Texas Secedes from the Union...finally.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry decided that his state has had just about enough of the Obama administration and Democratic rule and has declared Texas as a sovereign... something.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Of course, Palin and Glenn Beck approve.

The real question is how do we rescue the more liberal-minded Texans? Would they stay and form a internal resistance, like the French Resistance during WWII? Or would we need to form an underground railroad to shuttle them to safety? What happens to the NASA space center in Houston?

My ideas:

1) Let Texas go and we build one of those fences they love so much around them.

2) Encourage Mexico to reclaim it.

3) Allow them to elect W again.

Honestly though, I doubt that Perry could point to even one specific change that has negatively impacted Texas. Could someone please name ONE single Republican that is not acting like a little baby nowadays?

As Jon Stewart said, "You're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a shit sandwich."

Koreatown vs. Little Bangladesh: The Dokdo of America

The Korean-American community in California has had their hands full recently. It hasn't even been a week since Susie Kim was shot and killed in Santa Ana and now another Korean-American, Joseph Han, has met the same fate.

The details surrounding those shootings have yet to surface as the investigations continues, but Korean-Americans are facing another threat. Their bastion in LA known as Koreatown has been invaded by the pesky Bangladeshis.

"The Bangladeshi American community says that its numbers have swelled to more than 10,000. Last year, proponents filed a petition with the city to designate the area from Third Street to Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue to Western Avenue as "Little Bangladesh."

The problem with this is that the inhabitants of Koreatown have never had to file a petition before. (They have now.) The law didn't protect such enclaves, but offered only de facto status and since no other migrant community has threatened their "sovereignty" they saw no reason to do so.

In the last 30 years or so, a six-square-mile area west of downtown Los Angeles has become an enclave of some 50,000 Korean-Americans, the largest concentration of Koreans in the country. The district is now commonly known as Koreatown. But on the city’s official maps, Koreatown is nowhere to be found, because until 2006, Los Angeles had no formal process for designating neighbourhoods. Korean civic groups say they always simply assumed that the area was officially Koreatown."

The amount of Bangladesh's living in LA as per the 2000 Census was a measly 1700, but now some estimates are closer to 10,000. That's a huge increase that has been fueled mostly by natural disaster, poverty and civil war.

Let's take a look at what we're talking about here. Below is a wider view of LA with Koreatown highlighted.



Now, here is a closer look at it with the area that was petitioned to become "Little Bangladesh".



That's a pretty big slice right out of the center of Koreatown and the local Korean community is angry.

"It means power," she said as she hemmed a pair of pants inside the dry cleaners where she's worked for a decade. "Koreatown is already established. . . . Why can't they find another place?"

Besides the obvious rants that some Koreans aren't great with multiculturalism, she brings up a good point. It's clear that the Bangladeshis want to capitalize on the progress that Koreatown has made and kind of bypass the whole process of creating a migrant district. LA is huge. There are tons of places where rent is also cheap, but they chose Koreatown and it's very center at that. If the Bengladeshi population continues to grow at the rate that they have been for the past decade, then the location of Little Bangledesh certainly poses a threat to Koreatown. If the proposed location was, say, on the outskirts of town, then its growth wouldn't necessarily threaten Koreatown as much.

I totally side with the Koreans on this one. They moved to that area over 40 years ago. Since then, they have opened stores, dry-cleaners, restaurants and other businesses. It's been a cultural destinationa and a haven for Koreans for decades. During the LA Riots, they defended it from thugs, gangsters and looters. They have shed blood for that district. They deserve to be able to retain the naming rights to the area. The City of LA should not ignore the shared experiences that have bound the Korean-American population to that area.

Luckily for the Koreans, I do not see this passing. I hope that LA would not shit on their Korean community like that.

If it does pass and "Little Bangladesh" does get recognized by the city, then Koreans have a couple options. They can try to bully the Bangladeshis out or they could work together and try to collaboratively promote the area.

Not a great month for Korean-Americans in Southern California.

Americans Love Teabagging. Do you?

You've heard the news. Americans love to teabag.



