As we approach Election Day in November, we all have decisions to make.


The choices being what they are leave us with decisions regarding race, age, and gender, in addition to political agenda. But in reality, it goes deeper than that...a lot deeper.


I consider myself a spiritual person. I believe in God, I go to church on a semi-regular basis, and I pray each night. I am prolly not a very good Catholic, even if the Bell Curve is adjusted for today's morals and standards...unless you throw in enough priests to skew the pedophile numbers. I drink too much, I swear too much, I engage in deviant sex, I say hurtful things to others, and oh, yeah...I write this column.


And, Maggie On Top is kinda where I am going with my angle this week. I get a lot of heat for writing the stuff I write each week. Similarly, I am sure Tim McKernan fights a battle, both real and hypothetical as regards this column, and other content on this site. The moral majority got our last President elected, and I am curious how the current candidates will spin their stances and intentions regarding the typical lightning rod issues, which motivate these moralists off their pews and into the voting booth. I would love to see both candidates thumb their noses at this group, but that is not realistic.


No, it is not realistic, it is not likely, and it is not practical.


I am paid to write about sex…paid. It is my job, and if I tried to slide a column by Tim about gardening or designer purses, he would throw it back at me like a Red Lobster gift certificate. Yet, every week I get railed on by people who chastise me for being as sexually open as I am. These people strongly disagree with what I write, my morals, my sexual preference, and my use of the non-word “prolly”. My column is promoted as sexually oriented material, and I am fairly consistent with my content.


Why then, are these moralists even clicking on Maggie On Top?


Would that not make them hypocrites?


My point is…if the Bible thumpers who manage to find this snuff film of a journalistic effort I write every week take the time to crucify me for doing my job exactly as I am expected…what would they do to a Presidential candidate who failed to at least pretend to cater to their Puritan propaganda and Christian concerns?


Scary, huh?


And we wonder why candidates make campaign promises they do not keep.


Try telling a Baptist that you are in favor of legalizing gay marriage, and see what the message is from the pulpit next Sunday morning.


Try telling a Catholic that you are in favor of condom distribution in schools, and imagine what the talk around the bingo table would be like.


Anyway, I am interested to see which way the Jerry Falwell minions fall in this election.


On one hand, you have a dynamic young Senator from a “fly over” state. He represents hope, and promises change. The problem for many voters is he is black and of questionable descent and religious belief. Ironically, he is driving the bus which typically appeals to the Bible Belt.


On the other hand, you have an aging war veteran (most likely with one of those handicap thingies hanging from his rear-view mirror) attempting to coax voters onto the same bus which has taken us to $4 a gallon gas and a mortgage crisis. His already obstacle-laden road is now compounded by the presence of a female co-pilot with a knocked-up and unwed teenage daughter.


For the moral majority, this is a conundrum akin to that which a Presbyterian must face on Super Bowl Sunday.


Yeah, this election is gonna be a good one, and the players are exactly what we need right now. Both candidates have hot wives. The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate is an attractive and intelligent woman, who was not afraid to jump into the public eye, knowing full well the moralistic press was gonna question her integrity via her daughter.


Personally, I applaud her for this. However, that situation is gonna hurt her team as they seek the support of the conservative demographic.


Demographics…political campaigning is all about the demographics. Both Presidential candidates have aligned themselves with a running mate to attract a particular demographic to which they might otherwise not have had sufficient appeal.


As I said earlier, I would love to see a candidate eschew the vote and support of the moral majority in this country. Instead of pandering for the vote of hypocritical moralists and convenient Christians, I would like to see a candidate align himself (or herself) with the values of my demographic…and with the demographic that I have hammered out here with Maggie On Top.


Yeah, give me a President who enjoys a fine cigar after a long day of governing. Give me a President who welcomes the oral input of interns. Give me a President who smells what all of Washington is cooking, but doesn’t necessarily inhale. Give me a President who is sensitive enough to relieve his wife of the burdensome task of satisfying him sexually, when her Senatorial schedule conflicts with his orgasmic needs.


And give me a President who can charm the dumb off a blonde.



If he manages to maintain a stable economy, operate the government at a fiscal surplus, keep our troops out of countries where camels outnumber Starbucks,  refrain from altering historical documents, upon which the very foundation of this country is based, and trampling on the civil liberties of the citizens…then that is a bonus.


But, I guess that ship has already sailed…


Clearly, my demographic is a forgotten one, or minimally, one which is merely taken for granted. I am not sure if that is because my priorities are not important to the candidates, or if it is just too polarizing for them to campaign on such things.


Regardless, whomever wins this election, I am pretty sure my column is not gonna be getting any unique hits from the Oval Office.