Bullshit 2008
Well folks, we've got just 767 days left until the presidential elections of 2008, and I think we all know the signifance of that special number, right? (Ummmm...no -ed.)
Oh...well...if you take the year of the next presidential election 2008 and add the number of votes in the electoral college (538) and then subtract the year of the ratification of the consitution (1789) and then add the number of ammendments contained within the bill of rights (10) do you know what you get?
(Shit...carry the seven...take the cosine...fuck where's my calculator...screw it, I'll just use google instead...Well I'll be damned. 767 -ed.)
Creepy isn't it? Anyway, given this very signifance of this day, I thought it was about time I started talking in earnest about the 2008 elections.
The first important thing to note is that the Democrats still look like they plan on nominating Hillary. As I've previously stated, this would be about the dumbest thing they could possibly do. I'm pretty sure the Republicans could nominate Hugo Chavez and still win an election against Hillary.
One of Hillary's prime competitors for the seat currently seems to be John Kerry. Which makes good sense. Just because Kerry couldn't win against one of the least popular sitting presidents in the history of the country, under horrible economic conditions and with the least popular war ever raging, doesn't mean the Dems should give up on him.
It does mean they should threaten to grind him up into delicate paste if he so much as enters the race though.
Another possible nominee under the Dems theory of "if first you don't succeed, feel free to fuck it up for us again" is former Veep Al Gore. Once again, the logic is obvious. If people hated Al Gore 8 years ago, then 8 years of subsequent whining and general creepiness is definitely going help. Plus his "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary is sure to get that environmentalist vote that the Dems always have such a hard time winning.
On the off chance that an important member of the democratic party is reading this, I'm going to give you a list of candidates that are acceptable to nominate: Sen. Biden, Sen. Edwards, Gov. Vilsack, Former Gov. Warner, Gov. Bredesen. That's it. Don't even consider anyone else. One of those guys.
If you're wondering where I got such a list, you can find a list of all the possible candidates at Politics1.com. Also you can find a prime example of the Daily Show's "Using a Question Mark to Hide an Opinion" theory. In Politics1's case, here's their current headline:
FLORIDA: IS CONGRESSMAN FOLEY AN ONLINE SEX PREDATOR?
Now hey, they're not SAYING Foley is a sex predator. They're just asking. Who knows whether or not he actually is? (Jesus. -ed.)
Moving on to the GOP, rumors are flying that Cheney is going to resign as Veep and President Bush will replace him with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. In the last four years, this women has risen up the ranks pretty quickly, and I don't want to make any trash accusations, but if I were President Bush I'd watch my back.
I know she's publicly said that she has no plans of running for president, but I haven't heard her say she has no plans of killing Dubya and annointing herself Empress for life. (Where were you with that question Tim Russert? Fat ass. -ed.)
Like I said, I don't want to get into any trouble here, but let me just ask this.
Is Condoleeza Rice convincing prominent members of the US government to step down by threating to devour them whole, in an ongoing plot to crown herself Supreme Empress and make the rest of the country her loyal zombie slaves?
I'm just asking.
Finally, I think it's clear, regardless of who the so called "important" parties nominate, who we should all be voting for. If you haven't seen trailers for "Man of the Year" or read Al Franken's "Why Not Me?" you might not be familiar with the idea of a comedian running for president, but it's existed for a while. Well, life is now imitating art folks.
The following is being reported by the New Statesman:
"He has now redirected his political energies and is standing (semi-seriously) for the Libertarian Party of America's nomination to run for president in the 2008 election."
Who's "he"? None other than Doug Stanhope. (Who? -ed.)
Doug Stanhope. Doug Stanhope? He was on the Man Show. (Oh, Jimmy Kimmel's friend. I like him. He was on that Dr. Drew show -ed.)
Uhh, no actually that's Adam Corolla. He and Kimmel were the original hosts (read: "funny hosts") of the show, then they were replaced by Doug Stanhope and Joe Rogan. (Joe Rogan? The guy from "Fear Factor"? That must have sucked. -ed.)
Yes, yes it did, pretty hardcore for that matter.
Which leads me to my question, if we're going to have a comedian run for president, shouldn't he at least be funny? Doug Stanhope? Christ, Bob Dole was funnier than Doug Stanhope, and only had one arm. (Too soon, too soon. -ed.)
But the nonsense aside, I'm looking forward to this campaign. Personally, I'm hoping we end up with couple of "Greatest Hits" tickets. After all, we're living in an era when VH1 has more shows about past shows, than actual new shows. So why not an "I love the 90/early 00s" Presidential race?
Let's have Al Gore with Veep John Kerry versus Bush I with Bob Dole. And we wouldn't even have to vote. We could just add up the votes we cast in the last 4 elections. Everybody wins.
