheaded strategists, bloggers and media types that are determined to pound the final nail in the Liberal Party's coffin if they can't have the Liberal Party all to themselves.
They don't care that Bob Rae is probably the only candidate that can work with the party machinery that the Libeals actually have, as opposed to what they wish they had. Instead of showing the kind of political discipline the Conservatives have always had in getting behind their leader, the Grits are flirting with an idiotic American-style primary system that will make getting behind the leader almost impossible, given that party's history.
Bob Rae has the best chance of any Liberal of beating a unified Conservative Party since Trudeau. But he can't do that if he has to spend his time as Opposition leader and a federal election candidate watching his own back.
Rae is alone as a Liberal who can beat the Tories, but the Liberal Party is incapable of unity, which is why the 2015 election will almost certainly be their last. If they give the leadership to another amatuer that loses even more seats in the interest of keeping Rae's critics happy, they won't survive it.
In 1995 the British journalist and historian Gitta Sereny published the biography Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth, which examined the disconnect between his exculpatory statements during and after his war crimes trial at Nuremberg and the historical record. Sereny, although personally fond of the Third Reich's Minister of Armaments, found that he was nowhere near as innocent as he claimed to be during the last thirty-six years of his life.
Barack Obama is waging his very own battle with truth, and he's doing it within the context of a presidential campaign. Just this week, he has renounced not one, but two major pledges that he made during the primaries, the most recent of which was made just three months ago. It would be a stunning thing to see from an average politician. It is all the more so coming from an almost deified "change agent" espousing a fuzzy and vague brand of "hope."
During the Ohio primary, Hillary Clinton created a great stink regarding NAFTA and her intention to "renegotiate" it to protect American jobs. This was interesting, in so far as most of the lost jobs are more of a consequence of the rise of India and China and the self-defeating stupidity of the American labor and business communities. NAFTA became a catch-all for all the bad American economic choices of the last forty years.
No one was particularly surprised that Hillary would do this. The Clintons have a richly deserved reputation for doing and saying anything to win, regardless of how asinine those assertions are to anyone with a modicum of education. To almost everyone's surprise, Obama decided to compete with the Clintons on who could be tougher on trade, saying that he would use the "hammer" of withdrawing from the treaty to strengthen America's advantage. Not surprisingly, the Clintons won, crushing Obama in the Ohio primary.
Just on NAFTA alone, I was glad to see it and almost wished that one of them was telling the truth and won the presidency on the strength of such a platform.
The Clinton and Bush administrations have made it clear to both Canada and Mexico that the word of an American president is not to be trusted. Of NAFTAs three partners, the United States has been in violation of the treaty most frequently and most unrepentantly. And when that has been the finding of the NAFTA arbitration panel and the WTO, the Clinton and Bush administrations have ignored their rulings.
I've written about how Canada was essentially raped in the softwood lumber dispute before. Worse is the treatment that Mexico has received. 15 years after NAFTA specifically called for the access of Mexican trucks to American roads, the US Congress and Bush administration continues to stall on it, going so far as attempting to pass a law prohibiting it. No reasonable person can be expected to long deal with a partner who only adheres to the parts of a deal that benefit them and lie about or ignore the provisions that don't.
I was great supporter of both the US - Canada Free Trade agreement and NAFTA, so much so that I voted exclusively on those issues in the federal elections of 1988 and '93. To this day I don't regret that support. What I regret is the way that the United States government has conducted itself for the last sixteen years. I voted to partner with the United States of 1941-92, an internationalist nation that stuck it's word and honored its obligations. That country has effectively ceased to exist regarding trade issues.
In his memoir, My Years as Prime Minister, Jean Chretien explains the pressures an American president faces in trade disputes from individual senators when trade becomes an issue. A senator can - and often does - exert pressure on other parts of a president's agenda to force violations of treaties to get their way. And that's what created the softwood lumber dispute. Senators from the American northwest didn't like actual competition and forced the Clinton and Bush administrations to implement protectionist and illegal measures.
Especially priceless was President Bush's reaction when the WTO ruled against the United States. He said that he "would welcome" further negotiations on the matter with Canada. You know, I'm pretty sure that Charles Manson would have "welcomed further negotiations" with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office after he was convicted on 9 counts of first degree murder, but life doesn't work that way. Furthermore, the American government had no problem banning Canadian beef over Mad Cow concerns, but cried to the fucking heavens with other countries banned US beef for the same reason.
I would love like nothing else for an American president to come to Ottawa and demand a "renegotiation" of NAFTA to protect the environment and labor standards. I'd tell him or her to repeal Taft-Hartley and adopt Canada's. I'd also have a few things that I'd like to renegotiate myself. These would include the provisions that demand that Canada supply the United States with energy and fresh water at the previous year's levels, even if Canadians face a domestic shortage. Just to be a prick, I'd demand that the Americans allow Mexican trucking on their roads as NAFTA clearly calls for.
If that president refused, I'd use the "hammer" of opting out. I don't give a shit what pressures a president faces from his Senate or domestic opinion. If the United States can't be relied upon to keep its word, no one should give a fucking inch in dealing with them. No treaty at all is better than a selectively honored one.
Why would anyone renegotiate something that one party isn't complying with in the first place? Wasn't that the justification for invading Iraq?
The fact is that when Prime Minister Mulroney negotiated free trade with President Reagan in the eighties, Canada was being strangled by an out of control deficit and smothered in debt. We negotiated from a position of weakness. That's no longer true. Canada is now the only G8 country operating with a budget surplus and is rapidly paying down its debt. Oh, and we have all the oil now.
It is now believed that there might be more oil in western Canada than in the Arabian peninsula. If you believe President Bush's assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and know how the phenomenon of addiction works, you know that a junkie doesn't dictate the terms of a drug buy to his or her pusher. Can you think of another reason why Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and the source of the overwhelming majority of terrorist money for decades, isn't a target on the War on Terror?
I'm still a free-trader. I'm just not sure that we can trade freely with the United States when it is incapable of trading honestly or fairly. As Senator John McCain pointed out yesterday in Ottawa, Canada is the single largest export destination for 36 of the 50 United States. That will almost certainly continue to be the case whether that trade is free or not. But while, say, Michigan cannot negotiate a free trade deal with China, India or the European Union, Canada can.
I'm sick to fucking death of being targeted by assholes like George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton because they want to please their domestic idiots. If you want to "negotiate," then let's do it. If you want to threaten to opt out of NAFTA, I'm at the point where I'm willing to do it first. Yes, I'll lose jobs in the process, but you'll lose ten times as many. And you'll lose your guaranteed access to oil and water in the process. Anyone who has read me for any length of time knows that I'm a great proponent of the American doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
Barack Obama, who once vowed to use the "hammer'' of opting out of NAFTA to force the renegotiation of the trade pact, now says he will seek change through dialogue if he is elected U.S. president.
The presumptive Democratic nominee says in the upcoming edition of Fortune magazine that campaign rhetoric can sometimes get "overheated and amplified," and he denies he would move to unilaterally reopen the trilateral trade deal.
(...)
"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said in the Fortune interview. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.''
Hmmm, turns out that the famous Canadian embassy memo wasn't as false as Obama spun it to be, was it?
At a debate in Cleveland in the final days of the Ohio primary campaign in March, Obama agreed with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton when she said the six-month opt-out clause should be invoked on NAFTA to force changes.
"I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced," he said.
But every time Obama alters his statements on NAFTA, he lends credence to a Feb. 8 memo describing a meeting between his economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and George Rioux, Ottawa's consul-general in Chicago.
The Canadian memo, which was leaked to The Associated Press, said Goolsbee told Rioux that Obama's campaign remarks about NAFTA should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy.
American assholes decrying Canadian interference in the US primary process caused an unimaginable amount of shit in Canadian politics. The "Obama memo" led to an investigation of the Prime Minister's Office and, indirectly, the resignation of the chief of staff. And now we learn that the memo was largely correct.
What said assholes need to learn is that if American candidates are going to use foreign nations to their political benefit, those nations reserve the right to respond. And we'll do so in your precious fucking primary system if it becomes necessary. If Stephen Harper's staff was behind the leak of the Obama memo - which it almost certainly was - my respect for them just went up about fifteen notches.
After 15 years of being fucked over by the Clinton and Bush administrations, we should cut any other candidate who tries it off at the knees whenever possible. Whoever actually leaked that memo to CTV and the AP should be awarded the Order of Canada and a loving, sloppy blowjob from our super-hot Governor General.
American politicians have shown absolutely no reluctance in using every weapon in their arsenals for decades now. I see no reason why foreign governments shouldn't involve themselves in the electoral process if they continue to be used as a tool for American liars and scumbags getting elected. Besides, it isn't like the United States is entirely innocent in inserting itself in the democratic political process of sovereign nations.
