Richetti: Go, Jimmy, Go!!! -or- How Focus on the Family won it for the Dems

As usual, I rely on a blogger at CNN for all my information, which, obviously, is like relying on Judas to show up with a nail remover. But still, it's more entertaining than those dry folks over at the BBC, less spurious than the headlines at NPR, and at least it's not Fox News...

And while we sit here pounding the Clinton-Obama double kick drum, there is still that stinging feeling that, hey, shouldn't we be talking more about John McCain's foibles than those of the Democrat Party's two nearly indistiguishable heroes?

Well guess what, you beautiful Dems? You can keep fighting, because we've got an unlikely ally in the War against Red: Dr. James Dobson.

We all know that Dobson's version of the Republican Party is the one that cherishes the lives of Unborn Children and wants to "protect traditional family values." Yeah, and maybe allow every American to carry a deadly weapon without restriction (to protect the babies from the gays, I suppose...).

Evidently, Dobson's GOP isn't the one with which we've become familiar. Honestly, I've been trying to reduce the current (Bush) and future (McCain) GOP policy down to a few witty zingers for the last 20 minutes, and to be honest, I really don't even know how to do it. I have no idea what the New GOP policy is, but I don't see too many Republicans (All Huckabees notwithstanding) who are standing up for the Dobson version of the GOP that keeps most Right-wing Christians voting.

I grew up in a Conservative Christian home, and Focus on the Family was a constant mainstay on our radio. I listened to his radio show, read his children's adventure books and watched the videos. And as a Midwestern Christian Child, I believed that Republicanism was about protecting babies, and that was about it. Democrats were murderous scum, and Jesus loved Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Bill Clinton was, in fact, the harbinger of Antichrist, and a sure sign of the end times.

For perspective, I also believed I would see John Lennon in Heaven, because music so good could only be a product of Almighty God.

The W Administration has been successful in one clear regard: the complete alienation of the Christian Right. Two terms of Iraq and NCLB, and the Christians are wondering why Roberts and Alito haven't overturned Roe v. Wade yet. They're wondering why, when 36 states have passed gay marriage bans, courts are overturning them as unconstitutional. And they're starting to realize that there is no love in the GOP for the compassionate mandates of the Bible that we take care of the poor and destitute.

In a word, the Evangelical Church has been hoodwinked. The Republicans don't really care about the Christian Right anymore. Arrogance, to a degree; it has been a constant assumption that Christian = One in the Bag for McCain. But after the Bush Debacle, Christians are starting to see through the guise and start seeing what Republicans actually care about: Money, more money, warmongering, oil, and more money. And guns (to protect the babies from the gays).

So enter Dr. Dobson, who, thanks to his lack of self-declaration, enjoys Prophet-Apostle status among Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. His opinion: McCain can't "unite" conservatives, because McCain only represents the actual Republican Party Agenda, rather than the Christian Party agenda.

And from that perspective, he's right. He's the one who threatened to take all the Christians away if Rudy Giuliani got the nomination. He reticently supported Mitt Romney (after all, he's a MORMON...from MASSACHUSETTS!); naturally, he went head-over-heels for Mike Huckabee. Huckabee was what I believed a Republican Candidate should be when I was 8 years old. Loves Jesus, hates abortion. John McCain is not a "Fundamentalist-Friendly" candidate. Sure, he's "Pro-life" (I don't believe him) and "Pro-family" (whatever that means these days), but that's not his primary focus, and it never will be. It's lip service to pander to Christian voters, and hey! Guess what, world?! Christians aren't quite as stupid as you think!!!

Dr. Dobson, keep on reminding us how the party is splitting, because true followers of Christ have no business supporting the Republican Machine anymore. Find someone who's pro-life and wants to feed, clothe, and house the poor, give all they have, who wants to heal the outcast, and love their neighbors and their enemies. Who will give to Caesar that which is Caesar's.*

In the meantime, a Leftish government might actually get a stab at running this nation for a minute, and we can see what happens.

*Bring on the onslaught, I dare you.

The New Strategy

I don't even know where to start, so first watch this, and then after a period of recovery (Doctors recommend 4-6 weeks), read my point-by-point commentary:






Okay...you back? Right. I'm sorry about that. I know. I should have warned in advance that your brain was going to explode, and I apologize, but I needed to keep you in this thing. Let's discuss.

-My first thought: Is this a joke? My decision: it is not a joke. These are actual McCain supporters, which should make us feel good about McCain's actual chances of being elected...BECAAAUUUUUUUSSSSSE...

-...If you can't work out the simple premise that you should not wear blue while filming in front of a blue screen, I fail to see how you could be expected to know how to do something far more complicated...like, say, voting.

-"It's Raining Men"? Really? "It's Raining Men"? Um...alright. I guess that's pretty popular song. I mean, it was back when blue screen technology was state of the art. Really? There's not a single new song you could have picked? Because, honestly, it's not like you were, you know, in tune or anything. How about "What a Man"? You could change that to "What a McCain". Like "What a McCain, What a McCain, What a McCain, What a Mighty Good McCain (What a mighty mighty good McCain!)..."

- And if we're going for cleverness...Rain. The word Rain rhymes with McCain. Not "Men". So, really, this should be "It's McCaining Men!" Then we'd have to turn "McCain" into a verb. Maybe "to McCain" could mean "to send innocent lives to their deaths in the name of an illegal, unwinnable war". Then "It's McCaining Men!" would be pretty spot-on.

- The New Strategy: Play this. Everywhere. At all times. On all networks, during all commercial breaks. We can and we must raise the money for this to happen. MUST. Because, seriously, seriously, there is no other sure-fire way of ensuring McCain loses the election.

