107 posts tagged “democrat”

Two great commentaries this day, the first deals with how dishonest and disreputable liberals are, and the second deals with how stupid and dangerous Barack Obama is. Unfortunately, being dishonest, disreputable, stupid and dangerous is the left's tradmark course, so, like Scott McClellan, I'm not revealing anything.

And here's at least the best column title of the day: Meet the gaffable Barack Obama:

"Now, people who know Obama have been telling me for months that he is a very likable fellow and very clever. The problem he has, they say, is that things come easily to him. So easily that oftentimes, he simply wings it, expecting his facile mind to get him through. That makes sense. The tendency to wing it is encouraged all the more by Obama's insufferable arrogance."

You can't make it up, but what's always interesting to me is that liberals, as we've seen right here on Vox, never never tire of having their intelligence insulted by their counterparts on the national scene. i mean, have you ever had a liberal tell you he's embarrassed by Ted Kennedy? Or Robert Byrd? Or Howard Dean? Or...

John Kerry, the current American record holder for Stupid Stuff, and he's adding to his record:

The junior idiot from Massachusetts, as you may know, is an Obama supporter, and he labeled Hillary's 3am ad a a "fear tactic." To clarify, Kirsten Powers, a Democrat operative, said the ad was the sort of thing Republicans run, but she said that as a positive for Hillary, adding that the ad didn't hurt her and may have helped her.

Kerry elaborated, saying that Clinton had never faced such a crisis.

OK so far?

Kerry continues. He told Wolf Blitzer: "The fact is that she had a red phone moment, as Barack Obama said... Her red phone moment was on the war in Iraq, and she chose the Bush course, the wrong course."

I know I don't need to go on, but I will for the benefit of any liberals who may read this.

John Kerry has made a career of choosing the "wrong course," and since he's nothing if not consistent, which way do you think he voted on Iraq? That's right, he and Hillary up in a tree...

Now what makes this story even better is, as related by James Taranto, a Gloria Steinem has a quote about Kerry too, and it was a little different from her recent comment on John McCain.

Steinem from 2004: "I'm supporting Kerry... As a man who knows what war is like, he has tended to be more restrained in his willingness to wage it."

Bear in mind that Steinem said that -after- Kerry's Iraq vote, and in fact, after Iraq "went terribly wrong."

And the guy who knows what war is like, thought it was the right thing for him to vote "yea" on Iraq, but regards it as a big mistake for Hillary? I'd love to hear that explanation.... "I voted FOR the war before I decided against it?"

I'm kidding about wanting to hear from Kerry... just seeing him makes me think Hillary's almost human by comparison.

I've been thinking about Obama's response to John McCain that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq before Bush and McCain invaded, and the more I do, the more juvenile and dangerous it seems. Now Angelina Jolie, writing in the Washington Post has done a great service while at the same time proving that not all liberals are blinded by ideology.

Jolie: "Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?"

Obama can. He's said so - that even genocide wouldn't deter him from his cut and run strategy. Can the United States afford to gamble that Obama will know the right thing to do and actually do it? He was looking to the past to save him from McCain's sarcasm because his initial faux pas was so glaring. More important, he was desperate to avoid having to deal with the implications of saying that he'd pull the troops and send them back in if and when it became necessary.

How is it possible that Angelina Jolie understands what Obama can't?

The thing that has long troubled me about Obama is not his lack of experience or his liberalism or his possible allegiances to the wrong people, all of which is terrible enough. But it's his immaturity that is so very ominous since it may portend a boy-President making critical decisions for the greatest country on Earth at a time that, it could be argued, is as precarious as any in our history.

A recent poll had 84% of respondents saying that they did not think Obama was too young to be President. What amazed me is that someone would ask that. They didn't for Kennedy or even Clinton. There's something about Barry. He seems much younger than his years, and not in a good way.

