Politics and Whatnot

Just another liberal political blog

Monthly Archives: November 2011

I think I need a timeout

After my latest rant regarding the supercommittee and few anger-fueled runs on the various message board, I feel like maybe a break would be a good thing what with Thanksgiving coming up and all.  To the extent possible I will try to avoid writing about, reading about, and thinking about politics for a week’s time, to allow my anger to cool so I don’t use hyperbolic language about things like the Republicans using fear, hate, and greed to manipulate poorly-educated suckers into working against their own interests, because that’s not really fair.  There are two sides to every argument, right?  Well I don’t know if I believe that right now.   I really am starting to feel more and more like the most greedy and powerful are consolidating their control of government and demanding the last morsels of power held by the rest of us.  When others start thinking in that “us vs. them” mentality, that’s when they start saying stupid things and not being useful to the conversation, and I don’t think I’m immune from that. So I’m taking a break.

Besides, who wants to read this blog anyway?  Check out this kick-ass graphic from xkcd about money.

Advertisements

Americans for Tax Reform provides handly list of the pledge-signers that sank the supercommittee

So, as widely predicted, the budget supercommittee has failed.  Currently there are a number of pundits out there pretending to be struggling to figure out just why the supercommittee failed and straining to blame both parties in an attempt to appear nonpartisan when interpreting very partisan facts.  Here’s why the supercommittee failed: ALL of the Republican members of said committee signed a pledge that they would “oppose any and all efforts” not only to raise taxes, but also to even eliminate tax deductions.  The list is here.

On the list appear the following members of the supercommittee:

AZ-Sen Jon Kyl (R)

OH-Sen Rob Portman (R)

PA-Sen Pat Toomey (R)

TX-05 Jeb Hensarling (R)

MI-06 Fred Upton (R)

MI-04 Dave Camp (R)

Once again, that is each and every one of the Republican members of the supercommittee.  When reporting on the failure of the supercommittee, this is the ONLY fact that is relevant.  No Democrat signed a no-spending pledge.  It’s like we’re trying to move a big refrigerator that requires two people to carry.  The person on the left says “I’m willing to carry my end if you carry your end.”  And the other side says “No, I’m not going to carry my end because I signed a pledge never to use any of my own muscles.  You will have to carry it all yourself.”  Since the refrigerator requires two people to carry it, it stays where it is.  Who’s at fault?  Obviously, the person who wouldn’t carry his end because he signed a pledge.  This is elementary.  No further explanation is necessary.

Now I can hear people saying, “That’s an unfair analogy!  We can balance the budget with all spending cuts and no tax hikes or removal of deductions.”  Well if that’s the case, you’re free to try it yourself and submit the result in the comments.  Sure it can be done, but it’s going to look every bit as ridiculous as a man carrying a refrigerator by himself.

So there you have it.  The supercommittee failed because each and every Republican on the committee signed a no-tax pledge and for NO OTHER REASON WHATSOEVER.   The phony-centrist-favored explanation of the moment seems to be that Obama didn’t get involved in babysitting Congress enough, which is absolute horseshit.  The Republicans promised their most right-wing supporters that they would do everything in their power to make Obama a one term president, so Obama only would have solidified Republican non-cooperation further (even though it was not in need of any solidification).  The whole Republican strategy for 2012 is to refuse to cooperate, and then blame Obama for their own noncooperation.  Obama’s lack of involvement shows that he’s finally realizing that’s what the plan is.

We can do better than this.  No more pledge signers.  Look at the list and find your jurisdiction, and “oppose any and all efforts” to reelect them.  Whenever you hear their name, remind whoever spoke it that the person is a pledge-signer, who puts politics above reasonableness, cheap political points above effort, and fantasy above reality.  Point out that the pledge signer thinks you’re a sucker who can be tricked into voting against your own interests with cheap pledge porn that plays to your greediest emotions.  The budget mess is a direct result of the unreasonableness of the pledge-signers, and don’t let anyone say otherwise without contradiction ever again.

