Party Time

My car

Well I finally did it. For the first time in my life, I actually joined a political party.

I'm a conservative (lower case, indicating a philosophy, not upper case to indicate a proper noun, as the name of a group or party). But now, I'm also a Libertarian (upper case, as in the Libertarian Party and as in the Libertarian Party of Georgia). Let me explain why I joined the party.

In recent years, I've increased contributions to some candidates running for office. I've not always been happy with the candidate I was financially supporting. Or the party, quite honestly.

The Republican Party has shown time and again it's unwillingness to hold to conservative principles. And I've had enough. I'm done giving money to them. I'm cutting them off. Writing them out of my will. Moving on. Looking ahead. Kinda like a divorce. Some of you know what I mean.

I don't have piles of money lying around just begging to be given away. But, I do occasionally send money to help in election years. This year, I've given to two candidates, and I'm all out of candidates. Republican ones, that is.

Anyway, I sat down one day recently and went over my options.

Democrats? I have no use for them. I have refused to vote for local Democrats, who were otherwise good people, because all that does is strengthen the Democrat Party. And anyone who strengthens the Democrat Party nationally needs to be beat with a stick. Several sticks.

Republicans? Well, they talk good. They act bad. During elections, they've taken two approaches. One approach is to assume the conservative base is there and run to the left. That pisses off the conservative base. The other approach is to campaign to the right, and then govern to the left. That pisses off the conservative base.

As a pissed off conservative, I've had enough. I'm looking elsewhere. Or was. I found the Libertarian Party.

I've read the national Libertarian Party Platform. I don't agree with all of it. A lot of it, sure. But not all. However, looking at what the three major parties say and do -- don't forget about what they actually do -- the Libertarian Party is closest to me.

So, I'm still a conservative. That hasn't changed. And I'm now associating with a national (and state) political party that is closest to my beliefs and values.

I'm not urging you to join the Libertarian Party. I'm not asking you to vote Libertarian in November. I just want you to know that if you are fed up with how the Republican Party has treated you, there are options. This is the one I chose.

Game over, man

It's over.

Mitt Romney has wrapped it up. He won Florida yesterday, and that means there's no chance for anyone else in the GOP race.

Newt Gingrich supporters? Hate to break it to you, but it's time to pack it in.

Rick Santorum followers? The writing's on the wall.

Ron Paul supporters? The nurse will be by shortly with your medications. And a fresh supply of tin foil.

The 2012 Republican primary season is done. There's no way anyone can catch Mitt Romney. Just look:

Graph from The New York Times

See?

After the big win in Florida, Mitt Romney has 71 delegates. He only needs ... let's see, 1,144 to win, minus 71 already won, leaves 1,073 ... Oh. My. Goodness. He only needs 1,073 delegates to win.

Let's look at the upcoming primary calendar, do the math, and see where things stand.

If Romney wins every delegate in every race, he would surpass the magic number of 1,144 as early as April 3.

What about Gingrich? If he were to somehow win every delegate in every state from here on out, he wouldn't reach 1,144 until April 3, 2012.

Rick Santorum? Heck, if he won every delegate in every upcoming race, he wouldn't hit 1,144 until April 3.

Ron Paul? Well, if he went on a winning streak and won every delegate in every primary and caucus, he wouldn't pass 1,144 until April 3.

So, there you have it.

Romney can mathematically wrap this thing up in just over two months, on April 3, 2012. That's a done deal.

Meanwhile, none of the the other three could lock it up until April 3, 2012. And that's an impossible task.

Hey, don't get angry with me. Numbers don't lie.

Newscasters and party establishment will, but numbers won't.

Cartoon of the Day: Sit, Newt, Sit!

I thought this was funny.


[Direct link: Chuck Assay]

I used to work in Jacksonville. Them folks don't like other folks coming to town to tell them to sit down and shut up. If the crowd is actually people from Jacksonville, I expect they'll cheer, boo, or whatever, if they feel like it. If they are a bunch of transplants or college kids, they'll follow meekly along.