Best quotes:

"It's going to be teabagging 24/7 by the time of midterms"

"Who wouldn't want to teabag John McCain?"

"Tea bag the fools in DC."

"Let's teabag Obama."

"Teabag the liberal Dems before the teabag you."

Despite what the right-wing media is saying, no one thinks that this is a movement organized by the people. The average person knows what teabagging is.

Who would you like to tea bag?

American Conservatives Love Porno

Just last week and in October, the KT had an article about Korean kids as young as 11 and 12 viewing and subscribing to online pornography. This week, an excellent report came out about American online porn consumption (pdf).

"...this paper focuses on the consumption side of adult online entertainment, and in particular on subscriber demographics and consumption patterns of those who subscribe to such websites."

I am more concerned with political/religious affiliation here than anything else.

"Social critics...often argue that the rise of Internet pornography is contributing to a coarsening of American culture. Do consumption patterns of online adult entertainment reveal two separate Americas? Or is the consumption of online adult entertainment widespread, regardless of legal barriers, potential for embarrassment, and even religious conviction?"

We hear from the right wing nuts that America is becoming more and more of a cesspool of sexual deviancy and perversion, but coming from the party who mastered extremism, manipulation and hypocrisy, I know not to take it seriously. These are the same goons that want gay marriage banned to cover for their penchant for gay sex.

It appears that while most of the industry is centered around California, most of the viewing is going on in traditionally red states.



And here's the kicker.

Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative legislation on sexuality (regression results on file with the author). In the 27 states where “defense of marriage” amendments have been adopted (making same-sex marriage, and/or civil unions unconstitutional), subscriptions to this adult entertainment service are weakly more prevalent than in other states (p 0.096). In such states, there were 0.2 more subscribers to this adult web site per thousand broadband households, 11 percent more than in other states.

As shown in Table 4, subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality. In states where more people agree that “Even today miracles are performed by the power of God” and “I never doubt the existence of God,” there are more subscriptions to this service. Subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where more people agree that “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage" and "AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behavior.”

And one final thought.

" Visitors from the “red”states that voted for Bush in 2004 are more likely to visit wife-swapping sites, adult webcams, and sites about voyeurism."

But when I look at this list, I'm not surprised.

Obama Hits It Out of the Park

Obama Strategy

Everyone has been whining about the tightening numbers and that Obama is not attacking enough and that he is going to lose and that he's like Kerry or Dukakis or whatever else they are whining about. I understand their concerns to a point, but this is getting pathetic. As I have said before, Obama will win and I believe he is doing a good job. The numbers were going to tighten. This is a Red/Blue country. Obama is still leading by 3-7 in the composite. There was no way a black Democrat was going to walk all over the old white POW. It's almost like people are pretending or intentionally ignoring the dynamics of this race. Obama has the right idea here and let me tell you why.

VP Speculation

I called that Obama would make his selection before the Olympics. He didn't and there is a strategy behind it. What has everyone been talking about for the past two weeks? What does CNN, AP and every other blog write about everyday? They speculate who his VP will be. They write about people speculating about who it will be and they speculate about people speculating who will be the VP. This is free and easy coverage. Obama has thrown so many names around as well. He's listed people from Indiana, New Mexico, Connecticut, the military, Arkansas, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas and many other states. This inclusion plays well to the voters in those states. It shows that Obama is in-line with their worries and their issues. I don't even want to speculate anymore. I will wait for my international text from the Obama camp and then I will go with it. When the announcement is made, it will be all the news for the week. McCain will try to pull something slimy, but it won't stick. This speculation has served him well.

Attack Strategy

This is the one that has the Kossacks and all the other liberal netizens up in arms. "Why is Obama doing this?!!", "He needs to fire his press team!!", "He's worse than Kerry!!" and my personal favorite, "Obama just lost the election!!!". All bloggers assume their wisdom is the best and therefore feel like they can write posts that seem to be talking AT Obama. I do not do that. I talk to myself. Obama has the right strategy on this and the primary season tells us why. Like all GOP strategies, they chose the short-sighted path and tried to interfer with the Democratic primary so the Dems could kill their chances of unifying before convention. They realeased the all the Wright, Rezco and Ayers stuff hoping that Obama would be so bruised and the Hillary hate would allow for a smooth McCain victory. The Wright stuff hurt, but Obama has now cruised past it. If McCain brings it up again, it will only seem stale and a little desparte. It would not be as effective.