Sizing up the Newt Gingrich

Recent polls show Newt Gingrich with a significant lead over Mitt Romney, with as much 24% of the vote (irony intended).  So, after I correctly predicted that Cain would fall (although not exactly why he would fall), am I ready to do the same with Gingrich?  Not so fast.   Gingrich has a few advantages that the other non-Romney candidates don’t:

1.We already know what’s wrong with him.  We know Gingrich is a typical corrupt Washington politican who’s current wife was the mistress that caused him to break up with his second wife, who in turn was his mistress during his first marriage.   We know Gingrich was kicked out of Congress by his own party in 1997, that he was the only Speaker of the House in the history of the US to be sanctioned for ethics violations, and that he was one of the leaders of the highly unpopular impeachment of Bill Clinton (which having an affair with his current-wife-then-mistress).  We know all that, and he’s still leading the Republican field.  If he can hold the lead with all that history, what can possibly arise that will cause him to lose it?  He has to commit at least a second or third degree felony if he wants to outdo himself.

2.He’s connected.  Gingrich has been a big time Republican politician since 1979.  You don’t go for that long without building some major connections and loyalties with Republican funding sources.

3. He’s an old white guy.  Now hold on – I know you’re all yelling about how Herman Cain was on pace to win.  Just answer me this: what do John McCain, (skip one), Bob Dole, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon (1968), and Gerald Ford have in common, other than being the last few Republican nominees?  Of course, all white men over 60 during their elections.  I left out George W. Bush, who was under 60, but I guess he at least the son of a very old white guy, so that might make up for it.

So is the Marshmallow Man a sure winner then?  I dunno.  Here’s why he might not win:

1. There’s a lot of bad feelings between him and other Republicans.   John Boehner had a major hand in kicking him out, among other things.  Newt might need the grassroots of the party to support him – who would’ve seen that coming?

2. He might have some liberalism issues.  Gingrich was seen as a poster-boy for the GOP during the 90s and he is doubtlessly enough of an asshole to qualify as a GOP contender, but could it be that the far right turn the party has taken has left even Gingrich behind?  Let’s see – he’s come out in favor of a guest worker program did a campaign to promote education with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan.  And he was slammed by the right after he criticized Paul Ryan’s budget proposal as too radical.

3. He’s weak against Obama.  The polls show that Gingrich is much less likely to beat Obama than Romney.  Moreover, he has been accused of luxurious spending habits and a lack of discipline that caused much of his staff to resign early in his campaign.  So the establishment might want to put the brakes on Gingrich’s campaign if they want Obama out of the White House.

So the conclusion?  I dunno.  The way I see it, it’s Gingrich or nobody, but I still think nobody has the edge.  So I’m sticking with nobody as the GOP nominee for the time being.  In actuality, as we have seen many times already so far, the most likely result is that something totally unpredictable will happen and someone we never expected other than Romney will find themselves in the lead.

Poor Romney.  He should start a third party for revenge, he really should.

Screw the Supercommittee, leave the budget up to the people

It seems likely that the Congressional Supercommittee (that’s annoying to type) will fail, and some thing that this is either inevitable, desirable, or both.

It’s easy to see why the SC will fail – it’s locked in positional negotiation, and in particular, Republican tax pledge signers aren’t willing to give an inch.  Republicans, in turn, claim that Democrats are unwilling to give on spending, but I think that’s highly debatable – I haven’t heard of any Democrat signing a “no spending cuts” or even a “no Medicare cuts” pledge.  So my question is, why are we leaving it up to these pledge-signing losers to solve the deficit issue when we can do it ourselves?

Bear with me – last year, the New York Times created an application that enabled readers to create their own budget plan.  One thing that surprised me was just how easy it was – a few cuts here, a few minor taxes there, and we’re set til 2030. You can view my plan here.  Perhaps the most controversial aspect is raising the social security retirement age to 70. Unlike most liberals, I’m not a fan of social security because poor people are less likely to live long enough to collect the social security that they paid into, so it perpetuates income inequality.  But if you disagree, there are tons of other not-that-bad choices – like a millionaire’s tax, capping Medicare growth, a national sales tax, etc. – that I passed on.  And no proposal on the list even suggests raising taxes higher than they were during the Clinton administration, and that might be another option for consideration.

So my proposal is this – let’s take the pen out of the hand of those bribe-taking assholes in Congress, and put it in the hands of the people.  Commission a survey of citizens – online, by mail, whatever, in which they create their own deficit plans similar to the 2010 NYT application.  Then, go down the list of the most-chosen elements until there is a balanced budget.  Send the Supercommittee on a vacation, and dare any member of Congress to vote against the Citizen’s Plan.

Crisis solved.  You’re welcome.

Could Americans Elect be a Republican ploy to create an anti-Obama spoiler?

Recently, a mysterious organization calling itself “Americans Elect” has been making a lot of news.  It claims that it wants to reform the electoral system and create a viable third party.  I initially reacted with joy at the news – finally, an organization devoted to creating a system in which a third party can run, rather than merely picking someone and watching them fall to the spoiler effect and Duverger’s Law.

