9 posts tagged “hillary”

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.

For Conservatives, Is MDS Really BDS?

Warning:

The following contains material that may be shocking to some people. Do not drive or operate heavy equipment while reading.

If you're like me, you write a lot of things that never get posted for one reason or another, but mostly because what you've written is so idiotic that it's too much to expect even people who read this blog to accept it. So it takes its place on the eternal clipboard, destined never to become a standalone piece, though still plenty good enough to be used in an engagement with liberals and other lesser beings.

But on rare occasions, someone else with real brains comes along and demonstrates what can be done when the same idea is explored by someone more experienced in coherent thought.

This is one such occasion.

The other day, I wrote what some would call an expose. Others would call it a theory, and still others might call it practicing medicine without a license. I'll leave that for you to decide, and you're certainly free to apply your own label.

In the piece, I said this:

What explains another Coulter column in which this time she not only derides McCain, but Republicans who vote for him?

Granted a President McCain might sign some bills conservatives find abhorrent, but would it be that much different in comparison to what George Bush has signed or would like to dign? McCain might sign a stem cell bill, but you've gotta believe that he'd veto some of the spending George Bush was only too glad to plant his signature on.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest that McCain Derangement Syndrome is actually Bush Displacement Syndrome.

In other words, what if a lot of the anger and hysteria directed at John McCain is really about George Bush, and that conservatives cannot, for whatever reasons, bring themselves to recognize the true source of their angst and outrage?

Because there's no doubt that Bush has done infinitely more to undermine conservatives than McCain has, yet you don't hear a peep about, much less condemnation of, Bush policies, his signed legislation, his spending, and his profound neglect of both executive responsibilities and conservative issues.

There are both subconscious and practical reasons why conservatives don't criticize Bush, especially at this late date and in an election year, but all that rage has to go somewhere, and not only is John McCain the perfect "candidate," but he actually continues to invite it.

So conservatives may simply be redirecting their anger while trying to head off further, and possibly even greater, destruction of their causes and values. The only problem is, MCCain was and is the best candidate the Republicans can put up

 As I mentioned above, I said it... but you never read it. As insightful as that was, I felt it lacked substance. It lacked specific examples, and most of all, it lacked Charles Krauthammer.

Well all that's changed. Today Krauthammer, who's not just a brilliant paraplegic but also an actual medical doctor, addressed the problem and amazingly, he avoided plagiarizing any of my ideas.

Note:

If your children have been reading along, you might want to have them leave the room at this point, or if you've been reading this to them as a bedtime story, check to make sure they're asleep before continuing. I'm sure they will be, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Reddy...?

Charles Krauthammer in his own words:

McCain's apostasies are too numerous to count. He's held the line on abortion, but on just about everything else he could find: tax cuts, immigration, campaign finance reform, Guantanamo he not only opposed the conservative consensus but also insisted on doing so with ostentatious self-righteousness.

The story of this campaign is how many Republicans felt that national security trumps social heresy.

The other half of the story behind McCain's victory is this: There would have been a far smaller Republican constituency for the apostate sheriff had there been a compelling conservative to challenge him. But there never was...

Romney (was) the final stop in the search for the compelling conservative. I found him to be a fine candidate who would have made a fine president. But until very recently, he was shunned by most conservatives for ideological inauthenticity. Then, as the post-Florida McCain panic grew, conservatives tried to embrace Romney, but the gesture was both too late and as improvised and convenient-looking as Romney's own many conversions.

Conservatives are on the eternal search for a new Reagan. They refuse to accept the fact that a movement leader who is also a gifted politician is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon.

But there's an even more profound reason why no Reagan showed up this election cycle and why the apostate sheriff is going to win the nomination. The reason is George W. Bush.

He redefined conservatism with a "compassionate" variant that is a distinct departure from classic Reaganism. Bush muddied the ideological waters of conservatism.

It was Bush who teamed with Teddy Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind, a federal venture into education that would have been anathema to (the early) Reagan.

It was Bush who signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

It was Bush who strongly supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.

It was Bush who on his own created a vast new entitlement program, the Medicare drug benefit.