If an American candidate says one thing to a foreign government and another thing to the American people, that foreign government has an obligation to its own people to point that out. So long as American politicians are going to present themselves as the model of openness and democracy, they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind diplomatic niceties as they screw their neighbours. I only hope the Mexicans start doing the same thing.
To use Obama's own pilfered phrase from The Untouchables, Canada brought a gun to his NAFTA knife fight. And you know what? We kicked his fucking ass. We know a little bit about "the Chicago way" our own selves.
Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.
(...)
“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."
Mr. Obama had pledged to meet with Mr. McCain following the primaries to attempt to work out an agreement on financing the campaigns. That meeting never took place, aides to Mr. Obama said, because a meeting between lawyers for the two sides was not fruitful. "It became clear to me that there wasn't any basis for future discussion," said Robert Bauer, the general counsel for Mr. Obama’s campaign.
Let there be no doubt at all, Obama is completely full of shit. His lies in justifying his decision are nothing short of mind-blowing.
John McCain has a long-standing histoy of wanting to restrain 527s. The problem is that the law won't let him. He actually did speak out against the evil and wrong Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but since he wasn't on the ballot, the law didn't apply to him. A 527 is a tax-exempt organization and is therefore precluded from having any communication or coordination with a campaign. That's a matter of federal law.
If McCain were to even attempt to honor Obama's conditions, he'd be committing a felony and Obama knows that. You'll also note that Obama hasn't called on Democratic 527s like MoveOn.org or America Coming Together to hold their fire. Obama doesn't also point out that 15 of the 20 largest 527s in the 2004 cycle were alligned with Democrats
That goes double for Obama's assertion about McCain controlling the RNC. Under current law, the nominee is prohibited from coordinating with the national committee. That was just one of the campaign finance laws that President Clinton broke during the '96 campaign that led to McCain-Feingold in the first place.
If it were up to me, McCain-Feingold would have been avoided because the national parties and presidential candidates wouldn't get public money at all. Obama's right, but for all of the wrong reasons. And he's going to get away with it because so-called conservatives are so fucking dumb.
As much as conservatives like to bitch about campaign finance regulations, they never stopped taking public money to finance their campaigns, did they? Public financing is nothing more than welfare for rich white guys who want to rule the world. But as conservatives never fail to remind other welfare recipients, that money comes with strings attatched. Since recipients of the former AFDC program surrendered their Fourth Amendment rights, why in the fuck shouldn't the DNC and RNC surrender their First Amendment rights?
"Good government" shitheads love to say that campaign finance legislation is necessary to prevent things like bribery. What they overlook is that bribery is already a crime. As a matter of fact, it is already written into the Constitution as an impeachable offense. If conservatives were people to be taken halfway seriously, they would renounce "preventative" law enforcement measures across the board as opposed to the ones that just effect them at the ballot box.
If Republicans weren't completely full of shit, they wouldn't protest campaign finance laws as they accept public money. Wasn't "making government live by the same laws the people do" a part of the goddamned Contract With America?
If anything, Obama is taking the more conservative position on campaign finance. It would be better if he pledged to return his matching money from the primaries, though.
That doesn't mean that he isn't a duplicitious motherfucker, because he is. So far as I know, he has supported every reform law since Watergate but now refuses to abide by them. Obama is taking a prticularly rich "destroying the village to save it" position on public financing. It didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in general elections. And thank Christ for that. I hope that all campaign finance laws are destroyed as a result.
If Obama believes that the system is "broken," he would do something other than abandon it to fix it, although that's pretty much the position the government has taken on New Orleans. The fact remains that Obama wants to save the city by watching it sink.
But Obama couldn't have picked two better issues to lie about. Every sensible adult thought he was lying about NAFTA and no one gives a shit about campaign finance, given what hypocrites Republicans have been about the system.
This guy's a pro, make no mistake about that. The only question is how stupid his adherents in the "new politics" movement are going to feel once they finally realize that Barack Obama was never one of them after all.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: LiesBy: The Rolling Stones From:Some Girls
DIAMONDS ARE A GIRL'S BEST FRIEND, STEPHANE DION TAXES CARBON
I've been studying politics like the sexless geek that I am for well over twenty years now. And if I've learned anything, it is that if you're a candidate whose leadership ability has been questioned for 18 solid months, you should come out of nowhere and announce that you're going to tax one of the very building blocks of life. That almost always works.
But be sure that you don't say anything specific about your new tax on all things animal, vegetable and mineral other than you'll implement it. Much better that your opposition can define you for months on end when you could be defining yourself. Better still if the only person willing to support you in public is Jason Cherniak.
That's all you really need to know about politics and, fortunately, that's all Stephane Dion knows. He's performing about as well as you would expect a guy who became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada by accident would. Since his ascension he has resisted repeated opportunities to bring down a government he himself has said is destroying Canada and waited for the perfect issue on which to campaign. And it turns out to be one that he explicitly rejected during the leadership campaign.
New taxes, as you might imagine, are not usually something that politicians promise during a campaign. They tend to be something that are lied about, usually prefacing the term with the word "no." This is either the craziest fucking thing that I've ever heard or Dion has learned a magical new secret about how the electorate thinks.
The plan started leaking on Wednesday and Dion is set to outline it in public today. To be fair, Dion's policy is actually being touted as a "tax shift." This will involve taxes being levied on carbon-based pollutants while income taxes are reduced. In theory, this makes the plan "revenue neutral," something that Canadians are supposed to cherish.
The problem is that taxes are never revenue neutral. It just doesn't happen that way. One can suppose that would be double true when the tax supposedly has a moral purpose such as saving the universe. Politicians are impatient and the public is stupid, so if the tax is implemented and Saskatchewan doesn't become Eden in the first six months, you can rest assured that the tax will become increasingly aggressive.
Furthermore, Canada is such a small country and our percentage of the world's carbon emissions is so insignificant that all 33 million of us could live the life of the Amish and it would do virtually nothing to stop global warming. Even the Bush administration, which created an energy task force comprised entirely of oil executives, is doing better at meeting Kyoto targets (which they didn't even ratify) than is Canada.
Then there's the issue of climate. You might not know this, but Canada gets awfully cold in the winter. And the winter lasts well into July. Home heating oil and natural gas are primary targets of the tax "shift." Not everyone makes enough to pay federal income taxes, but everyone does share the biological imperative to avoid freezing to death. Not only does the carbon shift expand the tax base, it does so in the most regressive way imaginable.
Yes, the Dion plan does call for credits for lower income Canadians, but those can be fleeting. Back in the 90s, when the Liberals learned that running an economy through massive deficits and carrying horrific debt loads, subsidies and tax credits are usually the first thing to go. Under Chretien even health care transfers to the provinces took a significant hit. If the economy goes into recession, which is happening even as we speak, the government is not going to start throwing money around.
Then there is the inflationary effect of the tax shift. Did you know that a chicken, for example, doesn't walk onto your plate and commit suicide? There are several, carbon intensive steps, involved in getting it there. Each one of those steps is about to become markedly more expensive if the Liberals get their way, and those costs will be passed on to you, the consumer.
Anyone who doesn't know what inflation in a recession looks like should study the 1970s. Not only does it cause extreme economic pain, wipe out your savings, and cost you your job, it makes you dress funny. Implementing this tax at the best of times would be inflationary in the extreme, doing it during a recession will be economic suicide. Furthermore, the costs of restructuring the entire tax code to accommodate Dion's pledge might be enough to put the government back into deficit.
Then there's the matter of doing this when gas prices are so high. As much as Americans like to bitch about that, they're paying the lowest price to the gallon of any country outside of OPEC. While US prices are averaging about four dollars a gallon, Canadians are paying over five.
While Liberal spinsters like Mr. Cherniak are saying that gasoline will be exempt, the leaks of the plan don't say that at all. What it calls for is "moratorium on new federal taxes on aviation and diesel fuel for the first year." The problem is that gasoline prices are dictated by the price of oil, from which both aviation, diesel and gasoline all come. I'm not at all sure that you can raise the price of some and not others.
This of course, calls into question the purpose of government. If you're of liberal leanings, this is the ideal tax for you. Not only will you still have your income taxes, theGSTand provincial sales taxes, you'll get the Liberals behaviour modification tax as well. You'll be ever so happy if you believe in the power of the government to make life better.
I don't happen share that belief in government. I'm of the mind that the federal government should be limited to paving roads and killing foreigners, two things that it isn't particularly good at. Most Canadians are shocked when the government can shovel snow in less than a week, but now we're expected to believe that it can actually save the world?
Then there's the electoral politics of this, and I've never seen anything handled so disastrously. Dion started musing about carbon taxes months ago but refused to give ant details. This has allowed the Conservatives to define the plan for him and not in the ways that he'd prefer. And most Liberals are just dishonest, not stupid. They have been the government for most of the last century and are the most successful political party in the history of western democracy. They understand how elections work and they understand that no one is going to vote for a giant new tax, shifted or otherwise. This has understandably caused all manner of discontent within the Liberal caucus.
