Blog Archives

Santorum Wins Alabama And Mississippi, But He Didn’t Win Much

Rick Santorum can run around with his hair on fire telling everyone how he won the Alabama And Mississippi primaries, but a closer look at the numbers reveals his boasts to be wild exaggeration.  Sure, Santorum spent less money than Mitt Romney, but this isn’t a foot race, and the former Senator needs to realize that.


In Alabama, Santorum scooped up 34.5% – meanwhile, Newt “I can’t believe I’m still in the race, either” Gingrich took 29.3% and Romney took an even 29%.  Without a doubt, Santorum won, but it’s not like he cleaned Romney’s clock by 10+ percentage points.  I’m also fairly certain I read somewhere that Romney didn’t campaign in Alabama…

The Mississippi numbers are even closer:  32.8% for Santorum, Gingrich in second again with 31.2% and Romney bringing up the rear with 30.6.  When the spread’s less than 2.5 points, the phrase “narrow victory” comes to mind.  Also, check out the balls on Gingrich:  “If you’re the front-runner and keep coming in third, you’re not much of a front-runner.”  Err… you know you didn’t come in first in anything last night, right?

Here’s the real problem:  the Republican primary is no longer a winner take all contest – just because you win a state doesn’t mean you get all of the delegates, and given that the contests have all been relatively close, it’s a fair to guess that the delegates will be divided up fairly evenly.  And even worse for Santorum and Gingrich, they’re way behind Romney in the delegate count, so dividing delegates nearly even with him isn’t a great way to eat up his lead.


As you can see, Romney is handing Santorum his ASS in total delegate count.  A 243 delegate count lead over your closest rival is a fairly significant beating, and while I understand that there are 1358 delegates left for the taking, it’s hard to believe that Santorum will ever be able to catch Romney, especially if about 30% of voters in Mississippi & Alabama are willing to vote for a Mormon.  If Santorum can’t blow Romney out in these states, then he’s never going to catch up.

more Election 2012 at

Republican Primary Results That Don’t Count For Anything From States Where Republicans Don’t Live, Vote Or Care

Whew!  That title just rolls right off your tongue!

This post is all about numbers, but don’t let that scare you off.  I hate those smug bastards, but sometimes, simply looking them over and seeing which ones are small and which ones are big can tell us a lot.

For example, Minnesota is 21st in population in the United States with a count of 5,303,925 in 2010.  Colorado is 22nd with 5,029,196 and Missouri is 18th with 5,988,927.  But apparently, either no Republicans live there, don’t vote, or they don’t show up for elections that don’t count for anything.  Or they think the candidates suck.

That’s right, folks; apparently, the Republican Primaries in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota not only had fairly low turnout, but they’re not awarding any delegates to the winner – so I guess all of this means nothing as the states have not awarded delegates to any of the candidates, meaning until they do, we don’t know who they’ll vote for at the Republican National Convention.  Apparently, this is all tied to these states having their elections too soon, but what this means for awarding their delegates, I don’t know, and who cares?  Nobody voted anyway.  Here are the results:


The only thing that annoys me more than the Electoral College is the way we pick candidates.  This is pathetic!  In Colorado, a total of 66,027 showed up.  In Minnesota, which we already noted has slightly more residents than Colorado, only 48,695 could muster up the courage to hit the polls and in Missouri, 251,868  got those classy “I voted!” stickers.  Now that’s a lot more than Colorado or Minnesota, but as I always like to point out, Brooklyn has a population of 2,504,700, so I don’t see any of these guys doing very well in a race for Borough President.

Yet the most shocking thing of all is that Rick Santorum swept the day!  And, when you google his name, is now downgraded to the 4th option in natural search results, so things are all coming up Rick!


Your damn right I +1'd it. Man, Google - that is one awkward expression you've got there.

