Stewart takes apart McLame's speech

Wow - when Republicans make it this easy, I wonder if it's even fun for the writers of The Daily Show. However, I know this - it sure is fun for Jon Stewart, and it really is fun to watch.

As I noted on the night of McCain's acceptance speech, where were all of the people at the GOP convention mocking McSame's Vietnam service record? Hmm, nowhere to be found. Stewart brilliantly points this out above, and I'm very happy that someone, anyone in the media bothered to point this out.

Kudos to Stewart for also pointing out McSame's obviously hypocritic blubbering about "vetoing the first bill the crosses my desk with pork barrel spending in it! {...} You will know their names!" Well, we know one name already - his vice presidential choice, Sarah Palin. What's most amusing about that inconvenient fact is hearing McCain and the right trying to defend it. (I've got some pretty amusing video of conservatives trying to do just that earlier today. Stay tuned.

It's good to see that Stewart is in midseason form as we roll toward the election. If it weren't for Stewart, Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann, there would be virtually no prominent, sufficiently angry liberal voices in the media.

Ron Suskind discusses impeachment on TDS

I enjoyed the above interview between Jon Stewart and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind, whose new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism, is soaring to the top of bestseller lists, and is creating a great deal of waves in Washington.

I'll have more on this book shortly - I'm about 50 pages in.

TDS Bush v. Bush

No one nails it like Jon Stewart does, as I've written many times. The right only wishes it could be this funny - a great mixture of facts, humor and best of all, video footage from the past that the Bushes, McCain and Obama can't run from.

I find it particularly painful (and annoying, quite frankly) that Obama has "modified" his position somewhat on outer continental shelf drilling. I see his point, but seriously, does anyone not working for Big Oil think that it will be done in a completely environmentally safe way? And if the unthinkable happens, it's not a stretch to say that Big Oil will fight any judgment in the courts with its vast army of lawyers. In the end, U.S. citizens lose, and Big Oil wins, again. The only way this won't happen is if we stop them.

Lots more on energy and drilling coming up - I have plenty more to say about it (and a number of letters to write about it), along with some pretty good footage.

TDS: Terror Attack + Election = GOP

In light of McCain's chief strategist Charlie Black's breathtakingly asinine remark about another terrorist attack prior to the '08 election (I'll get to that in a minute), John Stewart took aim at the GOP's tried-and-true election strategy last night. And, Action!...

"Why is it that a terror attack helps Republicans? Well, it's quite simple. A terror attack, when added to an election, equals Republican. Why is that? Let"s show our work. First we have to solve for "R." Now, if you add 7 1/2 years of Republican administration, times the five years we've been at war, which has divided the nation, add in the government's incompetent response to the domestic disaster of Katrina, minus the equity in your home that's disappeared, plus the price of oil squared, over the boon that the Iraq War has been to terrorist recruiting, times torture, minus the resources we could have been using in Afghanistan, plus the resources we could have been using to catch bin Laden, carry the Cheney and...

Daaaaamn! I su-huuucked at Math in high school (and college) and this equation totally makes sense.

And Stewart isn't totally off his rocker, either, considering Black's, comments in a recent interview with Fortune that a terrorist attack would be a "big advantage" for McCain. To read the entire interview, click Here. An excerpt:

On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." 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.

Just curious, but if saying something patently absurd like that isn't a fire-able offense, then what is?

McCain's response to Black's comments:

Wow, he "strenuously disagrees." Well blow me down, Popeye.

Is it me, or are Republican politicians okay with just saying whatever comes to their minds, then later backtracking by saying, "I don't know the context?" McCain is big on using the word "context," when he knows full well in this instance in what "context" the remark was made. Presumably, the two were in the same room when the interview with Fortune took place. That is, unless you believe that John McCain and Charlie Black were interviewed in separate rooms. And I don't believe that for a second.

This is simply another McCain lie that he'll presumably get away with, as usual. I strenuously think the man is full of it. No, check that, he's lying, plain and simple.

So much for running a positive campaign. Then again, who honestly believed that cock and bull in the first place?

Crooks & Liars has more on Charlie Black's disgusting track record, a record I would think that McCain wouldn't want the American public to examine about his chief strategist a mere 131 days before the election.

Pretty sweet: Stewart lays waste to punditry*

* - but the joke about Lincoln in a theater was infinitely less than funny. Especially on the eve of RFK's assassination anniversary, which I'll talk about in a bit. No one has ever accused me of not being able to take a joke, but I just never think it's funny to joke about a presidential assassination, ever. Anyway, on with the piece above...

I loved the round-up of so-called pundits predicting Hillary Clinton was going to run away with the nomination, and a few of them go all the way back to the spring of 2007. Unbelievable. I especially enjoyed hearing Joe Scarborough's dismissal of Barack Obama, too. What a clown. Stewart wraps the pundit round-up pretty nicely: "News pundits, they are like the doppler-less weathermen of our time." Pretty fitting, since the pundits who predicted her victory over a year ago might just as well have been predicting the daily weather, a year ahead of time.

By the way, I loved Stewart's "Baba Booey" reference. (If you don't listen to Howard Stern, never mind.)

One particular lowlight of the McCain speech: "[Obama] doesn't trust us to make decisions for ourselves, and wants to the government to make them for us." That kind of Reagan b.s., i.e. - "government IS the problem," isn't going to fly this year, McSame. But, you keep pounding that drum, and all of the Reagan fetishists will ride that plane right into the ground with you.

After watching it several times again, it really is apparent that McCain is going to get the stuffing kicked out of him this fall. This year, being the GOP nominee means being the best of the worst. It really is going to be Bob Dole '96 all over again. And if I pull a Scarborough and McCain somehow miraculously wins, I'll offer a full-blown mea culpa on these very pages.

McCain's co-opting Obama's slogan is about as original as Glenn Beck saying "Inconvenient (fill in the blank)" every two seconds. And it's as witty, too.

I also found it sort of sad watching the handful of people surrounding McCain while he made his speech. McCain should fire the aide who decided on a green background - it was about as unflattering as possible. He couldn't have possibly looked any more frail and old. Here's hoping his campaign's wonderful decision making continues.

Just like the Democratic Nomination was Hillary's to lose, the general election is Obama's to lose. Here's hoping he doesn't Pull a Hillary. Maybe that could even be a new electoral term, like Swiftboating entered our political lexicon following the '04 election.

Obama's the one... bring on McSame

I was pretty blown away by Obama's speech last night - at the end of a no doubt long political career, this one will go down as one of his finest. I was particularly impressed with Obama's remarks about Hillary Clinton [Click Here for full speech transcript]:

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning – even in the face of tough odds – is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency – an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Wow - pretty deferential and humble words by Obama about Hillary, who has gone to great lengths behind the scenes to paint Obama as "unelectable," "inexperienced," and much, much worse.

I guess I might be raining on the Feel-Good Parade, but what thanks did Obama get for his kind words about Hillary last night? Certainly not what he deserved - Hillary bowing out of the race gracefully. Last night, Hillary wouldn't even Obama his moment - she thanked her supporters and issued a few other vaguenesses (see video below). Her idiotic campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, even introduced her as, "the next President of the United States." I'd love to know how the weather is on HIS planet.

Anyway, I totally agree with Obama's assessment of Hillary, but I was not pleased that she did not concede the nomination last night. In the absence of more information, I interpret it as thus: she's waiting for Obama to stumble, or for some dirt to be dug up about him this summer. Once our corporate media's Conventional Wisdom says that he's "unelectable," (cue drug addict Limbaugh, GOP shill Drudge and facist Michael Wiener) Hillary is fantasizing about swooping in and taking the nomination. Pretty undignified, in my book, and something that almost certainly won't happen.

In all sincerity, I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for Hillary, but she's doing herself, her party and her country a disservice by keeping up with this charade. I very rarely wade into the cesspools that masquerade as comment sections on most blogs, but I found an excellent analogy about Hillary not conceding the nomination, and I just have to share it:

Can you imagine if the New England Patriots pulled this Hillary thing? It would have gone something like this in this year's Super Bowl in February: Yeah, we're down by three, and there's no time left on the clock, but that doesn't mean the game should stop! We had a better season! We won all of our games! Tom Brady is more likable than Eli Manning, and there are more Patriots fans than Giants fans...and...and... we'll take this to the NFL rules commission if we have to! We won! This season, we scored more points than the Giants! Our offense was ranked higher! So what if they beat us when it counted? We will not allow the Patriots fans to become invisible, blah... blah... blah...

Say what you want about sports, but that's the best damned analogy I've read yet about Hillary's refusal to face reality.

Here is Clinton's speech from last night, in two parts...

Part I:

Part II:

I don't even know where to begin with her speech. I'm quite certain that Obama will not be pleased when he sees it. Of course, she had a few nice things to say about Obama, but she didn't do what was expected of her, and what would have been the magnanimous thing to do - concede. Instead, she blubbered on about "winning the swing states," and complaining about the votes in Florida and Michigan not being counted (in so many words). I'm for counting all of the votes, too, but seriously, let's move on, senator. The Democratic Party (in my view) made a mistake, Hillary, but if you would have run a better campaign, you wouldn't be crying foul over these two states.

