Guns are awesome!

- Watch More Videos

Bob Barr, finally see's the light.

"From ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties / And things that go bump in the night, Good Lord, deliver us."

— Cornish prayer


Never content to rely on the Good Lord to deliver us from those things that might do us harm, one Congress after another — going back at least to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 — has considered legislation or held hearings to highlight perceived threats and to then limit individual freedom to battle things that might bump us in the night.

Members of today's younger generation (I can't keep them straight — are they Generation X, Y, Z or the "Millennial Generation"?) clearly have no personal memory, and almost as little historical knowledge, of the "Red scare" of the 1940s and 1950s, or of the House Un-American Activities Committee that was the weapon of choice for official witch hunts. However, things have come full circle.

If California Rep. Jane Harman (D), Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R) and many of their colleagues on both sides of the political aisle have their way, President Bush may soon be able to sign into law an act that will create a new, 21st-century version of HUAC — the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

And what would this latest "national commission" — the enabling legislation for which passed the House with but cursory discussion and only six dissenting votes last Oct. 23 — do? According to the platitudes of those arguing its adoption, it would figure mightily in protecting our nation against this century's "Red scare" — terrorism.

How would this commission (and the other mechanisms provided for in the legislation) protect us from terrorists in ways that the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of personnel currently being devoted to this effort are unable to accomplish? The legislation would write into federal law three new concepts: "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism" and "ideologically based violence." Any person or organization that might have even contemplated the use of "violence" (not itself a defined term in the legislation) ought to be genuinely frightened of this language. Any "extremist belief system" (not further defined) that might facilitate "ideologically based violence" would be a targetable activity for the commission.

Alleged Communist-front organizations were the prime targets of the HUAC back in 1947, when no less a luminary than then-president of the Screen Actors Guild, Ronald Reagan, was forced to testify on possible Communist sympathizers lurking within the film industry's shadows. Whether disfavored filmmakers now would be among the targets remains to be seen. However, anti-war groups, anti-abortion organizations and myriad other entities easily could find themselves on the receiving end of an allegation of "homegrown terrorism."

Although the Bush administration has not thus far openly embraced the legislation, it doesn't have to. The enthusiasm with which this administration has supported all things that even hint at increased government power to discover, investigate and prosecute the broadest conceivable universe of those labeled "terrorists" is well-known. Secret watch lists routinely are employed to identify those on whom limits must be placed; surveillance of all international communications is now the norm; those labeled "enemies" are subject to indefinite detention; and a national identification card is being implemented. A national commission to offer an added degree of respectability to this scare obviously would meet with a presidential signature if passed by the Senate.

That a Martin Luther King Jr. easily could have been — indeed almost certainly would have been — swept within the absurdly broad definitions in the homegrown terrorism act apparently matters little to the hundreds of Democrat and Republican House members who blithely voted "aye." Unfortunately, in the climate of fear that continues to color the political landscape, there is much greater interest in finding ways for increasing the power of the federal government to manage the economy than there is interest in limiting the erosion of our civil liberties by that same government.

great campaign ad!

Go Obama, Go!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html






We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?

Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.

* * *

As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week. This Web site opposes that magazine.


The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. (See Clinton, Bill.) Different pundits back different candidates. Some opportunistically discover new virtues in candidates who appear at the moment to be winning. Some feel they cannot be fully frank about causes and effects.

More on that in a moment.

I saw Mr. McCain this Tuesday in New York, at a fund-raiser at which a breathless aide shared, "We just made a million dollars." What a difference a few wins makes. There were a hundred people outside chanting, "Mac is back!" and perhaps a thousand people inside, crammed into a three-chandelier ballroom at the St. Regis. When I attended a fund-raiser in October there was none of this; perhaps 200 came, and people were directed to crowd around the candidate as if to show he had support. Now you had to fight your way through a three-ring cluster. (When I attended a Giuliani fund-raiser this summer I saw something I wish I'd noted: The audience was big but wasn't listening. They were all on their BlackBerrys. That should have told me something about his support.)