This is what Obama was thinking. Let McCain dish out his first round of garbage (of which possessed no substance), endure it and refute it to around convention time. Obama's theme has been more positive, so his convention needs to reflect that. But after convention, the negative ads will start rolling out and the money is going to pour in. He let McCain go first and now McCain's attacks are getting old and most people think that it is a poor reflection on McCain's character. If Obama had started releasing a lot of McCain=Bush ads now, by October that would be stale and not as effective.

The branding starts now. Obama planted the seed and took the high road first. Sure he might have lost a couple points now, but he's only got one place to go.

Here are his new ads airing this week.

Obama and McCain at Saddleback

If you were watching the friendly patty-cake like event that took place at Rick Warrens mega church in sunny California, you either saw a very genuine Barack Obama or a very quick-thinking John McCain. If watched the event twice then you saw an authentic Barack Obama in a somewhat politically hostile environment or John McCain giving a stump speech (which was against the rules).

"John McCain, who has been deemed a “maverick" for years, played the part well and seemed not to play by Warren's guideline. Instead, he took the opportunity during the discussion, carried live by cable news networks, to stick hard to the message he's been driving across the country since running for president. Almost none of the lines or stories were new, but McCain jumped from sharp, brief answers to weaving through his tried-and-true anecdotes, many of which his audience, and Warren, seemed to have never heard before."

And finally, if you watched it three times then you saw Barack Obama dodging pro-life questions and would have started to think that John McCain was not in a silent room, but in fact privied to the questions beforehand.

All in all I think that the forum did not offer too much insight into either candidates religious convictions, rather it was a tease of how the debates are going to be. Obama appeared cool and did well within the confines of the preset conditions of avoiding a stump speech. McCain answered all the questions well and appeased his base, but did not show anything besides well-rehearsed talking points.

However, I cannot spin this as a win. It was not a loss though. Obama showed his true self, but he did so in a vexxing manner that did not sink into the less-complex crowd at the Saddleback mega-churh. McCain, however, did connect with them by relaying personal stories of heroism and failed marriage. If I were to give each candidate a rating, I would give Obama a B and McCain an A-. While the media will use this event as more "Why can't Obama close the deal?" garbage, the numbers will not move in any one's direction. Why?

As pun-ish as it sounds, McCain was preaching to the choir. He summed up his entire existence with with his catch phrases and appealed to his base. He did not win any new voters. In fact, he made it very difficult for those women on the fence to cross to his side with his anti-choice mantra.

I think that this event was some proof the Obama will destroy McCain in the debates.

My reasons are as follows:

1. The Religious forum took place on the same day as Michael Phelps breaking the record for most Gold Medals at an Olympics in the history of the sporting event. If you look at all the news wires that is the big story, not a critique of performances of the presidential candidates. Bottom Line: This provided Obama with general election debate experience, on a day when the forum was not the big story.

2. The one group that was following this event closely and are in a position of influence were the pundits in the MSM. All the performance did was raise the bar for the undecided evangelical crowd for McCain's debate performances in October. The pressure on him will be intense and it will be especially difficult for him to tamp down expectations. Its very rare having an event like this prior to one of the sanctioned presidential debates.

3. Obama now can critique McCain's most recent answer style habits with the moderator (in this case, Warren) and be able to put McCain on the defensive because what we saw from the him were slogans and stand up comedy, not solutions to address the struggles of average Americans. I guarantee that Obama debate prep staff will analyze this video closely and derive some very valuable information from it.

4. Obama was attempting to appeal to a group that was firmly situated in McCain's camp before this event. I feel that moderate evangelicals that want to avoid a Bush third term will focus on the overture by Obama in simply attending this event rather than focus on the style he used. In this case his mere presence as a Democratic nominee in a well known evangelical church provides Obama with the unifying message that he has been advocating on the campaign trail.

Again, I am not saying there was a winner or loser in this event. Both candidates approached it differently.

But what about the young, independent minded evangelicals? To many, McCain was indistinguishable from Bush in his answers and I have to believe that the intelligent young people who have challenged being used by the "Religious Right" would notice that this is just more of the bellicose, unthinking, unfeeling diatribe and see the stirring differences between Obama and McCain.

McCain, as Pat Buchanan said, "was black and white" and Buchanan presented that as a positive. I think that even the Evangelicals of this country are 'burned out' with the rigidity of this point of view.

To the older evangelicals, Obama did not win tonight, but he lost them when he registered as a Democrat. What he didn't do was lose the young evangelicals. In this respect, Saddleback was just what Obama needed. He appeared more church-like and respectful. He came across as someone who actually went to church. McCain blustered in, with all his prepared answers and didn't look into himself at all. (From what I can gather, most thoughtful people of religion do look into themselves as a primary route to their beliefs and ethics and actions. And they can recognize when someone is not willing or able to look inside themselves.)

The fact that McCain used his POW experience as a feint to take attention away from his inability to be thoughtful/religious/spiritual about the questions that were actually asked, is indicative of his religious shallowness.

To me, Obama came across as a person of faith and McCain came across as a political, glad-handing slick operator. But that was my take. I don't think Obama lost to the group he was trying to appeal, the Matthew 25 Group.

To me, the real loser in this forum was Rick Warren. I went into tonight with curiosity about him and have come away with a bad taste in my mouth. It seemed to me that he repeatedly cut off Obama, who was trying to expand on his answers and hurried him on the questions. And yet, he let McCain go on and on and even took McCain back to the Georgia question. The fact that he didn't rein in McCain the way that he did Obama, showed an egregious lack of balance. I think that was disgusting.

It became evident that he was doing a home shopping network promotion for McCain. I am disgusted with Warren.

Recap: The win/loss scenarios...

McCain won the night by appealing to his older base.
Obama lost the night because he wasn't stumpy enough.

McCain won the night because he made all political points.
Obama lost because he only revealed his faith.

Obama won because he stood up for women's rights.
McCain lost because he made his anti-choice beliefs VERY clear.

Obama won because he appealed to a wider-spectrum.
McCain lost because he raised his faux-evangelical bar too high for October.

Obama won because I like him more.
McCain lost because he's difficult to look at or listen to.

Some Humor...

And I thought it was going to be a slow week...

This should slow it down. I like the Cindy comment.



And an oldie.

Why Does McCain Challenge Obama to Debate?

McCain has been making all sorts of threats and challenges to Obama for additional debates and town hall meetings. Obama has played it cool and wisely opted for the traditional three debates. He understands how the media works and why it is important to stay out of the limelight in certain forums. McCain doesn't really get this, but it has been rumored that he isn't allowing the press access to him on the road anymore.

McCain likes to make the big talk and feed the media "Obama backs down to McCain debate challenge" narratives and other useless AP headlines. Yet, when I see this type of thing coming from McCain so regularly it makes me think: Maybe he should be debating this guy OR I can't wait until the debates when Obama buries McCain.

Here is McCain's response to a very straight-forward question.



My question: It is very clear that McCain stumbles through even the simplest questions. Do you think he is challenging Obama to debate so he can try to get the narrative out there (like Bush did) that he might not be so eloquent with words, but he speaks with substance or truth(iness) or honor or whatever adjective distracts people from the empty suit this guy is?

It seems that using Obama's orating skills against him is the only way McCain can spin this.

Obama, McCain and The Der Spiegel

I figured I would wait until the full media narratives set in and the Sunday morning talk shows had finished up before commenting on the Malaki statement essentially endorsing Obama and his plan to get out of Iraq.

First, The Der Spiegel (the same magazine that battled East Germany during the the division of Germany) ran this article where Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki seemed to endorse Obama's plan for withdrawal.

Here is some of the transcript.

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

This was said and was accepted as truth for hours and hours and all the major US news outlets carried the story on their front page. Then, in a bizarre change of events, there was a claim that Malaki was misquoted and did not say any of that. What? The "correction" was submitted by an Iraqi official, however, when you look at where that "official" released this "correction", the story becomes a little trickier and a lot more deceptive.

"Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who the Times calls a spokesman for the Iraqi government, has released a statement saying that Prime Minister Maliki's statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated" and "not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the time frame for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq." But as the Times notes al Dabbagh did not specify what had been mistranslated. Another interesting detail, noted by the Times. al-Dabbagh's statement was released by CentCom. I do not know how often Iraqi government statements are released by CentCom."

So, US Central Command is issuing official Iraqi government statements now? Bush tried to plant this seed and discredit the magazine, but they are standing firm. Here is their complete statement.

In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? The Atlantic Monthly was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

Maliki's comments immediately hit the headlines of US papers and Web sites across the country, partly the result of a White House employee inadvertently sending out a news alert to its full media distribution list. The White House said it was an error and that it was meant to be sent internally only."

We can assume that since they have the entire transcript, they also have audio or maybe even a video of the interview. I would love to see the "Iraqi spokesman" clean that up. I can't believe that the White House made the Iraqi "clarification" come through its own military command (Central Command). Are they getting this brash that they can not even try to be subtle anymore?

This denial has forced Der Spiegel to release their full interview and now they're going to have every big news organization in the world hiring translators to check and see whether or not Der Spiegel was sloppy or the administration was lying... and judging from the CentCom's non-denial denial, it's easy to see who's going to come out the winner on this one. If there was any chance there was a mistake in the translation, the CentCom statement would have been a LOT less garbled and would have cited specific instances of misquote. But they didn't and that's because they knew they couldn't find anything.

I'm seriously shocked by how poorly the Bush administration is handling this. All they've done is made this into a MUCH bigger story than it would have been otherwise and set themselves up to look like lying fools...AGAIN.

Do not be fooled. This is a huge blow to McCain, Bush and the Iraqi governments susceptibility to Washington pressure and one that will be hard to spin. All Obama has to do is stick to the original narrative and refuse to back down. Expect the GOP to smear Germany and call the Der Spiegel communist or socialist or something else that fires up their base and the MSM.

Is Obama leaning towards Clinton?

The Media seems to think that this could perhaps be suggesting that Obama is leaning towards Clinton as his running mate. I would be fine with that as I think that the Media might have burnt any chance Wes Clark had by inaccurately reporting his comments about McCain.

"Barack Obama stoked vice presidential speculation Wednesday with an unannounced stop at the Washington law firm of a search team member and then a flight to New York fundraisers with potential pick Hillary Rodham Clinton and a second vetter. I'm not going to tell you" any details, the smiling likely Democratic nominee told reporters after spending more than two hours inside a downtown Washington office building where attorney Eric Holder, a member of his vice presidential search committee, has offices."

The Media narrative now is that Obama is moving to the center. He is. The Media is, of course, ignoring the fact that every single nominee moves to the center after a very partisan primary. Don't be fooled. Regardless of the truth, in politics perception is everything and oftentimes supercedes the truth. Today Obama voted for immunity for the telecom companies on the wiretapping vote which is under FISA. I am upset that he did this, but he is being caustious so as not to be branded "soft on terrorism". Again, I'm pretty upset with him over this, but it is in no way a deal breaker for me, nor should it be for any Dem. Luckily, Hillary voted against it along with 28 other Senators. This vote will hurt him a little, but he is banking on the fact that the liberal voting bloc will support him way before jumping to McCain. He's probably right, but it's a risk.

If he throws Hillary on the ticket, it will balance it out enough to appease the voters. But more than that, she will keep him on a more liberal track. He might need this while getting settled in the White House.

My question: Is Obama is waiting to reveal his VP choice later in the summer so that he can get a bounce AFTER the GOP and the Media has used up a lot of their ammo? OR is he waiting to see what the ammo is and then pick accordingly?

A More Complete Picture

The Clark/Webb-related events of the past few days have opened a door and given the public a more complete idea of who McCain is and how he deals with people and unfriendly situations. As his experience was called into question by more senior military officials (something that has not been done publicly), we were given a picture of an aging, whiny man who is so arrogant that he expects and demands respect from everyone and if he doesn't get it, it leads to openly erratic behavior. Is John McCain sooo "delicate" that he can't take criticism even when it is accurate and well said? Does he have to rely on Fox and shallow expressions and claims of patriotism to bite back? Why can't he handle criticism? More importantly, how will he react when entire nations will be openly criticizing him, if he can't even handle it from a few individual people?

By reacting the way he has and certainly continuing it after Obama said, "Enough!" with the whole thing, McCain made the horrendous error of demanding that it was time to "cut Clark loose". Obama will do no such thing. Now, Obama has earned hand and McCain looks like a whiny old man. Having Clark and Webb highlighting these weaknesses in a backwards and illogical world where Obama can't because he didn't "serve", is just what Obama needs. McCain's reaction is a product of over a decade of favorable Media coverage, a lifetime of demanding his ass to be kissed and very little public criticism. Clark was dead-on when he suggested McCain was "untested", but now it also includes national public life.

Wait. I spoke to soon. He was "tested" by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega on a diplomatic mission in 1987.

"McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don't know what attracted my attention," Cochran said in an interview with The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss. "But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever ...

"I don't know what he was telling him but I thought, 'Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.' I don't know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy ... and he just reached over there and snatched ... him."

And that was on a diplomatic mission. McCain has to be the alpha male and bully in every situation and this is not what we need. We're just finishing up with a non-physical bully, and now McCain thinks we need more PLUS a little extra.

The bigger issue is not whether I think McCain is a sissy that can't hack it. I do and he can't. The once-hidden image of a hotheaded bully that rose in politics because of family connections and physical threats is back on the table and now that the majority of the MSM has openly displayed reluctance to let McCain off the hook and rail into Obama, he might be in some trouble.

My Question: We have already heard the word "Swift Boat" hundreds of times in the past few days and the sound of that raises hairs on the backs of Democratic voters because we know how slimy the GOP can be. However, the media has been heavily criticized this season and felt threatened by blogs, forums and youtube and have forced themselves to be slightly more objective. So will their fear of further criticism cause them to label all baseless smears as a "Swift Boat", therefore putting them to rest before they get to the point they did last election?

November Issue?

Another party-line decision on the Supreme Court reverses the DC gun ban and nutters are rejoicing. Within minutes, St. McCain jumped in and let us know how original he can be.

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” Mr. McCain said."

There is nothing elitist about wanting a safe country FREE of guns. And today's ruling only highlights the fact that we can not allow for a McCain presidency where it is almost certain that he will appoint more far right-wingers to the bench. Here is McCain's full statement:

"Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the
United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S.
Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was
and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this
decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on
handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus
brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today.
Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other
municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the
constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes
Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun
ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and
assembly.
“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those
who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain
vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever
the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual
right to keep and bear arms.”

The timing of this issue is interesting as it will certainly help McCain is some of the rural areas. It will help the New McCain, not the one who battled with the NRA and gun lobby just years ago. And apparently, the right to own a gun is sacred and that scares the hell out of me.

From Obama:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

He takes the sociological approach like always and employs logic and reason rather than stump speech rhetoric. He is pushing for States rights and not pandering to the gun lobby at all.

I honestly do not agree with either on this issue. I want all guns to be banned outside of hunting. Period.

The signiifance of this ruling in regards to the election is what I am interested in. Slowly but surely we are seeing what is going to define this election and I can gaureentee you that McCain will be airing all sorts of ads in PA, OH, MT and WY to convince people of the same thing that Hillary did: Obama is an elitist who is out of touch.

For an excellent read on gun control check this out.

Donate First!

The RNC has a lot more money to spend than the DNC does. Bush is still raising some big bucks for McCain even though he is in the shadows.

The difference is big:

GOP: $85.1 million
Dems: $47.1 million

That means we have to work extra hard and donate to the DNC and Obama again and again. Remember, McCain is taking public finance, illegally used his general election stash as collatreal for a loan and has the nutty 527's just waiting to 'Swift Boat' Obama. We can do it, but then I see this crap from Hillary.



