411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 14

Posted by Jason Easley on 08.14.2006

Can a man who wishes to be referred to as Krunchy, stand up to the arguments of the normally named Chad? Find out, as these two debate, the recently foiled terror plot's potential impact on the November election, the independent run of Joe Lieberman, the UN resolution to end the fighting in Lebanon, and the role of gays in the military.


1). The recently foiled terror plot in London will make terrorism the dominant issue in the November US mid term elections.

Krunchy:Well, if the Republicans have their way, and they will push this, since there is nothing much else for them to push as a positive, FACT. If I was a conspiratorial man, I'd even think that this plot was engineered somehow to focus once again on National Security, just like in 2004 before the elections where the Rumsfeld Doppler 9000 went to burnt sienna for awhile. However, I believe that the conspiracy theorists are using this to spin discussions away from the real cause of the terrorist plot, Amtrak. Their whole new motto is going to be "Terrorists are too scared to ride on a train." And "We don't need an extremist to derail us; we can do it ourselves, and pass the savings along to you." And the last one, "Snakes on a muthaf@#$in train? Never!" Fear sells in red states, even when the only tactical sites that terrorists could target would be roller rinks and petting zoos.

Chad: FACT, although it would have been the dominant issue even without recent developments. The "War on Terror" is an all-encompassing issue. Not only does it dominate foreign policy (an area in which Americans historically have been lackadaisical), the sheer cost of it creates economic waves in domestic policy (see gas prices, increased deficit spending) while many Christians will watch with a keen eye looking for the subplot to the next entry of the "Left Behind" series. The November elections will be a referendum on Iraq, except for gubernatorial contests, which in my homeland of Michigan has been centered around the economy thus far. We'll see if the plot to destroy the Mackinaw Bridge thus disrupting the fudge flow changes anything.

The dominant issue will be Iraq, which much to the GOP's dismay, voters have separated from the terrorism issue. A potential threat, or plot, is not the same as an attack. This issue will fade and this election will still be about George W. Bush and Iraq in November. Krunchy may have delivered the single funniest answer in the history of this column, but what would you expect from a man who wants to be addressed as Krunchy? 1 for 1

2). Joe Lieberman should accept the fact that he was rejected by the Democratic voters in Connecticut, and not run as an independent candidate.

Krunchy: FICTION. I'm all for having as many people as possible run for political office. If a one-legged albino prostitute with a speech impediment wants to be governor, I say let her run, ummm, limp on her own merits. Lieberman probably looks at recent elections where the president has not received a percentage of the vote higher than 51 percent since 1988 (almost 20 years, Bush got 50.7 percent in 2004) and rightly feels that if the Republican candidate is a right wing nut-job, and the Democrat is freaky left wing, being a Centrist can win him the election. Can he actually win though? Well, 48 percent of his party DID vote for him in the primary, and if he could sway some moderate to liberal Republicans, there might be a chance, so I would say, RUN, FORREST LIEBERMAN, RUN

Chad: FICTION! Nothing about the American political system bothers me more than the two-party system. I have never voted either Republican or Democrat and I may never do so. While I don't care for Lieberman trying to represent himself as an independent candidate when he clearly is not, if it gets people to understand they can have Mr. Pibb instead of Coke or Pepsi, I'm all for it. That being said, if Hannity and Co. want to label Lieberman as the next Zell Miller, fine. Trying to paint the Democrats as extremist jackals for withdrawing support for Lieberman is false and hypocritical. For one, Lieberman disagrees with both democrats AND the majority of Americans in supporting the war, that doesn't make opposition to the war an extremist view. If you want an example of a party eating one of its own, look for further than the auto-dial smear campaign waged against McCain in 2000.

The two party system stifles thinking outside the box, but there is no comparison between Lieberman and Miller. Miller switched to the GOP caucus. Lieberman will still side with the Democrats. Lieberman won't do anything for a 3rd party movement because if he wins, no one should be surprised if he rejoins the Democratic Party. 2 for 2

3). This past Friday, the US and France reached an agreement on a final draft resolution that would deploy UN peace keeping troops to southern Lebanon and allow Israel to withdraw their forces. The resolution all calls for the long term disarmament of Hezbollah. The resolution is well intentioned, but there is no way that it will ever work. At best it is a temporary band aid for a long term problem.

