When It Comes To Gender, I Refuse To Transition

I’m just about as politically and socially as liberal as they come. I fully support same sex marriage and same sex couples parenting their children. But here’s where I part company with the concept, and it also applies to “transgender” individuals, too.

In Florida, a same sex couple has filed a lawsuit to force Florida to abide by a SCOTUS decision allowing for same sex couples to both be listed on their child’s birth certificate. All well and good and I fully support it. However, one of the married female married partners wants to be listed as “father” on the document. The Florida agencies who control all this refuse to honor this request—and I agree with them. Excuse me? Father denotes a male parent and she certainly ain’t one of those.

The biological father of any child is the male from which the sperm was donated. It’s a biological impossibility for a woman to father a child. A plastic surgeon can tack on a somewhat functional penis and maybe a semblance of testicles but a woman—except in the case of a hermaphrodite—will never have a prostate gland and will never undergo spermatogenesis no matter how many testosterone supplements or injections she’s given. Why? Exactly: no Y chromosome.

By the same token, no matter how much estrogen is pumped into a male, he’s not going to be able to trade in his Y chromosome for another X. Therefore, it’s biologically impossible for a man to conceive and then gestate a fetus inside his, er, womb because he ain’t got one, you see?

But given these changing times of ours, the sample is so simple no wonder Florida and the other states balking at signing off on same sex couples as parents on a birth certificate is this: add another line. Besides “mother of child” and “father of child” add “Parent of child”. There! Problem solved. Because despite what many couples who employed donor dads and surrogate moms to produce their children, it’s vitally important—especially medically—to know who the birth parents are for those children.

Because within that DNA could be potential health and mental issues that could be difficult to solve without knowing the medical history of both birth parents. If the donor dads and surrogate moms don’t want to be listed on the birth certificate, their medical histories need to be known and accessible by at least the birth parents to hand over to whatever physicians or medical providers require it for the sake of the children. But with my idea, even if the Father or Mother lines are left blank, “Parent of child” should more than suffice for getting both partners on legal record for being the legal parents of their common child.

And now for the transsexual thing. As I stated above, mens don’t got X chromosomes and womens don’t got Y chromosomes. They can tack or remove external sexual organs as they wish (or in Bruce/Caitlin Jenner’s case leave all his male junk intact) and further undergo the plastic surgeon’s re-sculpting knife, undergo hormone therapy to grow or lose the boobs, to grow or lose the facial and body hair (undergoing laser hair removal treatments for the latter) and whatever else their bank accounts will afford but bottom line is IT’S ALL EXTERIOR. At this point in history, science can’t (safely?) gene splice chromosomes of the opposite sex into people who want to switch genders at the most fundamental level.

For some reason in the 21st Century we’re supposed to have become enlightened enough so that just because a person says they’re something and either changed their physical appearance or had the required plastic surgery to physically resemble it, we’re supposed to accept them as what they say they are.

Bullshit. Just because the genetically -white Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black doesn’t mean in reality she is black. Just because genetically-female Chastity Bono underwent plastic surgery to claim she’s now the male Chaz Bono doesn’t mean she’s a male. And it certainly means that just because Bruce Jenner underwent the same surgeries doesn’t mean that Caitlin Jenner is female—again especially so since he decided to leave his male sexual organs intact. Trying to have his cake and eat it too? I really don’t want to go there any further than that.

But let’s take this whole thing to its logical absurdist extension. What’s to stop me from having plastic surgery in which I have my legs shortened so that I stand 3 feet tall, have all my body hair removed, sculpt and plane my face and body down with the appropriate injections to look decades younger, have surgical reassignment surgery, have my eyes surgically slanted than they already are, have my skin color chemically tinted, all so that this 63-year-old white male of eastern European Jewish descent can pass himself off as a 3-year-old female Chinese child? Why not? If I say I’m something and I look like that something I AM that something, right? Not by a long shot.