This is not the time for this plea. This is not the time to help her with her own campaign debt while the DNC is trailing the snakes in overall cash. She should be asking people redesignate their general election donation to Hillary over to Obama.

Look, I understand that she needs some help, but her timing is no good. She needs to be making pleas for her supporters to stop hoping for an Obama loss, a 2012 HRC run and start getting them to unite.

Donate to Barack Obama.

GOP MO

As if we didn't already know this was how the GOP operated, it's still nice to have it handed to us on a nice platter with a McCain insignia. The server, senior McCain adviser Charlie Black, decided that it would be a good move to publicly wish for a terrorist attack so that McCain can slip in on fear.

"The adviser, Charlie Black, was quoted in an interview with Fortune magazine describing the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event” but adding that: “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it re-emphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be commander in chief. And it helped us.” The magazine then added: “As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. ‘Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,’ says Black."

Rather than taking issue with what he said because I was not surprised in the least, I'm wondering if this would still work. Are people still convinced that because the GOP got us into war, that they are the best at protecting us? What bizarro world do we live in where this reasoning makes sense? This is not a "don't change horses" argument. This is a "the horse had to be euthanized because he broke his leg" argument.

My question: Will McCain fire him and will the media pick up on the underlying story?

This is not a gaffe. This is wishful thinking from a seriously disturbed political party. If McCain does not fire this douche now, he can never again walk around like he's more patriotic than Uncle Sam himself. McCain can weasel out of this one, but the GOP is in too deep to escape their skeletons.

Scare Tactics

Obama is airing a new ad highlighting his family values and his background. It's a good ad to go along with an inspiring story.



This ad is running in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Many of these states are Red states that the GOP takes for granite.

The strategy: Obama is running excellent campaigns in each of these states. His success will scare the McCain camp into spending money (that they don't have) in traditionally safe GOP states leaving little to go towards the battleground states. Nice.

Battleground Polls

Here's a clear picture of how the some of big battle states look.

I Hate this Woman

The ever-plastic Cindy McCain is feeling a little blue since all the attention seems to be on Michelle Obama and not her. She recently made this comment.

"I do not think that spouses and family members ... are fair game," she told CNN's John King. There has to be some decorum left in politics and in American journalism as well. Our husbands are the candidates," she said.

Of course she doesn't want the focus to be on the family. John McCain left his wife because she had an accident which left her with a deformed face and married Cindy (who is as unethical as they come) for the career and inheritance. That info is just waiting for the MSM to start talking about regularly. She says that families should be left out, but a few months ago we got this from her.

"(I) am proud of my country. I don't know about you, if you heard those words earlier -- I am very proud of my country."

That's about as blatant as it gets. It's funny how when Michelle starts getting all the attention Cindy says that the elections should be about the candidates, but I remember when Cindy was the focus of a Vogue magazine spread and she didn't seem to have a problem with it then.

The entire McCain family needs to bring a pad and paper so they can remember just how many times they contradict themselves.

Irony: "Cindy McCain was in Hanoi, Vietnam, where she was working with an organization that helps children who have facial deformities."

43% is too high and I'm scared

Apparently, 43% of Americans believe that torture can be justified.

"More than four in ten Americans (43%) say that the use of torture can be justified to gain key information sometimes (31%) or often (12%), according to a 2007 Pew Research survey. However, a 54%-majority say torture is never (29%) or rarely (25%) justified. The number of Americans saying the use of torture against suspected terrorists is at least sometimes justified has been fairly stable since 2004, though the percentage saying torture can often be justified has dipped from 18% in October 2006."

I was not surprised to see that "more African Americans than whites say the torture of suspected terrorists is never justified (37% vs. 28%)".

Then again, that number makes sense when you factor in the amount of people who identify themselves as Republicans.

Come see the softer side of Sears...

The "softer side" strategy is used all the time in many different theaters and now it's Michelle Obama's turn. Honestly, I didn 't know she was perceived that poorly. NYT has the story.

Will it work? It did for Sears.