Break Time: No McCameras Please

Shoot! I was waiting for new pictures of St. John McSame and the Other Bush. St. John has other plans:

The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler writes that President Bush and John McCain’s joint fund-raiser in Phoenix tomorrow will be the “first time in three months” the two will be seen together. But the McCain campaign is trying its hardest to ensure cameras don’t capture the moment:

The pair will be seen together before TV cameras only fleetingly, at the airport as Mr. Bush departs on Air Force One, and there are no plans for either to formally say anything. […]

A senior adviser to Sen. McCain said the campaign considered the risk of having the candidate appear with the president at all but concluded there was no way to avoid it given that the event was in Sen. McCain’s home state.

Damn it, that's just not fair McSame. Not fair at all...

The Truly Delusional

The Witch Has Gotta Go: Part Two "Delusional"

This from Corrente (all editing quite necessary, and signified in bold):

The rise of the So Called Democrat wing of the Republican party is misperceived by both its supporters and detractors as representing specific classes or demographical units. I argue that instead the So Called Democrat has tapped into a huge and growing, if ill-defined, movement in opposition to both political parties, to global business, and to the business of war.

Are "you" fucking kidding me?

Three concepts for the blind to feel around - NAFTA/MFN/WTO, massive Defense Contractor contributions (for a "Democrat"), and 90's style DLC politics which led to the distillation of any meaningful comparison between the Democratic and Republican Party's.

This, this truly makes me laugh:

Obama is right to speak for change but the man has no clue as to the nature of the change the country seeks.

The So Called Democrat seeks to institute programs and be inclusive. This is intelligent when we don’t yet know where we want to go; we just know we don’t like what we have.

If "you" don't know where you're going, you'll surely end up somewhere "you" don't want to be. Unless watering down the Democratic Party to the point of irrelevance further is the destination you seek - then you're right on course.

And I gather "inclusive" is code for "shoving programs down people's throats" (remember, it about "I" not "we" with the So Called Democrat) so that the other half of the Republican Party can once again say "there go the Democrats again, forcing the Government into your private lives", thereby positioning themselves to take back the Congress in 2010 - like they did in 1994.

Please, make the stupid stop...

Welcome To "The Witch Has Gotta Go" Day

I'd love to ignore the morons in this country, but it's time. Just plain time... especially considering all the news that could have been spread about the known enemy St. John.

Way to go So Called Democrats... this Bud's for you.

The Witch Has Gotta Go: Part One "You!"

"You" being any number of people, not any single person in particular. I've really had enough of "you", your So Called Democrat, and your attempts to destroy the Democratic Party and this country - so let me be clearer one final time.

I've also had enough of others who stretch and strain to find a rationale to defend the So Called Democrat, the So Called Democrat's supporters, or anyone else over the age of about 12.

If these "people" can't defend themselves with the truth - and nothing but the truth (or at least a better set of lies) - then they deserve to be questioned without remorse and beaten about the head until they no longer blacken this country with their poisonous agenda. You have no cause to defend them, as they're no better than a dying species of Quislings deserving of no remorse or assistance.

[Disclosure: I will likely go overboard at some point - assuming I haven't already - so if you're easily or otherwise offended, the rest of you are hereby duly warned that it will get worse and you should stop now.]

Now, at first I thought a certain comment was innocuous and - of course - a gaffe of epic proportions potentially revealing some serious mental problems. That was before learning of others exactly like it and similar to it.

[Another Disclosure: I was traveling back and forth between Ohio and PA when the first was made. Otherwise I might have gone bat shit crazy then because I understood the context (try Public Law 90-331).]

That context is something I was reminded of because of a friend of mine, which led to this. That context is summed up in five words.

Martin Luther King

Bobby Kennedy

It's not because of who said it, it's because of who it was referenced towards.

[Look! Another Disclosure: I have to disagree with Jill on this score, and I do so only because she's at least intelligent, on the surface appears to have no particular horse in this race, and - like many others I can still stand to read - is the better of the amorphous "you" in being able to offer a valid series of facts and thoughts that could sway someone's thoughts on a matter.]

On the other hand, I'm am prepared to concede it could conceivably be because of who said it, but only when I'm dragged kicking and screaming over the threshold of an insane asylum by virtue of that person being a Presidential candidate who's words become part of a national discussion thanks to our overanxious and otherwise bored media.

It's also not about Robert F. Kennedy per se, and it's sure as hell not about the primary process either. It's about a veiled reference to the opposing change Presidential candidate (who has a history I will not mention explicitly but will lead you to here and here instead), and the use of RFK (another change Presidential candidate), who just happened to have been murdered in a very turbulent year that included more than just two prominent murders that is the problem.

