My mom, who lives in Mumbai, India, has trouble understanding American politics. Recently she asked me to give her a brief summary of what's going on.
I explained, "There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party."
In an attempt to put my own cards on the table, I confessed, "I am a proud member of the stupid party."
Then I added, "Sometimes, American politicians do things that are both stupid and evil. Those things we call bipartisanship."
I was kidding, of course, but the humor arises out of the element of truth in this description. Consider the charge of stupidity. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?
I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have appointed Cheney the first time around. Cheney inspires irrational and paranoid loathing on the left--he's Darth Vader for the Michael Moore set--and this alone was good reason to keep him reasonably close to the Oval Office, not to mention the nuclear arsenal.
But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.
Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive? This is the moral equivalent of Republican candidates rushing to make campaign commercials with Larry Craig. Notice how the moral scoundrels in the GOP are typically hounded out while the moral scoundrels in the Democratic party generally continue to enjoy their prestige and good standing.
Any party with a sense of decency would ignore and marginalize Ted Kennedy. Besides, what constituency does this man represent? Is it really that important to lock in the votes of dissolute, philandering seniors who still go down to Florida for Spring break?
So here's the situation. Kennedy offers his blessings to Obama and offers to say some black masses for him. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp claims that Obama turned away while Hillary was shaking Kennedy's hand because she is a woman.
Given the irrelevance of gender to this situation, the Hillary team's reaction is downright comic. Yet the shrews at the National Organization for Women are echoing the cries of sexism from the Hillary camp. All that remains is for Obama to counter with the race card and accuse Hillary of making such charges because he is black.
As the election gets closer, I'll try to give my mom a more detailed account of the issues at stake. But I think I've given her enough to keep her informed, and entertained, at least through the primaries.



Reader Comments ( Page 37 of 37)
541. Take your dumb Ass BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!!
Chuck Ramsey at 10:14PM on Feb 2nd 2008
542. Final comment.
Pro-life=Right to kill Iraqis,wrong to kill fetuses(human beings both)
Pro-choice=Right to kill unborn babies,(they are not humans-oh yes,even if i was once a fetus,it is ok if Mommy decided to kill me)
Wrong to kill Iraqis.
Who is the barbarian now?
Good Morning.
aniekan thomas at 5:36AM on Feb 5th 2008
543. aniekan - Good morning to you. You make a good point. If someone is pro-life, s/he believes that life begins when the ovum is fertilized. Is killing a person who has been born retroactive abortion, thus wrong. Or is it OK to kill someone who has committed one of a specific list of sins?
On the other hand, if someone is pro-choice, they cannot believe life begins with fertilization, else they are accessories before the fact.
What remains are those who do not believe life begins with a fertilized ovum.
alan at 12:35PM on Feb 5th 2008