However, when I looked more at the organization’s plan, I noticed several worrying aspects:

1. Most importantly, the plan won’t work.  Americans Elect’s master plan apparently does not address what is clearly the biggest factor harming third party chances – plurality voting.  As long as there’s plurality voting, the spoiler effect and Duverger’s Law will sink that third party’s chances, along with whomever the third party diverts votes from.  There are various ways AE could avoid such effects – such as by withdrawing their candidate if he does not get sufficient numbers in the polls, or at least campaigning for runoff voting, but there is no hint of any such interest.

2.The process seems designed to choose a liberal candidate that will divert votes from Obama.  One of the key aspects of AE’s plan is that it would use the internet to choose a candidate, without mentioning any option to mail in or call in a vote.  Why is this suspicious?  Because internet users tend to be younger and more educated, and younger and more educated people tend to be liberal.  Older, more conservative people are far less likely to use or trust the internet over the traditional voting process.  AE also lists the logos of five media organizations on their front page to advertise where they’ve been covered: the New York Times, MSNBC, PBS, the Daily Beast, and the Colbert Report.  All of these are news organizations that the right alleges to have a liberal bias, and many of them are downright detested.  If internet voting did not turn off conservatives, this list will.

3.They have mysteriously come up with a lot of funding out of nowhere, and are keeping their donors secret. According to an article in Politico, the organization has raised an impressive $22 million. How does a supposedly grassroots organization with no well-known name affiliated with it raise so much money?  We don’t know, and they’re not saying.  They are probably required to disclose donors due to campaign finance laws, but refuses to do so because they supposedly fear retribution, and think it should be up to the individual donors.  However, those donors have kept quiet too.  Apparently plenty of people want to give money to this organization, but no one wants any credit for it.  Seems odd.

4. The organization has a few people associated with Democrats, but some very shady Republicans as well.  That’s right, a large part of the leadership of this supposedly liberal media-loving, democracy enhancing organization are Republicans who have been accused of political trickery in the past.  The CEO, Khalil Byrd, a former Deval Patrick campaign manager, and rules committee co-chair Chris Arterton, clearly have some prior ties to the Democratic party.  However, other players who seem more involved have strong and suspicious Republican ties: Michael and Kellen Arno, whom the website claims are an advisor relating to ballot access and the national field director, respectively, are the president and vice president of Arno Political Consultants, a Republican political group accused of many past tricks to get people to vote Republican and create illusory support for Republican issues.  Their role is very worrying and adds an additional layer of suspicion to the undisclosed donors (who could conceivably be funneling payments to the Arno consulting firm through their jobs with AE).  Others having close associations with Republican political strategists include former Mitt Romney legal counsel Daniel Winslow (general counsel) and former GOP central committee nominee Tom Sansonetti (co-chair of rules committee).   So while Byrd and Arterton seem to give the organization bipartisanship, I’m very concerned about the role GOP consultants (particularly the Arnos) are playing.

I’m not saying I have any knowledge or that there’s any smoking-gun evidence that AE is in fact a front, only that they look a lot like one.  I want AE to be real, and they could be, like many other third party attempts in the past, a bunch of idealists that are sloppy in their execution.   However, the difference between this group and past third parties is that instead of being driven to prominence by well known politically minded individuals like Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot, or Ralph Nader, this third party owes its prominence to mysterious funding and tactically-minded individuals who came out of nowhere and often have prior loyalties to the Republican party.  Now it could be that the secretive Republican members are just dissatisfied with the moronic extremists in their own party and would rather have a moderate bring the country together.  But regardless of their motivations, the effect will be the same – a Republican will be much more likely to win if AE succeeds in getting young, educated internet users who watch the MSNBC and the Colbert Report to choose their candidate instead of Obama.  If they truly want a viable third party candidate, they will fix the plurality voting problem first.  Until then, I have a right to be suspicious.

Steal this post – SOPA, copyright law, the Constitution, and the ethics of piracy.

Logo of Pirate Parties International

Today is “Internet Censorship Day”, the day the House of Representatives debates SOPA, an act that is probably going to pass and will cause the death of the free internet, enabling the automatic censorship of offending websites.