This is not a revenue neutral tax in the way that literate adults understand the term. Not only is it extraordinarily inflationary, it moves Canada away from the principle of progressive taxation and toward a system that rewards or punishes behaviour. The problem is that the poorer you are the fewer options you have regarding your behaviour. Worse still, if you subsidize the bad behaviour of poorer Canadians, you defeat the stated purpose of the plan.
Even if this plan were the greatest thing ever, it is almost impossible to properly explain the context of a thirty second commercial or a ninety second debate answer. And unfortunately for Stephane Dion, those are the only things that voters pay attention to. All Stephen Harper is going to need to say is "Yes, climate change is important, but so is the cost of feeding your family. If you think that you aren't paying enough, I encourage you to vote for my opponent. However, if you think that you're paying too much, you should trust the Conservative Party to manage our fuel crisis and stop inflation before it starts."
And then Stephane Dion will be destroyed.
I don't know what it is about Dion, but he seems determined to make every day Christmas for Stephen Harper.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Fall on MeBy: R.E.M From:Life's Rich Pageant
As you might have notice, I have a minor affection for US political campaigns. They tend to embody everything that's wrong with the human spirit, and any given campaign could take no fewer than five of the seven deadly sins and put them on a bumper sticker. The messier a campaign is, the more I tend to love it.
Perhaps my favorite race of all time is the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race. The candidacy of one Clayton Williams, the Republican nominee. Not only did he make every conceivable mistake in politics, he seemed to glory in it. It was truly beautiful thing to watch and I still smile when I think about it. It reminds me of a more innocent time when Texas politicians could be moral and political disasters without winding up president of the United States.
If I remember correctly (and I'm far too lazy to find a verifying source), Williams kicked off his 1990 campaign by proudly stating that he hadn't paid taxes at all the previous year. There are few ways to establish your "common man" bonafides better than that.
Things only improved with Williams reached out for the women's vote. This was important because the Democratic nominee was the late Ann Richards, who was thought to have a political lock on broads. When asked what his strategy against Ms. Richards was, Williams replied that he would "head her and hoof her and drag her through the dirt" just as he would the cattle on his ranch. And if you know women like I do, you know that they love nothing better than to be compared to a pack of steer.
But Mr. Williams was nothing if not a helpful ally to broads in the war of the sexes. He was full to the brim of helpful advice to women everywhere. Particularly on the touchy subject of rape. On that, the prospective governor couldn't be more helpful. "As long as it's inevitable," Williams opined, "you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
Even though that advice correlates closely with what experts on sexual assault tell us - with the notable exception of the part about enjoying it - women were less than appreciative of Clayton's sound advice. And it allowed the Richards campaign to run this ad endlessly.
What disturbs me the most about Williams' comments is the expression of hope that Richards hadn't started drinking again. That was strategically stupid in that Texans are nothing but enthusiastic about electing dry drunks to high office. Ann Richards, as we know, was succeeded by George W. Bush, who had actually been arrested for drunk driving. If Lindsay Lohan were only willing to move to Austin, she would have a bright future in Texas politics. She's certainly more fun than Rick Perry and more pleasing to the eye.
But the dreams of Clayton Williams were dashed, the way was cleared for the Dark Age of Bush, and we are all poorer people for it. I hope everyone remembers that the next time they get their panties in a knot about rape jokes.
Worst of all, Williams left us to suffer the consequences of what we had done as President Bush heads us and hoofs us and drags us through the dirt. Had Williams won, he would have almost certainly been renominated in 1994. Without that first election in Texas, Bush would never have been elected president. I hope all those busybody women's groups are happy.
Missing Claytie as I have, I was thrilled to learn last night that the McCain campaign brought him back from obscurity. Everyone else, however, was less enthusiastic.
John McCain should have been fundraising in the Texas oil patch yesterday alongside his good friend Clayton Williams. In the town of Midland, Republican heavy-hitters were lined up to sign some equally weighty cheques for their man's presidential campaign.
Instead, the candidate was busy trying to salvage an already shaky reputation after America's female voters had been reminded of derogatory remarks that "Claytie" Williams made about women and rape nearly 20 years ago. While running unsuccessfully against Ann Richards for governor, the Texan was overheard comparing rape to the weather: "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
Following the resurrection of this and other off-colour remarks, the McCain campaign decided abruptly to cancel the fundraiser at Mr Williams's lavish Midland home. The campaign is also promising to hand back the $300,000 (£150,000) Mr Williams has already raised for the McCain campaign as it tried to contain the damage.
Mr McCain's spokesman, Brian Rogers, said: "These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time [the fundraiser] was scheduled."
As I've often stated in this space, I've long been a great admirer of Senator McCain. I can't say the same about his campaign staff. They should clearly be set on fire and thrown down an elevator shaft.
How can anyone with even a passing acquaintance with politics be "unaware" of Williams' remarks? Those remarks were famous and students of political history giggle and masturbate when thinking about them to this very day. I'm a schmuck and I don't know much about anything, but if I'm familiar with Clayton's colorful past, how can million dollar campaign consultants not be? Haven't these fucking people ever heard of Google or Wikipedia?
That's actually a serious question. If Team McCain can't vet the potentially controversial people they attract, what would a McCain administration look like? Would Jeremiah Wright be in charge of the faith-based initiative program? How about Richard Ramirez as Attorney General? How would they explain that to, say, the Senate? "The nominee's conduct was incredibly offensive, but we were unaware that he raped and murdered all of those folks. As you know, the campaign didn't spend much time in Los Angeles and AC/DC endorsed Senator Obama."
I still think McCain is going to win, and win pretty handily. But that's not because his team is so scary smart. The fact is that Obama, his quoting of Sean Connery in The Untouchables" notwithstanding, is prone to saying stupid things and is demonstrably incapable of taking a punch.
But McCain better get is shit together quickly because it is possible to throw away a perfectly good election. Just ask Clayton Williams.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Rape Me By: Richard Cheese From: Lounge Against the Machine
HEY LOOK, TITS!: COUILLARD CONTINUES TO CAPTIVATE CANADA
Everybody loves a great set of knockers and the Parliament of Canada is no different. Fine tits have a way of speaking to a man in a secret language that you need a penis to understand. And like the rest of us, The Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois want Julie Couillard's tits to talk to them.
It's been a big week for MademoiselleCouillard'sformidablefunbags. First, they brought down yet another senior Conservative that it turned was close to them. Then, the inept leader of the Official Opposition publicly mused that they might be the perfectly shaped instruments by which organized crime could infiltrate the Canadian government. Those are pretty powerful mammeries.
Canadian women from sea to shining sea are of course outraged. After all, none of their boobies get the kind of attention that Julie's are getting, and there aren't very many broads out there who captures the attention of a sexy guy like Stephane Dion, Gilles Duceppe or Jack Layton.
The week started out with a busty bang as the Minister of Public Works, Senator Michael Fortiershitcanned his senior Quebec advisor for bumping uglies with Julie just before MaximeBernier hopped on.
"Mr. Bernard Côté failed to inform me that while he was in a personal relationship with Julie Couillard, at the same time she was also vying for government business for Kevlar and raised it with Mr. Côté," he said. "Mr. Côté should have recused himself of having any dealings with the matter at hand, which he unfortunately didn't."
Fortier said Côté offered his resignation "and I accepted it."
First Bernier, now Cote. You know that when you see a piece of ass that ruins two careers in a month, that it's probably worth it.
But those magnificent mammaries might also be instruments of evil, the Liberal Party of Canada warns us.
- There are compelling security reasons to investigate whether the federal government is being targeted by organized crime, Liberals said yesterday amid news the Julie Couillard affair has claimed another senior Conservative casualty.
"There is the possibility that organized crime is trying to infiltrate the government," Liberal Leader Stephane Dion told reporters. "I'm not saying it's what happened. But certainly all the experts of security who have spoken (say) ... this is the pattern that you need to check."
Now any of you who know about biker gangs know that they're so ... subtle. Everyone who's seen The Wild One knows that. If you know a Hells Angel, you'll know that he excells at three things; anarchy, getting his red wings, and stealthily infiltrating the governments of G8 nations.
There's something you need to know about politicians. Sometimes it seems like they're actually speaking English. In fact, it is a stealthy facsimile of the Queen's tongue.
Indeed, the meaning, of what they say is often the opposite of what you would usually associate those words with. When President Bush said "I haven't made any decision about going to war with Iraq," he actually means "I'm going to war with Iraq on Tuesday night." When Stephane Dion says "I'm not saying it's what happened," he means "That's precisely what happened." And when Dion's deputy Michael Ignatieff says "I don’t care about her skirts, I don’t care about her cleavage," he actually means to say "I am a homosexual."