So I guess Santorum is the latest flavor of the month in the “Anybody But Mitt Romney” parade and as Newt Gingrich didn’t finish any better than third in all three races, he is of course not dropping out.  Why would he drop out now?  He only failed to capture anything worth reporting in the state where the most people showed up to vote in an election where you essentially just had to show up and shake hands with the 12 people voting at each precinct…

Well, I guess it’s time for Mitt Romney to tear into Rick Santorum with a wave of negative ads from his Super PAC that he can’t control, so get ready, Maine – you’ve got some commercials coming your way concerning why a frothy mixture won’t make a good president.

more Election 2012 at

Newt Gingrich: “To the moon, Alice!”

newt-gingrichNewt Gingrich has been quoted as saying, “I accept the charge that I am grandiose…  Because Americans are instinctively grandiose.”

My first problem with this statement is that I don’t appreciate Mr. Gingrich lumping me in with him; I’m not grandiose.  Secondly, I disagree overall – Americans are not grandiose.  Well, unless by ‘grandiose,’ you mean we spend money on things we don’t need, then yeah, we’re grandiose.  But still, most Americans don’t go around telling people they plan on installing an after-market flux capacitor in their 1999 Toyota Camry.  Maybe when he said ‘Americans,’ he meant ‘rich people.’  Maybe rich people do go around saying grandiose things, such as ‘I’m going to have Rod Steward play at my 80th birthday party.”  That sounds grandiose to me, but  I don’t know anyone who talks like that.


"You're in my heart and you're in my soul - ACK! My heart! Somebody call 112!"

I’d like to take a moment to let you know how awesome I think space and space exploration is.  I know entirely too much about the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space programs (all of which were wrapped up before I was born) as well as the Space Shuttle.  I’ve been to Kennedy Space Center, I’ve heard the sonic boom from the space shuttle, I’ve watched the entire “From the Earth to the Moon” series at least three times (even the boring episode about the astronauts’ families)… so yeah, I’m versed in space, and I love this stuff.

But this is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard anybody say:

Newt Gingrich:  “By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.”


not pictured: Newt Gingrich

Now that is grandiose!  And “By the end of my second term?”  Who talks like that before they’re even close to securing a nomination to run for a first?!?  Newt does.

I don’t have any idea why the United States would do this besides the fact that it would be a really awesome thing to say if you’re ever abroad and someone asks you what country you’re from.

“I’m an American,” you’d respond, proudly.  “We have a base on the moon, sucka!”

It would take an insane amount of money (I’ll explain why in a second) to accomplish a lunar base, but I don’t see how America benefits from having a permanent base on the moon.  Newt says it will benefit “science, tourism, and manufacturing,” and I’m sure science will benefit from the development of the technology it will take to accomplish this, but tourism?  Manufacturing?  It costs around $1000 to fly from the United States to China – the moon is a lot farther away!  And how much does a moon hotel room cost?  Does it cost extra to get a room with a view of the Sea of Tranquility?  Do they at least supply soap and shampoo? I can’t imagine what the TSA examination is like to board a spacecraft!  And what are they going to manufacture on the moon?  A line of apparel based on Michael Jackson’s Moonwalker?  Maybe he meant mining, harvesting minerals, that sort of thing…  Newt must have saw that movie Moon.

I don’t know if Newt’s noticed, but we’re having a fairly serious budget issue in the United States right now, and there isn’t a lot of extra money lying around to make his dream a reality.  As I’m sure you know, NASA has retired the space shuttle as it’s extremely old.  How old is the design?  Let me put it this way:  the space shuttle is so old it can’t run Windows.  I don’t mean Windows 7, I mean any version of Windows that has ever existed.  Windows 95?  You can forget it.  The space shuttle is ancient; you’d be better off running the damn thing from your smart phone – it has way more processing power.  So there’s your first problem; a new space vehicle would have to be designed to fly to the moon.  See, the space shuttle was designed to fly in the earth’s orbit, so while I’m sure a replacement design is in the works, near completion or being manufactured right now, I doubt it could make the trip to the moon, which I’ve already mentioned is far away, even if it looks close.  To set up a base, you’re going to have to get a ton of equipment to the moon, which is surely going to require a large vehicle – much larger than a vehicle that would only transport people.  So now we need a space truck (And presumably, Space Truckers… ugh, I shudder at the thought of that movie.  If you feel like you’re living under a rock because you’ve never heard of Space Truckers, just understand that it’s a rock worth living under.), which we’d have to build with a big enough payload to break the earth’s gravity, which is no easy feet – if you’ve ever seen a space launch on TV, you know it looks like a bomb exploding – imagine if the vehicle was even bigger and heavier!  Blast off would level Cape Canaveral!  Flying to the moon (and in space) is all about weight.  You need enough propellent to push your vehicle from one place to another at a rate that doesn’t take forever, never mind just getting away from earth’s gravity…

