Today's ultra-scary BLONDIE comic strip

Out of the mouths of babes...

Click to enlarge

Read More

Maine Republicans make WORLD OF WARCRAFT a political scandal

The Republican Party has for decades struggled with a public image - an inaccurate and even slanderous one, I will note - that it is an organization bent against the rights of minorities, women, pretty much anyone not Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

And then the Maine Republican Party messes it all up by coming out as anti-Orc Assassins.

Maine state Senate candidate Colleen Lachowicz is being accused by Maine Republicans in an official campaign release as leading a "bizarre double life" as Santiaga: a cutthroat with green skin, mohawk and fangs.

The thing is, "Santiaga" is Lachowicz's avatar in the crazy popular online game World of Warcraft.

Here is the mailing that the Maine GOP has sent out across the state:

So now attacking a candidate's hobbies is considered an acceptable political tactic? This is a whole new low, one that the Republican Party should not only be ashamed of but thoroughly ridiculed for.

Read more at Politico.com.

Read More

Tired of negative political ads? So am I (and I'm gonna do something about it...)

Four years ago I made a solemn vow to myself, and I have kept to it. Not only that but my conscience has rested much better because of it...

I pledged to not vote for any candidate for public office who runs even a single negative campaign ad against an opponent.

I'm telling y'all right now that the ballot I cast in 2008 had a lot of wide open empty spaces. But the candidates that I didn't vote for, it can't be said that they didn't earn that. Either because I believed they were not suitable for office on their own merits, or because they violated the terms of my vow.

Look folks, seriously: if a candidate spends millions of dollars attacking his or her opponent instead of telling us "This is what I believe and this is how I want to serve you...", why should we trust them with our precious votes?

Is a candidate more interested in being a public servant, or is a candidate more interested in the office, along with the power and influence that comes with it?

How a person conducts himself or herself during a campaign - I believe anyway - indicates the character of that person when he or she gets elected.

If a candidate can't run without running a vicious, nasty negative campaign attacking a candidate, then all that really tells me is that that candidate lacks the creativity, the vision, the leadership qualities to be in an elected position.

I know something of what I speak. I've run for office before, once. I produced three TV commercials on my own. I designed my campaign's yard signs and newspaper ads. Nothing of that material was negative... and I came really close to landing election. Not only that but the campaign earned worldwide attention and praise, so don't even think about telling me that "being nice" won't work.

I guess I just couldn't live with myself if I ran a campaign ad aimed at "the other guy". And I don't see how any other candidate could live with himself or herself either.

We need candidates who will present themselves and what they believe in, nothing more and nothing less than that. If they can't be honest in that much, then they shouldn't be running, period.

But as for the matter at hand...

I have created a new Facebook group, Political Candidates Running Negative Ads WILL NOT Get My Vote. It is just what it sounds like: a group for those of us who have pledged to not vote for anyone who runs a negative ad attacking a fellow candidate.

I know. Some will be saying "But Chris, this is only electing the incumbent! Who is in office is more important than how they play the game, the ads they run, the attacks they make!"

I don't believe that. Because how they play "the game" demonstrates the kind of person that they will be when they get into office.

"We have to do whatever we can to (throw Obama out, defeat Mitt Romney in the primary, etc.)!!"

That's how it always starts. "Get the other guy." It is time for that to end.

There has to be a beginning somewhere. Let it begin with us.

Please keep in mind: This is NOT something I'm associated with or in opposition against any one political candidate or party. What this group is organized about is in regard to something that every political party... and too many politicians within each of them.... is guilty of perpetrating.

It's very simple: a candidate who runs even a single negative ad aimed at an opponent, DOES NOT DESERVE OUR VOTE.

Any political candidate that does this only demonstrates that he or she is after the office for its power, NOT to serve We The People.

Candidates should PROVE to us why THEY deserve enough of our trust to vote for them at the ballot box.

Telling us not to vote for "the other guys because...", ain't gonna cut it anymore.

I am fed up with candidates pulling this kind of crap. They are an insult to me, they are an insult to my community, and they are an insult to the United States of America.

There will be no change for the better in American government until we, the PEOPLE, choose AGAINST the negativity, the anger, the blind hatred that is dominating our political process.

Those who would exploit our baser instincts should be PUNISHED, not rewarded with elected office.

I pledge that if ANY candidate produces and runs for broadcast, print or any other published media even one negative ad or phone call or whatever, then I will NOT vote for that candidate. Ever.

And I sincerely invite you to pledge to do the same.

Read More

Bev Perdue to stop running negative ads she shouldn't have run in the first place

So North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue has sworn to stop running negative ads against fellow Democrat primary opponent Richard Moore.

Perdue should have never run any negative ads, period.

Notice how she's only promising to do this for the primary. Perdue is saying nothing about abstaining from negative campaigning during the lead-up to the November general election. If she had done that, and stuck with it throughout the campaign season, I might be tempted to consider her.

But as it is, I'm still sticking with the policy that I announced last week: any candidate who runs even a single negative campaign commercial or pulls some other "dirty trick" that is easily attributable to his or her campaign, will not get my vote. Because doing such a thing proves beyond all doubt that said candidate does not sincerely want to serve the people. It means that they are only in it for the power and prestige, and are willing to throw away principles and decency to get it.

Why should we be their dupes and accomplices?

And if this means that I can't vote for any candidate at all in a race, I'm fine with that too. I don't feel like I have to vote for "a winner" in order to feel like a winner in the game of life. And there are more important things than coming out on top in an election.

Bev Perdue, you've struck out. But don't feel too bad: you've got lots of company already and will no doubt be getting plenty more.

Read More