At this point, Obama cannot pick her to run with him - he just can't. I don't believe for one second that all of the Hillary supporters who are making noise about voting for McSame will actually go through with it. I just can't believe it. Hillary and Obama's politics and positions on policy issues are so close in so many ways, I refuse to believe that her supporters would go in the other direction and vote for McCain, merely out of spite.

By the way, from the bizzaro file, here's Terry McAuliffe, Hillary's campaign chairman, on The Daily Show last night...

I don't even know what to make of this - was it a skit? Was McAuliffe on something? Stewart (as Obama) asking McAuliffe, "WTF?" was only topped by McAuliffe saying, "Kiss my ass, Obama!" I think McAuliffe has seriously lost it. Perhaps it's his recent track record of not being able to put any of his backed candidates over the top - the two most notable being John Kerry in '04, when McAuliffe was the DNC Chair, and blowing it against Obama this year with Hillary - the nomination was hers to lose, and she lost it with McAuliffe serving as her campaign chair.

Off to the political scrap heap, Terry.

I found this on a political site last night (I think it was Crooks & Liars, under the comments section on one of the posts), and I loved it - it's about what was going on at Obama's campaign headquarters last night. I don't know if it's true, but I like the idea of it, and the very last sentence in this short little political chestnut is true, even if the rest isn't:

Every time a new endorsement was announced at the Obama headquarters in Chicago, campaign workers interrupted with a booming round of applause, followed by popping Champagne corks later in the evening. The aides are members of Mr. Obama's team — a political start-up — that is responsible for defeating one of the most tried and tested teams in Democratic politics.

That's right on - an effective, victorious political campaign really can still be waged by determined, activist citizens in this country, amazingly enough. It isn't easy, but it can be done. Now all we have to worry about is Obama beating a well-funded Republican machine that will resort to just about anything to get elected.

Despite what some people may believe, this fall will be no cake walk for Obama. The right is going to come after him with everything they've got.

In '04, I used to hear this refrain all the time from Repubes: You're not so much for Kerry, you're just against Bush. There was more than a kernel of truth in that. I don't apologize for being so anti-Bush back then (or now), but that's not really a good reason to have backed Kerry, I suppose. (I originally wanted Dean in '04, but I campaigned very, very hard for Kerry in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.) However, I can't wait to push this back in Republicans' faces this year - "It's not that you're so much for McCain, it's that you're against Obama." It's been well documented that McCain is still having a very hard time wooing the Republican base, but now, the base will simply attack Obama anyway.

It's going to be one bumpy ride, but it's a ride I'm looking forward to.

I urge you all to go to Obama's Website and make at least a small contribution, even if it's just $5 or $10. Every little bit will help in his campaign this fall.

One other quick note - and I only got to see a few tidbits of coverage as I was jumping around from all of the coverage I TiVo'd last night (I was at a concert), but I found some clips of ABC's coverage on the 'Net this morning and it was an abomination - a stark example about what I detest about our corporate media.

Right as Obama was giving his acceptance speech, evidently ABC cut into regular programming to bring viewers about five minutes of his speech, before cutting away to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos talking about his historic speech. Hey guys, shut up and let it happen. Thank God these two aren't sportscasters - imagine them doing commentary for the Super Bowl... Tom Brady [Smirk] Eli Manning fades back to throw the winning touchdown pass, and the network cuts to Gibson and Stephanopoulos talking about the winning touchdown pass. Morons.

Then again, I shouldn't expect much more from Gibson, who feels the media asked all of the tough questions and raised all of the issues with the Bush administration during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Brilliant! (See Below)

War monger Feith declares war... on truth

When I woke up this morning, a replay of The Daily Show was on Comedy Central where Jon Stewart was interviewing Doug Feith, the former under secretary of defense for policy under Donald Rumsfeld. Feith, one of the architects of the War in Iraq, has written a book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, that he's pimping to try and make money off of, since his diplomatic career is in tatters (unless another Bush makes it to the White House, heaven help us). To me, Feith is simply another war profiteer, trying to make money off another destructive war that he played a role in provoking (But who certainly didn't play a role in planning out adequately. Wait, no one from this administration did).