And now there are hearings regarding Madame Couillard and her beautiful breasts by the Commons Public Safety Committee. Our girl Julie is expected to appear this week. If my American readers remember how much fun the Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill hearings were in 1990, imagine how much more fun they would've been if Anita Hill was smoking fucking hot and pulled a train of bikers and senior Republican figures.
There are serious questions to be asked of Julie and the committee expects answers. For example, is she completely shaved like all women should be? Does she like anal sex or does she love it? Is she dating now?
The hearings will continue endlessly and eventually Julie's nipples will get hard and Canadian society will rapidly disintegrate. And if UjjalDosanjh can keep his hands out of his lap during M. Couillard's testimony, he's a better man than I am. If it's wrong to question a witness before a parliamentary committee whilst masturbating furiously is wrong, then I just don't want to be right.
However, if we've learned one thing froml'affaireBernier, it would be that journalists love writing about tits. They can't get enough of it, and the Canadian people can't stop reading about it. Last week it was the turn of the National Post to make breasts no fun at all.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: The Bad Touch By: The Bloodhound Gang From: Hooray for Boobies
Tonight Senator Barack Obama effectively secured the Democratic presidential nomination and for this he should be congratulated. He barely pulled it off, but he managed to trump the entire establishment of his party, who had spent the last eight years lining up to anoint Hillary Rodham Clinton the next president of the United States.
Unfortunately, tonight was the best night of Obama's life. It's all downhill from here.
Actually, it's been downhill for some time now. If you believe as I do, that Obama had the nomination wrapped up in February, you realize that he's wasted four months dicking around with playing nice. Worse, he couldn't put away a woman who half the country not only dislikes, but actually loathes. That doesn't auger well for a general election.
And what happened in those four months? His defeats outnumbered his victories rather quickly. Other than in North Carolina, he couldn't score knockout punches anywhere, while Clinton pulled them off in West Virginia and Kentucky. And she did it while driving her own negatives into the stratosphere. Were it not for his early commanding lead and the strategic incompetence of the Clinton campaign, Barack Obama would not be the nominee tonight.
Back in 1960, Richard Nixon was studious about not going negative on John Kennedy and lost by one tenth of one percent of the vote. Had Nixon gone negative on Kennedy - and exploited the health issues that Lyndon Johnson brought up before Democratic convention - Nixon likely would have won.
The moral of this story is that, in politics, nice guys finish last. Hillary went negative on Obama and Obama almost immediately stopped winning. Not only that, Obama started losing by bigger margins that he ever had before. Barack Obama barely won a beauty contest against someone who was determined to get ugly.
And in campaigning the way she did, Hillary essentially set up John McCain's lines of attack for him. You'll see GOP and 527 ads painting Obama as an elitist liberal, lacking in both experience and judgement. And if you liked seeing Jeremiah Wright on TV as much as I did, you're in luck this summer and fall.
The worst part is that while Obama was trying to be everybody's best friend, large segments of Clinton's base grew to hate him. And while the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who suggest that they'd rather vote for McCain or stay home are full of shit, what if just 5% of them aren't? That could very well leave a mark in November. McCain, on the other hand, remains acceptable to almost everyone. That's why nominating him was the smartest thing the GOP could have done.
As the Clinton campaign can't stop saying, and current polling indicates, That Obama is going to have an uphill battle winning states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Michigan might be a problem, too. You see, Detroit has a hip, dynamic, young Democratic black mayor who talks about hope a lot. He'll be going on trial for perjury just as people start paying attention. By the way, Michigan was much closer in '04 than it should've been.
If Barack Obama loses West Virgina, Pennsylvania or Michigan, he'd have to make them up by winning Sweden or something. If he loses all three, there's no saving him in the Electoral College. Ohio and Florida aren't going to matter as much this year as everyone thinks they are.
There is one unlikely strategy that would fuck with the Republicans in a big way. That would be playing hard for the South. If you look at Obama's numbers in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama and both Carolinas, they are impressive and they are intimidating.
The black vote that won him those states aren't going to win them in the general, but it could tighten them up enough that the McCain campaign has to spend resources there that it can't spend in states like Ohio, Florida and the aforementioned West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Michigan. And since the Republican Party has the approval rating of you're average unreconstructed pedophile, the Democrats are going to have far more resources to play around with.
But a hard drive in the South by a black candidate would be such a ballsy move that I don't think that he'd try it. If he did that and still lost Pennsylvania and Michigan, he'd be laughed out of politics forever. Plus, given his newness on the national scene, it would be an open question as to whether the DNC would cooperate with a strategy that's just crazy enough to work.
The unpopularity of the GOP can actually end up helping McCain much more than any one is currently pointing out. With the Republicans having no hope of winning back the House and facing the likely prospect of a filibuster-proof Senate, swing voters might feel safe enough to vote for McCain without allowing "Bush's third term." And Americans tend to like divided government. It keeps both sides from doing anything too crazy.
Let's forget all this nonsense about putting Hillary on the ticket right now, okay? It simply isn't going to happen. This isn't 1960 and Hillary Clinton isn't LBJ. Furthermore, after sixteen years of Al Gore and Dick Cheney, the vice presidency isn't the office it used to be. It's far too powerful to occupy it with someone you don't trust. And the Clintons would demand even more influence than even Cheney has now.
Hillary believes in her heart of hearts that Obama can't beat McCain and she's probably right. Why then would she want to go down with a sinking ship? Does she really want to be the 2012 version of John Edwards or Joe Lieberman? Would anybody?
Expect Hillary to do for Obama what Ronald Reagan did for Gerald Ford or what Ted Kennedy did for Jimmy Carter; as little as they can possibly get away with. She wants to be positioned as the "I told you so" candidate next time out and that can't happen if the two of them spend the next five months on a fucking wedding cake together.
But this is truly Barack Obama's night. He came up against almost impossible odds and prevailed, if only on points. I personally think that he's a good man and an adequate campaigner. But I don't see a scenario where he becomes the next president of the United States.
But let's let him have the best night of his life. He deserves at least that.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Loser By: Beck From: Mellow Gold
SEXISM MAKES GERALDINE FERRARO ANGRY. YOU WOULDN'T LIKE GERALDINE FERRARO WHEN SHE'S ANGRY
Geraldine Ferraro was supposed to make history. After all, she was the first woman to be nominated for vice president on a major party ticket way back in 1984. As the first female vice president, Ferraro was going to change things, as this is what Democrats always promise to do. And to be fair, Democrats often do change things, the meaning of the word "is" is just one example.
But then something funny happened. Ferraro turned out to be a spectacularly bad politician, her husband was doing business with the fucking mafia, and the definition of the word "loser" was changed to prominently feature Walter Mondale's name and photograph. The Mondale / Ferraro ticket was humiliated in ways that anyone who hasn't worn a gimp suit and a ball gag can never truly understand.
Ferraro presents herself as something of a fairy godmother to Hillary Rodham Clinton, which only seems fair because they both define themselves by what's between their legs. Without their vaginas, they are nothing. It is almost impossible to come to any other conclusion given their recent statements.
Indeed, it was that attitude that got Gerry shitcanned from the Clinton campaign just shy of three months ago. She said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept".
The problem wasn't so much that Ferraro said that as much as it is that she said it in public, where people who aren't Bill Clinton could hear her. Which is unusual, because everybody knows how much fun it has been to be a black man throughout American history. Christ, why didn't she just go further and say "Look, I know those people couldn't vote for the first 191 years of our history and die of things like sickle cell anemia and lynching, but they sure can dance and that has to count for something, doesn't it?"
Of course, pointing that out was terribly sexist and Ferraro has had her knickers in a knot about it ever since. She has launched a virtual jihad against those who would dare to vote against a woman. Fatwas have also been issued against the sexist media from Geraldine's asexual perch at Fox News.
Sexism, she tells us, is all around us. There's no escaping it, which also explains why women won't stop laughing at the size of my penis.
Yesterday, the former member of Congress from Neverland laid out her argument in a Boston Globe essay that's easily one of the top ten silliest things I've ever read.
Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.
The reaction to the questions being raised has been not to listen to the message and try to find out how to deal with the problem, but rather to denigrate the messenger. Sore loser, petty, silly, vengeful are words that have dominated the headlines. But scolding and name calling don't resolve disputes. The truth is that tens of thousands of women have watched how Clinton has been treated and are not happy. We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.
Among the words I would have included in the above cited headlines are: "shrill," "ruthless," "bitchy," and "cuntish." I'm frankly shocked that I haven't been hired by a major metropolitan newspaper yet. But the journalism industry is biased against white guys with shaved heads, potty mouths, overactive libidos and teensy peckers. Everybody knows that.
Ferraro says twice in those two paragraphs that Hillary was "treated unfairly" but never explains how or gives examples of that treatment. Is the fact that enough people didn't vote for her evidence of sexism? Would it have been racist if Obama lost and Hillary won? If so, why isn't Bill Richardson taking to the streets on behalf of overweight Hispanics named Judas?