So yeah, I don’t see this working.  And I have no idea how you support life on the moon on a permanent basis.  Where does the oxygen come from?  If you store it in tanks, you have to keep in mind that it’s highly flammable.  It gets pretty cold on the lunar surface at night… I guess some big solar powered batteries will keep the habitat warm when you’re rocking out on the dark side of the moon.  But if something breaks and the local engineer can’t fix it, you might be tempted to scream out, “Newt!” in frustration, but don’t bother.

In space, no one can hear you scream.

more Election 2012 at

Presidential Candidates In Comic Book Form

An eight part series came out on eight president contenders, and they released Barack Obama’s issue first.  What sense does that make?  They knew he’d be in the general election, so why not release his issue last?  I’m sure everyone’s face was red when the Sarah Palin issue came out.  Anyway, I’m pretty sure they’re just quick biographies in all their fluffiness, but the Obama issue was the only one I bought.


Hells yeah - I'd vote for that!


Ha - Sarah Palin! Way to read the Tea Leaves!

I imagine that the conversation on who to put in here went something like, “Look, we can’t fit nine, so we have to draw the the line somewhere… who do you want?  Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich?”  I imagined someone vomited and said, “Yuck!  Go with Perry, I guess.  At least he has a soul…  well, probably.”


If you're not wearing a tie, this pose just doesn't work. Sorry, ladies.

more Comic Book Reviews at

more Election 2012 at

South Carolina Debate, Ya’ll!

I watched most of last night’s Presidential Debate in Charleston (?), North Carolina, hosted by CNN – you might have noticed it was hosted by CNN as they brought a few thousand CNN signs to decorate the stage with. If you’re wondering who won, I have no idea – for the most part, I thought each candidate received equally positive reactions from the crowd. OK, Ron Paul was lagging behind, but when he doesn’t agree with the crowd, he’s not afraid to tell them so – this strategy does not win you Presidential elections. Nevertheless, the crowd really seemed to enjoy themselves – the exit polling data indicated that every attendee was very excited to vote for… one of the Republicans.

Newt Gingrich was disgusted that the first question of the night concerned the interview his second wife had given NBC that same day. He might not think his personal life is relevant (particularly since he maintains his second wife’s claims concerning Newt asking for an open marriage are not true), but when you’re having an affair with a member of your staff while you’re impeaching the President for lying about an affair he had with a member of his staff… well, that’s a horse of a different color, ain’t it? I think it is. Still, I don’t care about the infidelity – that’s none of my business, although it does call your character into question. What does concern me is the hypocrisy the man bathes in, like a dateless kid wearing too much cologne at the junior prom.

I’m surprised how effective Newt’s badgering of Mitt Romney and his tax returns has been – Mitt seems to be a bit on edge. I don’t know why Mitt won’t release the documents, but I suspect it has something to do with Mitt’s strategy of trying to relate to the common man despite being a multimillionaire. (Or is it billionaire? I forget.) Does Mitt really think we’ll view him differently if we know how much he’s worth? Or, more to the point, view Mitt differently then Newt? It won’t matter, because Newt and Mitt are both rich guys – who cares which one is richer? In 2005, the average median income was $32,140 for people over the age of 25. Newt Gingrich made over $2 million dollars last year alone. If Mitt is worth a hundred times Newt’s 2011 earnings, does that make Newt more relatable to the average American? I think not – they’re just two rich guys.

So choose your rich guy wisely, South Carolina – or just vote for Herman Cain.

more Election 2012 at

South Carolina Tea Party Doesn’t Like Ron Paul

After strong showings in the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, I thought I’d pull up the Insider Advantage South Carolina Primary Poll and see Ron Paul on his way to his first victory. After all, South Carolina is a Tea Party stronghold (according to the NY Times, 61% of South Carolina voters approve of the Tea Party, which is more than double than the rest of the ron-paulcountry) , and you’d think he’d be their champion.

