Does Al's interview suggest he'll run?

Al Gore appeared on Countdown a few nights ago to promote his new book, The Assault on Reason, in an uncharacteristically long interview by Keith Olbermann. He makes a number of good points, but notice his careful comments about Cindy Sheehan - the nature of his remarks about the polarizing anti-war figure have the fingerprints of a presidential candidate all over them. Perhaps I'm over analyzing, but his comments on Sheehan, especially when considering his historically vehement opposition to the War in Iraq, are evidence that he's being pretty careful. Gore's been through the presidential ringer before, and he knows full well that anything he says now can and will be held against him as a candidate.

Gore's non-denial denials about his presidential candidacy are becoming more and more comical. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but the fact that he won't say, unequivocally, that he's not running is very telling. In the current edition of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reveals that Gore is 50/50 on running for president:

He is "50-50," according to one of his closest friends and financial backers. On the one hand, Gore inquires about Manhattan office space for his business and charity ("It has to be a 'green' building," said this source, who didn't want to be named discussing Gore's affairs). On the other hand, he keeps his face in front of big donors, as he did at a recent dinner in Miami. Gore is all the rage among corporate executives, who see wisdom—and profits—in going green, and who appreciate Gore's prescience. "Al has set this up so he can jump either way in the fall," said the close friend. "If there is an opening, I say he goes."

In a way, if he has every intention of running, he's being smart by staying out for now. While staying on the sidelines legally bars him from fund raising, it also gives him a distinct advantage - he's sort of exempt from press scrutiny and attacks from both the left and the right if he's not yet a candidate. If he were to enter the race in September, he would still have plenty of time to raise money; he still has a vast fund raising network in place from his 2000 campaign and a large cadre of Hollywood friends.

I've written it before and I'll write it again many, many times - run Al, run. My absolute dream ticket for 2008 would be Gore/Obama. I think the ticket would be unbeatable, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney be damned.

Urge Gore to run by e-mailing him at: AlGore@algore.com.

"Racust" in the Morning blabbers on

I have no idea what kind of a person Don Imus is. But maybe his idiotic statements from last week about the Rutgers University Women's Basketball Team is knowing enough. If I owned the radio station that Imus works for, I'd fire him. Without equivocation.

The only good thing about this is watching this old lizard squirm and try to come up with some reason, any reason, that he should be kept on the job.

I laughed in this video when I heard him say that "these young women don't know me." They don't need to, moron. A racist is still a racist, so Imus' attempt to put his comments into context adds nothing. Zero.

"I'm a good person who said a bad thing"? I dunno - it sounds like a PR job to me.

His lame explanation that "we make fun of everyone on this show, including me" is no defense, either. So, he's been making fun of everyone for the past 30-odd years on his show, Imus in the Morning. So what?

Hey, I'm a Howard Stern fan, and had he said the same thing, I'd think he should be fired, too. Stern has toned down his act quite a bit since moving over to Sirius Satellite Radio, though. I wonder if money has anything to do with it? He only got a $500 million, five-year deal. It's a whole new ballgame when you cross over to the largely uncensored medium of satellite, but I digress.

When Howard was on terrestrial radio, he should have been fired on a number of occasions, and on a few, he was. Since I've been a fan, the one big thing that I remember he got into hot water about was making fun of Selena's death, but in that instance, he wasn't making fun of her race, if I'm remembering it right. Still, one could have made the case that he should have been fired, and he nearly was.

Anyway, back to Imus - yes, he does do a great deal of charitable work, without question, but it's obvious why he's bringing it up now - to try and save his job. His charitable work does not excuse what he said.

It's interesting to see him go on the Mel Gibson/Michael Richards apology tour. It's fun watching him squirm and agreeing to talk to Al Sharpton and to meeting with the basketball team. He wouldn't be doing any of this if his job wasn't in jeopardy.

Here's footage of Newsweek's Howard Fineman giving it to Imus this morning on his radio show, but in a respectful way. Nice job, Howard. And Fineman's right - this is a teaching moment. Maybe he'll survive this and continue his show. He does have the support of a great many politicians who come on his show, but I don't know if they support him in this case.



By the way, Imus seriously needs to consider putting the cowboy hat back on - without it, he looks even more disturbing.

This is a tremendously sad letter - from Army Major David G. Taylor Jr., wrote on August 9, 2006, to his newborn. The reading above is from Taylor's Army journal to his son.

The letter is from last week's issue of Newsweek. I'll be blogging more about this in a bit.

Tremendously sad, especially when read aloud.

Newsweek Poll: Things are greeeeeat!

Newsweek conducted a poll late last week that will be released in Monday's edition (it's available online now) that details just how poorly things are going right now.