And it was Bush who conducted a foreign policy so expansive and, at times, redemptive as to send paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and traditional conservatives like George F. Will into apoplexy and despair (respectively).

Who in the end prepared the ground for the McCain ascendancy? Not Feingold. Not Kennedy. Not even Giuliani. It was George W. Bush. Bush begat McCain.

Bush remains popular in his party. Even conservatives are inclined to forgive him his various heresies because they are trumped by his singular achievement: He's kept us safe.

There you have it - straight and objective, and (regrettably) with none of the hatred I have for George Bush. I never thought to frame it in terms of "begetting," but that's exactly it. McCain is every bit as conservative as Bush, and maybe more so. But people have had more than enough of Bush, they just can't admit it. Because they're deranged... and I'm anything but sure Bush caused it..

But not voicing their displeasure for George Bush early and often did serve a purpose... it begat John McCain.

Have you seen Ann Coulter lately. she looks like I've never seen her - frazzled and frantic, and her voice seems to have risen several octaves.

As John McCain closes in on the Republican nomination and polls say he's the only one who's competitive with Clinton and Obama, the most prominent conservative to actively oppose the Senator is becoming more and more strident.

Today, Ann said she'd vote for Hillary before she'd vote for McCain. That's not the sort of comment one can backtrack on very easily, and it's as outrageous as it is impractical.

We understand, Ann, that you really hate McCain, but there are far more important issues than the ones you and other conservatives cite in denouncing him, and even if they were equally as important as security and spending, why haven't you been demanding that the President get tough on immigration and spending?

What we're now seeing is a prime example of why I say I don't like conservatives much better than Democrats. McCain is not an ideal candidate. He's just the best of those who've run. I know you think Romney is far better, Ann, but he's had plenty of time to demonstrate that... and he hasn't.

So I hope you read that column in the Wall Street Journal today. If you had already, you wouldn't have said what you did about voting for Hillary. Either that or you're blinded by hate and thus merely typical of many conservatives.

McCain is The Man. He's the only choice for Republicans and the country, and if you were not to support him, you would do your country a disservice for which I would never forgive you if it came to pas that McCain lost and Hillary won.

By the way, would you vote for Obama over McCain?

John McCain is a known entity. You can predict where he'll be unpredictable. Romney is an unknown entity, one in which it's impossible to predict where he will fail you. Or do you think he won't?

If so, did you think Bush wouldn't either? Because I don't know about you, but I expected George Bush to become more conservative, not less, once he took office if for no other reason than simply because he'd be grateful for the support conservatives had shown him.

So I'd advise you to be very careful, Ann. You've already turned me off, and it's time to prove you're not a blind ideologue - something I'd never thought you were. if you can't find a reason to endorse McCain, then at least take a cue from Al Sharpton's suggestion for Bill Clinton and shut up.

Because if you continue, you're not going to bury John McCain, you'll only be marginalizing yourself, and I'd hate to see that happen. You've taken your best shot, you lost, move on... before you start to sound like that group of the same name.

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.

Before I get to a new feature we're introducing, I saw this in Newsdaytoday:

"Clinton, Obama skirt queries on gays in the military
BY GLENN THRUSH"

And I was wondering how our friends at Social Justice might react to that? I mean do you think Glenn Thrush (giggle) wrote that headline with a straight face? And is it funny or disparaging? Promosexual?

Interestingly, I consulted two dictionaries in an attempt to find some gay gay synonyms - and they didn't offer any.

Now this...

Today we present the first in what will be the biggest, funniest running bit in online history. First you'll get a recent quote (definition for our Miami contingent: 1930s forward) which will be followed immediately or sooner by an "unquote" that clarifies, enhances, and/or rectifies something, which may or may not be the original quote or any part thereof. And as a bonus, I'll leave it to you to speculate who said the unquote, thus adding enormously to your enjoyment. So without further ado, I bid you adieu.

Just kidding.

Quote: “Substance is what makes Edwards stand out from the pack." - Edwards supporter
Unquote: "Exactly, as in, they have it and he doesn't - and that substance itself is unidentified."

Quote: ""We live in a country where more people care about the death of Anna Nicole Smith than the death of a planet" -  Judy Muller
Unquote: "OK, but in their defense, the planet hasn't died yet. When it does, I bet they care more, and the bigger question is, who will do the autopsy, and what will it reveal?"

Quote: (on the proposed Autobahn speed limit) "We’d simply be wrecking the climate at 130km/h (80mph) instead.”- Sigmar Gabriel, the German Environment Minister
Unquote: "Now hold on one second, you 'would be speaking German were it not for us' Kraut, you think wrecking the climate at half the current speed is nothing? And I'd like to apologize for not knowing the metric equivalent of a second."

Quote: “Herr Dimas is disregarding all the facts. Imposing a limit of 100km/h on German motorways would reduce CO2 0.6 per cent.” - Wolfgang Tiefensee, a spokesman for the Transport Minister
Unquote: "HEY, herringhead, a half a percent REDUCTION is HUGE, Wolfpack. I mean Al Gore is merely -offsetting- his emissions, and Hollywood thinks that's the greatest thing since sliced... well...
emissions!"

Now hearkening back to our opening topic:

Quote: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country." - Hillary Rodman Clinton.
Unquote: "You bet your pretty little head it does me a grave injustice, I wanna be able to ask if the Nancy-boy next to me is a little light in the combat boots. Oh, and make that 'very little,' willya?"

Quote: "let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming." - Hill-Rod
Unquote: "That's a great suggestion, but what-say we let the uniform code give them a different uniform and decide if that's flattering or unbecoming first?"

Quote: (More on Don't Ask, Don't Tell) "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their (sic) country." - Barry O'Bama
Unquote: "Um... OK... well... er... uh... then I think the next question is, sacrifice what?"

No, not that ox, the other one.

Remember when Hillary said she was named after a mountain man? OK, not just any mountain man, THE mountain man who climbed THE Mountain! I'm talking about Sir Edmund Hillary, as you know.

That's right, Hillary's parents didn't name her until she was four or five because they apparently decided long before to wait for someone to ascent Everest. Then, whoever that was, they'd call her Hillary.

No, I know that doesn't make sense - they'd name her after whoever got to the top first. But for the grace of God, we might know her today as Yeti.

Anyway, the other day down 'Bama way, Hill gave a screech... er... speech and in this one, she recounted how her youth was consumed with being King, Dr. Martin Luther, that is, and I'm sorry, she had a dream of being like the good Doctor.

Then she immediately went off and became a Goldwater Girl who was going to help nuke the planet and thwart the 1964 Voting Rights Act.

Bob Novak reports that as a commencement Speaker at Wellesley College in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War, Hillary didn't even talk about it or civil rights, "...she talked about a demonstration in Founder's parking lot at the college that 'protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement' and supported 'a pass-fail system' and 'a say' in 'academic decision-making.'"

Then she got religion, probably about the time she married Bill, and the rest is history - and the single-minded pursuit of power - and socialism - and more power.- even if that meant pathetically defending her philandering husband to preserve her quest.

But she'll tell ya she only did it for America.

Me, I wouldn't endure that, even for America, but then I'm not likely to ever have a philandering husband

Besides, I was named after a bear, and the only King I ever pursued was Burger...

It's been an interesting few days here, what with fools coming out of the woodwork and all, so I want to take a moment to discuss a few things that seem to confuse them even more than usual.

The first is, It's not just liberals I consider to be scum, there are a whole lot of conservatives that fit that description as well. Sure the absolute numbers differ significantly, but you must remember this: a lot is still a lot.

Next, while I hate liberals, I hate idiots a lot more, so imagine how I feel about liberal idiots! Yes, I know that's redundant, so you get the picture, but I still refuse to admit that someone cannot be liberal without being stupid. That's why I've been on the quest. Sure it's been lonely, and unrewarding, but imagine if I find a rational liberal. It would be almost better than a talking dog. And what if he could lead me to yet another non-idiot liberal? I mean, doesn't there have to be more than one - unless they're gay and their breed is about to die out, but let's keep hope alive.

Next, there seems to be some concern about my assigning names to people, and I've never explained that here, so I'll do that now.* It's a little complicated, and I'm not at all sure liberals themselves will be able to follow. Therefore, I recommend they copy  this and show it to a fifth grader.

First, I like real names, say, "Ted," for example. If you have one of those weird foreign names or you choose something you think showcases your creativity - and you show up here, there's a good chance it'll remind me of a name I'm more familiar with. And if you're an idiot, I can guarantee it will.

But there are exceptions. If your name is simple enough or I find it to be delightful, I'll be thrilled to use it. Or if it's a name that lends itself to a common nickname, I like that. Of course the nickname also is dependent on how much I like you, So one person whose name reminds me of, oh I don't know, "Dog," well I'd use that and hope she finds it endearing, but if an idiot has a similar UID, I might use a less flattering reference to a dog. 

Then there are those odd names that don't delight me yet don't readily trigger something else. That could go one of two only ways:

A) I address you as is

2) I address you as I see you

C) I address someone else and ask them to relay the message

Bonus: I consider your name to be so stupid as to convey your essence and so don't address you at all.

Lastly, I want to say some things I haven't already said above: For example, even if you're a total whack job, if you use a real name, I'll use that. I might modify it a bit, like "Bob might become Bobo sometimes, or Jack might morph to Jackass, but at least you can kinda guess at what I'll call you, whereas something like Aput can become almost any "A" word - and likely will - and even change several; times in the course of one reply.

Although I must tell you a cute story which I swear is true about a guy who had the username, Francis. Well, I mean he was just asking' for it upfront, but all was OK for a while. Then one day, out of the blue, Francis surprises me and says I'm the rudest person he'd ever encountered online.

Of course I thanked him for the compliment, but then he says he didn't mean it as a compliment. Go figure. Anyway, so then I asked him, "Hey, didn't you make some movies with Donald O'Connor?

Imagine my surprise when now it's he who didn't think that was a compliment and he got all un-Francis-like.

Finally, I want to be really clear about this. I don't care who you are if you're thoughtful and logical. I mean, liberals think I enjoy demeaning them, but I'm just a mirror. It is they who demean themselves. And if anyone doubts me, just watch how I react the first time a liberal comes here and says something intelligent.

* Subject to change without notice owing to market volatility.and the volatility of the host

The safest bet you'll ever make is for An Inconvenient Truth to win for Best Documentary tonight, and not just because everyone in Hollywood is an elitist liberal-green* robot. The real inconvenient truth is that the Association of State Climatologists has threatened to decertify the Oscars if he doesn't.

Then Al "Puffy" Gore will stroll to the podium where he's supposed to limit his remarks to 45 seconds, and if he does, it will be the first time in his life he's ever done it. Some other areas where Gore has exceeded "45": age (chronological only), waist size, and IQ, which, interestingly, he exceeded by a .45!

I hear they've accorded him rock star status in Canada, which isn't hard to understand if you consider that this is the place that brought us Celine Dion - and that Al is the closest thing to a rock you'll ever see in a tuxedo.

Coincidentally, Barack Obama was in Hollywood last week getting his fund raised by his new best friend, David Geffen. I doubt even liberals think Barry-O has what it takes to be President, but he has the street cred to be VP, and a Gore-Obama ticket would be... um... just the ticket... a real "Gorama" if it were to be promoted as a cheesy '50s horror flick -  another example of Al exceeding 45.

Gore, of course, isn't running for President - he's dying for it. If he finally gets there, it might not be the first time the office is held by someone who's insane, but it will be the first time we knew it ahead of time.

Hillary won't take this lying down either which, coincidentally, is the same problem Bill's had with her for thirty years, but when the story, An Oscar For Algore, is written, it's gonna take more than a village to put her in the Oval Office, and maybe more than that just to calm her down, I mean, if all it takes is a Maureen Dowd column to raise her ire. Funny, she doesn't look shrewish.

NOT!

So watch the countdown: Oscar, Nobel Prize, duet with Dion, the Presidency: needless to say, I'd love to be wrong about any and (especially) all of this. I mean, could it get any better right now than to have the camera zoom in on Gore when they read the winner, and it turns out it's someone else? But that's the stuff movies are made of. This is real life.

It'll be Gorific!

* Like forest green, but more yellow