Krunchy: FACT. Damn, do I sound like some sort of Republican douche bag here on this Truth or Fiction eh? I swear to >pick random deity< this agreement reeks of setting up desperate and horny people in a bar before last call. "Well, Hezbollah, lets ignore the fact that Israel has a uni-brow, a comb over, and a tacky polyester 3 piece suit; and Israel, put aside the fact that Hezbollah isn't really a woman. We are just going to put some Barry White music on and the two of you can dance for awhile, see if anything happens." I picture that if this cease fire doesn't work, maybe some "Bat out of Hell" by Meatloaf will be piped through those UN headphones in the next session.

If anything, this shows how insignificant the UN has become. Nick Lachey is more relevant at this point in time (there's something for the youths in the readership; I feel like Dennis Freakin' Miller now) and better respected too. The world has passed the UN by, and I assume Harry S. Truman is swearing his ass off in his grave over it.

Chad: FACT. Okay: Balfour Declaration, creation of an Israeli state, six-day war, Yom Kippur war, and eventually Israel enters Lebanon in 1982 to remove the PLO when, get this... a new terrorist organization replaced the old one! Take notes on this one, Israel. This isn't even a band-aid, it's treating the symptoms instead of the problem (see Iran, Syria, and yes Israel). This resolution won't solve the problem; I don't see anything that will except a hypothetical common foe (crab people?)

This resolution is more of a cease fire than a solution. 3 for 3

4). Recently, gay activists have been protesting the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. At a time when the military is stretched thin and can use all the soldiers that it can recruit, the military needs to remove the Clinton era compromise policy and allow homosexuals to disclose their sexual preference and still serve in the military. Being gay or straight is not relevant to a person's ability to serve their country.

Krunchy: I would tend to lean on FACT, but I'm going with FICTION. Most branches of the military are currently staffed at or about the levels needed. It's mostly the army that is short of recruits. I also don't like Activists telling me what to do. I can't get behind anyone that feels TOO STRONGLY about any one issue. Zealotry is a dangerous foe, even if it's morally correct. Times change and at some point it will be acceptable, but not in a public reality that is still mired in "should gays marry" and finds Paris Hilton endlessly fascinating.

I can't see this happening until we get an actual REAL athlete to admit he is gay WHILE he is still playing his sport on a team at a major league level. I cannot think of one personally. The next one will be the first one. I can reel off a few athletes that have been "outed" in the public in the last few years, including Kordell Stewart, Jeff Garcia, and Mike Piazza. All deny it as though you were accusing them of fondling Chihuahuas in a bathtub filled with guacamole (my spell check is having a workout with that sentence.). You throw in Ozzie Guillen's "faggot" comments about Jay Mariotti, and I say integrate the macho world of sports first. If that happens, then I can see the military possibly following suit, perhaps when al Qaeda harnesses their mind controlled reindeer into an elite fighting force of torso-tenderizing fury. At that point, I will hope to hell that we have a gay general with a robotic Santa Claus to save the day. HOORAY FOR SANTY CLAUS!

Chad: FACT. We've already heard of troops being deployed and re-deployed and re-re-deployed. We've heard off Haditha and other massacres, possibly the partial result of over-stressed and over-fatigued troops. We're in a war to defend freedom, unless that freedom involves a homosexual. It's as if Fred Phelps and my old high school gym teacher are working in the freaking' Pentagon. There is no legitimate reason to ban homosexuals from the military, NONE.

Mr. Krunchy made a really good argument here, but my opinion is more in line with Chad. If they are serious about winning in Iraq, then we need more boots on the ground. If there are people who are willing to serve their county, then we should not discriminate against them. Gay people can be just as patriotic as we straight folk. So close to another sweep, but they finish 3 for 4

More sign ups needed

We only have one more month of readers scheduled for fact or fiction. I know I am behind on my e-mail, and those of you, who e-mailed me last week, will hear from me today, but if you want to keep this column going, I need you to sign up. Once we run out of readers, I will have to switch the column back to writers again. Until next week, remember one person's fact is another's fiction.