Saturday, September 30, 2006



Oh dear, Mr. Stone. Now you've done it. After making a great film set around the chaos of the WTC collapse, a movie that was devoid of any sort of discernable agenda or angle, you went ahead and voiced your opinion. Not about 9/11, but about George W. Bush. Mr. Stone, welcome to Michael Moore's world.
Henceforth, you will be lumped in with Mr. Moore whenever a rightie wingnut feels the need to make an attack on the Left. The attack will be something unispired like, "Those folks on the left want to cut and run like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and the rest of the Hollywood liberal elite."
For the record, Stone makes it clear that he takes issue with how the catastrophic events that took place that day have been deviously twisted for political gains by Bush and the GOP. From CNN:

"From September 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone. "It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11.
"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."

"This war on Iraq is a disaster. I'm disgraced. I'm ashamed for my country," he said. "I'm also ashamed that America has attacked itself with its constitutional breakdowns. I'm deeply ashamed."

Of course, by exercising his Constitution right to voice his opinion, he has only let loose those dogs of hate from the kooky world of Rightyland. Already, Michelle Malkin has taken the bait, as she finishes her glorified cut-and-paste post with, "What a disgrace to the memory of the victims of 9/11." (Of course, a statement like this leads to the obvious question of how criticizing one's [s]elected leaders is somehow an attack on the victims of 9/11, but that would make me have to delve into the creepy, bile-filled mind of Malkin, a journey I do not have the stomach to take.) A couple of other barely mentionable blogs (here, here, and here if you'd like to peruse just a few examples) have also sounded the drumbeat against Stone.

I wonder how long before someone uses the phrase, "The Moore/Stone wing of the Democratic Party"? Any takers?


As I'm sure most of you are already aware, Florida Congressman Mark Foley has resigned effectively immediately from Congress and will not seek reelection this November because of the controversy and probable illegal activity involving Foley sexually explicit email and instant messaging exchanges involving an underage boy. The left blogosphere has been all over this and some of the better stuff out right now can be found at Talking Points Memo and Americablog, among other fine sites.
Where the story takes a turn for the surreal is the fact that apparently GOP House leadership was aware of this going back to the beginning of this year and possibly earlier. The fact that members of the GOP knew that a member of their caucus was involved in what amounts to illegal activity and said and did absolutely nothing about it for all this time is what is really going to hurt the party. It is an extreme example of the culture of corruption within the GOP-controlled Congress. Someone in the party does something wrong? Let's just brush it under the rug. In this instance, it appears that the GOP leadership was complicit in covering up a crime. Based on my admittedly limited study of law, I've always understood that a person who helps cover up a murder is just as guilty as the person who commits the murder. Let's hope that the voters finally hold the GOP accountable for their part in this.
UPDATE: Just read this from a commentor over at Think Progress. I think it sums up the state of the GOP nicely: "I always believed that the worst thing you could do was put party before country, but party before all semblance of human decency? Bravo, Mr. Hastert. "

Friday, September 29, 2006



I couldn't decide who should get bumped off the TOP FIVE list so I decided to include both of them in a tie: Bill Frist and John Boehner the majority leaders of the Senate and House, respectively. This week, Fristy blamed the Democrats for the "Do-Nothing" Congress. Yes, the minority party is to blame for the Senate not doing anything. It's hard to get things done when you've got a 55-seat majority, I suppose. As for Boehner, he went out on Wednesday and actually tried pushing the old canard that Saddam really really was helping the 9/11 terrorists and that Iraq really really did have WMDs. "But, but, but what about all the evidence to the contrary?" I hypothetically ask the congressman. "Evidence? Boehner don't need no stinking evidence! " he replies in the third person.

JD Hayworth earned a spot a number four this week by taking a sip of the Cheney kool-aid when he said that to exercise our right to criticize the government is to aid the terrorists. Remember, according to the GOP, in order to protect America, we can no longer be Americans.

Today's GOP priorities were laid out for everyone to see as Colorado rep. Marilyn Musgrave stated that the most important issue facing this nation is terrorism and national security. Oh, wait, that's not right. She said the most important issue was the war in Iraq. Ooops, wrong again. Actually, according the Ms. Musgrave, the most important issue facing America is gay marriage. Yep. Your Republican Congress at work, folks. Take a bow.

George Felix Allen Jr. got himself two mentions this week as he cannot seem to not have controversy surrounding him this election season. Early in the week, Felix made the really dumb claim that he had never ever never used the "n-word" ever never in his entire life. And, or course, people are coming out of the woodwork to dispute that claim. Now, it appears that Felix has something of a penchant for spitting at women's feet. Yes, he spits. At women's feet. You cannot make this stuff up.

This week's number one just has to go to Fox News' Chris Wallace, who took on President Bill Clinton and lost. Badly. Wallace thought that he could actually come at President Clinton with the same old attacks that work so well on so many other Dems when they dare to come on the GOP network. Well, Wallace was really wrong because Mr. Clinton got right up in his grill, called him on it, then rationally explained why Wallace and his network of mouthpieces was totally and completely wrong. It was a real thing of beauty.

Here's the latest tally after six weeks:
George W. Bush - 17 points
George Felix Allen Jr. - 12 points
Joe Lieberman - 9 points
John McCain - 7 points
Donald Rumsfeld - 6 points
Dick Cheney - 6 points
Chris Wallace - 5 points
ABC - Path to 9/11 - 5 points
Geoff Davis - 4 points
Marilyn Musgrave - 3 points
Michelle Malkin - 3 points
Condoleeza Rice - 3 points
Ann Coulter - 3 points
JD Hayworth - 2 points
John Boehner - 2 points
Michael Savage - 2 points
Neil Cavuto - 2 points
Bill Frist - 1 point
Frank Gaffney - 1 point
Hugh Hewitt - 1 point

(Points are awarded based on five points for a first place finish, four points for second and so on. Points will be carried over from week to week.)


Let's see, he called his opponent's campaign aid "macaca" then give six different explanations and non-apologies over the incident. Then we find out that he's been awful cozy in the past with a certain affiliate of the Ku Klux Klan. He is later asked if he knew that his maternal grandfather is Jewish and he flips out about it. Just recently he has declared in no uncertain terms that he has never used the "n-word" though more and more people are coming forward to dispute that claim. To me, that's about enough scandal for three election cycles, but Felix apparently likes the challenge of fending off controversy after controversy. But I guess he was getting tired of the garden variety racist/antisemitic stuff because he has really upped the ante over the last day or so. Ready for this one? He spits (or expectorates - gotta work on my GRE vocabulary) at people. Female people, in fact.
There are currently four different stories currently floating around that chronicle Felix's disgusting habit of indulging in chewing tobacco and then expelling the brown spittle with excellent accuracy at the feet of women. Swing State Project has the whole story, including the four instances. Some quick excerpts:

Then, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia gathered up a glob of tobacco-laced saliva. He used his lips to squirt it out, as if he had practiced. The spit landed just at the tip of my shoe. He grinned, but didn't say a word.


While they were talking, [Felix] was chewing tobacco. He spit on the
ground and a fleck of brown spittle landed on my sister-in-law’s shoe.


... Allen turns away and spits a long brown streak of saliva into the dirt, just missing one of his constituents, a carefully put-together, blonde, ponytailed woman approaching the senator for an autograph. She stops in her tracks and stares with disgust at the bubbly tobacco juice that almost landed on her feet.


[Felix] made a few remarks to the crowd and then stood with his back to us, turning once to aim a jet of tobacco spit directly at our feet.

I urge you to go read the whole thing over at Swing State. It's great, if somewhat stomach-turning, stuff. It's just amazing the amount of controversy that surrounds this guy. And this is a guy who, until a few months ago, was an early front-runner for the GOP nod for prez in '08. God help us.
I can only imagine what he might do for an encore. I'm thinking that perhaps in his spare time he like to run over children with cerebral palsy or maybe he enjoys killing bunnies and kittens with various garden implements. I welcome any suggestions from my loyal readers over what will be the next "...-gate" to strike Felix's campaign.