If there really are women out there who think that Hillary's defeat (which actually occurred several months ago by any mathematical standard) is evidence of sexism, then those women are idiots and proof that the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution should probably be reconsidered.
When the primaries started, Senator Clinton and, presumably, Congresswoman Ferraro were fine with the Democratic Party's proportional allocation of delegates which has been the party rule since 1972. Now they argue that the only the popular vote should matter. In the beginning of this mess, they approved of not seating Michigan and Florida because they were "rogue states" under the party rules. Now "every vote should be counted" and disagreeing with that is comparable to slavery.
Allow me to suggest that if a white male candidate tried either one of those maneuvers, he'd be laughed right out of politics. Yet, Hillary Clinton hasn't been. Instead, she's being touted as the next majority leader of the United States Senate as I write this. Not bad ... for a girl.
If the Democratic Party establishment and its primary voters were sexist, do you really think that Clinton would have been the presumed presidential nominee for eight fucking years? I somehow doubt it.
The fact is that Hillary and her demented husband ran the single most incompetent primary campaign in my memory. The entire endeavor was predicated on the premise of inevitability, which is neither sexist nor particularly democratic. It was the devine right of the Clintons to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Clinton '08 was lazy, stupid and given to irresponsible spending in ways that have probably shocked even Al Gore. The delegation of resources was staggering in ways that indicated hubris, stupidity, or both. Clinton '08 raised a quarter of a billion dollars and is currently in debt up to their tits. Hillary ran her campaign in pretty much the same way that President Bush has run the federal government.
And that's fine when you're running against a halfwit like Chris Dodd. But Barack Obama, rightly or wrongly, quickly became far more than just another candidate, he became movement - closer to a personality cult, really - unto himself. That's a much tougher race to run.
That she didn't prevail isn't evidence of sexism as much as it of arrogance and a breathtaking lack of organizational skill. The allegations of sexism are a desperation play and not a particularly effective one. But don't tell Geraldine Ferraro. She's having fun.
That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know. But I do know that it will never happen again as long as women are willing to stand up and make sure that it is just a one-time bad experience.
Does that mean substandard candidates will henceforth win for no reason other than gender? That'll make for an interesting general election campaign. If Hillary couldn't beat Obama without flashing her weeping cooter for the world to see, John McCain would beat her directly into hell without breaking a sweat.
People like Ferarro seem to insist that the problems facing female candidates are almost entirely due to male sexism. Yet, study after study reveals two important facts. First, women are not as likely to run because they don't like doing things that are required in politics, such as asking strangers for money and going negative on opponents.
Secondly, women are far less likely to vote for women candidates than are men. In fact, Hillary has only consistently beaten Obama among women without college degrees and those over 65. Men aren't sexist against female politicians, women are.
And decrying sexism in the same sentence as the name Clinton is rich with irony. The candidate's husband is known to have at least once met a woman for the first time, dropped his pants and implored her to "kiss it."
When that woman had the temerity to file a civil rights lawsuit that their administration's legislation expressly provided for, both Clintons stood aside as their depraved minions excoriated her motives and morals. That pattern was repeated almost endlessly throughout the Clinton administration.
That same administration passed a welfare reform bill that was absolutely brutal on single mothers, the majority of whom are white, and Hillary has yet to comment either way on it.
Hillary, Geraldine Ferraro, and the women's movement generally never spoke out against the public or private treatment dished out upon women by President Clinton. But they sure took care of Bob Packwood, perhaps the greatest champion the women's movement ever had in the United States Senate, didn't they?
Packwood's private behaviour was probably not as bad as Bill Clinton's (Packwood was never accused of an actual rape), but the prices the two men paid couldn't have been more different. Packwood was ruined and Clinton left office with a 63% approval rating, due almost entirely to women. Packwood admitted to chronic alcoholism, which in no small contributed to his actions, and went into treatment after his resignation from the Senate. Clinton is on the record as saying that he treated women the way he did "because I could."
But Bob Packwood committed the unpardonable sin of being a Republican. That this isn't something that NARAL mentions in their dinners honoring Ted Kennedy, who is so enlightened that he won't even open a woman's car door for her, doesn't make it any less true.
The fact is that the women's movement does absolutely nothing for women and hasn't in a long time. It is, however, very good for the Democratic Party. Or is it?
Geraldine Ferraro won't rush to point this out to you, but she was hardly the most qualified candidate for the vice presidency in '84. She was in Congress for less than five years, represented one of the safest Democratic seats in the country and did virtually nothing when she was there. Walter Mondale wasn't looking for someone who could assume the presidency, he was looking to "make a statement."
If qualifications meant anything, Mondale would have chosen Gary Hart or Sam Nunn. Both are men that everyone would have recognised were capable of being president if it became necessary. They also would have made Ronald Reagan actually work for the states of Georgia and Colorado. But Hart and Nunn lacked the most important qualification of all in 1984: a vagina.
The fact is that qualifications mean nothing in American politics. Ferraro wasn't qualified, and neither is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Neither, for that matter, was George W. Bush. Christ, the governor of Texas can't issue a pardon without getting eight other people to agree with him.
Ferraro is taking an intellectually interesting position here: It's wrong to vote against Hillary Clinton because she has a snatch (although there's absolutely no evidence that anyone has), but it's perfectly appropriate to nominate Ferraro herself for high office for no other reason than her possession of same.
Here's another fact. Hillary Clinton has received more primary votes than any other Democratic candidate not named Barack Obama in American history. Again, she raised a quarter of a billion dollars, more even than President Bush did in either of his races.
Ms. Ferraro stated early on in her dopey editorial "That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt," yet presents no evidence that it did. She goes on to say "Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know." If you don't know, isn't it safer and less divisive to assume that it didn't, especially since you're not presenting any compelling reason to think that it did? Does losing 19 primaries and caucuses in row make an election close? And isn't being divisive the GOP's job?
What Ferraro and Clinton are seeking isn't equality of opportunity or even equality of outcome. They couldn't be clearer that they want to win for no other reason than they used to bleed from their fucking crotches on a regular basis as that's the only qualification for office Ms. Ferraro mentions in her article.
Geraldine Ferraro has essentially come out and asserted something that I never would: that women can't win in a fair fight. And when you consider that Benazir Bhutto was twice elected in a place as sexually backward as Pakistan, where honor killings aren't unheard of, it tells you something about her opinion of America.
Which is her right. I just wish that she didn't have to be such a bitch about it.
SO LONG, SUGAR TITS: THE TREASONOUS JUGS OF SUSAN SARANDON
I always have a good time when celebrities get involved in politics. There's just something about it that smells like ... victory. I'm not sure why it is, but there are few things in life that I enjoy more than seeing society's luckiest and most fortunate people humiliate themselves. It makes me feel whole.
Politics is a complicated thing and celebrities (R.Kelly notwithstanding) are simple people. They are also simpletons. They, like 12 year old girls everywhere, don't necessarily need to know something so long as they feel it. This is particularly true of the film and music communities.
And if there's one thing that they are almost uniform in feeling, it is that Republicans are bad people. Oddly, they can never seem to explain why this is so. I've spent five years explaining just that, often in excruciating detail. Yet no one is giving me millions of dollars and the cosmetic surgery I need so desperately.
If just one celebrity could come forward and say "Look, Republicans are assholes and here's why. They spend way too much fucking money, can't plan a war for shit, and are given to sending dirty instant messages to teenage boys and getting suck started by other men in the bathroom of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport" I'd have a whole lot more respect for them. If nothing else, it would tell me that they've been paying attention.
Instead all you hear is "Bush is evil," "the death penalty is bad" and "Stop China." Granted, there are arguments to be made for all of those assertions, but you'll never hear them from Hollywood's chattering classes. This is because virtually everyone in Hollywood is an idiot. Their ability to explain complicated matters of public policy is even lower than that of politicians, who can at least lie in a semi-entertaining way.
What I like best about celebrity activism is just how ineffective it is. In 2004, there was unanimity of opinion among the artistic community that President Bush was a jabbering dupe and a dangerous one at that. All the support the GOP could muster was from Ron Silver and nobody knows who he is. Christ, even Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't have that many nice things to say about the president.
Bush was probably the most vulnerable incumbent president since Hoover. But he still won. It turns out that society's opinion makers didn't make very many opinions, huh?
I also love it when celebrities, actors in particular, threaten to leave the country when an election doesn't go their way. Whatever would America do without all that pretending by botoxed savants, they must be thinking. Alec Baldwin does that a lot, but never follows through. This must annoy his daughter greatly.
The latest to threaten expatriatism is Susan Sarandon. Ms. Sarandon is beautifully jugged in an almost classical way. She's exceptionally hot if you're into banging grandmas, which I am. She's also slightly to the left of the Pathet Lao. But she has a great rack, so what are you going to do?
