Join the Futanari Army!

Remember Duncan Hunter- possibly the flakiest of the 2008 Republican candidates for President?

He hasn't gone away.

Talking about the military, Hunter said, "there has to be a special bond there, and I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians."

Well, first and foremost: WTF?

Second: Really, what's the problem? Representative Hunter, you're going to have to do better than, "Because they're icky poo and they don't belong in our club," to justify keeping them out.

Third: transgender and transvestite I'll give you, to a certain extent... but hermaphrodites? Hermaphrodites, as separate from transgendered people? Are there really so many multi-gendered individuals in the United States that any particular soldier would be likely to encounter one in his or her whole LIFETIME?

(And I think, if there were, (NSFW LINK ALERT) WLP's comics would sell much better than, alas, they do...)

Seriously, Mr. Hunter, although sex is a major primary motivator of human beings, it's neither the sole motivator nor the most powerful. Just as most male soldiers do not rape female soldiers (although rape in the army IS much, much higher than in the general population, and needs to be stomped upon heavily), most gay or lesbian soldiers will not rape straights. In fact, in most cases gays and lesbians won't even proposition most of their fellow soldiers- because, just as straights are not attracted to absolutely everything of the opposite sex, so gays are not attracted to absolutely everyone of the same sex they encounter.

And I'm quite certain that any functional hermaphrodites of military age in the United States will be making far too much money in the porn industry for the military to be attractive, so Mr. Hunter can quit worrying about that, too.

(Note: Yes, there are genetic hermaphrodites, and people who are born with sexual organs for both genders. However, in virtually all cases one or the other set of organs is effectively nonfunctional- and quite often BOTH sets of organs are nonfunctional. And usually one set or the other dominates the development of the rest of the body- which means, with clothes on, such persons tend to look predominantly male or female. And all of these cases are quite rare, which means the problem of military service isn't all that likely to arise. Fully functional born hermaphrodites are rare to the point of myth- and surgically created hermaphrodites almost equally rare- which makes it all the more curious why Rep. Hunter is so worried about them in particular...)

Nevada and SC-GOP Aftermath

The headline today is, "Hillary Wins Nevada."

It should be, as it should have been in Iowa and New Hampshire, "Another Democratic Tie." Hillary won a 51%-46% majority of the delegates to the state convention, but barring unfaithful delegates the actual national delegates picked in April will split 13-12 in favor of Barack Obama.

More notable is that, in this contest, Hillary barely broke the 50% mark. I hadn't expected her to do that well. Reports of a 2-1 or better Hispanic vote in her favor over Obama indicate at the very least a strong backlash against the unions' political action. If it's more than that- if it's an actual racial support for Mrs. Clinton over all other candidates- then Obama is cooked in California and probably overall. He needs to do some fence-mending with the Latinos fast... or else Tsunami Tuesday is going to go very, very badly for him indeed.

As for Obama's chances overall, the facts on the ground show him running even with Clinton, but facts almost never determine political outcomes. The popular view is now that Hillary is on a roll, and that Obama is just a little bit short. He absolutely, positively has got to win South Carolina now, and that state is no longer a "gimme" with his losing both the Hispanic and white vote in Nevada. Part of his problem- and this is becoming more apparent over the past week- is that Obama is the more conservative of the two as a matter of philosophy. Unlike Hillary, who advocates rapid, untested intervention into the economy and micromanagement of the lives of all individuals, Obama is willing to watch, wait, and let people run their own lives... or, at least, he's willing to do so more often than Hillary. With the Iraq war fading fast as a political issue in the light of economic troubles, he's losing his advantage there- an advantage which, quite frankly, was his strongest suit in Iowa after being "the change candidate."

Obama has to do two things. First, he has to start a talking campaign- not from his own mouth, nor directly from his campaign staff, but among his grass-roots supporters- reminding people of the old Clinton "trustworthiness." People need to be reminded of the Rose Law Firm records, of the Clinton White House records secrecy, of every single vote Clinton has made to give more power to the Bush White House. He absolutely MUST do this... because both Bill and Hillary have, in the past week, attacked Obama on his war record, on his effort to rig Nevada, on his race-baiting, and even on his religion- without any grounds, but people are buying it all anyway. If Obama doesn't attack the Clintons, and attack them with solid facts rather than allegations, he loses.

Second, Obama needs to jump into the economic issue with both feet. He needs a solid, simple-to-understand proposal for helping people swamped in debt, losing their homes, losing their jobs, etc. Clinton has done this with a band-aid moratorium on foreclosures that can only function if lenders are coerced by government fiat into complying- which would lead to their collapse just as inaction will. Her proposal is factually bankrupt but SOUNDS good- just as all her proposals. Right now Obama's acting as if he's content to see what comes through the Senate... and he absolutely cannot afford to do that.

If Obama spends this week starting whispers about Clinton and countering her economic proposals with his own, he'll take South Carolina and make a good showing on Tsunami Tuesday. If Obama reaches out to Hispanics, his odds will be further improved. If he fails to do any of this, Clinton will take a strong and definite delegate lead out of Tsunami Tuesday... one which Obama probably won't be able to overcome.

As for John Edwards... he's done. He has nowhere else to go. South Carolina won't turn for him, no matter what happens. He leads nowhere- he's not even in second place in his home state of North Carolina at the moment. His campaign is running on empty. The longer he stays in the race, and the more his support bleeds away to nothing, the less power he'll have to negotiate with either Clinton or Obama. Right now Edwards should be shopping his endorsement to Obama for whatever he can get. Clinton might like Edwards' support, but she doesn't need it, not with the backing of the Democratic machines and establishment. If Edwards stays in, based on Nevada's results, his followers split evenly between Hillary and Obama... which is good for Hillary, possibly disaster for Obama.

Now over to the Republican side. Romney has proved, for the third time, that he can buy elections provided he has a long period without substantial opposition. His money, and his current lead with delegates, makes him one of the two frontrunners. The other frontrunner is John McCain, whose marginal win in South Carolina proves that he can succeed in a badly divided race. Ron Paul's second place effective tie with McCain in Nevada sounds good until you recall that Romney got a clear majority there, and Paul and McCain split half of what was left over. The fact that Paul only got 4% in South Carolina only emphasizes the lack of importance to his Nevada finish.

Huckabee is done. Finis. So is Fred Thompson. Both are Southerners, both are hard-line religious conservatives, and both lost to McCain. If they didn't win in South Carolina (and they didn't), then they can at best hope to win their home state. Giuliani, despite finishing behind Ron Paul again in both Nevada and South Carolina, is still a question mark awaiting the votes in Florida, California and New York- the places he's focused his campaigning. At this point McCain, Romney and maybe Giuliani can be considered viable nominees. Unfortunately for Republicans, of the four other candidates only Duncan Hunter has read the writing on the wall and formally bowed out.

What do the three GOP frontrunners need to do? McCain needs to get Thompson firm on his promise to back McCain if and when he bows out; without Thompson's active support, virtually none of his people will come to McCain based on their own thoughts. Romney needs to win in a tightly contested state that doesn't have some of its delegates docked- that means neither Florida nor Maine qualify. Giuliani absolutely, positively cannot afford to lose Florida, after all the effort and time he's invested there. McCain and Romney can go on without any more wins before Tsunami Tuesday: Giuliani cannot.

Looking for My Candidate: Duncan Hunter

Yes, he's extremely noxious even by Republican standards. Still, I have a little bit of a soft spot in my heart for the underdog, and Duncan Hunter is the only Republican candidate remaining, after Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo left the race, who still routinely and regularly polls under Ron Paul everywhere. He averages less-than-one-percent in pretty much every poll.

So, using these guidelines, where does this most despised of Republican Presidential candidates stand?


WAR: Supports permanent occupation of Iraq. Supports treating terrorism as a war to last pretty much forever. Endorses principle of pre-emptive self-defense. 0%.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Favors strong executive, supports USA-PATRIOT, secret searches, spying on American citizens. 0%.

HEALTHCARE: Favors very limited tort reform- specifically caps on malpractice awards. Wants to allow people to buy insurance across state lines to avoid state regulations. Has no problem with insuror control of healthcare. Supports making price lists for medical services mandatory. 25%.

TAXATION AND BUDGET: Claims to oppose targeted tax cuts, but his specific tax cut proposals are targeted. Claims to support a balanced budget, but proposes broad tax cuts and only minimal budget cuts (foreign aid and arts funding). No promise of moratorium on borrowing money. 10%.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: Supports USA-PATRIOT. Supports torture, Guantanamo. Sponsored bill in Congress to allow private citizens to sue anyone who distributed material which was obscene, indecent or profane- meaning that bikini calendars or books satirizing Christianity would be effectively illegal. Opposes separation of church and state. Wants to make gambling illegal on a federal level. Wants to censor the Internet and cable/satellite television. 0%.

IMPEACHMENT: Opposes. 0%.

IMMIGRATION: Hunter's second-priority issue, after abortion (he opposes abortion, calls for "non-activist judges" to be activist to protect embryos, and opposes birth control). Opposes amnesty. Wants to further restrict immigration. Wants to ban immigration from countries with a record of terrorism and to hold immigrants from those countries, legal or not, in detention indefinitely without habeas corpus. Calls for an end to birthright citizenship. 0%.

TRADE: Believes in North American Union conspiracy theory. Opposes GATT, WTO, NAFTA. Advocates protectionist trade policies. Wants to enact trade restrictions on China in particular. 50%.

ENERGY: Lukewarm support for alternative fuels; much stronger support for conventional sources, especially oil. 10%.

ENVIRONMENT: Does not believe in human-caused global warming. Wants to allow commercial use (logging, mining, hunting, etc.) of Federal park land. Opposes seizure for parkland or restrictions on private property. 25%.

TORT REFORM: Supports caps on medical malpractice awards. 10%.

AVERAGE SCORE: 11.8%

VOTE KILLERS:

IRAQ: Supports permanent occupation.

TORTURE: Voted for Military Commissions Act of 2006.

RANKINGS TO DATE

Candidates in italics are not in consideration due to vote-killer positions.

Ron Paul - 28.2%
Mike Huckabee - 16.9%
Duncan Hunter - 11.8%

Next time: Fred Thompson, who doesn't know his campaign is already over.

(Incidentally, by the time I get around to the Democrats, it's entirely possible some of them might have been shaken out by Iowa and New Hampshire...)