The Bullshit Moose is at it again. And this time, it's pretty sickening. Based on a recent poll that shows Joe Lieberman up by 10 on Ned Lamont, the Moose has decided that it's time to genuflect before the beauty that is Joementum and kiss his ring. He had this to say:

Some Democrats who have shunned Joe or endorsed his opponent should have some second thoughts. Joe will return to the Senate next year as likely the most powerful Senator. Those donkeys who desire to be President of the United States should consider this - Joe better represents the electorate than over-hyped McGovernites with modems.
Can someone please go knock on this assclown's door and ask him why Joementum won't even mention Iraq anymore? Why it's next to impossible to actually have a position on the issue? Why he is against releasing the full NIE? Why Joe claimed to be for working towards ending the war before being against working to end the war? Why Joe claims that it doesn't matter what the National Intelligence Estimate says since will not change his wrongheaded position on Iraq?
And why is the moose harping on one poll. The one he refers to is from Quinnipiac and it does in fact show Lieberman leading 49-39. I wanted to check back and see if Quinnipiac might have been an outlier in the past and sure enough, there's have some of the largest margins seen in any recent polls. Going back to August 18, Quinnipiac had Lieberman up 53-41; go back to before the primary on July 18th (three weeks before the primary) and the lead was 51-27. Three weeks before a primary that Lamont won and Quinnipiac had Joe up by 24%?! And we're supposed to take this seriously.
Besides, how come the Moose isn't crowing about Joe's enormous leads in some other recent polls, like a Zogby Interactive that has Joe leading 46-44, or an ARG poll showing Joe with a 47-45 lead, or a Rasmussen poll that has Joe leading 45-43? All three of these polls were taken within the last few weeks and all show Joe with a statistically insignificant "lead" yet Moosey uses the outlier as proof that Joementum is back and it's better than ever!
You know, I just don't get the Moose. I used to dig reading him sometimes. His was a witty and fun little read each day. But now he's just so far gone with his support of Lieberman that it's a shame where he's at now. Maybe he should pull his moose head out of his moose ass and realize that Joementum shouldn't be the guy to blow all your credibility on.

Thursday, September 28, 2006


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Majority Leader for the United States House of Representatives, John Boehner. On a recent episode of Hardball, Boehner was asked questions about Iraq by an unusually fiesty Chris Matthews. In the interview, Boehner insisted that Saddam Hussein provided what he kept calling "indirect" support for the 9/11 terrorists (though he would never define what the hell "indirect" actually meant after being asked several times by Matthews). He also claimed that Saddam really really really did have weapons of mass destruction, we just "haven't found them yet."
It's just amazing that even after all this time and all the evidence and testimony and other sources of information that have come out over the last three years that Boehner would have the never to appear on national television and insult the American public by pushing the garbage. Underneath a growing mountain of evidence the contrary, assholes like Boehner are still screaming at the top of their lungs to pay no attention to what your eyes tell you. It's disgraceful.
Matthews also questioned why there haven't been any oversight hearings and Boehner incredulously claimed that we conduct oversight every day. What?! I'm no regular viewer of C-SPAN, but I think that I'd remember if some form of oversight hearing had been held. Of course, none have been held. Senate Minority Leader said this on the matter:
"During the Civil War, President Lincoln was faced continually with oversight hearings by his Congress. Of course, we know during World War II, there were a number of commissions. The most famous was that conducted by Senator Harry Truman of Missouri, which led to his becoming Vice President. Some say, but for that he would not have been chosen as Vice President."
What was the Truman Commission? It was to determine what was going on with World War II. Was money being wasted? Were troop levels right? Korean war hearings were also held, and the same for the Vietnam war. But for this war, none--even though this war has taken longer than it took to settle the differences in the European theater in World War II. Soon it will be the same amount of time that we were able to beat Japan."
It's this type of stuff that highlights how important it will be for the Democrats to take control of at least one chamber of Congress this November. Men like Boehner have proven that they have no business leading this country. He and his ilk are nothing but hacks and America deserves better.
Oh, Crooks and Liars has the video. It's amazing to see, I highly recommend it.


It's as regular as clockwork this time of the year; in an effort to get their voters to the polls, conservatives bring out the tried and true "God, Guns and Gays" strategy. Well, guns don't get much traction these days, so the Repugs have been going full throttle on the God and Gays part. And this time it was Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's turn to carry the torch. Appearing at the Family Research Council's Value Voters Summit (which is basically a gathering of hate-filled anti-gay speakers), Musgrave declared that gay marriage "is the most important issue that we face today." Since Nico over at Think Progress said it best, I'll quote him here:
Nine of the 11 annual laws that fund government agencies have not yet been passed by the current Congress. A long list of critical national security legislation remains unresolved. And yet, thanks to hard-right members of Congress like Musgrave, Congress wasted time this session debating fringe issues like gay marriage, flag burning, and repealing the estate tax.
The statement is just so wrong on its face given the plethora of problems we face as a nation today, shouldn't gay marriage be somewhere in the 40s or so even if you are a freaking psycho winger nut? I sort of wonder if it's not insulting to your audience when you say crap like this anyway. Granted, there are probably wingnuts in attendance that truly believe that given a choice between the U.S. being completely destroyed by terrorist bombings or having gay marriage throughout the nation, they'd probably pick the latter, but to the more sane wingers who simply feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman only, don't you think they hear stuff like this and feel a little insulted? Eh, probably not.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006



Well, the righties are at it again. I've done this song and dance before - according to them, we shouldn't speak out against the government because to do so only emboldens the terrorists. Well, apparently now it is Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth's turn to scold us for actually exercising our Constitutional right to criticize our government. Appearing on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program, which I'm sure you're all aware is a true paragon of media fairness, he criticized those who dare to speak out for fear that it helps those we fight against. He claims that "public discussion of the war has moved from thoughtful criticism to just political gotcha." He posits that our "[e]nemies utilize blogosphere to their own advantage" and that "[t]houghtful criticism is always welcome; political posturing and cheap shots are not."
I guess my big question that I'm wondering about is who is the end-all and be-all authority on what is "thoughtful criticism"? Is it Hayworth? Is he considering drafting some sort of legislation in order to monitor the blogosphere in an effort to regulate whether some blog has crossed the line into "public posturing and cheap shots"? If there is a particularly responsible blog that only engages in "thoughtful criticism", will they receive some sort of seal of approval from the monitoring body that they can put at the top of their page?
Those who have been reading my stuff for a while know that I've already taken no less a person than Dick Cheney to task from saying insane garbage like this. Hayworth is just giving us more of the same. And I will repeat now what I said then. The GOP position on criticizing this administration and this Congress basically boils down to, in order to protect America, we can no longer be Americans. By speaking out, we supposedly embolden our enemies, so in order avoid this, we cannot speak out and question our government. Of course, from an guy who penned an imigration/terrorism/security screed entitled, "Whatever It Takes", he would probably see no problem with this.