I have to give Jon Stewart a great deal of credit for how he conducted this interview - not lots of jokes or levity - he kept it pretty serious, which isn't always the norm. Kudos to Stewart for holding Feith's feet to the fire, especially the PR and propaganda tactics the Bush administration used to build public "support"during the run-up to the war. At one point, Stewart even quoted then-White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, which seemed to catch Feith off guard.

Note that the footage is just a clip from the full interview, which ran over 20 minutes. If you visit Comedy Central's Website, you can find the full-length interview.

In some circles, including some inside the Bush administration, Feith is known as a totally incompetent imbecile. In fact, Gen. Tommy Franks, the original commander of the ground forces in Iraq, once very famously said regarding Feith, "I have to deal with the stupidest fucking guy on the planet almost every day."

I have to admit that at some point (when it comes out in paperback, at best), I would like to read Feith's book, to try and better understand why this administration blundered us into this disastrous war. Maybe, in the end, I won't agree with Gen. Franks' assessment, but for now, I certainly do, from what I've read and heard about Feith. The above interview did nothing to dispel that opinion, either.

The Daily Show on Rev. Wright

Only The Daily Show could pull off commentary like this about Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Billy Graham and get away with it. It's mostly funny, but there is a point here, too.

I can't believe they missed an opportunity to go after Nancy Reagan's astrologer. A golden opportunity, lost!

Stewart mocks Bush mocking a real dancer

Okay, one more Daily Show clip. This one's about Bush gettin' his groove on, perhaps to free his mind from clutter surrounding the tragedy, death and destruction he's wrought on the Middle East.

I can't get enough of watching the president make a total ass out of himself. I guess I should give him a few props, though, because it takes a pair to put yourself out there like that. But, maybe he should have practiced his moves in front of a mirror before subjecting us all to that horrific display.

Stewart spot on about VT Massacre coverage

It's pretty ironic that Jon Stewart ponders, "Is there anyone who has a coherent point" to make about the Virginia Tech Massacre, when he's one of the few who actually has anything coherent to say on the tragedy.

As usual, Sean Insanity shines in the face of another tragedy. Evidently, the people who were trying to score political points so soon after Virginia Tech "sicken him." Good call, Sean. Feel free to go ahead and condemn Judas John McCain, who didn't even bother to wait to leave the airport following the tragedy before reinforcing his belief that "we all have the right to bear arms."

All I've heard about in the nearly two weeks since the tragedy is how the Democrats have "avoided the issue." Most talking heads soo sagely opine that it's because "Gore tried to take on the gun lobby in 2000" that he lost the election. I guess I just missed something then, like Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recounts and handed Bush the presidency.

Repubes constantly complain that Democrats just won't let go of the 2000 election, yet they continuously bring it up, too. Let's face it - the 2000 election is a political travesty that will sit alongside other infamous political scandals in history - Iran-Contra, Watergate, the Clinton Impeachment, the War in Iraq, and on an on.

Anyway, my theory as to why the Democrats avoided the gun issue before the bodies were cold - perhaps they just wanted to show a little decency? That may be wrong, and I'm not completely discounting the fact that there may have been some political calculations involved, but when I turned on the TV or went to media Websites in the days following the tragedy, it wasn't Democrats I saw pathetically preening before the cameras for a few votes from gun owners who vote.

Anyway, well done, Mr. Stewart.

Dana Perino flatters "The Daily Show"

Acting White House Press Secretary Dana Perino used a line from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart yesterday.

I got a kick out of the footage above. I'm glad that this administration sees fit to use comedy when responding to reporters' inquiries about Iraq.

Stewart should be flattered. I wonder how long she's going to remain acting press secretary, but the million dolalr questions is, will she appear on TDS while in that position? I wouldn't believe that in a million years.

I wonder if Perino, or anyone else in the western world, will find anything funny about The 1/2 Hour News Hour? We'll know for sure about a month later, if the show survives that long.

From the reviews I've read so far, the show is about as funny as murder. But, then again, it probably wasn't a good idea to use Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to introduce the first show, either.

YouTube & Viacom are at it again

Just when I think it's over, it's not over. YouTube and Viacom are at it again. The two sides were unable to come to an agreement that would allow Viacom's content to legally remain on YouTube's Website, so on Friday Viacom requested that over 100,000 clips of its programming, including my beloved Daily Show, be removed from the site.

Sigh.

This is getting frustrating, annoying, and frankly, I'm beyond caring about it now. I'll simply check back every once in a while on YouTube to see if the stuff's back up. Or, I may simply find another Website that does the same thing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Google's purchase of YouTube effectively ended its coolness, because Google has one thing, money, that content providers covet. Funny how Viacom wasn't too concerned about Daily Show clips on YouTube when it was owned by its creators, who didn't have enough money to bother with a court case.