But no:

Romney 23%
Gingrich 21%
Santorum 14%
Paul 13%
Perry 5%
Huntsman 7%

So this is me officially saying that I clearly don’t understand who the Tea Party voters are or what they want. I thought they wanted small federal government, states rights, that sort of thing – shouldn’t they be all about Ron Paul? Yet South Carolina’s governor, Nikki Haley (who was swept into office amongst a wave of Tea Party support) has endorsed Mitt Romney (in December), who is holding a small lead over Newt Gingrich. Gingrich? This is totally shocking to me. How can Romney (who’s own health care reform was used as a model for Barack Obama’s health care reform) be in the lead, immediately followed by Gingrich (the former Speaker of the House who resigned in disgrace after paying ethics fines and went on to found a company that helps corporations bypass the lobbying process and get direct access to Congress) be in second by only a few points? How can South Carolina Tea Party voters possibly like these guys?

Ron Paul has had strong numbers till now; he took 21.4% in Iowa, which had him right at the top of the pack with Romney (24.6%) and Santorum (24.5%), and 22.9% in New Hampshire for a commanding second place. Sure, I know hardly anyone actually lives in those states, but still, he’s been doing consistently better than everyone but Romney, right? Yet influential Republican Senator Jim DeMint, who endorsed Romney in 2008 but has not endorsed him this time around (or anyone else, for that matter) is either setting up a dramatic last minute endorsement or just isn’t impressed with the candidates.

So why doesn’t the South Carolina Tea Party rally around Ron Paul? From an ideological standpoint, he seems like their guy – it can’t be some Christian Conservative thing (Romney is a Mormon and Gingrich converted to Catholicism), and I can’t see it being a case of character (as Romney and Gingrich have no character to speak of), so what is it? Are they just fragmented against a field they find uninspiring? Perhaps Paul’s views on abortion have hurt him here (which would make it a Christian Conservative thing…), or some other issue I’m unaware of.

Since 1980, the South Carolina Primary has picked the eventual Republican nominee correctly every single time (which is only 4 times, but still, 4 times in a row is an impressive streak), and if the current poll numbers hold up, it’ll be Mitt Romney.

South Carolina says, “You’re welcome,” Mr. President.

more Election 2012 at

New Hampshire Primary: Beggars CAN Be Choosers

The latest Suffolk University Poll shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney holding a commanding lead going into tonight’s New Hampshire Primary. So, the “Anybody But Mitt” primary season is heavily favoring… Mitt Romney.  Makes sense.

I can’t get too excited about what the folks in New Hampshire think; after all, nobody lives there. (New Hampshire ranks 42nd in population amongst US states.) In an open election year (such as 2000 or 2008) they can only round up about 400,000 participants, and when only one party is choosing a candidate, it’s closer to 250,000 voters. To put that in perspective, it’s like 10% of Brooklyn residents decided to get together and pick a presidential candidate. (I bet the Beastie Boys would get a handful of write-in votes.)

In case you’re wondering what people who base their votes on whether or not they actually get to meet the candidate are thinking, here’s the latest data and what is says about the voters for giving their vote to a particular candidate:

mitt-romneyMitt Romney (37%) – You just don’t give a flying fig. Your motto is, “Anybody but the black guy.” It has to me – Mitt Romney is the Constant Flip-Flopper and is something like 5-18 lifetime in elections, so it’s not like he’s a proven winner – you just heard somewhere he has the best chance to beat Obama of anybody in the field, which I doubt is true.

Ron Paul (18%) – You want a consistent candidate, even if he’s a little extreme. I can see that – although he should probably get around to disavowing those racist news letters. He’s not my cup of tea, but he’s a decent man.  For a politician.

Jon Huntsman (16%) – You want to vote for an actual human being.  A decent, reasonable man; I think this guy could do serious damage in the election, but he’ll never win the nomination, so it’s not worth talking about.

Rick Santorum (11%) – You want a candidate that talks about family values in an election that should be about the economy. Good luck with that.