And please, spare me any bullshit about how this comment had nothing to do with Senator Obama. There are two candidates remaining in the Nomination process... that led to the question... that resulted in the comment. One of those candidates is the junior Senator from Illinois - his name is Barack Obama.

Not Grover from Sesame Street.

It's now also about making light of that fact, a clear demonstration of why some people should probably be sterilized for the good of the species are being marginalized in this process - not by anyone else - but themselves.

It's true, I can't attest to certain things (as I wasn't alive yet), but from speaking with former "hippies" and/or Boomers, I can suggest there is some evidence that the words "Bobby" and/or "Kennedy" are usually followed by and associated with "Martin", and/or "Dr. King".

It's called history, something "you" seem to enjoy only when it supports your world-view. Thank "you" for confirming my worst suspicions as to why a complete moron like Bush won two terms...

There is also another problem, and I'd love to see someone blame Senator Obama for this blame comment (whoops, that didn't take long).

But the context - yes, the entire context - is important. Not just the entire context "you" find useful, but the entire context as is understood by those who are honest with themselves and everyone else.

It's a horrific calculated statement from a calculating politician who thought she'd get away with it (again). Certainly not the first of many examples I could point to, but by far the most heinous in both appearance and intent.

When "you" get that, let the rest of us all know... in the meantime, enjoy what has been strengthened and made permissible as long as "you" can stand to.

The Phoenix Has Landed

You won't get the pictures faster by going here, but you will get better quality. You'll want quality, because I'm rather confident this is pretty much what we'll get in every direction (caveat to follow).

You can also get the latest scoop here at about 2 pm EST everyday for the foreseeable future [warning, you'd better have broadband to watch this in full-screen, or even open the link].

Based on how far down-range within (or possibly from) the prime landing area they ended up, I'm not sure if my confidence in finding water-ice is higher or lower just yet. But it was somewhat middling-low to begin with, so we shall see what this unexpected site has to offer - perhaps including more photogenic topography (what can I say, I want good pictures too dammit!).

I feel compelled to mention this is not the first time anyone's placed a lander in this type of terrain on Mars. It's a) just more northerly, b) planned that way ahead of time, and c) more obvious from the ground, which is the good thing about having a camera in orbit that can see individual rocks (or the lack thereof) - rather than just amorphous blobs of "stuff".

Since this is a nominal political blog, I guess I should also feel compelled to give you something to chew on about Senator Obama's views on space exploration. Let me point out this is one of a few things I don't agree with him about (most of which strangely orbit around the subject of education for some reason), at least not in total.

But don't even get me started on Bush's "Mars bitches!" plan, or McSame's desire to continue... the McSame plan.

And before anyone mentions that tired ass argument that inevitably includes "money better spent on Earth" - all three of the missions I just referenced above cost significantly less than a week of war in Iraq - or the single-year budget overruns on a "state-of-the-art" weapons system.

And what better way can you think of to honor our veterans on Memorial Day than by making sure there aren't any more by spending our tax dollars - and our national efforts - a little more wisely in the future?

The Real Story About Michigan (Part Two)

This very well could be my last post of the longish weekend, but we'll see.

I intended my McSame post to fill that function until I realised the audacity of stupidity coming from some quarters, as I was hoping to spend the weekend in blissful contemplation - and nail-biting anticipation - of the imminent robotic probe landing on Mars (which might disappoint if you're interested in pictures, but I have a feeling will be interesting in other ways later on).

Anyway...

I agree with my favoured candidate that no offense was meant. That does not mean no offense was the result, and that does not change the rationale behind what caused that offense.

Although I do take note of Robert Kennedy Jr's response as well - the same applies.

Back to the matter at hand, here is one example out of many from the usual suspects (the last paragraph being most relevant).

Amazing how they can stick to their Rovian talking-points while ignoring everything else, isn't it? Oddly familiar for some reason...

Besides the fact that Senator Obama was not on the Michigan ballot, did not want to be on the Michigan ballot, was placed there without his express consent, and removed himself for no other reason than he never intended to be on that ballot - there's one more matter to be taken care of when it comes to arguing about seating those delegates.

How many people actually voted in the 2008 Michigan primary?

Poblano, a statistician of the utmost talent who's been crunching numbers over at FiveThirtyEight.com (if you're a politics junky, this is a crucial fix), has some interesting projections concerning what would have happened had Obama been on the ballot.

He would have won being the bullet point in that particular analysis. Not by a great amount, but he would have actually won.

However, there's something else of interest that I had never really sought to consider. What percentage of the voting population (not Democratic, Independent or otherwise) actually voted:

Michigan's turnout in its unsanctioned Democratic primary was 594,398, or only 7.8 percent of its eligible voting age population. That is about three-and-a-half times less than it "should" have been, based on the patterns in Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Adding this to everything else known about this primary, is seating Michigan as-is really a genuine argument that can honestly be made when it's abundantly and patently clear that the "PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN" (who didn't matter until it was convenient) knew this was a bad primary?

