Just for you Loretta

Colin Powell - A House Negro no more:

Former Uncle Tom, House Negro, and unrepentant war criminal, Colin Powell, gave his coveted endorsement to Barack Obama last weekend, hailing our future President as a "transformational figure".

Transformational, indeed! Saturday night, Powell was a still just a lapdog of the Bush Junta, a lying liar who lied about WMD's in Iraq, and had blood on his hands for the millions of innocent Iraqis that Bush murdered so he could steal their oil. But on Monday morning, Powell crawled out of his bed a "man of courage", a "true patriot", and a "great American". That's quite a transformation. And all he had to do to cleanse himself of his past sins was declare his unconditional love for Obama.

When it comes right down to it, blind devotion is all Obama really asks of any of us. In return, he annointest us with hope, change, and free health care until our cup runneth over. Even DicKKK Halliburton Cheney, Rummy RumselKKKd, and KKKarl Rove can be absolved of their crimes - and cured of various maladies ranging from male-pattern baldness to racism - if they simply drop to their knees and declare fealty to our future President, Barack Obama. And he will be our president, as long as the superstitious, bible-clinging evangelical nutjobs of the GOP don't get in his way.

New Rules

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

FACTOID

Barack Obama has received more money from Fannie Mae since 1989 than any other politician in Washington except one ... and that would be Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. This Obama has accomplished in only four years.

Know the truth about taxes

So now the media wants to get technical on taxes. Ok, fine. Bring it on. A reporter for Good Morning America did a report on the falsehood of McCain's argument that Obama "gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes." The reporter says that McCain is wrong because Obama's tax cuts only go to people who work, therefore, by definition, Obama's plan "is not welfare." He says that "some working people eligible for Obama's tax cut make so little, they do not pay income taxes. But they do pay payroll taxes and other taxes." So now, the media is demanding that John McCain get specific ... what he should have said is Obama "gives an income tax cut to those who don't pay income taxes — and pays for it by raising income taxes on those who are already shouldering more than half of the nation's income tax burden."

Let's address this idea that all of these people who get the Obama welfare checks pay Social Security and Medicare Taxes. These are really not so much taxes as they are mandated premiums for a specific defined benefit. The idea here is that you pay for your Social Security and your Medicare while you are working, and receive the benefits when you retire. If Obama wants to eliminate these tax burden with his "refundable tax credits" then he is turning both of these programs into pure income redistribution efforts.

However you say it, folks, the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama's tax plan is welfare – he takes money from the high achievers and spreads it around to those with lower incomes.

For those of you who really want to understand Barack Obama's "tax cuts" (which are not really tax cuts but welfare checks), I suggest you read this article again from the Wall Street Journal. To Barack Obama, "tax cuts" is the new way to say government handout. Why doesn't the mainstream media cover that side of the tax argument?

If you want to see this in visual terms, the Washington Post created a chart comparing Barack Obama's tax cuts to John McCain. Big difference, wouldn't you say?

Is it fair to censor

So if the Democrats win it all this year, you can bet one of the first things they`re going to do is gloat. Then, of course, they`re going to pick out some new window treatments for the White House. Then, finally, they will try to resuscitate the corpse that is the Fairness Doctrine. If you don`t know what this is, it`s basically a creepy ploy to "balance" talk radio – meaning imposing government regulation to offset Rush Limbaugh with an opposing idealogy. Think Jeanine Garafalo (without throwing up).

The Fairness Doctrine illustrates a key truth about liberal thinking: no one actually likes it. The fact that you`d need government regulation to force radio stations to broadcast this crap is proof that society has no need for it. Without forced indoctrination of liberal thought – there would be no liberal thought. If you want an example of how successful liberal talk radio is on its own, consider Air America. It was to radio broadcasting what crabs are to Spring Break.

Even more, the Fairness Doctrine reveals a scurvy of insecurity that riddles the left. They are so unsure of their own beliefs, that it`s not enough for them to control nearly every media entity on the planet (including movies, television, magazine publishing, off-Broadway one woman shows). They feel they must regulate talk radio, as a means to destroy talk radio – only because it`s not like them.

If the Fairness Doctrine comes to pass, most likely talk radio would cut back on their successful shows, because they`d lose money supporting liberal shows they`d be forced to run. And that`s the left`s real strategy all along: it`s not about giving Paul Begala another outlet to babble. It`s about eliminating dissent from the people they hate.