Oh...well...if you take the year of the next presidential election 2008 and add the number of votes in the electoral college (538) and then subtract the year of the ratification of the consitution (1789) and then add the number of ammendments contained within the bill of rights (10) do you know what you get?
(Shit...carry the seven...take the cosine...fuck where's my calculator...screw it, I'll just use google instead...Well I'll be damned. 767 -ed.)
Creepy isn't it? Anyway, given this very signifance of this day, I thought it was about time I started talking in earnest about the 2008 elections.
The first important thing to note is that the Democrats still look like they plan on nominating Hillary. As I've previously stated, this would be about the dumbest thing they could possibly do. I'm pretty sure the Republicans could nominate Hugo Chavez and still win an election against Hillary.
One of Hillary's prime competitors for the seat currently seems to be John Kerry. Which makes good sense. Just because Kerry couldn't win against one of the least popular sitting presidents in the history of the country, under horrible economic conditions and with the least popular war ever raging, doesn't mean the Dems should give up on him.
It does mean they should threaten to grind him up into delicate paste if he so much as enters the race though.
Another possible nominee under the Dems theory of "if first you don't succeed, feel free to fuck it up for us again" is former Veep Al Gore. Once again, the logic is obvious. If people hated Al Gore 8 years ago, then 8 years of subsequent whining and general creepiness is definitely going help. Plus his "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary is sure to get that environmentalist vote that the Dems always have such a hard time winning.
On the off chance that an important member of the democratic party is reading this, I'm going to give you a list of candidates that are acceptable to nominate: Sen. Biden, Sen. Edwards, Gov. Vilsack, Former Gov. Warner, Gov. Bredesen. That's it. Don't even consider anyone else. One of those guys.
If you're wondering where I got such a list, you can find a list of all the possible candidates at Politics1.com. Also you can find a prime example of the Daily Show's "Using a Question Mark to Hide an Opinion" theory. In Politics1's case, here's their current headline:
FLORIDA: IS CONGRESSMAN FOLEY AN ONLINE SEX PREDATOR?
Now hey, they're not SAYING Foley is a sex predator. They're just asking. Who knows whether or not he actually is? (Jesus. -ed.)
Moving on to the GOP, rumors are flying that Cheney is going to resign as Veep and President Bush will replace him with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. In the last four years, this women has risen up the ranks pretty quickly, and I don't want to make any trash accusations, but if I were President Bush I'd watch my back.
I know she's publicly said that she has no plans of running for president, but I haven't heard her say she has no plans of killing Dubya and annointing herself Empress for life. (Where were you with that question Tim Russert? Fat ass. -ed.)
Like I said, I don't want to get into any trouble here, but let me just ask this.
Is Condoleeza Rice convincing prominent members of the US government to step down by threating to devour them whole, in an ongoing plot to crown herself Supreme Empress and make the rest of the country her loyal zombie slaves?
I'm just asking.
Finally, I think it's clear, regardless of who the so called "important" parties nominate, who we should all be voting for. If you haven't seen trailers for "Man of the Year" or read Al Franken's "Why Not Me?" you might not be familiar with the idea of a comedian running for president, but it's existed for a while. Well, life is now imitating art folks.
The following is being reported by the New Statesman:
"He has now redirected his political energies and is standing (semi-seriously) for the Libertarian Party of America's nomination to run for president in the 2008 election."
Who's "he"? None other than Doug Stanhope. (Who? -ed.)
Doug Stanhope. Doug Stanhope? He was on the Man Show. (Oh, Jimmy Kimmel's friend. I like him. He was on that Dr. Drew show -ed.)
Uhh, no actually that's Adam Corolla. He and Kimmel were the original hosts (read: "funny hosts") of the show, then they were replaced by Doug Stanhope and Joe Rogan. (Joe Rogan? The guy from "Fear Factor"? That must have sucked. -ed.)
Yes, yes it did, pretty hardcore for that matter.
Which leads me to my question, if we're going to have a comedian run for president, shouldn't he at least be funny? Doug Stanhope? Christ, Bob Dole was funnier than Doug Stanhope, and only had one arm. (Too soon, too soon. -ed.)
But the nonsense aside, I'm looking forward to this campaign. Personally, I'm hoping we end up with couple of "Greatest Hits" tickets. After all, we're living in an era when VH1 has more shows about past shows, than actual new shows. So why not an "I love the 90/early 00s" Presidential race?
Let's have Al Gore with Veep John Kerry versus Bush I with Bob Dole. And we wouldn't even have to vote. We could just add up the votes we cast in the last 4 elections. Everybody wins.
posted by drs at 9:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home