Or is it - like the obligatory and expected defense of the indefensible that has occurred (once again) in the past 24 hours - another reason to suspect the quality of some people's thought processes in this world?

I choose the latter based solely on the overwhelming lack of evidence to the contrary...

He's Cancer Free - Now...

Which is worse? The fact that the media continues to disappoint? Or the fact that one can still be disappointed by the media?

John McCain is cancer free alright. But it wasn't that simple just three months ago:

McCain's most recent exams show a range of health issues common in aging: He frequently has precancerous skin lesions removed, and in February had an early stage squamous cell carcinoma, an easily cured skin cancer, removed. He had benign colon growths called polyps taken out during a routine colonoscopy in March.

Try, try again idiots.

One Last Reaction

I've been up too long, probably because of the nagging feeling in the back of my neck, that needs to be spoken about out loud.

I've been in shock, like most of you probably have been (confirmed in one case), but I think it's time to conclude any further mention of Senator Clinton on this blog as of today - not only because it is a solemn weekend - but because I'd like to forget she ever existed in the first place.

The most measured response that can include the possibility that Senator Clinton in no way meant to say what she said:



I'm not going to be so kind any longer. I've run out of reasons to not imagine that this is not a calculated ploy to stay in this electoral process. A problem that goes well beyond politics.

It is not "inexplicable", it is part and parcel of this entire campaign run by Senator Clinton, if you just sit back and take in the whole picture she's been painting since South Carolina.

Consider what she just said - and failed to really comprehend the horror of - and why she said it.

You see, I can too easily imagine her campaign viewing this as the most single most damaging thing Senator Clinton could say in relation to Senator Obama. The "why" in the "why she said it", the explanation for the "inexplicable".

Suspend for a moment any thoughts if you can about the danger to Senator Obama's life, and the lives of his wife and two daughters, and consider one lesser item that needs to be brought out into the light of day, if for a just a brief moment.

There was a time when African-American voters wouldn't even consider Senator Obama - not because they didn't think he had a chance - but because of the spectre of what Senator Clinton has just raised once again out in the open (as opposed to the veiled references we now find she made in West Virginia and Washington D.C.).

Expand that beyond the black community to everyone in this country in no way connected to the corridors of power. Then take the next explicable step, and expand it to the Super Delegates...

Again, no one else can solve this problem for Senator Clinton, it's her choice - and hers alone - to address it. While the problem is obvious to everyone else in various ways, it obviously wasn't to her. Maybe now it is, and I more than hope that the cost of this realisation is nowhere near as high as Senator Obama's - or any member of his family's - life.

The Democrats have a different but related problem, one that better be solved by Monday evening, in time for the Tuesday morning newscasts.

As for Senator Clinton, she should honestly consider a more private life sometime around 2012 (if not much sooner). One far away from politics for awhile, one that brings her and her piece of shit husband back to humanity.

Assuming that's even possible any longer, I wish her luck with that at least. She may very well need some luck now.

The Non-Apology Apology

She really doesn't get it, does she?



I wasn't aware of her apology, so let me add to what I've said earlier.

Senator Clinton didn't offend anyone - she offended everyone. The only two Democrats who positively deserved the mantle - and ran for the Presidency - were both named Kennedy. I wasn't alive to know anything about one of them (Robert), and I remember people talking about Ted and why he would never win.

Once again, as with the Iraq war vote, the Iran resolution, her continued race-baiting - and everything she's done in her public life since at least 1992 - she just cannot seem to bring herself to apologize. To admit she made a horrible mistake. Or worse.

I won't join the chorus of those calling this latest bat-shit crazy behavior intentional however. I can imagine a scenario where this would be linked to concern for Senator Kennedy's health. Which, of course, does not explain the previous time she said this in March.

Instead of June 3rd, she should bow out on Memorial Day evening. Quietly. And afterwards, while the media has played that for a couple of days, work on presenting a thoughtful argument as to why her supporters should support Senator Obama - and why she should be allowed to continue in politics.

I'm no fan of either Hillary or Bill Clinton - or their supporters (with a small "s") - as all three of you who read this blog regularly well know. But I'm not only upset for Senator Obama, I'm upset for Senator Clinton herself.

Again.

This pattern has to stop. No amount of prodding from superdelegates, Democratic leaders, media types, or bloggers from either side of the aisle (much less either side of the same side of the aisle) can do that for her. It's Hillary's choice, and Hillary's choice alone.

I honestly hope she'll make the right choice this time.

As for her Supporters (with a big "s"), such as Governor Strickland and Representative Tubbs-Jones, I'd highly recommend you announce your switching your support immediately to Senator Obama as well. Immediately means before Monday, dumbasses...