I can sing arias about those titties. In fact, I do everytime I see them. Those are such fantastic udders that one forgets that their owner gave Benjamin Franklin his first handjob. One also forgets that she also does lapdances for the Shining Path. If nothing else, it beats selling Girl Guide cookies.
Now, I'm the type of guy who doesn't let something as trivial as politics get in the way of my appreciation of a fine set of speed bumps. I almost never go to Hooters to discuss an election. Come to think of it, I have no idea who most of the women in life vote for. I just tell them who they should vote for and trust that they do as they're told. Sort of like how it works in the bedroom. Or the kitchen.
There's something about a woman with huge jugs and a look of sexual desperation in her eyes that make me overlook any number of things. But if there's one thing that I can't overlook, it would have to be treason. You see, I love America and all of the wonderful things (the mainstreaming of pornography, snuff movies, wars that entertaining, presidents who can't speak in complete sentences) that it has given the world.
It literally sickens me to hear someone shit talk the United States. That's doubly true if that someone isn't me.
And that's where the marvellous milkbags of Susan Sarandon and I disagree.
Always busy, Sarandon is about to start work on the romantic period drama The Colossus, but with the presidential election campaign being heatedly contested, she also has bigger things to consider.
"If McCain gets in, it's going to be very, very dangerous," she says.
"It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I'll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss."
Oddly, she chose two countries that currently have their most right-wing governments since the Second World War. I thought she would've have picked someplace with a more current experience with liberalism, like anyplace south of Mexico.
If nothing else, I admire Sarandon's honesty. Let's review the most important part of her statement, shall we? "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I'll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know."
Having been in college in 1776, Susan Sarandon has seen a lot in her day. But she never lost faith in the American people. But her patience is being sorely tested by their stubbon insistence on voting for the person that they feel is best qualified to lead the country.
Seriously, how long should Susan be expected to put up with your fucking nonsense anyhow? She's stuck with you through so much, knowing all the while that Canada's inclement weather would make her nipples permanently hard and therefore make her boobies look even better. Your fucking impertinence is driving this woman to treason, goddamn it!
But when a woman with huge knockers is involved, I'm nothing if not helpful. In that spirit, I've been thinking of places that Sarandon can go to if things don't go her way. And I've found the perfect place for her - Iraq.
Stay with me on this. Iraq had a really bad government recently. Now it has several sort of bad ones. And they have elections all the fucking time. If the people of Iraq abuse Susan's faith in them, all she has to do is wait twenty minutes and there'll be another election where they can redeem themselves.
But I think there's something deeper and profoundly more human going on here. You'll notice that Ms. Sarandon only mentions her moving to Italy or maybe Canada. Tim Robbins isn't mentioned at all.
And frankly, who can blame her? The guy is a mutant and doesn't look as though he can fuck properly at all. How long should a woman be expected to tolerate something like that? Whenever I see them together, I imagine that she's babysitting an awkwardly tall retarded kid who has developed a crush on her and she doesn't know how to break away without breaking his heart.
For the love of Christ, he gets a woman with a body like that and what does Robbins do? He dresses her up as a nun for fuck's sake! There's definately something wrong with him.
It couldn't be clearer that she needs to get away from that Robbins retard. In which case, Canada is there perfect place for her to come. I can fix her little red wagon but good. And that goes double for her big-titted daughter. I know things that Tim Robbins almost certainly doesn't. Like how to satisfy an old woman and her starlet daughter.
And I'm willing to do that for one reason. I'll do it because I love America and everything it represents. But I'll do it for you!
Y'know, if my girlfriend lets me.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day:She's Leaving HomeBy: The Beatles From:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration by James Risen Finished, Thursday 19 January 2006
A Simple Twist of Fate: Bob Dylan and the Making of Blood on the Tracks by Andy Gill and Kevin Odegard Finished, 23 January 2006
Grits: An Intimate Portrait of the Liberal Party By Christina McCall-Newman Finished, 17 March 2006
Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architechts of American Power by David Rothkopf Finished, 6 April 2006
Strategery: How George W. Bush is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats and Confounding the Mainstream Media By Bill Sammon Finished, May 10, 2006
George Wallace: American Populist By Stephan Lesher Finished, June 15, 2006
Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi - U.S Connection By Gerald Posner Finished, June 20, 2006
Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan By Robert D. Kaplan Finished, June 27, 2006
Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus By Rick Perlstien Finished, July 4, 2006
Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson And His Times 1961-1973 By Robert Dallek Finished, August 10, 2006
Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential By James Moore and Wayne Slater Finished, October 7, 2006
The Fall Of Baghdad By Jon Lee Anderson Finished, October 31, 2006
The Way It Works: Inside Ottawa By Eddie Goldenberg Finished, November 12, 2006
Child Of God By Cormac McCarthy Finished, November 18, 2006
Right Side Up: The Fall Of Paul Martin And The Rise Of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism By Paul Wells Finished, December 8, 2006
The Private Life Of Chairman Mao By Dr. Li Zhisui, Translation By Tai Hung Chao Finished, December 14, 2006
Exile On Main Street: A Season In Hell With The Rolling Stones By: Robert Greenfeild Finished, February 21, 2007
"Work Hard, Study ... And Keep Out Of Politics!" Adventures And Lessons From An Unexpected Public Life By: James A. Baker, III with Steve Fiffer Finished, March 7, 2007
Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story Of The Struggle For Control Of The United States Supreme Court By Jan Crawford Greenburg Finished, March 14, 2007
Imperial Life In The Emerald City: Life Inside Iraq's Green Zone By: Rajiv Chandransekaran Finished March 18, 2007
Memories Of My Melancholy Whores By: Gabriel Garcia Marquez Finished, March 21, 2007
Guests Of The Ayatollah: The First Battle In America's War With Militant Islam By: Mark Bowden Finished, April 4, 2007
Screwjack By: Hunter S. Thompson Finished, April 19, 2007
State Of Denial: Bush At War, Part III By: Bob Woodward Finished, April 22, 2007
31 Days: Gerald Ford, The Nixon Pardon, And A Government In Crisis By: Barry Werth Finished, May 6, 2007
At The Center Of The Storm: My Years At The CIA By: George Tenent with Bill Harlow Finished, May 28, 2007
No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner By: Robert Shrum Finished: July 1, 2007
Chief of Staff: Lyndon Johnson and His Presidency By: W. Marvin Watson with Sherwin Markmarn Finished: July 12, 2007
Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power By: Robert Dalleck Finished: July 17, 2007
1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs - The Election That Changed The Country By: James Chace Finished: August 5, 2007
Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey By: Linda Greenhouse Finished: August 20, 2007
President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination By: Richard Reeves Finished: September 20, 2007
Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush By: Robert Draper Finished: October 1, 2007
Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power By: Tom Flanagan Finished: October 9, 2007
Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics By: Bob Plamondon Finished: October 17, 2007
My Years As Prime Minister By: Jean Chretien Finished: October 23, 2007
The Thumpin': How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to Be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution By: Naftali Bendavid Finished: October 25, 2007
Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency By: Richard A. Posner Finished, October 29, 2007
Slash By: Slash and Anthony Bozza Finished: November 1, 2007
The Heroin Diaries: A Year in the Life of a Shattered Rock Star By: Nikki Sixx and Ian Gittin Finished: November 2, 2007
Clapton: The Autobiography By: Eric Clapton Finished: November 5, 2007
Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet By: James Mann Finished: November 13, 2007
Miami and the Siege of Chicago: An Informal History of the American Political Conventions of 1968 By: Norman Mailer Finished: November 15, 2007
Memoirs: 1939-1993 By: Brian Mulroney Finished: December 3,2007
Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperalism By: P.J O'Rourke Finished: December 4, 2007
The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 By: Lawrence Wright Finished: December 11, 2007
The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 By: Ron Suskind Finished: December 19, 2007
Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President By: Stephen F. Hayes Finished: December 25, 2007
When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House By: Patricia O'Toole Finished: January 1, 2008
America's First Dynasty: The Adamses, 1735-1918 By: Richard Brookhiser Finished:January 7, 2008
The Road By: Cormac McCarthy Finished: January 9, 2008
The Conviction of Richard Nixon: The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews By: James Reston, Jr. Finished" January 11, 2008
Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford By: Thomas M. DeFrank Finished: January 15, 2008
The Bush Tragedy By: Jacob Weisberg Finished: January 18, 2008
When All You Have Is Hope By: Frank O'Dea with John Lawrence Reynolds Finished: January 21, 2008
Confessions of a Political Hitman: My Secret Life of Scandal, Corruption, Hypocrisy and Dirty Tricks That Decide Who Gets Elected (and Who Doesn't) By: Stephen Marks Finished: February 8, 2008
The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court By: Jeffery Toobin Finished, February 18, 2008
The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power By: James Moore and Wayne Slater Finished, February 21, 2008
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln By: Doris Kerns Goodwin Finished, February 26, 2008
Post Office By: Charles Bukowski Finished: March 6, 2008
Factotum By: Charles Bukowski Finished: March 7, 2008
Women By: Charles Bukowski Finished: March 10, 2008
Queer By: William S. Burroughs Finished: March 12, 2008
To Live's To Fly: The Ballad of the Late, Great Townes Van Zant By: John Kruth Finished: March 17, 2008
Twenty Thousand Roads: The Ballad of Gram Parsons and His Cosmic American Music By: David N. Meyer Finished: March 24, 2008
W.A.R: The Unauthorized Biography of William Axl Rose By: Mick Wall Finished: April 4, 2008
Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons By: Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark Finished: April 21, 2008
The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq By: George Packer Finished: May 5, 2008
Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush By: John W. Dean Finished: May 7, 2008
Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House By: Carol Felenthal Finished: May 12, 2008
Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America By: Rick Perlstein Finished: June 2, 2008
Infidel By: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Finished: June 11, 2008
The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy By: Joe Mathews Finished: June 20, 2008
The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate By: James Rosen Finished: June 30, 2008
American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond By: E. Howard Hunt w/ Greg Aunuapu Finished: July 4, 2008
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA By: Tim Weiner Finished: July 16, 2008
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder By: Vincent Bugliosi Finished: July 21, 2008
War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror By: John Yoo Finished: July 25, 2008
Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters By: Richard A. Clarke Finished: July 31, 2008
The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America By: Kenneth M. Pollack Finished: August 13, 2008
The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture By: Ishmael Jones Finished: August 19, 2008
Havana Nocturne: How the Mob Owned Cuba ... And Then Lost It to the Revolution By: T.J Enjlish Finished: August 25, 2008
Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia By: Ahmed Rashid Finished: Sepember 9, 2008
The Case Against the General: Manuel Noriega and the Politics of American Justice By: Steve Albert Finished: September 25, 2008
Condolezza Rice: An American Life By: Elisabeth Bumiller Finished: October 10, 2008
Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989 Michael Beschloss Finished: October 13, 2008
What People Are Saying About skippy
"hands down, Canada's most underrated blog" Damian Penny, The Undisputed Dean of Canadian Political Bloggers. Posted at Daimnation , Saturday October 21, 2006
"You can count on “Skippy” to make you think in different ways about familiar issues. You can also depend on him to be rude, offensive, and outrageous – if you're offended by completely uninhibited sexual imagery (and imagination!), don't read Skippy – but your prudery will keep you from an often interesting perspective." Posted On: Jamulblog, July 12, 2007
"Your Maximum Leader is beginning to think that the less he posts, the better Skippy’s political posts are. Indeed, your Maximum Leader even thought (just a few short moments ago) that if your Maximum Leader just stopped blogging all together would Skippy just keep on writing enough good material for two blogs? (Admittedly one of those blogs would be an X-rated social commentary/diary site and the second a remarkably well-informed and insightful political commentary site…)" Posted On: Naked Villainy, September 18, 2007
"I love your writing. few could pull off sarcastic humor and self-loathing like you do. You've turned self-disgust
into an art form." Posted By:Ophelia July 19, 2003
"hahaha um, not funny" Posted By: Ophelia July 17, 2003
"This is not fucking funny." Posted By: Bee August 21, 2003
"I join Bee in saying that this isn''t funny AT ALL. jesus christ, Skippy." Posted By: Ophelia August 23,
2003
"You are obiviously being kept down by the Mud People." Posted By: DrReverend August 21, 2003
"I''ll give you $50.00 if you kill yourself." Posted By: DrReverend August 19, 2003
"Last time I read this blog." Posted By: Dave, October 24, 2003
"I think you should stop talking about killing yourself and ACTUALLY kill yourself. For fuck's sake, everybody is
tired of hearing about how you might, just do it or face the fact that you are too pathetic to even kill yourself."
Posted By: A Caring Guy, October 25, 2003
"If Joey Ramone were alive today he'd probably shit in your mouth." Posted By: DrReverend November 11,
"When you're good, you're good. When you're bad, you're even better. See you in hell." Posted By: Anna
November 11, 2003
"Skippy, if you can prove to me that giving head and swallowing will without a doubt keep lung cancer and heart
disease at bay, you've earned yourself a BJ." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious, December 5, 2003
"Wow...you know nothing about politics." Posted Dr. Reverend, December 26, 2003
"You are a dick and should think seriously about killing your stupid blog - go get a job, you big fag"Posted
By: Princess Paragonian, December 29, 2003
"You have a, how shall i say.... appealing 'tough', yet gently gay look." (Univited PM) Posted
by:Jus20012002, January 2, 2004 .
"I hope jesus doesn't kick you in the nuts."Posted By: Mary Magdalicious February 2, 2004
"Stumbled on to your blog by accident and i must say alot of the stuff had me in stitches. Love it" Posted
By:Jeremy February 4, 2004
" .....sick."Posted By: Bee February 7, 2004
"Hey Skippy, you ever consider running for public office in the states? I know some people in the West Virginia state
government and our Senator can't live forever.Hell, even Strom, Thomas-Jefferson-Fan, Thurmond died
eventually.Posted By: Ford W. Mavrick, February 9, 2004
Wow, for someone who is so opinionated, you really don't know shit about American or Canadian culture. You appear to
know even less about history." Posted By: Dr. Reverend February 13, 2004
"Your blog's the best I have come across in a long time. I may not agree with all you say but the verve with which
you say it and the humour and irreverance is terrific. These days when the media just reproduces the handout from central
control, blogs like yours do a great deal to form informed opinion in a democratic society. Thanks. Keep it up."
Posted By:Anandan February 13, 2004
"SKIPPY pities ME? Where's my noose?" Posted By: Kilgore Trout March 22, 2004
"Jesus Skippy. Now Allah is going to kick you in the nuts" Posted By: Mary Magdalicious March 22, 2004
"I could make one that says "Skippy has a small penis" although his cock is superb. Posted By: Bestest Pussy March 23,2004
"Cunt sucking is for bitches.You're considered one of the girls because you dress like one. Posted By: Dr. Reverend March 24, 2004
"John Malkovich is one sexy bastard. I have such a thing for him. And I never realized til now, Skippy, how much you resemble John Malkovich...this, by default, makes you also one sexy bastard. See how that works?" Posted By: Zombie March, 26, 2004
"Too bad you live up north. It could have been beautiful.
Ever since I started coming here and saw your pic I wondered why you weren't getting more action. You are not a bad looking guy at all.
Maybe the girls are just...well, that's enough kindness for one day." Posted By: Serenity March 26, 2004
"Hell, if they make gay marriage legal, I'll marry you..." Posted By: Outpatient March 26, 2004
"You look creepier than the REM faggot. But he looks much more like a homersexual." Posted By: Dr. Reverend March 27, 2004
"Skippy, your hits will go up again if you post pictures of your man nipples. Lots of man nips." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious April 15, 2004
"What the fuck? You turning faggot? Posted By: Dr. Reverend April 16, 2004
"Sometimes it gets to be just a little too much. Sharing, that is." Posted By: Bee May 23, 2004
"I'll give you $5.00 if you make the fucking font you use on your blog bigger.
I'll give you $50.00 if you stop fucking writing about American politics.
I'll give you $500.00 if you fucking kill youself." Posted By: Dr. Reverend May 26, 2004
"Of course women like jerks.
Why the fuck do you think they like me?
I guess you've learned nothing from me over all these years." Posted By: Dr. Reverend May 29, 2004
"Sometimes a bitch just has to die." Posted By: Ford W. Maverick May 29, 2004
"It looks like we have more in common than the swastikas carved in our foreheads."Posted By: Dr. Reverend May 29, 2004
"This might be a shallow and 'Waiting-for-Godot-like' comment but...you seem to have not only brains but also beauty." Posted By: Nietzscheswife June 7, 2004
"Skippy, you are such a twisted bastard. Seriously. Why haven't we had sex yet?"Posted By: 0phelia June 25, 2004
"Just found your site. I find some of the things you say quite disgusting. And really quite enjoyable,so keep up the good work."Posted By: Big Al June 28, 2004
"I've read most of your blog. I'd say that so far it's the best I've come across, and believe me, I've seen a few. It's funny, well written (except for the spelling...) and interesting. There will always be those few idiots who just don't get it. It's useless to get worked up about it." Posted By: Johnny June 30, 2004
"Skippy... Go for the facial tattoo. I dig em', and fuck what those other bitches think. You can always bite their tits off if they back talk you." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious July 1, 2004
"Go fuck yourself up your butt." Posted By: Reek Stankleberry July 6, 2004
"Well if ass-fucking won't keep Satan away, I just don't know what will." Posted By: Dr. Reverend July 7, 2004
"dude, you're killing me. keep it up." Posted By: Son of Nixon July 22, 2004
"Are you always either naked or in a suit?" Posted By: Rehella July 22, 2004
"That person should speak for himself or herself. 'Cause you really are that much of a cunt, skippy." Posted By: Kilgore Trout August 4, 2004
"I've read you for a long time but have never commented before. That isn't a slight to your great writing ability, it's mainly because I don't want to be seen here!" Posted By: Paul August 4, 2004
" Dead on. Bulls-eye. I take back what I said about you being a cunt. For now." Posted By: Kilgore Trout August 4, 2004
"Know what, Skippy? You're alright." Posted By: Anna August 18, 2004
"Excellent work. Damn you for being so dead on." Posted By: The Maximum Leader August 24, 2004
"Skippy, fuck the puppy idea. Try getting a monkey that smokes. That will get you laid." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious August 27, 2004
"As to the beard - I like the clean shaven better - and what's wrong with a bald head? Bald heads are hot on some guys - unfortunately most can't pull it off * sigh * You look like you can pull it off though and that's a good thing - not a bad.
