Shrubville

Isn't Winslow still running as an independent?

Furnace,
Yes. Which is why this strip makes little to no sense. Of course, Mike Gravel might be thinking the exact same way – looking forward to 2012 even though he’s still running as an independent in 2008. Speaking of Mike Gravel, I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to what Sacki wrote about my comments on the candidates’ stances on lobbyists.

Sacki,
“Digging through the Shrubville mailbag, I came across this in a comment from our Shrubville-critiquing friend Chris:"

Aw, man…I’m “Shrubville-critiquing”? And here I thought I was just making a couple of political comments in relation to Scott Stantis’s comic strip, which I loathe as much as any of you. And when you say “Shrubville-critiquing,” it makes it seem like we’re mortal enemies. After all, pre-Pellucid Wikipedia called Shrubville a daily critique of “Prickly City.”

“I guess, like torture, ‘strongly opposed to bowing to the special interests and the lobbyists’ is open to interpretation. As noted in this article, all of the candidates, even Obama - the Lyin' Hawaiian - fund themselves with dirty, dirty money.”

Well, as was first established in this campaign by former Senator John Edwards, Washington is virtually governed by the lobbyists and special interests. All of our legislators are courted by them, encouraged by them, sometimes even bribed by them. But that just shows us what we already know: Politicians are all crooks and liars. The thing to do, then, is to elect the man or woman who the smallest crook and/or liar. It comes as no surprise to me, nor should it come as a surprise to any of us Shrubville bloggers/commenters, that all of the candidates have been involved in this sort of stuff. My point was that all three of the major remaining candidates want to reform the special interests-driven system if possible, and whether or not they have been deeply involved with lobbyists in the past, at the very least Senators McCain and Obama have a record of fighting some lobbyist-driven in the past. They can put their metaphorical money where there mouth is, more so than Senator Clinton can. (For the record, I support Obama, think that waterboarding is torture, and feel that the lobbyists ought to be reined in.)

“And if they truly wanted to let it be known that they eschew funding themselves with dirty, dirty money, they would make a point to turn down privately-raised funds and campaign with public financing, and yet they probably will not, letting it be known where their loyalty truly lies.”

This remains to be seen, but you appear to be even more cynical than I usually am here.

“I mean, your saying that McCain is for waterboarding - when he's clearly not - is a good stretch of the truth in order to pound out a column. But he's your guy to cover, so I'll refrain from pointing that out.”
Speaking of crooks and liars, McCain is a longtime opponent of torture but to pander to the far right he voted that waterboarding is not torture recently. What a hypocrite.

So Sacki, do you still support Gravel? (Lobbyist-wise, there’s nothing on him, mainly because he hasn’t been in office in about three decades, which may have been even before they started keeping track of such things. Although it seems to me that his main achievement as Senator, the Alaska Pipeline, may have had something to do with the lobbyists…hmm…) And does that mean you support direct democracy and a tax on carbon emissions?