I still have faith that Google and Viacom will somehow come up with an agreement, though. Google has to act, or the $1 billion+ it paid for YouTube will be the biggest waste of money since... since... Time Warner bought AOL.

Stay tuned.

In the meantime, I have a bunch of Daily Show clips stored, and when they are allowed, I will upload them again so they can be found in my blog's archives and so I can bring you some yet to be posted cool clips on here.

TDS returns to my blog, & this one's great!

My cousin Steven sent this to me today, and I'm glad he did, because I forgot all about it. It's a Daily Show humor piece on mid-term elections in the vein of Schoolhouse Rock. It aired in late summer on The Daily Show, but the version that aired on Comedy Central was, ahem, a little cleaner.

Anyway, it's dated, but a fitting way for The Daily Show to return to my blog, and it's damn funny. Thankfully, the mid-term election just completed didn't ring true and wasn't a "mid-term as usual" like this parody refers to.

Enjoy!

YouTube's coolness reborn?

About a month ago, I bemoaned Comedy Central's removal of all its video clips from YouTube. This came as no surprise, following Google's purchase of the very popular Website. After all, deep pockets = big lawsuits.

However, today I was doing some general browsing on YouTube and I found page after page of Comedy Central clips, specifically TDS, my favorite political show ever.

So, perhaps reports of YouTube's demise were greatly exaggerated? I'm not convinced yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic. I'll resume bringing you some of my favorite clips from TDS shortly, and we'll see how long they stay up.

After thinking about it for a while, it makes sense that Google will strike deals with companies to allow video clips to be displayed on YouTube. After all, it didn't spend $1.5 billion on the Website, only to have its hits evaporate as a result of pulling so much content, illegal or otherwise. So, some deal making was/is inevitable. I haven't heard or read anything about a deal with Comedy Central, but there was a handshake somewhere, or I wouldn't be finding all of this content.

Stay tuned.

Coming Soon: A Fox "Daily Show"?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Considering that, Jon Stewart must be having a pretty good month, as well as Comedy Central.

The Hollywood Reporter has revealed that Fox News is considering airing a show as a response of sorts to Comedy Central's wildly successful Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The show, dubbed This Just In is set to air in January as a two episode pilot. TJI, a half-hour show, will reportedly be executive produced by 24's Joel Surnow and Manny Cota and creator Ned Rice, who previously wrote for Politically Incorrect.

I can't WAIT to watch this show. Imagine how funny Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Bernie Goldberg, Jerry Falwell, Sean Insannity, Michael Savage, etc. will be. Yea, those intolerants are a barrel of laughs.

I predict it will fall flat on its face, but I hope it won't. Nothing makes a show better than competition - so maybe it will make The Daily Show even better. Well, come to think of it, This Just In won't really be competing with TDS. Watching humorless right wingers trying to be funny could be amusing though.

Couldn't it?

Can Stewart & Colbert swing an election?

This is a pretty good overview by Joe Scarborough of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and their potential impact on this year's election. At first, I thought Scarborough was going to slam both shows super hard, but he really didn't, and I was pleasantly surprised. Scarborough, much like Michael Smerconish, is a conservative I can at least listen to in order to hear different political points of view. I don't agree with either one politically - not even close, but these two don't seem to verbally regurgitate outright lies, slander and vicious attacks against people who differ with them politically.

I rarely miss The Daily Show, and I occasionally catch Colbert, but it's undeniable that they have broad appeal, especially among Democrats, but among moderates, too. I can't speak to Colbert's show too much, other than to say he was simply brilliant when he was on The Daily Show. Stewart, however, I'm pretty well versed in, and if I had to make a guess as to why it has such a loyal following, I'd say 1. Stewart isn't above criticizing Democrats, and has critically done so when they've deserved it, 2. He has on guests from both sides of the political spectrum; Rick Santorum and Bill O'Reilly among them, 3. Stew gets people with video tape - I don't think I've ever seen anyone more effective at zinging people with their own words, and 4. I defy anyone to find an instance where Stewart has lied or distorted to serve some thinly veiled political agenda. You know, like Bill O'Reilly. Good luck, because I believe you're going to have a pretty hard time.

The great thing about The Daily Show is that it has no Republican equivalent; as I've said before, I seriously doubt that people, especially young voters, are crowded around radios listening to Rush Limbaugh.

I believe Stewart will have an even bigger impact in '08. We'll see.

Grand Old Perverts on borrowed time

For two straight days last week, The Daily Show effectively destroyed Republicans for the Mark Foley Sex Scandal. It's easier for you to watch the roundup than it is for me to write what these morons said, so take a look. The clip above is a little over nine minutes long, but trust me, it's soooo worth your time.

The video clip below isn't too bad, either. Watch them. Then, watch them again. This is the sad state of government in the United States today. Think that's hyperbole? People, Republicans control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and at an ever-increasing rate, the judicial branch, starting with the Supreme Court. And Republicans (and the pundits who parrot their views, including State TV, Fox News) will do or say just about anything to stay in power. About the only thing Republicans haven't done is use the military. Wait... Anyway, more after the video clip below.



Whether you like Jon Stewart or hate him, he does a remarkable job of skewering Republicans and exposing hypocrisy, and for that he should be commended. The best part about Stewart is that the show is well researched - nothing like clubbing Foley over the head with his own video tape from

It's just amazing how Republican lawmakers are running for cover in this scandal, which is a sickening disgrace. When I hear comments from some of these GOP legislators, I'm reminded of the Roman Cathlick Church and the sex scandals that have rocked it in the last 3-4 years. It's bad enough that altar boys were molested by the dozens (and probably hundreds) of priests in the first place, but what was worse was the church leadership that looked the other way for decades. Evidently, the same thing took place with Foley.

Even more laughable are the conservative pundits who are "analyzing" the whole incident. I can't possibly spell this out any clearer--

I fucking HATE Sean Hannity with every fiber of my being. Yes, I wrote hate - a word we are conditioned to shun, but what the hell is Fox spewing on state TV every day? Hate, but in slightly less overt forms. Insannity's comments and pathetic attempts at spin in the video clip at the very top (toward the end - approx. the last 1.5 minutes of the clip) about the Foley scandal are fodder for the bullshit cannon, and they run the risk of ruining his already useless reputation.

First, Hannity brings up a Democratic Congressman who was involved with a page 23 years ago. 23!! Nice. Then, *SURPRISE!* he brings up Clinton and Lewinsky, getting the latter's age wrong, saying she was 19 years old at the time of the affair. Well, Lewinsky was 22, and the affair was between consenting adults, but I'm sure Hannity made an honest mistake there, right?

I also get a kick out of how Hannity tries in vain to bring President Clinton into the scandal: "Now I don't mean to bring Clinton into this, but Monica was 19 years old." Besides getting her age wrong, Hannity lamely attempts to use an age-old trick - trying to hide behind your qualifier to absolve yourself of blame. Of course you meant to bring up Clinton, you dick! It reminds me of people who say, "No offense, but ________." Obviously they know it's going to offend you, or they wouldn't say that. Or people who say, "I'm not a racist, but ___________," and then say something racist.

The sad thing about Hannity is that there are people who actually think he speaks the truth (I'm friends with a few of them) and that the Democrats are behind all of this, and blah blah blah. Pathetic, sad and frightening, all in one human being. Impressive, really. Hannity's father, Rupert Murdoch, must be awfully proud.

The million dollar question about Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, is what did he know and when did he know it? It seems like he's known about Foley's inappropriate behavior for some time; even conservative estimates place it at the beginning of 2006, at the latest, and I've read several other pieces which say Hastert has known about it for years. I'm not interested in a number, but if Hastert knew about it one week before it became public, swift and appropriate action should have been taken against Foley. Fair?

Since it appears that Hastert knew about Foley's misdeeds (crimes) ahead of time, that makes Hastert culpable, and at least partially responsible for allowing Foley's wildly unethical and inappropriate behavior to continue without consequences. Hastert should immediately resign. Considering his statements since the scandal erupted, I wonder if Dennis likes what he sees when he looks in the mirror every morning? You might be asking, am I referring to Hastert, President Bush, or Foley himself? Yes.

Predictably, with an election around the corner, Republican leaders are running for cover and calling the two plays they know best from their playbook: scare tactics and distraction.

Think about the Karl Rove playbook that we are so used to by now.

First off, the election year scare tactics:

Notice how in 2004 and 2006, the wedge issues "mysteriously" came to the forefront? Every speech that Bush gives has to talk about the War on Terror, but we get others, too, in election years: gay marriage, immigration, tax cuts, steroids in baseball, Terri Schiavo, you name it.

I also find is super mysterious that gas prices are suddenly dramatically dropping leading up to this election, too. (It takes shockingly little digging to discover which party is in bed with big oil.)