Enough of this nonsense. We are the genders we are because our DNA has predetermined what we are. Science cannot yet gene splice specific sex chromosomes into human fetuses that I’m aware of. Besides, if they could, it’s the parents choosing the gender of the unborn child and not the child itself after it’s born. You could take a Ford chassis, rip out the guts and convert it into a Chevy but it would still be built on a Ford chassis. By the same token, you can take the external man off the man and you can take the external woman off the women, but you can’t take the man out of the man or the woman out of the woman. A female will never be “Dad” and a male will never be “Mom”. It’s genetic. And genetics has nothing to do with being politically or socially liberal.

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton’s “Wronged Woman” Problem

Many people think that Hillary Clinton is the right woman to be president.  I think the “wronged woman” is her problem.  I was thinking that if Hillary were to be the Democratic nominee, what weakness will the GOP attempt to exploit? What might they zero in on other than the standard “she’s a liberal” thing?  Then it became obvious to me: they will exploit the fact that she’s a woman, but not just any woman.  She is the wife of a man who while he was president was caught cheating with a much younger female White House intern named Monica Lewinsky who was barely out of college.  If this had been the only affair, the GOP presidential candidate surrogates—like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the Fox babes (excluding Greta Van Susteren but not Laura Ingraham, of course) will say,

“I can see why she would have forgiven and stood by her husband. But, my gosh, Bill Clinton had at least three other affairs while he was the nation’s president and who knows how many he had when he was governor?  Did Hillary know about all these affairs? Well, if she wasn’t aware of what her own husband was doing behind her back, how can she possibly be aware enough to know what her own government is doing? And what about foreign leaders of countries like Red China and Syria and Iran–and the Soviet Union? (This is Sarah and Michele talking, after all.)

“And what if she DID know about all those affairs? What does it say about her strength of character that she has stayed married to a serial cheater of a husband? How could she live with herself? And (here’s what is meant to be the killing blow) what kind of message did this send to your little daughter?  That it’s ok to stay married to a man who would rather cheat with other women than be at home with his wife and child? Bill’s no longer president—why doesn’t she divorce him?  Has she no self-respect? If she’s too weak to leave a philandering husband, how can she be possibly strong enough to run the most powerful nation on earth and stand up to the enemies who want to destroy us?”

This opens the door to planting another visual label on Hillary to add to that of the wronged wife: the battered wife.  They won’t have to come out and say that Bill beat her but they will definitely raise the point that there had to be some reason why she stayed with him all those years through all those affairs. It wasn’t like she didn’t have her own money and her own career to fall back on to support her and her little girl.

I think that Hillary stayed with Bill not out of loyalty or weakness of character but out of pragmatism. To divorce Bill would have just served to give the media two circus tents to cover.  Bill and his advisers probably assured Hillary that he would weather Hurricane Monica and successfully but it behind him. Divorce would add to the scandal and effectively bring his second term to a standstill while overshadowing everything he had accomplished.  And besides, divorce would be their twin legacies. Bill would be remembered by history as the only president to be divorced while in office.  But Hillary may have been formulating plans even then to run for public office, perhaps even for president. She could not afford to carry The Woman Who Divorced Bill Clinton stigma into the political arena.  Everything about Hillary’s past up to that point as a high-powered attorney, activist for children’s rights, First Lady, senator, would be blanketed over by that stigma. But Hillary must have known that if she decided to stay with Bill, at some point she would be asked the question:  “After all his extramarital affairs, why didn’t you divorce Bill Clinton?”  And she must have realized public opinion would center on her loyalty, concern for her child, weakness, or a calculated, politically-motivated plan.  The Democratic Party might refuse to endorse and support her bids for public office as punishment for helping to bring down the most popular Democratic president since John F. Kennedy.  If she remained Mrs. Bill Clinton, she would have earned the Party’s backing for any political office for which she chose to run.

Hillary running for Senate or being appointed Secretary of State didn’t bother the Republicans much, especially after she voted to fund and authorize the invasion of Iraq.  But running for president and the chance that could actually be elected is something entirely different to the GOP.  They will throw everything they can at her and first and foremost will be the Character issue. But by opting to remain married she will be given the question “Why didn’t you divorce Bill Clinton?” How she answers this question—or refuses to—may define how well Hillary attracts the women’s vote outside of her base in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I think her answer to this question will be as important as how she answers the Benghazi question: What did she know and when did she know it? I think these are twin issues the GOP will hit her hardest on since they may believe she can show as being vulnerable on honesty and strength of character, and independence.