Mr. McCain is in the middle of a shift. Previous strategy: I'm John McCain and you know me, we've traveled through history together. New strategy: I'm the old vet who fought on the front lines of the Reagan-era front, and I am about to take on the mantle of the essentials of conservatism—lower spending, smaller government, strong in the world. He is going to strike the great Reagan gong, not in a way that is new but in a way that is new for him.

In this he is repositioning himself back to where he started 30 years ago: as a Southwestern American conservative veteran of the armed forces. That is, inherently if not showily, anti-establishment. That is, I am the best of the past.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is running as I Am Today. I am new and fresh, in fact I'm tomorrow, I know all about the international flow of money and the flatness of the world, I know what China is, I can see you through the turbulence just as I saw Bain to success.

It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?

Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?

It is along those lines the big decision will be made.

* * *

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.

I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.

ch ch ch changes

"I still haven't found, what I'm looking for."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U2 lead singer and activist Bono visited the Pentagon to discuss Africa and the fight against global poverty with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, representatives of the two men said on Wednesday.

Among the topics at the 20-minute meeting on Tuesday afternoon were U.S. plans to set up a new U.S. military command for Africa, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

"I think this was a chance for two people who care about the problems facing the continent of Africa to talk about their shared interest in solving those problems," Morrell said of the meeting that was not publicized in advance.

A spokeswoman for DATA, the group co-founded by Bono to fight poverty and AIDS in Africa, said the singer had been in Washington to meet members of budget committees in Congress.

"He also met with Secretary Gates to discuss global poverty and the connection between fighting poverty and peace and stability," Kathy McKiernan said.

Bono has met frequently with world leaders to push for spending on foreign aid and debt relief. But this was his first meeting with Gates, a former director of the CIA who replaced Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon in December 2006.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN234456920080123?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A familiar paradox about leftist celebrities in the entertainment industry is that their embrace of progressivism almost never includes a wholehearted embrace of progressive taxation, i.e., the principle that the richer you get, the larger the percentage of your income you ought to pay in taxes. The latest example is U2's Bono, a committed and unusually sophisticated anti-poverty crusader who is taking surprisingly little heat for the decision by his band, U2, to relocate its music-publishing business from Ireland to the Netherlands in order to shelter its songwriting royalties from taxation.

The irony was stated in admirably stark terms by Bloomberg's Fergal O'Brien, who reported on Oct. 16:

Bono, the rock star and campaigner against Third World debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa. At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund that aid.


"Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market … that's a justice issue," Bono said at a prayer breakfast attended by President Bush, Jordan's King Abdullah, and various members of Congress earlier this year. Preaching this sort of thing has made Bono a perennial candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. He continued:

Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents ... that's a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents ... that's a justice issue.

And relocating your business offshore in order to avoid paying taxes to the Republic of Ireland, where poverty is higher than in almost any other developed nation? Bono's hypocrisy seems even more naked when you consider that Ireland is a tax haven for artists. In June 2005, Bono (who was born in Dublin) told the Belfast Telegraph:

Our publishing, which is about one third of our income, we have tax breaks on, and that's great and that's encouraged us to stay in Ireland and if that changes, it's not going to affect anything for U2. ...

Six months later, Ireland's finance minister announced a ceiling of $319,000 on tax-free incomes, and six months after that, U2 opened its Amsterdam office. The relocation of U2's music publishing will halve taxes on the band's songwriting royalties, which already reportedly total $286 million. Although Bono has declined to comment on the move, the band's lead guitarist, David "the Edge" Evans, said, "Of course we're trying to be tax-efficient. Who doesn't want to be tax-efficient?'" Writing in the Observer, Nick Cohen noted that Evans "sounded as edgy as a plump accountant in the 19th hole."





what a douchebag.

the education of Obama, and the 'progressives'

One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do."

We're reminded of that story listening to Barack Obama protest his treatment by the now ex-President Clinton on behalf of his wanna-be-President wife. "You know the former President, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Mr. Obama told a TV interviewer. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas."


Now he knows how the rest of us feel.

The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?"