- Did you know John McCain went to Vietnam? Because I sure didn't! Where did they dig up that stunning news nugget?

So when John McCain loses the election, I will think of these three wretched women. And I will laugh (and they will be able to retain their basic civil liberties and reproductive rights so, basically, everybody wins).

Richetti: Obama/Clinton/Obama '08

After the completely useless results of Super Tuesday: Redux (ok, Hillary gained about 30 delegates, but seriously...), Sen. Clinton suddenly responded to a [presumptively blindsiding] reporter's request for a Clinton / Obama or Obama / Clinton "dream ticket."



I know this has been beaten into the ground, and the candidates (well, Hillary at least) have been consistently denying or affirming the idea of his or her opponent as potential running mate. Rather like Eddie Izzard singing the U.S. National Anthem.



Senator Clinton said "that may be where this is headed . . . but of course we have to decide who is on the top of this ticket."


So Hillary's open to the idea (again), after the Ohio and Texas wins proved only symbolic of the fact that Obama is not the avalanche we may have hoped for. Mudslinging aside, it's clear that the American People are pretty much split down the middle on who should get the Democratic Nomination. But where Republicans were fractured on which issues should dominate the next presidency (ironically, John McCain is clearly the dead center of the Big Red Bullseye), the Democrats have been nit-picking about the little stuff. What you really have is a race of Clinton's experience versus Obama's idealism. And hey, don't we want both?


I still don't trust Mrs. Senator Rodham-Clinton, Esq. She strikes me as a person whose ambition overrides her considerations for what is best for the nation. Her recent campaign tactics have shown a stance I believe she has held for years: if it's not my way, it's the wrong way. I question whether Hillary is more interested in the best needs of the American People than she is in the best needs of Hillary Clinton and her immediate constituency. See New York City versus New York State...


Conversely, I have no great confidence that Barack Obama can a) handle the kind of shit that is bound to come flying off of the Soon-to-be Former President Bush's proverbial fan, and b) that he can withstand the kind of fear-mongering and hatred that is sure to come screaming out of the McCampaign (complete with denials and repudiations) about his race, ethnicity, religious background, and poor choice of traditional dress. It doesn't matter that the RNC disavows any accusations that Barack Obama is a Muslim Terrorist in disguise. It will be all over the place if he gets the nomination, and, sad as I am to admit it, the American People have bought, are buying, and will continue to buy these pathetic assertions. I guess guys named Adolf don't have much of a future in politics either.


Yes, the average American voter can be that thick. See Swiftboat (which, to some degree, I bought).


The truth is that the left-of-center voting pool is out in force in a way that they never have been in my lifetime. These are the voters that generally take whatever is handed to them; those who are disenfranchised by the system as a whole, who couldn't see Kerry or Gore as any better than Bush, those who, until the last few months, seemed not to give a damn. I say those when I should say we, as I am certainly part of that demographic.


What does this group want? The results of the primaries say that we want something other than the Republican Party. The statistical tie says that we want both Clinton's experience and Obama's idealism. Could we get the kind of change we want if we had these two different perspectives working together? Isn't that what we really want?


There has been some severe bloodletting on both sides, but in truth, experience versus change is the real, driving factor of this primary season. Two things we want, represented by two opposing sides. One of my law professors calls this the "puppies are better than kittens" theory of persuasive argument. Both are good, which do we want more?


Or can we have our cake and eat it too?


As much as I prefer Obama on the sheer basis that I strongly dislike Senator Clinton (her recent campaign tactics have only emboldened that notion), I must conceded that, given how well we know both candidates, the combination of the two, with their joint policy platforms, is going to appeal to every single democratic voter in the primary. It's hard to imagine that, were there a "dream" ticket, any democratic voter would be considering McCain or Ralph Nader as an alternative.


The math is pretty telling. Democrat voters have come out in force in the primary season, putting the Republican party to statistical shame. Combine Obama's primary votes with Clinton's, and you're already looking at close to the number of votes either candidate received in the 2000 and 2004 general elections. And more vote in the general than in the primary elections.


Hillary wants the Democratic party to take control of the White House while Congress is still dangling slightly to the left. An policy reforms that are going to happen have to happen before November 2010. Obama wants to begin uniting both sides of the aisle in the hopes of promoting real progress in the nation instead of short-term, administration based goals that get trashed by the next executive. Both of their platforms are better for the Dems; the notion of a government that functions for the better of the nation instead of for the better of the party is clearly good for anyone. No, really.


If both camps end up getting what they want (potentially for 16 years, assuming they don't completely screw up the nation*), how can we possibly go wrong? As unseemly as this campaign has become, it's the best of all possible worlds, especially where people are starting to be worried that extending this adversarial campaign between two favorable platforms is hurting the Democrats' chances against the now unified McCain Republican Express. If we keep splintering on the left, the newly un-fractured right will come out on top. So join up, unify the fronts, and give us the numerical advantage we need.


A caveat to Mrs. Clinton: Her entertaining the notion of Obama (or herself) as VP may be a subtle way to swing a couple of those unsure remaining primary and superdelegate voters her way. If it works, bully for her, but keep in mind that a failure to put the rock star junior Senator on her ticket would be a betrayal to those who prefer but are unsure about a President Obama. And then we're back to the whole split party concept. If you say it, you'd better mean it.


My suggestion to Mr. Obama: you might start suggesting the same thing.


*Jury's still out.

-Ian Richetti

(Ian Richetti's blog is called Gratuitous Musings)