Celebrity Endorsements - The Musical

Sly Stallone endorsed John McCain today. Apparently McCain felt he needed to prove that Huckabee doesn't have a monopoly on aging action hero's.

But really - who the hell cares who Chuck Norris or Sylvester Stallone want for president?

Why would anyone trust their judgement after they each thought this was a good idea?





As Randy Jackson would say, "you ain't good enough to go to Hollywood - dog"!

Republicans, don't be swayed by these action stars...............or at least wait until Steven Segal weighs in!

Picture of the Day - Separated at Birth!

I've been holding on to this for a while, but decided to post it now before Huckabee becomes a complete afterthought.

Maybe God doesn't want him to be president!

Ed Shultz - "Bill Clinton is Lying"

On today's edition of Hardball - progressive radio host Ed Shultz perfectly expresses the outrage that many of us feel toward Bill Clinton right now.

Hey Billary - Just Hire Karl Rove!

Billary Clinton is running a new radio ad in South Carolina that is right out of the Karl Rove playbook. It completely distorts Obama's message. The one that he explained - in person -directly to her face at the debate on Tuesday. Obviously the Clinton's are intent on proving that they have the same respect for opponents as Karl Rove and his "politics of personal destruction". Ethics and the truth be damned - all that matters is winning. Billary - you obviously have no respect for a worthy opponent - and even less respect for the voters. You may win the nomination - but you are losing your soul to do it!

Is this the voice you found?

Brett Favre: “I’m the Grown-Up in the Super Bowl!”

In a press conference held today in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Brett Favre criticized fellow quarterbacks, Tom Brady and Eli Manning, claiming that the two will stop at nothing in their efforts to make each other look bad on February 3rd in Arizona when they meet in Super Bowl XLI.

“I’m just going to keep practicing hard, making sure that I continue to work toward my goal of winning the Super Bowl. I’m a quarterback, not a football strategist. All I can do is be positive and spread my message of overcoming adversity, and I’m confident that I’ll be on top when the final whistle blows.”

Favre, in his 16th season with the Green Bay Packers, says he’s made it his life’s work to focus, in an intensely personal way, on winning the Super Bowl, ever since he lost to the Denver Broncos in the 1998 contest.

“Brady and Manning are being very immature. They are determined to yell out plays at the last second, just to make sure they get the last word in! With all due respect to my fellow quarterbacks, they are both immersed in studying the minute details of past history, scanning for weaknesses and planning to find ways to surprise each other by catching the opposing team unprepared."

"I’m not like that. I’m going to do what’s right as I prepare to head to Arizona. I'm the one who is acting like an adult, not like a child playing a child's game. Someone has to show the maturity that it takes to stay above the fray while seeking a Super Bowl victory!”

Favre also had some harsh comments for teammates on both the Patriots and Giants, as he spoke before a partisan Packer crowd.

“You will see the Patriots and the Giants players working over the next two weeks on elaborate and deceptive plans to push and shove each other around the football field. I don’t believe in those kind of tactics. I think they demean the game of football, and I won’t participate in them!"

"My team is owned by the fans - not like those greedy franchises who take millions and millions of dollars from corporate interests. It’s about time we had a Super Bowl quarterback who represents the people. That’s why I’ll continue fighting every single day to win the Super Bowl!”

Give Some Other Families a Chance!

As long as Bill Clinton is willing to keep using his status as a former president to enhance Hillary’s campaign, Barack Obama will be fighting a steep uphill battle to even have a chance at the Democratic nomination.

As a former president, Bill knows that he can dominate the media cycle any time he wants, merely by saying something controversial about the Obama campaign. He can lead every newscast and make the front page of every newspaper with a strategically provocative comment, and if he times them right before each primary, he can drown out Obama’s message for the large portion of voters who make their decision at the last minute based on what they see in the news!

Because of the media advantage that the former president affords Hillary as she relies on him to advance her campaign, I think it is completely fair to ask some serious questions about the other side of the coin - Bill Clinton’s cozy relationship to the Bush family, and whether a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton "dynasty" is in the best interest of our country.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, and Bill is as involved in her administration as he is in her campaign, what advice can we expect him to give her about acknowledging and addressing the disastrous aftermath of the presidency of his good friend’s son? Would Bill feel a sense of responsibility toward his friend, leading him to spare Bush Sr. from embarrassment by using his political skills to help whitewash the problems created by the younger Bush?

It has been noted many times that a Hillary Clinton presidency could put the White House in the hands of the same two families for as many as 28 consecutive years! This might not be a concern if those two families were not connected in any significant way. However, Bill Clinton has spent the last five plus years chumming around with the patriarch of the family currently controlling the White House.

Why, given the relationship that has developed between the Bush and Clinton families, would we believe Hillary Clinton is the best person to help the country bounce back from eight years of the latest Bush presidency?

Feingold: Won't Endorse, Finds Edwards “Problematic!”

Aside from, perhaps, Al Gore, the presidential endorsement that most interests me is that of the man who I had hoped would run in 2008, Russ Feingold. As someone who has worked in the Senate with Clinton, Obama and Edwards, and who has been the single most consistent and principled supporter of progressive causes, I put great weight in his opinion on who would make the best president.

In this interview with the Appleton, Wisconsin, Post-Crescent, he indicates that, as of this point, he does not expect to make an endorsement, but he does seem to give what looks like a subtle “anti-endorsement” to John Edwards (my emphasis).

On the Democratic presidential candidates:

I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

On whether he'll make an endorsement in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary:

Probably not. I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.

I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind.

I guess at the end of the day, in case my preferred choice, Barack Obama, doesn’t get the nomination, I have to take some solace in the fact that Feingold feels relatively favorable toward the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Frankly, it’s the first thing I’ve heard in weeks that reflects positively on her!

John Edwards’ Bid to Become the New Ralph Nader!

Although I’ve primarily been an Obama supporter in this primary, I’ve also appreciated John Edwards’ contribution to the campaign dialog, and felt that he was a great candidate who would make a good running mate for Obama, on either side of the ticket!

Unfortunately, with his response to Obama’s invocation of Ronald Reagan, Edwards is rapidly moving into “Ralph Nader” territory by using the same speech over and over, regardless of the situation. If he proceeds to finish a distant third in Nevada and South Carolina and does not drop out of the race, he will have completely blown up any bridge to my respect.

Here’s an account of Edwards’ response:

Speaking at an event on Thursday, Mr. Edwards told the crowd that Mr. Obama used Reagan “as an example of change,” a description with which Mr. Edwards strongly disagreed.

“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class, to the working people,” Mr. Edwards said, adding that Reagan was intolerant of unions and the labor movement, he “created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day.”

“This president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change,” Mr. Edwards added, referring to himself.

I’m not going to go into the details of why Edwards is wrong in his interpretation of Obama’s comment, but here’s a great analysis from Daily Kos.

My point is simply this:

Edwards does not listen!

He is so eager to jump into his tear-jerking speech about who “has to sleep under a bridge or on a grate” that he completely ignores the fact that Obama never said he agreed with Reagan, only that Reagan changed things – mainly by inspiring Democrats to consider voting (unwisely, in retrospect) for a Republican!

Edwards is so quick to jump at any opportunity to twist things around to fit his pre-packaged emotional appeal that his speeches have begun to sound just like the fear mongering we hear from the GOP, only from the other side of the political spectrum! More and more, he is looking like a caricature of the typical ambulance chasing attorney, who spins the same argument over and over and over, even when it doesn’t fit the facts.

Because Edwards doesn’t bother listening to the facts.

He just wants to give his speech!

In a highly controversial piece last week on Huffington Post, Lawrence O’Donnell wrote that “John Edwards is a Loser!”

I thought O’Donnell was being unfairly harsh at the time, because with only two states in the books, I thought it was too early to expect Edwards to pack it in! From what I’ve seen lately, I’m afraid O’Donnell may turn out to be right!

Hillary Confirms a Clear Choice!

After playing nice during the Nevada debate, Hillary Clinton is back to picking at Barack Obama for what she sees as an open wound. But I’m not so sure she is seeing what she thinks she is seeing! It all started with this revelation by Obama, when asked to comment on an earlier statement about his role as president:

Well, I think what I was describing was how I view the presidency. Now, being president is not making sure that schedules are being run properly or the paperwork is being shuffled effectively.

It involves having a vision for where the country needs to go.

It involves having the capacity to bring together the best people and being able to spark the kind of debate about how we're going to solve health care; how we're going to solve energy; how we are going to deliver good jobs and good wages; how we're going to keep people in their homes, here in Nevada; and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.

He followed with this honest admission of a perceived weakness:

And my desk and my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff.

And that's not trivial; I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done, and that's why we run not only a good campaign, but a good U.S. Senate office.

After smelling blood, Hillary’s response came quickly, with an explanation of why she’s soooooo much better prepared to be president than Obama:

I was somewhat taken aback about what he said, that was reported yesterday. I think it’s important that we have a president who understands that you have to run the government.

(People) want a president who they believe gets up every single day and works for them, that requires a president who is hands-on. Who after you set the goals and give the speeches, you go back to the White House and you start holding people accountable and you want to know what they’ve done today to help the American people.

You’ve got to take on this government, you’ve got to to run this government, you can’t leave it to others.

Right, Hillary! Like Bill was a president who was sooooo hard-working and detail oriented that he got up every morning and filed his own paperwork! As I recall, he made full use of interns in order to keep his systems running!

Barack Obama is striving to be a president who is an inspirational, visionary leader who, in common business parlance, “empowers” others to play an integral role in achieving the vision they helped create.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, thinks the American people deserve a micro-managing, autocratic, know-it-all, control freak in the Oval Office!

The choice is clear: Do we want a president who runs the country like Steve Jobs runs Apple . . . or do we want a president who runs the country like Al Davis runs the Oakland Raiders?

Al Franken's First Campaign Commercial - What Do You Think?

Huckabee Just Lost the Squirrel Vote!

This is too funny! Trying to appear a regular guy in South Carolina may not have the effect he's looking for elsewhere in the country. However, he did secure the "Hillbilly's for Huckabee" vote.

A Message to You, Rudy! [Updated]

Rudy Giuliani has been the national frontrunner for the GOP nomination for nearly a year, and yet after four primaries he still hasn’t finished higher than fourth place, or broken 10 percent of the vote in any primary.

In Michigan yesterday, he got only 3 percent of the vote. That’s only half the percentage gained by racist "loonitarian," Ron Paul, 1 percent less than Grandpa Fred, and only 1 percent more than “Uncommitted!”

To put it in perspective, consider that for every 3 GOP voters who chose Giuliani in Michigan, there were 2 other voters who braved the harsh winter weather to go down to the polls and check the box for “Uncommitted!”

Ouch!

Yet there is always hope! Mitt finally won a primary after devoting all of his resources to the State shaped most like him (well, his name anyway!)



Now, Rudy is essentially going to try the same thing in Florida!

(music by: The Specials)

[Update] Just in case you were wondering, I'm not a scab writer for The Colbert Report:

Bill and Hillary You Are Pissing Me Off!

I have just about had it with the Clinton's. Their repeated cutter attacks on Obama have left me with no choice but to believe that all they care about is winning - no matter what the cost. Its not about saving the country as Hillary tearfully said in New Hampshire.

After seven years of the Bush Administration, our country may be irrevocably damaged. A Democrat winning the White House in 2008 is beyond critical - And yet the Clintons are pursuing a path that will essentially split the party. And that - is the only way I can see a Republican winning in November.

The Clintons know exactly what they and their surrogates are doing. Focusing on Race - whispering about drugs and all the while complaining anytime Obama points out a legitimate policy difference.

Bill's basic argument in the Clip below is that Obama's record on the war is just as bad as Hillary's. Not a great argument Bill! As Seenos pointed out, I will vote for someone who can be honest about his inhaling any day.

Yeah I bet Hillary never took a puff. Has anyone asked her about her use of drugs? For God sakes the American people elected an alcoholic to the Presidency...........twice!

The Only double standard here is that the Clintons seem to think that they can say whatever they want. You don't see Obama's people out whispering about Bill's infidelity............................ or Hillary's inability to keep him from straying.

If they don't keep the arguments about policy they will lose my vote even if they win the nomination. And, I don't think I'm alone.

Al Gore as an independent anyone?

“This Whole Thing” is the New “Is!”

After being criticized for comparing the Barack Obama campaign to a “fairy tale” in the speech shown above, Bill Clinton called Al Sharpton’s radio show to deny that he was talking about the campaign itself, insisting that he was only referring to Obama’s position on the Iraq war.

But listen to the original statement carefully. After a rambling critique of the media’s reaction to Obama’s position on the war, including a series of actions attributed to Obama, Clinton ended the tirade with the following statement:

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen!”

If you ask me, it sounds like Bill was playing clever word games in order to deliberately say one thing, while giving himself plausible deniability of the intentions behind his statement.

And his denial is like arguing over what the meaning of “Is” is!

After listening, do you think “this whole thing” wasn’t carefully selected to sound one way, while allowing Bill to deny that meaning if he was called on it?

Frankly, I’m surprised that Bill, while talking to Sharpton, didn’t wag his finger in the direction of some random person and declare:

“I never suggested that man has no business thinking he could be President of the United States!”

I also find it a bit ironic that this tactic is being used against Obama, whose campaign is largely based on a promise “to be straight with the American people,” and whose actions so far seem remarkably consistent with that promise (Hey, he’s even capable of admitting that he inhaled!)

Listening to Bill twist his words to manipulate his audience is just another reminder of why we need real change from the old style politics of rhetorical deception!

New Hampshire Says: Leeeeeeave Hillary Alooooone!!!!!!!!

After listening to numerous pundits try to explain Hillary Clinton’s surprising win in New Hampshire when all of the pre-election polls and even some of the exit polls predicted an Obama victory, I have to say, despite the difficulty in forcing my fingers to type it, that the only one making any sense to me is Pat Buchanan.

He has basically said that he thinks many New Hampshire voters didn’t like the appearance that Obama and Edwards, as well as most of the media, were ganging up on Hillary, and they decided to make a statement by giving her their votes.

Buchanan’s theory seems more likely than the latent racism theory (not in a Democratic Primary), or that voters were deliberately misleading the pollsters (why would they bother?)

Hillary Clinton is the first serious female presidential candidate in American history, and many voters, particularly women, were naturally reluctant to see her beaten as decisively as the polls were suggesting she would be beaten. Perhaps her tearful account of the emotional burden of getting her hair cut, or her “hurt feelings” during the debate, played a role. Or maybe Bill Clinton’s pathetic tongue lashing of the Obama campaign created even more sympathy for Hillary (As an aside, I should also add that the greatest fairy tale I’ve ever heard is: that one can remain a Democratic Party icon while hanging out with members of The Carlyle Group!)

Either way, I think the image of Hillary being humiliated by another loss led many voters, including some previously leaning toward Obama, to change their vote at the last minute. This would explain the pre-election polls favoring Obama. But what about the exit polls?

Here’s the simplest explanation:

In order to conduct accurate exit polling, you need voters willing to participate. Voters must be eager to reveal their choice. However, there will always be a certain percentage of voters who are unwilling to disclose their selection. The polling will reflect only those who are open enough about their vote to participate.

Younger voters, who tended to vote for Obama, are more likely to be enthusiastic and open about their support for their candidate; while older voters, who tended to vote for Hillary, are more likely to be private about their voting habits. Since the pollsters have no way to differentiate between refusals to participate, the result would be an inflated percentage for Obama.

Of course, there’s also a more complicated explanation that also fits with Buchanan’s theory:

Voters who are conflicted, having had a last minute change of heart, perhaps even against their best hopes for the country, are the ones most likely to tell the pollsters that their vote went to “None of your damned business!”

OK Hillary - What Now?

I have to give you credit Hillary for pulling out a narrow victory in the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday. I also have to admit that I was kind of swept up by the Obama wave following the Iowa Caucus. Seeing the polls indicating an inevitable Obama New Hampshire win - lead me to believe that the Democratic nomination may be a forgone conclusion.

But Hillary you proved that you are not going down without a fight. You hunkered down and ......................... came out crying! Bravo - a fine piece of theater!

You could have cried real tears which might have been more believable.

You also could have waited to cry after a more substantive question than "How do you do it? Who does your hair?" - but I quibble.

Your "show of emotion" was a brilliant strategic move. It instantly changed the media narrative hours before the voting began and as you stated today during a CNN interview "was a very special moment". (Something is really creepy with you yourself calling it "a very special moment")

Now that you have"finally found your own voice" - what are you going to say that's different than what you've been saying so far? How is your campaign of change going to................well............. change?

Its solely up to you - not new strategists - not new negative adds attacking Obama - not Bill. You must prove to everyone that you really have had a significant epiphany. You're campaign must change! Crying again if you lose - is not an option. That get out of jail free card is all used up.

What now? I'm watching.

Hillary's New Approach

Attack Obama's with whatever your surrogates can make up - then muster up tears to show how vulnerable you are.

Here's the video link: You decide if her emotion in genuine.

Interesting that her response came from a question about who does her hair on the campaign trail.

More:

Just watched Hillary's tearful performance again. What she is basically saying is that electing Obama would be another step backward for our country. Huh! The man just brought out young people and independents like no candidate in recent history. If Hillary really feels that strongly about the future of the country she should be happy with the results. This was a scripted, and rehearsed episode - I am sure of it!

Hey Barack - Can You Spare Some Change?

With the results of the Iowa Caucus and the trends in the New Hampshire polls it is very clear that the voters in these two states are ready for Barack Obama and his message of change. Its seems America is finally had it with the Washington establishment. Frankly, I can't understand why it has taken this long - but I am thankful that the tide seems to be finally turning. It's not that difficult to understand why many Americans, who are so busy just trying to make ends meet, choose not to pay attention to national politics.

But what is hard to understand is how the other Presidential Candidates have been so blindsided by the effectiveness of Obama's message of change.

Hillary and her "just hand me the keys to the White house" campaign of inevitability are reeling in the wake of her stunning defeat in Iowa. And with the polls now showing Obama ahead by as much as 12 points in New Hampshire - Hillary has decided to steal Obama's message. In the debate last night she angrily spoke about how she has 35 years of experience and has been an "agent of change" all that time. Um - how long has Hillary held an elected office? Excuse me Hillary but all of your experience prior to the "Use of Force" in Iraq vote didn't help you get that right. And with all this experience you keep spouting - all I can remember is your failed health care plan. If you are so ready to be President you wouldn't be getting your Ass kicked in the early primary states. You are "commander and chief "of your campaign and it ain't going so well!

And now Mitt Romney has worked change into every sentence he speaks. Hoping somehow that saying the "magic word" will turn him into a real presidential contender. In tonight's Republican debate - Romney, Huckabee and even Giuliani seemed to be trying their best to channel Obama. I lost count of the times that they used the word change.

Its a good thing that I wasn't playing the "change" drinking game or I would have passed out ten minutes in.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then Barack must be feeling pretty good about now. He is clearly the front runner for the Presidency as all the other candidates seem to be trying to live off his pockets change.

Some Random Thoughts on the New Hampshire Debates

On the GOP:

1. How can all of the candidates (except Ron Paul) continue to rail about the evils of "socialized" medicine, while pushing to dramatically expand what is essentially a "socialized" military and insisting it can't be funded by (gasp!) taxes? At least they could be consistent, and suggest that America develop the “strongest, best equipped, military in the world” by having individual citizens pay for their own Blackwater mercenaries with a personal “Private Defense Account!”

2. When Rudy Giuliani talked about his list of twelve core commitments that he would put on his desk in the Oval Office in order to make sure he stayed committed to them every day, I’m guessing his wife wasn’t one of the twelve!

3. My idea for a new TV reality show to help the networks wait out the writers’ strike: Who Wants to Punch Mitt Romney in the Stomach? It would be a big hit among the other GOP candidates and their supporters. In fact, I might even watch, and I hate TV reality shows!

Regarding the Dems:

1. How much harder would it have been for Obama and Edwards to brand Hillary Clinton as “The Establishment Candidate” if Bill hadn’t just spent the last five years hobnobbing with George Bush Sr.?

2. Is it just me, or was the only time Bill Richardson made any sense (literally) when he was reciting his resume? Everything else seemed like stringing together random words, both real and imagined (example: “emboldering”) until the moderator cut him off. If I were holding hostages, and Richardson showed up to negotiate, I’m sure I would release the hostages just to get Bill to stop talking!

3. Despite harsh criticism toward Barack Obama from many Edwards supporters (like Paul Krugman, for example), it seems clear to me that Edwards himself respects Obama and understands that the two men are working toward similar goals, with only stylistic differences about the best way to achieve them! Obama/Edwards (or Edwards/Obama) seems like a pretty good match, and I got the feeling (particularly in the exchange above) that either man would willingly take the second slot on the ticket if it becomes apparent that he can’t win, and it means preventing Hillary Clinton from beating them both.

Mitt Romney, World Campaign Spending Champion, Still Falls on his Ass and Fails to Win Primary!

According to Mitt Romney, his second place finish in the Iowa Caucuses is the equivalent of an Olympic Silver Medal, but that doesn’t mean he won’t go on to win a Gold Medal in his later events!

And then he presented his evidence, in the form of a celebrity supporter who won’t exactly leave Chuck Norris shaking in his boots:

Reinforcing that message was Olympic gold medal speed skater Dan Jansen, who said Iowa’s caucuses are only the first of many state contests that will determine the nominee.

“I was a sprinter. Mitt Romney is a marathoner,” Jansen said.

So, using Jansen as his model, I guess we can expect Romney to finally win his first State primary sometime during the 2020 campaign season.

But I’m sure he’ll continue to work hard setting World Spending Record after World Spending Record, until he finally achieves his goal!

Random Thoughts on the Iowa Caucus

I can’t help but feel proud of what the Iowan voters said to the nation and the world. With decisive wins by Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, the citizens of Iowa said with a resounding voice – WE WANT CHANGE!

It seems that George Bush has finally become the “uniter”. He’s united the entire country in mutual disdain for his administration and the Washington insiders complicit in its policies. Not a good sign for Hillary Clinton and her “I’m the experienced one” message - also not a good sign for John McCain who the cable news outlets are desperately trying to push to the Republican Nomination.

With the huge turnout – Barack Obama is succeeding in energizing young and independent voters. And if you watched Obama’s victory speech (above) it’s easy to see why!

Mitt Romney is just too plastic and superficial to be taken seriously. A billion dollars can’t buy you personality!

Poor Rudy! At least you’ll always have 9/11.

Appealing to the Real Middle (Or How John Edwards Can Win My Vote!)

Some time ago, I came across this poll, which I found quite interesting as it posed the following question to a mixed sample of Republicans, Democrats and Independents:

Which one of these four statements do you agree with about President Bush?

1. President Bush has not abused his powers as president.

2. President Bush has abused his powers as president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.

3. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rises to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.

4. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rises to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.

Using weighted averages to combine Democrats and Independents, 43.6% think President Bush should be impeached (No. 4), and 31.0% think President Bush does not warrant impeachment (Numbers 1 and 2 combined). This leaves a striking 25.4% in the grey area of believing President Bush has abused his powers as president which rises to the level of being impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached!

How can 25.4% think he’s committed impeachable offenses, but should not be impeached? While I suppose there are a few Democrats and Independents who would say the “War on Terror” justifies some unconstitutional and therefore technically “impeachable” acts, my theory is that the vast majority of Democrats and Independents in this category simply don’t want to go through the distraction of an impeachment process! In other words, it’s not that they don’t think Bush should be held accountable, they just don’t want to it to happen while he’s President!

Much of the growing sense of frustration among Democratic and Independent voters, I think, can be attributed to a Congress that seems to be slowly but surely covering the tracks of accountability for any illegal acts on the part of the Bush Administration.

Approving Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, after he refused to commit to labeling waterboarding as (illegal) torture while indicating he would enforce any future laws enacted against waterboarding, seems clearly calculated to “cover the ass” of those who have already authorized waterboarding!

Granting immunity to telecoms for assisting in illegal wiretapping, which unfortunately still seems to have the support of all but a few principled members of Congress, seems clearly calculated to “cover the ass” of those who have already authorized illegal wiretapping!

Clearly the Congress, although purportedly controlled by an “opposition” party, are largely willing to allow a slow, but inevitable, legal whitewashing of a Presidency that has led the country into disaster upon disaster upon disaster, using obvious lies and seemingly multiple illegal acts!

So why can’t one of the current Democratic contenders make a play for the real middle – those Democrats and Independents who want accountability, but without the sturm and drang of an impeachment process?

Why can’t one of the candidates simply promise that the first thing he will do as President, is to have his Attorney General appoint a Special Prosecutor to thoroughly investigate any potential crimes committed during the Bush Administration? The goal would be to restore faith in our own principles as a nation, and our moral authority in the World.

Up until now, I’ve been an uncommitted, but hopeful, supporter of Barack Obama. I’ve liked some things about John Edwards, but have often felt that his occasionally over-the-top lawyerly posturing undercuts his message, while Obama has a characteristic of openness and sincerity that would be desperately needed after eight years of George W. Bush.

However, Obama has campaigned on a promise to “turn the page” on the Bush Era, which doesn’t exactly telegraph the intention to “clean up the mess.” I don’t want someone promising to sweep it all under a rug or shove it in a closet before running a clean shop. I want someone who is going to clean out the closets and toss out all the dirt before running a clean shop!

And that’s where Edwards could get me to support him whole-heartedly – by promising to do what the current Democratic Congress won’t do, holding the Bush administration accountable for their illegal acts as soon as they leave office and can be prosecuted for crimes they may have committed!

What Do Politicians Do When They Aren’t Talking?

I’ve been meaning to post this piece that I wrote shortly after witnessing the Democratic candidates in person during Yearly Kos, but other things kept pushing it to the back burner. Since we are now down to the wire, I’m going to pare it down to the three top tier candidates and post it:

One of the most fascinating things about seeing the Presidential Leadership Forum in person was the opportunity to watch the body language and demeanor of the candidates, particularly when they were not answering questions. Since the format of this event involved questions for individual candidates, and the other candidates were not expected to respond, I found it interesting to see what they did with themselves when they knew they were off the hook with regard to answering a particular question.

Normally, while watching a televised debate, one would primarily see the body language of the person on camera, so I decided to focus on the others to see what impressions I would get that might be different from the image projected by the candidates when they were “on the spot.”

Before I do, however, I should point out that I have no formal training in evaluating body language, so my thoughts are simply those of a curious observer, interested in seeing another side of the candidates. I also recognize that body language, like speech and policy positions, can be coached, so there is no guarantee that what I observed was any sort of window to understanding anything profound about the candidates.

Nevertheless, the impressions I got were somewhat different from those normally projected by the individual when he or she was on the spot. Here are the notes I made regarding the three top tier candidates:

Obama – He was the only one who consistently directed his answers toward the person who asked it rather than talk directly to the audience. When others were talking, he looked at them, often with a reflective pose and occasionally furrowed brow. Frequently, he would lean back and cross his legs like he was relaxing in his living room, but always with chin in hand, constantly seeming to process what he was hearing.

Clinton – Always seemed to have a slight smile, oddly even when being criticized by the other candidates or when asked a challenging question from the audience. She sat back while listening, and leaned forward while speaking, but sometimes didn’t seem to be talking to the crowd so much as to an imaginary audience of poll subjects, or so I remember thinking at the time.

Edwards – Showed the greatest contrast between his speaking and non-speaking personas. Although he was one of the most passionate orators during his turn to speak, when others were talking he sat fixed with a somewhat pained expression, in a position much like the Lincoln Memorial, as if waiting for his turn to rise up on cue like the animatronic star of the Country Bear Jamboree.

I don’t know what this all means, but I do recall that I arrived feeling equally supportive of the candidacy of Obama and Edwards, and highly skeptical of Clinton. I left the event with a completely unchanged impression of Clinton, a slightly better impression of Obama, and a slightly worse impression of Edwards.

Securing the “Manly-Man” Vote!

Which one of these men looks the strongest, most confident and, shall we say, most “Presidential,” and which one looks like a phony baloney, doofus politician trying to pander to the NRA crowd for votes?

Is it this guy:



Or this guy:



Funny how we don’t see the traditional media jumping all over Mike Huckabee for staging a “manly-man” photo op, like they did for weeks with John Kerry, even when it's crystal clear why Huckabee's running around looking like this:



The really scary thing is that, apparently, Huckabee's aim isn't what's exaggerated about this picture!

Gulp! Choke! My Words Taste Even Worse Than a Fruitcake!

Less than a week ago, I posted this about Bill Clinton’s criticism of Barack Obama:

I would prefer my surgery be done by a plumber who is honest and bright enough to rely on the careful assistance of experts to help him . . . than from a former surgeon’s wife who says she’ll rely on her experience!

Unfortunately, I fear Obama might not be such a good judge of who is a suitable expert!

I can only hope that Obama actually knows better, and that although he figured dropping Arnold’s name might earn him a few independent votes in the pre-California primaries, he will drop Arnold from his list of “respectable” Republicans well before Super Tuesday!

Mike Huckabee is a “Good Guy” like Chuck Norris is a “Good Actor!”

Now that Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls on the strength of a tiny shred of likeability notably absent from any of the other GOP frontrunners, he’s decided he needs to pull together a crack team that is ready to take his “good guy” message to the people.

He’s already got Chuck Norris at his side to neutralize the pull of Oprah, should he face Barack Obama in the General Election!

And now, he’s got a new National Campaign Chairman. That’s right - the same Ed Rollins who is behind the sleazy California ballot initiative to steal electoral votes, whose operatives have been caught using a “bait and switch” scheme to get petition signatures from people thinking they are fighting children’s cancer!

Yeah, Mike Huckabee’s a real good guy!

What do George Bush and Sarah Connor Have in Common?

I copied this image some time ago, in the hope that I would eventually have a good opportunity to use it.

Looks like I don’t have to wait any longer, as the Bush Administration just denied California’s attempt to establish it’s own tougher fuel efficiency standards, prompting Arnold Schwarzenegger to threaten a lawsuit against the Federal Government.

Apparently, George Bush doesn't think the risk of drought from reduced snowpack and of rampant wildfires are “compelling” reasons to allow California to push for a stronger, quicker, response against global climate change!

To which I can only say:

"Go on, Arnold. Sarah Connor may be long gone, but you can still be the Terminator!"

Who Goes to the Hospital for “Flu Like Symptoms?”

Howie Klein suggests that Rudy Giuliani’s trip to the hospital might turn into a case of the runner who suddenly pulls a hamstring after realizing he can’t win the race!

Or maybe he just ate too much “fwuitcake!”

Memo to Bill Clinton: A Vote For Any Candidate is Like “Rolling the Dice!”

In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Bill Clinton let loose on Barack Obama, among other things claiming that a vote for Obama is like “rolling the dice” because he lacks Hillary’s “experience,” and then continuing with some even more ridiculous comparisons.

I hate to break it to you, Mr. President, but that’s the nature of voting for any candidate based on campaign promises. For all we know, a vote for Hillary Clinton as an “agent of change” may be no more effective than were votes for George W. Bush as a “compassionate conservative!”

When you cast a vote, you can only hope (and believe, I suppose) that your candidate will actually try to do what he or she promised. And I don’t just mean looking like they are trying, while secretly planning or actually enabling the opposite outcome. I mean actually trying to walk the talk that got them elected! Otherwise, your vote is just a losing roll of the dice!

And if you really think a vote for Obama is like "asking a plumber to perform surgery," let me remind you that your wife is not, by any account, a “surgeon” when it comes to the Presidency. In fact, I would prefer my surgery be done by a plumber who is honest and bright enough to rely on the careful assistance of experts to help him . . . than from a former surgeon’s wife who says she’ll rely on her experience!

Honesty, Not Defensiveness, Can Be the Great Disarmer For Obama!

This insightful piece, by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe, hints at the one unassailable strength that Barack Obama would have in his Presidential run:

Anyone who thinks that Billy Shaheen's Obama slur was a blunder, rather than a calculated piece of the politics of personal destruction, should note that Mark Penn repeated it hours after Sen. Clinton apologized.

Penn got this right out of the Rove play book. Just as Rove took John Kerry's greatest asset -- his military record -- and lied it into a negative, so Penn takes Obama's -- his biography -- and tries to do the same.

The difference is that the tactic won't work with Obama. The patrician Kerry did not know how to deal with guttersnipe attacks. He was so utterly unused to them.

All African-American men are used to them, especially one who made it to Harvard Law, the US Senate and a Presidential candidacy despite his race, his name, and his exotic heritage.

Rosenberg’s conclusion is that there will be more attacks:

So get ready. The worst people in America are going to use Barack Obama's race and his personal struggle against him. They are going to try to transform his unique assets into negatives.

But Obama has what none of the other candidates in either party can match: an seeming ability to be open and honest about who he is and where he came from that will, any time he uses it to disarm an attack, remind voters of all the things they hate about other politicians in general, and the Republicans of the Bush II Era in particular.

Whenever opponents try to attack his personal history, Obama can simply respond that “he has learned a lot of valuable lessons from those struggles, and they have made him appreciate the person that he is today.”

He won’t even have to mention the plentiful denials of personal history, including sexual identity and corruption, on the other side of the aisle, for voters to be reminded of them!

Top Ten List – Not Licensed to Kill Waterboard Edition.

In yet another reminder that there is no IQ requirement for membership in the United States Senate, Missouri’s James Kit Bond apparently thinks waterboarding is like swimming the backstroke!

While it amazes me the lengths Republicans will go to make light of their propensity for illegal, and often violent, behavior, there are still a few excuses they haven’t tried. Yet!

So with that in mind, here’s my:

Top Ten List of Excuses Republicans Haven’t Tried Yet Regarding Waterboarding:

10. It’s just a warmer version of snowboarding!

9. It’s just like dumping Gatorade on a winning football coach!

8. We thought we were using flax seed oil!

7. It’s a little known fact that this Administration wanted to delay waterboarding until after the 2004 elections, but Congress wanted something they could be deceived about!

6. We were just trying to counteract the dehydrating effect of severe beatings!

5. Freedom needs waterboarding, just as waterboarding needs freedom!

4. It’s just like a form of baptism - falling somewhere between sprinkling holy water and total immersion!

3. The American people don’t seem to mind watching the Wicked Witch get doused in The Wizard of Oz . . . because they understand that innocent munchkin lives are at stake!

2. Bill Clinton was known to pour water himself, right in the Oval Office!

And the top excuse Republicans haven’t tried yet regarding waterboarding:

1. We have a wet stance!

Romney Quote of the Day

Reiterating a recurring theme from his campaign, I’ve paraphrased this from today’s GOP debate when asked what is more important, electing a fiscal conservative or a social conservative:

We need to bring together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and defense conservatives - the three legs of the Republican stool!

My suggested response from the Democrats would be the following:

We need to rid ourselves of foreign policy failure, domestic and economic failure, and constitutional failure – the three floaters of the Republican stool!

OK, so I wasn’t the first person to think of it, and as long as Romney continues his “stool fixation,” I doubt I’ll be the last!

But here’s one you won’t find anywhere else (warning - timed release punchline):

Is Mitt Romney’s campaign call for returning to a “three-legged Republican stool” a backhanded swipe at Hillary Clinton in favor of him (or any of the other GOP candidates) in the White House?

OK, maybe a barely perceptible punchline!

And here's Mitt, talking about his stool:



This isn't mocking, either. It was uploaded to YouTube directly from the Romney campaign!

New Huckabee Ad

Via TPM

Scooter Ends His Quest for the Holy Grail!

When Scooter Libby’s sentence was commuted by his co-conspirator the President, he immediately filed an appeal and strongly re-asserted his innocence. Seemingly, he was going to fight to the bitter end in order to advance a PR agenda clear his good name.

Apparently, Libby’s quest for the holy grail of redemption has ended.

“We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby's innocence," attorney Theodore Wells said Monday. "However, the realities were, that after five years of government service by Mr. Libby and several years of defending against this case, the burden on Mr. Libby and his young family of continuing to pursue his complete vindication are too great to ask them to bear."

OK, so now that “complete vindication” is out, what about the less noble goal of “illusionary legal vindication?”

The decision to withdraw his appeal means Libby will remain a convicted felon. President Bush could wipe away the conviction with a full pardon, something he has refused to rule out. Wells said Monday that he has not spoken to the White House about a pardon and does not know what Bush will do.

Regardless of the somewhat meaningless nature of a potential pardon toward Libby’s long-term reputation, it seems clear that Libby did stand a much better chance of achieving “complete vindication” than, say, O.J. Simpson had of “catching his former wife’s killer!”

And Scooter will surely receive enough in hush money conservative think tank salary that he won’t have to associate with sleazy Las Vegas characters dealing in “Presidential memorabilia” in order to support his imperialism golf habit.

In fact, the noted smut peddler author could even supplement his retirement income by writing a confession fictitious memoir.

Perhaps he could call the work, “If I Leaked It!”

Update: Rumor has it that Scooter may have to choose a different title, as this one’s already earmarked for Judith Regan’s new book about urinary incontinence in the Giuliani mayoral administration!

Romney Just Got My Vote!

Not my vote for President, but my unofficial vote for the person I want to be the Republican nominee in the general election.

For a long time, I’ve been leaning toward Giuliani as the guy any Democratic candidate would easily be able to reduce to rubble - by emphasizing his slimy past and calling him on his many transgressions. But now I’ve changed my mind!

Half-Mitt Romney’s recent speech, presumably to make Republican voters comfortable with his Mormonism, has convinced me beyond all doubt that this is the guy I want to see debating a Democrat.

This is the guy I trust most to make a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth. In his speech, he uttered yet another memorably idiotic line:

Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.

Freedom requires religion?

Kind of like “national service” requires “helping Dad win elections?”

Instead of making voters comfortable with the idea of Romney as the first Mormon President, Dim-Mitt Romney is a constant reminder of why America should be uncomfortable with the idea of Romney as the first second Moron President!

I would greatly enjoy seeing how much of his own personal fortune Mitt-Less Romney would continue to blow in another year of campaigning, before he is eventually crushed and sent back to his former career of “raping and pillaging” the American business world.

And of course there’s my favorite line from Romney’s speech, which coincidently occurred right at the moment the above image was taken:

President Bush may be stronger than a rock, but now America needs a President who can beat paper!

(For any Romney supporters who might read this, I made that part up!)

Lying Makes You Thirsty!

Just finished watching today's press briefing with White House Spokesmodel Dana Perino. On the press' mind - the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes and the President's knowledge of the events.

Here are the first couple of questions:

Q Thanks. On these CIA videotapes, did either the President or Vice President or Condoleezza Rice, when she was National Security Advisor, or Steve Hadley, see them before they were destroyed?

MS. PERINO: I spoke to the President, and so I will have to defer on the others. But I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning. And as to the others, I'll have to -- I'll refer you to the Vice President's office and I'll see if I can get the others.

Q Was there any White House involvement in approving or commenting upon their destruction?

MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has no recollection knowing about the tapes or about their destruction, and so I can't answer the follow-up.

Here we go again with the "no recollection" answers. She did not deny that the President was given the information or that he even viewed the tapes - just that he told her that he can't remember - hmm! I guess unless some evidence, that hasn't been destroyed, comes to light to jog his memory!

I think today was Perino's "What Happened" moment. Can't wait for her to hit the book circuit in a couple of years - when she will finally reveal that she was given things to say that were "not true".

The entire press conference was incredibly somber. It was easy to tell that Perino did not want to be there, did not believe what she was saying and knew that the reporters did not believe any of it either.

But my favorite part was as Perino ended the conference, left the podium, turned and said - "I am so thirsty"?

I guess lying does that to you!

Olbermann, Bush and the Iran NIE

If you haven't seen Olberman's latest special comment - here it is.
Nailed it again!

Why I Prefer Judgment Over Experience: Hillary Clinton, Meet Joe Gibbs!

As I watch the Hillary Clinton campaign step up their negative rhetoric toward Barack Obama, in response to Obama’s challenges to her “inevitability” as the Democratic nominee, I like this characterization of the contrast by the Wall Street Journal:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have taken off their gloves. In one corner stands the champion of experience, with the best executive coach in the free world at her side and a dog-eared playbook of strategies that have won in the past. Standing in the opposite corner is a young contender, fairly new at the game, underweight and probably overmatched, but a natural, as they say. Mr. Obama and his handlers are putting their money on his judgment, disdaining the experience card as a stale rerun of earlier campaigns.

The point was driven home recently during a short trip to a Nevada casino for a weekend of (small-time) football betting, when I lost a bet in a game that ended as described by the Los Angeles Times:

The grief of the Washington Redskins was on full display, in front of 85,000 fans waving their No. 21 towels (in memory of murdered player, Sean Taylor), but their emotions were shattered when Ryan Lindell kicked a 36-yard field goal with four seconds left to give the Buffalo Bills a 17-16 victory.

Lindell made a 51-yard attempt that didn't count because the Redskins (5-7) called timeout just as the ball was snapped. Coach Joe Gibbs then tried the same tactic again, but consecutive timeouts aren't allowed when attempting to freeze the kicker. The resulting 15-yard penalty gave Lindell an easier kick and helped the Bills improve to 6-6.

That would be the very experienced Joe Gibbs, whose resume as an NFL coach is clearly beyond what Hillary Clinton claims as her qualifications to be President, as described in his official website biography:

During Joe Gibbs' first tenure with the Redskins, from 1981-1992, he led them to eight playoff appearances, four NFC championships, and three Super Bowl titles. He was known for his hard work and extremely long hours.

In 1996 he was enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with a record of 124 wins and 60 losses and a post season record of 16 wins and five loses. His winning percentage of .683 was behind only the legendary Vince Lombardi and John Madden.

He’s been back coaching the Redskins since 2004. And to be fair, Gibbs has surely built his career by using better judgment than he displayed at the end of the Bills game (although perhaps he's now showing the effects of breathing too many NASCAR gas fumes!) To top it off, he was coaching the game under emotional, pressure-filled, stressful conditions after Taylor’s death.

But, according to Hillary, isn’t “experience,” supposed to be the thing that allows one to perform effectively in the sometimes emotional, pressure-filled, stressful conditions of being President?

And if “experience” didn’t prevent Joe Gibbs from using poor judgment under the stress of an emotional game, how can we expect Hillary Clinton’s “experience” to prevent her from using poor judgment under the stress of being President?

Or the stress of an emotional campaign?

The GOP Candidates: In a Sentence.

I decided to subject myself to the full two hours of Wednesday’s CNN GOP debate, mainly because I thought there might be some entertainment value in the YouTube format. In that regard, it did not disappoint. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the likes of Romney and Giuliani pissing all over each other, as they fumbled questions from a combination of right wing loonies and stealthy liberals trying to highlight the absurdly hateful hypocrisy that is today’s Republican Party!

Aside from the entertainment value, however, I didn’t really learn much about the candidates. Perhaps, a few existing impressions were confirmed. All told, I can probably sum it all up for each candidate in a single sentence:

Tom Tancredo – So obsessed that he thinks Chinese toys are illegal aliens!

Mike Huckabee – The only GOP candidate with acting ability worthy of admiration from Chuck Norris!

Mitt Roney – Clearly doesn’t deserve a second “M” when mentioning his name, or his religion!

Rudy Giuliani – Verbally, he attacks like a pit bull (but with slightly less flying saliva!)

John McCain –Likes to scold like a repressed nun, but if someone beats him and becomes President, he’ll be first in line for a hug!

Fred Thompson – Talks like the giant hundred-year-old grouper that lives in the lake!

Ron Paul – Can a doctor prescribe, and then stop taking, his own meds?

Duncan Hunter – Has a mind like a steel border fence: Nothing enters!

Rudy and the Threats

Rudy a lot has been said and written today about your apparent "taxpayer" sponsored affair. Your response to the question at the CNN/Youtube debate wasn't exactly a denial of the facts. You said it was not true - but then went on to say that - how the security detail was expensed - was not your responsibility - and as far as you knew it was all done "appropriately".

Way to pass the buck - Mr. "I know how to run a city" - Mr. "I know how to lead in a crisis" - Mr. "9/11"!

Well Rudy you have a crisis now - show us what you're made of!

The part of your initial answer to the debate question that peaked my interest was your reference to threats that required this enhanced security. I would like to hear more about them. Please elaborate. Did you need protection from the mob? From terrorists? Or from your children - pissed at you because you and your security posse were cheating on their mother in the Hamptons!

So Much for That Idea!

I was in line at the grocery store yesterday when I saw the newest cover of The Economist (Yes, I shop at the rare grocery that isn’t completely filled with tabloids!) At first, I thought to myself, “No wonder the U.S. economy is in the toilet; The magazine that America turns to for serious economic commentary is willing to engage in what looks like a blatant act of Presidential Legacy Fluffing _TM!”

Turns out the story was more of a challenge to the President than an effort to build him into a legitimate leader. Basically, it was a call to use a rare opportunity to redeem himself for a laundry list of failures, so I can’t hold anything against the magazine.

But jeez! Talk about failing to meet a challenge! Not only is Bush not the man to bring the leaders of Israel and Palestine toward lasting peace, he can’t even pronounce their names!

If you haven’t seen it, check out the video of his embarrassing effort to introduce “Ehud Ul-mult and Ma-hoom-mud Abbas” (that would be Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, by the way!)

Unbelievable! Even Rudy Giuliani introducing Nicolas Sarkozy and Sammy Sosa would be an improvement over this guy!

Rove: "I’m Still a Genius!"

I finally read Karl Rove’s first column for Newsweek magazine. It’s written as a how-to guide to beating Hillary Clinton, but I think it’s really the first step in Rove’s desperate attempt to reclaim his status as “genius” despite the monumental failure of his political "brother," George Bush. Here’s a quote (with my emphasis):

Every presidential election is about change and the future, not the past. So show them who you are in a way that gives the American people hope, optimism and insight. That's the best antidote to the low approval rates of the Republican president. Those numbers will not help the GOP candidate . . . .

First of all, if every presidential election is about change, why was the last presidential election about "how Bush had all the right policies and Kerry didn’t?"

And why would anyone need an "antidote" for a great president? At this point, Rove is clearly detaching from the Bush policies because they no longer make him look like such a genius. Eventually, I fully expect Rove to embrace the idea that his true “genius” was not discovering a great president, but getting an idiot elected twice!

Rove continues:

The American people want their president to be authentic. And against a Democrat who calculates almost everything, including her accent and laugh, being seen as someone who says what he believes in a direct way will help.

Here, Rove reveals his own formula for getting the idiot Bush elected: calculate almost everything, including his accent and laugh, to be seen as someone who says what he believes!

Is it Too Early for a New Year's Prediction Karl Rove?

When I first read that Newsweek had hired Karl Rove as a contributor to their increasing irrelevant weekly magazine - I was, to put it mildly, "outraged". Once again - here was a perfect example of the corporate media selling their soul to the devil.

But upon further review and after reading "Turdblossom's" first effort - it is only a matter of time before it becomes painfully clear just how ordinary Mr. Rove really is. Somehow he was able to convince just about everyone that he possessed the gifts of intellect, strategy and skill never before seen in american politics. The "mainstream" media pundits routinely gave him credit for one political miracle after another. He was a chess master, artfully maneuvering the pieces, while no one else even new what game they were playing. And he did it all merely by never saying anything in public or on the record.

Sure he would leak some classified information once and a while. And yes, he would occasionally speak at some far right neocon gathering. But Karl never had to explain his ingenious strategy and he never had to answer to anyone. By simply not speaking - the Karl Rove's myth mushroomed to biblical proportions.

But mushroom no more!

My first New Year's prediction: Karl Rove's job at Newsweek will finally pull back the curtain on this "Wizard". Sure he put on a good show - but what will be revealed is the scared little man just hoping that no one will find out how ordinary he really is. And, while he suggests in his first column that the Republican presidential candidates should move away from "this unpopular Republican President" - I predict it will be Rove himself standing alone and unprotected - no longer hidden by his curtain of secrecy.

Thank you Newsweek in advance!

Watching Reality TV = Crossing the Picket Line!

As I watched a recent segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann trumpeting the impending return of American Idol, it occurred to me that anyone who is willing to stand in solidarity (at least in spirit) with the striking writers should probably take this opportunity to wean themselves from any “addiction” they may have to reality TV!

Remember, the development of the current genre that includes Idol, Survivor, Dancing with the Stars, The Amazing Race, and many others, developed as a way to keep programming available to maintain network profits without the services of striking writers!

If you claim to support the talents of the writers who bring you quality entertainment (or at least crap you like!) over network executives (who would force you to watch a test pattern between commercials if they could figure out how to get it to hypnotize you into buying the shit they are selling!), then any time you feel the urge to tune in to your favorite reality show, crack a book or talk to a family member instead!

Life Outside Bush’s Bubble

Looks like the usually lucrative post-administration speaking circuit isn’t going to be too kind to war criminals and torture enablers!

Here’s Gonzo during a speech at the University of Florida.

(Note to self for future business venture: Open a store selling orange jumpsuits and black hoods near the campus of Southern Methodist University right before the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library!)

Is That Bush’s Hand Up His You Know What?

Day after day, on issue after issue, Mitch McConnell can be consistently counted upon to flap his mouth, spouting anything the Bush administration wants him to say. In fact, it’s almost as if they have some kind of control over his actions and can make him move his mouth at will.

Here’s Howie Klein with the complete rundown on the lead Republican obstructionist running interference for Bush’s policies against a Congress supposedly elected to provide some actual oversight.

Not surprising! In today’s Republican Party, I guess you can say there are two types of puppets. There are the hand puppets, like Mitch McConnell, who can be made to say anything at any time with absolute control. And then there are the marionettes, like Larry Craig, who can be manipulated by pulling the right strings, but are a bit wild and often prone to inopportune and uncontrollable toe tapping!

Juicy Robert Novak Rumor

I just heard from an acquaintance that his coworker's - 3rd cousin's - ex boyfriend - heard an incredibly juicy rumor about Robert Novak. However, I'm not going to reveal what I have learned out of respect for citizen journalism and bloggers everywhere.

But I can say that it involves a gerbil, a giant vat of jello and a mule.

But that is all I can say.............. because I take my position as a progressive blogger very seriously and I wouldn't want to risk my stellar reputation by spreading rumors. Even one that my acquaintances coworker's 3rd cousin's ex boyfriend was pretty sure about.

Mr. Novak - You are a disgrace to journalism. You have no credibility and you are ugly! Those are facts - not just a rumor. And you quote me on that!

Geshundheit!

It’s a little known fact, for inherently obvious reasons, that I’m a notoriously bad self-promoter when it comes to my blogging. I rarely solicit links, directly through blogroll requests, or indirectly through strategic commenting. I usually opt not to cross-post on the more heavily trafficked group blogs, mostly because I don’t want to try to fit the expected mold of other writers there. I haven’t bothered to learn a lot of the newer technologies that help increase exposure across the web.

When I attended the Yearly Kos Convention last summer, I was motivated enough to make up business cards to give out, but then ended up coming home with almost all of them, because I simply forgot to give them out despite many opportunities, including several conversations with moderately influential bloggers.

Hell, I go many months at a time without even checking the Sitemeter to see who, if anyone, is stopping by. If not for the occasional comment, I’d basically be writing the things I want to read and can’t find elsewhere, purely for my own amusement!

Occasionally, I even joke sarcastically about Left-Over’s lack of readership, such as in the following excerpt from this post from a couple of weeks ago:

If you are one of those other nations Dick Cheney says the United States is joining with, what would frighten you the most:

Iran having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon?

Or Dick Cheney having control of a whole bunch of actual nuclear weapons?

Any of our many international readers care to weigh in on that question?

Of course, the really strange thing about sending your thoughts out into the world is that you never know when you might catch someone’s attention and/or imagination.

After months of ignoring the Sitemeter, I happened to take a look yesterday, only to find that not only do we have international readers, one of them had actually taken one of my posts and translated it into German. Well, at least I hope it was translated! For all the German I know, my writing might have been completely ripped to shreds, and my only possible rebuttal would be to call my German critic a “weiner dog!” Or, if that wasn’t enough, I could respond assertively to an imaginary sneeze!

After looking at the site, however, I’m a little confused as to why my post was translated into German, as it does not appear to be a politically oriented site. Oh well! I’m going to take the "Condoleeza Rice" approach to resume building and just say my blog “has been enthusiastically translated into other languages!”

In addition to the odd German translation, I also found from the Sitemeter that I had been quoted and linked by one of my favorite writers at Firedoglake, T-Rex. That was a pleasant surprise and a first for me as well!

So I guess I’m not just writing for, as Karl Rove recently put it, my own “personal release!” But frankly, that’s still the main reason! It’s either that or have permanent steam coming out of my ears whenever I see what they are doing to my country!

Doesn't Mention Sept.11 As Much As We Think?

Hat tip to TPM for putting this together.