Now, we're treated with lame-assed attempts by Republicans to scare the shit out of voters - Dick 'n W are running around the country, overtly saying that Democrats can't keep us safe from the terrorists. The scary part is that some people actually believe this shit.

Here's President George W. Bush on CNN last week (10/4/06): "Vote Republican for the safety of the United States of America." The bastard has balls, I'll give him that.

I'll bet my bile duct that there will be some sort of terror alert just before the election, too, or maybe the president will declassify information telling us that a major plot had just been foiled, but that they "can't give us any details due to national security."

Last week Hastert implored House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to agree to have former FBI Director Louis Freeh look into the whole Foley scandal. When I read that, I almost spit up my stromboli. Freeh, a partisan GOP scumbag, would have just been another GOP mouthpiece. His record during the Clinton years is a disgrace - one of Clinton's biggest mistakes was not firing the bastard, but Clinton hesitated to because it would have looked like he was firing Freeh because Freeh didn't agree with him politically.

Also very amusing to me is Hastert (and other Republicans) blaming the whole Foley scandal on billionaire liberal activist George Soros. What a laugh. How stupid does Hastert think we are? It wasn't that long ago that Mellon Bank heir Richard Mellon Scaife was behind so much of the Clinton trash that was bandied about in the 1990s - most it lies reported as news. Think I'm bullshitting? Read about the Arkansas Project and who funded it. At least with Scaife, there's proof. Hastert is just throwing Soros out there, hoping people will just automatically buy into it without doing any reading of their own. Sadly, some will.

Since 1979, Scaife has donated over $407,000 to Republican candidates, and $2,500 to Democrats. Read about that Here. Scaife had strong ties to Kenneth W. Starr and he also funded the American Spectator, but later defunded the magazine when it was critical of him and wouldn't go along with campaign to call Vince Foster's death a suicide.

Lastly, I find it wildly entertaining that some GOP sycophants and politicians alike are accusing the Democrats of gay bashing. Democrats are doing nothing of the sort, and it's another half-baked attempt at distracting from the real issue, which is an adult, in a position of power, making sexual advances on an minor. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator is male or female, nor does it matter if the victim is male or female. And do Republicans honestly believe anyone who is gay will now turn on the Democrats? You've gotta be kidding. Anyone remember the proposed Constitutional Amendment by Republicans that would define marriage as something between a man and a woman?

It's the sign of an increasingly desperate party - now the GOP is even courting the gay vote! Amazing. I'll say it over and over - the party will do just about anything to stay in power.

Even prominent Republicans are recommending that Hastert step down, including Thomas Kean Jr., GOP Senatorial candidate in New Jersey.

Anyway, one more video clip worth watching...



The clip above is so money. How do the idiots on Fox even say this shit with a straight face? A few thoughts: 1. Where was all of this "investigating" about who is behind a scandal during the Clinton impeachment fiasco? Funny how Fox News all of a sudden now has investigative skills, but in the 1990s when Clinton was in office, the "network" would report any rumor as fact. 2. Even if it proves true that Soros is behind it, (and I'm far from that, considering it's from State TV), so what? If this stuff about Foley is true, I don't give a damn how it came out.

It's scary how inept our country's leadership is. We must have dramatic change in November. I pray it's coming.

Gore on The Daily Show

Check out Al Gore's recent appearance on The Daily Show, and you can hear his thoughts on global warming from him, instead of reading them on my blog. I love the title of the movie, because global warming really is an inconvenient truth for many people.

I also didn't know that 100 percent of the profits from the book and movie are being donated by Al & Tipper Gore to organizations that are combating global warming. Bravo once again, Gores.

A real-life Clark Kent

Haven't we heard this song before? Another former Bush administration official is speaking out about this administration's ineptitude in dealing with terrorism, and most importantly, its lack of funding and preparedness for another attack against America. I wonder what Rove and company will do to discredit him.

First, it was Richard Clarke, and his 2004 explosive best selling book, Against All Enemies. In a highly partisan political year, Bush, Rove and Co. went after him just like they've gone after Osama bin Laden. Oops. Bad example. Okay, they went after Clarke like the GOP went after Clinton for having an affair. Yea, that's better.

The new man in Rove's crosshairs is Clark Kent Ervin, currently the head of Homeland Security Program at the Aspen Institute. He was the first Inspector General of the United States Department of Homeland Security, appointed by President Bush in December 2003 in a recess appointment. He served until December 2004, when his term expired. Subsequently, The White House did not submit his name to the Senate for confirmation.