I don’t consider myself smarter or more intuitive than anyone else.  What I’m saying is that if I’m smart enough to think of this whole scenario you can bet that the GOP powers-that-be, guys like Karl Rove, the Koch boys, Ed Gillespie, Ed Rollins, etc., have already thought of this. The best way to take the women’s vote away from a female candidate is to cause women voters to lose respect for the woman candidate.  And the best way to beat this female candidate is for the opposition to run a seemingly stronger of character woman candidate of their own, someone in a long-term marriage to a husband who has never cheated on her, someone younger than the other woman candidate and who is also experienced at running a state for more than one term, someone who has name recognition and is beautiful to boot and someone who is all this and also very popular in the South, someone named Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina—unless she’s sunk by her own scandal—and there might be a couple of them in incubation like they were for Gov. Chris Christie and now ex-governor and newly indicted Bob McDonnell.

Or, the GOP could go traditional and run a candidate whose last name is still highly respected, is a solid family man free of scandal, and has a squeaky clean image outside of Florida—Jeb Bush.  The only reason why Bush has a squeaky clean image is that reporters for the corporate media gave him a free pass after there was evidence his hands were knee deep in fixing the 2000 presidential votes in Florida by purging tens of thousands of legally eligible voters from the roles and getting away with it. They were his hands but he was smart enough to cover them up with Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ fingerprints, for which the Bush family awarded her a two-term stint in Congress.

Of course, Hillary may not run in 2016 and Bush and Haley may not run, either separately or together.  But anyone who supports Hillary Clinton for president has to keep the scenario I presented in mind and ask themselves: What will Hillary do?

Juror B37 Stands Her Ground

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

So, Juror B37 really saw this trial as an opportunity to cash in on Trayvon Martin’s murder and the subsequent media circus laughingly called a “trial”.  Little tell-tale remarks clearly show her bias towards George Zimmerman: “…I think his [Zimmerman’s] heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong.”  “I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there.”  In fact, she refers to Zimmerman twice as “George” if you listen to her comments, although she it seems to be in her personality to refer to people she doesn’t know by their first names if you listen to her comments.

And from her comments you get the clear impression that this a well-to-do elitist white property owner who would welcome Zimmerman as a neighbor if “he didn’t go too far”—like killing an innocent male black teen on his way back to his dad’s girlfriend’s condo where he was visiting?  She believes that although Zimmerman shouldn’t have gotten out of his car, she clearly believes his story that he was attacked by Trayvon Martin with no other evidence than Zimmerman’s testimony, because I think she believes this is what black men do when they’re being followed. She’s convinced it was Zimmerman’s voice on the 911 tape calling for help, because why would Trayvon be calling for help just because he’s locked in a death struggle with a scary dude who’s been stalking him for unknown reasons?

She also amply proves that, as I’ve always suspected, when a judge orders a panel to disregard certain testimony in court, at least some jurors ignore that order.  She says she was influenced by the important testimony from Sanford Police Detective Chris Serino that he had found Zimmerman to be “truthful”, a remark that the judge ordered the panel to disregard. Juror B37 claims she based her decision on that testimony, which I think would and should invalidate the verdict and call for a re-trial—IF there were any justice in Florida.

She also condescendingly describes Trayvon’s friend, Rachel Jantel, “not credible” and felt sorry for her because Jantel seemed “to feel inadequate because of her poor education and communication skills” (as described in a NPR report). Juror B37 would have us believe that she is so intuitive and insightful that she can read into the minds of both George Zimmerman and Rachel Jantel and thoroughly know their characters.  What a white elitist snob she is.

One of her most telling comments which clearly shows why she lives in Florida: “I think he has every right to carry a gun. I think everyone has a right to carry a gun.” You can bet this woman is a Republican who supports the Stand Your Ground law. The juror admits both she and her husband had concealed weapon permits but she let hers lapse.

The most telling comment of all was that she believed Zimmerman was not guilty from the start.  And yet the prosecution allowed this person to sit on the jury which was assigned to judge Zimmerman impartially and on the facts.  It was a setup from the beginning by the Florida legal system which doesn’t recognize that black citizens deserve justice, too.  At least the proposed book deal that she hoped to use to capitalize on her verdict has been cancelled.  I guess there is still some justice in Florida after all.

As I was upset by the black jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson of a double murder, I find no difference between that panel and this white one that acquitted Zimmerman of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. It serves to prove that miscarriage of justice in this country remains color blind.

 

Stand Your Ground About To Stand Trial

Trayvon Martin was an ordinary, average 17 year old kid. Well, mainly average and ordinary. He was also black in a south Florida town, which some people think is a crime until itself. I would assume as most ordinary and average 17 year olds go, Trayvon never gave any thoughts to starting a movement to reverse insane NRA-written gun laws, or to strike back against the bigotry and discrimination hurled against most black people in the U.S. throughout every waking hour of their days. And in fact, Trayvon on his own didn’t start those twin movements. George Zimmerman did–by choosing to pump a 9mm slug into Trayvon’s chest under very shadowy and suspect circumstances. Trayvon Martin’s parents didn’t realize at the beginning that they were at the genesis of two national movements; they were just trying to get justice for their son. There was such pushback from the white power structures among the police and Florida state government that they soon found that the only way to get justice was to grow these two movements in the name of their son.

George Zimmerman was charged today with second degree murder and taken into police custody. He will stand trial. At a press conference, one of the Martin family attorneys, Benjamin Crump, said something I have been saying for weeks and I will paraphrase: the Stand Your Ground law will be on trial along with Zimmerman. This is the third national movement that Zimmerman created that night.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has found something he hates worse than Occupy Wall Street: Stand Your Ground. And this time, Bloomberg is standing on the right side of the law. He is calling for the repeal of these types of laws from every state which has put them in place. Van Jones and Color Of Change have mounted all-out campaigns against ALEC and its member companies who are responsible for funding the politicians who voted and signed these laws into place. Thanks to COC, companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, and Kraft Foods have dropped out of ALEC, with more corporations to follow. The back has been broken on ALEC, and perhaps the NRA as well.

These Stand Your Ground laws have spread to 32 states like a foreign weed. Under this law, justifiable homicides in Florida from 12 a year to an average of 36. This means that either a lot of killings got a bum rap before this enlightened law, written by the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), or else this law is now being used as a license to murder, with the police and the courts unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

What Stand Your Ground allows is for someone to setup an entrapment situation where they lure someone into their home—or even the street—where they can then blow them away and successfully claim self defense. The Martin family is extremely lucky that Zimmerman had such delusions of law enforcement grandeur and was so stupid that he botched it up for himself, and now everyone else trying to disguise their murderous deed within the law.

George Zimmerman did not “stand his ground” according to Special Prosecutor Angela Corey. In the words of Dennis Baxley, the Republican state representative who carried the SYG bill through the Florida House, Zimmerman chose to “pursue and confront”.

There is an old adage: “the truth shall set you free”. George Zimmerman and his surrogates have now learned the opposite lesson: perpetuating a lie will land you in jail facing a second degree murder charge.

Win or lose the Zimmerman trial, the genie is out of the bottle now. After almost 150 years, black folks feel they’re more than entitled to full citizenship in this country with all the legal and social and professional rights it bestows. And people in general feel that they no longer want to be subject to laws that essentially make them living targets so that the NRA can get more guns and bullets sold which stuffing its special interest campaign coffers so full of cash that they have to shoot the lock off to get the damned treasure chest open.

So to all you white racists who hide your Confederate flag tramp stamps above your ass, or anyone who fancies themselves the thing standing between civilization and black anarchy, it’s time to face reality: this is 2012 and a black man is the President of the United States. Blacks are people, too, my friend. Not sure I can say the same about you.

The Republicans Are Protecting George Zimmerman

It doesn’t make sense that George Zimmerman has gotten so much protection from the Sanford Police, the Florida State Attorney, and the Republican mass media. They’re all fighting his arrest and eventual trial. Why would this be?

Zimmerman is just a loose cannon with a homemade police officer badge but with a very real 9mm semiautomatic handgun. He thought he saw a black male in a hoodie sneaking around the condo complex in the dark and immediately profiled him as acting weird and up to something.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV and pursued Trayvon Martin even though the real cop on the other end of the phone told him “We don’t need you to do that” and Zimmerman answered “Okay”.

Everyone on the Left and the Right is expounding on why Stand Your Ground does or does not apply in this case. But Zimmerman’s own attorney, Craig Sonner, has stated Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply in this case, as has State Rep. Dennis Baxley, who introduced the bill into the Florida House, and former Florida governor, Jeb Bush, who signed it into law. Rick Scott, current Florida governor, took State Attorney Norm Wolfinger, who personally told Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee to turn Zimmerman loose, off the case. Again I ask: why would this be?

The answer is clear: the Florida Republicans enacted Stand Your Ground into law. Zimmerman claims he shot Trayvon Martin in self defense, which is what Stand Your Ground is all about. If the law doesn’t exist, maybe Zimmerman thinks twice before pulling out his gun. So it is being argued at the highest levels of the Republican Party that they have a serious exposure problem to this if  with this first high profile Stand Your Ground case, Zimmerman is arrested and goes to court. It won’t just be Zimmerman who’s put on trial but the Republican written, passed, and signed into law legislation. And this…is an election year.  And Jeb Bush, who signed the bill into law, is a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016. If Zimmerman is tried and convicted, Bush would be the “Republican Governor Who Killed Trayvon Martin”. Not exactly a campaign slogan he’d want to see on bumper stickers.

So, that’s why the Republicans along with their media surrogates have circled the wagons on this one. I think it’s possible the “temporarily stepped aside” Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee may have seen the political implications of a male black kid being killed in cold blood by a half Peruvian cop wannabe claiming protection under the law and communicated this concern to Wolfinger. I don’t know both men’s political affiliation but I could reasonably guess it’s Republican. But this would be why Wolfinger got so personally involved THAT NIGHT to the point of meeting with Lee to override the lead homicide detective’s recommendation to arrest Zimmerman on a manslaughter charge.

18 states have passed Stand Your Ground laws, some of these signed into law by Democratic governors who were cravenly pandering to conservative voters, or perhaps had received healthy campaign contributions from the NRA and ALEC-affiliated groups, or just didn’t have the guts to stand up to both. 31 states have passed the so-called “Castle doctrine” into law, which is what Stand Your Ground is derived from.

So, since both the NRA and ALEC funnel so much money—primarily to the Republican Party who introduced and passed the overwhelming majority of these bills, they could also be accused of being accessories to the killing of Trayvon Martin. Once again, not a good thing in an election year, especially with ALEC now bleeding corporate members and the loss of their dues.

This is why Fox, Limbaugh, and all the Republican surrogates are attempting to frame this case as a “liberal” and an “attempt at dividing the races” thing because those words their fans can understand. Most people who turn on right wing shows don’t know how to think logically and see the big picture: that’s exactly why they watch and listen to those shows—it’s done for them so they don’t have to.

George Zimmerman himself is small potatoes and no one on the Right gives a whit about him. It’s the Stand Your Ground law he symbolizes which is the Right Wing lightening rod. If this (literally) fatally flawed law goes down, then everyone who was responsible for getting it enacted—which are primarily Republicans up for re-election or will be in a couple of years—goes down with it. And believe me, there are quite a few Democrats who deserve to go down in flames with them.

Stupid Is As Stupid Runs (For President)

Upon reading Thomas Frank’s “The Wrecking Crew” it becomes crystal clear why the current slate of Republican candidates—with the exceptions of Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich—are either politically incompetent, stupid, or both.  It all started with the election of Ronald Reagan, a moderately intelligent fellow, as President. He had been told he had won the lead in a new TV show about the White House called “The West Wing”–18 years before the show was actually brought to TV by Aaron Sorkin.  All the Republicans needed to do was surround him with professional political operatives and D.C. insiders and he was a lock for eight years.

Then the Republicans made the fatal error of getting a real brainiac professional political operative and D.C. insider, George H.W. Bush, elected President but he crashed and burned after just one term and was followed by a pseudo-Democratic president into office.  The Republicans said, “Whoa, we’ll never do THAT again!” and set about looking for a suitably stupid political incompetent who they could surround with professional political operatives and D.C. insiders. Voila–George W. Bush.  Along the way they learned how to steal elections by rigging state election results in Florida in 2000 and then getting their hand-picked  U.S. Supreme Court justices majority to appoint their candidate President. Refining the election rigging techniques they learned in 2000, they perfected it in Oho in 2004 to retain Bush in office. Boom—eight years of Georgie boy and the process was patented.

