When Your Dreams Become Nightmares!

I will never be able to fully cleanse my memory banks of the fact that Ralph Nader was actually more responsible for George W. Bush becoming President of the United States than all the forces of conspiratorial corruption combined. To briefly refresh your memories, the final Florida certified vote count showed Bush defeating Al Gore by a paper thin 537 votes out of a total of nearly six million cast. The historians will be debating all the questionable scenarios of what took place long after everyone alive today is no more. One fact, however, they won't need to debate, was that Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader received 97, 421 votes or 1.633% of all votes cast. I feel quite certain that had Nader not been on the Florida ballot, the nearly one hundred thousand people that did vote for him, would not have selected Bush as their second choice. It's my contention that a lot of those voters would not have cast ballots at all. But of those who would have, who could reasonably argue that Gore would have not been named by a larger than a 537 vote margin and therefore George W. Bush could have continued his life as an obscure, illiterate alcoholic in that festering buttcrack of a town known as Crawford, Texas.

I sincerely hope that the antithesis of George W. Bush, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, is not morphing into the Ralph Nader of 2008. I genuinely wish the Edwards campaign could catch fire and propel him into the democratic nomination for president. But I'm sad to report the only fire currently burning is Edwards' presidential aspirations going up in smoke. If I could only figure out why Edwards doesn't resonate better with voters, I'd contact his campaign staff and tell them right now. But whereas many people are simple, the reasons for why they think the way they do are not. I don't think one particular factor turns off the majority of voters. But the combined effects of being a wealthy trial lawyer, a failed national candidate from four years ago, the nonsensical label of a hypocrite fighting for the poor while living in a spacious mansion, a recipient of $400 haircuts and the fact he doesn't seem to pass the essential "beer drinking" test, causes him more to the outside looking in category than the inside looking out position. Whatever the reason, it's just not working out for him.

It's his dogged determination of trying to get that one last drink after last call has come and gone that's causing many of us an unfavorable flashback to 2000. Edwards does have a base of 15% to 20% of supporters in virtually every state. These loyal supporters will undoubtedly stay with Edwards as long as he is willing to fight on, but in a process that allows for only one winner, his determination can only benefit one person and unfortunately that one person happens to be Crybaby McPantsuit. Unless you're an 85 year old woman, an individual longing for the good old 90's, a sucker for a crying woman, a female version of Rudy Giuliani or someone who boasts 35 years of experience being married to an Arkansas hound dog, Hillary holds no appeal. She has somehow managed to believe it's her unalienable right or destiny to become president. There is no level she will not sink, no mud she will not throw or no fence she will not straddle in order to appeal to just enough people to get her polyester ass back in the White House saddle again.

By Edwards futilely remaining in the race, he causes the majority of the democratic voters in this country to split their votes between Obama and himself, while Hillary moves on. I don't discount that a certain percentage of Edwards loyalists would vote for Hillary if Edwards withdraws, but much like 2000, the majority of Edwards support would go to Obama rather than Clinton. This will effectually mean the difference of who the democratic nominee on the November ballot is. The republican party is completely fractured as this article goes to press. I guarantee you, however, that nothing will galvanize and organize these lost souls more than Hillary Clinton on their ballot. Imagine if you will President(s) John McCain, Willard "Mitt" Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee and first lady, Chuck Norris being your leader. Just the thought of that makes me want to eat a crack and heroin sandwich on whole wheat toast.

If Democrats, libertarians, humanitarians and possessors of IQs larger than their combined shoe and hat sizes do not want to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and regain its pride by first regaining its sanity, take a closer look at Barack Obama. Nobody is experienced doing everything before they've done anything. Hillary was the wife of a president. I know a guy whose wife is an eye doctor. Would you feel confident visiting the guy based solely on his experience as a spouse? Bright people like Obama surround themselves with bright people who offer their ideas rather than their opinions. If you had a major problem in your life would you rather seek the counsel of a trusted friend who will give you the information you need or some stooge who will give you the information you want?

Robert F. Kennedy once said "some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not." Since I'm quoting Kennedys, Robert had a brother named John, who told a people looking for a new beginning nearly 50 years ago to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country." So Senator Edwards and everybody else, dream about what you can do to make the United States everything it can be. I'm voting for Barack Obama, anyone out there who wants to join me is more than welcome to come along for the ride.....

Ask Me a Question and I'll Cry You a River!

As the results from the New Hampshire Primary were becoming official, I couldn't help thinking about the old expression of "Be careful what you wish for... you might just get it." I'm beginning to think New Hampshire is called the Granite State because of the contents of the citizenries' heads rather than its geological makeup and its tradition of self-sufficiency. The United States of America took one giant leap for mankind backwards Tuesday night by basically canonizing two washed up relics from the 20th century named John McCain and Hillary Clinton. After nearly 20 years of America being subjected to the divisive regimes of the Hatfields and McCoys also known as the Bushes and Clintons, Americans claimed they were ready for change. Finally the college students were going to stop whining about the status quo and actually do something for themselves and their futures. They didn't. Middle-aged Americans tired of seeing their kids being sent to Iraq for nothing and seeing their homes foreclosed, were going to seek change. They didn't. Seniors were tired of deciding which medications they could afford and which ones they couldn't as a result of spiraling health costs by looking forward to a new voice. They didn't either.

What did they do then? They momentarily, at least, stopped looking forward and retreated to the past by throwing their support behind a 71 year old fossil whose life is predicated by reliving his past and paying no heed to the future. Then, if that weren't enough, the other side chose a 60 year old woman who repeatedly bangs the drums of change by touting her 35 years of experience. I've never been able to figure out what specifically this so called experience is. I can respect the fact she graduated college, law school and was a junior staffer on the Richard Nixon impeachment proceedings, but mostly her resume is that of the First Lady of Arkansas, and then the United States. To her credit I suppose, she parlayed her name recognition into becoming a US Senator from New York. She never lived in New York and never accomplished anything of note either, but her husband's popularity was sufficient enough to earn her a US Senate seat. If that sounds harsh, so be it, because it's the truth. Every single 60 year old person on the planet has 35 years experience doing something, doing anything. Should that be the springboard to justify becoming president?

John McCain has been an elected official for 25 years. The last 21 of those years as a republican senator from Arizona. He also has 5 years of experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. So McCain can tout his vast experience as well. Did McCain do anything to prevent Bush from continuously torturing enemy combatants? Did McCain's 25 year history in Washington politics benefit his constituents more or himself? He considers himself to be a maverick politician, but a maverick is defined as an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party. Yeah, after 2o years of democrats and republicans bending over backwards to screw each other over, this country is desperately seeking a leader who gets along with nobody. If McCain were to be elected president and served two terms, he would be 80 years of age. I have no prejudices towards seniors. In fact, some of my favorite grandparents have been seniors, but when you're at that stage of your life, it seems to me, more emphasis is being placed on where you've been than where you're going.

I used to have a great deal of respect for Bill Clinton. I realize he had as many faults as he did virtues. But when you respect and admire a person, you tend to accentuate their accomplishments, whilst overlooking their failures. I never fully understood why so many people loathed Clinton. I assumed it was primarily jealousy. But now as I look at him more objectively, I understand that they were not fully wrong just as I was not fully right. The former president mostly uses and often abuses his personal charm to benefit himself. I salute him for his foundation which has raised billions of dollars for AIDS research, disaster relief, global warming projects and affordable housing for people who legitimately need assistance. But I also see a reckless, smarmy lounge lizard who thoughtlessly and recklessly was bagging bimbos in the same house where his wife and daughter were at the very same time. He committed purjury when he was finally nailed and disgraced himself as well as the office the people elected him to.

I almost found it somewhat funny this week when he was criticizing Barack Obama for the same qualities he himself relied upon to win elections. You know the one, the young, idealistic outsider coming in to corrupt Washington to fix a broken system. Clinton went on further to tear into New Hampshire election officials for scheduling their primary so close to the Iowa Caucus. He excoriated them by claiming their system was so unfair because the momentum of whoever won in Iowa would automatically be sufficient to propel them to victory there as well. Well big daddy, it turns out you were wrong on all levels. Firstly, New Hampshire officials had no idea who would win in Iowa, nor did they care either. If they did give it a moment's thought, I'm sure they assumed the overwhelming front runners, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would easily cruise to victory in Iowa. History of course, will show neither did. It will also demonstrate you should spend more time being the blank staring, robotic and smiling spouse, (see Laura Bush) and stop making accusations that are neither proper nor true. Both Iowa winners lost in New Hampshire. So Bill, it turns out your theory held even less content than Monica Lewinski's legendary blue dress.

I keep hearing what a dirty game politics is. Most of the candidates demonstrate their great knowledge of the issues not with action, but by spewing forth mind numbing oratories. They don't do this by thoughtfully dissecting what's broken and applying a fix, but by proving how low they're willing to sink to get elected at any cost. Some candidates will sigh and cry whereas all candidates will lie. They throw mud at each other but only the electorate get stained. In a perfect world, everybody would just honestly present themselves to the American public and let the public decide who the best candidate is. But a perfect world doesn't have Bushes, Clintons and mavericks everywhere you look. Instead of listening to these politicians telling you what they think you want to hear, listen to yourself and tell them what you want them to hear with your vote. You can't effectively move forward if you're looking back. This country needs to be led into the future much more than it needs being pulled back into the past....

America Represents a Proctologist's Fantasy

In the somewhat recent past, a very popular patriotic phrase was in vogue. "America, love it or leave it." Seeing the official tally of the 2008 New Hampshire Primary results make the latter seem much more appealing than the former. I can't think of another place on earth where more people thrive and survive while deprived of much needed oxygen with a chaser of common sense. The process in which we elect candidates to lead us is so out of kilter, only an army of highly trained proctologists can extricate the majority of heads from the majority of asses that have taken over this country.

Since the year 2000, this country has been in steady decline. Eight years of the world's premier ignoramus as president alone could accomplish that. Now that we are in the seemingly endless process of choosing a successor, I am much more understanding of how 2000 happened in the first place. Rather than rehash what an illiterate buffoon is still occupying the White House, let's take a look at illiterate buffoons who are controlling our collective destiny as to who his replacement will be.

Ever since Bush was declared the winner of the 2004 presidential election, the cable news teams have been dedicating nearly seven day a week non-stop coverage to whom his successor will be. This is a great shortcoming of cable news.They are forced to stretch two hours of daily news into a 24 hour news cycle. You can almost see the relief on the talking heads' faces when thankfully a barn in Wyoming catches fire or a car chase on a Mississippi highway takes place. These are both excellent time wasting trivial matters providing it's not your barn or car involved. But the overwhelming coverage is being directed towards the 2008 presidential elections.

These talking head puppets are not content with merely reporting the news, they're much more determined to create it and then report as news what they've created. This 2008 election is a perfect illustration for my point. You simply can't take polls three or four times per day and claim you have insight into the electors' minds. If somebody called me on the phone or stopped me in the street to ask me who I was voting for, I would reply with a simple yet effective two word response. I won't say exactly what that response would be, but I can tell you the second word would be YOU! Then they hire a large contingent of political directors, political insiders, political consultants, political pundits and political spin doctors to come on and claim they know everything that you don't. They all offer their own brand of manure for your consumption. I learned years ago to never ask a senior citizen how they feel or remain with an earshot of a person who begins a sentence with: "if you want my opinion." The reason simply put is both will ramble on and one until hanging yourself from a tree branch or ramming your head into a brick wall seems like an appealing alternative.

Every time I turn on the news so far in 2008, I hear how the American people are going to vote and why. The people themselves aren't telling me this. So called political experts are. They're so bright, they're working for what amounts to little more than lunch money at cable news outlets and blogs such as this rather than having real jobs. They tell you the outcome of the elections until your head literally spins off its axis, because you've become so numb to them, you almost begin to believe them. Then and only then the actual election takes place and these simple minded sock puppets are dead wrong. Do they look the camera in the eye and acknowledge they're idiots? Of course they don't. They are stunned the public voted the wrong way. The public didn't pay attention. What's the deal with the public. Well it seems a great many members of the public can't formulate an actual determination of whom they want to lead them until they're poking their own chads. Some of them change their vote because a candidate cried, a fellow candidate was mean to them or to prove their independence by making the experts look stupid.

I've got news for Joe Public. The experts don't need your help looking stupid, that's the one thing they're actually experts about. I am one person with one vote. I may or may not use it when the time comes. I'm sure if I do vote, I will opt for the lesser of two evils. That sounds so cynical. But after endless attempts of trying to make sense of the senseless, being cynical and pessimistic is the most optimistic thing I can think of right now..........