This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama and his supporters now that his candidacy poses a threat to the return of the Clinton dynasty. Even Democrats are now admitting the Clintons don't tell the truth -- at least until Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination.

Mr. Obama's two examples are instructive because they are so wonderfully Clintonian. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Clinton attacked Mr. Obama's claims of having opposed the Iraq war all along as a "fairy tale." This is a tough charge coming from a two-term Democratic President in a Democratic primary, and it probably helped turn some voters against Mr. Obama.

But it was also a classic distortion intended to turn voter attention away from his wife's own Iraq fairy tale. She's the candidate who voted for the war and backed it for years before she decided she had to be sort of against it, only to later become really against it, and now to favor a withdrawal starting in 60 days. We think Mr. Obama is dangerously wrong about Iraq, but compared to Mrs. Clinton he's a model of consistency.

Then there's Mr. Clinton's moaning before Saturday's Nevada caucuses that his wife's supporters were being strong-armed by pro-Obama unions at casino voting sites. Clinton campaign allies sued and lost on the matter, and the former President sounded like a Chicago ward heeler as he told reporters about the Obama campaign's voter-intimidation tactics. Yet on the day of the vote Mrs. Clinton won at seven of the nine casino sites, and the Obama campaign was left asking if its vote had been suppressed. It wouldn't be the first time Mr. Clinton accused an opponent of doing something his own campaign was planning to do.

Some in the press corps argue that Mr. Clinton's attacks are hurting his wife. But if they were, he'd stop. His behavior is part of the familiar Clinton playbook of letting others do the dirty work so the candidate can stay above the fray. Hillary and other surrogates took on the task of saving her husband from his lies under oath by inventing the specter of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," calling Paula Jones trailer trash, and portraying the widely respected Ken Starr as a rabid partisan.

Now Bill is returning the favor by attacking Mr. Obama; at the same time, other surrogates raise his long-ago cocaine use, only to apologize after it's been widely reported. News reports also say that so-called robo-calls in Nevada repeatedly referred to Mr. Obama by his middle name, "Hussein." And emails suddenly appeared last week on Jewish lists accusing the African-American Senator of being fond of Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Obama had to disavow Mr. Farrakhan and his associates.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton can claim to disapprove of these attacks, and even assert that she herself is being unfairly picked on by the media because she's a woman. She wants to make the primary contest about race and gender, rather than about Mr. Obama's larger, more inspiring message of change. She can then diminish Mr. Obama and make the choice a trench fight for the votes of typical Democratic constituencies. You gotta do what you gotta do.

"I understand him wanting to promote his wife's candidacy," Mr. Obama added on Sunday, referring to Bill Clinton. "She's got a record that she can run on. But I think it's important that we try to maintain some -- you know, level of honesty and candor during the course of the campaign. If we don't, then we feed the cynicism that has led so many Americans to be turned off to politics."

Welcome to the education of Barack Obama.

Hilarious.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080123/NATION/218849601/1001

Voter A.J. Melton, a Florida Democrat, was so troubled by the tone of the debate that he wrote a letter to Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.



"People are sickened by the ugly, divisive, and destructive campaign war being waged between the Clinton and Obama camps," he wrote to Miss Brazile, asking that she "intervene" to try to mediate the feud.



But Miss Brazile told The Washington Times she felt it "was a real debate."



"This is a generational fight," she said. "It may not look good, but in the end the party will either be stronger or weaker, and I think it will be stronger."



Some Democrats said that talk within party circles has focused on Bill Clinton, with Mr. Daschle saying his behavior on the campaign trail is "not becoming of a former president."



"I hear talk about it," said Bud Jackson, a political media strategist unaffiliated with any campaign.



"Right now the general impression is to sort of feel for Barack Obama because he is fighting against two Clintons at once, and I sort of wonder how far the Clintons can stretch the boundaries of that strategy before people begin to reflect poorly on that," Mr. Jackson said.



"The truth is she could run the risk of making herself look weaker by continually trotting out her husband to launch verbal attacks on Obama," he said. "The Clintons are walking a fine line. Another major blowout by Bill Clinton against Obama may set people over the edge with that tactic."



Miss Brazile disagreed.



"The Clintons built this party in the last decade of the 20th century, and if he wants to lead that party he has to reinvent it or rebuild it," she said.



Obama campaign manager David Plouffe later said Team Clinton has a "win-at-all-cost mentality, and we're disturbed by that."



WTF?!

The same Donna Brazile that falsely claimed Florida policemen of using 'dogs and guns' to suppress black voters is now defending Bill and Hillary for using similar tactics to clearly suppress a black man?

Ummm....didn't the media and The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted a six-month investigation of the charges and found absolutely no evidence of systematic disenfranchisement of black voters??

The civil-rights division of the Department of Justice also found no credible evidence that any Floridians were intentionally denied the right to vote.



http://theevanlee.blogspot.com/2008/01/oh-donna.html

http://theevanlee.blogspot.com/2007/12/its-two-fer.html


priceless.

Saturday Night @ the Northside Tavern, with Mudcat.

1 2 3 .......GO! Wheeeeeeeee!

Klaatu Barada Nikto!

self reliance

There is a nice guy, from across the pond, who used to be a pretty decent RnR Jock on one of ATL's radio stations....And this dude got into a pretty serious accident in his Mini Cooper.

Predictably, a 'benefit' is being set up as he carried no personal insurance outside of what is legally needed to drive his 26,000$ car.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm glad his friends are willing to help, but there's no way I am going to send this guy any cash.

When I was 26 years old, I carried catastrophic insurance, and I did not own a car, nor was I a part time employee of a local radio station....Just as my dying father has always carried life insurance to make sure his wife doesn't get screwed after he checks out.

I am sorry this guy is seriously injured, but the dude could have bought some additional insurance, especially if he likes to drink and party and drive a small car real fast. Who or what did he hit? Nobody knows.

So here's my prediction: after he recovers, he will split back to jolly Ol England, stiffing us with the bill. His fans will moan and complain that our 'healthcare system' failed him, and had he been overseas he would be in better shape.

I haven't been sold on our system being 'the best', as my dealings with my own child and my fathers declining health have served a huge wake up call to me. Our system is broken. The argument is that if we cede control over basic healthcare to the Govt, then they will screw it up worse. I disagree. There is virtually no way they can screw it up more then the 'private sector' is now.....And I've now seen it from 3 different viewpoints: from an immigrant with no insurance, to my father with some insurance and medicaid/medicare, and my own child who is insured to the hilt with the best policy going. All three times, the healthcare providers dropped the ball. Again and again.

So let's let the 47 million uninsured get Govt healthcare. It wont eliminate my wife's job: she will just sell supplemental insurance, and hopefully the private sector will do better then the free Govt hand out, as is the case in Jolly Ol England. The smart chaps over there use the free system when they want to, and use the private sector when they wish as well.

Were already bankrupting ourselves daily, so we might as well cover these poor schlubs before this house of cards falls in on itself.

I guess this says it all.....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7842.html

Cynthia No more

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/190feb7226_0.97MB

[URL]http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/190feb7226_0.97MB[/URL]

Not sure if this will work, but here's a song I was asked to contribute after Cynthia McKinney's failed 2002 re election bid.....

The Amtrak Crescent

The son of a railroad man, I rode the rails plenty as a kid and even more as an adult.

On Feb 2 Mico and I will board this train to glory.

Scott Miller and the Commonwealth rock.

Green Party Candidate?

Well, time for a little backslapping. I called this one 2 years ago: Cynthia McKinney will leave Georgia, move to the left coast and be courted as the Green Party Candidate!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/14/MNMOUEQ25.DTL

So, to all her supporters here in Dekalb county: piss off. There's 'your girl'. Twice voted out of office,her daddy blames it on the 'JEWS'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_McKinney_%28politician%29#_note-1

I once wrote a hilarious Klezmer victory song in 2002 while on 1340/1230 that was equally offensive and bigoted. The differnce is: I was using satire, as I am not a Jew. I received a CnD from this event. I will try to find it and post it here for the 3 people that read me....

