Gen. Clark Tells It Like It Is

It's a shame so many others are backing away from this type of talk.

On Face The Nation this past Sunday, Bob Scheiffer was in mid-interview with Gen. Wesley Clark and challenged Clark on the issue of experience. Clark didn't hold back, nor should he have.



And he's absolutely right. Since when does having served in the military, let alone getting shot down and being a prisoner of war, a qualification for the presidency. And let's not forget, Clark's answer was in response to Scheiffer challenging him on comparing McCain's experience to Obama's with the qualifier "...nor has [Obama] ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down." But I suppose it's a quality Republicans like in their leaders since George H.W. Bush has also been shot down.

Of course, the McCainstream Media flips out about the whole thing and equates Clark's statements with swiftboating. This even after he prefaced his "controversial" remarks by calling McCain a war hero to millions. Here's the exact quote:

"...I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. .."

And Scheiffer is flummoxed sounding like Jack Benny with an incredulous, "Really!" after hearing Clark's response to an idiotic statement such as qualifying being shot down as experience to be president.

I challenge anyone out there to prove one thing Clark said during the interview that was incorrect, disingenuous or akin to swiftboating. I'm not holding my breath. We need to stop giving McCain the benefit of the doubt and sweeping everything under the rug on the basis of his military service.

Also read - Jon Soltz: Right On, General Clark. Do Not Back Down. and sign his petition.

(H/T C&L)

Bill Clinton Can "Kiss My Ass"

Time's up, Bill. You've had your run and it's time to step aside and fade into that good night. If this "kiss my ass" comment is true, then that's how I feel about Bill Clinton. For all he has done for, and in some cases to the detriment of, the Democratic Party, it's better off that he stay as far away from the Obama campaign as possible.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.

A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.

..."He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.

Now of course Bubba is upset over perceived racial comments made while on the campaign stump for Hillary. But the "house boy" line by the unnamed aide really gives one pause, doesn't it?

Stop Solar But Keep Drilling

This is the ultimate slap in the face.

From David Sirota:

A few weeks back, I wrote a New York Times magazine article about the populist uprising against unbridled oil and gas drilling in the Mountain West. The article highlighted a major theme in my new book, THE UPRISING. In the article, I discussed how the Bush Bureau of Land Management has thrown the principle of environmental caution overboard by opening up a huge amount of federal land to drilling. So it is with more than a little bit absurd to read this New York Times story today:

"Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states."

Look - I agree that we need to do a better job of measuring environmental impacts of all proposed energy development - whether that development is solar, oil or gas. But what's so incredible about this story is that the BLM is working to curtail solar development in Western states by citing environmental concerns while at the same actively accelerating oil and gas drilling in Western states - drilling that is way, way worse for the environment than solar energy, from both an emissions perspective and a land-use perspective.

This kind of government fealty to the rapacious fossil fuel industry is precisely what the energy-related populist uprising in West is revolting against.

How ridiculous do these Bush "policies" have to become in order for the McCainstream Media to report the truth of this administration's inanity? Only two years ago, the top criminal in the White House stated the US was "addicted to oil" and that we had to do something about it. Curbing solar energy while advocating offshore drilling doesn't sound like a step in the right direction.

A Great Way To Save Gas!

Not safe for work.

Feingold On SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Ruling

Senator Russ Feingold: I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights."

This is the perfect quote, especially in light of the FISA "compromise" bill currently in the Senate.

Do I believe in an individual's right to own a gun? Absolutely, but I also believe that government has a role to regulate who has that right. Anyone convicted of a crime should have their right forfeited and a mandatory five day waiting period for background checks is a must for everyone. Sometimes people wait longer when they buy a new car than when they purchase a firearm.

This ruling also takes the NRA's "they wanna take yer guns" argument off the table when critizing pro-gun control politicians. There is no excuse any reasonable person would give to oppose a short mandatory waiting period.

T Minus 207 Days

"I am determined to keep the process on the road to peace."

- Washington, DC, June 2003

Chris Matthews and Mastering the Language

Did you ever have an embarrassing slip of the tongue and were so traumatized by it you vowed never to say it again, only now it's in the back of your mind and dangerously close to the tip of your tongue seemingly at all times? Welcome to Chris Matthews' hell... and the Democrats' hell as well.

For two straight days now, Matthews has blurted out "Osama" instead of "Obama" while hosting his show. Can someone please give this guy a dribble cup and drill into his head that he should learn to use "Bin Laden" and "Bin Laden" only when speaking of the terrorist and use "Senator Obama" when speaking of the politician?

I wish I could say that this is a bit of a slip up and nothing to worry about with Matthews, but it isn't the 1st and/or 2nd time he's done this.

So the question is, "What the hell is going on at 'Hardball'?" I think it's time to start being a lot more careful when you use the Senator's name in your broadcasts, Chris, and it's best not to speak of the two different issues back to back. It might make things a bit easier for you. And please, wipe your bottom lip.

U.S. Taking North Korea Off Terror List

NY TIMES: TOKYO — North Korea submitted a long-delayed declaration of its nuclear program on Thursday, as the Bush administration said it would remove the country it once described as part of the “axis of evil” from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Now if Georgie would put Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the list, we might be getting somewhere.

Them Filipinos Sure Can Cook

You can't make this shit up.

Here's our intrepid leader meeting with Filipino President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo this past Tuesday at the White House. President Arroyo was there to discuss aide in the recent typhoon disaster that capsized a ferry killing approximately 800 people.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Madam President, it is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Oval Office. We have just had a very constructive dialogue. First, I want to tell you how proud I am to be the President of a nation that -- in which there's a lot of Philippine-Americans. They love America and they love their heritage. And I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the -- of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Yes.

PRESIDENT BUSH: And the chef is a great person and a really good cook, by the way, Madam President.

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Thank you.

The schmuck-in-chief referred to Filipino-Americans as "Philippine-Americans." That's the equivalent of a Germany-American or an Italy-American. Then he tries to make small talk (that's when he always seems to get in trouble) by letting everyone know how "Philippine-Americans" must all be talented cooks because his White House chef is a "Philippine-American" and she sure can cook up some good grub. He didn't have the decency to mention her name, probably because he forgot or doesn't even know it.

UPDATE: Here's the video. It's even worse when you hear Bush actually saying this shit, as opposed to reading the transcript. What a dolt.

Vogue McCain

Awesome!

T Minus 209 Days

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."

-Aboard Air Force One, June, 2003

Dodd and Feingold To The Rescue?

Shhh... don't tell anyone, but it looks like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold are going to filibuster the FISA compromise bill. But they're not using that word. Must be bad juju.

Initially there were reports that Feingold would not filibuster the bill. But in an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Feingold explained procedure:

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you filibuster, though?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That’s what I just described.

A joint statement released by Dodd and Feingold explains that "they will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans."

Hmmm... so basically, they're going to filibuster without using the word "filibuster"... maybe it's bad luck to use the word "filibuster" on the Senate floor. Sort of like using the word "Macbeth" in a theatre.

Shhh... don't tell anyone, but it looks like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold are going to "Scottish play" the FISA compromise bill!

David Brooks: Hack Of The Worst Kind

Dear Mr. Brooks,

Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy in your latest column, "The Two Obamas"?

Let's take each issue that you take offense with one at a time, and explain it so that even you can understand.

In your "column", you rail frantically against Senator Obama voting "present" while a member of the Illinois State Senate 130 times according to your count. I won't waste time looking for the actual number because it is irrelevant. Anyone bothering to look for an explanation can easily find one, such as this Republican State House leader coming to Obama's defense.

...Obama's former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama's opponents don't understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

"To insinuate the 'present' vote means you're indecisive, that you don't have the courage to hold public office, that's a stretch. But, it's good politics," said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party's floor leader.

In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their "present" votes nearly every campaign season. "It's always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote 'present' once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up."

The "present" vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.

"The 'present' vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.

And since we're on the subject of not committing to vote for a bill, I'll be awaiting your article on why John McCain didn't bother show up to vote on the new GI Bill, one of the most important bills to come to the floor this year. You'd think that a former POW and veteran hero like McCain would do all he can to help our soldiers, I mean besides voting against a ban on waterboarding.

In your next statement, you claim that Barack Obama first stood by Rev. Wright and then later "threw [him] under the truck" only when it was politically convenient. Nowhere in your article does it state that he originally stood by him but denounced his inflammatory remarks. Nowhere in your article does it state that because of the controversy that the media perpetuated, he daringly gave a speech considered a third rail in politics, discussing the issue of race and racism in our country that was widely hailed as one of the most important political speeches in the last 40 years.

Only after Rev. Wright continued to fly off the handle, giving a speech at the National Press Club to promote his upcoming book, did Obama finally cut Wright loose; only after another controversial appearance by guest speaker Father Pfleger at Trinity United Church, did Obama decide to leave the church itself not only for his own sake, but to avoid further distraction that it was causing the congregation.

It was a lose-lose-lose situation for Obama. Either he defends Wright and gets lambasted by the right wing, or he denounces Wright's comments which isn't considered good enough by the wingnut pundits, or he disavows him altogether and is accused of throwing him "under the truck." Either he stays with his church and is ridiculed by the likes of you, or he leaves the church is accused of doing it for political convenience.

Next you throw in some stupid line about Obama not being a "workhorse senator" and throwing his duties "under the truck" (always with the truck). Yet you give no examples of what you may be talking about. As for me, I'll refer you to the example above regarding McCain's non GI Bill vote and I'll throw this little tidbit of information your way: Senator John McCain, as of this past May 17th had missed 43 straight votes in the Senate just this year alone. At that point, that equated to missing approximately 50% of the roll calls. Before you try and defend the fact that he's been on the campaign trail, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had only missed just 6.4 percent and 1.8 percent of votes this year, respectively. What a "workhorse" that John McCain, huh? Perhaps he was napping.

As for town hall meetings? Maybe Obama would accept if he knew that the audience was impartial and not vetted or invited by the McCain campaign.

Fox News: The McCain campaign said it was taking random questions from the audience of about 200 people. But the questions and mood were decidedly favorable, as his jabs at Obama were frequently interrupted by applause.

One questioner praised his military service; another called him a “hero.”

The campaign later issued a statement saying it distributed tickets to “supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, and other independent groups.”

What a maverick that McCain is!

But then, Mr. Brooks, you save the best for last: Accusing Barack Obama of flip-flopping and backing out of public financing. Oh no! The evil Obama deciding not to accept any taxpayer money (a "small government" conservative's dream by the way). Weak, David. Weak. Let's slow this down so you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

First, let's talk about what Senator Obama actually did say he would participate in. In his Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, question 1-B asked: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing
system?"

So the operative phrase here is "if... your major opponents agree to forgo public financing..." Here is his full answer after checking the "yes" box:

"I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

You got that, Dave? "Senator McCain has already agreed to accept this fundraising pledge." The only problem is that Senator McCain has been raising and spending unlimited monies in violation of Federal Election Commission laws after opting in for public campaign funds through the primaries (which end with the convention), used that pledge to secure a bank loan, and then opted out of public financing. Something that the Republican Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission calls ILLEGAL.

...McCain's maneuvering seemed to irritate FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, who wrote a letter to McCain in February saying McCain could only withdraw from public financing if he received the permission of the FEC and answered questions about the loan.

"The Commission made clear that a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certification," Mason wrote. "The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certifications upon written request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) had not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as 'security for private financing.'"

By the way, McCain was asked the same public financing question that Obama answered from the same organization and didn't bother to respond. Perhaps he was napping.

The fact is that McCain is gaming the system - first planning to opt out of public financing during the primaries. Then when fundraising got rough and he was out of cash, on August 10 McCain asked the Federal Election Commission for the authority to receive matching funds, and the FEC said he was eligible for $5.8 million. Although he never collected the money, he secured a $4 million line of credit with the agreement to reapply for federal matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests. The agreement also held as collateral his list of contributors and a pledge by McCain to seek further cash from those donors to pay of the loan.

So cry all you want about Senator Obama opting out of public financing, or in actuality creating his own system of public financing without using one single dollar of taxpayer money. If the roles were reversed, no one would be batting an eye at the advantage of GOP coffers, but since the shoe is on the other foot, all we hear is whining from "pundits" with agendas.

I suppose that's why your columns are op-eds, Mr. Brooks. You may be entitled you your opinion, but you are certainly not entitled to your own facts.
*************************

I know the public financing fiasco is convoluted - here is Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman explaining it a lot better than I probably did.

Addict-In-Chief

I guess Thomas Friedman has finally stopped defending Bush. Here's what he has to say about our awesome leader.

NY Times: Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”

...It’s as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: “C’mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we’ll all go straight. I’ll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.”

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is.

How incredibly bad is it when Thomas Friedman is ripping you to shreds?

George Carlin Deat At 71

NY Times: George Carlin, the Grammy-Award winning standup comedian and actor who was hailed for his irreverent social commentary, poignant observations of the absurdities of everyday life and language, and groundbreaking routines like “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” died in Santa Monica, Calif., on Sunday, according to his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He was 71.

I'm really going to miss Carlin. Learning the seven words you could never say on television as a 12 year old was a coup for me (my uncle had his comedy LPs). His latest HBO special showed that he still had that acerbic wit and good timing. The video below isn't from that latest special, but it's a classic nonetheless.

No News Is Bad News In Iraq

NY TIMES: Reporters Say Networks Put Wars on Back Burner

Getting a story on the evening news isn’t easy for any correspondent. And for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is especially hard, according to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News. So she has devised a solution when she is talking to the network.

Lara Logan told Jon Stewart recently that war news is hard to get onto TV.
“Generally what I say is, ‘I’m holding the armor-piercing R.P.G.,’ ” she said last week in an appearance on “The Daily Show,” referring to the initials for rocket-propelled grenade. “ ‘It’s aimed at the bureau chief, and if you don’t put my story on the air, I’m going to pull the trigger.’ ”

Ms. Logan let a sly just-kidding smile sneak through as she spoke, but her point was serious. Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.

“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

181 minutes of coverage in 2008. That's an average of one minute per day.

Remember when the race to take over Baghdad started? Embedded reporters were monitoring the progress trrops were making, Baghdad Bob was on Iraqi television telling the Iraqi pepole that all was under control while US troops were practically in the background giving him rabbit ears and posing for the camera. The daily video shots of "Shock and Awe" played on the airwaves so much, you would have thought it was a commercial for the evening fireworks at Disneyworld.

But since things haven't gone as planned, or in this case not planned at all, the coverage has diminished to the point that you wouldn't know we were at "war" in the first place. And people wonder why there aren't mass protests in the streets like there were during Vietnam. Back then, Vietnam was all over the television. It was nonstop. The combat coverage was graphic in nature, with wounded soldiers being shown airlifted out of combat zones. There wasn't a government ordered blackout on flag draped coffins coming home to families for final closure of a lost loved one. The propaganda coming from the White House now is even worse than whatever Baghdad Bob was going on about over five years ago.

Looks like these days, no news is bad news in Iraq.

"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I understand the emotionality of death penalty cases."

- Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000

Is Obama Christian Enough?

Whenever I hear someone ask about Barack Obama's religion or religious beliefs , I always ask, "Why is that important? What difference does it make?"

Would you refuse to vote for someone on the simple point of his or her religion? If the answer is 'yes' then you don't know your history.

Article Six of the US Constitution states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " Our forefathers, religious men all, knew of the consequences of a theocracy and actually wrote a directive in our soon to be 222 year old Constitution to prevent such a thing happening in the United States as it happens in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The reason I bring this up is because when I hear supposed "Christians" like Cal Thomas not only question someone's Christianity, but whether they are "Christian enough", I shake my head in amazement.

In a column published last week, Cal Thomas took a verbal swing at Barack Obama's claim to be a committed Christian. "He can call himself anything he likes," wrote the syndicated columnist, "but there are certain markers among the evangelicals he is courting that one must meet in order to qualify for that label."

..."... [T]here is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement," stated Thomas. "One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in scripture. They are called 'false prophets.'"

Oh really, Mr. Thomas? He has to meet with the approval of evangelicals to "qualify" as a Christian? And which evangelicals would those be? Do you happen to have a list? Perhaps we can start with the more Christian ones and work our way down, seeing as you know who the real Christians are and who are "false prophets."

A quick Google search of "Cal Thomas" reveals a few books he's written, his official website and various articles and appearances he's made on Fox News. His Wikipedia page reveals a very light biography stating that he was a reporter in the 60's and 70's and the Vice President of the Moral Majority from 1980-1985. There is no mention of schooling, whether secular or seminary.

And yet this man seems to know who is more Christian, less Christian or Christian at all. I don't claim to be a religious expert, but I'll defer to someone who commented on Thomas' website in regards to Obama's Christianity:

Posted by radar, June 20, 2008 4:36:41

First, let me say that I am a political moderate; with over 40 years voting, I have probably divided my votes equally between Republicans and Democrats, altho [sic] I have also voted for 3rd party candidates. I agree with Cal that no one should use their Christianity to gain political (or any other) advantage. While Obama may be headed that way, clearly the Republican Party has been doing this for years. I hope and pray that all guilty folks will stop, be they Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, black or white, or whatever. I also am moderate when it comes to my Christianity; my father and both grandfathers were ministers, and I have been in Baptist churches all of my 64 years, and currently serve as Chairman of Deacons in a Southern Baptist Church. Based on my 64 years of study and being taught at my ancestors' tables, I disagree with Cal as to our right to judge another person's Christianity; while we can judge someone's actions, to say someone is not a Christian when they profess to be is not our job. If someone who professes to be a Christian doesn't behave as a Christian, we certainly have a responsibility to confront that individual, but not to denounce him/her as being a non-Christian. I think Cal crosses the line when he writes that Obama is not a Christian.

Truly the Christian answer.

Perhaps it is Cal Thomas for whom we should be reserving the right to confront as "someone who professes to be a Christian but doesn't behave as a Christian." And even so, for the sake of argument, let's listen to those evangelicals Thomas speaks of and see what they have to say about those "certain markers... one must meet in order to qualify for that [Christian] label."

From the Washington Post:

This month, the Illinois senator held a closed-door meeting in Chicago with almost 40 Christian leaders, including evangelical heavyweights such as the Rev. Franklin Graham, publishing magnate Steve Strang and megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes.

..."I've never seen anything quite like it before," said evangelical author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote "The Faith of George W. Bush" and has a forthcoming book about Obama. "To be running against a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and to be reaching into the Christian community as wisely and knowledgeably as (Obama) is -- understanding their terms and their values -- is just remarkable."

Strang wrote in a blog, Obama "won over the loyalties of many. He came across as thoughtful and much more of a 'centrist' than I would have expected," Strang wrote, adding that he hopes McCain will host a similar gathering.

It seems that the religious evangelical leaders that met with Senator Obama were impressed by him, much more so than a crackpot like Cal Thomas would have been, with his preconceived ideas and his notion that he can decide who is a Christian and who is not. The fact is that Cal Thomas is a political tool, a pundit hiding in evangelical clothing, casting doubt on those he is told to cast doubt upon. He is a reporter, and a hackish one at that, using lies and smears for his political agenda. Is that how a Christian acts?

And speaking of acting like a Christian, if you're not planning on voting for Obama because of a religious question, that leaves John McCain. And is McCain a Christian? A man who cheated on and divorced his first wife after finding out she had a disfiguring car accident while he was a POW? A man involved in a savings and loan scandal that robbed thousands of their retirement funds and cost the US taxpayer $3.4 billion? A man who was tortured for five and a half years during the Vietnam War and spoke out against torture his entire life in public service until it was politically convenient for him to vote against a ban on waterboarding? Is that the kind of "Christian" man you would vote into the Oval Office?

As the first lines of the Cal Thomas/Obama smear e-mail I received state, "Please read this and take this coming election very seriously. Please pray about how you will vote." And for those of you who do pray, I hope you will pray for the strength to vote for what you believe is right, and not for what you are told to believe is right.


Also read: Keep Cal Thomas Away From Your Kids

Offshore Drilling

I'm kind of surprised at the media's nonstop questioning of the offshore drilling question. C'mon guys, this is the gasoline tax holiday redux.

Even the Bush Adminsitration's Department of Energy states that "Access to the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

But I suppose that's what happens when the powers-that-be tell the news offices what to talk about.

2030! I hope my tank of gas lasts til then. Maybe if I drive 55...

T Minus 213/212 Days

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."

...Eloquent.

- Rome, Italy, June 22, 2001

Defending Obama On FISA

I woke up Friday morning to an e-mail in my box from the Obama campaign. It was a two and a half minute video of Barack Obama and his announcement that he was foregoing public funding for the campaign.

"Join me and declare your independence from this broken system, and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people."

So I gladly donated for a second time to Senator Obama's campaign. I spent the rest of the morning writing a rebuttal to an Obama smear e-mail and taking great joy in sending it to every schmoe that ever e-mailed me crap like that and giggled as I imagined their faces as they read. On my way to work, I felt good for the first time in a while, sending some cash to Obama and fighting the lies. I actually felt a spring in my step.

Then I got to work and read this: House Passes New Steny Hoyer/FISA Bill. KAPOW!

It took me a couple of minutes to regain my breath, and just as I was starting to feel better, I read this: Obama on FISA - "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

KABOOOOOM!!!! Kicked in the balls!

Still seeing stars, I decided to take a deep breath, count to ten, and try to sort this all out. Steny Fuckin' Hoyer... that's where the anger needs to be directed. Hoyer and Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.

Think about it. It's been barely two weeks since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Barack Obama. The most recent polls show Obama leading McCain in swing states, rewriting the fucking electoral map by the minute. No scandal du jour to speak of - Rev. Wright is forgotten, and guest preacher Father Michael Pfleger's Hillary rant was the last straw that caused Obama to actually sever ties with Trinity United Church of Christ. Even Michelle Obama co-hosted The View to improve her image and show the world that she's always been proud of her country. A hard stance on the "compromised" FISA bill voted in the House would fan the flames of dying embers.

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's the House Democrats who put him there. The worst part of the whole thing is that it always seems like the Democrats in Congress don't know what the fuck they are doing. Maybe because they really don't. They are so petrified of being perceived as soft on national security that they capitulate to the whims of a lame duck president who made us less safe in the first place; and they don't realize that the capitulation itself is what truly makes them look weak. It makes the Republicans look like they were right all along.

Let's take a step back and realize that through it all, Barack Obama is a politician. And at this point in time, it's not wise to come out in harsher tones than is necessary regarding a crap FISA bill that still has to pass through the Senate.

Unfortunately, before you can say "telecom immunity", the liberal blogosphere goes apeshit and acts as if Barack Obama just ran over their dog. Twice. Atrios calls Obama "Wanker of the Day." Digby is "tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment." It's understandable to a point. But why trash our own Democratic nominee and likely next President of the United States before we've gotten him out of the wrapper?

Here's John Cole's reaction to the liberal freakout entitled "Things I Learned Today":

Obama can not snap his fingers and magically change the minds of hundreds of Democrats elected by people other than Barack Obama, and because of it, he does not deserve the votes of the netroots.

Also, compromise means getting everything you want, not just shifting the debate and working to remove portions of a bill that you find objectionable. Compromise to the netroots is much like George Bush’s definition of compromise. Who would have thunk it.

Additionally, Obama apparently hates the Constitution.

The last thing I learned today is that the ideal candidate goes down with the ship. It does not matter if that candidate was right on the issue all along, did everything he could to win the fight, but that he must go down with the ship. It does not matter if the fight is already over and the battle lost, real candidates try to maximize the loss by inflicting political pain on themselves.

You all make me cranky. Enjoy President McCain, whiners.

And he makes a good point. Is Senator Obama supposed to slit his own throat with a FISA tantrum to satisfy his loyal base, damn the consequences? Don't forget that he also said this in his statement: "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

And is he the only Senator opposed to this bill? Did everyone forget the existence of Russ Feingold? Or Chris Dodd? Filibuster away. My hope is that Harry "Poopy Pants" Reid will get all flustered because nothing else is getting done in the meantime and table the bill. And if they are able to strip the retroactive immunity from the bill, then Mensa Man will veto it anyway and at least the Dems can say they tried, but Georgie doesn't care enough about national security and too much about the corporations that did his evil bidding in the first place.

So chill, people, or I will hide your Firebird keys. Direct your anger at the cowards who voted for the bill.

My other thought (initially, while I was still angry) was that both sides are knee deep in shit (would that be so surprising?) and this is a way for the whole thing to go away. Immunity equals the end of getting the bottom of things and finding out the truth. If there are Democratic hands that are as dirty as Republican ones, then the bill will pass. And that would make me very sad indeed.

And I started the day with a spring in my step.

Obama Foregoes Public Financing

You can donate to the campaign here.

Correcting The Record

A couple of days ago, I received two more Obama e-mail smears in my inbox sent to me by a good friend who knew I'd get riled up about them. For the record, he doesn't believe them either but gets a kick out of me going off on a rant.

Now that I've had time to calm down and process the information, I decided to rebut the e-mail with one of my own, defending Obama's true positions and debunking the smears with the truth, complete with links for all the naysayers to look it up on their own, all the while trying to be polite and not calling them out for the idiots they are. I sent it to everyone on the forwarded list, and then some (including Obama supporters and non-idiots) in an attempt to start an e-mail blast of my own.

Here is the email:
*****************************
From: Broadway Carl
To: Undisclosed list
Subject: Re: THE TRUTH - Obama "saluting the US flag" and "standing with the Muslims"

Hi,

Most of you don't know me, but I received this email with all of your emails attached to it so I thought it would be nice to respond to all of you.

I know we're in the habit of receiving emails like this "Obama not saluting the flag" email and assuming that every time we get an email, it MUST be true. Just like the "forward this email and Bill Gates will give you $100,000". Or "If you don't forward this email, bad luck will befall you and your dog will crap on your carpet".

We all know those emails are false, and all you have to do is look it up on this amazing internet we have and be able to find out in about 5 seconds if they are true or not. Unfortunately, if you have a preconceived notion of someone or something in particular and want to believe it, then you will. We all have an inclination to believe or not believe something based on how we feel about something rather than based on fact.

So I decided to look up the “Obama doesn't salute the US flag" to see if it had ANY merit whatsoever. Just as I suspected, it does not.

According to Snopes.com:

Back in October, 2007, one of the hottest e-mail forwards was a picture capturing Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama standing in front of a US flag (at an Iowa political event) with his hands clasped in front of him during the playing of the US National Anthem (while other persons on the platform with him stood with their hands placed over their hearts.) This photographic brouhaha soon mutated into a FALSE claim that Obama “refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance” and the into the EVEN MORE FALSE claim that “he refused to recite the Pledge” at all – rumors which the Obama campaign soon provided evidence to negate.

While this controversy was all the rage on the Internet, political columnist John Semmens included a bit at the end of one of his satirical “Semi-News” columns (found on the website THE ARIZONA CONSERVATIVE) offering a mock explanation from the Senator about his non-hand-over-heart stance, poking fun at Obama by having him voice the opinion that “the American flag is a symbol of oppression” and that the US national anthem is too “bellicose” and should be replaced by something gentler like “I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing.”

This bit of satire evidently came off as too believable to some readers, as it has since been excerpted from Semmen’s column and forwarded via e-mail (WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION) as a genuine statement from Obama. However topical it might be, it’s just a bit of political commentaty-cum-humor, though, not the Senator’s own words.

So it took me longer to type the last three paragraphs out than it did to look this rumor up and find out it was false. And I’m letting you know the truth, COMPLETE WITH LINKS to verify that I’m not just making it up. You’re just one click away from seeing it for yourself and not just taking my word for it.

Here is another email I received. It’s a touching email about “John McCain’s Sons” and their military pedigree. At first glace, and about a 5 second check to verify it, the story seems to check out. Great! Good for John McCain and his sons. I’m sure he’s very proud of them. But then this touching email gets trashed by someone writing the following:

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services?

This is for all you Barack voters.
From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

Laura

I don’t know who “Laura” is, whether she was the originator of the email or just someone passing it on, but here is THE TRUTH on this one. And all you had to do was actually look it up in the book which Laura claims the quote came from.

In this section of the book, Senator Obama was speaking about immigrants and citizenship. He often makes speeches to new citizens taking the oath after going through what they had to in order to become legal US citizens. And he speaks of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed in confinement, as was done with Japanese-Americans during World War II. Here is the actual passage from the book. Notice it contains no specific mention of “Muslims”:

"Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, I can count on some good-natured ribbing from my staff after my speech; according to them, my remarks always follow a three-part structure: "I am your friend," "[Fill in the home country] has been a cradle of civilization," and "You embody the American dream." They're right, my message is simple, for what I've come to understand is that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens deserving of respect.

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." [Page 260-261]

Senator Obama was speaking of legal US citizens, immigrants who came to the US looking for a better life, legally emigrating here and that he would support them just like any other US citizen, as is their right. Anyone see the word “Muslim” in that quote? Me neither.

As far as Obama not serving in the Armed Services, well that’s another matter entirely. Obama is 46 years old. I think that means he missed the draft during Vietnam, and isn’t our Army an “all-volunteer” army as our current administration continually reminds us? If serving in the armed forces was a pre-requisite for an elected official, then George Bush, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, and a host of others, would never have been elected to office.

Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but that isn’t the reason I’m defending him here. The reason is that this upcoming presidential election is probably one of the most important of our lifetime, and no matter who you support, you should base your actions on facts, not rumors or email smears. Some of you are going to believe what you want to believe and I know that this won’t change your mind. But others might realize that you can’t believe everything you read in an email, or what you see on the evening news, and you might want to take just a couple of minutes to look things up for yourself.

If you’ve sent emails like “Obama is a Muslim” or “Obama won’t salute the flag” to some that aren’t on the list above or emails similar, I hope you’ll forward this one just like you forwarded the last one. To make a monumental decision like who you want to run our country and how you want the world to view us should be based on the issues and policies and not if someone wears a flag pin or not, or if someone’s wife plagiarizes cookie recipes.

And to whoever originated this email, thanks for inspiring me to find out the truth for myself, base my decisions on facts and to have the inclination to email everyone back to correct the record.

Thanks for reading – and please, forward this to anyone you know to correct the record. You wouldn’t want them to think you were a liar, would you?

By the way, I’m still waiting for my $100,000 check signed by Bill Gates.

************************End E-mail******************************

I would ask you that if you are reading this and haven't received my e-mail personally (which is traveling worldwide at this very second!) that you please copy and paste and send to your friends, family, co-workers, colleagues, pen pals, softball buddies, bowling team, garden club, movie club, book club or next door neighbor.

I'm sure they'd like to find out the truth for a change.

FYI

I suppose it's a hair of an exaggeration depending on what kind of beer you drink, but you get the point.

Cyd Charisse Dead at 86

NY TIMES: Cyd Charisse, the leggy beauty whose balletic grace made her a memorable partner for Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly in classic MGM musicals like “Singin’ in the Rain,” “The Band Wagon” and “Brigadoon,” died on Tuesday in Los Angeles. She was believed to be 86.

...Set during the dawn of talking pictures, “Singin’ in the Rain” starred Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds and Jean Hagen. Ms. Charisse appeared in only one of the movie’s many indelible dance sequences, but one was enough. During the “Broadway Melody Ballet,” opposite Kelly, she was both sultry vamp and diaphanous dream girl.







Here she is with Gene Kelly in "Singin' In The Rain".

T Minus 215 Days

"I'm sure you can imagine it's an unimaginable honor to live here."

- The White House, June 2001

McCain: Pre-Surge Levels?

How many times can this guy be wrong on a daily basis? You gotta love the McCainstream Media. What a maverick!

Mets Fire Randolph

June 17 (Bloomberg) -- Willie Randolph was fired as manager of the New York Mets, who have struggled this year after missing the playoffs last season in the biggest collapse in Major League Baseball history. He was replaced by bench coach Jerry Manuel.

I don't know if the timing of this move was right, but when a team is underachieving as much as the Mets have been, you can't fire 25 players. Letting Randolph go was inevitable when you consider the collapse at the end of last season coupled with the fact that this team has been playing .500 baseball since last June (a full calendar year).

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, Willie Randolph didn't have the respect of certain players and it ultimately undermined his authority. He also didn't show the personality traits to be hard on his players when he needed to be.

According to general manager Omar Minaya, he decided to pull the trigger on Sunday night, slept on it, and flew out to Anaheim the next morning to let Randolph know personally. The constant media buzz as to whether Randolph would continue as Mets manager over the weekend was the final nail in the coffin, as Minaya thought it was too much of a distraction from the day to day operations of the team and its players.

Jerry Manuel's first game didn't go so well as the Mets fell to the Angels 6-1.

UPDATE (6/19/08, 1:45am): I just have to vent a little bit. Take a look at this front page of the New York Daily News.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is typical of a sports media trying to make controversy out of something that we all knew was inevitable.

"Cowards In The Night"?! The NY press was pissed off that they got a press release announcing the firing of Randolph at 3am. They are up in arms, screaming in disbelief wondering how the Mets organization can possibly have the audacity to do this in the middle of the night. The fact is the Mets were on a west coast trip and the firing happened after the game, in private at about midnight PDT. The news was released immediately. Oh those poor, poor reporters that didn't find out about it until the woke up the next morning, I feel so sorry for them.

And take a look at the subtitle: "Never in the history of New York baseball, has there been a more shameful, indecent firing of a manager."

Seriously? Never? Were any of these intrepid reporters around in the mid 70's when firing managers in the Bronx was practically a weekly occurrence? "Never been a more shameful firing"? Maybe they should ask Yogi Berra how he felt after getting a vote of confidence from Herr Steinbrenner and then getting bounced on his ass 16 games into the 1985 season. 16 games!

Or maybe they should take a look at Billy Martin's managerial career with the Yankees when he was hired and fired five times in ten years. Any Yankee announcer (yes, I'm talking to you Michael Kay and you, Susan Waldman and you, John Sterling) or any Yanks fan who can call this situation "classless" after what George Steinbrenner did to Yankees managers in the 70's and 80's have got to get their noses out of Steinbrenner's decrepit ass and enter the real world.

Where was the outrage at the termination of Joe Torre, a manager who got you to the playoffs every single year he managed the Yanks; where was Kay or Waldman speaking out about having Torre fly down to Florida for a meeting only to be offered an insulting contract with no negotiation? I know, I know. They were sucking Steinbrenner's ass.

And speaking of the real world, it looks like George's son, Hank is a cowchip off the ol' block. After Chien-Ming Wang injured himself running the bases, Hank "Brain Child" Steinbrenner had this to say about the National League not having the designated hitter:

"My only message is simple. The National League needs to join the 21st century," Steinbrenner said in Tampa, Fla. "They need to grow up and join the 21st century."
Am I (mad) about it? Yes," Steinbrenner added. "I've got my pitchers running the bases, and one of them gets hurt. He's going to be out. I don't like that, and it's about time they address it. That was a rule from the 1800s."

What the fuck?! Maybe someone should remind Baby Steinbrenner that the D.H. didn't come into existence until 197-fuckin'-2. By that point, the Yanks had won 20 World Series Championships, all while their pitchers took their turns at bat, as the baseball gods intended.

But it doesn't stop there. Listen to this pearl of wisdom from Yanks pitcher Mike Mussina:

"We don't hit, we don't run the bases," Mussina said. "You get four or five at-bats a year at most, and if you happen to get on base once or twice, you never know. We run in straight lines most of the time. Turning corners, you just don't do that."

So let me get this straight: professional athletes being paid millions upon millions of dollars can only run in straight lines?

Hey, Mike. Here's a little tidbit of information for you. Before every game, there's this thing called "batting practice" where you can hone your amazing athletic skills and learn to hit the fucking ball! And the next time you go out for a jog, try making an occasional left turn. You might get that "turning corners" thing down. Dipshit.

T Minus 216 Days

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."

- Washington, DC, June 18, 2002

Gore Endorses Obama

Does it really mean as much now as opposed to... oh I don't know... when Hillary Clinton was still in the race?

GORE: A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

UPDATE: Here's the video. I stand corrected. Awesome speech.

T Minus 218 Days

"I think - tide turning - see, as I remember - I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of - it's easy to see a tide turn - did I say those words?"

- June 14, 2006, Washington, DC

Pathetic Legacy

Bush Wants To Capture Bin Laden

President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.

...Intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden is sketchy, but some analysts believe he is in the Bajaur tribal zone in northwest Pakistan. He has evaded capture for nearly seven years. “Bush is swinging for the fences in the hope of scoring a home run,” said an intelligence source, using a baseball metaphor.

No matter what happens, whether Bin Laden is captured or not, nothing can be done to change Bush's "legacy" as a dimwit who listened to no one, lied a country into a war on two fronts under false pretenses and doctored intelligence, destroyed the credibility of the U.S throughout the world and sentenced thousands to their deaths due to his stubbornness.

Stunts like this are only tossed around when it was politically convenient. And if he should capture Bin Laden now, in his last months in office, shouldn't the first question out of the mouths of every news pundit and journalist in the country, if not the world, be, "Why did Bush wait so long to finally put forth the resources necessary to capture Osama Bin Laden?"

The answer of course, is if we had captured him, there would be no "boogeyman" to put out there to scare the public whenever the administration chose. Eight years of fearmongering could not have been so easy without a villain's face to flash on the TV screen and in newspapers at a specific time (usually during elections and low approval ratings).

Capture Bin Laden? The "Wanted: Dead or Alive" guy that Bush then admitted just a few months later to not "spending much time on" ? That Bin Laden?

Go ahead, Georgie. I dare you.

"Winning" In Iraq

Over at Bob Cesca, Bob occasionally presents some e-mail that he receives from wingnuts who fall for the Bush propaganda hook, line and sinker. They want to believe (as any other well meaning American, I suppose) that we are in control, that America is the greatest, and that there is no way the U. S of A. can lose.

Here's part of an e-mail that Bob received:

George W. Bush's legacy: After 9-11, there has not been a single terroirist [sic] attack in the United States. As of today, that's more than 2,400 days and counting.

Oh, yeah, and crushing the Taliban in a matter of weeks, despite the whining defeatism of people like you.

Oh, yeah, and winning the war in Iraq when Leftist douches like you were advising surrender, and accepting defeat, and ridiculing his success even after it was acknowledged by the enemy.

Oh yeah, you're an idiot sheep that's going to be led to the Republican slaughterhouse.

The worst part of this whole thing is that after all that has happened these last 7½ years, idiots like this still believe what the administration and the talking heads at Fox have to say, no questions asked. NO QUESTIONS ASKED! How can that be? How can they compare their lives today totheir lives in 2000 and delude themselves to believe it's somehow better?

Here's what I wrote in the comments section of Bob's blog:

********************
Sad.

...there has not been a single terroirist attack in the United States.

Really? Doesn't anyone remember Capitol Hill? Whatever happened to ... the anthrax attacks?


...crushing the Taliban in a matter of weeks...

From Council on Foreign Relations website 5/30/2006:

Though the group has been out of power for several years, it remains a cultural force in the region while working to undermine President Hamid Karzai's U.S.-backed government. Violent clashes between Taliban and coalition forces have increased in recent months, underscoring the Taliban's resurgence.

This article was written over two years ago and judging be how badly the administration has ignored Afghanistan, you can probably guess what's happening there now.


...Oh, yeah, and winning the war in Iraq...

To which I reply, "Winning what?"

Some progress is being made not because the militias have been defeated or merged into Iraqi military and police forces but because of an Iranian-brokered truce and because the Iraqi Army allowed the militias to slip away without disarming or engaging them. Though two leaders surrendered on Friday, the militias' existence indicates how far Iraq still must go for political reconciliation.

No mistake, the Iraqi Army in particular has made progress. Negotiating with sheiks is better than warring with their followers. Yet Americans and Iraqis are still dying. The militias' decision not to fight might be because they are spent, are afraid or because they are keeping their powder dry.

And the popular resistance to a long-term U.S.-Iraqi security agreement remains deep in the country, indicating that we might not even be broadly wanted. Many Iraqis believe this accord will cement a U.S. occupation, a fear that militia instigator Iran shares.

Some will look at all these failings and see even more reason to stay, contradicting their simultaneous statements that recent developments mean the U.S. is "winning."

It took me about 5 minutes to look that up. Very sad indeed.

********************

When Army Generals were calling for a Democratic takeover in 2006 so that there would be some oversight, doesn't that tell you something? Yet here we are, two years after the 2006 elections, waiting out Mensa Man.

Tim Russert Dead at 58

The New York Times is reporting that Tim Russert has died of a heart attack that the age of 58 according to his family.

More later.

UPDATE: NY Post - Tim Russert, NBC journalist and political heavyweight host of "Meet the Press," has died after collapsing at NBC's Washington news bureau, a source said.

NY Times - Tom Brokaw, the former anchor of NBC Nightly News, came on the air at 3:39 p.m. that Mr. Russert had collapsed and died early this afternoon while at work. He had just returned from Italy with his family.

Spreading "Democracy" Throughout The Middle East

de·moc·ra·cy (noun) - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

We've finally gotten a definition of "democracy" from the Bush administration.

NY TIMES: Iraq’s negotiations with the United States on a security agreement governing America’s long-term involvement in the country are at an impasse because America’s demands infringe upon Iraq’s sovereignty, the country’s prime minister said Friday.

....In a meeting with newspaper editors in Jordan, Mr. [Nuri Kamal al-] Maliki said the current draft of the agreement was unacceptable. “The American version of the agreement infringes hugely on the sovereignty of Iraq and this is something that we cannot ever accept,” he said.

And what is it, pray tell, that Georgie Porgie Puddin' Pie is asking that's making Nuri al-Miliki cry? Well, he'll be happy to tell you himself:

Mr. Maliki said there were four areas in which proposed versions of the agreement failed to give sufficient deference to Iraqi sovereignty.

“Iraq rejects Washington’s insistence on granting their forces immunity from Iraqi laws and courts,” he said. “We reject Washington’s demand to have a free hand in undertaking military operations without cooperation with the Iraqi government.”

He added: “We cannot give permission to the American forces independent right to arrest Iraqis or execute operations against terrorism. We cannot allow them to use the Iraqi skies and waters at all times.”

And that, my friends, seems to be what a free and democratic society is to the twisted rat-bastards in the White House. For all of their hullabaloo about "spreading democracy throughout the Middle East", it is absolutely clear that it isn't the same definition of democracy that the rest of the world understands. But we already knew that.

So Much For McCain's Town Hall Meetings

When John McCain challenged Barack Obama to 10 town hall meetings, one per week, leading up to their respective conventions, I immediately turned to my colleague at work and said, "Yeah, I wonder what the composition for those audiences will be?"

Now comes word, from Fox News no less, that John McCain was a little disingenuous about the attendees at his first Fox televised Town Hall event in New York.

"...as Fox News reported, McCain's campaign misled the public about the nature of the event. The forum was "billed by the McCain campaign as a town hall with independent and Democratic voters," but Fox News noted at the end that the audience was actually "made up of invited guests and supporters," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement.

SHEPARD SMITH: "I reported at the top of this hour that the campaign had told us at Fox News that the audience would be made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. We have now received a clarification from the campaign and I feel I should pass it along to you. The McCain campaign distributed tickets to supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, who of course is a registered Republican, and other independent groups."

Straight talk.