Of course, when polls don't reflect favorably on this administration, "they aren't poll driven," but when they show a favorable response to what the president supports, the Bush cabal is more than happy to cite them during press conferences and interviews.

Anyway, the whole poll can be found Here, but I'll offer a few highlights...

Q4. All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?

Losing Ground: 61%
Making Progress: 29%
Don't Know: 10%

Q5. In general, do you favor or oppose President Bush’s decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq?

Oppose: 64%
Favor: 32%
Don't Know: 4%

Q6. Do you favor or oppose Congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?

Favor: 59%
Oppose: 34%
Don't Know: 7%

Other Stats

58% think the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys was politically motivated. 45% of Republicans think so, too.

35% want Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to quit. 32% think he should stay. The rest clearly haven't been doing their Constitutional duty of keeping up with the news.

55% think the administration has choked badly on Walter Reed (the neocons seem to be slipping though - where's the Clinton scapegoat angle?)

President Bush's approval rating is still at 30%. Sheesh. This means that MORE people believe that AG Gonzales should stay than think Bush is doing a good job. Maybe the president should just get away from all of this burdensome responsibility that the American people voted him into office once to accept. How about a weekend in Camp David, Mr. President? Wait - he already took that advice.

The great news: 27% approve of how Bush is handling the War in Iraq. That should be encouraging to the Stay the Course Bushies.

Speaking of the war, somebody is celebrating a birthday next week! It just seemed like yesterday you were conceived in the bowels of the Pentagon (don't tell you mother I told you that). We never guessed that having you would have cost us so much money (over half a trillion dollars, to date) and blood (3,200+ Americans, and counting), but we'll keep sticking to the story that you were an accident and not planned all along.

We're doing our best to raise you, but at this point, we don't know what you'll grow up to be - our 51st state, a civil war (too late), World War III, another South Vietnam, all of the above, or victory?

At this rate, we'll never be able to afford college for you - we may have to declare bankruptcy by then.

Picture (screenshot) taken from MSNBC broadcast on 3.17.06

Newsweek's a comedy sheet this week

Am I the only one who thinks this cover is hilarious? North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il looks like he's at a football game between the Nukes and the Bombers, and he's got his official Nukes glasses on. This dude's a riot - first he gives his nuclear missile a name that resembles a sex toy (Taepodong-2), now the cool shades and the hairdo. Anyway, it's one of the funniest Newsweek covers I've seen in years, and I've been a subscriber for over 20 years.

This week, Newsweek has outdone itself. Not only is this the best "newsweekly" of the big 3, but it's mostly first-rate reporting is often juxtaposed with funny tidbits and quotes, along with some great commentary pieces, from both sides of the aisle (speaking of the latter I never miss George F. Will's column, and he's a staunch conservative.

But, what I like most are its political cartoons, and this week, all three had me roaring. Vandra actually yelled into the bathroom, "What are you laughing at?" Here they are - I don't need to write more about them - all three do a much better job at getting a point across much more effectively than I could ever hope to do. Enjoy!

YouTube and Newsweek - perfect together!

Okay, I'm being redundant, but this 'toon is priceless - I couldn't put that better myself!

This one just about sums up the last 4 weeks in Washington.

Meet neo-Falwell, with breasts & anorexia

Ann Coulter - Is this detestable, vile, hate mongering piece of shit even worth our attention? Yes. Many of you might just say, "RJ, why even bother?" Because of all the things she is, irrelevant is not one of them. Why would I, someone who despises her even more than Bill O'Lielly and Rush Limbaugh (and that's saying a lot, believe me), call her relevant? Because her new, idiotic screed, Godless, now ranks #3 on Amazon's list of top selling books (and at various times in the last week, it has been #1) AND it debuted #1 on The New York Times bestseller list (although it's not in the top 5 as of tonight). So, people are paying attention to her, and it's pretty clear that more than a few wayward souls are buying into this shit. (Oh, and for those of you who think I got the above photo from some obscure Web site, I did - AnnCoulter.com.) You've just got to love someone who admires Joe McCarthy.

So, what's the dustup all about? Well, it's not the usually typical right-wing bullshit that she serves up this time that has attracted such controversy. It's what she said about the 9-11 widows. And when confronted with her remarks, she just becomes more bellicose, belligerent and defiant.

First, on the Today show, when Matt Lauer called her on some of the more controversial remarks in her book, Coulter took to the offensive, talking about "liberal infallibility" and how these women were being used politically. The best part about it is that Lauer came right back over the top of her. "So grieving widows aren't allowed to have a political opinion?" Coulter then started to stutter and stammer. She's used to sycophants interviewing her with softball questions. Not this time. She then proceeded to reiterate that the 9-11 widows are "enjoying their husbands' deaths." Too bad Matt didn't really prepare for the interview, or he could have cut this hate monger to pieces. Fitting that this interview took place on 6.6.6. Coulter would have been cast great opposite Al Pacino in The Devil's Advocate instead of Connie Nielsen.

Anyway, in case you missed Coulter's appearance on Today, here are a few of her quotes:

Coulter: "These self-obsessed women [9-11 widows] seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process."

And...

Coulter: "To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die."

If anyone can suggest a more contemptible c--- on this planet, I'm taking suggestions.

Just a few comments, and then I'll end this post. Criticizing her is a waste of time, and frankly, too easy.

First, I wonder if she would criticize these 9-11 widows if they cut commercials for Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign? Duh. Of course not. Coulter's just pissed that Bush couldn't use his pet cause and #1 topic to demagogue the American people, terrorism, to full effect in the last election and that these widows wouldn't automatically support the self-anoited "Wartime President." The 9-11 widows have every right to be pissed - our ports are wide open, as are our borders, and anti-terrorism funding is a fraction of what it should be, and our troops and resources are being diverted for a moronic and idiotic war in Iraq (to say nothing about the tragic loss of American and Iraqi lives). But, let's keep those tax cuts rolling, Mr. President - war and anti-terrorism costs be damned.

Second, what makes her words even more hateful is that she seems to be picking up speed as the outrage growns. She responded to the criticism by spewing even more venom in a Time Magazine interview, calling the widows "harpies" and "witches."

Third, this is just a blatant attempt to sell books and get publicity. She's Limbaugh sans the penis and blue M&Ms. However, there's plenty of evidence her outrageous statements are working, if her book ranks #3 on Amazon book sales. I guess the old adage of "any publicity is good publicity" applies here. There are vast amounts of people who are easily manipulated in the American electorate, and Ann's getting rich off them. Many of these same people probably think their most important vote is the one they phone in for American Idol. Now, I can hear some of you already - "That's just what I hate about liberals - they think they know what's best for the country; I'm tired of their conceit." You know what I say to those people? Fuck you. Who am I referring to? People who actually believe even two syllables of Coulter's tripe; people who don't vote in elections yet sit around and bitch about which way the wind is blowing in America; people who never miss one goddamn episode of American Idol, yet can't tell the difference between Brittany Spears and a broccoli spear. Wake up, people.

One last thing that annoys me to no end, and I can rarely keep my mouth shut when I hear it. ... To combat criticism of Coulter, people just bring up someone from the left, "evening" the score in their minds. It goes something like this:

Liberal: "Can you believe what Ann Coulter said? What an evil person."

Conservative: "Yea, people like her an Al Franken are what's wrong with America."

I defy anyone to name me a liberal or someone on the left, no matter how far left, who has written something like this lately. And when I say that, I mean find me someone of Coulter's stature; she sells millions and millions of books - find me an equivalent on the left. And I don't mean someone who has made some offhand, foolish, regrettable remark, I mean someone who has said something even remotely this hateful, then, when offered the chance to recant or backtrack even a little, has refused, as Coulter has. Yea, get back to me - your search is gonna take a while. If you find one, write me, and I'll denounce them with equal fervor on this blog.

Conservatives of the world, you may not like Al Franken, Bill Mahr, or the such, but if you are putting them in the same class as Coulter, or even Bill O'Lielly, you're pretty misguided.

I'll have more on O'Lielly soon in a future post - this guy lies so much, it's easier to point out the few instances when he's told the truth than it is to point out all of his lies. He's been caught red-handed lately, too, and when he does, he just gets more belligerent. And it's awfully enjoyable to watch.

Instead of going on more of a rant on Coulter, I thought I'd just share some more cartoons and pictures of her. Is it degrading? Yep. Am I lowering myself to her level? Hardly, but sometimes it just feels soooo good to be mean spirited, doesn't it, Ann? The big difference is that I'm being mean spirited about you, not 9-11 widows who have lost husbands, have families to raise on their own, and who you degrade just because they don't happen to share your political extremism.


Ann as she appears for a photo shoot, above. Okay, skanky, but not totally hideous.

But take a look at Ann without makeup! Ewwww.

Okay, I was just having fun. This is an artist's depiction of what Ann Coulter would really look like without makeup. I can't imagine waking up next to that.


A humor piece that pokes fun at Ann AND Rush? Gold.

I love Newsweek. The magazine always hits the nail on the head, and these two cartoons are no exception. Look at how the artist drew her above! I laughed for like five minutes when I saw it.

To hell with Coulter and all who are like her. Time to watch some hockey.