BTW, love your blog. I saw it in my referrers and thought it was just a random hit. Then I started reading and found you to be hilarious - it was only after about 10 posts that I noticed you linked me. I was more than flattered - linked by someone I was about to link anyway - awesome. Thanks" Posted By: Kinky August 27, 2004
"Fuckin' Goy bastard." Posted By: Dr Reverend December 19,2004
"Who does a guy have to sleep with to get one of his Skippy quotes pasted to the sidebar?
Great googly-moogly." Posted By: Smallholder December 20, 2004
"Are you a child molester or what's the story?" Posted By: Fukinator, December 28, 2004
"Sick dude." Posted By: DCayer December 29, 2004
"You officially suck." Posted By: Sorry, January 22, 2005
"I heart you, Skippy" Posted By: Karinsky, January 25, 2005
"As I've stated before, you were quite skilled in bed and I had no need to fake any of my multiple orgasms." Posted By: 0phelia, June 30, 2005
"I love Skippy. I swear I do. The only blogger more twisted than me." Posted on: Velociworld, July 26, 2005
" You are so fucking ignorant about America. And while the American people ARE stupid, so are you." Posted By: Bill Lassiter, August 2, 2005
"How can you not love a man who hates himself so viciously?" Posted on: It's All About De , August 31, 2005
"If I wasn't positive that all Canadian men had tiny penises, I'd be all over that Skippy." Posted On: It's All About De
"I've seen pictures of you and I'd say you're fuckable." Posted By: Joan, September 29, 2005
" I love your posts on Canadian politics even more than I love your posts on porn.
And I love your porn posts.
Why the hell do you waste all this talent on the internet? Write a book or something, goddammit! Posted By: Cliff S., November 17, 2005
"Let it never be said that underneath your self-cavilling, bitter (yet strangely egomaniacal) surface that you never take the time to give the people what they want. Even if it's just one people. Gawd bless you, Skippy! Posted By: Locke, November 18, 2005
"Wow! I don't know that I've ever been flattered and yet somewhat revolted at the same time... It's an interesting sensation." Posted By: Dewey in Toronto, December 1, 2005
"Very often, debating you is like playing whack a mole: You pop up some premised assertion moles, I pull out my mallet and start whacking, then you pop up more premised assertion moles - which are mostly or completely unrelated to the original moles I was whacking at. Your stock of moles seemingly stretches into infinity. And yet, an endless supply of moles does not equate to cogent argument.
Very often, debating you is like speaking to a salesman who will not answer a particular direct question, and instead flies off on the flight of rhetorical splendor known as "baffling them with bullshit." I'm impressed with your rhetorical skills, and your IQ, and your accumulation of knowledge. I'm impressed that I'm the American citizen, yet you might have a more thorough knowledge of the American Constitution than I. And yet, these impressive things are not substitutes for cogent argument."Posted By; gcotharn, December 21, 2005
"Besides, you seem to think you're the least respectable person I know. While you're often right, you're wrong on that count. Careful, I might out YOU as a nice guy. Or something." Posted By: Dewey In Toronto, December 27, 2005
"I've been to Toronto. The most dangerous thing I saw there was an 11 foot tall red head with shaved balls."Posted By: Judy, December 31, 2005
"There was this "Caught on Tape!" video I watched back in my highschool days where one of the scenes shows two people starting to cross the railroad tracks. One looks up at the last minute and sees the train, the other does not. In the commercial, it cuts away just before the train does its thing, but the video...
Your blog is like a twisted version of the video. We know the train is going liquify you in shocking gory fashion, but that's why we keep coming back. It's so much more fun that we both know the train is coming and you still gleefully walk into its path...and we love you all the more for it." Posted By:Locke, January 13, 2006
"Fuck. I'm hooked." Posted By: DeAnna, January 14, 2006
"Your Maximum Leader has found Skippy's commentary more insightful and interesting than anyone elses. So now he supposes that Skippy will go back to writing about porn and strippers he meets in the subway." Posted By: The Maximum Leader on Naked Villainy January 24, 2006
"Slightly crazed is fine, but with the beard you look like a total nutjob. If you ever hope to get laid again, for fuck's sake, Skippy, NEVER, EVER grow a saddam beard. You're welcome."Posted By: The Lady O, 28 January, 2006
"Maybe we should get married. My readers could support us by purchasing my worn panties and you could be the panty pimp." Posted By; Joan 28 January 2006
" I know it must be hard for you...being objectified by women all the time. But come on, how can they really help themselves? Have you seen yourself lately? Your pheramones preceed you into a room (as does your crotch). Don't blame it all on them...you did choose to leave your house. :D" Posted By: Joan, 3 February, 2006
"Skippy, you sarcastic twerp." Posted By: Arwen, 8 February 2006
"Just so you know.. if I had to choose between Moussaoui or Skippy.. You'd win. Even if I know what an asshole you are. Posted By; Judy, 13 February 2006
"I'd be willing to sign a legal document stating that is IS ok, in fact, to masturbate whilst thinking of me." Posted By: DeAnna (Who seems unaware of my reputation as an outlaw) February 24, 2006
"Feel free to masturbate while thinking of me...actually, do you need some of my panties to help you with that?" Posted By: Joan, February 24, 2006
"I blame myself for this. I have been too lenient with you. Your Godless behaviour must come to an end. You will receive a severe beating this weekend and I am contemplating removing your testicles." Posted By: Dr. Reverend, February 24, 2006
"Just remember skippy, the US never threw a fit when you smuggled your own personal WMD over the border twice a year. After all, it wasn't like you were hiding in your pants or anything.
All's fair in love and war, so to speak." Posted By: Judy, April 4, 2006
"Wow...nothing hotter than a man willing to issue fatwas for pussy." Posted By: Joan, April 16, 2006
"You sir, are a brilliant writer." Posted By: Judy, May 4, 2006
"I think I'm falling in love." Posted By: DeAnna, May 11, 2006
"THIS IS THE MOST DIABOLICAL FALSITY YOU HAVE EVER ENGAGED IN!!!!
I was intending to kick you in the face upon our next meeting, but now it's obvious that I must douse your scrotum in kerosene and set your testicles aflame. Alas, it is the only way you will learn." Posted By: Dr. Reverend, May 12, 2006
"And i would like to commend you on some excellent blogging. This particular story would normally warrant a few cryptically humorous lines and a link. To an ordinary blogger. But you managed to wring an essay of New Yorker-esque proportions out of it. That takes talent. Your beautiful young friend is right. I see big things for you in the future." Posted By: Annika, June 4, 2006
" I like a man who will unabashedly tell someone his penis size because hes unashamed. Thats hot.
*raises hand* I'll take that 6.5, thank ya" Posted By: Kinky, June 6, 2006
"Elvis, like skippy, is the very definition of rock and roll. Posted By: Rube, June 10, 2006
" I'm beginning to think you're the only good man left in the world, skippy. WTF?" Posted By: By: DeAnns, June 11, 2006
"Just so everyone knows.
Skippy does indeed, taste like bacon.
And, any guy who doesn't know cum tastes good to real women, is clueless." Posted By: Judy, July 2, 2006
"There was a British columnist whose work was described as 'a suicide note in weekly installments.'
This blog is sort of like that." Posted By: Gadfly, July 6, 2006
"Jeez, Skippy. Sometimes I really hate coming here." Posted By: Cynlee, July 18, 2006
"Someone needs to throttle you with a riding crop...truly!" Posted By: Joan, July 18, 2006
"Holy mother of god. I just had an orgasm. It's official: I'm devoting the rest of my life to you, skippy." Posted By: DeAnna, July 19, 2006
"Skippy, sometimes I'm not quite sure of your sanity, but you are without a doubt the baddest morning news reading, quiz show hosting, talent introducing PIMP in the motherfuckin' blogosphere." Posted By: Shank, July 19, 2006