Decorate With LED Lights

Christmas lights are no longer just for Christmas anymore. With the advent of LED technology, decorative lights are now available in more shapes and have more uses than ever before. What are the advantages of LED string lights over traditional holiday lights you might ask? One major difference is that LED lights save a great deal of electricity. Since they produce virtually no heat, they are also significantly safer to use. These lights last a great deal longer as well (50,000 hours vs. 2,000 hours for traditional lights), they are practically indestructible and it's oh so simple to replace one bulb, should that become necessary.

Due to the wide variety of shapes and colors available, these lights offer more options for decorating than just your traditional Christmas tree. There are textured strawberry and raspberry shaped lights, mini lights and icicle-shaped lights all in a vast array of colors. Imagine having the ability to display orange strands of light for Halloween, decorative white lights for a wedding display, or LED rope lights to enhance the beauty of your patio or gazebo year round. Consider lighting one of your favorite trees in order to show off your landscaping to friends and neighbors alike. The many options are limited only by your imagination.

LED strings lights are economical to use. Bargains abound now that another Christmas holiday season has come and gone. You can now use these beautiful LED strings lights throughout the entire year in order to add a professional appearing aura of beauty to your home and landscaping.

This post is sponsored

I Just Rolled into New Hampshire and...

boy, are my ribs sore. The eyes of the world will be focusing on the Granite State. New Hampshire will be center stage this week as the first true primary in the nation takes place on Tuesday. Many unanswered questions should be resolved shortly after the last polling precinct closes its doors in the early evening hours. A muddled nomination picture should become a lot clearer Tuesday evening after the networks begin declaring the winners and losers. In anticipation of the results, I'll try to clarify the ramifications of who must win, who should win and ultimately who will win.

First, for the republican party. Right now the betting favorite is John McCain. The septigenarian senator who could easily pass for an octogenarian or perhaps even a nonagenarian is the current front runner. I will readily admit this guy's appeal is a thoroughly deep shrouded mystery to me. His claim to fame was being captured and tortured in Vietnam more than 40 years ago. I assume the average republican enjoys torture so much, McCain's past makes him extra appealing to the strength through words but not through action crowd. The seventy-one year old Arizonan has been a politician for 25 years now. He spent four years in the U.S House of Representatives and is currently serving his fourth term in the U.S. Senate.

Unlike most republicans, however, McCain actually looks at the world in slightly more than a unidimensional way. He has come out in favor of a more liberal approach to the illegal alien problem, he generally doesn't get on his hands and knees to lick the loins of the bible thumping buffoons who believe this country should be renamed the United States of Jesus and despite his age similarity with former President Ronald Reagan, doesn't use him as an applause prop like most of his fellow candidates. Let's be honest if we can. If McCain were somehow to be elected, he would be past 80 at the conclusion of his second term. I'm not being discriminatory to seniors, but men in their 70's traditionally spend far more time focusing on their pasts then their futures. McCain would much better be suited to becoming President of the Del Boca Vista Condo Board than of the free world.

Barack Obama, fresh off his upset victory over the woman boasting 35 years experience of doing stuff nobody has any idea what it was, has come from way back to being slightly ahead in the latest poling. I get so tired of hearing how young and inexperienced Senator Obama is. The guy is 46 years of age, not fresh out of high school. He is the only candidate to have lived extensively outside the U.S., giving him the unique perspective of seeing this country not only from within but as the rest of world does. That's an important attribute when dealing with world leaders to be able see things from all sides. As for the experience factor, nobody running for the White House has ANY experience as president. Not even you, Hillary. You were the president's wife. You don't hear the wife of NFL football player Brett Favre claiming she's ready from day one to step in and play quarterback for the Green Bay Packers because her husband has. Nobody has experience doing anything until they actually do something. So Hillary, I must respectfully request you shut up about your vast 35 years of experience of whatever it was you were doing. You have never been president and hopefully never will be.

Back to the republicans, there is no clear choice. McCain, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and Giuliani sound more like an opening act for Carrie Underwood than for the leader of the free world. The democrats have a much clearer choice. Do you want a bright, well informed 46 year old with a vision for the future, or a 60 year old relic from the past with 35 years of experience gaining experience? I'm not objective, I'm hopeful. After eight years of a mental pygmy who led this country into a Grand Canyon like hole, we can ill afford to choose someone we want to drink a beer with as the president. Besides, I guarantee you McCain's aging bladder can't hold beer, Romney drinks Zima, Huckabee drinks Jesus Juice, Thompson drinks kaopectate and Giuliani is too busy talking about 9/11 to even have time for a drink. As for Hillary, she will drink anything that she thinks will get her an extra vote. Don't you drink the Kool-aid. You're never going to drink anything with these candidates but you're going to be spending the next eight years eating whatever they serve you. I'll be looking forward to taking my meals at Obamas.....

Raucous Caucus or Streptocaucus?

The time had come, the time has gone. The 2008 Iowa caucus is now in the history books. Senator Barack Obama and formerArkansas Governor Mike Huckabee have been officially named the winners of the most anticipated caucus in the history of caucuses. Candidates from both parties seemingly began their campaigns for Iowa style immortality before the ink from the 2006 elections had even dried. There's much to be discussed about the winners, but the same can be said about the losers too.

First off, pay no mind to the hordes of sycophants who vehemently spin the fact their candidates, who finished second, third or even fourth as the true winners of this primary exercise. There's no place and show category in politics, there's only win. I think one of the reasons people regard politicians with the same esteem they hold used car salesman, lawyers and parasites to name just a few, is the fact they think everybody listening is stupid. I don't discount the fact that many of our populace are not intellectual titans, but in electoral processes with no clear cut front runner, candidates can't afford to insult just anybody. They clearly need to be more discriminating and judicious as to whom they take for idiots.

Next off, I'll warmly congratulate republican winner, Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas strongman easily defeated Mitt "Varmint Slayer" Romney, Fred "Father Time" Thompson, John "Father Timier" Mc Cain and Rudy "911" Giuliani. When you take a look at the one winner along with this particular group of losers, it makes you want to waterboard yourself. What enabled Huckabee to separate himself from this pack? Was it Jesus Christ, you think? Huckabee distinguished himself by knowing virtually nothing. He had no idea what the NIE is, he couldn't pinpoint countries such as Pakistan or Afghanistan on a map like most U.S. Americans and he wanted to stop the steady flow of illegal Pakistanis streaming across the border from neighboring Asia. To his credit, however, he was very much aware of Jamie Lynn Spears getting knocked up at 16. He's a great prioritizer of data. But there's enough people in this country who will vote for anyone that mentions Jesus with the same regularity of a man on a baked bean, fig newton and raisin diet.

On the democratic side, the story was more about who lost than who won. Hillary is the big loser in this caucus. She was packed and ready to move back in to the White House when she announced her candidacy nearly a year ago. Who could or would dare to challenge the High Priestess of Pants Suits, after all? Barack Obama and John Edwards, to name two, did and both just happened to finish with more votes than the show pony did in this mid-western horse race. Obama finished first with 38% of the vote, followed by Edwards with 30% and Hillary with 29%. They will nearly split the 45 convention delegates awarded, but the overwhelming perception will be that of Obama whipping the pantsuit off of Hillary to win by a near double digit margin. This victory proved Obama to be a viable candidate, even in a state where nearly 95 out of every 100 residents is white. That is significant and will take on the momentum of a runaway freight train barreling towards New Hampshire on Tuesday.

This nominating process is far from over but as a comparative, before the New England Patriots could finish a perfect 16 - 0, they had to be 1 - 0 first, and that's exactly what the junior senator from Illinois has done. On the other side, Huckabee is walking on water boards to New Hampshire with the air of a winner but will leave with the stench of a loser. Huckabee may be shrewd, but he's basically an empty suit that is destined for a one way ticket back to Arkansas. Ultimately both parties will nominate candidates for the upcoming election. I'm going to predict the November pairing will be Obama v. Romney. I'm not objective, I very much hope Obama wins. If he does, this country will have reasons on many levels to be proud. We will have a deeply profound thinker and intellectually gifted orator. If Romney were to win, this country will have a president with a great head of hair and a contempt for varmints. The choice will be simple, hopefully the electorate will not be...

Here's Hoping Everyone has a Great 2008!

Now that 2008 is upon us, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year. Each January 1st is a great opportunity to reassess where we are in life, make some plans for the future and set some goals. But it's also beneficial to review what has just happened in the past year in order to gain some knowledge and perspective. 2007 was certainly an eventful year and here is a quick and entertaining look at some of the highlights.

In 2007 | Funny Jokes at JibJab