The New York Times Covergate...

My opinion? Who gives a shit. I think New Yorker subscribers are smart enough to realize that it's a jab at all the RW smear. Funny thing is most of the propagandists will be too dumb to realize they're being duped.

I do have one qualm about how it was executed, however. If the satire is not the Obamas and is, instead, the ridiculousness of the GOP, why not allude to that in the cover? How about a picture of Bush shitting himself thinking with a thought bubble and this picture? At least clue the less-than-quick media lappers in to what's going on. Perhaps a more astute photoshopper should take this to task.

Diversion. Nothing to see here.

28 Senate Dems vote "NO" on FISA bullshit...

Here they are:

Akaka, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cantwell, Cardin, Clinton, Dodd,
Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Klobuchar, Lautenburg, Leahy, Levin,
Menendez, Murray, Reed, Reid, Sanders, Schumer, Stabenow, Tester, Wyden.

Notice that North Dakota's own Byron Dorgan had his stones with him. Conrad, alas, did not. Notice who else ain't on the list...Obama. He did what he said he was going to do, and voted for the bill. One problem, that's not what he said in the primary. As a constitutional scholar, I expected more from him.

Awwww....

And sometimes I like to stop in to leave little comments just so you know that your foolishness is noted and, appropriately, discounted as the ranting of a true believer incapable of objective political analysis.

You should stick to the Twins stuff, which is actually pretty good.

Ain't that cute.

I read it, 'cause he makes me giggle...

And this is just the latest nugget of nonsense from our state's "Most Popular Political Blog".

***

I actually think Obama is rolling the dice a bit with this. It’s a good idea if he can pull it off, but what if he can’t fill the stadium? It may shock some who only know about Obama through what they hear through the Obama-adoring media, but let’s remember that this guy barely won the Democrat nomination and that entire chunks of his party are considering not even voting for a President at all this election cycle.

I’d be willing to wager that the Democrats will have people out hustling to fill seats less the messiah be embarrassed by some empty sections in the upper decks. And even if they manage to herd enough people into the stadium to fill it, I doubt everyone there will be an Obama supporter.

After all, car accidents and train wrecks draw crowds too.

***

Apparently, Rob forgot a few things. One, despite the fact that Obama "barely" won his party's nomination, he already packed a park with 75,000 people. And unless you're dense enough to believe that most of them showed up to see the Decemberists and just stayed to watch the popular Democratic candidate for the free drinks and giggles, then it's not a stretch to think that they might be able to pull it off as part and parcel to the PARTY'S CONVENTION, when he ACCEPTS THE NOMINATION (*wink...nod*). Second, Rob forgot that he already used that tired joke the last time he had to spin a 75,000-person rally into a bad thing.

There are always loads of circular arguments in Rob's posts and it's quite hard to follow him, considering he's about as consistent as a geriatric bowl movement. But these little chunks of mind blowing anti-logic are what I keep going back to see. That and the bra ads on the right side bar.

Obama is spending a LOT of political capital right now...

Voting for the FISA malarky. Death Penalty acquiescence. Lovin' him some guns. Not embracing the homosexual community. And now...pushing Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives". (To be fair, this isn't really new...Obama has been open to wanting to push these things for a while, saying that Bush's office has never really meant to do anything with them, but rather used them as political "photo ops".)

He may be touted as the candidate of change (and he may be once he's in), but he's clearly well-versed in the no-nonsense political game. He's starting to look like a calculated, bad ass Mo-Fo. He ain't no rube, that's for sure.

He's been pandering to the right for some time now and although many of the decisions he's made aren't going to be defensible to hard core leftists, he knows that his power lies in the fact that they'll still hold their nose and vote for him come the GE, considering the option.

And to those Democrats that are rethinking voting for Obama due to his recent campaign work, hold your horses. He deserves some criticism for caving on issues that are important to the base. I'll be the first to join you. But remember, he didn't just turn dumb after winning the primary. He ran a perfect campaign against the presumptive nominee in Hillary and won. He and his staff know what they're doing. This new "faith based" thingee isn't what the MSM wants you to believe. He's going to scrap Bush's office and do it differently. He used this type of thing as a community organizer in Chicago, and I have faith he'll use it wisely now.

UPDATE: Courtesy of Politico, here's the Obama campaign's letter about the initiatives.

Obama will offer remarks on what he will do as President to build a real partnership between faith-based organizations and the White House....

Obama will create a President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

As Barack Obama has said many times, he believes that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. And many of the challenges we face today—from saving our planet to ending poverty—are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

That’s why Obama will help draw on their strength of these groups through the creation of a new President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Obama does not believe that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, or that they’re better at lifting people but [sic]. But what he does believe is that we all have to work together to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Obama’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will help empower grassroots faith-based and community groups to help meet these challenges.

The partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state—but will harness the energy of these critical groups

The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques will only be allowed to go toward secular programs. And Obama will ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

Innovative new programs: training larger organizations to support smaller ones, and expanding summer learning programs to serve one million students

Barack Obama will work with the hundreds of religious and community groups that understand the process to train the thousands of groups that don’t. The Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will “train the trainers” by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services—and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures—the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs.

And the Council will target key challenges like closing the achievement gap. Obama will expand nonprofit summer learning programs to serve one million students by developing partnerships with faith-based and community groups. This partnership won’t just help children learn—it will help keep them off the streets during the summer so they don’t turn to crime.

Apparently, there were numerous blunders associated with the Iraq invasion...

Shocker.

Two philanderers co-sponsor "Marriage Protection Amendment"...

No, I'm not kidding. David Vitter (he of high-priced hooker fame) and Larry Craig (he of random, gay, airport bathroom sex solicitation fame) have teamed up to produce S.J. Res. 43. The amendment would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” Because of sanctity and shit.

I didn't think there would be anything more ridiculous than Brittany Spears' mom authoring a book on parenting advice. However, I have been proven wrong.

As one commenter so astutely stated "Comedy GOLD".

Wow, another politician thinks I'm an idiot...

Strange isn't it?

Nancy Pelosi seems to think that the answer to the deluge of conservative talk radio is to institute the "Fairness Doctrine" again. To Nancy (who day in and day out proves that I was wrong in believing she was anything but a crazy spaz) and every other politician and pundit who thinks this is necessary...I'm not a freakin' moron. I know what I should and shouldn't listen to. For instance, I'm smart enough to know that Rush is full of shit. Now, I know that lots of people, obviously, AREN'T well-informed enough to make this determination. But forced limitations and requirements of speech aren't the way to fix this. Besides, those cats are too far gone anyway. You've got the net as your medium. Radio is dying. Remember, freedoms are GOOD.

Hat tip to Rob at Sayanythingblog.com. Always good for a liberal lambasting.

I'd rethink that strategy sir...

Now, I haven't been doing this very long, but I'm seasoned enough to realize that in child sex cases, it isn't beneficial to ANYONE to cross examine a child victim in a way that would "rip them apart." But that is exactly what defense attorney and state lawmaker James Fagan stated he would be forced to do if the State of Massachusettes implemented mandatory minimum sentences for child rapists. Actually, what he said went a bit further. And by "a bit further" I mean "batshit nuts".

Here is it:

"I'm going to rip them apart. I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they're 8 years old, they throw up, that when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep. When they're 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody."

In his defense (if there is one), he was talking about what would be necessary to zealously defend his clients against their respective charges. In essence, because the penalties under the new "Jessica's Law" would be so steep, that he would have no choice but to further ruin the lives of the victims. I'm not a fan of taking sentencing discretion out of the hands of Judges (who face the penalties of being ousted by the electorate for bogus decisions) in favor of mandatory sentences. However, I think this man is sorely mistaken if he thinks that merciless cross-examination of a young child, in front of an undoubtedly sympathetic jury, is going to "help" his client. Instead of thinking backward, if faced with the prospect of increased sanctions, I would hope that Defense Counsel would seek out methods of representing their clients that are more progressive and civilized than browbeating a child.

I know I wouldn't do it. And if Mr. Fagan would equate this with malpractice, then I guess I'll take my chances with the disciplinary board.

Great Cartoon...

Especially considering the FISA shit. Yeah, we noticed...Assholes.



Mad props to Dusty over at It's My Right to be Left of Center.

Ya think Georgie?

Apparently, someone told Bush that the Zimbabwe election is a "sham".

Now, set aside the obvious irony of this statement considering 2000 and consider it for what it is. It took the leader of the free world this long to realize that the election process in Zimbabwe (which has included beating, torturing and murdering activists, opposing parties and their families) ain't all that democratic. Glad you're catching on sir.

In other news, Bush concludes that the Carpenters suck.

This is disappointing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24muslim.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I understand how tough it's going to be to straddle this line considering the ridiculous emails that were spread by the right-wing liars. I also understand that Obama is going to have to be very careful to not reinforce the erroneous belief (constantly reiforced by the GOP) by some Americans that he is Muslim. However, completely distancing himself from that particular group, instead of aligning and explaining, is not the way I would envision him doing it. It further alienates an entire subsect of America that already feels abandoned. But more importantly, an action of this nature assumes that the American public is uninformed and stupid. And while we can go 'round and 'round about the truth of that assumption, I would prefer that my candidate assume the opposite...and trust that I (and the American people) have enough common sense to figure out the implications.

"Obama - Who else are Muslims gonna vote for?" is neither an inspiring nor progressive campaign slogan.

Thanks to both DU and John Cole at Balloon Juice.

You know what?...

This kind of shit is so flippin' stupid.

He's not anything of the sort. In fact, he's quite fallible.

It's one thing to opine that he's a different kind of politician. It's quite another thing to deify him. That's just moronic. And it doesn't help the debate.

Perhaps this is the snip of the "article" that irks me the most:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't buy any of it? Think that's all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bulls-- and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you're talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself.

Not this time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But isn't there an in between? Isn't it OK to think that he's a uniquely talented orator with a decent liberal message, a keen awareness of the current political climate and a certain "way" with young voters? Why does it have to be "slimeball politican" or "Jesus II"? It doesn't have to be so polar.

And before all the conservatives go bitter beer on me...notice who else is on the list. That's right...Mr. Fred Thompson. I guess the spirit farmers like Hollywood.

It's also comforting to know that, for a nominal fee, I can be God too...much more cheaply than if I were a Scientologist too, from what I can gather.

"Mission Accomplished!!!" part deux...

Looks like the Independent has gotten ahold of the details behind the new Neocon plan for permanent occupation of Iraq.

If the Independent aint your cup of tea...how about Gulfnews?

***

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq.

***

As it appears, the backlash has already begun. Snip of the letter sent from members of Iraqi Parliment.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

To: Madam Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Sirs and Madam Members of the United States of America Congress and Senate.

From: Remarks on the agreements between the Iraqi Republic and the United States of America


Peace and blessing be upon you.

Based on the numerous hearings held by your parliament with regards to the agreement that the executive powers of Iraq and the United States are determine to sign;

We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal, in accordance with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. Furthermore, any treaty, agreement or "executive agreement" that is signed between Iraq and the United States will not be legal and will not enter the stage of implementation without first being ratified by the Council of Representatives, which gives the Iraqi government's legislative power, represented by the Council of Representatives, the exclusive right to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural , investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is looking to ratify agreements that end every form of American intervention in Iraq's internal affairs and restore Iraq's Independence and sovereignty over its land.***

***

Uh oh, the facists are on the march again. The warmonger right will LOVE this.

UPDATE: They do. Well that didn't take long. Surprise, surprise. Rob Port at North Dakota's Most Popular Political Blog certainly thinks this is a ho-hum necessity. Yeah, perpetual occupation to stem an ideology...all on the taxpayers' dime. Yipee.

You're welcome for the link.

OK, all you pissed-off Hillary supporters are now voting McCain?

Because you're going to stick it to all the misogynistic Obama supporters? Huh?

Listen, during the primary seasons, I've been more than vocal about my distaste for Ms. Clinton. I can't stand her or the way that she campaigns. I've even gone so far as to say I would contemplate not voting at all if she were the nominee. The truth is, I'm full of shit. And I hope the majority of the Clinton supporters who are chanting McCain's name will soon come to the realization that I did...that McCain is a horrible candidate and would make a horrible president. He would pack the judiciary with more republican nutbags that we'd be subjected to for...well...our lifetimes. He would entertain a Bush-like foreign policy. Faced with a stagnant economy and rising deficits, he would push for the permanence of tax cuts for the wealthy. And he would ensure that just about every progressive issue and domestic spending program were squashed.

You don't believe me? Here's a little snippit I found from a poster on DU.

***

Let's see if Sen. McCain is REALLY such a moderate or liberal Republican or a maverick:

All figures are interest group ratings from 2007, except when those figures were not available, in such cases I will post the ratings from 2006 or 2005-2006:

The link for Sen. McCain's ratings on Project Vote Smart:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_...

The link for Sen. Obama's ratings on Project Vote Smart:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_...

Abortion Issues

In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator Obama a grade of 100.

In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator McCain a grade of 0.

Animal Welfare Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 75 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 25 percent in 2007.
_________________________________

Civil Rights and Human Rights Issues

2007 American Civil Liberties Union gave Senator Obama a grade of 80.

2007 American Civil Liberties Union gave Senator McCain a grade of 50.
______________________________________________________________

2007 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 85 percent in 2007

2007 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 15 percent in 2007.
________________________________________________________________________

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State 33 percent in 2006.
________________________________________________________________________

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 33 percent in 2005-2006.
________________________________________________________________________

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 89 percent in 2005-2006

2005-2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 33 percent in
________________________________________________________________________

Conservative Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 7 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 80 percent in 2007.
_______________________________________________________________________

Education Issues

2007 National Education Association gave Senator Obama a grade of A.

2997 National Education Association gave Senator McCain a grade of F.
___________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 100 percent in 2007

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 0 percent in 2007.
________________________________________________________________________

Energy Issues

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Campaign for America's Future 100 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Campaign for America's
Future 17 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.
____________________________________________________________

Environmental Issues

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to League of Conservation Voters's position, Senator Obama received a rating of 67.

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to League of Conservation Voters's position, Senator McCain received a rating of 0.
______________________________________________________________

Family and Children Issues

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Children's Defense Fund's position, Senator Obama received a rating of 60.

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Children's Defense Fund's position, Senator McCain received a rating of 10.
________________________________________________________
(The Family Research Council is an extremely right-wing organization found and lead by Dr. Richard Dobson)

2007 In 2007 Family Research Council gave Senator Obama a grade of 0.

In 2007 Family Research Council gave Senator McCain a grade of 42.
_______________________________________________________________

Foreign Aid and Policy Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Council for a Livable World 81 percent in 2007

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Council for a Livable World 0 percent in 2007.
____________________________________________________________________

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Peace Action 67 percent in 2006

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 50 percent in 2006
________________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 83 percent in 2005-2006.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 25 percent in 2005-2006
______________________________________________________________________.

Health Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Academy of Family Physicians 100 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Academy of Family Physicians 0 percent in 2007
________________________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine 100 percent in 2005-2006

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine 0 percent in 2005-2006.
__________________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Nurses Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Nurses Association 20 percent in 2005-2006.
_____________________________________________________________________

Labor

Senator Obama supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 0 percent in 2007.
______________________________________________________________________

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 75 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 8 percent in 2007.
________________________________________________________________________

Liberal

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2007

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 10 percent in 2007.
_________________________________________________________________

Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 95.5 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy 40 percent in 2007

Veterans Issues

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.
________________________________________________________________

2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Obama a grade of B+.

2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.

***

Truth is, this dude is by no means some loose canon, gun slingin' moderate. Nope, he just another right wing line walker. There may have been some hope for him 10 years ago. But he checked his political opinions and what scant integrity he had, at the door long ago. He now represents nothing more than another boiler plate Republican.

Clinton supporters that think they will be teaching every other liberal a lesson by voting McCain need to grow up and stop acting like spoiled little brats. Do not use your vote for any other reason than to responsibly further the candidate that you believe best represents your own views and will best serve the people of the US.

Using one's vote to dick with the outcome is something that small-minded Republican nimrods/Rush Limbaugh meme jockeys do...not responsible adults. And I will waste no time equating those who would waste their progressive vote on such a vile candidate...with the Republican agenda they would help perpetuate.

We all know that Republican voters hate "Change"....

Hell, their disfavor for Obama is normally highlighted by their distaste for this one-word slogan.

They continually rail upon the fact that voters aren't interested in this. Ironic, therefore, that their presumptive nominee has hijacked that very slogan.

Considering McCain's positions on Iraq and the sputtering US economy are mirror images of those held by history's least popular administration, it'll take some mental gymnastics for conservatives to buy into it. But I have complete faith that they will abandon consistency in favor of political expedience.

Where the hell is Joe Lieberman when you need him?

John McCain (who is purported to be the foreign policy "expert" due to his numerous trips to the middle east, and his time serving in the military) continues to dick up the facts concerning the war in that region...allthewhile criticizing Obama for being green and uninformed on the topic. As I've said numerous times in the past, McCain isn't stupid. He's doing this shit on purpose to mislead the American public.

Here's an article reporting McCain's newest lie.

"In comments to reporters on Thursday, McCain asserted that "I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks."

In fact, as the Obama campaign was quick to point out, the troop level in Iraq is at about 155,000 right now, well above the 130,000 that would mark a return to pre-surge levels. The goal, according to a transcript of a news briefing with Joint Staff director for operations Lt. Gen. Carter Ham at the end of February, is to reduce troop levels to 140,000 -- still above the pre-surge levels."

But let it be known that McCain was true to the Bush policy of continuing the lie. It's retort to being caught by Obama's camp?

"What informed people understand, John McCain included, is that American troops are not even close to Surge levels," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds in a statement. "Three of the five Army 'Surge' brigades have been withdrawn and additional Marines that were initially deployed for the 'Surge' have come home as well -- the remaining two brigades will be home in July. Talk about a political stunt, it's sending out campaign surrogates to parse words about a topic Barack Obama has no experience with, and has shown zero interest in learning about."

Never mind the fact that THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID.

Same old GOP bullshit. Tell us nothing. Move the goalposts. "We were misquoted". And then resort to the recently reincarnated McCain response to Iraq war criticism..."you didn't serve, so you have no say", which just happens to marginalize a large majority of the American public and is quaintly ironic considering their distaste for the "chickenhawk" argument from some on the left.

Tip of the hat to John at Balloon Juice.

"John McCain - Elect him or he'll punch you in the throat...if he remembers."

Strike that...reverse it...

Right wingers now say it WAS the Obama campaign and not indie rock fave The Decemberists that drew 75K faithful to Portland's waterfront park. Or, at least it was Obama's campaign that put the toilets out (and in a wrong spot). Wait, maybe Obama's campaign put out porta potties FOR the Decemberists. Hell, I don't know. These yahoos can hardly go two weeks without their trains of thought derailing and killing everyone aboard.

Now, putting spiffy biffs where a memorial sits is not a dignified thing to do. Someone should probably give a mea culpa. However, it is also not something we really need to worry about. But, I'm sure we'll need to add this to the "Barack Obama clearly hates 'murica" string.

Keeping track, we've now got the following:

He don't wear lapel pins
Gots an angry preacher who ain't too trustin' of white folk
Don't forget his middle name
His opening act sings the commie national anthem (or maybe he opened for them, can't be too sure)
He is a militant black christian..no wait a Muslim...er....he hates religion and people who "cling" to it. (Just pick one and go with it)
He likes arugula (this is so dispicable that it simply cannot be true)

And now...his campaign puts potties where they shouldn't be.

Wow, that's quite a list of petty nonsense. I can't wait to hear what the GOP is pissed off about next. Maybe Obama listened to Ice T's "Cop Killer" once...and liked it. Or maybe he likes Summit instead of Budweiser. Holy shit...what if he knew a guy on the Russian chess team? I can't watch.

Scotty...go suck an egg.

So now former press secretary Scott McClellan has come out with a book that is critical of the administration he so staunchly defended. Whoopdeefuckin' doo.

This smarmy little asshat is just another one of the Bush "loyalists" that knew what was going on WHEN it was going on, and did nothing to stop it. Only now, when the horror is coming to an end, does he speak up about what was going on.

Hey Scott, you don't get credit for writing a book filled with shit we already knew. You also don't get any relief from me for "exposing" the administration that you covered for. If you were so disillusioned about your time in front of the podium and the "propaganda" you helped disseminate, the honorable thing to do would have been to say something when it could have made a difference. You don't give a shit about anyone but yourself, hence your waiting until now to sell a few million books. Excuse me when I say Kiss. My. Ass.

That being said, it is damn fun watching the Bushies scurry around, planning how they can discredit yet another turncoat whose memes they used to parrot.

More straight talk from McCain....

Now he's rejecting his endorsement from Rev. John Hagge. Ok, whatever.

I've stated in the past that I don't really think that John McCain shares the views of this fantasy-land windbag. And I don't mind the fact that he rejected his endorsement. What I do mind, however, is his lying about his knowledge of Hagge's famous rhetoric.

McCain is quoted as saying "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well..." My thoughts? Another GOP douchebag trying to sneak a quick one past what he believes to be uninformed electorate. There's a word for this in plain English. It's "Lying". (And just so you know, I would equate the same thing to Obama should the topic come up. Don't tell me you didn't know).

John McCain knew damn well that Haggee had said some crazy shit over the years. If fact, I seem to remember him being asked about said crazy shit by Georgy boy one Sunday afternoon. His response? "I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything. But thanks for asking."

Hell, on May 11 (yes...less than two weeks ago), McCain stated, when confronted with the offending garbage that Hagge has stated, that he thought that he'd repudiate all the bad stuff, however, he thought that the remarks had been taken out of context. The phrase "taken out of context" is to politics what "I'm entering rehab" is for hollywood. It accomplishes nothing allthewhile justifying the behavior.

What, we're all supposed to believe that these new comments were the proverbial straw? Listen, these comments aren't new. They took place back in the early 1990's. He's telling us now that he didn't know about this? It's in Hagge's book "Jerusalem Countdown" for Christ's sake (pun wholeheartedly intended). This isn't new information. The fact that John McCain tells us that he didn't know about them allows for one of two conclusions. Either he thinks maternity wards are filled today with people having been born yesterday or he and his support staff are COMPLETELY incompetent. If he and his puppets can't figure this type of thing out before accepting the nomination, like he's saying they were, then I don't want him anywhere NEAR the oval office. Hell, I don't want him managing the local carwash.

My opinion? He knew exactly what Hagge's positions were. Only now that he's the presumptive nominee, having vanquished the other, more conservative candidates on the GOP side, and after hypocritically lambasting Obama on his association with Rev. Wright, does he say he didn't KNOW about this. How perfectly and ridiculously convenient. John McCain's "straight talk" is nothing but hooey. This man will change his position like the flags at Wrigley Field.

In a funny note, Hagge pulled the old "you can't fire me...cause I QUIT" routine on McCain shortly after being axed. Probably good for both sides. John can get back to trying to remember his positions from last week and the Reverend can go back to scaring his congregation into giving him millions of dollars.


And I like this cartoon.