Feb 2nd: Lafitte's on Bourbon street with Mike Hood and Mico! Mardi Gras baby!

laughin P

Happy B day Paul!

Night of the living Democrats!!!

I feel pretty....

oh, Donna.....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Brazile_on_Bill_Depressing.html


On CNN, Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton with a vehemence that raised eyebrows in both of their circles:

Brazile: I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing.

Blitzer: But tell me why, as an African-American, Donna, you feel that the president's comments weren't appropriate.

Brazile: First of all, if Bill Bennett [also on the show] had said some of the things that Bill Clinton is saying about Barack Obama, I would have called Bill Bennett out of his name and said that Bill Bennett should shut his mouth because he is not speaking in the right tone. I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator. He's experienced. The people of Illinois elected him, and regardless of what kind of items are on his résumé, this is a man who has worked all his life. He's proven; he's been a college professor. I don't have to give Barack Obama a résumé. I'm not for anyone at this point. But I think for Hillary's husband to go out of his way to launch the kind of attack on Obama is just out of character for Bill Clinton. I think it's time he helps Hillary talk about her message and not go down this road.



Hmmm.....Where do I remember Donna from?

How about the time she lied and stated: black Floridians were barred from voting by authorities using "dogs and guns." That charge, evoking Bull Connor's Birmingham in 1963, was fabricated out of thin air...But some idoits belive it to this day.

Also, didn't she get canned for not playing nice from Dukakas' campaign?

I just think this is hilariously ironic. Donna going after Slick Willie, the first Black president. God, this election is comedy gold.

This is the end........Beautiful friend, the end.....

Ron Paul takes Jefferson County, Iowa

which puts him at 10%, easily doubling Rudy. WTG, Libertyville!

OUCH. 'Mr Electable'?

What's hilarious is now all the blathering talk radio hosts scratching thier heads and trying to discredit him. The same tactic Rudy employed in the early debates.

How's that working out for ya?

Oh, and lest I neglect: it's snowing in Mexico today and Hillary loses the female vote in Iowa. Blood is in the water, my friends. Does Obama have the balls to go for the jugular?

caption

It's about to get ugly....

Where to start?

For this 'holiday' season, my progressive Hollywood brother in law gave me a 'Hillary 08' campaign sticker: his attempt to admit that I was correct in assuming she really had plans for the presidency long,long ago. Hey, plenty of New Yorkers believed her when she told them she had no plans to run for POTUS when she ran for office 2 years ago!

I took this sticker and placed it squarely on the backside of my mexican accordion: which I think is just perfect. The damn thing finally has a name, and one befitting a cold old box whose buttons can be easily pushed, and a tough old bag to boot.

I must also do some mandatory 'back patting', as I predicted that Cynthia McKinney would be relocating to California ( along with the Dixie Chicks! )to run as a 'Green' party candidate!

I recall telling Faultneroy that he should be very wary of inviting Micheal Moore ( his filmmaking hero )into the DNC box last election. After all, Moore backed Nader, the Green party candidate in 2000, which actually cost Gore the election.( To this day, brother in law believes the local police conspired to 'steal' that election, despite all the proof to the contrary.) How surprising that Moore today is dismantling all the Democrat contenders, with the glaring exception of Edwards, who MM thinks is sincere in his campaign against poverty? Moore basically begs Gore to run again, as some kind of 'saviour' to the party!

But it's not like the GOP is bringing much to the table. Ron Paul is getting screwed out of the FOX debates, even though he polls better then Rudy and raises tons of $$. Huckabee looks cool playing an American made bass, but he scares the living bat shit out of me religiously. Romney? Sorry, anyone that believes Jesus 'time warps' as a cornerstone of thier beliefs, and isn't too kind with the 'brothers' has no shot. McCain, while I like him the most, appears too old to me. I like Rudy, but let's be honest: he's not getting the NRA vote anytime soon.

I know Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, but as long as he stays in and pisses off everybody else, he's my guy.