Who do I like for President? Must I think about something so serious when I’m having so much fun? Besides, isn’t the 2008 election more than a year away?
Apparently, while I’ve been milking the dog days of summer for every last lazy bit, political temperatures have been on the rise. Up until that fateful dinner, I somehow managed to steer clear of the fray. Why pundit when more pressing matters demand center stage? Collapsing bridges in the Midwest. Escalating terrorist alerts in the Middle East. Imminent Korean summits. Hank Aaron’s broken home run record. I barely have time to keep tabs on Lindsay, let alone take an intelligent look at the hundred plus declared candidates for President of the United States.
Does the name Daniel Gilbert ring a bell? Nope? Didn’t think so.
Uh, does it really matter which presidential candidate I favor in August of 2007? Aren’t two or three of them bound for implosion anyway? I mean, take a look at Howard Dean. Who can forget all those bright-eyed optimistic Deaniacs chugging and chugging toward the White House, pushing their candidate ahead of the pack, stumping like crazy, with a glimmer of winner on the horizon? Then one little “EEEEEE-AHHHHH!” shrieked in front of a packed audience, and just like that, the guy is yesterday’s toast.
Okay, it didn’t really happen that way. My version just sounds better and can be told in less time.
I suppose I should not ignore the sheeple advantage, especially at this stage of the race. A well-known political phenomenon, the "sheepadvan" is best illustrated by the way Average Joe investor reacts to the stock market. Rather than buy at an initial public offering, Average Joe holds out for a significant price increase. If that many people own shares, then according to Average Joe, the company must be good. Of course, the stock was a much better buy when fewer people owned it, but why should that matter? So too goes the race for President.
Each presidential election, the "sheepadvan" seems to arrive earlier and earlier. I’d like to keep it submerged at least until the traditional benchmark, otherwise known as the New Hampshire primary. But with the Republican YouTube Debates scheduled to occur in September, this no longer appears to be an option. On the other hand, perhaps I’ve gotten a reprieve. As of press time, only two Republican candidates were willing to answer videotaped questions from the American public.
I tried to squirm my way out of answering the three degrees of separation relative by fingering presidential candidates I wouldn’t endorse for all the tinsel in Hollywood. At the top of that list is the junior Senator from the great state of New York. Must I name she who must not be named?
This woman absolutely rubs me the wrong way. Let’s see, how do I despise thee? Let me count the ways: (1) opportunist; (2) liar; (3) traitor to America; (4) power whore; (5) money grubber; (6) status climber; (7) Socialist in Democrat’s clothing; (8) bigot; (9) foreign policy ignoramus; (10) corporate sell-out…. Should I continue?Oh, why bother when I can make a video that says it all? With apologies to The Beach Boys, Reprob8Hill leads off Today’s Spewed Videos. Yes, I know some images are a tad blurry and it moves somewhat fast, but I think my little celluloid packs a load'a wallop.
Just the kind of thing I could upload to entertain future tablemates while I nonchalantly sneak off to the bar.
Click to see Spewed Videos du Jour.
politics, celebrities