Don’t expect the mainstream media to give you a fair view of the issues, because almost all television news broadcasters are owned by companies that directly or indirectly lobbied for this bill. I’ll leave it to the linked article above to point out why this is wrong.  What I’ll do is add a little bit about what SOPA is supposed to be protecting, and why media piracy is morally justified (not that you have to believe this to see why SOPA is wrong – again, see the above article, which points out how legitimate sites will be the primary victims).

SOPA is a “by any means necessary” approach to protecting intellectual property, which has become one of the most unanimously-revered topics among the two parties that control every federal, state, and local branch of our government.  But intellectual property hasn’t always enjoyed such unyielding protection in the US.

The Constitution allows Congress to create intellectual property like copyrights and patents to promote science and the arts, but only for a limited term:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

This “limited Times” provision originated from a debate over whether copyrights should be perpetual or for a limited term. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were of the belief that a limited term copyright was better.  From Wikipedia:

“Opponents of perpetual copyright argued that it amounted to a monopoly, which inflated the price of books, making them less affordable and therefore prevented the spread of the Enlightenment. “

“Prevented the spread of the Enlightenment”, remember that.

At the time the Constitution was written, copyrights were for 14 years in England and the Founding Fathers probably assumed the US would have a similar law.  And indeed, they did have a similar law – the first US Copyrights, created in 1790, lasted for 14 years with a possible single 14 year renewal if the author requested it while alive, just like in England.  But then Noah Webster, famous for his dictionary, lobbied to extend it to 28 years plus 14 years, and this was done in 1831.  In 1908, the extension grew to 28 years, for a total possible duration of 56 years.  Then, in 1976, the rise of large conglomerate-owned media with powerful lobbyists caused all hell to break loose – copyright was extended to the life of the author plus 50 years, or if created by a corporate or anonymous entity, 75 years.  Since most authors create their most popular works around their 20s and 30s and then live a good while afterwards, this had the effect of almost doubling the maximum and almost quadrupling the minimum copyright period for most authors.  As if that weren’t enough, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to life + 70 years for authors and made the corporate term 95 to 120 years. For those keeping track, assuming an author lives 50 years after creating a work, the current copyright is 4 times longer than that existing in 1790.

Now think about that for a minute.  Perpetual copyrights are wrong.  Perpetual copyrights prevent the spread of enlightenment.   And 100+ year copyrights don’t? 100 years after a work is created, the time for enlightenment is over.  The ideas have gotten out there, had their time, and been superseded by other, better ideas.  Who’s going to care about my post on Joe Paterno’s sex scandal when the copyright term ends sometime in the 22nd century?  Who’s going to be listening to Rihanna’s latest hit?  Who’s going to be playing the latest Call of Duty game? Who’s going to be watching…(trying to think of a movie that’s out) Tower Heist at that time?  What is the practical difference between a copyright that far outlives a work’s author and a perpetual copyright?

And moreover, given the rapid obsolescence of today’s media and the expanded benefits from copying and collaboration, copyright terms should be getting shorter, not longer.  So much of today’s media is blogs and news stories that are relevant (and produce the vast majority of their income) for a few days, but copyrighted for a near eternity.  Software creates the opportunity to build on old source code to create new works that get better with each generation and can greatly advance the betterment of mankind.  Problem is, every program ever made since the dawn of computing, even the ones that only ran on computers that aren’t used anymore, falls within the current copyright term (public domain and open-source software excepted).  How does that “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”?  Five years is clearly more than enough to protect most profits that are made on modern software.  Instead, these lengthy terms put a price on progress that goes to the benefit of excessive greed. In fact, many companies, particularly in software, abuse copyrights to establish domination over a market and stifle competition.  In short, these copyrights “prevent the spread of the Enlightenment.”

That’s why piracy is morally justified.  Copyright law is out of control.  The modern copyrights are not against the letter, but clearly against the spirit of the Constitution.  They are not designed to promote science or the practical arts, but to promote greed and the suppression of competition.  So by all means, if you can improve progress and expand enlightenment, but a copyright is all that stands in your way, please improve progress and expand enlightenment anyway.  The Founding Fathers want you to.  Ok, give the author a week or two to profit, but then please do proceed to pirate whatever you need to pirate.  Be careful, and as anonymous as possible.

This is coming from someone in the act of creating an internet post that will probably be copyrighted for 95 years, assuming I’m considered anonymous and the copyright isn’t extended further (which is unlikely, given history).  That’s right, sometime in the year 2105, some cyber-archaeologist will uncover this post, and consider publishing it as an example of the inane leisure activities of early 21st Century Americans.  He’ll take a gondola through the streets of Lower Manhattan to talk to his copyright lawyer, who’ll say, “nope, still another year left.”*

*If you want to copy this post and put it elsewhere, go ahead, it’s not like I’m making any money off it.

