a love letter

[i apologize for the untimeliness of this post, but since (a) i stumbled in last friday night way too shitfaced to write this when it sorely needed to be written; (b) somebody just tonight reminded me of how infuriated i was about this last week; and (c) i presently find myself at precisely the optimal stage of drunkenness to attempt to do the subject justice, please allow me to introduce the following for your delectation.]

to caroline kennedy schlossberg kennedy, maria kennedy shriver kennedy schwarzenegger kennedy, and [insert your choice of wastrel rfk scion here]:

please, once and for all, shut the fuck up already--i can't begin to tell you how goddam tired i (and anybody else of my generation with half a brain) am of you, who--having done nothing and deserving even less, continue your tiresome habit of (a) coasting on your family name, and (b) dragging your dead father and/or uncle out in support of [insert name of unworthy candidate here], when in reality you have no idea if, were they actually still alive, they'd have supported any of them.

case in point: seriously, caroline--had you the volition and/or intellectual capacity to reference actual history rather than brainless emotion, even you would realize that, fiscally speaking, your daddy was effing ronald reagan compared to the likes of barack obama (oh, and for the record he wasn't even that crazy about black people either, your father--just ask sammy davis jr., who worked hard on his campaign and then as a reward for his efforts was pretty much told the only way he was gonna get into the inaugural ball was if he put on a waiter's jacket)--but of course, were you willing to look at things rationally, you'd lose not only your credibility but your very raison d'etre--and god knows that'll never happen long as you're still drawing breath, so i guess we can look forward to many more profound political pronouncements and endorsements from you on behalf of your father for countless years to come.

[and, truth be told, i'm not nearly as angry at you as i am at my fellow idiot americans who, against any and all reason, even now continue to be swayed whenever somebody with a pulse named kennedy opens their goddam yap--but hey, anger needs a focus, so indulge me a minute.]

[and further: note that i've omitted from this tirade any reference to the sole remaining viable second-generation kennedy--but then again, anybody who'd take seriously a guy who'd spend eighteen precious hours calculating damage to his political future rather than trying to save some poor girl who might still be gulping breaths of increasingly-stale air in the back seat of his submerged oldsmobile is so far beyond the scope of this discussion as to not even be worth consideration.]

the dems have their heads up their collective ass

[once again, i'm thinking that i'm a much better commenter than blogger--i.e., reaction seems to come more easily to me than action. case in point: this comment i just made to yet one more hillary v. obama post--hell, maybe this blog should consist of nothing more than a collection of my comments on other peoples' blogs.]

democrats can (and well may) argue back and forth about this all the way up to the convention, but what they're apparently oblivious to is the very real possibility that, when it comes down to voting time, the vast pool of independents that will determine the outcome of this election will--especially given the indecision of the dems themselves--turn its collective back on either/or the black guy with the funny name/the bitch with all the baggage, and opt instead for the perceived safety of daddy war-hero.

it really amazes me--the democrats are fighting this little battle among themselves as if the electorate-at-large will inevitably see it as they do: namely, that no matter which candidate they ultimately pick, it's just a given that he/she is inherently superior to anything the other side has to offer.

and i'm here to tell them that that's not a given at all--and that if they really wanna win in november, the dems had better get united behind one candidate and start fighting the bigger fight (and if you don't believe me, go read what howard dean's been saying lately--he totally gets it).

understand: i'm speaking here not as a liberal but as an independent fiscal conservative who, regardless of how much it pains him, is totally backing whoever the dems finally settle upon (which, if nothing else, should tell you how much the prospect of a mccain presidency scares me--and damn well should scare you).

[and yeah, i promise the "why mccain should scare you at least as much as he does me" post will be coming soon]

it's chilly in hell today

if anybody had ever told me that a situation would arise in which, short of having a gun held to my head, i would in sound mind and of my own volition cast a vote for hillary rodham clinton, i would've laughed in their face.

well, never say never.

[and for those among my legion of readers who are on pins and needles awaiting my penetrating analysis of john mccain: sorry, life has intervened--i'll get it out tomorrow]

the mccain problem (part 1)

[space--do not delete]

is ann coulter serious when she says that if mccain gets the republican nomination she'll support hillary over him?

with her you've always gotta wonder, but yeah, i actually think she might be--she is that anti-mccain, and she's far from alone among conservatives in that regard.

so why do they hate him--a fellow republican--so much? oh, there are all kinds of typical-republican reasons, such as:

• his distaste for the religious right
• his "soft" stance on terror (because he opposes waterboarding and other forms of torture, and advocates closing guantanamo)
  
• his criticism of rumsfeld (yeah, seriously)
  
• his co-authorship--along with a liberal anti-war democrat--of campaign-reform legislation

in addition they have a couple of, to my mind, seriously legitimate gripes against the guy:

• his votes against bush's middle-class tax cuts
• his collaboration with ted kennedy on a de facto amnesty bill for illegal immigrants

so basically, the right sees mccain as a maverick that can't be controlled or counted on to put his party's interests first--i.e., basically the same way the dems saw lieberman. normally, this independent streak would elevate a candidate in my estimation, but not in the case of mccain; on the contrary, i see him as by far the most dangerous of the four remaining viable candidates--and for some reasons that nobody seems to be talking about.

until tomorrow, anyway.