Ervin has written a book , Open Target: How America is Vulnerable to Attack, which details how vulnerable America is to another terrorist attack and the reasons why. His biggest criticism is this administration's lack of funding for the DHS. Read this exchange, between Ervin and Jon Stewart, on a recent airing of The Daily Show:

JS: It feels as though [the Bush administration is] very good at the rhetoric of fighting this war [on terrorism], but don’t apparently have the wherewithal to competently govern it.

CKE: That’s exactly right. You know, it’s as if they think all it takes to secure the homeland is a department called Homeland Security. Creating this department really was the beginning of the job, not the end of it. And from the beginning, the department has been under funded. I say that, rightly as you say, as a conservative republican. I don’t typically call for greater government spending, but you can’t secure the homeland on the cheap.

JS: What are the changes being made? I know now they [Republicans] just came out and said we should get rid of FEMA.

CKE: That’s right, well you know it’s a typical Washington response. Rather than taking the government we have, giving it the money it needs, the leadership it needs, and the culture it needs to work, we are recreating the organizational chart. I had hoped and thought that Secretary [Michael] Chertoff would be a big improvement, but as you say, Katrina was his test, and he obviously failed it. The thing about terrorism is that we won’t have any warning, or if we do it will be very indirect, and if we’re not prepared for something that is not just foreseeable but foreseen, how prepared can we be for the next terror attack?

Just a few weeks ago, Congressional investigators were able to sneak bomb components through 21 airports undetected, even though investigators went out of their way to make it easy to spot them.

JS: You make a point in your book about a report that said that 40 percent of all weapons and bombs, etcetera, you guys were able to sneak into airports, and [Tom] Ridge [The first head of DHS] called you into his office and said, "Why didn’t you say we were successful 60 percent of the time?"

CKE: Rather than making bad results better, they were focused on making bad results sound better. And that in a nutshell is the problem; that accounts for why America remains an open target all these many years after 9-11.

##

Still feel safe? I don't.

The only question now is what the Bush administration will do to Swiftboat Ervin. It's not a question of if, it's a question of how and when. Hey, it's an election year, and the War on Terrorism is arguably Bush's strength, if he even has one left. Do you honestly think that Karl Rove will let attacks on the president's credibility go unanswered? You can be confident that when Rove finishes his attack campaign, some right wing hacks will consider Ervin a real threat who "hates America" and "sides with the terrorists."

Hurricane Katrina was a perfect illustration of how poorly this government can execute any kind of significant federal response to any kind of disaster, be it natural or terrorist. Ervin is merely pointing it out. The DHS has been vastly under funded since its inception in November 2002. Our ports are more open than Paris Hilton and our border agents should have red sheets so they can yell olé! as illegals pour over the border. But hey, thank GOD the GOP controlled Congress just passed another fucking tax cut a few weeks ago, to the tune of $70 billion. Republicans are so out of touch, it's just turning into a comedy hour now. But, it will be no laughing matter when the hotly contested campaigns kick into high gear this summer.

Hurricane Katrina, before it blew off the Bush's administration's shroud of competency, to the tune of $115 billion. Must be time for another tax cut! Great idea - let's pay back all of this money we are borrowing [because of record-high deficits], with interest. What difference will it make? Bush will be long gone, with his two nightmare terms behind us, by the time the bill comes due.

Thanks George!

TDS strikes again

One more Daily Show clip, and this one's an instant classic. I won't keep posting recaps from the show - try to catch it or DVR it; Stewart and his team have been amazing - but this one is just too good to pass up discussing.

Following the disclosure by USA Today about the NSA's wiretapping program, Bush and his news channel, Fox, went on the offensive. Stewart, as usual, didn't let them get away with it.

You know what I love most about technology? The videotape doesn't lie. I've had to put up with that fact with Clinton/Lewinsky for years (and I still do from my GOP friends - fair enough), but now it's Bush's turn to be on the receiving end of witty and thorough journalists/satirists/comedians digging up old videotape and exposing his lies.

Anyway, the clip: The other night on The Daily Show, Stewart took aim at the hypocrites in the Bush administration as well as just about everyone with airtime at the national news channel, Fox. This is hilarious - I've watched it over and over.

Get the clip Here, and when you can't stop watching it, I won't say I told you so. Once you click on the link, scroll down about 1/3 to 1/2 way down the page, until you see the picture at above left and the title "TDS: Phone Logs and Fox Pundits." Right click on the link on the left, VIDEO WMP and save it to your hard drive. Pass this one on, too, or at least the link. Your friends will thank you for it.

Enjoy!