It's sleazy and wrong, but hardly surprising.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Ask a good question---become a target.

Don't you find it just a bit odd that the mainstream New York and DC media has spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers? Why attack Joe? It's very simple. Because his question hurt. His question led to another wonderful unscripted moment from Barack Obama .. that being his comment about spreading the wealth. Will this be our future in the ObamaNation? Become a critic of The Messiah and the investigations begin. Can't you see the big screen televisions in public places with the featureless face telling you "Do not question the Dear Leader." Didn't they write a book about that?

Joe the Plumber

Two days after the debate and we are still talking about Joe the Plumber. Could this one guy be the turning point for the entire McCain campaign? Don't count on it. But I do get the sneaking suspicion that at least a few people out there are catching on to what Barack Obama really stands for. Don't get me wrong ... they are going to vote for Obama anyway because they "just like the guy" or he "seems more presidential" or he's "like, so much cooler." But at least now you can't say you didn't see it coming.

Enter the unions ...

Now comes a plumbers union, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, saying that John McCain "manufactured outrage" over Barack Obama's tax plan by talking about Joe the Plumber. A spokesperson for the union said, "John McCain made Joe the Plumber a household name. His manufactured outrage on behalf of Joe would be a lot more believable if his economic plan had anything to do with helping working people deal with the economic crisis." Apparently this union, which has endorsed Barack Obama (go figure), doesn't understand what tax cuts will do for our economy, or even worse, what Obama's tax increases will do. And I wouldn't consider the idea of putting a Marxist in the White House "manufactured outrage." It should scare the living dog shit out of you ... or at least, out of anyone who wants to make something of themselves and be successful.

So what is really going on here? We've got Joe Biden saying that Joe isn't a real plumber because he makes too much money. We've got nit-wits like the women on "The View" calling Joe's plan to own his own business a "fantasy." Don't you love that? Liberals view the dream of owning your own business a "fantasy!" We've got the plumbers union saying that John McCain is using Joe for "manufactured outrage." We've got the mainstream media reporting on Joe's tax returns. We've got rumors that Joe was a plant by the Republican Party. We've got liberals bloggers saying that Joe is really related to Charles Keating. Notice that none of these people are actually talking about what Obama actually SAID to Joe the Plumber – the fact that he wants to "spread the wealth around" in a redistribution welfare scheme. People are clamoring because, for the first time, John McCain has actually found a way to explain the asinine tax plans of the Chosen One. Look, folks. It's not like this is a new concept for politicians. Remember in the last debate, Obama and McCain both talked about the bracelets they wore from soldiers. In stump speeches, candidates refer to the waitress at the restaurant or that family in North Dakota that can't afford healthcare. Using real people has always been a way for politicians to "connect" to the voters ... but the difference is that this one has stuck. Here, finally, is a real "real people." And this "real people" wants to work hard and own his own business. This guy is nothing like the hopeless "real people" the Democrats like to parade around ... but he's very much like the average American with dreams and the determination to make them come true. A plumber gets Obama away from his speech writers and teleprompter ... and look what we have.

As expected, the McCain campaign has produced a Joe the Plumber commercial exposing Obama's Marxist tax policies.

Oh and in case you didn't know ... Joe the plumber is racist because he compared Barack Obama to Sammy Davis Jr. Who didn't see that coming.

Debate tonight

The day has come. Tonight is the last debate ... well, that's what they like to call it ... between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's really a joint press conference. Wouldn't it be great just to give them both microphones and say "You have 90 minutes. Hash this thing out." Tom Brokaw virtually destroyed the last "debate" with his boring demeanor and pitiful choice of questions. So, tonight I'm not expecting much. John McCain hasn't taken off the boxing gloves yet, and my bet is that the 24 oz. gloves are waiting for him in his dressing room.

Time to set the rules for the drinking games.

For Barack: For every time he says "middle class" you take a shot. For every time he says "but what the American people really want to talk about" or some derivate thereof "is the economy" you eat a jalapeno. By the end of the session any continence or bowel problems you might have should be taken care of.

For McCain: Not so easy, this is going to be a little subjective. Let's just say that ever time The Chosen One tees it up for McCain, and McCain wiffs, you hit the bottle. You'll pass out before this mess is over.

Now McCain did say yesterday that Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers will probably come up in the debate tonight. If it does, which Obama excuse would you like to choose from?

• "He just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
  
  
• "Bombs? You're not serious! I thought he was just an English professor. English professors throw bombs? Surely you're talking about metaphorical bombs."
  
• "I was only 8-years-old when he threw bombs at the Pentagon."
  
• "I thought he had been rehabilitated."
  
• "Oh yeah? Well you knew Charles Keating!"
  
  
• "It all depends on what your definition of 'terrorist' is."
  
• "Hey, I didn't know anything about his past when he nurtured my political career."
  
• "Did he help me write my book? Look, let's talk about issues that matter to the American middle class."

I'm going to go with, "Let's focus on the economy" option.

I guess there is the possibility that McCain will hit Obama with something about his long-term association with ACORN. Here are some possible responses,

• "Everybody knows that from little acorns mighty oak trees grow. That has to mean something. I don't really know what ... but something."
  
• "All they're trying to do is to get more Americans to exercise their right to vote."
  
• "This stuff would really be bad if they were working for Republicans. But with Democrats, the rule is 'whatever's necessary'."
  
• I don't really know who put that thing on my website listing as a "fact" that I never worked with or for ACORN. It's gone now though. So all is forgiven, right?"

OBAMA A JOB KILLING MACHINE

One of the amazing things about this election is that there are so many people out there who are eager to vote for Obama are people who are very concerned about their jobs ... and yet Obama is by far the greater threat to their job security of the two. Just two examples:

1. Obama wants to raise taxes on the very people who we depend on for 70% of existing jobs and 80% of new jobs. Obama hides these tax increases behind his class warfare rhetoric saying that he is only going to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year. The problem here is most of America's small businessmen and women fall smack dab into this territory. They run a small business, they employ several people, and they report all of their business income on their personal tax returns. Just what do you think happens when their taxes go up? Do they take the hit themselves? Not if they can help it, they don't. They look for ways to cut businesses expenses to compensate for the tax increase. Well, guess what? You're a business expense. Good luck with that.
   
2. Obama wants to eliminate secret ballots in union elections, and he has the full Democrat congress ready to go along. This will mean that the Democrat's precious unions will be able to organize a workplace simply by intimidating a majority of the workers to sign a petition saying they want to unionize? Secret ballot? No way! Now when this so-called "Card Check" bill passes businesses are going to be looking for an escape valve ... a way to avoid having to deal with a union workplace. After all, we see how it worked out for the American auto industry. How do you escape? You pack up and move to a more business-friendly location. Millions of jobs have already fled our shores to escape our punishing tax system. Now will millions more run for the hills to escape forced-unionization? Businesses that can't flee? They'll be looking for ways to increase automation and reduce the number of employees. Count on it.

But that's OK. Obama has the rhetoric. He has the narrative. He has celebrity worship and mass hysteria behind him. It's going to be an interesting four (or two) years.

You want hate speech--I'll give you hate speech!

Right now, in the press, "rage" is all the rage.

At the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich - who may be the same person since they both wear dresses - have columns on the rising tide of anger in McCain's campaign. Dowd is calling the whole thing "seamy," and whenever someone brings up Bill Ayers, Rich sees a "violent escalation" in rhetoric. He links addressing real issues to an increased risk of Obama's assassination – meaning if you think voter fraud is important, you probably also want to kill black people.

True, a few nutbags in the GOP crowd shouted "terrorist" at the mention of Obama's name. But how does that compare to the insane froth found among the left? Christ: How many times have you heard President Bush called a "terrorist"? The Angry Left calls Bush a "war criminal," a "chimp," and have referred to him as a Nazi so many times he now goose-steps instead of jogs.

You want to talk about hate speech? Go to any Lefty protest. You'll see Old Glory remade with swastikas replacing stars. And what of those ironic hipsters wearing "Saran Palin is a C__t" t-shirts in Philadelphia the other day? I suppose when the media sees that, it's just edgy. However, I just see assholes destined for a lifetime manning the counter at Kinko's.

Nope, when the Left calls people horrible names, it's just politics -- a few fringe loonies, not be taken seriously. When that same anger comes from the Right, though, it reflects a larger philosophy of hate – one that labels anyone who doesn't want to spoon Noam Chomsky an Aryan Brother.

Look: the right knows Obama isn't a terrorist. He never tried to bomb the Pentagon and Capital Building. That was only a friend of his. Obama never said 9/11 happened because America's "chickens are coming home to roost" or screamed "G-d Damn America!" from the pulpit. That was just his pastor. We get it.

But the left realizes that if you want to kill a legitimate line of questioning, simply call something racist or hateful - and the media nods. It's the best way to make sure McCain loses gracefully – and it's working.

Frankly, I'd say it makes them all worse than Hitler.

It's the Jews--no-no-wait--It's the WASPs

RACISM, RACISM, RACISM!

Throughout this campaign, we have heard the steady cries of racism ... people say that the only reason the most liberal Senator ever to run for president – a leftist Senator with a penchant for Marxist ideology – could possibly lose this election is because he is black and people are racist. As we get closer to the election, these stories have exploded into the media.

Let's go down the list of the few we got just over the weekend!

We have foreign leaders (technically a former leader) like Fidel Castro saying that the only reason million of people will not vote for Barack Obama is because of "profound racism in the United States."

In South Carolina, we have vandals spray painting "Republican means slavery" on the door of the GOP campaign headquarters. Because, to the mind of an ignorant voter with a racial chip on his shoulder, being a Republican automatically makes you a racist because you don't want Barack Obama to be president. Please remember the idiot Whoppi Goldberg when McCain appeared on The View. She asked McCain if he were elected would she become a slave again.

Here's Time Magazine proclaiming that the John McCain and Sarah Palin are using Obama's race to make him appear "anti-American." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his view of this country, could it?

Then we have Frank Rich in the New York Times over the weekend. Frank Rich says, "From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes." So there you have it. Not surprising that The New York Times publishes a column proclaiming that it is the Republicans who are playing the race card, and if Obama loses, it is because Republicans have stirred the racist pot.

Remember also other charges of racism in this campaign:

• The use of the word "skinny" in referring to Obama is racist.
• Using the words "community organizer" is racist.
• Saying Obama – an ultra-leftist – doesn't see America the same way a conservative would is racist.
• Using his middle name is racist.

Just remember my friends: This is only the beginning. When Obama becomes our (czar) President any utterance of disapproval with any proposal he floats before the congress will, of course, be racist. It is going to be a fun four years.

MCCAIN FINALLY HITS ON OBAMA AND ACORN

Too little too late? You betcha. But the McCain campaign is finally trying to hit on Barack Obama's relationship with this corrupt, voter fraud organization ACORN. On Friday, McCain's campaign released a memo saying that Obama's affiliations with ACORN "raise serious questions about his judgment and ability to lead this nation." We know, we know ... this is a racist statement because Republicans are referring to Obama's days as community organizer. The McCain campaign has also posted a video which points to the connections between ACORN and the current mortgage crisis – the fact that ACORN, with the blessing of our own government, bullied banks into giving loans to people who they know could not pay for them. Question ... where was all of this information in the last debate? Why has John McCain waited until now to make these connections?

Naturally, the Obama campaign responds with my favorite line ... these attacks from the McCain campaign attempt to "'turn the page from the issues that matter to American families." So there you go. The people don't want to talk about this, they want to talk about the economy! Hey, Barack, how about explaining the fact that an organization you worked for and have hired to get out the vote for your campaign is partly responsible for the current economy, thanks to the mortgage meltdown. Here's a picture of Our Savior at an ACORN meeting! Look at the picture and remember that some Obama mouthpieces say that he wasn't involved with ACORN. Yeah ... we're buying that.

Oh and the other response from Democrats ... the only reason the McCain campaign is hitting on ACORN is because McCain and Republicans are "hostile to the group's political agenda." Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says, "They're scared of too many poor people preparing to vote this year." So now the McCain campaign is engaged in class warfare and the only reason they are attacking ACORN is because they don't want poor people to vote. That is the logic of a Democrat.

Donkeys planning on a win

And who can blame them, considering the intelligence of the American voter.

As soon as the Move-On Democrat Party gets their Democrat president-elect they'll be off to the races ... first up, a new wealth redistribution bill, sometimes called a stimulus bill. It's a very simple plan. They take money away from people who don't support them and give it to people who do.

You did hear The Chosen One over the weekend ... I hope. Some plumber caught him in public without his teleprompter and started asking him some pointed questions about his tax plans. The Democrat/Socialist candidate told the plumber dude that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Well excuse the ever-loving crap out of me, but that wealth isn't the government's to "spread around" as Barack puts it. The wealth belongs to the people who earned it, and the government can't spread it around without first seizing it. Of course seizing that wealth from the evil high-achievers is something that appeals to a huge number of voters in this country.

You've heard people say that politicians derive power through the current tax code by creating winners and losers. This is what Obama has been proposing all along with his "reduce taxes on 95% of Americans" lie. What Obama really proposes to do is to create winners of the middle class by making losers of the high-achievers ... taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

If Pelosi calls the congress back into session after an Obama win it's BOHICA time. Pelosi says that the special session would require what she says "harsh measures." Harsh for whom? For people who didn't vote for Obama, I suspect.

Here's something else you need to know. Remember the "drill here, drill now" bit? Democrats got worried. They thought that their refusal to exploit our own domestic oil reserves might cost them votes, so they rushed through a bill to open up some of our offshore sites and other federal lands to drilling. Now Pelosi's dog-washer Steny Hoyer is saying that as soon as Obama is elected they're going to re-institute the drilling ban. And just what is the message here? We'll promise you anything to get your vote, and then as soon as the election is over we'll go right back to doing what we were doing. In other words ... screw you suckers!

Jesus H. Christ....

Articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times today about The Chosen One's phony promise to deliver a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Thinking voters thought that something may be a bit weird when you consider the fact that over 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes. If you weren't educated in a government school you might wonder "Well, that's all good Senator Obama, but how do you give a tax cut to someone who does not pay taxes?" Good question; and Barack the Magnificent has an answer for you. It's simple, really. You just change the definition of "tax cut." On Planet Reality a tax cut is when the amount of taxes you have to pay is reduced. On Planet Obama, which pretty much occupies the same orbit as Uranus, a tax cut is when you don't owe any taxes so the government writes you a check. After considerable thought I think that I prefer the old definition. What Obama the Incredible is proposing is nothing less than a massive welfare program. Let me know if you're surprised.

Borrrrrrrrrrring

The questions from the audience were, for the most part, unimaginative. Obama was the more boring of the two, but only by a narrow margin. That would be because he is leading in the polls and his job last night was to avoid mistakes. McCain, on the other hand, had to push harder to make some headway. I just don't see that he did it.

Every time I watch one of these debates I find myself inwardly screaming "Why didn't you say such-and-such? Finally I've come to realize a basic truth. These people – these politicians – spend most of their political lives trying to avoid telling people what they really think. Then, once every two, four or six years, they find themselves having to communicate with the people. A talk show host, on the other hand, is in the business of communicating ideas to people from 15 hours a week in most cases to my 22.5 hours a week. This is why you'll almost never hear a candidate come up with a line like this:

"Do you want a job? Are you looking for work? Tell me, are you going to go try to find a job from a member of the middle class? Probably not. Perhaps you think your chances of finding a job might be better if you go to a small business owners and large corporations. So .. while you're out there looking for jobs from these people, do you want us to be back in Washington raising their taxes? Do you want us to be plotting ways to relive them of the very money they need to hire you?"

Americans would get that.

Jobs are a big issue .. and an issue that is so easily addressed. Here's another line that you won't hear from a candidate:

"Do you know what has happened to so many of your jobs? The corporations who own those jobs sent them overseas to escape our punishing corporate tax rates. If you want to bring some of those jobs back, lower corporate taxes. What do you want corporations to do with that money? Pay it to the government in taxes, or use it to expand and provide new jobs. If we lower our corporate tax rate those companies who have been fleeing from our tax system may come back, and perhaps they'll bring some of their corporate friends with them. Now I'm suggesting a cut in corporate tax rates ... a cut that will create more jobs. When I make that suggestion my opponent counters with "John McCain wants to give big oil a huge tax cut." Instead of worrying about increasing job opportunities in this country, Barack Obama would rather demagogue oil companies."

Then Obama comes up with this "I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of the American public." Would someone please explain to me why McCain has never directly responded to this absurd line? Here's some more help from a small business guy:

"You're going to lower taxes for 95% of the people? Perhaps you don't know this, but 45% of American wage earners don't pay any federal income taxes. That places the entire federal income tax burden on just 55% of income earners. Please ... we're waiting ... tells us how you lower taxes on 95% of the people when only 55% are paying those taxes in the first place. I suspect that when you start explaining your plan we're going to learn that what you're really proposing is not tax cuts, but income redistribution."

So many lost opportunities last night ... how in the world does someone light a fire under this guy? There's not all that much time left.

Sheesh!

Sandra Bernhard--Stop a clock ugly on every level

Just when you think things couldn't get any uglier, along comes Sandra Bernhard, who's ugly in her sleep.

Following the lead of Chevy Chase, Lindsey Lohan, and something called Margaret Cho, Sandra has attacked Sarah Palin - warning that if the governor were to come to New York, she'd be raped by "big black brothers."

Yep, that's not racist...at all (Paging Al Sharpton).

But what you're really seeing, once again, is the amazing effect Palin has on the fragile minds of the C-list celebrity. It's as though Palin's success is a dog whistle that only unhappy has-beens like Sandra can hear. And it unhinges them completely. It would be funny if the responses were funny. But they're not. They're just vicious.

So where, again, does this hatred come from? A lot of it, simply, is envy. Perhaps Sandra realizes, sadly, that if we were to poll a group of rapists, they'd prefer Palin over her. But then again, they'd probably prefer a donkey, a blowfish, or maybe even a small discarded sponge dipped in lye. It's why she only does one-woman shows. No one else can stand to be near her.

Of course, Sandra's words are just another example of the rich intolerance only the tolerant left can muster. For more of it, check out how reporters are handling Palin's hacked emails. The media thinks the real story is about her use of a private email account - as opposed to her actual privacy being invaded. This cowardly garbage, mind you, comes from the same folks who decry Bush's imaginary infringements on our own personal liberties.

But here's the real hypocrisy: all of these media whores have private email accounts separate from work - which helps them jump from job to job. I mean, do you actually think the wussy bloggers who exposed Palin's emails don't have a private account that they use to apply for entry level jobs at Vanity Fair? Private email is as common at work as stealing Post-it notes.

Finally, if Obama's email had been hacked instead, and something embarrassing had been found, imagine the media hellfire that would have been unleashed. Heads would roll and Republicans would be gang-raped.

I don't know... maybe all this hate is what Obama needs to get elected. And if it works, Sandra... then Palin won't be vice-president.

But you'll still be ugly.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Lipstick, Pigs, Paint and Turds

So to quote Reverend Wright, it looks like the chickens have come home to roost. Commenting on his Republican adversaries, Barack Obama used the phrase "lipstick on a pig," which has now created what he calls a "made-up controversy." He claims the McCain campaign seized "an innocent remark," taking it out of context "because they knew it's catnip for the news media."

Okay so we've got chickens, pigs and catnip. What is it about Obama and his lurid obsession with animals? More important, no unicorns. I simply hate the politics of exclusion.

Anyhoo, Can I be the first to say, "I adore his manufactured outrage."

"I adore his manufactured outrage."

So, let me get this straight: Barack is bent out of shape because his own words have been twisted to make him look like a mean-spirited sexist. But isn't this what his supporters have been doing to anyone who dare question Barack's own sainthood?

They tried to railroad Hillary as a bigot, they've seized every phrase uttered on Fox News as proof of racism, and the crap they've spewed about Sarah Palin defies any level of explanation. Obama-mites have spent the last two years making it clear that any criticism of their savior comes not from common sense, but from a darker place – that subconscious level where every single one of us is an undocumented member of the Aryan Book Club.

But here's the thing: I don't think Obama meant to call Sarah a pig. He was applying an old slang phrase meant to describe someone trying to gussy something up that's inherently bad. So Obama is innocent of the charge, I think. But I wonder if the leftwing media would be as fair to the right, if they had made the same mistake. I mean, in my opinion, when Obama's tries to camouflage his own foibles by shifting blame to others, he's simply "painting a turd" - to use an old phrase that's identical to "lipstick on a pig."

I wonder what Media Matters, the Huffington Post and Keith Olbermann thinks of that.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Satire Alert--Just for you Loretta

Poor Repuglikkkans think they have a dream ticket on their hands, but startling revelations are now coming to light that will put the final nail in the coffin of John McSame's illegal and immoral candidacy: Sarah Palin has cooties.

Apparently, McSame didn't thoroughly vett his darling little bimbot before choosing her for his running mate. Then again, the senile old man doesn't know how many houses he owns...how can he be expected to know whether or not his own Veep has cooties? He'll probably deny she even has cooties or try to bury the truth. But the folks over at Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground have it on good authority that Sarah Palin does indeed have Cooties, and that her daughter is a slut (and not even the good kind of slut - she's keeping her baby). But more importantly, Sarah Palin has Cooties.

Can working families who are facing mortgage foreclosures, unemployment, and skyrocketing gas prices thanks to Bush's failed economic policies really afford putting someone with Cooties a mere heartbeat away from the presidency? And how exactly can a Cootie-sufferer find the time to perform her duties as Vice President while raising five kids, one of whom is a slut? Perhaps Palin should just go back to Alaska and concentrate on being a Mom and finding a cure for those Cooties of hers.

No one is really sure how Cooties are transmitted, but the general consensus is that you get them by being a pro-life, pro-drilling, Christian Conservative member of the NRA...and by kissing *YUCK!* boys. Any Hillary supporters or Evangelical Christians who do not want Cooties would be advised to refrain from voting for McSame/Palin this November.

No empty rethoric from a man of substance

Substance topped eloquence last night in St. Paul. It's what you actually say, not how you say it ... and John McCain got quite a lot said last night. Watch it yourself here, or read it here.

Here are just some of the excerpts from his speech that I particularly liked:

• I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party.
• We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.
• We believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.
• I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.
• His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.
• We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now
• My grandfather came home from that same war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home with me. I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination.
• The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.
• Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power. They invaded a small, democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world's oil supply, intimidate other neighbors, and further their ambitions of reassembling the Russian empire.
• I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.

I particularly liked it when McCain addressed government schools. The teacher's unions must have been throwing things at the TV.

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm President, they will.

And then there was McCain's story of Vietnam. Compare this narrative to John Kerry's endless repetitions of his Swift Boat escapades .. and his band air purple hearts and hasty run back home:

On an October morning, in the Gulf of Tonkin, I prepared for my 23rd mission over North Vietnam. I hadn't any worry I wouldn't come back safe and sound. I thought I was tougher than anyone. I was pretty independent then, too. I liked to bend a few rules, and pick a few fights for the fun of it. But I did it for my own pleasure; my own pride. I didn't think there was a cause more important than me.

Then I found myself falling toward the middle of a small lake in the city of Hanoi, with two broken arms, a broken leg, and an angry crowd waiting to greet me. I was dumped in a dark cell, and left to die. I didn't feel so tough anymore. When they discovered my father was an admiral, they took me to a hospital. They couldn't set my bones properly, so they just slapped a cast on me. When I didn't get better, and was down to about a hundred pounds, they put me in a cell with two other Americans. I couldn't do anything. I couldn't even feed myself. They did it for me. I was beginning to learn the limits of my selfish independence. Those men saved my life.

I was in solitary confinement when my captors offered to release me. I knew why. If I went home, they would use it as propaganda to demoralize my fellow prisoners. Our Code said we could only go home in the order of our capture, and there were men who had been shot down before me. I thought about it, though. I wasn't in great shape, and I missed everything about America. But I turned it down.

A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did. I'd been mistreated before, but not as badly as others. I always liked to strut a little after I'd been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.

When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me.

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.

Here is what the "New York Times" said about the Surge

Surge of Ignorance

The only real question about the planned "surge" in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07

There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. -- NYT Editorial, 1/11/07

What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07

Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. -- Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07

W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07

The senator supported a war that didn't need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won't work. -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07

Now the ''surge'' that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr's militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq's army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07

Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. -- NYT Editorial, 3/29/07

There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. -- NYT Editorial, 4/12/07

... the empty hope of the "surge" ... -- Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07

Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out. -- NYT Editorial, 5/11/07

Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. -- Maureen Down, NYT, 5/27/07

Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. -- NYT Editorial, 7/25/07

The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 9/14/07

U.S. Hands Off Pacified Anbar, Once Heart of Iraq Insurgency. -- NYT, 9/1/08