-
-
Recent Comments
- Was it better than a shoe...
- You're a bit ambiguous. ...
- Congratulations on your n...
- The Beast (Tina Brown's n...
- Just goes to show that no...
Oct
31
Biden fed on that idiot scank from a Florida station. And here he hits a tag team of idiots from a Philly station. This is a guy that can handle himself and take the heat. This is the kind of choice I’ll bet McCain wishes he made.
via videosift.com
Oct
23
Palin is a true intellectual
Filed Under Political Shitheadery | 1 Comment
“And you have to be up on not only current events, but you have to understand the foundation of the issues that you’re working on,” Palin said in an interview with People magazine. “You can’t just go on what is presented you.”
I present you with $150,000 clothes and a copy of Constitution for your perusal.
This is the same woman who said the VP is “in charge of the Senate.” At least if they so choose to be, and such as, and stuff.
Palin told the Washington Post that she’s reading a lot of briefing papers. Apparently she’s not reading the Constitution. Never has. Not even the Cliff Notes.
And a son named, “Zamboni?”
Ah yes, she must mean The Zamboni. Vladimir Zamboni the famed sociologist and philosopher. Most famous for his book, “Believe me, there’s nothing under the ice. I’ve looked.”
Oct
14
I love Monty Python
Filed Under Media Shitheadery, Political Shitheadery | Leave a Comment
I loved Monty Python when I was a kid. “The Holy Grail” is still on my list of top ten movies of all time, “The Ministry of Silly Walks” was probably one of the first skits I imitated as a kid and I’ve referenced “The Argument Clinic” in posts.
John Cleese is comedic genius in almost everything he’s done. In addition he’s a thoughtful, intelligent guy. Not to mention funny as hell.
He was asked about Palin (not Micheal) recently. Here’s the interview:
Oct
9
When people say, “Behind every great man, there is a great woman,” Roosevelt usually comes to mind. Not Teddy, the one who’s tied for first place with Reagan on McCain’s hero list, but Eleanor Roosevelt. The First Lady who broke away from the typically ceremonial role and reshaped it around her deep commitment to social reform.
Michelle Obama appeared twice yesterday, on both The Larry King Show and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Both clips are at the bottom of this post.
Again, I have to admit, I got that rare and elusive feeling of hope. It’s been so long since I’ve had a feeling even remotely close to hope that I’m not sure that’s what it was. Could be I’m just getting a cold.
After hearing and watching Palin’s snide, sarcastic remarks and lame, scripted interviews; folksy, spunky drivel at debates; and Cindy McCain’s $300,000 outfits for the past month, it was a switch to watch Michelle Obama answer questions thoughtfully, intelligently, and honestly.
I’m still undecided as to whether I was pulled into the interviews because of what she was saying and how she was saying it, or because they’re in such sharp contrast to the shrill rantings of the other garbage I’ve been listening to.
The argument I hear from women who like Palin, is that she’s a strong woman. She has five kids. She’s a working mom. Okay, she lies through her teeth and can shoot a rifle too.
Michelle Obama, like her husband is a thoughtful, intelligent, capable woman. Before I get accused of making statements that are contradictory to a previous post, let me qualify this one.
I’m not waging this Michelle Obama love fest as an attack on Palin. Palin’s ineptitude stands on it’s own and is reason enough to dismiss her.
Michelle Obama tipped the scale for a couple of reasons.
With the exception of Cheney, VPs have really never done much of anything except wait for a death. On the other hand, First Ladies who actually participate in political and social causes have made remarkable differences because they have no political constraints. Eleanor Roosevelt is a perfect example.
More importantly, and this might be misconstrued as a sexist remark - and by all means construe away - Any guy can pick a brain dead bimbo for a wife. McCain did it, Bush did it, hell that brain dead bimbo Todd did it. They’d have to be brain dead to have married those dicks (oh, I forgot Cheney). It takes a real man to marry a woman who’s going to call you on your shit. Especially when there’s a chance she’ll call you on your shit.
You learn a lot about a person when you meet the person they married and the person who chose to marry them. Michelle Obama doesn’t strike me as a person who makes rash decisions. She also doesn’t strike me as a woman who would sit back and let her husband commit idiotic, unethical, and immoral acts, but I can list plenty of spouses over the last eight years who have.
Here are the interviews:
Larry King Interview
The Daily Show
Oct
5
A little Begala
Filed Under Media Shitheadery | Leave a Comment
Paul Begala, who called Bush a high functioning moron on Anderson Cooper 360, responded to this BS in an interview with Brokaw.
Here’s the transcript:
Obama, he was asked about this in a debate in the primaries with Hillary Clinton sitting there, and George Stephanopoulos of ABC asked him about it. He answered it, pointed out that the despicable acts this guy committed were committed when apparently Barack Obama was eight years old.
And I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back, I have written a book about McCain, I had a dozen researchers go through him, I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization, it was the U.S. Council for World Freedom, it was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran contra scandal. It was an ultra conservative, right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League – the parent organization – which ADL said “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.”
Now, that’s not John McCain, I don’t think he is that. But you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin. And he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.
Oct
5
Does FOX actually conduct interviews or do they just let their “guest” yammer on about what ever the hell they feel like talking about? Palin went after Obama for comments (she says) he made about the war.
Here’s FOX’s idea of an interview … I don’t hear any questions:
Why didn’t the hacks at FOX ask her about her reckless comment about Pakistan? Or ask her to clarify just where and in what magazines she does get her news?
What do you think?
Sep
14
In Palin’s Defense?
Filed Under Media Shitheadery, Political Shitheadery | Leave a Comment
The fact that Palin looked like a deer in headlights during an interview with Charles Gibson when he asked her about the Bush Doctrine hasn’t rattled her defenders … much. The Washington Post explained about the many versions of the doctrine. Charles Krauthammer, also of the Post, offers his version of the same story and excuse.
The defense is, that there are many versions of the Bush Doctrine. Or at least that there are many interpretations of what the Bush Doctrine is or could be. That Sarah Palin was simply confused about just which one Charlie Gibson was referring to when he asked her that question. That she, in fact, was calling him out on his lack of knowledge and what an unfair and vague question it was.
So, my question … If she was confused, why not ask for clarification? Why not say, “Geez Charlie, you ass, there’s a few ways I could go here. Could you clarify exactly which doctrine you want me to describe?”
What she did say was, “In what respect Charlie?” In a snide sort of way (my opinion). Not, “Which one Charlie?”
Then, Gibson asked her for her interpretation of the Bush Doctrine. There was her chance! Her chance to let Gibson know just which one she was going for.
Her answer? “His world view.”
His world view? Where did she get that. And I wonder why the folks defending her aren’t mentioning that response? Seems like a pretty important tid-bit. In fact, it’s right here in the interview.