Obama's reply to McCain not only focused on his weaknesses, it magnified them by several orders of magnitude. Suddenly, the thing that every rational person feared about him was there on display. He really is clueless - his intelligence can't cover for his naiveté. He's a dangerous man, and now that danger is multi-faceted.

This serves as a wake up call for those on the right who say they can't support McCain, or worse, would consider voting for Obama. Things may be bad, but they can get a lot worse, and if you helped make an Obama Presidency possible and things went inevitably downhill, how could you live with yourself?

I know conservatives will continue to mutter about how un-conservative McCain is, and that's fine. It should actually help McCain. But when push comes to shove, I hope you'll be pulling that lever for the little old Senator from Arizona who, by the way is younger than his years in that good way and despite his torture wrenched body..

Obamanonsense is a product of loony left hysteria, youthful stupidity and alcoholic stupor. Here's hoping we won't have to rename the Democratic Party, the Democratic Cult.

When the campaign begins in earnest, barring some Invasion of the Body Snatchers action, the general electorate should be far more grounded..America has proven that a black man and a hideous woman can run for President and be taken seriously. There's no need for the country to commit suicide in order to prove it's not bigoted.

Mrs. O. hasn't been proud of her country until now, and Mr. O can't answer questions about the here and now. After the election, the name, Barack Obama, should retain no greater significance than as one of the sounds your parrot makes.

I'll leave with this edited version of what Joseph Farah recently had to say about Obama:

Let's examine some of Obama's key votes:

On May 24, 2007, he voted against continued funding of our troops in Iraq.

On Jan. 11, 2007, he voted against reform on earmarks

On May 17, 2006, he voted against an increase in the amount of fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border...again contradicting the majority of his fellow Democrats.

On Sept. 29, 2005, he opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

On Aug. 3, 2007, he voted against expanding the power of U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects.

On April 26, 2007, he voted to set dates for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

On March 29, 2007, he voted to start withdrawing troops from Iraq last summer.

On May 11, 2006, he voted against extending President Bush's tax cuts.

On Jan. 31, 2006, he opposed confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

What is the single, solitary, lone vote Barack Obama regrets?

(That) he tried to save the life of a poor, handicapped woman who was being victimized in the most inhuman way by her estranged husband and a rogue local court.

This should give you some insight into the character of Barack Obama. It should give you a glimpse of his dark soul. It should give you a look into his hardened, politically correct heart. It should give you a picture of what this country has in store for it when he is elected president later this year.

It's not enough that the two candidates for the Democratic nomination would never even be there were it not for the fact that one is black and one is a woman, but now Howard Dean has put his foot back in its customary location -  his mouth.

Dean says the Republican field "looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s."

Interesting. In the 1950's, the Republicans were the party of civil rights, and in the 1850s, the Dems were the party of slavery. The Republicans were founded to combat slavery.

Not to be outdone, Obama has said he'll get tough - with Canada - over NAFTA. WOW! He'll court Iran and Venezuela, but our friendliest ally and one of the only NATO members fighting alongside us in Afghanistan, that one he's gonna rough up a bit.

I've always felt that closer scrutiny would cause Obama to unravel, but now I'm getting a little worried that his unraveling will take place before he's sewn up the nomination.

Meanwhile, other black politicians continue to demonstrate that they'd be a better candidate than Obama. They are being pressured to endorse Obama, and they are even receiving threats, but they aren't bending

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter, said:.

"I’ve gotten threatening mail" of the nature: "Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change."

Representative Watson continued: "But I don’t intimidate.... I would lose my seat over my principles."

And Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) is perhaps even more interesting. Also a Clinton backer, he's a superdelegate who says that other black superdelegates are receiving "nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

Now here's the best part:

Cleaver states, "This is the politics of the 1950s."

And coincidentally, the Cleaver name was also prominent in the 1950s, and it was virtually synonymous with principle.

Good luck, Howie, the race you're in puts you at a disadvantage.