Continuing to inspire some enterprising writer to pen the tale of "How I Went from '08 Presidential Contender to Losing my Senate Seat All in the Span of Two Months", George Felix Allen Jr. now has a new kick. I guess he thought that the "macaca" controversy had run its course, so he decided to rustle up a new one. Recently, a Salon article revealed that Felix has used the "N-word" in his past. Now before I'm drowned out with hundreds of "So?" in the comments section, Felix decided to do the extra dumb thing and claim that he has never ever never ever never used that word in the entire history of his world.
Two huge problems for Felix here; first, he's dealing in an absolute. Never? Never ever? C'mon, we all know his history, his fascination with the Confederacy and nooses, his relationship with the KKK or the CCC or whatever it's called. Given this, does he actually expect anyone to buy that he never used the "n-word"? Seriously?
Second problem I see is that he immediately painted himself into a corner. More and more people are coming out daily claiming that he has used the word, but since he already issued his "never ever" denial, there's no way for him to back out of it without looking like a big stupid racist liar. One would think that he had learned from the whole "macaca" thing that when you say something stupid, you quickly apologize for it and move on. It negates the point of attack and allows you to move on. Try this out, Felix: "Yes, I have used that word in the past. I'm ashamed that I have used it and I can assure you that I no longer use it. It's a dispicable word and it has no place in civilized society. Now, what I want to talk about is x and y...". Subject closed, move on. Instead, Felix issued his unrealistic denial and will now spend the next two-plus weeks denying it while more former associates come out of the woodwork to undermine his denial. Now this is a no-win for him. There is no one that is going to come out in support of Felix and with any kind of authority say that he or she is 100% certain that Felix has never said the "n-word". If he had issued a quick apology like the one above, then any further revelations would pretty much be moot. I'm no political consultant, but this campaign is operating like a middle school class treasurer campaign. Mistake after mistake has been made, and every indication is that it will cost Felix his current job, and further down the road, a chance at the presidency.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006



Everyone can relax, Rummy's got the plan. With American troops stretched beyond breaking while serving in Iraq, Rummy knows that an influx of troops from a foreign country to supplement the old Coalition of the Willing could be just the ticket for solving that tricky Iraq insurgency/terrorism problem. So, when Rummy needs that injection of troops he know that he can turn to our longtime allies in ... Montenegro? Yes, that's right! A country that was formerly a part of the various incarnations of Yugoslavia and only recently achieved independene in June of this year is currently being courted by Rummy to join in the fight against terror.
So, let me see if I understand this - Rumsfeld is meeting with the leaders of a country the size of Connecticut in an effort to bolster troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan in the hopes that it will alleviate some of the strains on the U.S. military. Has the situation really grown so desperate that we're hoping that Montenegro will bail us out of our troubles? What next - perhaps Rummy could hit up a local boy scout troop in the northern Virginia area? Maybe a high school Key Club? If Rummy thinks that Montenegro can actually contribute to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then things are either going swimmingly over there, or he's even worse at this job than we all thought, and that's saying something.


The woman has been employed with the federal government for almost six years. She spent four years as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States. She has spent the last year and a half as the Secretary of State of the United States. She's seen a lot. She's done a lot. She has testified before Congress on more than one occasion. She has testified in front of the 9/11 Commission. With all that being said, I have only one question: Why in the blue hell is Katie Couric doing a puff piece on her on one of the most prestigious and longest running news programs in television history? Really, with all of the problems she should be dealing with, why is it important that we know that when she works out (and there were scenes of her on a stairmaster) she listens to Led Zeppelin? Do the people who have a loved one who died in Iraq give a flying crap that she plays classical piano? And of course, no puff piece on arguably the most powerful woman in the world would be complete without asking her about her love life and one day getting married. Funny, I don't recall Chris Wallace asking President Clinton how his love life with Hillary is going, so why should Rice's social life or lack thereof have any relevance whatsoever? Of course, this also illustrates that if Couric is going to waste time asking inane questions that have no relevance then you just know that she will prove herself completely inadequate when it comes to asking the hard questions and then hitting Rice with strong followups when Rice inevitably spouts some administration bullshit. And there was certainly enough of that here as well..
I guess one other thing that I'd like to know is why CBS is paying to dollar for Couric so that she can bring her Today Show-level of investigative journalism to the so-called Tiffany network? If this is the kind of groundbreaking and insightful reporting that she'll be bringing to the table, then CBS got themselves quite a catch.

Monday, September 25, 2006



Today is a big day for me. Today is the day when a little piece of my heart and soul returns home. Today is the day that the New Orleans Saints play a football game in the Louisiana Superdome for the first time since December of 2004. As some of you are aware, I am a huge Saints fan. People who have never lived in New Orleans don't really understand what it means to be a Saints fan. There is no other fan in professional football like a Saints fan. This is a team that has been in existence since 1967 and in that time, this team has managed only six winning seasons and only one playoff win ever. Yet, every year, patrons would dutifully make their way to Tulane Stadium first, then the Superdome in 1974. Some years were leaner than others as far as a packed Dome went. But whether you made it to the game or not, the Saints were a part of the fabric of the city. I read somewhere that if you knew nothing about the game from the prior Sunday, you would be able to tell if the Saints won or lost that Monday morning just by walking down the street.
Growing up in my household, my first memories of the team were at an early age when I remember hearing about Archie Manning. I wasn't a fan back then, being more interested at the time with my Star Wars action figures than with sports in general. In fact, I really did not begin to embrace this thing called football until I was around 12, when the team hired a new head coach named Jim Mora. Mora lasted longer (11 years) than any head coach in Saints history, and that is saying something for a team that is celebrating its fortieth anniversary this year. So, I became a fan back during the gravy years of the late '80s and early '90s. Things took a bad turn after the '92 season though they stayed that way for the rest of the decade, yet still, every Sunday afternoon, I was there in front of my television watching them play. I spent most of the '90s in college and there were many a Saturday that was lost in a hazy of alcohol, but I refused to miss a Saints game no matter how hung over and bleary-eyed I may have been.
When I moved to Atlanta in 1999 every Sunday I would travel to a sports bar 15 miles from my apartment in order to watch the Saints game. And believe me, the 1999 season was nothing to write home about, but there I was, with my then-girlfriend and future wife in tow, supporting my Saints in the decidedly hostile confines of the Atlanta Falcons' city. By 2001, I had bought my first home in the suburbs of Atlanta so I was able to have a satellite dish installed so that I could watch the Saints at my brand new house.
In 2005 I moved down to Daphne, in South Alabama. This area was officially defined as the Saints television market so that meant that I could watch the team without the need of a dish. I spent the summer of 2005 anxiously awaiting the start of the '05 season and I was hoping that I might actually make a game or two now that I lived just over two hours away. Then Hurricane Katrina happened. Then my whole world changed. Then the city of New Orleans was changed. As I've chronicled before, the impact on the many members of my family who live in the New Orleans area was severe. My New Orleans Saints suffered as well.
The Saints spent the 2005 season in a nomadic existence. Given the condition that New Orleans and the Superdome was in, they had no choice but to play all sixteen games away from home. In addition to eight road games they would normally play, the team also played one game in Giants Stadium in New Jersey, four games in San Antonio in the dreadful Alamodome and three games at Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge. Constant life on the road and the difficulty of playing a game while you know that the city you play for has been all but wiped off of the map took its toll and the team finished with a 3-13 record.
Last year was a dark year for Saints fans. The owner of the team on several occasions made it known that he'd like to move the team to San Antonio fulltime where he has a home and some business interests. Saying this to dedicated Saints fans was stabbing a knife in the back of someone who had just gone 10 rounds with Muhammad Ali. The citizens had already been battered and bruised by Katrina. Now the owner was threatening to rip away the very soul of the city for the greener pastures of fucking San Antonio! Soon, cooler heads prevailed as the commissioner of the National Football League, Paul Tagliabue, stepped in and put an end to any relocation talk. Tagliabue saw how bad of shape the city was in, but he also knew that to abandon New Orleans would be a crushing blow to the city and its nascent rebuilding efforts. He refused to give up on us and I am eternally grateful for his faith in this city.
In December of 2005, the wheels were set in motion to basically rebuild the Superdome, which had suffered massive damage from the storm and the people who sought shelter there as a dwelling of last resort. Since December, the Dome has been a blur of activity. The gauntlet had been thrown down - this building would be ready for a football game on September 25, 2006. It was through the efforts of tens of thousands of people that an undertaking of this magnitude was able to meet that deadline. In all honesty, in the construction world, given the amount of work to be done, this undertaking was next to impossible. But here we are.
Tonight, in front of a crowd of close to 70,000 fans, as well as George H.W. Bush and many other dignitaries, including over 500 members of the press from around the world, the Superdome will again be open for business. The game will have the feel of a Super Bowl (or at least I think it will since the Saints have never even sniffed one of those). ESPN will be camped out the entire day broadcasting its various shows and hyping the game for all its worth. There will be many stories about how in many areas, the rebuilding and healing process hasn't even begun, and those are incredibly important stories that the nation needs to hear. But come 7:30 pm local time, for three hours, people might just forget that they live in a trailer on their front lawn or that all their belongs washed away on a late August morning. We're going to forget for a while how difficult this past year has been for us. For three hours, we will gather at the Dome or in front of our televisions and watch our beloved Saints play in front of a home crowd that has missed them so very dearly. Win or lose, tonight will be night that many of us will ever forget. The Goo Goo Dolls are going to playing outside the Dome as part of pregame festivities this evening, and one of the songs they'll be performing, "Better Days", has the closing lines,

Cuz tonight's the night the world begins again
Cuz tonight's the night the world begins again

If you're a Saints fan who has suffered the living hell that has been this past year, no truer words have ever been sung.

Are you ready for some football? We are. See you there.


I swear to you, this woman is a gift; a gift that keeps on giving. I've blogged about Jean Schmidt about a month ago. There I chronicled a story of how she may or may not have fudged on a story about her ability to run a marathon in certain amount of time. At the time, I griped about how there simply must be more important things to worry about than this pitiful story.
Well, the newest story, probably qualifies as "more important" and it's also a heckuva lot more damning. It seems Ms. Schmidt is a plagarist. The DCCC has all the gory details.

Jean Schmidt added another blatant deception to her long list of publicly-exposed lies this week when she published an op-ed about Medicare Part D in the Community Press and Recorder that is almost identical to a press release issued by Congresswoman Deborah Pryce (R-Columbus) on July 10 of this year.
What I find extra funny about this is that Schmidt cribbed off of a fellow Buckeye. She couldn't go swipe something from some Republican in Wyoming or Alabama, where the chances of reading identical op-eds shrinks drastically compared to the possibility of someone in her state reading op-eds in some Columbus and Cincinnati papers. It's like a boy turning in a paper that his brother wrote a year ago for the same teacher teaching the same class. So not only is she a liar and a cheat, but she's also an idiot. But then was that ever really in doubt?

Sunday, September 24, 2006



Dear Chris,
Dude, you got cocky. You and your crew over at Fox News have been eating Dems for breakfast for over half a decade. You're so used to dealing with an opposition party that so many times has demonstrated they are afraid of their own shadow the second that national security is brought up. You all have developed something of an overinflated sense of self as night after night your left-of-center guests are browbeaten by the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly. You all got complacent as you dealt with Democratic presidential candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry who were quickly pigeonholed by your noise machine as an exagerator and a flip-flopper, respectively. Nothing against those two gentlemen, but on their very best days, they will never be President Bill Clinton.
See, you thought that you could lull him in and make him feel comfortable with a couple of softballs; nothing too strenuous or controversial. But then you went ahead and made your mistake. You went in for that shot - why he didn't do enough to get bin Laden. Oops.
You site this as a question that countless of your faithful viewers and emailers desparately need an answer to. As you prattled on about some book that I'm sure you thought would bolster your case, the camera focused on Clinton, and you could just see that look in his eyes. It was a calculating look that said, "I am going to completely and utterly destroy you."
How long did it take for you to realize that you had bitten off more than you could chew? How long did it take for you to realize that this was not some milquetoast Dem that carefully measures everything that comes out of their mouth for fear that some slip might be taken out of context and used against them. In this interview, you took on a man who will never run for office again and therefore has little to lose. He is a man who sees his legacy being attacked by calculating right wingers with an agenda and he simply will not stand for it. He is a man who spent eight years being attacked and investigated and even impeached; did you think that your little veiled attacks on him were supposed to make him piss his pants?
It's been a long time since we've all seen a Democrat stand up tell it like it is. I would sort of think that Clinton made his first and last appearance on your program this Sunday, lest other Dems watching start to grow a spine and stand up the next time they're attacked. As it is, you and your company have attempted to minimize Clinton by calling him crazed. If by crazed you mean someone who stands up and calls you out when you attempt to use your bs talking points on him, then I can only hope that there are more crazed Democrats coming down the pike.


Paul Fogarty


Since I rarely borrow so judiciously from other's writings for a single post, please allow me this. Via Bob Geiger's blog:
How did Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) commemorate Constitution and Citizenship Day, when he returned to the Senate floor on Monday? In an odd twist of logic, he blamed the minority party for how little work has been done in the 109th Congress.
September 17, which fell on Sunday, celebrated the ratification of the United States Constitution and Frist used that occasion to announce that Senate Democrats are actually the reason that the last 20 legislative months have been proclaimed the "Do-Nothing Congress."
"Too often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have inhibited the fulfillment of our duty," said Frist, after a stirring reading of the preamble of the Constitution. "They have relied on obstruction and thrown up roadblocks at every opportunity. They have let politics get in the way of sound policy and purpose. That is unacceptable."
Poor Fristy. I mean, he's only got 55 senators who just happen to be long to the same party as him. How can he be expected to get anything done with that darn minority party getting in the way. Instead of pointing this sort of obvious fact out, Minority Leader Harry Reid had this to say instead:

"This Republican Congress has wasted 20 months on horse slaughtering; the Schiavo case, dealing with someone's personal relationship, which should not even have been before this body; gay marriage; the nuclear option; flag burning; repealing the estate tax," said Reid. "But they could not find a day for some time to look at the President's mistakes, missteps, and misconduct, which have hurt American security and plunged Iraq into a civil war -- not a day."
Reid expounded on the lack of Congressional oversight over the last few years:

"During the Civil War, President Lincoln was faced continually with oversight hearings by his Congress. Of course, we know during World War II, there were a number of commissions. The most famous was that conducted by Senator Harry Truman of Missouri, which led to his becoming Vice President. Some say, but for that he would not have been chosen as Vice President."

What was the Truman Commission? It was to determine what was going on with World War II. Was money being wasted? Were troop levels right? Korean war hearings were also held, and the same for the Vietnam war. But for this war, none--even though this war has taken longer than it took to settle the differences in the European theater in World War II. Soon it will be the same amount of time that we were able to beat Japan."

Reid absolutely excoriated Majority Leader's bullshit. To come with such weak game like this just illustrates more and more how absolutely hilarious it is that Fristy still believes he is a viable candidate for president in '08. The guy is a clownshoe; a sockpuppet for the Bush regime. Giving him four years in the White House after eight years of the Bush nightmare/debacle/horror show would be the equivalent of putting a loaded gun in Uncle Sam's mouth and pulling the trigger. Let's not let that happen.

Saturday, September 23, 2006



Sorry that I haven't been doing much posting today. I'll be taking the GRE at the end of October and I'm busting my ass studying because I sincerely want to ace the thing. I'm just about all set to enter grad school this coming January, but I'd like a strong score on the GRE to really jumpstart my return to school. I haven't actually been in a school setting since May of 1997, so whatever I can do to get myself into a frame of mind that's conducive to academic achievement will be helpful.
The GRE is broken up into verbal, math and analytical writing. While I'm not sure exactly how the writing section is scored, I know that the top score to be attained in the verbal and math is 800. I'm shooting for 800. Probably unrealistic, but I figure that it never hurts to aim for perfection.
So anyway, I've been knee deep in analogies and vocabulary most of the day with the occasional break of sorts to reintroduce myself to integers and exponents and other fun stuff over in the math section. I'm guessing that given my dedication to nailing this thing that my blogging might be a little light over the next month, but I should still be able to punch out two or three a day. At least, that's the goal. After all, there's a lot of stuff that'll be going down over the final six weeks before the election, so I'll do what I can to stay on the case. Maybe I'll just give up sleep or something.
Regardless, thanks for coming by.