EDIT (11/17): I apparently linked to the wrong SOPA article – instead of the well-written attack on SOPA, readers may have gotten a poorly-written CNN article.  It’s fixed now.

EDIT  (12/21) Sign this petition too.

Cain sexual harassment scandal leads to sharp decline in Romney’s numbers

According to the latest polls, Mitt Romney appears to have taken a hit from Herman Cain’s sexual harassment scandal – he’s down to 18.3%.  Many predicted that Romney’ would become the clear frontrunner after the scandal, but the opposite has happened.  Romney fell with Cain, and Cain is still in the lead.  Amazing.

Of course, Romney had nothing to do with the scandal, and the main beneficiary – Newt Gingrich, has a few sex-related and other scandals of his own.  Goes to show the bizarre, unpredictable, logic-defying nature of the Republican primary.  I’ve given up trying to understand it.  All the dogmatic beliefs, the whole “Kenyan” thing they go off on, the ridiculous clowns that they choose for candidates.   Can’t explain that.

Over 800 hits yesterday

My apparently chord-striking defense of Joe Paterno may have been just what this blog needed.  Yesterday, I had 815 hits, 793 of which were on the Paterno post. Now that may not sound like a lot to those of you who are used to seeing various youtube videos get millions of hits overnight, but for me it’s a pretty big deal.  How big of a deal is it?

– Before the post, I had a total of 902 hits – since April 28, 2011, 6 1/2 months ago.
– My previous daily record was 40 hits.
– My previous monthly record was 177 hits.
– My previous most popular post, which was a rant regarding the Adobe Flash Player license, received 127 hits total – over more than 5 months.

So thanks to all who linked to the Paterno post.  See kids?  That’s what happens when you take an unpopular stand.  Thanks to the lack of interest among other bloggers in defending Paterno, I was near the top of anyone’s search for a defense.  Now chances are I’ll be back at my ordinary numbers once this Paterno thing dies down, but I’m enjoying it for now.

Of course, I’m not going to try to make this a Paterno blog, I hardly even know anything about the guy. So back to random nonsense about the Republican primaries and complaining about licensing agreements.

A defense of Joe Paterno (that I won’t back down from)

I’ve argued political topics for a long time.  I’ve defended Obama to Republicans, the Afghanistan War to liberals, Palestinians to Israelis and vice versa.  As contentious as those topics are, nothing ever evokes anything close to the unanimous orgy of hatred that arises when I say anything even slightly in defense someone accused of any sort of wrongdoing that involves both 1. sex, and 2. children.  One of those, and it’s easy to find defenders, but both and it’s impossible. For example, I remember not too long ago I had pointed out in an argument, as one of many examples of the irrational fears played up by the media, that child neglect causes orders of magnitude more deaths than child sex abuse.  Immediately, the conversation shifted to claims that I must be a pedophile myself for even entertaining the thought that there are larger issues than child sex abuse.

And that brings us to this – well, what really should be a non-story.  Some sex scandal tangentially involving a prominent college football coach.  Having read about what exactly is causing all the outrage at Paterno, I thought – can’t somebody defend this guy?  A google search could find only one person – a Mr. Kutcher, that attempted a defense of Paterno, but apparently failed.

My first thought upon reading this was, if the feared Ashton Kutcher must flee in disgrace after defending Joe Paterno, what chance do I have?  And I’m a strange choice for defender too – I didn’t go to Penn State, and I don’t even follow college football.  And Paterno’s supposedly a conservative Republican politically, and I’m about as liberal as they come.  Why should I defend him?

Looking at the overwhelming assault on both Paterno and his supporters by the media and the online comment horde, the answer is obvious – because someone has to.  Yes, I am going to defend current scum-of-the-earth-by-popular-vote, Joe Paterno.

So, I present you with the following thought experiment:

1. Imagine for a moment that you are a doctor at hospital.  You’ve worked at the hospital for a long time, and you can hardly remember working anywhere else.  You used to work with one doctor, who you got to be pretty good friends with, we’ll call him Stu.  Stu has since left your department and works in the maternity ward, out of your supervision.

2. Now imagine that a medical student doing clinical work in the maternity ward, well call him Mark, tells you that he’s seen Stu pick up a newborn baby out of it’s bed and punt it.  Just straight up picked it up and punted it across the maternity ward.