And speaking of race, if you're like me, you usually really enjoy Black History Month, but I gotta say, this one's the best ever! If only it didn't have to end tonight, but at least we got an extra day this year. I know that may not seem like much, but every day counts when it comes to Obama's maturity.

Lesson learned, Senator?

The New York Times smear of John McCain is a perfect example of the old saying: "When you lay down with liberals, you come up smelling like garbage."

OK, that's not exactly the old saying, but let's make it the new one, shall we?

Conservatives have ethical constraints that liberals don't, and you've seen it right here as personified by, but certainly not limited to, Lenny and Snowy who will say anything that supports or justifies their beliefs and ideology regardless of whether or not it's true.

People on the right can't get away with that. If a conservative makes a dubious charge or commits a breach of ethics, other conservatives will call him on it. As they should. In politics, when a Republican does or says something that reflects badly on the party, and an apology just won't do, he's forced to resign. Not only is that not so with liberals, but Democrats can commit acts of criminality and still retain their seats. And the more liberal, the bigger the criminal act you can get away with, as if "talking while liberal" isn't criminal in itself.

And of course, the other side of that coin is that when people aren't constrained by a system of moral values, "the end justifies the means" becomes their rule of law.

Such is the case with the New York Times today. In one of the most overt displays of bias and a  most blatant attempt to undermine a Republican candidate and indeed, the party itself, the Times ran perhaps the weakest hit piece ever. Not only are the sources anonymous, but the charges aren't even the least bit substantial, much less substantiated.. In addition, it has come to light that the Times had, and failed to even mention, evidence and sources willing to go on record, both of which would mitigate the accusations, such as they are.

Now this is certainly no surprise. It was done to George Bush days before the 2000 election, but one wonders why then didn't the Times wait on this in order to plant doubt about McCain closer to election day? I say it's because the Times felt it could effect maximum damage right now.

You see, because the story is so weak, it might not have the intended effect in November, but right now, well, that's another story. First the Times endorsed McCain when it already had the smear in the works. Why? Conservatives groaned that the Times endorsement only proved what people on the right already felt about McCain. But that certainly wasn't who the Times wanted to reach. It wanted to encourage moderates, independents and liberals to help cement the McCain nomination so they, the Times, could then undermine it once he was the guaranteed winner.

That's only speculation on my part, but have you got a better scenario? The Times' idea: McCain secures the nomination - then he's toast. With a mortally wounded candidate and a loss in November guaranteed, why try?

And if McCain's not down for the count, at least the Times thinks it has laid the groundwork for others to expand on the charges and level new ones. I've said that I've never seen an election like this one, but I also have to say that once the liberal viciousness came out of the closet circa the Clinton impeachment, said viciousness has been on public display ever since, and it continues to grow and become more bold.

I see little difference in tactics between American liberals now and those employed by the leaders of the old Soviet Union. Pravda has nothing on the New York Times.

But the Times effort could backfire, both on the paper and the election - there is a golden opportunity for John McCain. For the first time, I believe conservatives are slightly sympathetic, even if they needn't be. I mean it's the perfect time to say, "Senator, we told you so." That's why McCain needs to seize the opportunity. It's not enough for him to call the Times story a smear. He has to understand that the Times represents all liberals. That the Times is liberalism at its finest.

McCain must (but I doubt he will) regard the Times attack as a gift. He has a window that won't remain open for long. If he were to move even slightly more right, he might accomplish what was previously unthinkable. Conservatives won't embrace him, but they might stop attacking him.

However, McCain, being far more like George Bush than conservatives are willing to admit, will probably do what Bush continues to do - he'll regard liberals as human, and he'll not only be civil to them, he'll still 'work" with them. I don't know about you, but I've found hyenas to be more approachable.

First it was the Man From Hope, now it's the Man With Hope.

Is Barack Obama the Messiah, and if he is, could he lie about it? I mean, he hasn't said, but has anyone put the question to him directly?

Personally I think there's a big hint right there in his name. He may not be the Second Coming, but I believe his initials give him away - BHO - he's the true Browser Helper Object!?!

That's right, he's just that significant.

On Monday, the big story was that Obama "plagiarized" part of a speech previously given by Massachusetts Governor What's His Name, which is probably why What's couldn't be more pleased with the publicity.

Obama admitted he'd borrowed from his friend, so are the Dems pinning their hopes on the wrong black guy? Obama's soaring rhetoric...soared before.

Today is about determining whether or not it means anything - it does. It begs the question: what kind of a sorry state are the Democrats in that they think someone like Barack Obama can fix it? Not having any ideas of his own, he now has to spout rousing lines from others verbatim?

This is not plagiarism, but the fact that Obama wanted people to believe they were his words, that's the problem. This pure beacon of hope now ain't so pure. One wonders if all this is what Michelle Obama had in mind when she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country?"

Ask not whether you can be proud of your country, ask whether your country can be proud of you, ma belle.

And what about the newest group of Obama supporters- the Swooning Sistas?. My friend, Dox, likens it to a Beatles concert, and James Taranto detailed the episodes: in a segment titled:

We Shall Be Overcome

(Credit James Vicevich):

This proves once again, California's a trend starter .

Are any fainters now, or have they ever been, a member of the male gender? . What does that say? And unlike a Beatles concert populated by teenagers, these are adult women - chronologically speaking. If you think there's little difference, trying telling an eighteen-year-old to her face that she's got the maturity of 16.

These are Vagina Monologuers with the vapors...

So may I make a suggestion? Women, slap your swooning sisters!

The criticism of liberals is that they are all symbolism and no substance, and Obama and his supporters are Exhibit A. They're passin' out the Kool-Aid in Nebuchadnezzars!

Not only does Obama say nothing, but women and Lenny are ecstatic about it!

Ona Abderholden Keller writing in a New York post column:

As John Kennedy put it, I'd like to say this about that: based on her name alone, that woman is fiercely determined to remain single! Anybody want to speculate about her calves?

But seriously, apparently any change will do.

Ona went on to say...

(I'll pause till you stop laughing)

Ona continues:

She also said things like:

OK, I"m no longer asking, I now demand, WOMEN, SLAP YOUR SISTERS!.

Just when you think America can't get any sicker, a silver-tongued black guy (got that picture?) becomes the living embodiment of Tommy....

Now if he says, "I'm a sensation," that's plagiarism!

Barry can you hear me?

Can you feel me near you?

Barry?

Barry?

Barry?

I was originally going to make this subject one or two sentences long as part of a number of offhand comments I'd planned to post today, but it has just expanded into a full-fledged subject of its own, and the other comments will have to wait. I only hope you can.

Earlier this week, I was surprised to find that our very own Lenny (URL withheld due to insignificance) appeared to think that Barry-O was rising above racism. If he'd stopped there, I wouldn't have taken note, but Lenny's young and stupid, and he implied (at least that's how I saw it) that this racism was somehow emanating from the right. That couldn't go unanswered, even if it was Lenny who thought it.

You see, you can point to a number of racists and racial incidents from years past, and of those that can be attributed to a specific party, well, let me ask you, can anyone name anything that a Republican said or did that was distinctly racist?

Let's see, George Wallace was a Democrat... Robert Byrd is. So is Ed Rendell. Meanwhile, President Eisenhower tried and failed to get a civil rights act through, and his failure was due to one man - Lyndon Johnson. And Harry Truman used that dreaded word to describe black people long after he'd left the Presidency.

So did you hear the one about the half a black guy running for President?

The Democratic bigots are coming out of the woodwork. But lest you think this is about the Clintons and their supporters, it isn't. In fact, that's well documented and there's no need to beat a dead horse, even a white one, and no, I'm not referring to Hillary... she's now the dark horse, anyway.

Let me put it this way: remember who our first black President was? That's right, Pasty Bill. Black people loved him. But black guys marry white women more often than the reverse, and Bill is apparently one of them,.because have you heard anyone hailing Hill as the first black woman presidential candidate?

Well, before you think I'm just being silly, consider this: in every election cycle (and many times in between), some jackass in the liberal news media asks the question, "Why can't Republicans attract the black vote?" What does it run, about 90-10 Democratic? The implication is, of course, that Republicans are bigots. No matter that there are other reasons why the Dems get the black vote which I don't need to go into here, other than to say they involve dependency and false promises.

But this has nothing to do with Republicans. It's all Dems, all the time. Now I ask, can't both Hillary and Barry be expected to be FOBs? No, not friends of Bill, blacks! Then why is Obama getting that same disproportionate share of the black vote now when it's two Democrats they're voting for? Now can you say, "Racism?" "Bigotry?" OK, how about "Bigism" or "Racistry?"

No, then consider what James Taranto presented today in a column delightfully titled, We Shall Be Overcome:

Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee is a rarity in Congress: a white lawmaker representing a majority-black district. First elected in 2006 to fill the vacant seat of Harold Ford Jr., Cohen faces a primary challenge this summer from a black candidate, Nikki Tinker. The Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers reports that the campaign against Cohen has gotten unusually ugly:

"Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus," blares the flier, which Cohen himself received in the mail... Circulated by an African-American minister from Murfreesboro Tenn., which isn't even in Cohen's district... the literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to "see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election."

Akers quotes a Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial:

Last summer Cohen came under attack from black ministers for (supporting) federal hate crimes legislation to protect gay rights. The paper wrote that the "real motive" behind the ministers' attacks... revealed later by Rev. Robert Poindexter...: "He's not black and he can't represent me, that's just the bottom line."

Poindexter (has) a misconception about the nature of political representation in a democratic republic... that his congressman's job is to represent him "as a black" rather than as a citizen.

Yet it is this same misrepresentation that has led to deliberate efforts to draw "majority minority" districts like the one Cohen now defends.

As for the anti-Semitic flier, it is evidence of the folly of thinking that a society can practice identity politics without opening itself up to the ugly side of such politics.

So I can understand Hillary getting a lesser share of the black vote than Barry, but nine to one? Is one candidate getting ninety percent of the vote of any other group? Are black women paying Hillary back for stealing one of their men?

Or are blacks voting for Obama because he's almost black like them?

And speaking of that dreaded word, Al Sharpton just said "misconscrewed" on Glenn Beck. I swear! Catch the replay, damnit, why are you always doubting me?

Now c'mon, let's sing, "Sittin' on the dock of the bay... wastin' ti,,i,i, ime..."

If there's one question I get asked way more than any other, it's this: "Ted, we absolutely love your relentless conservative bashing, but we'd occasionally like an article that showcases liberal stupidity in all it's glory, so when will you stop lambasting the good guys long enough to post something about Democrats that I, a conservative in my own mind, can enjoy?"

Well, I'm happy to report that your wait is nearly over... 3... 2... 1...

By Frank Cerabino

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Being a Democrat in Florida is like being the coyote in a Road Runner cartoon.

Things start out so promising, but in the end you just screw up everything in a comical way.

Beep, beep.

I've already got that Wile E. Coyote feeling, and it's only February, nine months before Election Day.

If we weren't so hell-bent on self-destruction, Florida Democrats would be looking forward to being a key primary state in the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama battle for the nomination.

The Florida primary, originally scheduled for early March, would be a real prize on the political calendar. But instead, state Democrats were led off the cliff by state Republicans, who came up with the idea for a unilateral assault on the primary calendar.

It was one of those arrogant, "we can make our own rules" moves, and just like the Iraq invasion, Democrats were swept along so as not to appear soft on state pride.

All Republican, all the time

The national Republicans were smart enough to allow their candidates to campaign in Florida and to have the rogue primary count.

The national Democrats were not. Democratic candidates were forbidden from campaigning in Florida, and state party leaders were warned that if they insisted on holding an unsanctioned early primary, the votes would be meaningless, and none of Florida's 210 delegates would be seated at the national convention this summer.

Naturally, Florida Democrats chose the path of self-destruction.

So the result was that Florida appeared to have only a single political party last month.

The national media descended on Florida, and the campaign signs were all Republican ones, the TV commercials were for Republicans and the only debate was for Republican candidates - this in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans.

Beep, beep.

How could we make this even more pathetic? Don't worry, we had that covered, too.

Florida Democrats, even though they were told that their votes wouldn't count, turned out in droves, about 1.7 million people, to cast ballots in the allegedly meaningless primary.

Hillary Clinton showed up in Florida on the night of the meaningless primary to claim meaningless victory, and the rest of the country looked ahead to actual primaries that would actually count.

Like the coyote, we haven't given up, though we're still smoldering from the blast of our latest miscalculation.

ACME White House giveaway

Our latest scheme is to consider a revote, with party caucuses throughout the state serving as a retake on the January primary.

But this probably isn't going to happen, because America has already grown weary of Floridians looking for do-overs and because the national party isn't willing to foot the entire bill for this.

So what's going to happen? Here's my sour prediction:

If we keep our coyote karma going, the Clinton-Obama primary battle will remain close enough so that the missing Florida delegates will be meaningful.

At the last minute, the Democratic Party will seat Florida's delegates at the convention, which will give Clinton the votes she needs to beat Obama, who will object, to no avail, that he would have done better in Florida had he been allowed to campaign here.

Hillary Clinton will have Florida to thank as the state that gave her the nomination.

And this would be fitting, because the national polls say that Obama is the more likely to beat the Republican's presumptive candidate, John McCain, in November.

And so, when America wakes up on Nov. 5 with another Republican president on his way to the White House, Florida Democrats will get the blame again.

Beep, beep.

What's the biggest problem Republicans face?

You want it in a nutshell? The problem Republicans face is; they have no face.

We're all familiar with the "Reagan Republican:" Does anyone reading this regard him or her self as a Romney Republican? If so, would you kindly describe than animal?

I've been characterizing Romney with words like: mechanical, rehearsed, robotic, stiff, mannequin-like, and probably a few others that aren't as flattering, but there's a fellow named Green (sorry I didn't get the first name) who was talking about the "heated" exchange between McCain and Romney in last night's debate when McCain accused Romney of backing a timetable for Iraq - the irritated Romney, Green says, "spoke in the same tone he'd use when ordering fine wine in a restaurant."

So there it is, would Reagan even order fine wine? A Martini with a jelly bean, maybe.

Republicans haven't embraced McCain, but they haven't embraced Romney either. And he hasn't embraced them. In fact, I dare say John McCain has made more overtures to the base than Romney has, and with time growing short for Mitt to turn things around, he still doesn't seem to understand what he needs to project. He's actually more like Fred Thompson than Ronald Reagan.

I keep hoping Romney will take that spark he showed after his Michigan win and turn it into a wildfire, but as Charles Krauthammer put it, he hasn't up to now, so there's no reason to think things will change.

What's even more interesting is how right-side commentators have responded to the McCain surge. I didn't hear anyone savage the Senator the way they did in 2000 except, well, Savage himself, which could only mean that for whatever reason, pundits felt they needed to keep their options open.

And now that John McCain is the clear frontrunner, those options have narrowed considerably. Rush Limbaugh has been more tempered than I've ever heard him. Sean Hannity still doesn't accept McCain, but he's sure not mounting a counter-offensive. Only Ann Coulter got tougher, and her column yesterday was one of the worst she's ever written, utterly devoid of humor and as shrill as a Hillary stump speech.

So Republicans had better not just resign themselves to McCain if he's still on top after Super Tuesday, they'd do well to swallow hard and embrace him in the hope that he'll embrace them.

Why? because they'll need him more than he needs them. Some people have said they won't vote for McCain, that they'll just stay home. What a great way to render yourselves irrelevant. McCain hasn't needed you much to win what he already has, why would he need you at all if he wins the election?

I like to talk about the conservatives who are being driven mad by McCain's success, but when I do, I'm really referring to one in particular. She's an otherwise lovely young woman who quite literally becomes insane when talking about John McCain.

We parted company two years ago when Missy labeled McCain a traitor, not to conservatives, but to the country. I felt badly because one has to be crazy to say what she said, but I didn't want to entertain that kind of talk, much less indulge her on it.

So here we sit with no perfect candidate. The Dems think they have two - but that's another liberal illusion. The fact is that John McCain simply cannot be worse than George Bush, and 70 percent of Republicans still think the President is just fine which makes the case that Missy may have been merely the most visible crazy conservative.

Let's get some things straight once and for all, since I'm just as tired of right-wing nonsense as I am left-wing nonsense. John McCain's name is on the title of McCain-Feingold, but the name that appears where it really counts is that of George Bush. McCain introduced a bill. That bill had input and agreement from a majority of the Congress, and they are every bit as responsible as McCain is. But again, in the end, the sole responsibility lies with Jorge Whatsaveto Bush who signed it - and every other bill that came across his desk save one rather insignificant bone he tossed to conservatives.

And regarding McCain's lack of support of the Bush tax cut, what part of McCain's "Hey, where's the spending cuts" question don't you self-described conservatives understand? Especially because seven years later, your President still hasn't seen an expenditure he didn't like? And why aren't you outraged that Bush now threatens to veto spending when he never did it even once before?

The bottom line is that if John McCain is the nominee, if you don't get behind him at least as much as you did and continue to do for George Bush, McCain isn't the traitor, you are... and you can add "hypocrite' to that.

I know that's tough, but it's about time you heard some straight talk.

Duel Of The Dirtbags

Teddy Kennedy is in it NOW. He went and upset the ladies, if you can call members of NOW that in good conscience.

Kennedy's supposedly upset that Bill Clinton has abused Barack Obama. The last time Kennedy was this upset was when he became furious about the treatment Mary Jo Kopechne received - from Davy Jones.

It's reported that Clinton talked to Kennedy by phone to remind him who the true black man was in the eyes of some prominent members of the black community. Kennedy, a long time member of the white community, would apparently have none of it, and plans to campaign for Obama across the fruited plain.

Sweet Caroline Kennedy is also endorsing Obama saying that she's very impressed that he's like her father in every way except color and experience.

By the way, I added the "sweet" because Neil Diamond said recently that his song was written about Caroline Kennedy. Hmmm... like this, maybe?

And when I hurt,
Hurtin' runs off my shoulders
How can I hurt when I'm with you
Warm, touchin' warm
Reachin' out, touchin' me touchin' you
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
I've been inclined,
To believe they never would
Oh, no, no

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, say it ain't so, Neil!?!

Meanwhile, Hillary is reportedly furious that her husband's finely honed "Black Like Me" tactics aren't working as well for her campaign as they did for his. She's and is considering putting him on the 15 day disabled list, and then sending him down to the minors for rehabilitation, the minors in this case being Antarctica where he'll talk to the penguins until they're convinced he's black like them.

Obama, for his part, is said to be delighted at the Kennedys' support and has reminded people that he, himself, is part Irish and could very well be a distant relative of Ted's.

So now it's Barack and Caroline, Ted and Oprah... all in bed together. Sorry Michelle, if only you'd been named Alicia it would be another perfectly bad remake of a '60s movie.

"What the world needs now... is love, sweet love..."