Dollars to donuts, Ricky is the guy who invariably makes me laugh. More so than even Lieberman and Felix. I don't know, they guy is just a big goofball who has to know by now that he has no chance at holding onto his seat in the Senate. Over the last few weeks, the GOP has done everything in their power to shift the narrative and puts Dems on the defensive, mostly through Bush's "Fears and Lies U.S. Tour" that just recently wrapped up in front of a sellout crowd at the UN. Add to this media blitz the fact that Santorum has been running negative ads against his opponent Bob Casey and one would assume Ricky would receive some sort of boost in the race. And if you're one of those that would assume such a thing, then you would be wrong. Shorter me: Ricky, meet the tank. This is where you be living. After all the Bush blitz and all the ads, Ricky still cannot get closer than nine percent to Casey, and most polls do not even have him cracking 40% support. Far be it from me to frolic in the misery that is the Santorum campaign but it couldn't happen to a bigger ass.
Want one more laugh? This one's a doozy - you'll love it! The big ad that Ricky threw out there featured actors supposedly portraying four big donors to Casey's campaign meeting in a shadowy smoke-filled room. Oooh, spooky stuff, right? Well, Santorum's campaign later conceded that the four donors that the actors were portraying had never actually given money to Casey and two of them had in fact contributed to Ricky's campaign! Dude, that's freaking awesome!!! What can Ricky do next, show pictures of cute little bunnies and then have in a big bold font how a vote for Casey will result in these bunnies' deaths?! Ah, it is to laugh. Thank you, Ricky. When you go down, you go down hard, buddie.

Friday, September 22, 2006


It's Friday so that means it time for another quick shot of Friday Gracie Blogging!! Fun fact about Gracie: She is a Deal or No Deal junkie! She cannot get enough of that show. Now, I'm not real big on letting her watch television; in my opinion it's a poor substitute for actually engaging my child, so aside from her occasionally watching a home video of herself and her extended family in New Orleans, she really doesn't watch the tube. The only real exception to this is in the evening after she's had a bath I'll let her come lay down in my bed while I'm watching Olbermann or a Daily Show repeat and she'll watch for about a half hour then she's off to bed. But with the new fall season starting this week, I remembered how much she enjoyed Deal or No Deal last spring. Well, she hasn't forgotten it a bit. She instantly remembered th various catchphrases like "open the case" and "no deal, Howie." And every time one of the cases is opened, she'll spring up and get very excited. Then she will invariably turn to me, look me in the eyes and say, "I love this show."

So, anybody got any good plans for Friday night? I'm heading out (sans the missus) to go check out Jackass Number Two. I'd love it if the wife would come but we don't have a babysitter for Grace and after hearing about some of the stunts in the movie, she decided that she couldn't stomach it. I don't know what the big deal is; it's just a little horse semen.



Seemed an appropriate question given the events of the day. I cannot believe that we've still got over two years of this corruption to deal with. I think I'm going to start drinking heavily.


This is probably one of my toughest lists to narrow down since I started doing it a month ago. There are just so many worthy candidates qualifying for the TOP FIVE list this week. I know that some deserving evil bastard is going to get left off. Regardless, I'll do my best. And away we go!

Donald Rumsfeld starts things off at number five a he gives us reason number 2564 for invading Iraq. He wants us to imagine what oil prices would be like if we hadn't. See, Buchco did us a favor at the pumps by going into Iraq. Everyone make sure you thank them come November 7th. Just pick the people with the "D" next to their names. It's stands for how delighted you are with the decision to go to war.

Arriving in the fourth slot is Michael Savage, who blames all the meanness in Congress on the fact that them dern women got elected. Latest reports that I've seen say that Savage has been indiscriminantly hitting random women over the head with a large wooden club and dragging them back to his cave.

At number three is George W. Bush, who spent his being week pushing his torture legislation while also taking the time to look like a big assclown in front of the U.N. Oh, and he also said that it is an urban myth that he's stopped chasing after Osama. Uh huh.

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) makes his first appearance on the TOP FIVE list by trying to kill legislation that would protect American soldiers and their families from predatory lenders. We've since learned that this asshole was bought and paid for by these same lenders, so it's really not all that surprising. Offensively dispicable yes, but not surprising. According to, this is definitely having an effect on his reelection chances, as well it should.
And, at number one, we've got none other than John McCain, or as we like to call him, the MAVERICK. See, the Maverick is such a principled man that he refused to budge on his insistence that America abide by the Geneva Conventions when it comes to not torturing the enemy. He's such a principled man that he folded like a house of cards, just like he always does. He'll act just tough enough to burnish his Maverick credentials for the media, then cave when the chips are down.

Here's the latest tally after five weeks:
George W. Bush - 17 points
Joe Lieberman - 9 points
George Felix Allen Jr. - 8 points
John McCain - 7 points
Donald Rumsfeld - 6 points
Dick Cheney 6 points
ABC - Path to 9/11 - 5 points
Geoff Davis - 4 points
Michelle Malkin - 3 points
Condoleeza Rice - 3 points
Ann Coulter - 3 points
Michael Savage - 2 points
Neil Cavuto - 2 points
John Boehner - 1 point
Frank Gaffney - 1 point
Hugh Hewitt - 1 point

(Points are awarded based on five points for a first place finish, four points for second and so on. Points will be carried over from week to week.)


The Bullmoose was at it again, felating his favorite former Democratic senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, while also expending a little tongue action on his Republican of choice, John McCain. Why all the icky manlove? Well, Bullmoose decided to pen a little piece entitled "Courage" in which he "applauds politicians who sail against the wind", in this case, McCain and Lieberman. He gives Joe a few strokes for standing against the tide of the crazy lefty bloggers (and a majority of the American population) who called Joe on his support of Bush's insane Iraq policies. He then pumped on McCain's chubby a bit by siting his fight against the Bush torture push.
Here's the rub, so to speak. Joe has not mentioned Iraq, nor has he even come close to commenting on Iraq over the last few weeks. He's mum, won't say a word. He gave a freaking foreign policy speech earlier in the week and the word "Iraq" did not depart his mouth the entire time. Then there's McCain, who's principles are so strong that he folded like a tent this past Thursday on the torture issue. Like always, McCain pushed the "Maverick" narrative only so long as it didn't actually obstruct Bush's plans.
After finishing this disgusting display, Bullmoose wipes the spittle from his mouth with these final words: "Joe Lieberman and John McCain serve as role models for all politicians. There is far too much pandering and timidity in American politics. We need leaders with gumption and guts. Like John and Joe." Yes, leaders who so principled that they are afraid to talk about Iraq and leaders with such gumption that they won't stand up to Bush's call to torture, torture early and torture often. With leaders like that, who needs enemies?


John McCain once again donned his Maverick star this week as he stood up to Bush on the matter of not violating the Geneva Conventions to allow torture. He was doing his thing, talking all tough about how the Conventions had quite possibly saved his life. McCain was tortured for a time as a prisoner of war during Vietnam, but it was the United States' position of moral authority that convinced the North Vietnamese not to torture POWs. Given this circumstance, McCain seemed to really be standing his ground. Until today.
Here was yet again another example of the bullshit facade that is the McCain Maverick. He'll look strong in facing Bush before it actually matters, but when the chips are down, he folds. Plain and simple. Thursday night was just another example of it. After spending the week as one of three Republicans who steadfastly refused to acquiese to Bush's insane desire to torture, they closed up shop and walked away. Of course, the narrative of the legislation is that it was a compromise with Bush giving a little and McCain getting a little, but upon closer examination, nothing of the sort ever really happened.
From Marty Lederman at Balkinization:
[I]t only takes 30 seconds or so to see that the Senators [McCain, et al] have capitulated entirely, that the U.S. will hereafter violate the Geneva Conventions by engaging in Cold Cell, Long Time Standing, etc., and that there will be very little pretense about it. In addition to the elimination of habeas rights in section 6, the bill would delegate to the President the authority to interpret "the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" "for the United States," except that the bill itself would define certain "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 to be war crimes.
Follow the link and read the whole piece. Fun stuff. And by "fun" I mean heart-wrenching and upsetting.
I've been sniping at McCain's Maverick bullshit since I started this blog, mostly concerned with the fact that the media has been sucking at the teet of the Maverick since at least 2000 and the manlove has only grown stronger over the years. They use words like "independent" and "principled" to describe a man that time after time has proven to be anything but. Time and again he's mounted his trusty steed and looked like a shining white knight against Bush only to dismount into a pile of horseshit when the camera lights are shut off. Is the media ever going to notice that the Maverick is a sham? Though I have my doubts that he truly is the presumptive front runner going into the '08 GOP primaries, the media has latched onto that narrative. My question is, will they also continue to be married to his Maverick persona this time next year when we're in full primary campaign mode? Or will they begin to open their eyes and realize he's just as devoid of actual principles as the man he pretends to stand up to on occasion?