Florida isn't a southern state, except by accident of geography. Jacksonville, though, is a southern city. Or it was last time I was there.

So, are you going to watch the debate tonight?

Better than Obama

As the vote in Iowa approaches, the Republican candidates are turning up the heat on each other. Newt Gingrich had some not-so-nice words for Ron Paul, according the National Journal:

"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very hard choice at that point."

Newt and Frank J. sound more and more alike:

So, if it were between Obama and Ron Paul, who would you vote for? I’m leaning Obama there; he’s a known entity and can at least be bullied into doing what’s right. Ron Paul would just stand back while nukes are launched at us and say, “We had this coming for abandoning the gold standard!”

Then there's Mitt Romney, who seems to be every conservative's last or next-to-last choice. He compared Newt Gingrich to the I Love Lucy "Chocolate Factory" sketch:

Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich's campaign director compared the former House speaker's recent inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which the campaign would recover.

"I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory," Romney said in reference to the famous I Love Lucy skit in which the comedienne was overwhelmed by a rapid assembly line of candies. "You've got to get it organized."

That was a good line. Let's look at Lucy in the Chocolate Factory:


[Direct link]

That's funny stuff. But, you know what? I still think Lucy and Ethel would do a better job than Obama and Biden.

Ricardo/Mertz 2012!

Don't vote for Newt!

Newt Gingrich is making some news because he told someone at a campaign event to vote for Obama. Really.

Okay, here's what happened. At a Gingrich rally in Oskaloosa, Iowa, a gay Democrat Obama supporter got into a "cordial" one-on-one with Gingrich, that ended with Gingrich telling the questioner to support Obama:

Gingrich: "I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won't get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it's not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I'll get their support."

Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?

Gingrich: Then I won't get their support.

Q: How do we engage if you're elected. Then what, what does that mean?

Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.

Q: Except it's most important (some crosstalk).

Gingrich: Well, if that's most important to you then you should be for Obama.

Q: I am, thank you

Now, personally, I'm fine with what Newt said. I'm not talking about my agreeing or disagreeing with his stance on gay marriage. I'm talking about his standing his ground and telling the gay Democrat Obama supporter the same thing he tells his own lesbian sister. That's unusual for a politician to tell someone "go vote for the other guy."

But, apparently, that's not what a candidate is supposed to do. A candidate is supposed to pander to all the little piss-ants and ass-clowns that crash a campaign event and come up to him. The candidate is supposed to say whatever it takes to make them happy -- even if the clown is going to vote for the other candidate anyway.

Newt Gingrich isn't doing that. And I like that about him. But, of course, standing firm and not backing down for what you believe is a bad thing, to hear the media, Democrats (but I repeat myself), and most other Republicans and their supporters talk. Except Ron Paul supporters. They like that their candidate has been consistent for years. They don't like it when Newt Gingrich is consistent. It shows how much he's part of the establishment ... though all of the Washington establishment has come out against Gingrich.

Wait. We're looking for someone who the Washington establishment doesn't like? Yet someone who knows how Washington politics works? And someone who can balance a budget? And someone who, when he makes a mistake, can admit it? Even big mistakes?

I better stop now. I'm finding that I'm liking Gingrich more and more. And I don't think I'm supposed to.

How to make the debates more fun!

There are seven Republican candidates left:

• Michele Bachmann
• Newt Gingrich
• Jon Huntsman
• Ron Paul
• Rick Perry
• Mitt Romney
• Rick Santorum

Oh, wait. There are actually 15 left. We forgot about these:

• Gary Johnson
• Fred Karger
• Andy Martin
• Jimmy McMillan
• Tom Miller
• Buddy Roemer
• Matt Snyder
• Vern Wuensche

Why aren't they getting in the debates? Because they have no shot?

Isn't that what was said about Herman Cain, who was the frontrunner for a while?

Isn't that what was said about Newt Gingrich, current frontrunner, when most of his campaign staff deserted him this past summer?

Isn't that what Ron Paul supporters say about every other candidate?

Isn't that what every other candidate's supporters say about Ron Paul?

This is where Donald Trump screwed up. When most of the big names declined to show, he canceled. He should have invited the lesser-known candidates to show up. Who knows? We might be seeing Jimmy McMillan or Vern Muensche leading in Iowa.

We need to have a debate where all the candidates show up. That would be interesting. Imagine hearing this exchange:

Chris Wallace: Mr. McMillan, how would you handle the threat of a nuclear Iran?

Jimmy McMillan: The rent is too damn high! I say it again, the rent is too damn high!

Gary Johnson: Let me add, Chris, that the war on drugs has caused the rent to rise.

Buddy Roemer: The high rent favors the 1%.

Chris Wallace: Can I just go back to asking questions of Newt and Mitt? Please?

That would be fun. But perhaps I'm being unfair to Chris Wallace.

Plus, we could actually have Obama there in a dunking booth. Whenever there's a question about Obama, the participant can either answer the question, or get a ball to throw at the plunger, trying to dunk Obama in a tank. With sharks. With frikkin' laser beams.

We would be glad to sponsor such a debate, as long as someone else will pay for it, but still put our name on it. Here's what we need: a venue, a moderator, and a panel.

So, what ideas have you to make the debates more fun?

What I learned from not watching the debate

There was a Republican Debate or something in Iowa last night. I think it was on the cable.

I don't have cable. I watch all my TV over the Internet. That's how the cool kids do it, anyway.

Not having cable means no Fox News Channel. Sure, there's a Website or something I can go to, but not having a channel already set up on the Roku makes it easy to decide to just skip the debate.

Besides, there's always the Twitterz.

The Twitter feeds are always much more fun than watching a bunch of politicians stand around and make smart statements (Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney) or stupid statements (RONPAUL!!!1!!). Besides, I've already picked out who I'm voting for: Not Obama.

Maybe I should go through the trouble of watching the debates. After all, one of those men will be the next president. Okay, I shouldn't eliminate Michele Bachmann from that. Unless I want to be realistic. And I do. So, one of those men will be the next president.

Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!1!!) said something stupid. He also said some smart things. And, I'm sure, some of his idiot supporters will stop by here and tell me all about the smart things Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!11!) said, or why the stupid things Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!11!) said are really smart and I'm a corporate tool or something. Oh, and FEDERALRESERVE!!!1!!

Newt stepped in it early on, but got better, and by the end of the debate, was rolling along.

Romney said some good things early on, then said some stupid stuff, and had leveled off by the end of the debate.

Rick Perry showed a bit of a sense of humor, said some okay stuff and some not okay stuff.

Huntsman was there. Or Gary Johnson. One of them. I'm not sure which. I don't think anyone else was sure, either.

Rick Santorum was there. I think he brought the bean dip.

I mentioned Michele Bachmann. She lit into Gingrich a few times. He didn't unhinge his jaw and devour her, but thought about it.

The Fox News moderators asked some good questions at times, but were trying to prod the candidates into fighting each other for much of the time.

If you watched the debate, let me know if I didn't sum it up accurately. Because, as I mentioned, I didn't watch the debate. I didn't have to. The accuracy of my summary shows that.

Now, does this mean the debates are useless? No, not at all. It's a good way to get smart people and raving lunatics in the same room and watch the fun. Like a reality show.

I'm thinking if we can do this every week and ask Ron Paul a bunch of foreign policy questions, he'll eventually get an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy. Maybe that will be a good consolation prize, and he'll let one of the candidates with some smarts run for president.

Anyway, I didn't go through the trouble of launching a browser on my TV setup and watching the debate. I have a large supply of Mystery Science Theater 3000 DVDs to go through, so I did something productive with my time.

Maybe I'll watch the next debate.

Nah. I have Joel and the 'Bots watching Manos. Told you I was one of the cool kids.

Blazing Republicans

Now showing!


[Direct link]

Things you won't see in the next GOP debate

According to CBS News, Jon Huntsman said he won't light his hair on fire in tonight's debate.

I didn't realize that was even a possibility that he might do that. I mean, if he has to actually say he won't, then either it had been under discussion, or people think he's crazy enough to consider it. I'm leaning toward the latter; Huntsman was part of the Obama administration, after all, and if that doesn't say crazy, I dont' know what does ... other than supporting Ron Paul.

Anyway, we now know to not expect Jon Huntsman to light his hair on fire. And now I'm wondering what else we won't see.

• Michele Bachmann won't swing from the ceiling like a monkey. (Ron Paul might, but Bachmann definitely won't.)
• Newt Gingrich will not propose everyone get naked and cook hamburgers. (But Ron Paul might.)
• Herman Cain won't sing "I'm a little teapot, short and stout." (Although Ron Paul won't rule it out.)
• Mitt Romney won't show his underwear, although Ron Paul will show his.
• Rick Perry won't pull a gun on the panel. A knife, maybe, but not a gun.
• Rick Santorum won't answer every question with an 80s power ballad.

If you plan to watch tonight's debate, you now know what to not expect.

Herman Cain's announcement

Atlanta businessman Herman Cain announced his candidacy for President of the United States.

And we were there! And by we, I mean me. And now, you were there, too!


[Direct link]

If you're not supporting Herman Cain, that's okay.

Actually, it's not. What's wrong with you?

Anyway, we were there and will post a little more later.

One of these things is not like the other ... except where they are

So, Republican Christine O'Donnell is a crackpot because she said that masturbation is lust outside of marriage, and that is equivalent to adultery?

What she actually said was:

"Lust in your heart is committing adultery, and you can't masturbate without lust."

Ever heard that part about lust and adultery before?

Sure you have. There is this little book called The Bible. Maybe you're familiar with it?

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

-- Matthew 5:27-28

Then again, if you only know what you read in the newspapers or hear on the TV, you might have missed that.

Jimmy Carter in Playboy Magazine

Unless you remember the 1976 presidential election, when the Democrat nominee, Jimmy Carter, told Playboy magazine the same thing about lust and adultery:

"The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times..."

Now, Carter did catch a lot of crap about that interview. Part was because he gave the interview to Playboy. Part because of what he said about lust and adultery.

He was the butt of jokes at the time. But, it didn't cost him the election. It actually helped him in the Bible Belt. The Playboy part didn't; the Bible quote did.

Will O'Donnell be hurt by the talk about masturbation, lust, and adultery? I don't know.

Is the media treating her fairly over it?

Well, I haven't seen any media outlet approach Jimmy Carter for a comment on O'Donnell. That silence says a lot.

Mythbusters: Republicans

Tonight ... on "Mythbusters" ... we'll look at myths about today's Republican Party.

Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman will look at what's right ... and what's not right ... about the party of the right.


With recent election results ... and even more recent primary results ... there has been a lot of discussion about what actions the Republicans should take.


The conventional wisdom ...


Is that the Republican National Convention?


Ha ha. Very funny. The conventional wisdom is that if the Republican Party swings hard to the right, they'll alienate most Americans and ensure that Democrats will retain power.


We're going to build a Republican Party that's a Big Tent Republican Party. Then we'll test how well it works.


We'll start with the base. There's the gun owners. You know, the Second Amendment crowd.


Over here, we have some who are proud of their country. Typical conservatives.


Okay, that's a start. This sounds a lot like the TEA Party or the Sarah Palin crowd. But aren't we going to include more than just stereotypical conservatives?


How about some independents, like those that helped elect Obama? You can't win without them.


Let's throw in some Charles Johnson types. That'll keep the religious right in check.


We can't leave out the Ron Paul group. Ron Paul! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!1!!!11!!


There are the old guard. The establishment. They used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans." And they crap themselves every time a candidate supported by the TEA Party is successful.


Those scared of Sarah Palin? Got them covered, too. Can't let her take charge of things, can we?


What about those moderates that try to balance conservative principals with cooperating with liberals? Everyone knows that compromise is the way to go. As long as by "compromise with" we mean "give in to" liberals.


What do you think? Do we have enough of a big tent crowd? We have those scared of Palin and the TEA Party, moderates, Ron Paul supporters, Obama voters, the Charles Johnson crowd...


Let's try this group out and see how it does. Tory? Go run an election with this crowd?


OOF!


OUCH!


Tory's election day performance with a Republican Party that compromised true conservative beliefs and included nutcases from all over the spectrum ... didn't go so well.


Well, there's your problem!


This Republican Party we put together doesn't stand true to conservative principals. Instead, it's a large group of a bunch of small groups.


Since they don't share the same principals, they are always fighting each other.


This Republican Party looks like Democrats Lite. That's why the GOP lost the White House in 2008. Sure, the Republican candidate had some good qualities, is a war hero, and is an honorable man and a fine American. But he isn't true to the conservative principals of Goldwater or Reagan. And he got his clock cleaned.


Jamie and I have been exposed to this Big Tent Republican Party for too long. We need to scrub ourselves clean.


While Adam and Jamie remove the stench of moderates, we'll leave you with this reminder: conservatives will be attacked by Democrats, and by some Republicans. And, you won't win every battle. But, you'll come out stronger for it.

With friends like Democrats...

Last month, I commented on how poorly Barack Obama has treated America's ally, Israel. I pointed out that 80% of the Jewish vote in 2008 went to Obama.

There's a poll that says that shows that it's not just Obama, it's Democrats that aren't friends to Israel (tip: Reliapunit):

85 percent of Republicans and only 48 percent of Democrats supported Israel rather that the Palestinians

What's it gonna take for people to realize who supports our country and our allies ... and who doesn't?

John McCain's attack ad

This is funny. If you don't like John McCain, you might disagree. But you're not being honest.


[Direct link]

Some comments...

I don't like the idea of Republicans criticizing Republicans. So bad on McCain.

Why couldn't McCain have done more of that in the 2008 election?

Something about Hayworth bothers me. Can't put my finger on it. But he strikes me as ... not quite right. He'd probably be great with a show on AM radio, but I'm not sure about having actual responsibility.

Cartoon: Thou Shalt Not Steele

[Source: Gary Varvel]

Why didn't I think of this?

I have never been a huge fan of Michael Steele. In Steele's defense, he's exactly what he's always been: a Republican politician. And more politician than Republican.

Lots of Republicans took up his cause during his run for Maryland Lt. Governor, after the Oreo Cookie incident. After his loss in the 2006 Senate race, Steele became chairman of the Republican National Committee.

How has he done? Not all that great. But, really, could anyone? Look how the Republicans have acted over the last several years. Overall, they've been Rockefeller Republicans. I can't imagine having to deal with those Republicans that abandoned the conservative base, so I can't fully fault Steele for the way the party has imploded.

On the other hand, Steele has been guilty of abandoning the conservative base. He's talked it up at times, but he's also fallen into the trap of criticizing Republicans, a violation of the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." And he lost the base in the process.

He's probably done about a good a job as any traditional politician who is also a Republican. But he's doesn't have the support of the conservative base. And the head of the GOP needs to have that support.

Who should be the head of the RNC?

I like Kathleen McKinley's suggestion.

Ignoring Reagan while waiting on him

Many Republicans ... certainly many conservatives ... have said we need another Reagan.

Some of the same ones say that the GOP needs to clean house, replacing liberals and moderates with more conservative candidates.

I don't disagree with either. And they are not mutually exclusive. But many are going about it the wrong way. And I've been guilty, too.

The conservative movement needs someone like a Ronald Reagan. Perhaps he ... or she ... is already there, just not yet fully realized. But, I have faith that it'll work out.

The other piece of the puzzle is getting conservatives in office. In Florida, for instance, everything is pointing to Marco Rubio winning the Republican nomination for Senate over that state's governor, Charlie Crist. And that's a good thing, since Rubio is the true conservative in that race.

But we need to be careful. We don't need to be criticizing Republicans already in office that aren't conservatives. You know. RINOs. Like GOP chairman Michael Steele. Or John McCain. Or Lindsey Graham. Or...

Now, I might be ruffling some feathers when I say don't criticize them. Because those Republicans are often criticized by other Republicans or conservatives.

I say again: we shouldn't be publicly criticizing the RINOs.

We should be following Ronald Reagan's example: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

This isn't to say that RINOs get a pass. Rather, we need to be smart about how we replace them with conservatives. But we do need to replace them with conservatives.

But it would be just plain wrong to violate the teachings of Ronald Reagan while we seek out the next Ronald Reagan.

---

More comments at IMAO.

More White Supremacists running for Congress ... oh, wait

Everybody knows that Republicans are a bunch of racist, homophobic, angry White men who hate all minorities.

And they want to add even more racist, homophobic, angry White men to Congress.

Just look at this list from The Frederick Douglass Foundation (tip: Alex Pappas from The Daily Caller):

Senate

Marion Thorpe	Florida
Larry Linney	North Carolina
Michael Williams	Texas

House of Representatives

Les Phillip	Alabama - 5th District
Princella Smith	Arkansas - 1st District
Vernon Parker	Arizona - 3rd District
Virginia Fuller	California - 7th District
Star Parker	Califronia - 37th District
Chriystopher Smith	California - 39th District
Mason Weaver	California - 53rd District
Ryan Frazier	Colorado - 7th District
Prince Brown	Florida - 8th District
Eddie Adams	Florida - 11th District
Corey Poitier	Florida - 17th District
Allen West	Florida - 22nd District
Deon Long	Florida - 24th District
Cory Ruth	Georgia - 4th District
Deborah Honeycutt	Georgia - 13th District
Rupert Parchment	Georgia - 13th District
Isaac Hayes	Illinois - 2nd District
Robert Broadus	Maryland - 4th District
Charles Lollar	Maryland - 5th District
Bill Hardiman	Michigan - 3rd District
Angela McGlowan	Mississippi - 1st District
Barb Davis White	Minnesota - 5th District
Martin Baker	Missouri - 1st District
Shannon Wright	New Jersey - 6th District
Michael Faulkner	New York - 15th District
Jerry Grimes	North Carolina - 1st District
Lou Hunddleston	North Carolina  - 8th District
Bill Randall	North Carolina - 13th District
Tim Scott	South Carolina - 3rd District
Jean Howard Hill	Tennessee - 3rd District
Charlotte Bergmann	Tennessee - 9th District
William Hurd	Texas - 23rd District
Stephen Broden	Texas - 30th District
Coby Dillard	Virginia - 3rd District
David Castillo	Washington - 3rd District

Now, I'm not saying these are the best choices in any upcoming Congressional race. But, it shows that the loony left is ... well, loony ... when it comes to their portrayal of Republicans.

---

More comments at IMAO.

Old White Men - UPDATED

As an American, I feel that the major political parties should be representative of America.

And that's the problem with the Republican party. As anyone on the left, or in the traditional media, will tell you, the GOP is the party of old white men.

And they're right. Just look at these prominent Republicans.

Let's start with Republican Party chairman Michael Steele:

Old White Man

Look at the two GOP politicians that have ignite the most passion in Republican followers. First, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin:

Old White Man

Next, Minnesota 6th District Representative Michele Bachmann:

Old White Man

And, it's not just the party politicians, it's those in the media. Take a look at two of the major Republican pundits that appear most on news shows.

First, Michelle Malkin:

Old White Man

Then, there's Ann Coulter:

Old White Man

It's old white men like these that are holding the Republican party back. Until the GOP takes actions to make itself more diverse, they'll never be taken seriously again.

UPDATE:
More Old White Men, as suggested by others...

IMAO commenter Jimmy suggests:

Conservative Christian entertainer AlfonZo Rachel (Zo)

Old White Man

Author and talk show host Laura Ingraham

Old White Man

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal

Old White Man

IMAO commenter Alice H suggests:

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski

Old White Man

Communications strategist Dana Perino

Old White Man

IMAO commenter Dohtimes suggests:

Talk show host Dana Loesch

Old White Man

IMAO commenter shiggz suggests:

Actress Patricia Heaton

Old White Man

UPDATE II

Harvey suggests:

Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice

Old White Man

Stanford University Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Dr. Thomas Sowell

Old White Man

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

Old White Man

George Mason University Professor of Economics Dr. Walter Williams

Old White Man

Gosh, GOP, sometimes you make it so difficult to take you seriously

A few weeks ago, I got a "Second Notice" from the Republican party. As I mentioned then, I've never been a member of the Republican party -- or any political party, for that matter. So, why do they send me things that are written as if I'm a Republican? Probably because I sent money to two presidential candidates (Fred Thompson, then John McCain) this past election cycle. Or, so I thought. Turns out that there may be another reason. What's that reason, you ask? I'm glad you asked. The reason seems to be: they're idiots. Or incompetent. Or incompetent idiots. Suffering from idiotic incompetence. Why would I say such a thing? I'm glad you asked. Even though it does seem that you ask a lot of questions. I got another letter from the Republicans. Yay! This one, though, is not just a "SECOND NOTICE," as was the last one proclaimed in big red letters. This one came in one of those envelopes wit a big window on the front. Like you get from, oh, maybe the IRS or something. And, it came with "OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PARTY DOCUMENT - DO NOT DESTROY" above my address, clearly visible though the envelope. And, it contained

NOTICE: This SURVEY DOCUMENT IS REGISTERED IN YOUR NAME and must be accounted for upon completion of this project. If you choose not to participate in this crucial Republican Senate Leadership Survey, return this Survey Document at once using the postage-paid envelope provided.

Well, now. Isn't that just special. And, the pages of the form remind me of a Form 1040. And, at the end, there was a place where I could fill out how much money I'd send them. Just like a Form 1040. I haven't received such an official document since Ed McMahon died. Now, I certainly appreciate the appearance that they really care about what I think. But, I did a little checking on the Interwebz, and find they've been doing silly stuff like this for a bit. And, the thing is, they've been sending these out for years. And to many, many left-wing idiots. Now, that makes me wonder: are they still just mailing stuff out to people that they don't know who they are? Probably. But, let's imagine they've worked out all the bugs about who they mail these things to. The whole "official document" thing and "do not destroy" thing is ... silly. Or scary. Depending on who does it, I suppose. For instance, suppose I mailed out a bunch of things like that, and you got one. You'd think I was silly. Then, suppose you lived in the Soviet Union in 1980, and got such a thing from The Party. Not so silly then. More scary. And that's the thing. The arrogance. Telling me I got to send this form back or account for it or something. Now, I'm thinking about doing a YouTube of me burning it or feeding it to a goat or something. This is why I'm not a Republican. I hang around smarter people than that. Which explains why I steer clear of Democrats, too. And why I throw Holy Water at Ron Paul supporters. I'm undecided about whether to do anything at all with this survey. Would my response really make a difference? Even if it didn't, if I thought this was a meaningful part of the process, I'd participate. So, what have I learned from this? Nothing. I already knew that the Republican party did silly stuff. Like help elect liberals and moderates, neither of which do anything useful. Anyway, they've now spent all the money I sent them, asking me to send them more money. If only they put that money into doing something useful.