3. You think for a moment, gee, that seems odd.  Doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that Stu would do.  And you wonder why is Mark telling you this instead of calling the police himself?  At the very least, he could tell Stu’s boss, Carl.  You might even think – and this is terrible, but you can’t keep the thought from entering your mind – that the child’s parents would notice the various bruises on their baby and report it themselves. And what if Stu didn’t do it?  What if Mark – somehow –  thought he saw something he didn’t?  What if Mark’s nuts?  What happens if you make this accusation over something that turns out to be untrue?  How embarrassing would it be to falsely accuse a doctor of kicking a baby across a room?

4.  Meanwhile, there’s work to be done – more patients are coming in, and you have to figure out what, if anything to do with what you just heard from Mark.  So, do you:

  • A) Decide it’s a good idea not to get involved, pretend you heard nothing, and go about your own business,
  • B) Tell Stu’s boss Carl about what you heard from Mark, or
  • C) Call the police and tell them that you heard about, but did not see, a doctor kicking a baby across a maternity ward.

Well if you chose anything other than (C), you deserve to be fired, as almost everyone seems to agree.  After all, why are you so in favor of kicking babies around hospitals?  Maybe you’re a baby-kicker yourself!  I hope you get kicked across a maternity ward…(yes, someone did actually wish for my ass rape because I defended Joe Paterno in a forum).

As we know, Paterno chose (B).  He did what was done unto him, and passed it on to someone else.  But stop trying to change the subject – we’re not talking about Paterno, we’re talking about you, baby-kicker-sympathizer.  Because what studies show is that even (B) is too good for you.  If you’re an average person, you’re overwhelmingly likely to choose (A).  How do we know this?  Any psychology major could tell you: the bystander effect, most famously displayed during the Murder of Kitty Genovese, where several witnesses in New York City watched a young woman get stabbed to death and raped, apparently without calling the police or taking any other action for half an hour. There are many, many more examples of the same thing, and each gets reported with the same outrage at the bystanders, and quickly forgotten. But the demonstrated fact remains the same – when faced with a horrible event that would require you to take an action to stop it, you’re very unlikely to take that action.  Instead, you are most likely to say, “Why should I get myself involved in this?” and pretend you have seen – or heard about – nothing.  Almost certainly, your (honest) answer to the hypothetical is (A).  It’s definitely the practical one – the easiest choice, and the one that’s least likely to get you into trouble.

But if you were Joe Paterno, your answer is the far more admirable (B), which should have caused further investigation by Penn State (even if it didn’t).  Had Paterno chosen (A) like you would have, his role probably would have never come to light and he could have feigned ignorance.  Instead, he reported it, and created a record that would later be used against him.   If only we could all be as righteous as Joe Paterno.

Nobody in 3-way tie for lead in Republican primary polls, takes lead in South Carolina

My most recent prediction regarding the Republican primary, that nobody would win, seems to be gaining traction.  Not to boast, but when I made that prediction, I was the only person on the planet, as far as I know, to predict that Nobody would be the GOP nominee.  However, new polls suggest that Nobody’s position among the Republican field has improved in recent weeks:

  • A recent USA Today/Gallup polls shows that Nobody is tied with Herman Cain and Mitt Romney for the lead nationwide.  The totals for all of the existing candidates is 79%, leaving 21% to Nobody, the same as Cain and Romney.  This is the first time Nobody has had a claim for the lead since the very early stages of the race.
  • A somewhat more recent poll by Clemson University shows Nobody taking a significant lead in South Carolina with 31%.  Herman Cain is in second place with 22%, and his numbers are likely to fall further as his sexual harassment issues continue to distract from his message.

Now I can hear the naysayers saying “Nay!  It is impossible for Nobody to win the primary.  Even if Nobody had 99%, somebody would win because there must be a human winner.”  This may be technically true, but it is impossible for Nobody to win, then who will win?  Which of the candidates in the Republican primary, other than Nobody, can possibly win?

*crickets chirping*

And if the Republicans were wise, they would chose Nobody.  After all, polls show Obama losing to a “Republican”, but only if Nobody is specified as the Republican candidate.  What’s more, Nobody has the ability to appeal to tea-party puritanism while maintaining a sane and practical outlook, Nobody can offer a tax plan that appeals to conservatives without causing massive debts, and Nobody has a political and personal background that is free from anything that would deeply offend GOP constituents.  Not only is Nobody a viable candidate in the Republican field, but I truly believe that Nobody can win.

%d bloggers like this: