SlowpokeBlog

There's a huge, full-page ad in the Post today supporting the proposed amendment to ban gay marriages. Says the copy: "We can think of no more crucial issue for or nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage." As you might expect, the ad is sponsored by a number of religious groups and fun-loving family councils.

I had to laugh: There's no more crucial issue facing our nation than preventing gays from marrying?

But there's something that troubles me here, too. Politically-speaking, the whole debate surrounding the baneful amendment is playing beautifully into Bush's hands. Notice how no one's talking about Bush's AWOL guard service anymore? Or the lack of WMDs in Iraq? The issue is a perfect distraction from the administration's disastrous policies.

This is not to downplay the significance of what's happening right now in San Francisco and elsewhere. This form of civil disobedience is exactly the sort of activism we need more of in this country. The photos of newlywed couples have been truly heartwarming.

But we can't let Bush use this as a wedge issue. The Repubs are hoping peoples' reflexive homophobia will outweigh their concerns about the pitiful job market. Or at least make them forget about it temporarily. We just can't let that happen.

Neither the Times nor the Post has come down very hard on Mr. Greenspan’s recent statement that Social Security benefits should be cut while Bush’s tax cuts be made permanent. So the Fed chairman is saying tax relief for people making over $300,000 a year and elimination of the inheritance tax for the children of multimillionaires is more important than preserving Social Security? This is an utterly RADICAL proposition deserving loud and emphatic criticism from even the most moderate of moderates. But alas, the more-tepid-than-thou Post editorial board treats the matter with normalizing blandness, as usual.

On one hand, it's reassuring to me that a large number of 2000 Nader voters are now decrying Ralph's decision to run. On the other hand, I still think the megalomaniac could command a large enough following to do serious damage.

Here's a thought: If Nader really wanted to do some good for this country, he would put all that energy towards making elections 100% publicly financed. Running a quixotic campaign for president isn't going to change the system of legal bribery we have now one bit.

From the NY Times:

Ralph Nader will announce Sunday whether he will make another run for the White House, but all signs indicate the consumer advocate plans to jump into the race as an independent.

After weeks of postponing his decision, Nader will appear on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' to make the announcement, said Linda Schade, a spokeswoman for Nader's presidential exploratory committee.

As if it won't be difficult enough to beat Bush with Kerry once the RNC slime machine kicks in, we insist on fucking ourselves even further.

For those who haven't seen it yet, there's a decent Flash movie urging Nader not to run here.

...but yet another indication that Edwards has a much better chance against Bush than Kerry: Among Republicans and Independents in Wisconsin, Edwards CRUSHED Dead Wood. According to CNN's exit poll, 44% of Republicans went for Edwards, compared with 18% for Kerry. Among independents, Edwards won 40% to 28%.

While Kerry's Vietnam service makes Dubya look completely farcical by comparison, I think military experience is being overweighted in discussions of electability. In the end, personality will count more.

A neat little factoid about health insurance from today's Paul Krugman column:

A recent study found that private insurance companies spend 11.7 cents of every health care dollar on administrative costs, mainly advertising and underwriting, compared with 3.6 cents for Medicare and 1.3 cents for Canada's government-run system.

When it comes to health insurance, government is significantly more efficient than the private sector.

So it looks like my cousin in the Reserves is being called up to serve in Iraq. Anyone who's apathetic about voting because "politics doesn't affect them" or "all politicians are the same" doesn't deserve to live in a democracy.

The venerable Eric Alterman's position on the electability of Kerry and Edwards is exactly what I've been thinking. (Though I disagree that Kerry would make the best prez.) Again, as Molly Ivins might say, Edwards has Elvis, Kerry doesn't (see diatribe below).

What do campaign logos (or "brandmarks," as they say in corpspeak) say about the candidates themselves? Some quick deconstruction:

First off, Clark:



You gotta hand it to whoever thought of the stars thing. I notice the "04" is quite large here, as if to subtly drive home the point: Four-star general in '04. Actually uses "for President," unlike Kerry:



One of my pet peeves these days is the omission of the word "for" in what should be "for President." Do candidates who do this really think they're fooling anyone with this pseudo-subliminal silliness? If you ask me, eliminating the "for" doesn't create an aura of inevitabilty -- it creates the aura of a fake-ass.

Also, the Kerry logo is lower-case, conveying a tone of dull understatement... not surprising in this case.

Edwards:



Edwards also does the damned "President" thing. But at least the font is solid. A so-so sign.

And finally, Dean:



Big, fat capital letters make a strong, assertive statement. Ever notice the Bush-Cheney logo also uses fat caps? "For America" in handwritten-style font a nice informal touch. And, lo! A touch of daring: an actual color other than red, white, or blue.

In the spirit of the great Janet Jackson unsheathing, our nation turns its lonely eyes to... Booble.

Be advised: once there, you probably don't want to click anything, especially if you're at work.

... for recognizing that Edwards and Clark are more viable candidates than Kerry. Kerry's rise is less than a solid consensus than a reactionary snowball phenomenon. Thanks to a totally dishonest media savaging, people freaked out about Dean, went for his stylistic polar opposite, and then voters in subsequent primaries decided he was the chosen one.

And for those of you not aware of the level of distortion re: the Dean scream, Diane Sawyer -- and others -- fess up here. You'd think TV news professionals would realize that isolating Dean's mike without contextual background noise is a bit like recording one fan yelling at a football game amidst a sea of silence. But have we seen the reality-based version of Dean's concession speech replayed 670 times as a correction?