As Ronald Reagan once said from a line written for him, “The best minds are not in government.  If any were, business would steal them away.” And therein lies the core Republican philosophy of governing: you install incompetents and partisan shills in all agency and department head positions on down to the lowest filing clerk and janitor. (And President Newt Gingrich would give those graveyard shift janitor jobs to elementary school children).  In order to get a job in the Reagan administration, you only needed to do two things: wear a “I’m a neo-conny for Ronnie” button, and send your resume through the Koch-owned Heritage Foundation.  As Lyn Nofziger, Reagan’s political affairs director said in 1981, “We have told members of the Cabinet we expect them to help us place people who are competent.  As far as we are concerned, anyone who supported Reagan is competent.”

Young Grover Norquist was more overtly partisan when he said in 1984: “First, we want to remove liberal personnel form the political process. Then we want to capture those positions of power and influence for conservatives.” So, no liberals allowed at all in government, no matter how well they did their jobs.

In 2007 under the George W. Bush Administration, Monica Goodling, fresh out of Pat Robertson Regent University Law School, was installed into the Justice Department and helped fire nine highly experienced U.S. attorneys and blocked other federal hires purely on the basis that they weren’t Bush “men” (or women), so to speak. In fact, anyone who displayed the slightest tendency towards competency was banished to “the hall of zombies” where, according to Hugh Kaufman of the Environmental Protection Agency, “…you’re at a desk, and you don’t do anything of substance. Most of the career bureaucrats in Washington in [the Bush] administration are in the hall of zombies.”  Fills you full of confidence in your federal government, don’t it?

You see, Republicans like ‘em partisan and stupid because experienced, competent people in government get things done, which makes the populace like their government getting things done. And Republicans don’t like government getting things done.   This explains why Michael Powell, son of Colin, was promoted by G.W. Bush to chairman of the FCC, and why Michael Brown, a lawyer and ex-Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, was also placed in charge by Bush of FEMA.  Brown was forced out of his job with the IAHA and we all know he resigned in ignominy from FEMA for his incompetence in handling aid and assistance to Hurricane Katrina victims in 2005.  Hmmm, Michael Powell also resigned in 2005 and fell out of the FCC (eventually) into the waiting arms of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association as their president.  Wonder if some underground mass RNC communication was sent to all Bush administration agency heads saying, “The jig is up! Amscray!”

The title of of a 1928 article that appeared in Nation’s Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce magazine said it all: “A Plea for Inefficiency in Government”.  If you keep government dumbed down, that opens the door to outsourcing and privatizing federal services to the private sector, which means big profits for the private sector. Big profits for the private sector is what makes the Republican world go ‘round. This is why Paul Ryan and his handlers want to privatize the Social Security and Medicare programs. This is why Ron Paul wants to eliminate all federal health insurance programs so that you either pay to play or you die.  This is why Rick Perry wants to privatize all oil drilling because it would make big profits for the oil companies who keep him in the Texas governor’s chair. Of course none of this explains Herman Cain’s or Michele Bachmann’s stands on the issues because even they don’t understand what they stand for if it hasn’t been explained to them.  Even Huntsman appears to be throwing in a couple of “er’s” and “uh’s” before he speaks in an effort to dumb himself down in the eyes of the Republican National Committee.

The Republicans had a real problem with Barack Obama because here was a Democrat who was extremely politically competent and intelligent. So, they adapted their primary play and used Fox to frame Obama as one of their own–politically incompetent and stupid. However, this made him qualified to be President until they threw in he was also a Democrat AND a native of Kenya AND a communist socialist which immediately disqualified him and made him the illegally-elected President of the United States (as opposed to George W. Bush who had been the legally appointed President of the United States).

So, there you have it, the reason why the Republican candidates appear to be so abysmally lame and stupid. In some cases, their images are being carefully crafted for them. In others, they’re self-made men (and woman).