Newt Gingrich (9%) – My personal favorite, Newt is the ultimate in everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. Sure, he resigned from Congress in disgrace after paying his ethics fines and wasting America’s time with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but you’ll vote for him anyway. Because you’re classy.

Rick Perry
(1%) – Seriously, you’re voting for this guy? This guy couldn’t find his own junk with two hands and a flashlight. I don’t know what you’re thinking.

Buddy Roemer (1%) – You know who Buddy Roemer is. Good for you!

Undecided (7%) – I feel ya; this pack isn’t very appealing. In the end, you’ll just end up doing “eeny meeny miny moe,” and I don’t blame you

more Lists at

more Election 2012 at

Newt Gingrich Loved Broken Arrow – A Movie Review

I’m a long time critic of Newt Gingrich, which is an easy thing to be.

If the man is anything, he’s the father of the current political system that brings government to an unprecedented halt.  After all, this is the guy that implied he shut down the government because President Clinton snubbed him on that plane ride back home from Israel in 1995.  To complete his revenge, we all got to enjoy the impeachment of Clinton, perhaps one of the most unpopular things anyone has ever done ever and directly lead to other Republicans attempting to oust Gingrich as speaker and  Gingrich’s eventual resignation from Congress in 1999…  because, when everyone found out that Gingrich himself was having an extramarital affair while he was working on impeaching the president for lying about an extramarital affair, it’s kind of… you know…  hypocritical.

Just a little bit.

When it comes to Newt, this is just the tip of the iceberg.


This struck me as funny when I first had the thought, but now, I can't remember what it means.

After he left Congress,  eventually Gingrich started The Center for Health Transformation, or what I refer to as The Enemy of K Street.  Lobbyists must hate Gingrich’s company because it bypasses them, their process and their fee and puts elected officials and corporations in the same room – why pay someone to negotiate on your behalf when you can pay Gingrich’s firm and get first person access?  Yeah, you get better access when you hire a former speaker of the house – funny how that works!  So when Gingrich insisted he wasn’t a lobbyist a few weeks ago, that’s technically true – but since his company provides a nearly identical service, it’s faster to just call him a lobbyist.  Gingrich also supported the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which I think David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, was referring to (in part) when he said:

Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares.  This isn’t conservatism; it’s a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.

Well said, sir – well said.

So up to this point, I just thought Gingrich was an opportunist at best and the devil himself at worst – I get the feeling that he converted to Catholicism after hearing about how the whole confession thing works.  But after I heard about his thinking on Electro Magnetic Pulse, I have now modified my opinion of him on to Bat Shit CRAZY.


You ever see that movie Broken Arrow, starring Christian Slater and John Travolta?  It’s a John Woo movie, so you know that at some point, people will end up pointing guns in each others faces or in a similar Mexican Standoff like scenario.


Stuff like this happens a lot in John Woo movies.

But the point is, this movie features an underground nuclear explosion that doesn’t leak radiation but only emanates an EMP (that’s electromagnetic pulse) which disables all electronic equipment in the area, including knocking a helicopter out of the air in spectacular fashion.

Newt is worried about this.

Instead of underground, Gingrich is concerned that some country will detonate a nuclear  device high above the US and knock out our power, and apparently, he’s been worried about this for a long time and has mentioned it frequently over his decades in the public eye.  Part of his campaign for president features an argument that we need to focus on a defense against this sort of attack

How do you defend against a magnet?  It’s actually a lot simpler than that.


"Magnets - how do they work?"

I don’t think Gingrich is suggesting that we come up with a way to shield ourselves from EMP (although maybe he is), but instead, I think he wants to make sure we can knock such a device (missle) out of the sky before it detonates.  However, my understanding is that our missile defense guys are on top of such a situation… knocking projectiles out of the sky is pretty much their sole focus, as I understand it, and it doesn’t really matter what the projectile is, they just want to turn it into a fireball.

Also, the only scientific comments I could find don’t think a nuke detonated in the atmosphere (or whatever ‘above the United States’ means) would push out that kind of EMP to the ground and kill all of our electricity.  I read this one account where a scientist called this scenario ‘pretty theoretical,’ which sounds to me like a diplomatic way of saying, “This is horse shit.  I have real work to do.”

This seems like typical Newt Gingrich to me.  Remember how he reacted to Susan Smith killing her two children?

“I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things.  The only way you get change is to vote Republican.”

See?  We elected Bill Clinton, a Democrat, instead of the incumbent, George H. W. Bush, a Republican, so Susan Smith killed her kids.  That must be what happened.

This is the kind of thinking that helps Gingrich arrive at the EMP theory.  He wants us to devote time and resources to make sure we can protect against an attack that we’ve been able to defend against since the 80s so we’re secured from a contingency that probably doesn’t exist.  OK.  We should get our best research and development guys on that.

Right after lunch.

more Election 2012 at

more Observations at

more Movie Reviews at

Also, Broken arrow is pretty good – if you like John Woo movies, or just action movies in general, I’d give it a look.

4 Republican Candidates For President You Can’t Trust

Every four years, a collection of stiffs will gather to run for president.  This time, the Republican options are  so awful it defies reality; it’s almost like the GOP has done this on purpose.  In no particular order, here are 4 Republican Candidates for President you can’t trust for arbitrary reasons I can’t get passed.

Herman Cain


Hermain Cain: "Herman Cain is running for President!"

Anyone who habitually refers to themselves in the third person is bad news.  Imagine the balls you’d have to possess to walk around saying things like, “[Your name here] enjoys a good breakfast.”  Just say that out loud.  Sounds weird, right?  Now imagine you spoke that way in front of crowds.  Crowds that you were trying to persuade to vote for you.  For President.  Also, 9-9-9 is a terrible tax plan.

Mitt Romney


Mitt Romny: "Dogs are probably not going to vote for me for President."

I think I’ve already torn into Mitt Romney enough for one election cycle, but I will reiterate this, Gail Collins style:  he strapped a dog crate to the roof of his car, put his dog in the crate and drove from Boston to Canada.

Newt Gingrich


Newt Gingrich: "This is Dave. He'll tell you about why I'll make a great President."

Essentially, he’s a lobbyist – I know he says he’s not, but he is – or, at the very least, he puts lobbyists in the same room with politicians…  so he’s like some kind of corruption match maker… funk it, it’s just easier to say he’s a lobbyist.  You know how people make all those lawyer jokes, like “You know what they call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.”  Well, you don’t know any lobbyist jokes because they’re depictions of such distasteful, unspeakably graphic evil that people don’t repeat them.

Michelle Bachmann


Michelle Bachmann: "I've won elections before, so there is President that I'll win this one. President."

Sigh.  I could cite Michelle Bachmann quotes all day long, but for today, I’ll just point out that she confused Concord, N.H., with Concord, Mass. in reference to The Battle of Lexington and Concord when she referred to the battle taking place in New Hampshire.  Of course, this also means that she doesn’t know where Lexington is, either, but more to the point, knowing that The Battle of Lexington and Concord took place in Massachusetts is a history question any 9 year old student can probably answer.  Hell, it’s an easier question than how to spell Massachusetts (I always think there is an E before the last S), not to mention the fact that she’s such a stalwart Tea Party favorite.

Also, while many from New Hampshire fought in the American Revolution (famously, the New Hampshire Militia fought alongside the Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island Militias at the Battle of Bunker Hill – which took place in Massachusetts, by the way), as far as I can tell, no actual battles took place in New Hampshire during the American Revolution.

Because I have no idea when I’ll ever get around to talking about this

Since I’m talking about people I don’t trust, let’s take a quick second to review some photos of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Just look:


What do all of these photos have in common?  No tie.  The dude never wears a tie!  Come on, dude – you’re the president!  Put on a damn tie!  How can you run shiz if you can’t even tie a Windsor knot?

Take the challenge:

Find a pic of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a tie, contact me and let me know and… I’ll come up with some sort of reward.


Did a battle take place in New Hampshire during the American Revolution?  If so, let me know and… I’ll come up with some sort of reward.

Contact:  creativejamiecom [at] gmail [dot] com

more Lists at

more Election 2012 at

%d bloggers like this: