Thinking Right

By Redneck Convert

January 17, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Well, heck yes this Hillary woman and Osama can be beat. No decent redneck would vote for them, and rednecks decide who gets to be president. If it wasn’t for rednecks we wouldn’t have My President in office today. I’m mighty proud of my rednecks. They can be out of a job and living in their mothers basement, but they still vote for Fambly Values and keep a “W—still the President” sticker on their truck. Leastwise till it gets repossessed. They keep their Hate for libruls and Those People thru thick and thin.

Anyhow, it don’t matter which godly Republican runs. No god-fearing American is going to step into a voting booth and push the screen for a woman. The Bible says women are suppose to obey men and serve them, not be their boss. They can’t even be preachers in the real godly churches. And no decent person is going to push the button for this Osama guy. They will think, wait a minute, this guy is one of Those People that tries to talk like a godly White man, I ain’t voting for him. So they will vote for Satan hisself before they will vote for Osama. Just ask this Ford guy up in TN what happens in the voting booth to Those People. People kept telling polling people they was going to vote for Ford, but when push come to shove, they voted for the White person with an R after his name.

So you can give all the reasons you want for why the Hillary woman and Osama can be beat, but we all know the real reason. People would rather go thru a Great Depression and fight 10 wars at the same time than vote for a woman or one of Those People. We might not have jobs and times are mighty hard these days, with no pay raises and prices going out of sight and all, but we got our Pride.

I guess we can expect jbmlaw and Glenn and Dusty and all the rest to give these high-faluting reasons people will vote for the Republican canadate, but it comes right down to two things. She’s a woman and he’s one of Those People.

I’m still mighty worryed though. Now there’s talk about not having a Republican winner by the time they get together to pick one at the convention. You got a bunch of mighty stubborn canadates that won’t back out. So we could wind up with anybody by the time all the back room dealing is done. And while we are arguing about which one to take, the librul Democrats will be off and running and building a big lead. We will need lots of swift boating to take them down a few pegs. Like they are doing to this librul McCain in SC, where they are saying he was a Trader while he was in prison in Vietnam. The only comfort I take right now is that we got old Karl Rove and Rush and Sean and other godly Republicans that can come up with all kind of tricks to make people vote for more of the same.

Well, I guess I got kind of long-winded today, but its the truth and sometimes it takes a long time to say it. Have a good day everybody.

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I agree with Jim, the girly-fight between the Hildebeest and Osama bin Obama may be about to cross the line from spectacle to train wreck. The Clinton people have been truly nasty for the past week, and I am flabbergasted - and admittedly greatly impressed – by Obama’s cool response. I initially thought he was cowering when he proposed putting the race issue aside, thus to stop the cat-slapping, but I think now he has outsmarted the Clintons. They (the Clintonistas) continue the attack, because they have to, and the attacks are reinforcing the worst negative images, thus leaving them in worse shape. Obama appears for the world to be above it all, to borrow a term from the past, “Teflon-coated.” I am with Jim, who needs American Idol?

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Dear Redbneck, if by “high-faluting reasons” you would include “socialism,” you are right.

By Reagan Conservative

January 17, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Mike Huckabee - We should amend the constitution so it fits with God’s standards

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=8b121636-c88e-474f-943c-18b2db3f8807

If Huckabee is the nominee, either Democrat will easily defeat him

By TW

January 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Recession? Maybe God don’t like us being careless with our soldiers…Maybe God don’t like us killing all those Iraqi civilians…Maybe God don’t like us crapping on them hard working Mexicans…oh, that’s right – new age Republicans worship Bush, not God…

By Aquagirl

January 17, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Sonny Perdue should jump on the God-amendedConstitution bandwagon. An amendment condemning shellfish would put those rare mussels downstream in their God-appointed place. We could keep all the water we wanted from the Chattahoochee. Problem solved.

By Maurice

January 17, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Hold your nags, there, Mr. Redneck. I feel your pain and all, but you people don’t “get to decide who gets to be president.” And by the way, that’s “President”, with a capital “P”, and that rhymes with “T”, and that stands for Tool.

What good people like you and your people’s daughters fortunately don’t get, is that the President is elected by us dogs. Whole country’s full of “real men” who just happen to know what a woman’s good for. We may not go around wearing our sexuality on our sleeves like the f* do, but we know who we are and we’re OK with that. Know what I mean?

So I’m just saying, Look, man: If it turns out that Barak likes to drop trau in convention hotels from Manchester to Michigan, or that Huckabee’s got his Jim Bakker mojo working overtime, then we’re gonna be down with that dude, ‘cause the Dog Vote rules!

We’re not gonna be stupid about it, and come out and say it or anything — especially not in front of our women! — but believe me, when the curtain’s drawn and the stylus is in our hands, we’re going with the guy who’s one of us. Because we decided a long time ago that it was our turn to run this country, and high time we had one of Our Own in the White House. So let the pollsters think what they want to think. As long as they’re too stupid to ask, like, whether a guy likes it on top, then, believe me, a real guy will always come out on top.

Trust me on this, bro.

By jbm is a condescending...

January 17, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Apparently, jbm stands for just be mean. The silly name games take away from any point you might want to make.

By the way, “American Idol” is free, too.

By Maurice

January 17, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

Oh, and Redneck? Nice churchfolk like you don’t know it yet, but Rudy 08.

By Mark

January 17, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

The people will never elect a black or a woman as president.

By Dennis

January 17, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “I love it when those who attempt to manipulate the system get on their moral high-horse….”

Such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Friends in the CIA, FBI, HOMELAND SECURITY, SECRET SERVICE, THE PENTAGON…Mr. Wooten?

As shady as the Clintons may be, they pale in comparison to the above.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By OneForTheRoad

January 17, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Sometimes you have to think longer term — past the primaries. Karl has not been able to share his strategy with the faithful for fear of the Dems mounting a successful counter-attack prior to the pre-ordained conclusion of the presidential candidate selection process. We of the faithful know this without actually hearing the spoken word. For the less faithful, i.e., the undecided Republicans and Independents, the word must be heard. Hear me now and know that this is what you need to do in order to ensure the continued survival of a true American tradition. VOTE and then lie to the pollsters. Remember, lying to a pollster is not a sin — it is a duty.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

No doubt to the surprise of many, I will agree with one of Wooten’s central points…that any candidate who attempts to game the system should be coc!

Make no mistake, though. Every single one of the major candidates (and probably most of the lesser dogs) would screw their own grandmother in the town square if they thought it would gain them an advantage in the election. Anyone who believes that their pet favorite is above this kind of behavior has their head wedged up the poop chute. Okay, maybe not Thompson, but only because he is a lazy slug who can’t be bothered to make an effort of any sort, not because of some deep principle or honor.

But now let’s turn to jbm”Behold My Subscription to WSJ”law. You really outdo yourself today. Osama bin Obama! What a knee-slapper that is. And then you let cry the scourge of “socialism”. Jesus weeps at the stupidity of people like you. You are deeply unserious, akin to a teenager who screams “Fascist!” at the school prinicipal or imbeciles who compare anyone they don’t like to Hitler. It is laziness compounded, and you deserve a cokcpunching of your own.

jbm…

—Heywood Jablome

By Glenn

January 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

TW @ 9:43,

I just realized that you’re an actualist jurist who gets bored in court and blogs here on the bailiff’s laptop. Finally, I get it!

Your judgment of us Bushies is a mite over, though, don’t you think? I mean, how does it work exactly for someone to worship a guy who prays on his knees every day, sometimes at the drop of a hat? See, it’s like a breaking mechanism, knee-bending. Short-circuits hubris quite effectively. Cuts it off at the knees, you might say.

You ought to try it there, Your Honor. In your court, I mean. You could open your court each day with a moment of silence — the Supremes say that’s still OK, don’t they? — and that would give you a chance to pray in earnest yourself. My thinking is that it would sort of clean out your judgmental pipes a bit each morning, so you could render more fair opinions. Isn’t fairness supposed to be the regulating virtue of British Common Law? Do we still have that here?

Anyway, just a suggestion.

[Rudy 08]

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Poor ol RedNeck, still presenting prejudice and exaggerations as facts in his usual aw-shucks undercover way.

NOT VOTE FOR A WOMAN. No, not vote for a woman who puts ambition above all, even supporting and excusing a cheating husband and shady deals for politics. That’s Hillary.

NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK CITIZEN,called “Those People” by our phony RedNeck. NO, not vote for a young senator who did not vote for the Iraq War and who seems inexperienced in dealing with world leaders and terrorism.

So you have the jist of supposed conservative imperfections our undercover RedNeck would place in your mind.

Yep, those religious “God’s people” who are the fighters against prejudice, injustice, hunger, poverty and human suppresion should be “exposed” as the righteous enemy, not for the ideals for which they strive.

RedNeck also wants you to associate churches with the rare group that handles snakes. Perhaps they do at his church. He is one of the snakes.

By Glenn

January 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

That’s OK Redneck, the GOP can still have its Firsts if we nominate Mitt to be the First Mormon President, or Rudy to be the First Adulterous Roman Catholic President.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Maurice @9:49

You fell for RedNeck’s propaganda… hook, line and sinker. You did exactly what he wanted. Filled you with hate and prejudice to carry to the ballot box. He’s a clever lib.

Vote for whomever you want but don’t do it with your blood churning over the remarks of some jackass like RedNeck. We are all Americans but some are a little more enjoyable than others.

By getalife

January 17, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not”

Which candidate spewed this?

Obama.

Geez.

By Copyleft

January 17, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

And most are a little more intelligent than Dusty.

By Maurice

January 17, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

This guy (yeah, a guy — trust me, a guy can tell) OneForTheRoad’s got it as straight as I am that it’s a duty to lie to pollsters. Damn straight. Especially if she’s hot.

By Camus

January 17, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Jim, perhaps you would address this aspect of Rove’s remarks to the RNC…he never once mentioned Bush by name. This is really quite something given Rove’s long association with W. Not since 1980 have we seen a party run so fast and far from an incumbent president.

As to your point in the rules fight in Nevada, I agree that it smacks of the same motivation as the Voter ID push. Glad to see you have come around to recognizing the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of such shenanigans. It is wrong and should not be tolerated, no matter who benefits. (Same goes for Rudy’s attempt to re-jigger California’s allocation of electoral votes.)

Clinton and her DLC-bred handlers are closer to the style of the GOP politicos than the rest of the Dem field. It has often struck me how downright nixonian the Clintons have always been.

Hil and Bill cut their political teeth in the anti-Nixon years, and they have morphed into his mirror image. Perhaps Glenn can help, but I believe there is a Biblical injunction against hating someone in that it leads to becoming just like the thing you hate. (Or maybe it was a Star Trek episode.)

As to electability, it comes down to this…GOP nominates McCain, they could win the general. Anyone else, and jbm’s nightmare of rampant socialism becomes reality. Get your olive drab uniform and little red book ready.

By TW

January 17, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Glenn - that whole accountability thing is really a B* when it comes back around, ain’t it? The Republican party invited Bush into their bed. Time to pay-up. Your desire to shrug your shoulders at his carnage is a little shallow, wouldn’t ya say?

By OneForTheRoad

January 17, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

I think JFK should get an honorary GOP title as the First Adulterous Roman Catholic President. After all, he was more “Republican” than many of the new age republicans are.

By Glenn

January 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

sheez, Timesis, you really are an old hack like me, calling this swill “copy”…

Dusty @ 10:11,

Good morning, my Marshal. Thank you for pointing out that the American Protestants Redneck mocks are doers of good, but we are not the only do-gooders, and do-gooding isn’t what distinguishes us. We may sometimes perform distinguished service — service of distinction — but we aren’t really distinguished by it, but rather, as you know, by something else.

Mike Huckabee disagrees with this — publicly, and every chance he gets — and that’s why he’s a sham Christian and a sham of a candidate.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Camus, TW and other moaners and groaners.

I have NEWS for you. George W. Bush is not running for a third term. You can stop the Bush bashing now. Not only is it boring, it is outdated.

I might mention that it makes you look like a bunch of adolescent kids who know how to run the world but nobody asked for your advice.

But..cheer up!! Maybe you will win the lottery today. You have as much chance to win as the Democrats have with the next election. Now, smile!!

By Mark

January 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Get ready to see McCain in the whitehouse, pillow biting bedwetters…..

By BS Aplenty

January 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Nicely put, Dusty. When you, Glenn and jbmlaw start tag-teaming the libs, I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

By getalife

January 17, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

“William R. Farr was pretending to read telegrams congratulating this year’s award recipient, University of Colorado President Hank Brown, when he pulled out a piece of paper and said, “I have a telegram from the White House.”

Then he added, “They’re going to have to change the name of that building if Obama’s elected.”

White Flour!

Geez.

By Camus

January 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

Glenn,

No surprise here in that I agree with your assessment of Huckabee, but I wonder if you will extend your label of “sham Christian” to those who embrace and support his noxious message?

btw, I just saw the documentary Jesus Camp last week and wonder if you have seen it and would care to comment on this particularly virulent strain of “christianity”.

By Shar

January 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

What a very disappointing post from jbmlaw this morning. Terms like “cat-slapping” and “girly-fight” bring to mind his truly objectionable remarks about stretch marks the other day, and are more reflective of the writer’s anti-female bias than of the candidates’ behavior. And “Hildebeest” and “Osama bin Obama”? Name-calling is not only juvenile but the last redoubt of those who want to cast aspersions but have nothing of substance to hurl.

Unfortunately, “manipulating the system” is endemic among those who fear that their position, or candidacy, is not persuasive enough to prevail on its own merits. If you can’t win, make sure the other guy loses. There are far too many examples of both Republicans and Democrats doing this to make partisan connections. I don’t see anything even faintly amusing in the practice, as it subverts and distorts the free competition of ideas in the political marketplace. I’m more inclined to Heywood’s prescription at 10:06, although perhaps not as colorfully.

Even so, manipulation is, in my opinion, preferable to changing the rules in your favor by fiat or stealth, which has been a staple tactic of the Bush Administration. With distortion, at least one has to explain and defend one’s position. Extra-legal “signing statements” and secret authorizations subvert not just ideas but democracy itself.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Glenn @ 10:11

I suppose you are right. I think you mean that our churches mainly nurture our faith. But I tend to favor St. James who said “Faith without works is dead.”

My denomination backs this with one of the most successful relief agencies in the world among other things.

Martin Luther said that “We are saved by faith alone.” Yes, I believe that but I like the efforts that usually go with it.

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Dear condescending @ 9:49, thanks, I always fear nobody even notices the little jokes and word play I bury in my seemingly-endless tracts. To your point, I have never seen American Idol – always assumed it was one of those cable shows like Sopranos – and you know I am not going to pay to watch television. Reflecting on my past several years, seemingly I am waiting to be paid to watch television, save The Simpsons and an occasional World Series. I haven’t even seen a Super Bowl since the early 1970s. But enough about me, how do you feel about the Clinton suits to keep casino workers from voting the Nevada caucuses?

By preech on ma brutha

January 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Hitchens: Color emphasis in presidential contest pathetic

Iowa results didn’t end our national nightmare about race

January 12, 2008

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

To put it squarely and bluntly, is it because he is or is it because he isn’t? To phrase it another way, is it because of what he says or what he doesn’t say?

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic presidential aspirant, is the current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool. He sometimes claims credit on behalf of all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, blah blah blah, though his recent speeches appear also to claim a victory for blackness while his supporters — most especially the white ones — sob happily that at last we can have an African-American chief executive. Off to the side, snarling with barely concealed rage, are the Clinton machine-minders, who, having failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female, are perhaps wishing that they had made more of her errant husband having already been “our first black president.”

Or perhaps not.

Isn’t there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be “black,” anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy vs. Ferguson (the 1896 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation)? Would we accept, if Obama’s mother had also been Jewish, that he would therefore be the first Jewish president? The more that people claim Obama’s mere identity to be a “breakthrough,” the more they demonstrate that they have failed to emancipate themselves from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought.

One can’t exactly say that Obama himself panders to questions of skin color. One of the best chapters of his charming autobiography describes the moment when his black Republican opponent in the Illinois Senate race — Alan Keyes — accused him of possessing insufficient negritude because he wasn’t the descendant of slaves! Obama’s decision to be light-hearted (and perhaps light-skinned) about this was a milestone in itself. But are we not in danger of emulating Keyes’ insane mistake every time we bang on about the senator’s pigmentation?

If you wanted a “black” president or vice president so much, you could long ago have turned out en masse for Angela Davis — also the first woman to be on a national ticket — or for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. So, why didn’t you? Could it have been the politics?

Last week happened to be the week that the nation of Kenya, birthplace of Obama’s father, was convulsed by a political war that contained ghastly overtones of violent and sadistic tribalism. It would sound as absurd to a Kenyan to hear praise for a black candidate as it would sound to most of my European readers to hear a recommendation of a “great white hope.” A white visitor to Kenya might not be able to tell a Kikuyu from a Luo at a glance, but a Kenyan would have no such difficulty.

The time is pretty much past, in our country, when a Polish American would not vote for a candidate with a German name or when Sharks and Jets were at daggers drawn, but this is all because (to borrow from philosopher Ernest Renan’s definition of a nation) people agreed to forget a lot of things as well as to remember a number of things. So, which are we doing presently?

Obama is a congregant of a church in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ. I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. Run by the sort of character that the press often guardedly describes as “flamboyant” — a man calling himself the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. — this bizarre outfit describes itself as “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian” and speaks of “a chosen people” whose nature we are allowed to assume is “Afrocentric.” Trinity United sells creationist books, and its home page includes a graphic link to a thing called Goodsearch — the name is surmounted with a halo in its logo — which announces cheerily that “Every time you search or shop online! Our church earns money.”

Much or most of what Trinity United says is harmless and boring, rather like GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee’s idiotic belief that his own success in Iowa is comparable to the “miracle” of the loaves and fishes, and the site offers a volume called Bad Girls of the Bible: Exploring Women of Questionable Virtue, which I have added to my cart, but nobody who wants to be taken seriously can possibly be associated with such a substandard and shade-oriented place.

All this easy talk about being a “uniter” and not a “divider” is piffle if people are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I have been droning on for months about how Republican hopeful Mitt Romney needs to answer questions about the flat-out racist background of his own church, and about how Huckabee has shown in public that he does not even understand the first thing about a theory — the crucial theory of evolution by natural selection — in which he claims not to believe. Many Democrats are with me on this, but they go completely quiet when Obama chooses to give his allegiance to a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character.

The unspoken agreement to concede the black community to the sway of the pulpit is itself a form of racist condescension. The sickly canonization of Martin Luther King Jr. has led to a crude rewriting of history that obliterates the great black and white secularists — Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, Walter Reuther — who actually organized the March on Washington. It has also allowed a free pass to any demagogue who can manage to get the word “reverend” in front of his name.

The white voters who subconsciously make the allowance that black folks sure love to hear their preachers are not only patronizing their black brothers and sisters but also helping to empower white ministers or deacons who make the same pitch, from Jimmy Carter to Mike Huckabee.

The Iowa caucuses of 2008 were not the end of our long national nightmare about race but another stage in our protracted national nightmare of piety, “uplift” and deceptive optimistic wind-baggery.

By Glenn

January 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

No, TW, I honestly would not say. And the reason I wouldn’t is just that I don’t see his carnage. I know that you do, because you say so every day, but I don’t. Only about one-fifteenth of my historical training was in military history — roughly the same percentage as Con Law is to the average law student’s full course of study — but even that bit of exposure to the study of arms was more than sufficient to provide the context that leads me to the conclusion that Bush’s bloodletting, versus his aims and results, has been quite surgical and efficient relative to the making of modern war as we know it.

So while I respectfully disagree with the position that Mr. Bush should not have made war in Iraq, I have no respect for the opinion that the President has wrought “carnage”. And there is little doubt in my mind that W’s Afghanistan expedition has been a very worthy and timely endeavor.

As the word “carnage” is a pejorative and judgmental one, it’s the sort of term I personally would reserve for, say, 9/11. I know that you are morally horrified by what’s been done in Iraq in your name and mine, and what can I say except that while feeling that way doesn’t make you a good person, only a good person would feel that way.

In my own, admittedly somewhat formulaic thinking, it comes down to Just War Doctrine, and to a moral empathy with rank-and-file frontline soldiers in Iraq, first American and then foreign.

By Camus

January 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Dusty, you seem to have misread my post re: Rove’s speech. I will re-visit this in an honest effort to carry out a reasonable discussion with you.

I did not bash Bush (at least not this time), but rather pointed out that his primary political confidante of the past 17 years managed to not mention him even one time in a speech to the Republican National Committee. This is significant whether you can recognize it or not.

Another item…Romney pointedly excluded W from his pantheon of great GOP presidents (he named Reagan and Bush the First), and when asked directly, his spokesman said that this was not a mistake. And Bush’s name is rarely heard in the debates, though hardly a minute goes by without an invocation of the sainted Reagan.

So, a question to you as simply and directly as possible…What does it say about the GOP that there is such a concerted effort to run away from the incumbent?

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Dear Shar @ 10:59, sorry it is that time of the month, but I’ll throw a couple of substantial questions your way. (1) Why is the Executive’s interpretation of the Constitution inferior to the interpretation of either the Legislative or Judiciary? (I think the term you used, in analyzing the executive’s interpretation of what he was signing, was “extra-legal.” Are you going the way of all Leftists, attempting to criminalize policy differences?) (2) How do you feel about the Clinton suits to keep casino workers from voting the Nevada caucuses? (Unrelated to the foregoing, you surely are aware who I am mocking when I refer to Obama, whom the substance of my post praises effusively, by the terrorist name? Does any old drunk’s name cross your mind?)

By Peter

January 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Well I have to laugh today all the wrongs never coming to their collective senses about the folks in their own party.

We have all the crazies there, and now we have former Republicans being called Terrorists.

WASHINGTON - A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

Mark Deli Siljander, a Michigan Republican when he was in the House, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

There you go Wrongs…. I wonder how many more will spring from your party !

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Hey Shar,

It’s 2008 and Bush is not running for a third term (Didn’t I mention this before?) Democrats have new conservatives to bash now. Stay alert!!

Dear”preech on my bruthers”,

If you can’t speak for yourself please don’t use the long long manuscripts of others. Thank you.

By getalife

January 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

Yea Jim,

Rove bashed Clinton at the meeting and made a fool of himself. Nothing unusual.

By preech on ma brutha

January 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw

seems from her hectoring comments pretty obvious to me that Shar is nothing but a dried up shrivelled menopausal old hag that needs to stfu!!

By GayGreyGeek

January 17, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

My, my, my. Dusty is claiming that the Republicans do not have to FULLY SUPPORT THEIR PRESIDENT during this election campaign.

For shame, DustBuster! For SHAME!!!

By Ted

January 17, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

To this jbmlaw character:

I, er, in the Spirit of Comity, er-uh, trust yoo ah not referring to the guy who’s married to that gal who lives in Chappaquaddick, because I know that guy; I worked with that guy; that guy’s a friend of [hic] mine, Counselor, and if it weren’t for him the American uh-People wouldn’t have No Child Left Behind Anothah, because that wouldn’t hov happened at all-uh if not for-uh that guy and his w—-er-uh, wait-ah just—-I mean that failed legislation that’s the sad legacy of er that Bush fellah!

By jbm is a condescending...

January 17, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

The Clintons would be better advised to spend their time trying to get a positive message out there. Hillary needs to focus on why she should be president, and stop giving the impression that she is manipulating the system. Actions such as this suit only serve to reinforce the negative impressions generated by the first Clinton administration. Since she does not possess Bill’s charm and eloquence, continuing in this direction could spell disaster down the line. I don’t think people will be as easily inclined to excuse her missteps.

By Curious Observer

January 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

If those were voting booths being established in the casinos of Las Vegas, I would say, wonderful! However, they are not voting booths. Rather, they are caucus sites in which subordinates are expected to express a free candidate preference in front of their bosses, who in turn are Obama-endorsing union members.

Anyone who thinks a hotel maid is going to express a political preference contrary to the one held by her boss and her union—in the presence of her boss and fellow union members—has been drinking the Kool Aid.

That problem—and not an attempt to game the caucus system—is the heart of the matter. It is yet one more reason for the abolition of the caucus system. We moved to the secret ballot for a reason, and we are seeing one of those reasons in Nevada.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Camus @ 11:15,

I will make it simple for you. It was not what Rove or Romney did NOT say. It was what YOU said.

You may be surprised but Republicans know that George W. Bush is NOT running for a third term. (Didn ‘t I mention that before?) Rove and others are earnestly promoting the current Republicans who wish to be president. That is whom they want elected and that is whom they are talking about. Got it??

You’ll never make it as a car salesman. You’ll be talking about old cars when the new models are coming in. (Are you a used car salesman by any chance?)

By TW

January 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

Glenn - great response, as usual. I especially liked “first American and then foreign.” Nonetheless, I am also a big fan of Falstaff’s “Discretion is the better part of valor.”

By Glenn

January 17, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Wait a minute, Mark @ 10:49. Back up there, cowboy. If you want to rib my friend getalife as a “pillow biting bedwetter”, that’s one thing — as he can give as good as he, uh, gets. But to characterize a class of persons — namely, gay American males — as “pillow biting bedwetters”, is, I’m sorry, repugnant and un-American in the extreme.

I’m as given as anyone — if not more so — to going over the top in this space, which invites such flights. But, seriously, you really ought not let that venemous bigotry stand as is.

By deegee

January 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Here’s the link to Bill busting a vein in his neck over some pointed questions related to the lawsuit. I hope they lose not because I love Obama but because I don’t like the self-assured approach that the Clintons took with this election. The at-large precincts were voted on and decided almost a year ago. Everyone including the Clintons knew the rules. Two days after it became apparent that Hillary might have a contest on her hands they wanted to change the rules. I appreciate the fact that the Clintons are supreme politicians, but that is exactly what makes me nervous about them.

I hope that the caucus in Nevada takes place as scheduled, and I hope that the voters of Nevada will hand the Clintons the backlash that they deserve. I feel the same way about the republican effort to introduce the voter ID law at a time when democrats are regaining political ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthdea6X2PE

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Gay Gray Geek @11:29,

WHAT?? Do you think our current President is running for reelection? George W. Bush is not running for a third term (Did I mention that before?)

Most pre-election speeches are about the people who are now “running” for office. Who in the world are you going to vote for? Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

By ron

January 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

By GayGreyGeek

January 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

That lovely Nattering Nabob Of Neoconservatism, Dusty, can keep syaing “It’s not Bush! SQUAWK! It’s not Bush! SQUAWK!” ‘til the cows come home, but it’s as much Bush this year as it was Clinton 8 years ago.

By Glenn

January 17, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

Good, GGG. Run against him, then. Go ahead. Make our incumbency.

By Shar

January 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

“That time of the month”? “Girly-fight” aside, jbmlaw is far too articulate and rational to reduce himself to such foolishness. Identity thief, thy name is shame.

Dusty, we are all gratefully aware that Mr. Bush is ineligible for further time in office. However, the discussion was on the tendency to fall back on sleazy, underhanded tactics to “manipulate the system”, behavior that most of those in power are guilty of, and some more guilty than others.

Preech, your comments are close cousins, although more crudely stated, than what I occasionally hear from my teenage children, and just about as juvenile and nonsensical. What, pray tell, is the point? If you intend to undercut my argument, you’d be better advised to do so on the merits. Insults tend to redound more to the issuer, not the target.

I might make an exception for Christopher Hitchens, though. Suffice to say that I have the unpleasant distinction of knowing the man personally, and a more pompous, arrogant hypocrite does not walk among us. I gave up on him when he gleefully recounted dumping his pregnant wife to run off with his pregnant mistress, and in the next breath talked about his disdain for Mother Theresa for neither truly caring about people nor accomplishing anything worthwhile. You might want to think twice before quoting his opinions.

By GayGreyGeek

January 17, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Glenn @ 11:53 - In 2000, running against the excesses of Clinton seemed to work out OK for Bush, so I see no need for this year’s Demo nominee to use a different playbook. [shrug]

By Tom

January 17, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @ 11:15. To answer your question #1 supra: 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

Surely at part-time night law school they taught you to grasp the citation.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Watching jbm and Dusty scamper around trying to avoid the sunbstantial posts they claim to want is every bit as entertaining as watching Larry Craig and Lindsay Graham run from the fact that they are rump reaming chowder gobblers.

So sure and really, Bush the lesser is admittedly not running for a third term. Alas for the Republicans, neither is the fetid and festering corpse of St Ronald, though his degraded physical state does not keep Dusty and her many dwarf candidates from dry humping the dessicated remains whenever they get a chance. Thrill to watch Romney teabag the old man’s withered sack. Wonder at McCain and Huckabee as they strive mightily to keep the Gipper’s moldered member in tumescence.

Dammit, woman, you can’t go five minutes without hearing the Reagan name invoked like some kind of magic incantation. Even Obama is getting in on the act, elbowing Rudy aside to r**** the rancidly rotten reagan rectum. (That alliteration is for you, Dusty. Know how much you like it that way…)

So why are your favorites running on Reagan when he is at last check too dead to run? Why are they afraid to invoke the name of The Bestest Danged President Ever if he has done such a bang up job? Because they know, like everyone with the least bit of awareness knows, that Bush has bent the nation over the back of a chair and plunged the presidential pecker into our e pluribus puckered poophole. And the nation is so tired of the pain and degradation that we are willing to consider any alternative, even if it means voting for a person with dark skin or a vagina.

Dusty has no answer for this, just as jbm ignores the posts that are too complicated for him to dismiss with a soggy tampon joke.

Pathetic sub-30% jokers.

—Heywood Jablome

By Redneck Convert

January 17, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

Well, I just got back from a beer run and you won’t believe what happened. I was stocking up the local Piggly Wiggly and as I opened the beer cooler, I heard some moaning and muttering of jablome blome jablomeblome. Well, I walked around the corner and low and behold there was Heywood drunk as a skunk laid up on a pile of empty PBR boxes with his pants around his ankles. Talk about embarrassin!

Now I kinda felt bad for the old boy, so I figured I’d help him out and dropped him off at the truck stop near exit 278. Well as he staggered around the truck stop slurring his name over and over again, you shoulda seen all the lot lizards come running. Man, that sonofagun was in hog heaven. He must’ve been serviced by at least 20 of those dirty lot lizards.

Well, I just thought I should let ya’ll know cause he may have gotten some of those nasty crabwarts or whatever stds those libruls are spreading these days. I see he was prostatootin himself here so I thought ya’ll may want to beware of the crabwarts. I don’t know if crabwarts can get on dogs, but OneForTheRoad may want to get Rover tested. Haywood just needs to stay away from the PBR and quit beating the wife and then maybe he might get some. Have a good day everybody and don’t take Heywood up on any propazitions unless you got purteckshun.

By Tom Bulina

January 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Actually Shar, I think that’s really him.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Dear Shar,@11:55

You, so daintily, try once more to accuse Bush and company of sleaze. There have been no convictions against Bush even with all the efforts of the Democrats. I will remind you again that he is not running for office.

If you want to talk about former presidents and sleaze, start with Bill Clinton. He’s not running either but he, sure as shootin’, will be in a Hillary White House. THEN I would be tempted to use that oft quoted Demo thought: The sky is falling.

By Copyleft

January 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

Hitchens seems depressed that there’s no big-name atheist running for President—apparently ignoring the fact that America’s not ready for quite that much sanity yet.

By DebbieDoRight

January 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

The Biggest Surprise Of The Year (as recounted by jbmlaw):

Good morning all. I agree with Jim

WOW!!! Are any of you surpised too?!?

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

I’d like to thank the guy who traded a case of PBR off his delivery truck in exchange for me filling his face with my man snot. Sorry if I soiled your Deere cap.

By getalife

January 17, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

“President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil,” Clinton said. “How pathetic.”

Very pathetic.

By DebbieDoRight

January 17, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

The Biggest Surprise Of The Year (as recounted by jbmlaw):

Good morning all. I agree with Jim

WOW!!! Are any of you surpised too?!? I bet no one saw THAT coming!!!

By Cohiba bill

January 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

A cigar didn’t set the towers afire. Big difference! It was the smoldering ember beneath them tho.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Dear Heywood,

You sling out the mud and RedNeck slings it back. I’m not fond of that method but it is not unexpected for either of you. Libs at work!!

By the way, Heywood, I don’t recall ever mentioning Reagan. Are you hallucinating again? Reagan was a man of good will who served his country well. But I haven’t mentioned him before.

You are correct about one thing. I like alliteration. It is fabulous fantastic fun following fuming fools (like you).

By Redneck Convert

January 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Well, I might of knowed some guy would get on here pertending to be me and talking some nonsense about this Heywood guy. Before that Sister Dusty come flying out at me like I was one of her big lug sons that messed up her new carpet.

Some days it just ain’t good to be a redneck. I reckon this is one of them. This is a viscuous bunch.

By Shar

January 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Oh, Tom, surely not. His first morning post was disappointing enough.

Many years ago, my sisters and I re-opened a defunct movie theater in a tiny village in upstate NY as a group summer job, and the local bored youth would sit on a bench across the street each night and throw tampons at the theater, laughing heartily at their witty depression of our business pretentions. [We, not surprisingly, laughed all the way to the bank.] I would hate to think of jbmlaw as similarly inarticulate and frightened.

Heywood, I appreciate your support. However, I read your post just as I was eating lunch, and your elegant command of sewer language made it impossible for me to actually ingest food. You have a fabulous career in subscription-only, appetite- suppressing emails on your professional horizon.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Dusty does not sling mud, she flings little dust bunnies of abuse. Her insults have as much heft as her intelligence.

Dusty!

—Heywood Jablome

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

Thank you Shar, I appreciate the praise. And congrats on the theatre venture. These are the actions that change communities for the better. (And if it is the little place in New Paltz, you have my deep personal praise.)

The state of our polity should turn the stomach. If it does not, we are not really paying attention.

Perhaps I should get into the fad diet biz? I can see it now: “Read Heywood! Lose pounds and inches!”

For you, this time, I leave off my signature.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

Little kisses to poor Heywood who needs them. I luv bunnies!!

By @@

January 17, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Maybe Heywood could drop trou and show us how that diet worked for him…

“Read Heywood! Lose pounds and inches!”

Just droppped in to support the small businessman, HEYwood.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

I don’t need kisses, but I am a small business man.

I employ poor crack addicts everyday.

-Heywood Jablome

By Shar

January 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Heywood, New Paltz is the Big City, just about 50 miles and several mental decades removed from the hamlet I have in mind. However, I do have a lunatic uncle who resides just outside New Paltz when he is not circling Mars. And yes, when you get ready to publish Heywood’s Page A Day Weight Loss Calendar (“Reflux Yourself To A Better You!”), I want an honorary credit.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

I would be happy to test your gag reflex any time, @@. Open wide, and don’t you dare spit out my sacred little spermatazoa-Americans.

-Heywood Jablome

By getalife

January 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

Casino caucus?

What next, a brothel caucus?

The Clintons should win this one.

By @@

January 17, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

You pay ‘em coming and going HEYwood?

Why am I not surprised?

By Jackie

January 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

The only one that can beat either Hillary or Obama is John Edwards. John McCain is the only Repub that has any credibility with the voters. Meanwhile, the Congress is going to put together legislation to offer a crutch to our economy to keep it from going into a MAJOR recession.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Heywood’s Page A Day Weight Loss Calendar (“Reflux Yourself To A Better You!”)

lol

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

Heywood’s Page A Day Weight Loss Calendar (“Reflux Yourself To A Better You!”)

lol

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Okay, once more, and politely, to try to reach into the dim dark depths of Dusty’s dementia…

No, you did not mention Reagan. However, all the GOP candidates do, and repeatedly, something that they never do with the current Super Duper President. But you argue that since Bush is not eligible to run again, there is no reason to mention him at all. Given that Reagan remains too dead to run again, what reason to flog the corpse in the debates and campaigns?

Could it possibly be that even the GOP realizes that Bush has pi$$ed in the communion wine and that no sane person will associate with him?

Take your time and do your best to address the topic.

By Shar

January 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

Jackie: I saw a CNN poll, taken just before Christmas, which found that only Senator McCain consistently beat the leading Democratic nominees in theoretical head-to-head matchups, and only Senator Edwards did likewise against the leading Republicans. However, both of them seem to appeal more strongly to the independents and moderates in the national voting pool, and both struggle to excite the more partisan members of their respective parties.

While McCain seems to be making some headway in his race, Edwards seems to be in the doldrums, neither moving forward nor backward. Do you think that Edwards has a realistic chance to beat either Senators Clinton or Obama and, if so, how?

By Apocalypse

January 17, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

Jan 17, 2008 11:44 AM Subject: Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Endorsed Senator Obama Today!!! Body: The Endorsements Just Keep Coming! Thank you Senator Leahy for your support!

Taken from Huffington Post:

“Leahy, a veteran Senate Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters on a morning conference call:

“We are a good and a great nation. I think we can restore that respect but we need a president who could reintroduce America to the world and reintroduce America to ourselves. I believe Barack Obama is the best person to do that.”

Leahy is regarded as one of the leading progressive Democrats on judiciary issues. He was one of ten senators to vote against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, legislation that Obama supported. The two, however, did agree in their opposition to the nomination of current Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. And both Leahy and Obama opposed the Iraq war, though Obama was not in the Senate at the time.

Asked why he did not offer up his support to Sen. Clinton, with whom he has worked for more than seven years, Leahy skirted around the question. “My endorsement is not in opposition to Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards both of whom I know and admire. My endorsement is about who can do this best…””

By jbmlaw is pofo

January 17, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw: “Hildebeest and Osama bin Obama”

Once again, our resident legal scholar has utilized his big giant brain for some impressive schoolyard name calling.

Way to go jbmlaw! You’re the meanest kid on the playground. Too bad those kids always turn out to be the biggest losers, with the most skewed idea of their success, when everyone meets for the class reunion.

By Apocalypse

January 17, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Jan 17, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: Jack Carter endorses Obama! Body: Former President Jimmy Carters Son, Jack Carter, has endorsed Obama!

Uncommitted’s small victory, and a Carter son moves for Obama

Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 11:02 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

There’s been some talk about how, in the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton has become the candidate of high school graduates and Barack Obama has pulled the more educated voters.

There may be some truth in this. A reader has pointed out that in Michigan last night, Clinton carried all but two of the state’s 83 counties. One was way up north, at the tip of the mitten. Don’t know much about that.

Washtenaw County was the other won by Uncommitted last night. It’s home to Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan.

The race now moves to Nevada, where Obama’s people are trumpeting their endorsement by Jack Carter, oldest son of former President Jimmy Carter. As we recall, Jack Carter was originally a Joe Biden man.

By Camus

January 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Wonder if the Leahey endorsement is in anticipation of the Atty General position. We could do worse.

By @@

January 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Missed this little jewel from HEYwood.

I would be happy to test your gag reflex any time, @@.

No thanks HEYwood. Seeing how you profess to beating your wife, and that you enjoy…or was it employ? crack addicts, I’m thinking not only can you NOT handle a woman…you don’t prefer them.

So what’s his name anyway…your “wife” that is?

don’t you dare spit out my sacred little spermatazoa.

You do enough of ^^^ that each and everytime you post buddy.

Blog on.

By Apocalypse

January 17, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

Camus,

You’re probably right. Right now, I’m focused on getting Obama in.

P.S. I think Shirley Franklin may be interested in Sec. of Education or maybe Chief of Staff.

By OneForTheRoad

January 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Is there a candidate from the Dem or Rep side that REALLY inspires? So far, Obama is the only one out there that seems to be lighting a little fire under the voters. Yet, Obama has less experience to draw on (or brag about) of anyone. Is this “nothing to critique” background his saving grace? Maybe so.

Personally, I’d like to see something “out of the box” from the GOP. Maybe that would get the show on the road. Too bad Arnold couldn’t run. After all, we know he could reach out to at least one member from across the hall. I wonder what the holidays are like at their “family” gatherings.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

Dear darling demented dessicated doofus Heywood,

You STILL talking about Bush? Yep! Not a Democrat in sight worth mentioning. I know. But I did see Bush quite at ease talking with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt. He’s still out there working for America.

Oh, I hope you don’t mind but I forwarded your diet menu to Buzzard’s Roost, Tennesee. They said you eat just like they do. They also want to “slim down” Gore, a monumental project.

Now, go get your rest and if you are good, Shar will give you another compliment. For you, that’s very hard to come by. Cheers!!

By Camus

January 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Apocalypse,

As an Obama fan, what’s your take on Barack wrapping himself in the Reagan mantle?

By Jackie

January 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

@Shar,

Edwards has no chance to win the nomination of the Dems. McCain may win on the Repub side, which will be the only chance they have of coming reasonably close. Otherwise, the Repubs need to “hang on to their seats!”

By Apocalypse

January 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

As long as he doesn’t wrap himself too tight in it. It is an obvious attempt to court the southern democrat vote which he is definetly going to need.

For a “brotha” to do that is a testimony to the new age we live in.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

Apocalypse@2:20

Jack Carter? Who? How about Amy? Those are endorsements? Patrick Leahy? Who’se next? Howard Dean? eeiiiyyeee…or Shirley Franklin(let me fix your potholds and your sewer pipes someday)?? Is Pelosi going to endorse Obama also? And Harry Reid?

Keep at it, Apo. With support like this, Obama doesn’t have a chance. He is not ready to run this country and Americans know it. We don’t need an inexperienced, anti-war, tax-raiser in the White House. Your bandwagon is lacking wheels.

By Peter

January 17, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Hey getalife……. you have the below totally wrong…….

“By getalife

January 17, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

“President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil,” Clinton said. “How pathetic.”

Very pathetic.”

Bush is over there selling arms…….he making money for his buddies, are you kidding, they are doing a 20 Billion deal with the Saudies.

There is not “begging going on” …. in trade for buying extreme amount of arms, he is hoping they will reduce the price of oil….. especially since it making his economic policies look real bad, with inflation on the rise.

Did you read we had the worst Christmas spending in the last 5 years.

That means we now have the new policy that was mentioned today….

“get the poor and lower income more money, as they spend it quickly”

He has to hold up the economy somehow.

The deficit will be on the rise quickly if the poor are not wasting their money, and how will they pay ALL THAT WAR INTEREST PAYMENTS ?

By getalife

January 17, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Wow, I guess it is legal to caucus in a casino.

Score one for Obama.

By Apocalypse

January 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

A federal judge on Thursday denied an attempt to cancel at-large Nevada caucus sites.

Judge James Mahan washed his hands of the case, saying that existing election law allows for the Democratic Party to resolve the differences internally and it’s not the place of the federal court to adjudicate how the party conducts its caucuses.

Mahan encouraged the two parties to work out its differences. The locations were designed to make it easier for those workers in the state’s biggest industry to caucus midday, but six Democrats and the Nevada State Teachers Union sued to shut down the sites.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Yes indeed, Dusty. There’s no bandwagon rolling for that silly negro. It’s all imaginary. He just happened to receive 20,000 votes more than the top GOP vote getter in NH. Darn those pesky facts. Still, in your addled little reptile brain, he doesn’t stand a chance. This is your version of the politics of hope.

And once again, you run away from a direct question about the apparent Bush aversion of the GOP candidates. No surprise. But since you love you some alliteration, here ya go…

You are a cowardly cancerous chancre covered c^nt.

I know you crave my signoff here, but I can’t bear the thought of your pustule covered droopy lips wrapping around my slab of man meat. You’ll have to go back to pounding your slit with a socket wrench for pleasure.

— Heywood Jabloglenn

By Apocalypse

January 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

How would you know he’s a taxraiser if he doesn’t have experience?

What’s your point? That America is going to elect another Republican?

I voted for Bush in the last election. In case you haven’t noticed, the majority of Americans have wised up as I have.

Redemption is available for you as well.

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Dear Curious @ 11:34, well-argued. I agree.

Dear Deegee @ 11:43, perhaps you will be amused by another twist in the Nevada democrat caucuses, nobody will be allowed to participate unless they produce a photo id.

Dear Tom @ 12:03, good answer legally but not jurisprudentially. The supreme court proclaimed itself the interpreter, but the Constitution did not. For most of its history – indeed, until the leftists took control of the court in the 1960s – the court always declined to accept political questions, ruling that those should be resolved by the political entities of government. In light of the philosophical change that was the foundation for the executive and legislative default (yielding to the courts’s independent judgment), why is the executive’s interpretation of law inferior to that of either of its co-equals?

Dear Shar @ 12:36, Tom Bulina @ 12:56 is correct, it really is me. My attempt to “live down” to your humorless and pedantic 10:59 post clearly missed its mark. [Do you really think “cat slap” is anti-female? I thought that was a great image, as we have a six month old kitten who, whenever the pit bull comes up to the kitchen, sits on her haunches and pretends to be Muhammad Ali on the pit bull’s muzzle (and the latter – 80 lb Eeyore - always looks up at us with sad eyes, expecting us to protect him from the vicious 5 lb cat. She would not be a good-sized bite for him.)] “His first morning post was disappointing enough.” Oh, the burdens of living up to my audience; I am in a rut I guess.

However jp @ 2:08, is incorrect, while I hold the highest admiration for PoFo’s imagination, I do not have same. Rule of thumb, if it shows wit, I probably did not write it. I stole the Hildebeest from Boortz (have you leftists really thought about that? Wildebeest is a gorgeous and majestic creature, fast as the wind, albeit one that will change direction at full speed, just whenever it believes it is in its best interest.) And I know you all admire the donor of the Osama Obama liguisitic exercise (no, it was not one as articulate as our sainted President Bush.)

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Deep thoughts from celebrity bimbo and polymorphous banging board Britney Spears (R - Trailer Park, LA):

“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.”

So, what is the difference between Dusty and this drug-addled trailer tramp and shaved tw@t-exposer? Damned little, it seems. Well, there might be someone out that there still wants to slip Britney the bone, but for Dusty, that ship has long since sailed. Other than that, they both have an almost fanatical faith in W and the brain power of a sea slug.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Dusty Spears.

By Peter

January 17, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Well what DUSTY doesn’t want to think about is that BUSH WILL be our president for another FULL YEAR.

Got that head in the sand or perhaps the Crispy Cream box.

As his out of control spending continues, the economy and our country continues to fail…. these are the result of all of the failed Bush policies.

Please read what we have available to us today……

“The Philadelphia Fed just announced dreadful numbers,” said John O’Donoghue, co-head of equities at Cowen & Co. He said if you look back at Philadelphia Fed data for similar numbers, it takes you back to the 2001 to 2002 recession.

“It’s not rocket science — the economy is slowing dramatically, and it’s being reflected in economic reports.”

The reports that are coming public are not a pretty picture at all…..why do you think Bush is out there in the OIL Rich Middle East Selling weapons…..

He doesn’t care about Killing a bunch of folks…….or how these weapons might be used to wipe us all out, or who’s hands they will eventually fall into….

He is only concerned that his FAILED Economic policies will make him the worst President EVER !

Now folks that be some true “FAMILY VALUES” !

By anonymous

January 17, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

Your attempts to deflect responsiblity for the Osamba/Obama name calling to Senator Kennedy are getting lame jbmlaw. Just because he said something stupid doesn’t mean it is ok for you to continually repeat it. How about focusing on Obama’s public policy positions instead of acting like a petulant child? It’s always interesting to me that, while you seem to be fairly smart and have a good command of the language, you always fall back on such behavior.

By @@

January 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

No kidding HEYwood.

I give you Dusty Spears.

Sounds like a personal problem to me—why keep bringing it here for us to look at?

You may wanna talk to your husba…errr “wife” about that personal problem of yours.

Make that “gentlemen” only.

By Camus

January 17, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

jbm,

As an inveterate corporatist, I can understand your reluctance to admit that the Supremes engaged in political questions prior to the dreaded 60s and the dirty hippy Earl Warren. So I can only guess that you feel that SCOTUS decisions regarding, say, the conferment of the rights of individuals to corporations is somehow an apolitical act. The Dred Scott and sedition cases? Certainly no political questions there.

Really, jbm, again with the sweeping statements…are you incapable of moderating your pronouncements?

Agreed that the Supremes (Marshall, primarily) siezed the role of arbiter of the Constitution. Yet even Scalia, the strictest of the strict constructionist movement, does not seem to question that power now. It is, as you put it in another matter yesterday, settled law.

Surprised that there has been no mention of Scalia’s opinion on the NY court system decision handed down yesterday. Seems that Fat Tony is a fan of one-party government, and declares it would not exist unless the people found it desirable. Saddam Hussein would be proud as punch!

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

Dear Camus @ 3:22, I would not wish to introduce confusion while you are on a riff, but you may notice how the Supremes ruled in Dred Scot - that there was no jurisdiction!

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Apo.

Obama is a Democrat. That is how I know he will raise taxes.

He said he would not support the war. He himself mentioned his use of drugs. What more do you want? Written statements stamped by a notary?

Peter,

Bush is just back from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Did you think he was on vacation? He will work for this country as long as he is President and as long as he lives. Too bad you Dems are blind and deaf.

Heywood,

Your last post was as “dull as dishwater”. You’ve got to do better if you want another compliment. I mean, should I (ha ha) call you Deadwood Jabaloo or something? Funny? Nope..now ..back to politics and other trivia…(mickey mouse just endorsed Obama!! whoopee!)

By Shar

January 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@3:05: I am humorless and pedantic; you are chauvinistic and juvenile. Thankfully, tomorrow is another day.

Jackie@2:29: Thanks for responding. That’s pretty much how I see it as well, although I think that there’s a good chance that Guiliani or even Romney would win if voters were given the choice of either of them or Clinton.

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Dear Camus @ 3:22, I would respectfully wish to broaden the argument: why do you deem “congressional committee reports” an acceptable practice, yet object to “executive signing statements?” Don’t they serve identical purposes, and explanation of the parties’ intentions?

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Dear Camus @ 3:22, I think it bad form to parse an argument to death, but humor me on another one: “Agreed that the Supremes (Marshall, primarily) siezed the role of arbiter of the Constitution. Yet even Scalia, the strictest of the strict constructionist movement, does not seem to question that power now. It is, as you put it in another matter yesterday, settled law.” To the former: are you aware of a presidential act, subsequent to Marshall’s arrogation of power, in which the president suggested what the court can do with its ruling, and thus ignored the directive for the executive to act? (Hint, Andrew Jackson.) Presumably that is also live precedent?

To your latter, I would normally expect presidents to protect the privileges of the presidency (as by “signing statements”) and I would normally expect supreme court justices to protect the privileges of the court. Why would Justice Scalia’s thoughts on signing statements be relevant?

By Scolding Scholar

January 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

What a bunch of mysogynistic and homophobic crap being spewed today! Please grow up and stop with the homosexual references, already.

By Scolding Scholar

January 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

What a bunch of mysogynistic and homophobic crap being spewed today! Please grow up and stop with the homosexual references, already.

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Scolding Scholar, greetings. Are you new here?

Glad to meet you,

-Heywood Jablome

By Sophocles

January 17, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

[Does Bookman look like a school marm?](http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/stories/2008/01/16/bookmaned_0117.html) Maybe it’s just the “I hate school” look…can’t quite figure it out…

-Sophocles, Satan of the West

By GayGreyGeek

January 17, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Scolding @ 3:49 & 3:52 - Being one of the few, if not the only, openly homosexual-type persons who occasionally grace this venue, today’s crap-spewing has been mild.

Additionally, the proper answer to Heywood is “No, not you I wouldn’t. Not even with Richard Simmons’s mouth, no, I wouldn’t”.

By Apocalypse

January 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

What do taking drugs in high school have to do with what we are discussing?

I’m going to assume that Bush admitting to using drugs in the past is an issue for you as well right?

By Truthifier

January 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

The difference between a Committee Report and an executive signing statement can be found in that the Congress is the legislative branch of government, while the President is the head of the Executive branch. The job of the Congress is to pass legislation so it would be reasonable for them to explain their legislative intent. The President’s job, other than running the federal government, is to either approve or veto legislation. By using signing statements to change the intent of legislation, the President is dipping into the legislative responsibilities of the Congress. It is called separation of powers.

By Scolding Scholar

January 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Not new, Heywood, just a new name. After I wrote my post I realized I sounded like a school teacher. The political discouse on this blog always degenerates, but the gay references today are just too much. How immature — it proves the maxim that those who make the most homophobic comments are the ones who have homoerotic impulses and are ashamed. Isn’t our society beyond that?

By Peter

January 17, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

Dusty Dusty Dusty…..when are you going to realize as an “Independent” I can see what is really happening…..

Your BUSH working is truly a funny comment…….did you not realize BUSH has taken more vacation time than any president ever ?

“Peter,

Bush is just back from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Did you think he was on vacation? He will work for this country as long as he is President and as long as he lives. Too bad you Dems are blind and deaf.”

You are very funny as there is never any info that you write, only statements of blind loyalty.

Please also restate that last statement, Bush was over there selling Arms…..I guess as a Sales Person he is trying to do a good job.

Let’s not forget he has to make allot of folks RICH, and he has only about 12 months to do it in !

By Heywood Jablome

January 17, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

Well, it appears the curtain will come down on the Heywood Jablome show. As always happens, the creative act of one is soon appropriated by the vampiric and unimaginitive. Any good capitalist will attest…when the brand becomes diluted by pretenders, its time to sell to the bottom feeders and move on.

Thus, I bow out and leave the name to the fakers and pretenders who wish they had thought of it first. I’ll be back under another handle someday, and will be known by those who know. Dusty in particular will recognize the familiar sting of my johnson slapping her wrinkled rictus.

So, one last time.

ID jackers….

—Heywood Jablome

By Scolding Scholar

January 17, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

And referring to a woman putting up a good argument as either “that time of the month” or “a shriveled menopausal hag.” Come on! Idiotic!

I have the same disdain of those who belittle pen*s size of their adversaries.

Grow up! It’s not all about hormones, ana*l sex, and wee wees.

By @@

January 17, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

What a bunch of mysogynistic and homophobic crap being spewed today! Please grow up and stop with the homosexual references, already.

Priceless!

Why not just say you’ve had enough HEYwood?

Scolding Scholar, greetings. Are you new here?

Today’s comments by HEYwood Jablome:

in exchange for me filling his face with my man snot.

to r* the rancidly rotten reagan rectum.*

Larry Craig and Lindsay Graham run from the fact that they are rump reaming chowder gobblers.

you deserve a cokcpunching of your own.

It’s like I told you yesterday Scholarly HEYwood….

you don’t impress with your “Do as I say; not as I do” approach in here.

Dusty is and has always conducted herself as a lady.

I however, choose not to restrict myself when dealing with a gutter snipe like you.

If you want to continue playing your silly game I’ll play right along with you. The only difference is I’ll apologize to the others here…something that you’re too arrogant to do.

Regardless of what you think you do not own this site. It’s not your personal playground.

By Scolding Scholar

January 17, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

And referring to a woman putting up a good argument as either “that time of the month” or “a shriveled menopausal hag.” Come on! Idiotic!

I have the same disdain of those who belittle pen*s size of their adversaries.

Grow up! It’s not all about hormones, ana*l sex, and wee wees.

By Sophocles

January 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Sophocles repents his evil ways in posting and swears on Satan that it won’t happen again.

By Sophocles (intestubemode)

January 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

:-) :O :D :-( :P ;-)

By @@

January 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

Goodbye HEYwood! until we meet again.

I’ll be stepping away from my computer now.

My apologies to Jim Wooten and all the decent posters here.

By Profit

January 17, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

We have millions of americans losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgage, millions of other americans losing their life’s savings because the New York money managers invested it in bad mortgage debt, millions of Americans losing their jobs because of the developing depression and YOU ZIONISTS DEMADING WE GIVE YOUR PET COUNTRY OF ISRAEL 10 BILLION AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS PER YEAR. Let Israel pay its own way, get your stinking hand out of my pocket…

By Profit

January 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

How about we take the 10 billion american tax dollars per year that we give israel so a few million jews can enjoy a western european lifestyle in a land of third world poverty, and instead give that money to the poorest americans? Oh, some of the poorest are African Americans, and poor whites in Appallachia, and to you East Coast snobs, they don’t count! Example of East Coast Greed: Shatzmani can only eat two Rock crabs per day, as can his double ugly wifie, Barfii. Who, oh, who else can afford to pay 500 bucks per claw for rock crab? The rock crab fishermen are doomed, doomed I say. Oh save us Steve Shaftman, you are our only hope! Please try to eat three rock crabs per day to stimulate the econmomy. In return we will cut your taxes below the 15% rate you already pay for your 900 million dollars of ill gotten gains, imho!! GOOD NEWS: SHAFTMAN’S 250 DOLLAR TAX REBATE WILL BUY HIM HALF A ROCK CRAB CLAW. ROCKCRAB FISHERMEN EVERYWHERE REJOICE!!!! Has Shaftman’s money gone to finance Hillarity the clowns run for the whitehouse?

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this

Well..thanks @@ for your kind opinion. And I like that word guttersnipe for the guttersnipe. Very accurate indeed.

jbmlaw,

Your profession is in big trouble. Camus is acting like he’s in the field of law. Maybe a deputy sheriff or one of those “I’ll get your money for YOU!!” TV lawyers.

Besides that, Camus is a bit boring, a state of affairs that can never be applied to you.

By Jackie

January 17, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

I think Dubya has admitted to using drugs and alcohol earlier in his life and he is President of this country. If we all were to look into our own “closets,” I wonder what skeletons would rattle around in there? Secondly, Dubya was a governor from Texas who had very little executive power. The legislator in Texas controls the agenda, Bush just signed off on their initiatives. If one supports Bush, so be it. If you have a problem with other candidates, point out the policies that the other person may implement that would be a problem to you. I do know that Dubya is the political head of our government and he takes responsibility for when things are good, i.e., the economy; does he take the same responsibility for when the economy is bad?

By deegee

January 17, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

Here’s the rest of the story for those of you that think there is some irony in asking some people participating in the Nevada caucus to produce a photo ID on Saturday:

“Neighborhood caucus sites will have the registration rolls for their precincts. But because registered Democrats from all corners of the county will be working on the Strip on Saturday, the state party must check at-large participants against a massive voter database. That requires identification — signatures alone won’t do. Some Strip workers will have no alternative but to provide photo identification.”

By Jackie

January 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

A group a right-wingers in the SC primary campaign has put out fliers that accuse John McCain of being a “coward and a communist traitor” because of his “actions” in Viet Nam. Their complaint was that he was in prison for more than 5 years and he “talked” to the North Vietnamese military while in captivity. He was shot down and had multiple injuries that were so severe he CAN NOT raise either arm above his shoulder. The Vietnamese military wanted to let him go, but he refused to leave without the other prisoners. The “swift boots,” as they call themselves are upset because McCain supported removing the Confederate flag from the State House of SC. What is wrong with these maggots?

By HIDT

January 17, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Heywood, as someone who makes his living here using other IDs (but never yours) I would point out that the moniker Heywood Jablome has been used as a joke on journalists for years. Occasionally, it appears in news stories or photo captions (a Masters photo in recent years comes to mind.) So before you slag off on other people’s lack of originality, maybe you should acknowledge your own.

By BoyScout

January 17, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Sorry to see you go, Heywood Jablome. Better luck in your next incarnation.

By OneForTheRoad

January 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Profit,

If the paltry $10b to Israel were even on the radar screen, someone would have already taken action. The “banks” are hoping the losses can be contained at $100b on the sub-prime mess alone. Now they are worrying about credit cards and auto loans. If those go south, then you are looking at numbers that could potentially eclipse the Iraq tab. Now those are some serious bucks.

By deegee

January 17, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

The Saudis are pouring billions of dollars into US banks and financial institutions in order to keep them afloat. The Saudis are trying to keep the good money they have already invested in the US over the years from going bad due to sagging interest rates. And then they send W over there to beg them to stop charging so much for their oil. Who else but W is stupid enough to seriously do that?

By Mrs. RepubLady

January 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

OMG, Dusty and @@! What are we doing to DO without George W. Bush to lead us? I’m starting to get scared.

By Dusty

January 17, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

Jackie@5:04

Please note that PRESIDENT BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR A SECOND TERM. (Haven’t I mentioned that before?) Bush-bashing time is over for Democratic propaganda.

It will not help Obama. It will not help Hillary. It will not help Edwards. It only makes you Dems act like sick puppies looking for something on which to chew and throw-up.

Are you afraid to discuss your Democratic runners? Seems like that should interest you a bit.

Goodnight all…

By Jackie

January 17, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

@Shar,

Rudy has NO CHANCE! Romney is smooth enough with his duplicity to fool a lot of the folks on the Repub side. McCain gives some some plausibility. Ron Paul speaks and very few listen. The Repubs have run out of ammunition.

By Jackie

January 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this

@Dusty,

Bush is not running for office, but, is running away from and being shunned by his own party. Did you ever notice how none of the current candidates will mention his name. The Dems have 3 viable candidates that have a wonderful opportunity to rip the Repubs in November. I am not sick because Dubya is not running again, I am sick because his regime has been lawless and destructive. The man has brought NOTHING POSITIVE for you or anyone else to point to. Please point out to all of us what he has down to further “truth, honesty and the American way?” I would love to hear what you put on the discussion table.

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

Dear Dusty @ 5:01, thanks, but I hold a different view of our friend Camus, one where my libertarianism kicks in: why shouldn’t he practice law? He is a bright fellow, puts together an intelligent argument, even if I often disagree. But for the anti-competitive statutes enacted on demand of the bar, why shouldn’t he sell his proven intellectual skills at whatever the market will bear? I think there are many bright minds that could beneficially sell planning and draftsmanship skills to the public, but for the bar.

By Profit

January 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

Jackie - Can’t raise either arm over his shoulder huh, well, ah think ah’m gonna challenge the good senator to a 100 dollar, one on one basketball game, winner take all. Money, come to poppa

By A Few Words Tossed Over Heywood's Shoulder

January 17, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

HIDT

Bravo. Surprised nobody called me out on that one sooner. Tis true. The old gags remain the best ones.

BoyScout

Actually feeling pretty good about the work done here. @@ and Dusty found a pretty unhealthy obsession in reading my posts closely, with @@ even revisiting and documenting my atrocities. I ascribe their fascination to desperate yearning for a high hard one. To quote Smirky McChimpy, “Mission Accomplished”.

Scolding Scholar

You are correct that it is about more than wee wees and vajayjays and chocolate highway. Alas, the discourse is so devolved that it often takes that kind of language to engage the adolescent maturity of most of the posters here. That applies especially to Dusty Spears. I wonder who chews her food for her.

In parting…

I just have to wonder at how Dusty Spears can bray so loudly about how bad an idea it is to run against the super-popular Bushy McSchmuck, but cannot muster any explanation why her own favorites not only do not invoke his greatness, but run like hell in the opposite direction. It may be her advanced syphillis.

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

Dear Jackie @ 5:37, I think you misread the recent actions, and silences, of President Bush, and you incorrectly judge him by the examples of Presidents Clinton and Carter. The long tradition of this country is for a president, at the end of his term, to exit the stage gracefully. Excluding the two comparatively recent graceless examples, the tradition is for the one who has held the reins to stand aside, and allow the country to make its judgments without excessive injection of the ego of the current leadership. President Bush conforms to the tradition.

By Peter

January 17, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

Well all we have Bush now wanting to cut the taxes again…….WOW……we are close to the biggest deficit ever, have how much to pay back to the Chinese, and of course that debt is building daily……. so let’s take in less money……….

WE must be back to Voodoo Economics….this will be a wild 12 months…..

I wonder what the Republicans are doing in the market these days, are you buying stocks now in this environment……… getting out?

Shorting?

I wonder what they are thinking for 2008 ……. up or down……?

So where are all the manufacturing jobs these days…?

By jbmlaw

January 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

Dear Peter @ 5:56, I respectfully note that only one party of lemmings proposes the largest tax increase in the history of the world at a time of potential recession. Capital formation does not come from $100 tax rebates mailed to everyone.

By deegee

January 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@ 5:49 - that was priceless.

By Jackie

January 17, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

@jbmlaw,

Dubya is doing everything he can to burnish his image. He has publicly stated he wants his approval rating to be at least 45% when he leaves. Impossible.

By Camus

January 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

Well gosh, thanks jbm. In fact, I walked away from full scholarships to three law schools over twenty years ago and have never regretted the decision. I often think there is not greater proof of my intelligence. I kid, I love lawyers…they are very good with mustard.

Just in passing…Dow drops 300 points. Dusty will no doubt see this as proof that Bush and Bernanke are inspiring confidence in the lemmings.

When was the last time we saw a Dow at 12,000, anyway? Wheeeeeeeee….