Thursday, September 21, 2006



The Allen Senate campaign continues its slow burn to November defeat with this little tidbit from campaign manager Dick Wadhams (if ever there was a radio disc jockey name, that would be it) - he's whining about how "paid bloggers" (financed by his opponent, Jim Webb) won't let go of the fact that Felix's reaction when asked about his family's Jewish heritage was so out of left field. The short version: during a debate, a moderator asked his mother's father was Jewish. Felix flew off the handle and complained that the moderator was "making aspersions about people because of their religious beliefs."
Of course, the modus operandi of this campaign is that whenever there's a misstep, there will be a denial, a strong denial, a qualified apology, a rant about how the media is attacking them for no reason and finally another strong denial. I think that's basically how it went for the infamous Macaca controversy.
Well, it seems for this controversy they're right on schedule. In a way, I agree with Wadhams - it is sort of a nonissue. In the grand scheme of things, it matters little that Felix's grandfather was Jewish (except maybe to his KKK friends, but that's another story). It's just that their successive rants and denials make it impossible not for us bloggers to keep bringing it up, if for no other reason than their screeching over whatever controversy they're embroiled in during a given week just gets more and more preposterous.
Basically, this campaign may actually have the worst damage control operation this side of Joe Lieberman keystone campaigners. And that's really saying something. Bloggers live for this kind of stuff. The fact that this campaign has a proven track record of failing to effectively deal with even the simplest dustups is like catnip to us. So much so that many of us do it for free (though if someone with the Webb camp wants to cut me a check, just let me know).

Wednesday, September 20, 2006



I was originally going to title this missive "Lapdog" but it just seemed to obvious. I went with "Secret Weapon" because I believe that Bill Frist is an often overlooked component when it comes to the national dominance of the GOP over the last four years. Installed in 2003 as the Senate Majority Leader, Frist has perhaps had closer ties with the White House than any majority leader in recent history. And it is through these ties that Bush/Cheney/Rove have effectively controlled almost every piece of legislation to come out of the Senate, and to a larger extend, out of the entire Congress itself.
I made a comment over at one of the big blogs, and I opined that there is a big difference between Bush crony and a run-of-the-mill Republican. Former Senate leader Trent Lott is what I would call a Republican while Frist is a Bush crony through and through. I did a little Wikipedia search on Lott in order to refresh my memory of on the whole Lott/fall from grace thing. For those not aware, Lott was slated to become majority leader in 2003 after the Republicans gained seats in the '02 midterms. A month after the election, Lott was in attendance at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party and he had some complementary things to say about Thurmond and his run for president as a Dixiecrat in '48. Here's what he said, courtesy of Wikipedia:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Though the remarks can be read a number of ways - a tacit approval of Thurmond's racial segregation platform all the way to a meaningless compliment to an very old man on his birthday - they caused quite an uproar. A number of Republicans brushed it off as more of the latter than the former and I tend to wonder if the thing wouldn't have died down over time if not for Bush expressing his moral outrage a few days later. It was Bush's remarks that effectively ended any hope of Lott gaining the majority leader position, allowing Frist to assume the position with Bush's full support. Lott has maintained on a number of occasions that it was the Bush/Rove machine that drove him out of the leadership position, and it is a position he still holds. To me, it makes an awful lot of sense. Granted, Rove didn't stick his hand of Lott's ass and play "ventriloquist" with him, making him say what he said, but Bushco certainly didn't miss this opportunity to remove a senator who was not as controllable as they might like and replace him with someone who apparently doesn't mind having Rove's hand you-know-where.

All of this brings me to today's announcement that Fristy is once again being the good little White House stooge as he actually threatens to filibuster (and here I thought only obstructionist Democrats did that sort of thing) a national security bill because it does not allow Bush to torture people. The current bill have strong bipartisan support in the Senate and it would appear that the Republicans that crossed the aisle on this subject are firm in their commitment to not allow the United States to further lose its moral authority in the world by allowing torture. He has made his intentions clear that the bill as written and supported by a majority of the Senate is dead and will not be allowed to pass. He has effectively drawn a line in the sand and he will not waver from standing from standing with Bush on this.
Frist has been a key contributor to the notion that there really isn't any sort of checks and balances among the three branches of government. His actions on this bill are another clear indication of this concept. In Bushworld, the president is king and Frist apparently sees himself as a faithful servant, always ready to do the king's bidding. I find it mindnumbingly hilarious that Frist envisions himself a viable candidate for president in two years. He'll be retiring from the senate next January, no doubt to clear up his schedule to campaign. It's just amazing that a guy who has acted as Bush's inside man in the Senate can somehow expect voters to not to notice that for the past four years he's been nothing but a stooge for the White House.
It'll be interesting the watch if nothing else.


Republicans love nothing better than to talk tough about supporting the troops. It's their bread and butter play; a key component in the kanard that the GOP is more suited to national security issues then Dems. But for what this Davis bastard is doing, he should be taken out back and publicly shamed.
As you may or may not be aware, being a soldier is not necessarily the highest paying job to be had in America. Sometimes money can be tight in a military household and sometimes it becomes inevitable that a little help may be needed. Enter the predators. Payday loan operations provide quick cash until a paycheck comes in, but the money is provided at a cost of sometimes 400% interest on the loan. More from Think Progress:
A Pentagon report last month found that as many one in five U.S. service members “are being preyed on by loan centers set up near military bases” that can charge interest of 400 percent or more. Increasingly, soldiers have debt levels so high they are barred from serving overseas; others suffer from “bankruptcies, divorces and ruined careers.” (More facts HERE.)
Bad stuff, right? Well, something is trying to be done to remedy this in Congress. An amendment with bipartisan support from Republican Jim Talent and Democrat Bill Nelson would place a maximum cap of 36% on these types of loans to members of the military.
Enter Geoff Davis. Seems he's got friends in high places who don't like this bill and are looking for him to neuter it for them. Continued from TP:
Davis has proposed his own language — praised by the payday lending industry — that sets no real limits on predatory lenders. One of Davis’s aides admitted last week that he consulted on the legislation with “CNG Financial of Mason, Ohio, one of his top campaign donors and owner of national payday lender Check ‘n Go.”
I gotta wonder how a piece of human waste like this guy actually sleeps at night. He's complicit in ploy to outright steal money from members of our armed forces. The Dems get called traitors because they want a plan for bringing our troops home but this sorry excuse conspires to weaken our military by attacking them in their homes and he's supporting the troops like all good Republicans do. Disgraceful.


I know, I know, it's bad form to beat up on Lieberman two posts in a row. I just wanted to make a quick note on something - campaign ads.
I've enjoyed the hell out of Ned Lamont's two recent ads, Yanks/Sox and Turncoat. I think that they're both fresh, smart, cool, non-wonky (no citing obscure legislation in tiny print) and just plain fun. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend doing so. Both the links above go to YouTube, so go check them out.
Then, we come to Joe Lieberman's latest ad, Blackboard. Shorter me: LAME! Wow, just so lame. It basically had the same tired feel that I get from most campaign ads. This thing was the exact opposite of Lamont's. I guess that you should go and see just to see what I'm talking about but it's just a dumb premise. Voiceover starts with just a chalkboard with "Democrats" written on one side and "Republicans" on the other and then there's a line in between them. Then Joe enters the scene and proceeds to erase the line and blather on about what a great guy he is because he's always reaches across party lines. The tag at the end is "... I approve this message because it's about people, not politics." How he actually said that with a staight face is beyond me. And if Joe was being completely honest in the commercial, he probably should have also erased the word "Democrat" as well and put a big circle and a smiley face and hearts and flowers around "Republican". But then, that would probably not fit into the 30-second spot.

One other note - won't be much blogging today from me as my agenda is packed. Aside from regular work stuff and an inordinate amount of driving, I'm also meeting with an official at a local university about enrolling in graduate school. I've been out of school for almost ten years so it's all quite daunting at this point, but hopefully by the end of the day I'll have a better idea of where I stand. I'll blog all about it later. Thanks for coming by.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006



Joe Lieberman does not like the taste of his own medicine. Back when he first ran for the Senate back in 1988, he faced incumbent Lowell Weicker. Joe used a line of attack against Weicker that called him on his lack of votes while in the Senate. Basically, Joe was calling Lowell on not doing his job, and it obviously had an effect because Joe won the seat that year.
Now, fast forward eighteen years. Democratic candidate Ned Lamont is calling out Joe for missing many votes during his last few years in the Senate. After all, Joe did take an awful lot of time out of his Senate schedule to campaign for vice president as well as president over the last seven years. And let's not forget the any number of fundraisers that Joe's attended through the years.
Joe's response: he's fightin' mad, dagnabit! So Joe went digging through the records of when Ned was an unpaid city councilman and he missed six votes. So, to Joe, it's basically the same thing to miss votes on a city council as it is to miss votes in the United States Senate, a position that pays a $160,000 a year salary. Did I mention that the city council position is unpaid and Ned was simultaneously running a full-time business, whereas in Joe's position, it's his job to vote, having no other outside interests to deal with? Yeah, that's about the same.
I may be stretching an analogy a bit here, but isn't that sort of like finding out that your wife kissed a boy on the lips back when she was nine as compared to finding out that your wife banged another guy at her bachelorette party? Maybe it's a reach, but it's no worse than what Joe's trying to pull.

(Hat tip David Sirota via Daily Kos.)


Remember back in the earlier days of Fox News when it was still in vogue for people to argue that the channel really was fair and balanced? And that all the other cable news nets were so riddled with liberalism that we just didn't recognize balanced coverage? The various bobbleheads on the network would go out of their way to keep up the facade, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It was probably one of the biggest wastes of my time on a given day arguing with some jackass who would come at me with the "fair and balanced" canard and I would feel that it was my duty to protest. These days, you don't really hear that sort of nonsense, or at least, it's not used in any argument or discussion that I've read. I'm not even sure that Fox News argues it anymore. I suppose that the turning point came after the "Outfoxed" movie came out. But by that time, the channel already had an enormous audience (by cable news network standards) so why bother anymore with the fallacy.
Which brings me to Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of the dreadful Path to 9/11. He's now going around telling anyone who will listen (in this instance, a column for the Wall Street Journal) that the movie is totally accurate and he doesn't understand why people are calling it a Clinton hatchetjob. Of course, anyone who has actually seen it knows that it's filled with all sorts of inaccuracies and made up scenes that paint Clinton in a poor light. George W. Bush also gets a made up scene or two as well, except his make him look like a decisive and determined leader. Nowhere in the film do we see Bush frozen for seven minutes after he learned that the second plane had hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.
So now Cyrus is going around yelling from the rooftops that the movie is totally accurate and he's not a conservative with an agenda. Check that, he actually say in the WSJ piece, "[...] nor am I a political conservative." Really? Do I really need to dignify that with a response? Alright, he's a quick exercise, go ahead and Google "cyrus" and "conservative". Nope, nothing to see there. I absolutely love how Nicole Belle over at Crooks and Liars went after him:
How could the media call you a conservative when all you did was make up scenes for your mini-series which didn’t happen, that made Clinton look bad and Bush look decisive and then forward advanced copies of the movie to only conservative outlets? I mean, really, how could they?
I guess what I cannot figure out is why? Why is he out there now pissing and moaning about this? The program aired over a week ago. As far as news cycles go, that is an eternity. Is he trying to pump on DVD sales or something (and you just know that the DVD is going to have a completely unedited version that should be even more damning to his protestations)? The movie was never going to be considered the definitive work on the subject, no matter how hard he tried to push it. So why bother? I would think that those who agree with his viewpoint probably already saw it and those that vehemently opposed it might have seen it just to tabulate all of the inaccuracies. Were there any unsuspecting viewers out there with no opinion or understanding of the subject that now believe this movie to be the definitive source of information? Personally, I think that the impact of the film as far as a propaganda hit piece was minimal. It was a "television event" that has come and gone. It did not have the cultural significance that "The Day After" had, which I understand is something the creators desperately wanted to achieve. Unlike that seminal "television event", Path to 9/11 has been exposed for what it was and most people have moved on.


Last Thursday, Mr. Bush had a couple of visitors over in the Oval Office of the West Wing. What was originally supposed to be a 30-minute meeting turned into a 90-minute affair, no doubt cutting into Dubya's sleeping schedule. But, for these five guests, I'm sure he felt that an exception should be made. After all, how often, outside of a Klan meeting of some sort, can one find Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz, Michael Medved and Mike Gallagher together in one room meeting with the president of the United States?
Yep, five of the biggest hate spewers and fear mongers on the public airwaves today got ninety minutes of face time with the leader of the free world. And the meeting would have included the big daddy of them all, Rush Limbaugh, but he reportedly couldn't attend (must have been all the oxycontin).
So, what do you think those six people had to talk about less than a week ago? I say something cliche about being a fly on the wall, but I think the fly probably would have died what with all the vitriol in the air. I've been mulling this meeting around in my head for a little while and I finally came to something of a realization - how amazing this is. Think about it. The apparatus that has been constructed on the Right over the decades is an amazing machine. Here you have a president who has struggled in the polls for most of the year and is threatening to drag his party down as we enter the midterms. So what does he do? He calls in his five biggest cheerleaders and noisemakers. Bush knows that he has to change the narrative and these five are the ones that he's called on to do it. Cumulatively, they will talk approximately 100 hours every week on their respective redio programs and will make any number of national television appearances. These five will step up and do and say anything and everything to get the job done. That level of message discipline is astounding to me.
Needless to say, this sort of thing would never happen with a Democratic president. First of all, there isn't exactly a large number of left wing talkers to choose from. And even if such a pool existed, the simple fact is that Dems just do not operate like this. We as a group have never just toed the line and preached a message just because an authority figure has told us to do so, at least never on a scale like the GOP has. Imagine that meeting in the White House where the Democratic president has called on Al Franken and Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller, perhaps Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart. Honestly, even considering this grouping is preposterous on its face. They do not see their respective jobs as one of spreading the gospel according to the holder of the Oval Office like the rightie talkers do.
The concept of gathering mouthpieces to a meeting with the president is purely a right wing phenomenom. I would think that Dems expect more from a president and would openly engage the man (or woman) on whatever issue he was looking to push. For instance, while I was not at the "blogger summit" in Harlem with President Clinton last week, I highly doubt that Mr. Clinton gave out talking points that were meant to be pushed on the blogs. It just doesn't work that way on the left. And I couldn't be happier for it.

Hat tip to Media Matters for catching this.

Monday, September 18, 2006



Wanted to do a quick and dirty TOP FIVE WORST PEOPLE candidates for this week since I haven't touched on the weekend's candidates yets. No particular order for them as I just wanted to get them all down in one place. Away we go!

Michelle Malkin apparently sees no problem that a photojournalist has been held for the past five months by the U.S. military without any charges being brought. See, since he got some good pics of the insurgency, then that means that he must be one of them. Due process? We don't need no stinking due process!

Donald Rumsfeld came up with a new reason why it's good that we invaded Iraq - because if we didn't, then gas prices would be really high. Yes, he said that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, then gas prices would be really high. I have nothing further to add.

Stephen Hadley get the nod from me for being on the absolute wrong side of the torture "debate" and then going on television and telling us how we're wrong. The United States according the Bush - In Torture We Trust. That'll look good on a coin.

George W. Bush is again looking at the number one slot coming this Friday. He's had a busy week, first busting his ass trying to sell to the American people that torture is a good thing. Of course, the fact that we even have to debate something like this really illustrates how far our country has fallen under this man's "leadership". He also made a comment about how it's an urban myth that he's taken his eye of the ball when it comes to capturing Osama. Sir, you're the one who has an on-again/off-again relationship with the guy who killed 3000 people on 9/11. The American people have never wavered; that's all you.

Michael Savage believes that the Congress is a nastier and meaner place because women are serving now. Except that women have been serving in Congress since 1917 when Jeanette Rankin was elected as the member of the House of Representatives for the state of Montana. Pick up a history book, you sick caveman!


On Monday, Air America Radio introduced a new lineup of programming, but there's one timeslot in particular that I'd like to talk about. When the network first went on air back in March of 2004 the 9am to noon slot featured Lizz Winstead (co-creator of The Daily Show) along with rapper Chuck D and Rachel Maddow as the straight "man". Chuck D was next to pointless. I guess he brought some amount of name recognition to the fledgling network but expecting keen political insight from him is like me giving a seminar on advanced calculus, and that ain't happenin' anytime soon. Still, the show had the very funny Lizz doing her thing and Ms. Maddow, who held it all together like the seasoned veteran she is. Over time, Rachel became the highlight of the show for me. Unfortunately, a year later the show was cancelled, which opened a slot for the syndicated Jerry Springer program to take its place.
Shorter Me: Springer's radio program was unlistenable. As I've stated in the past, the guy is so conciliatory and milquetoast that he makes Alan Colmes look like Michael Moore. But, for the last eighteen months, Springer has been the guy from 9am to noon and I have been the guy who had his radio tuned to another station; any other station.
Monday brought about another change at the slot as longtime Majority Report co-host Sam Seder took over. I wasn't able to hear the entire show, but what I did here was really solid. I rarely found myself driving while Majority Report was on so I didn't often catch the show and how Sam operated, so much of his stuff is "new" to me and i couldn't be happier. If nothing else, he's not Springer. And Al Franken, host of the show that follows Sam's, made an appearance on Sam's show today and seemed quite pleased with the change, mostly because Springer's show, given that it was synicated onto the Air America network, provided no sort of actual lead-in to Al's Show. Now that the 9-noon slot is back "in-house", something of a program synergy between the two should assist and propel both shows. You could tell that Al was trying to be diplomatic, but I believe that his true feelings for Springer and his show were pretty clear. Al seemed genuinely excited about the change, and I am right there with him.
I'm usually tuned into Howard Stern most mornings, but Seder's program could definitely get me to switch back over. At least now it's a possibility, unlike during Springer's tenure.


I'm was doing a bit of trolling around various blogs and newssites in an effort to find a topic and I came across something that I thought was sort of interesting. Two blogs - one on the left and one on the right - posted about the same topic and quoted the same sources yet they view the issue on two completely different levels.
The subject in question is the Bilal Hussein, a 35 year old AP photojournalist in Iraq who has been held in U.S. military custody for the past five months without filing any charges or permitting any public hearing on the matter. Here is the Reuters article on the story.
Weighing in on the matter first is Nicole Belle over at Crooks and Liars who rightly expresses outrage that a man has been held since April without any sort of due process, writing, "So if Bush gets his way, Hussein can remain in prison indefinitely and go to trial without knowing what he’s charged with or what evidence there is against him. This White House has had a fairly testy relationship with the press from the beginning, but this is ridiculous."
Approaching the subject from a wholly different point of view is Michelle Malkin. I'll give you the short version: This guy got good photos of the insurgency and is therefore probably guilty of collusion with the Iraqi insurgency and, as such, he deserves to be imprisoned." In fact, she never actually comments on the matter at hand, namely that a noncombatant and ostensive journalist has been held by the U.S. military for nearly half a year with absolutely no charges filed. Said Tom Curley, AP president and chief executive, "Bilal Hussein has been held in violation of Iraqi law and in disregard to the Geneva Conventions. He must be charged under the Iraqi system or released immediately."
I guess in the world that people like Michelle Malkin represent, guilt or innocence doesn't matter. In this Bizarro Malkin-Bush World, if even the slightest appearance of guilt or impropriety is present, then all civil (and given this adminstration's track record, probably human) rights are forfeit. What an depressing state of affairs we as a world find ourselves in.

Sunday, September 17, 2006


Okay, I don't talk sports around here except for the occasional mention of my beloved New Orleans Saints, so I thought that I'd break with tradition and do a little NFL posting.

I couldn't be happier that my Saints are 2-0 after two games this season. After the nightmare of last season where they played all of their games away from home after Katrina, this start has been really great. The 2-0 start is also the first time in the franchise's 40 year history that they've started a season by winning their first two games on the road. Next week, the Saints will make a triumphant return to the Crescent City for the first time since December of 2004 on Monday night against their divisional rivals, the Atlanta Falcons. The Falcons are also 2-0 so this game is going to be huge on many levels. And it looks like the NFL and the city are pulling out all the stops to make this one of the most important and heavily hyped games in recent memory as ESPN will be providing Super Bowl-level coverage, not to mention a week's worth of buildup this coming week. The musical guests are about as A-list as can be had as far as entertainment before the game as U2 and Green Day will be performing together publicly for the first time as will the Goo Goo Dolls. I actually sorta pissed that I'm not going as Monday night games are tough from a travel perspective since I like almost 200 miles away and I do actually hold down a paying job not involving blogging. I've looked online for tickets but I'd be looking to pay about $120 for nosebleeds, so that's not really practical either. Anyway, it looks like it's going to be a very emotional night for a packed stadium and those watching at home.

So, are there any Falcons fans reading? How about an Eagles fan or two who are pissed that their team blew a 17 point lead in the fourth quarter? If there's a Bears fan looking to do some chest thumping after outscoring their opponents 60-7 over the first two games, I'd love to hear from them. Comments welcome!



During a radio interview last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an effort to come up with the umpteenth justification for going to war in Iraq, now says that oil and gas prices would basically be out of control if they hadn't taken Saddam out. Here's what he said:
The fact of the matter is - if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq, he would be rolling in petrol dollars. Think of the price of oil today. He would have so much money.

Let me first say that I would assume that Don Rumsfeld has not had to fill up his own tank of gas in over six years, so I could certainly understand if this was some kind of a "gotcha" question like when a faux-sly reporter hits a presidential candidate by asking how much a gallon of milk costs. But for him to posit that without the ongoing debacle in Iraq that current gas prices would be high and that Saddam would have "so much money" just smacks of ignorance. Two quick points come to mind. The reason why gas prices are so high is because of the instability in the Middle east which is in large part due to your piss-poor war planning and this administration's horrendous policies. Secondly, Saddam already had 'so much money'. What's a couple more billion among corrupt world leaders - just ask Cheney and his Halliburton stock. And besides, why would Saddam be profiting from higher worldwide oil prices? I'm not an expert but I thought that we had that whole oil embargo thing going with Iraqi oil. Wouldn't that sort of depress any monetary windfall that Saddam might have received assuming that gas prices would be skyrocketing in this bizarro parallel world where 2684 American soldiers haven't lost their lives to depose an impotent despot?
As a public service for Secretary Rumsfeld, because I know that he's a regular reader here at AMERICA'S LEAST WANTED, I took a look at gasoline prices along the gulf coast during the Bush years. (Here's a government site that tracks the prices.) When Bush took office in January of 2001, the price in the gulf coast region was about $1.41. A week after 9/11, the prices was $1.40. By the time we invaded Afghanistan, the price had dropped to $1.01. Around the time that we invaded Iraq, the price had skyrocketed to $1.61. One year after Saddam was removed from power, the price was $1.68. A year after that, the price was $2.19. A year after that, in April of 2006, the price was $2.86. In this region, the price topped out at $2.95 the week of August 7, 2006. Gee, imagine if we hadn't invaded Iraq, huh Rummy? Those gas prices would be ghastly then, wouldn't they?