Saturday, May 17, 2008

No Brain McCain

While trying out his latest Bush impersonation by parroting the attack
on Obama and Democrats as being like "Nazi appeasers" the old man said

"I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from
Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He
didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in
Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''

If old man McCain truly believes this, then he's far dumber than Bush.
Without going too much into history, let me just drop a name to see if
any memories are jogged: Oliver North.

Did that make you think of the Iran-Contra scandal? The scandal where
ol' Ronny got caught with his pants down for violating his own ban
against dealing arms to and negotiating with Iran?

Reagan not only negotiated with Iran, he appeased the Ayatollah,
constantly meeting their demands for weapons to continue their war
with Iraq, who Reagan was also selling weapons to.

Is McCain a phony, an idiot, senile, or a liar? I say all of the above.

As for Bush, his granddaddy Prescott was an actual genuine Nazi
appeaser. But we already know he's a phony and an idiot and a liar.

Bill-O's Meltdown: The other side of the camera

Friday, May 16, 2008

The general election is ON!

What hope tough looks like!

This is from Marc Ambinder's blog:

In Watertown South, Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama called President Bush's remarks "outrageous and appalling and divisive."

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain – if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

He used the phrase "Bush and John McCain" about a dozen times, which speaks for itself. Obama came off as tough, pissed off, and in a fighting mood; the Goths are at the gate, and Obama's beating them back. That type of thing.

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain – if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

" the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser. And back during his “No Surrender” tour, John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq responsibly wants to surrender; he even said later on that he would be ok keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, but yesterday he said our troops could be home by 2013. He offered the promise that America will win a victory, with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war. Just like George Bush, his plan isn’t about winning, it’s about staying, and that’s why there will be a clear choice in November: fighting a war without end, or ending this war. Because we don’t need John McCain’s prediction about when the war will end – we need a plan to end it.
The general election, friends, is joined.

Blackballing Black!

Should Mac tell Chuck to take a hike? I hope not! I hope like hell that McCant keeps this Mega-Douche scumbag lobbyist at the top of his campaign all the way to November. The results will be glorious - for Obama!

Republiscum Douchebag Pwned by Tweety!

It's not often that I'd take sides with Tweety, but he really earned his money with this one!

Mark Green from Air America had a good dig too, "Kevin, when you're in a hole, stop digging!"

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Bill-O's Blow Up - Remix

CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!


"The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry."

Money quote from a commenter:

"If those morons Britney and K-Fed are allowed to marry and procreate, this court believes that allowing gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered couples to marry can't cause any worse harm to the societal fabric...."

Racism is alive and well in the south

If anyone ever wonders why I fled the south - and why I have no intention of ever returning - I'd point you this:

The problem with these racist crackers who say they aren't racist belie an even more important fact. They do not know that they are racist, even though clearly their words and actions prove otherwise. Ignorance is a major component of racism, and these racists who do not know or understand that they are indeed racist clearly highlights just how ignorant they really are.

Funny how the old coot throws out the possibility if him supporting Colin Powell as an indication that he isn't a racist. I've heard that one as much as I've heard the frequent excuse by racists that "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are [insert race of choice here]," or "everyone is a little racist." These propositions are equally ignorant. Without getting too far into this now, one thing I do wonder is why anyone would support Colin Powell in the first place. Is it because he makes white racists feel good about themselves for supporting a "black guy" who by most measurements is "whiter" than Dick Cheney? Or is because they have a compulsion for supporting spineless, lying Yes Men who are willing to abdicate their moral responsibility to tell the truth when their words could very well lead to the needless deaths of thousands of innocent people (as has actually happened)? Just asking.

Kudos for the reporter to call this hillbilly out for being the racist - and ignorant moron - that he is.

Scalia the Dick

I have been working on a character piece of Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, to point out just what it is about this toad that I find incorrigible. But there's some good stuff on Nino here on Dickipedia.

George Bush is an Idiot: Part MCMXXLIVVII - Burn baby, burn!

To put a finer point on just how pathetic our glorious leader is - not just as president, but also as a human being - I turn this over to the always astute Keith Olbermann:

George Bush is an Idiot: Part MCMXXLIVVI - The Collapse of the Republican Regime

George Bush's remarks about Obama and Democrats being like Nazi appeasers demonstrate clearly was his has never been a fit Commander-in-Chief.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush...

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

I will grant that many Democrats can be guilty of appeasement, but it's a different fascist regime they have been complicit with rolling over for. That would be the Republican regime. But Bush is an idiot when it comes to just about anything. He's ignorant of historical facts, as demonstrated by these remarks. It is clear that he is just as weak looking at past events as he is imagining future events. His short-sightedness is breathtaking, only equaled by the astonishingly similarly short-sighted John McCain.

As Bush, the current leader of America's own fascist regime, compares Obama to Nazi appeasers, these words in this recent article by Gary Hart could not be more timely.

Historians of early 21st century American politics will remark the degree to which radical forces, usually called neoconservatives, perverted language as recommended by the National Socialist Party in 1930s Germany. Continue to demonize liberals, blame them for all social and economic problems, and soon enough no one will be willing to admit to being a liberal. Claim that liberals and Democrats are too soft to combat terrorists and soon enough a majority, even in the oldest democracy on earth, will believe it. Open up entire electronic networks, such as Fox, and chains of radio stations, such as Clear Channel, and buy enough newspaper chains, and make all these media available to pre-programmed neoconservative ditto heads, and sure enough a subculture will emerge which distrusts its own government and believes that an entire political party is not to be trusted.

This has all happened before. And where it has happened, authoritarian government emerges. Worst of all, a formerly "maverick" Republican, one who was sensible enough to understand the dangerous perversions involved in this radicalization of American politics, will find himself repeating the idiotic mantra that we are "fighting al Qaeda in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here."


If John McCain seriously believes we are at war with al Qaeda in Iraq, that alone is such a serious error in judgment as to rank him with George W. Bush at his worst and therefore disqualify him from any chance to govern this country.

George Bush is the very reason why the Republican regime will get trounced in the general election. If George Bush thought that 2006 was a "thumpin'!" then 2008 will be utter humiliation. Guess where all that blame is going to be (appropriately) laid?

I will say this. George W. Bush is a disgrace to this country. Everyone who has voted for him, or continues to support him are a disgrace to this country. Come November, they will all know it as the Republican regime is crippled, and is once again marginalized as the permanent minority party as it was for the better part of the 20th century.

As John McCain irrevocably ties his political fortunes (and misfortunes) to George Bush's presidency, and runs for Bush's third term, promising more of the same failed policies, he will be deservedly held in the same abysmal regard as #43. Good riddance.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Clinton's big win in WV?

Those looking to make a big deal out of Clinton's 67% to 26% (41%) win in WV should consider that it is not nearly as big as his 74% to 26% (48%) win in KS.

To put this in sharper relief, consider his other biggest wins against her:

AK - Obama +50%
CO - Obama +35%
DC - Obama +52%
GA - Obama +36%
HI - Obama +52%
ID - Obama +62%
MN - Obama +34%
NE - Obama +36%
WA - Obama +37%
Dems Abroad - Obama +33.3%

Obama got 67% or more in AK, CO, DC, GA, HI, ID, KS, NE, and WA.

The best part is that tonight, Clinton actually underperformed expectations set by polling, and even by their own metrics.

Really, this should be embarrassing to have one of the biggest names in politics and to consistently perform so badly overall against a relative no-name.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Rampant illiteracy, and Appalachia

It's not just math illiteracy, but there also seems to be a serious problem with the MSM's overall literacy level. I'm not sure why it is, but only a few folks in the blogosphere seem to understand that Obama does not have a problem with white voters. It's merely that Appalachia has a problem with Obama, or at least with non-whites.

For a detailed analysis of the Appalachia problem, check out this detailed post by Kossak DHinMI. Or, Josh Marshal has a more brief primer at TPM.

In a nut shell: A bit of NY, a large part of OH, most of PA, all of WV, stretching into huge chunks of KY and TN, and down into AL, all make up Appalachia. Make no mistake, Appalachia is mostly white, mostly older, and mostly uneducated, and it has been this way for centuries since migrant Scots and Irish moved into this area. This region has also been largely absent of African Americans - even slaves - for most of its history. It is logical to expect that the people of this region would be disinclined to vote for any non-white candidate, not because of any inherent racism, but simply because people tend to vote closer to what they are more familiar with. That is not to say that lots of folks in this region are not racist, given that ignorance is often a symptom of racism, and education is woefully lacking in Appalachia.

Anymore these days, there appears to be a woeful lacking of folks with a decent education in the mainstream media, or at least willful ignorance.

Clinton's math problem

Well, it should be obvious to just about anyone, including those uneducated hard working, white Americans. Clinton has already lost.


Magic number - 2,025

Obama - 1883.5 to date, 141.5 needed to win
Clinton - 1716 to date, 306 needed to win

Total remaining delegates: 430.5

So, do the math. It's not that hard.

But for those who are mathematically challenged, click here.

Clinton: Small states don't matter...

Except when they do.

From a memo the HRC campaign released to the press ahead of WV:

"Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy."

But let's turn back the dial on our time machine to see what she and her campaign had to say about small states:

Feb 11:
She also downplayed many of Obama's Super Tuesday victories, describing them as states that Democrats should not expect to win in November.

Feb. 13
"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?" Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. "That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

Feb 24:
After Maryland and Virginia voted for Barack Obama, we found out that our mid-Atlantic votes "didn't really count" in the eyes of the Clinton campaign's chief, Mark Penn.

Apparently, small states only matter when Clinton wins in them. So which is it Hillary? Do small states matter or what? Wait. No need to answer that, because NO state matters anymore. YOU'VE ALREADY LOST! But congratulations anyway.

Lunch Break

A little post-lunch game for today: Build the most dangerous, yet edible, burger.

My entry:

The Triple Bypass Burger

3 patties, quarter pound each, of ground ribeye topped one each with fontina, brie, and gruyere, plus an onion ring and bacon per patty, and extra mayo.

Then batter-dipped and deep fried, served with a side of chili-cheese fries.


Can you top that?

If a monkey can do it...

In a roundabout way, this lends credence to Bush's ability to play President:

Chimp in Chief, indeed.

Because age matters more than race

RIP Robert Raushenberg:

The master is gone. Sad day indeed. I cite Robert Rauschenberg as the one artist who has most influenced not just the style of art I have dabbled in the most, but his work is responsible for inspiring my appreciation of modern art, and has kept me open to always questioning what constitutes art. The drunk old queen was nothing short of incredible. His creative mind was only equaled by his sharp eye, working together to blend shapes and colors, textures and materials that most would never think would work together. The mind struggles to visualize how many new artists and designers Mr. Rauschenberg was responsible for motivating and inspiring. His legacy is one of humanity's treasures.

Monday, May 12, 2008

A rare occurrence

About the only time you're ever likely to see on this blog a video with Sean Hannity in any situation that doesn't involve horrible harm being committed against him is in the rare event that one of his fellow tool sheds contradicts him on the air. So here's that rare video with the even more rare on-air put down of Hannity by the usually evil Frank Luntz in a rare moment of not being evil (watch it to the end).

For the record, if I were a person who actually admired someone like Sean Hannity, and I woke up one day and realized just how much of a douche bag he was, and how much of a douche bag that would make me, I would kill myself. As my friend Dr. Brown says, "I'd rather be dead than be a douche."

Monday Ha Ha

Found this on Pablano's blog:

Barack Obama shouldn't worry about his current polling, because by the time November rolls around, half of John McCain's supporters will be dead.

Re-drawing the map

I've been saying this all along - that Obama might re-draw the electoral map the way Reagan did, but blue instead of red - and now some numbers have been put to the test of that belief, by none other than the magnificent Pablano. This is the guy that out-predicted the major pollsters and called NC by 17 points (actual 14), and IN perfectly at 51-49.

This article
discusses details on Obama's odds in the general, and has lots of scenarios to consider. All of them are good for Obama, and very bad for McCant:

These projections illustrate the extraordinary level of flexibility enjoyed by the Obama campaign as they head towards the general election. Rather than focusing on simply winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, they have a big enough war chest and a broad enough base of support to create all sorts of contingencies in case one of those typical battleground states goes for McCain.

“If Obama wins the traditional big three, he’s going to have a tough time losing anyway,” Poblano said. “But now you give him a margin for error where if something goes wrong in Ohio – if you’re winning North Carolina and Iowa and Colorado, it’s a very robust scenario for him with a lot of Plan A's, Plan B's, and Plan C's to win the election.”

While the media has often focused on Obama’s star power, his success is largely the result of a campaign team that, through thick and thin, keeps its eye on the big picture. In late 2007, the Clinton camp believed that a slew of primary victories on February 5 were all they needed to cinch the nomination. By contrast, Obama’s advisers focused on the half of the country that wasn’t voting that day. In the end, it was their intensive organizing in states like Idaho, Kansas, and Colorado that brought Obama to the threshold of the nomination.

With the launch of “Vote For Change" in 50 states yesterday, it’s clear that the Obama campaign still has the big picture in mind. And if Poblano’s projections are accurate, it’s going to be quite an adventure.

Tin foil hat idea of the day

I don't know how this idea popped into my head, but I haven't been able to shake it since. I am wondering if the Clinton campaign actually played a part in encouraging MI and FL Democratic parties to break the DNC rules and move their primaries up, knowing that there would be contention and confusion as a result. Could this have been "an ace up the sleeve" that the Clinton campaign was hoping to play out in the event of a close contest?

There's a lot of talk about there never being a Plan B or any post-Super Tuesday strategy, but maybe there has been all along. My suspicions have been raised a bit more after DiFi put her lot back in with Hillary after first questioning whether Clinton should continue or not. This tells me that something nefarious must be in the works.

I have no doubt that Clinton had fully intended to not abide by her signed pledge to discount the voters in Michigan. There's absolutely no reason why she would have kept her name on the ballot after all other candidates withdrew their names. The same goes with Florida. While perhaps not actively campaigning in FL, she and Bill were certainly campaigning for Florida from a distance, as evidenced by their "on to Florida" announcement, and the [victory] celebration held in Florida after the election.

My reasons for suspecting this are thus:

If MI and FL ultimately get counted, then Clinton benefits from winning the popular vote. Never mind that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, Clinton has still been adding those votes to her tally. As for the other votes for "not committed," those can't arbitrarily go to Obama since there were many other candidates to divvy those votes between. But this really isn't so much about the popular vote, nor the elected delegates, but more so about the super delegates from those states. These super delegates - if seated - will have the power to vote for Clinton, and they will do everything they can to spin that as justifiable based on the number of votes Clinton got from the contests, regardless of them being valid.

Perhaps this is what Clinton was planning all along. She must have known that Howard Dean was not really in her corner, and that he could be problematic if the contest came down to a close race between her and say Edwards. By many accounts, this issue with MI and FL is potentially a huge problem for Dean, and if he's not careful, it could get bad for him. There almost seems like an internal struggle over the soul of the Democratic party between the more progressive members and the right-leaning DLC, the Clintons' bloc. This issue with MI and FL has the DLC stink all over it. Could the Clintons and the DLC have been planning all along to fracture the party in an effort to heal it under one common identity, the "Third Way" as it were?

Imagine this scenario: If the race were to have been close, and it was between right of center Clinton, and left of center anyone else, MI and Fl could be used to fracture the party. Since Clinton "won" those states, she would have more credibility in being the one chosen to heal the fractures. Once the party was united behind her, it would eventually be beholden to the DLC's ideology. Clinton would have the presidency, and would own the soul of the party, cementing the Clinton legacy. A win win for the Clintons.

Crazy idea, I know. But I had to get it out there.

Regardless of the Clinton campaign promising to be united behind one candidate, I don't see them following through with that unless SHE is that candidate. I fully expect some serious funny business at the convention if the MI and FL super delegates are seated and allowed to "vote their conscience." There is no way that Clinton is just going to give up. As evidenced by the way they have been campaigning, doing everything possible to tear down a fellow Democrat, and running a scorched earth campaign, it would be foolish to think they would stop now. There is simply too much on the line. Clinton has already jeopardized her next senate run by poisoning the Democrat's well with this campaign. The theory that she has done so to increase her chances of running in 2012 by weakening Obama enough to lose against McCain in 2008 doesn't hold water. She is simply not that patient. By now she is already regretting that she didn't run in '04, and four (or eight) years is a long time to wait for another shot.

No, Clinton wants this bad, and she wants it now.

As many have rightly noted, the Clintons are at their most dangerous when they're down. In this election, Clinton's selfish blood-lust for power and a campaign tactics have been downright scary. She has proven herself to truly be a monster. Some monsters are just so terrible, that the only way they can be stopped is by decapitation.

And the winner is...

MoveOn's winning "Obama in 30 Seconds" ad

Weekend SNAP!

Sure, it's full of cheap shots. But no more so than Hillary's campaign has been. All in all, I'd say this is quite fair. The adage fits: If you want to play in the mud, don't cry when you get dirty.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

You Will Respect Mah Authoritah!

Or reject it! As in this cool video my friend Scamper sent to me: