Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Monday, February 15, 2010

Whiff! Part Deux

- Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints for winning the Super Bowl this year. The Saints and the Indianapolis Colts are both great teams, but for the Saints to win it all is a great testament to not just the team's athletic prowess, but to their commitment to the city. Now, I want to see the city match the Saints' commitment by getting committed to improving their conditions.

On their own, of course. Right?

- In an op-ed piece in USA Today, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan wrote, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Hmmm...when the Bush Administration said the same thing, didn't the Left scream about dissent being patriotic?

And we return to Bizarro World!

Did you read the article? The Bush administration never said that "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." They did the opposite. The Bush administration USED fear-mongering. The Bush administration USED politically-motivated criticism. That's why the we were in Iraq after 9/11, remember? The Iraq that didn't have anything to do with al-Qaeda? When people were speaking against the war in Iraq, since it had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, they were said to be supporting the terrorists. You think THAT is the same as what Brennan said?? Brennan stated: "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill." That's the OPPOSITE of what the Bush administration was doing. When you want to change laws and the Constitution because you're so goddamned scared of people, and try to push your own partisan agendas through due to people's fears of terrorists, THAT is what serves the goals of the terrorists. Right-wingers have elevated a nuisance to the level of GODS. And that's exactly what the Bush administration did. Brennan is asking for people to do the OPPOSITE. Brennan pointed out the same thing I did about the Republicans' hypocrisy regarding Obama's handling of the Underwear Bomber vs. Bush's handling of the Shoe Bomber. http://realbottomline.blogspot.com/2009/12/oh-most-wicked-slowness.html Ah, what's the use. Let's just talk the way Republicans do: Why do you hate America? We're in a war. This is not the time to criticize a sitting president. That kind of talk undermines the POTUS' authority and hurts troop morale. Why do you hate the troops? You must be a terrorist enabler. These things are very elitist for you to say. Obama is just a regular, bootstrappy guy who overcame obstacles to become much more successful than you. You're obviously very jealous of his success. Why are you pushing this class warfare? All this babble from you makes our country less safe. And for the last time: It's "REMEMBER DESCENT THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTIC."

- More fallout from Climategate has the eco-Left digging in and going on the offensive. Instead of defending their misdeeds (which are indefensible, given the depths they've sunk to in order to keep up the myth that AGW is settled science), they've decided to attack those who are raising legitimate doubts. So much for the science being on their side...

Science IS on our side, that's why Deniers can't use science to defend their side. It's also too bad that there were no "misdeeds" to defend. I bet it really pissed right-wingers off when Mann was cleared of scientific misconduct by the very university that they were crowing about starting an inquiry: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/science/earth/04climate.html

AGW is "settled science." Stop acting so hurt about being "attacked". If deniers say incredibly ignorant and stupid things like "AGW is a myth," they're going to get called out. Climatology is science, it's the study of the climate, there is nothing innately partisan about it. However it's the only scientific field that I can think of where stupid people have usurped it and tossed it into political debate. But in the climate "debate" from the deniers (I use quotes because there is nothing rational in the arguments non-climatologists are making) no one is really looking at the data or discussing models, or thinking of experiments to run. There is nothing scientific about it at all. It's merely stating a position based on what financial gain or loss could be incurred. I don't expect to ever see a debate among deniers about whether the HadCM3 or the GFDL model is the more accurate, or anything of that nature. I just wish stupid people would recognize the science for what it is, a science. The people who come up the models have dedicated years and years of their lives to education so that they can develop them and to test them rigorously, because they want to understand the world around them better.

No one goes, "Hey you know what? I'm going to do 4 years of college and then 5 or 6 years of grad school, then maybe a post-doc for a few years then work on a model for 10 years so that I can piss off some people, that would be awesome!" They do this to uncover the truth.

There no agenda, no Machiavellian plan to rob us of our PT Cruisers, nothing. Just data, and what it tells us. And on the other side... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Private_Sector

- Meghan McCain has announced that she's a progressive Republican. I know. I was shocked, too. Anyway, it explains a lot about her advice for Republicans on how to win the youth vote in upcoming elections. What it explains: she is the last person the GOP needs to consult for advice on winning elections. Her father's approach has been tried and it has failed in two straight elections. Putting a new face on a failed strategy doesn't make it any better.

At least Meghan passed the GOP Purity Test. You know, the one that Ronald Reagan epically fails?

Please, Republicans, take Lindaman's advice. Be more like Beck, PLEASE!

- Sarah Palin has caught a lot of heat from Leftists for notes she wrote on her hand prior to a speech she gave recently. As a public speaker, I understand the importance of notes to delivering a good speech, so I don't criticize Palin too much for it. Notecards would have been better, but sometimes you have to go with what you have handy, if you'll pardon the pun. Having said that, seeing how sparse her notes were makes me think the Left's criticism of Palin in this case is much ado about nothing. Seriously, you're getting on Palin's case for a few words written on her hand? If that doesn't scream "Palin owns us," I don't know what does.

The reason Palin "caught heat" for writing on her hand, was because right-wing LIARS keep falsely claiming Obama needs a TelePrompter in order to survive. They couldn't back it up with anything, but that didn't stop them from continuing to LIE about it. Too bad Obama didn't need a TelePrompter when he TOTALLY OWNED the Republicans on their own turf at Baltimore.

Palin's a Creationist, and thus is an idiot by default. No apologies for writing on hands can change that.

- A new billboard of George W. Bush and the slogan "Miss Me Yet?" appeared near Wyoming, Minnesota, recently. It even got the attention of National Public Radio, who initiated an investigation into whether it was real and who put it up. Wow. With all of the stuff that could and really should be investigated (you know, like ACORN and government fraud under the guise of "stimulus money"?), it's nice to see NPR take the lead on something so insignificant.

Yeah, god forbid investigative reporters... investigate. Oh, wait... it's investigating something that Republicans don't like. Gotcha.

And too bad there was no voter fraud regarding ACORN. Nor improper federal money: "A study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the community organizing group known as ACORN properly used all federal dollars it received in the past five years. In addition, the report found that no voters who were allegedly registered to vote improperly cast any ballots."

Now let's hear all that government fraud under the guise of stimulus money!

::crickets chirping:: Thought so.

Right-wing assholes AND the media have been trying tirelessly to find something, ANYTHING... and have come up with diddly-squat. You see, just like with people claiming AGW fraud but they can't find anything: If the fraud isn't there... it isn't there. As far as the billboard itself:

PLEASE make this the GOP's campaign theme in 2010 and 2012. PLEASE!

Then again, if the media did their jobs, we might not have had Obama in the White House...

Now back that up with... anything.

::crickets chirping:: Thought so.


Thomas Lindaman wrote the following (on a FRIDAY NIGHT since he has nothing better to do):

-President Barack Obama promised that he would enact a spending freeze effective with the 2011 budget that would keep spending at the 2010 budget levels for 3 years. Maybe he slept in when this was covered at Harvard Law, but there's this thing called the separation of powers that prevents one branch of the government from intruding too much on another. And according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, federal spending falls under the duties of…the Legislative Branch. Funny that a Constitutional law professor missed that part of the Constitution, huh?

Know what a proposal is?

Regardless, Republicans should oppose it. Fiscal responsibility goes against everything Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians/Independentstm stand for. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility. Democrats do it.

- Nancy Pelosi stated that she would do everything in her power to get the health care reform bill passed. Considering she essentially passed the House version of this bill by 3 votes the first time around, and there's still a matter of reconciliation to address, I'm not sure she should be so confident of the outcome because conditions have changed since December. Failure by the Congressional Democrats to see this will result in the health care reform bill being watered down or defeated outright.

Again, she stated she'd do everything IN HER POWER. What's that got to do with "confidence of the outcome"? It seems you right-wingers hate it when people even TRY to do ANYTHING. So much for bootstrapping.

- Newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was sworn in yesterday after a longer-than-necessary delay. When similar situation occurred in NY-23, the Democrat was sworn in immediately to vote for the health care reform bill in the House. Wouldn't have anything to do with Brown being a Republican, would it?

Welcome again to Bizarro World, where up is down and black is white.

Scott Brown didn't want to be sworn in until February 11th. When he changed his mind, he got exactly what he wanted:

Christ, you people even lie when Democrats do things to HELP you. Just like right here:

- Senator Al Franken lambasted the Obama Administration for a lack of leadership on the health care reform bill. He cited how they failed to give Senate Democrats direction on how to proceed. Although I agree with Franken, I have to question the reason for his objection. After all, doesn't he work for the people, not the White House?


How is an elected Democrat, advising other elected Democrats, on Democratic issues that they were voted in for, not "working for the people"?

- A recent report regarding the whereabouts of the funds from the Pork-A-Palooza bill shows that money was sent to Congressional districts…that don't exist. Maybe that's why the Obama Administration has taken the position that only some of the money is being misspent: because compared to the funds going to districts that don't exist, the money being misspent is a drop in the bucket.

"Teh stimulus created jobs but some idiot listed them as being in the wrong district!!11!! OBAMA FAILS!!"

So some local-yokel clerks entered the wrong district number into their reporting pages. Whoopty doo.

Too bad the Republicans that are against the Stimulus (I mean "Pork-A-Palooza Bill derp derp") keep asking for money: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/09/stimulus-foes-see-value-in-seeking-cash//print/

Republicans brag that they oppose the stimulus, then take credit for stimulus money sent to their districts.

Call me when the ACTUAL MONEY is missing, not a district that was entered improperly.

Or will they just stack the money on some pallets and make it disappear?

- In response to the recent controversy surrounding a pro-life television ad airing during the Super Bowl, "The View" co-host Joy Behar said that it was just as likely that Florida quarterback Tim Teboe could have been born a "pedophile rapist." Yeah, it's possible that Teboe could have wound up as someone far less savory than what he has become. You know, like an unfunny talk show hack stinking up the airwaves on two different TV shows?

Or even worse, a Republican Independenttm?

"Don't have abortions cuz the zygote could become a football star" is retarded logic. Right-wingers shouldn't pee their pants just because they are called out on their retardation.

Calling Out Stupidity = WAR!

Thomas Lindaman brings up... The WAR Against Glenn Beck!!

Right, just like there's a "War Against Christmas."

Huffington's point is that Beck is dangerous for America because he "incites violence."

Huffington said "inciting PEOPLE" not "inciting violence." Of course, right-wingers never imply violence. It's not like they imply going to the Bullet Box or anything...

Others have taken it a step further, accusing Beck of rape, tax evasion, and murder using facts even more tenuous than Huffington's.

Huffington's facts are not "tenuous."

And about the tax issue: Beck dug his own hole with that one:

And about the subject of Glenn Beck raping and murdering a young girl in 1990... hey, we're just asking questions! It's good enough for Glenn Beck, isn't it?

Glenn Beck hasn't proved to me that he hasn't raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. So why isn't Beck responding to these innocent questions, corksuckers?

The Left operates on a principle of keeping people ignorant and, thus, easily controllable. HAHAHAHAHA! Projecting again!

Hey, Republicans: Is the earth 6,000 years old? Watch them stumble as they try to keep their base answering that question.

Huffington and her ilk have a purely ideological purpose for trying to destroy Glenn Beck: to preserve the Leftist status quo. To them, it's a battle for survival against the biggest threat they've ever experienced.

According to Beck, his followers and the rest of the Teabaggers are the real majority of Americans."We surround them." Too bad Republicans admire Obama over Glenn Beck 2:1.

Ouch. Regardless, Beck's a public figure and thus is subject to being called out on his proven bullshit. While "Independentstm" fall all over themselves to defend a right-wing mouthpiece like Beck, Beck keeps making it harder on them, by continually saying insane garbage: Beck, like all right-wing patriots, who are truly not traitors whatsoever, encourages secession:

Beck states Obama is a radical because he uses his real name, Barack:

Beck states Scott Brown's daughter comment could end with a dead intern:

Beck states that by reacting quickly to the Haiti earthquakes, Obama is "dividing the country."

Beck states that African-American is a "bogus, PC, made-up term. I mean, that's not a race." Watch Beck act stupid in front of black people, Conservative black people, no less: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-gets-ask-dumb-white-guy-q

Beck lies through his teeth and claims the health care bill provides "insurance for dogs.": http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/12/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-health-care-bill-includes-insura/

Beck claims Net Neutrality is a Marxist plot: http://gawker.com/5387076/glenn-beck-net-neutrality-is-marxist-plot

Beck claims our country is violent because we don't have "'In God We Trust' on our money." Not only is this retarded logic, it's not even true.

And the funniest of all, Beck claims Obama hates white people and "the white culture" (whatever the fuck THAT is):

I'm not usually a betting man, but in this case, I'll go all in for Beck winning this one.

"My tard will win!"

Well, Beck certainly wins certain things, like this: Glenn Beck wins special recognition from Anti-Defamation League.

But please, keep defending proven idiots.

Bipartisanship, Only When Dems Are In Charge

Thomas Lindaman discusses the Republican function which Obama attended.

Ah, here we go again. The urgings from the Right for "bipartisanship."

Again I ask: Why be bipartisan with Republicans? Considering that they are a group of people that are wrong about, well, EVERYTHING?

When they're wrong, they're wrong.

And just for fun, let's watch that function where Obama wiped the floor with the House Republicans at their own retreat. Oh, and he did it without a TelePrompter. You know, the TelePrompter that you right-wingers keep saying he needs?

We've Heard It All Before

Thomas Lindaman refers back to an older posting on his blog by Stella Rondo.

After a long post of nothing but strawmen, her summary is:

Obama is entering implementation with a poorly defined problem,

Hmmm... let's see... we have a healthcare system that benefits from denying claims... we have 45.8 million uninsured people (growing at an annual rate of 1.1 million)... 70 million Americans have inadequate insurance and a major health problem would send them to financial ruin... the U.S. ranking 17th in male life expectancy, 16th in female life expectancy, and 21st in infant mortality... the fact that we spend far more per capita on our health care than any other country (for less benefits)... It's only "poorly defined" for right-wingers trying to cloud the issue.

When you right-wing bloggers wind up in a wheelchair with your feet chopped off due to your adult-onset diabetes brought about by your morbid obesity, crying about how you're broke because you were continually denied benefits... I'll laugh like crazy at you, and piss on your graves after you die poor and ALONE in bed from suicide or an early heart attack. Is that defined enough for you?

a poorly defined solution,

It's only "poorly defined" to stupid inbred heifers.

, and a resistant, increasingly hostile, and impatient public whose core cultural beliefs are attacked.

The United States doesn't have a "culture" aside from what we've stolen from other countries. Too bad we haven't stolen their ability to have decent health care.

And (again) the majority of Americans are in favor of health care reform. It's only the right-wingers that are too goddamned STUPID and IGNORANT that don't like the idea, because they've been listening to right-wing mouthpieces that basically tell them to vote against their own interests (as always). That's the "people" that Rondo keeps referring to.

I would not be surprised to eventually see things like a return of Congress to the GOP, doctor strikes, public marches, computer programming snafus, "sick-outs", and computer hackings, to name just a few ways in which people could resist.

Too bad none of that happened. You heard it here first!

You cunts wouldn't even be able to vote if your fellow right-wingers had their say.

It's Not A Fluke When It's A Republican!

Thomas Lindaman can't believe folks are saying Scott Brown's victory doesn't mean people love Republicans!

In the aftermath of Scott Brown's stunning victory to win the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy, Leftists and the media have been trying to figure out a way to minimize the impact of said victory. One of the most popular is that Brown's victory was a fluke, that he merely tapped into the country's anger against Barack Obama and/or the Democrats. I'm sure they're sincere in their beliefs (or at least as sincere as Leftists can be), That's funny, coming from the party of LIE. but they're missing the point. Conservatives and Republicans, too, aren't looking at the big picture. Yes, dear readers, the Brown victory was not a fluke victory by any stretch of the imagination.

Nope, it was a definitive victory... against an incompetent campaign.

Go back a few months to New York-23, and you'll see the real fluke. In that race, an established Democrat with the backing of a Republican (who, surprise surprise, was being backed by a different arm of the same Leftist political enterprise, ACORN)

LOL, Republicans use the term "ACORN" more than OJ Simpson's legal team used the term "Mark Fuhrman." Obama lying about his birth certificate, ACORN causing voter fraud, the Climatologists that are all lying about Global Warming to get all that grant money to keep up their Rock Star Scientist Lifestyle...

"A study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the community organizing group known as ACORN properly used all federal dollars it received in the past five years. In addition, the report found that no voters who were allegedly registered to vote improperly cast any ballots."

The ACORN conspiracy was all much ado about nothing, also known as the Republican platform. Not only that, pimp-boy was arrested for trying to wiretap a Senator's office. A Republican attempting to wiretap someone without a warrant? Perish the thought! The fact that NY-23 was Republican-controlled for a hundred years indicates that if there's voter fraud in that area, it sure isn't on the Democratic side. ACORN helps poor people vote, and that's why the Republicans hate them.

They have never been convicted of VOTER FRAUD. Not once. So cram it sideways, you proven right-wing liars.

barely beat a member of the Conservative Party. For those of you unfamiliar with the facts in this case, the Conservative Party is a separate party in New York State from the Republican Party. In other words, they're a third party. When you consider a third party candidate with less time in the race than the other two candidates almost knocked off the Democrat in an election season where public discontent against government was already high, it's clear that the Democrats were lucky to come away with that victory.

Considering the Democrats won in an area that's been Republican for over a hundred years, I'd say it was a little more than luck, Bub. But that won't stop right-wingers from saying THAT was a "fluke."

Of course, at the time, the media and the Left were crowing about "taking the seat away from the GOP, who held it since the Civil War." (Of course, that's not true, as NY-23 was represented by a Democrat way back in 1993, but let's not get into those details here.)

Well, of course we don't want to get into those details. Because the details make it clear that (again): NY-23 has changed locations over the ages. The "Left" who were saying that NY-23 has been held by Republicans since the Civil War, were talking about the actual geographic area now in NY-23 - not the district that happened to have the number 23. Right now it's bordering Canada.

And you know that (at least after I already stated that fact in December), we're just hearing that age-old right-wing tactic of repeating the same lies over and over again in the hopes they will stick.

They were so psyched about their win that they overlooked a good chunk of the whole picture, and that cost them in Massachusetts. Now that the Left is in full excuse mode, it's unlikely they will look at Brown's victory as anything but a hiccup, a once-in-a-lifetime thing. The problem is that it's not. It's a sign of things to come.

Get back to us when a Republican wins against a COMPETENT campaign. The ONLY reason Brown won was because his opponent ran a stupid, Fred Thompson-like campaign. If Oakley had put in one good day's work, the seat would be hers today.

I find it amusing that every new Republican to come down the pike (who hasn't been caught yet blowing a homeless guy in the bus station bathroom), no matter how stupid they are, is hailed as the savior of the party and trotted out for 2012.

The Special Election (Ya Got That Right)

Thomas Lindaman discusses the election of Republican Scott Brown as Senator of Massachusetts and its impact.

First: The one and only reason Coakley lost was because of her terrible campaign. Now, let's proceed...


- Scott Brown: This one's self-explanatory. Brown ran a stellar campaign, appealing to the spirit of the age with his common man approac h and promise to vote against the ObamaCare bill still in Congress.

The healthcare issue didn't exist when Coakley was 30 points ahead? Too bad the majority of Americans are in favor of healthcare reform. Cutesy soundbites like "ObamaCare" ain't gonna change that.

- The TEA Party movement: The victory that didn't come in NY-23 came in Massachusetts. No matter how much the Left ridicules the TEA Party movement,

The Teabaggers didn't exist when Coakley was 30 points ahead? The Teabaggers are ridiculed because they are not a grassroots organization, they are proven idiots, and they are led by people like this:

it's clear from post-election interviews that there are more TEA Party people than the Left cares to admit. That should tell them that Brown's victory is a validation of the TEA Party.

It's clear from people who can actually count, that there are less Teabaggers than the Right care to admit. And I'm not even referring to that time you guys blatantly lied about your numbers. You guys couldn't even bring together more than 600 hicks in Nashville. NASHVILLE, for Christ's sake! "Post election interviews"? That's a valid source? Does that mean that you admit John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election? You DID see the exit polls, correct?

- Conservative House Democrats: It's unusual to think of a Republican winning helping Democrats, but in this case it works. With Brown's potential vote against ObamaCare, conservative Democrats in the House can make the argument that ObamaCare won't be able to pass by traditional means. That means they could vote their conscience with the House version instead of voting with their party in the hopes of being reelected.

Again, there were no health care issues when Coakley was 30 points ahead? Actually, the Conservative Democrats should all just become Republicans. While it's understandable how suicidal it is to be a Republican right now, they may as well stop pretending. That's good advice for Libertarians and "Conservative Independentstm" too.

Losers - Martha Coakley: Although she was hand-picked by the Kennedy family to take Ted's seat, Coakley ran a laughable campaign.

She campaigned? For the first time in this article, Lindaman is correct. A laughable campaign. THAT is why Coakley lost.

Hard to believe that she was up by 30 points at one time. Her campaign's meltdown will be the source of much discussion within Leftist circles, mainly to protect President Obama from the fall-out.

Obama wasn't president when Coakley was 30 points ahead?

- Barack Obama: In the short term, Brown's election means health care reform and other Obama initiatives are threatened. In the long term, Obama's inability to deliver victory in three high profile races (New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts) will be a reflection on his bank-ability as a Campaigner-In-Chief. If the 2010 midterm elections become a referendum on Obama, more and more Democrats will distance themselves from the President, making him seem more and more like a lame duck.

Again, Obama wasn't president when Coakley was 30 points ahead?

You guys know damn well Obama isn't to blame for this, and that health care reform isn't the reason for it either. Nonsense: People want an improved health care system whether you bloggers (including the ones that are leeching off your parents' health insurance) like it or not.

- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: Brown's election throws a spotlight on Pelosi and Reid's failure to deliver a workable health care reform bill last year. In their attempts to bribe and bully their respective houses of Congress into voting for ObamaCare, they "forgot" the art of diplomacy and preferred to hammer through a fundamentally flawed bill with the promise that it could be "fixed" later. Here's a tip: if you know it's a bad bill, pushing it through won't make it any better.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wasn't around when Coakley was 30 points ahead?

You guys say "No" to everything, so enough about "bipartisanship." What the Dems need to do is finally grow a pair and steamroll all over you guys.

- the Kennedy family: There was once a time when a Kennedy supporting someone in Massachusetts meant a guaranteed victory. With the Kennedy family's support of Coakley, though, no victory was to be had. This is a sign that the Kennedy name is no longer a force in Massachusetts politics, possibly even national politics. And the sad thing: it is a self-inflicted wound.

Brown was a guy who quoted JFK in his television advertisements and was all but shunned by the Republican Party when it came to support and money.

Take 'Em and Pick 'Em - the Republican Party: At this point, I'm not sure how the Republican Party will react to the Brown victory after the euphoria of the victory wears off. If they look solely at the Senate makeup and don't consider how Brown won, their chances in the midterm elections will be negatively impacted. Brown's victory can be used as a blueprint for other Republican victories, but only if the party leadership recognizes it.

Keep hoping for bad campaigning on the other side, in other words.

- the Democrat Party:

The fact Lindaman calls it the "Democrat Party" proves he's not an Independenttm.

Brown's victory should be a wake-up call to the party. The tactics they used served not to discourage support for Brown, but discourage support for Coakley. They simply can't rely on attacking an opponent as a "teabagger" because there are a number of people who actually agree with the TEA Party movement from all walks of life. With a growing number of Independents willing to vote for a Republican or a conservative, the Democrat brand may not be as strong as it was back in 2006 and 2008.

- third parties: With the rise of the TEA Party movement, there has been a lot of talk about the possibility of third parties rising in popularity and what it means to the two major parties. Brown's victory may give third parties reason to pause. After all, if they can find a Republican, conservative, or Independent candidate that can support and be satisfied, there may not need to be such a powerful move towards third parties. Then again, it may be just the motivation they need to step up and make a better argument for their causes.

Sure, the Republicans made gigantic strides here - backwards. But as long as they continue to think they have the 2010 elections all sewn up and believe that 2012 is a guaranteed win for the presidency, I'm fine with that. On the bright side, Joe Lieberman loses his bizarre throne. He's now 100% irrelevant, and made himself very unpopular with Connecticut voters with his recent asshattery. And now it's all for nothing. People didn't vote for Scott Brown because he was Republican. He all but called himself an independent in his ads. People voted for Scott Brown because Coakley did her best to offend voters. Calling a Red Sox player a Yankees fan? Going on vacation in the middle of a short campaign? Misspelling the state's name in an ad?

She cocked up this race about as bad as the Teabaggers cocked up New York 21.

The Scott Brown situation at least clarifies further something that's already blatantly obvious: Scott Brown is a Birther. You guys are rooting for a Birther. Just like you're rooting for Palin, a Creationist.

You guys are supporting proven morons, and are proud of it.

Leave MLK Alonnnnne!

Thomas Lindaman complains about holiday sales.

While I don't disagree with this, it's funny that he just happens to pick Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to complain about it. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.

We certainly don't want an uppity civil rights leader getting mainstream attention via CAPITALISM, do we? Nor should those hippie trees (Arbor Day), or the sucky government and their antislavery leaders (Presidents Day).

Right-wingers, get back to us when it's Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Christmas Day, or refer to MLK Day as *snicker* Robert E Lee Day.

Two Out Of Three Are Correct

Thomas Lindaman brings up Game Change, in which John Heliemann and Mark Halperin report:

"[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill's handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

Naturally, this is second-hand information that can't be confirmed, since Ted is... well, dead. Not to mention the fact that throughout the Clinton/Obama campaign, Bill Clinton was always focusing on Obama being a junior senator that lacked experience and didn't go through the usual blood, sweat, and tears.

It seems fairly obvious that Clinton was referring to a junior senator being a lackey, not a "black guy shining my shoes." Especially given how Bill Clinton never showed even an inkling of being a racist through his actions. Since you right-wingers obviously think Ted Kennedy is telling the truth on this: Do you also think Ted Kennedy was telling the truth when he said that he was only driving Mary Jo Kopechne home that night, sober, and he tried hard to save her life? Ted seems to be trustworthy when you want to believe him, untrustworthy when you don't. Apparently today the newest member of the Dead Kennedys is, in fact, trustworthy.

That, of course, is not racist.

Lindaman then compares the Harry Reid/Clinton statements with Trent Lott. As for Trent Lott, Richard Greene said it best:

You see, it all boils down to this:

1. Clinton was right (if he said his statement at all): A few years earlier a junior senator would be fetching coffee to people like him.

2. Reid was right: America still isn't ready for a dark-skinned thickly ethnic-speaking nubian Black President.

3. Lott was wrong: The world would not have been better off if they had elected Thurmond in 1948, when he was a flaming racist. But go ahead, tell us how the world would've been better with a blatant racist in charge.

The Democrats are right, the Republicans are wrong (again).

Airport Insecurity

Thomas Lindaman shares his Thoughts on Airport Security:

what should drive efforts to reform airport security globally: choice. With something so important (and with our leadership in the world diminishing since Reagan),

Traitorously selling arms to an active state sponsor of anti-American terrorism then using the funds to aid a rebellion against the specific intentions of Congress, claiming the Russians had no word for "freedom," claiming that intercontinental ballistic missiles could be recalled once launched, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, allowing the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 then running away from it, claiming one could "win" a nuclear war, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, massacres in El Salvador, "we begin bombing in five minutes,"239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, and happened to be in office when the Soviet Union collapsed... is "world leadership"? Not to mention: Creating the largest ever tax increase (mostly on the backs of the middle class and poor), bankrupting the treasury, closing all the mental health wards thus beginning our current crazy homeless/veterans problem, firing the air traffic controllers, giving tax credits to segregated schools, "trees cause pollution", Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, public housing cutbacks, James Watt, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice", Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, the DEA, United States Information Agency blacklists of certain speakers that didn't fit a right-wing agenda, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, assassination manuals, drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made," Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), stealing Carter's briefing book, Reader's Digest, 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey,"Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, the CIA flying in cocaine to support his so-called war, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, religious evangelical wackjobs, Teflon.

World leadership, folks! Tis to laugh.

However, he did make Grenada safe for democracy... that sure showed the terrorists who killed all those marines in the barracks bombing who was boss, huh?

And to be fair, if Bush had let his wife make policy decisions by consulting astrologers, rather than listening to Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perle, we'd have been better off.

The people who laud Reagan always seem to be fiscally irresponsible, irrational evangelicals. In other words, Conservatives.

reforming such a major tool in our security arsenal can't be done by legislative fiat. It's something that has to be organic, from the grassroots up.

Yeah, that same strategy worked so well for our healthcare system.

Will they be as grassroots and organic as the Tea Party Movement?