Search Results for: ’

Box Turtle Bulletin notices something interesting about a new anti-71 ad.

The second image you see flashing on the screen, of Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, is a copyrighted image from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You can find a copy of that image on their web site as part of their Gospel Art Picture Kit. Another one found on a web page titled, “What Do Mormons Believe About Adam and Eve.” It’s interesting reading, since it hints at a fallible God — or at least a God that gives conflicting instructions and it’s up to us to decide which set of instructions to follow.

Since the image is copyrighted by the LDS, either there is copyright infringement going on or, um, the Mormon Church is up to its usual anti-equality antics.

Yeah, it’s a laughably bad spot, but as I used to point out, so far my marriage and my children are just fine, despite attempts to extend the same civil rights heterosexual couples enjoy to gay couples.

As a casual observation, I would have to argue that adjustable rate mortgages and high credit card rates have done far more to destroy marriages in my community than the existence of scary gay people, so if we want to “protect the children,” maybe we should get serious about financial sector reform. LDS can put that in its pipe and smoke it.

(Props to DKos diarist Clarknt67.)

Looks like the gloves are coming off in the race for mayor of America’s Vancouver, which pits city council member Tim Leavitt against veteran incumbent Royce Pollard.

From The Columbian:

Vancouver mayoral candidate Tim Leavitt has missed “an outrageous” 16 elections over the past 10 years, including primary elections in 2008 and 2006 and general elections in 2002, 2000, 1999 and 1998, according to a review of voting records by the Vancouver Firefighters Union. Leavitt doesn’t dispute missing the votes, but says it has nothing to do with his ability to serve as mayor.

And an IBEW political action committee, PAC 48, has put up a little web site in honor of Leavitt called “Stop Lying Tim Leavitt.” Nothing subtle about that.

Jeff Mapes at The Oregonian had an interesting little post today concerning a $15,000 donation made to an Oregon IBEW committee from wealthy Clark County resident David Nierenberg, who has given mightily to all sorts of Democrats, philanthropic causes and his former boss Mitt Romney. From Jeff Mapes on Politics:

As it happens, though, the PAC operated by Local 48 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on the same day – Sept. 23 – gave $30,000 to PAC 48 of Washington. That PAC is also operated by the union, but it operates across the river where many of the union’s members are located.

So it appears Nierenberg is coming in big in support of long-time incumbent Royce Pollard. Well, $15,000 isn’t really big money for a guy like Nierenberg, but in a Vancouver mayor’s race it’s still a decent chunk of change. (Full blogger ethics panel disclosure: I knew Nierenberg from a campaign group called Evergreen Citizens for Schools from roughly 1998-2002. While he would probably take a phone call from me, I haven’t spoken to him for several years.)

Chris at Politics is a Blood Sport has a pretty straight-forward take on Nierenberg’s involvement:

David Nierenberg contributes to causes and candidates that he believes will benefit the region. While there’s little agreement from this little blog about the benefits of a Mitt Romney, there’s a wide range of agreement on other candidates Nierenberg has backed over the years.

Pollard is truly in the fight of his political life, and he’ll need all the help he can get from IBEW Local 48 and others if he is to succeed. What may have started as a simple off-year mayoral race is turning into a referendum on the new bridge, light rail, and the overall direction of Vancouver for years to come.

Leavitt has mounted a serious challenge to Pollard, that’s for sure, but he’s done it by exploiting economic uncertainty and trying to have it both ways on tolling when it comes to the CRC project that would build a new bridge on I-5 between Vancouver and Portland. A lot of Leavitt’s rhetoric is that same old “waste fraud abuse” stuff, burbbling about government being run like a business, etc. You know the type.

There isn’t going to be a new bridge without tolls; the Congressional delegations know it, Oregon officials remind us of it repeatedly, and at least Royce Pollard faced up to this basic fact a long time ago. Leavitt can try to finesse the issue all he wants, but he’s built a campaign by capitalizing on the issue and if elected mayor, it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, for him to endorse tolling. In essence, the bridge project would most likely be doomed.

There’s a great irony in all this. Leavitt is the preferred candidate of the local BIAW chapter, whose members presumably would benefit from improvements in transportation between Clark County and Portland. In a conventional political world like the ones in political science textbooks, the bidness guys and gals from the BIAW would get behind the moderately conservative, pro-business incumbent who wants to make it easier for people to live and shop in their city. But the conventional, tidy views of politics that still find voice in newspapers and on NPR exist only in some imaginary pony land. In the real world, conservatives pull out all the stops, on every issue, from the top to the bottom, and with control of both Clark County and the City of Vancouver within their reach, they’re not bloody likely to let up now, and they’re not at all sentimental about all the good things Royce Pollard has done over the years, either for them or the community at large.

I don’t know who the BIAW thinks buys their warranty-free houses, or rather will buy them again if the economy recovers from the international financial larceny made possible by the same neo-liberal ideology that informs every action of the right, and a fair portion of the “left.”

The BIAW long ago gave up any pretense of being interested in anything other than ultra-conservative ideology and gutting government for the sheer hell of it. It’s not a bug, it’s a design feature. If Leavitt becomes mayor, Vancouver might as well change its name to “Vista, Washington.”

Former state Republican Party Chair Chris Vance, has a somewhat startling admission to make:

I have spent the bulk of my career opposing higher taxes and increased spending. In the Legislature I voted against Governor Mike Lowry’s 1993 budget and tax increases. On the King County Council I voted against two budgets because they increased spending and raised property taxes — budgets written by my fellow Republicans while we were in the majority. During all of my 11 years in elected office I served on the budget writing committee, and every year I listened to Democratic governors and county executives talk about tight budgets, while revenues and spending went up and up.

As a fiscal conservative, therefore, I hope I can say this with some credibility: King County really does have a revenue problem. In fact, it is closer to a revenue crisis.

See, when I lay out the facts behind the counties’ structural revenue deficit (and it’s not just King County, but all counties), there are those who dismiss me as just the Horses’s Ass guy. But here’s Vance, a lifelong Republican and self-described fiscal conservative, pretty much making the same exact case.

Huh.

Back in June, when I wrote that mayoral candidate Mike McGinn was having trouble securing endorsements from fellow environmentalists due to his reputation for not working and playing well with others, my post drew passionate rebuttals from McGinn and his supporters. And a few weeks back, when I reported that his fellow environmental leaders were, um, less than enthusiastic about McGinn’s surprising primary victory, I once again heard from McGinn faithful, accusing me of pulling this meme out of my ass.

“[T]he sentiment I heard from many of his fellow environmental leaders was more along the line of ‘oh well, I guess we kinda have to endorse him,’ rather than the outright enthusiasm one might have expected,” I wrote at the time. But, well, I’m man enough to admit my mistakes, for it looks like they didn’t really hafta endorse McGinn after all:

In an affront to environmental poster boy, Sierra Club leader and mayoral candidate Mike McGinn, the King County Conservation Voters have decided not to endorse either candidate in the mayor’s race.

Now, McGinn and his supporters can get all huffy if they want about the works and plays well with others meme, but when the region’s broadest coalition of environmental leaders just can’t bring itself to endorse one of their own — a man with unchallenged environmental credentials — it’s gotta say something about the many toes he’s stepped on (biked over?), if not his political style, doesn’t it?

I’m not saying I want a Mr. Nice Guy in the mayor’s office. It’s just always struck me as ironic that one of the big knocks against Mayor Nickels was his alleged unilateralism, and now we may be on the verge of electing a new mayor with the same bull in a china shop reputation.

Via Publicola:

Supporters of Seattle Port Commission candidates Rob Holland and Max Vekich charge that supporters of his opponent, David Doud, have been reporting every link on the Reform the Port organization’s Facebook page as “abusive,” which results in an automatic removal of the links. “It’s just seventh-grade stuff—it’s not like that’s going to win an election,” Reform the Port supporter Heather Weiner says. Reform the Port is not formally affiliated with either the Vekich or the Holland campaign.

That kinda shit is just plain petty, but unfortunately it’s happening more and more all the time. For example, it’s become a common practice to issue bogus takedown requests to YouTube, sometimes prompting YouTube to pull one’s entire library of videos, with little recourse. (It’s happened to me, which is why I now post to multiple accounts.)

Politics is a contact sport, and that’s okay, but dirty tricks like this threaten to ruin these online services for the rest of us. Shame on Doud and his supporters.

Well, I guess that’s one way to address growing complaints about King County Animal Control and conditions at its Kent shelter… shut it down:

“This is a transition or evolution for regional animal care and control, not an ending,” said Executive Triplett. “We must phase out the county’s general fund support for animal control and sheltering because although protecting animals and protecting people from animals are both important, providing animal care and control as a contractor for 32 cities is neither a required nor a core business of King County, nor is it self-sufficient.”

Currently, providing animal care and control services requires $1.5 million of the county’s general fund dollars every year above the revenues collected from city contracts for those services.

“In an era where we are mothballing parks, eliminating human services programs and closing health clinics, we can no longer afford to subsidize animal care and control,” said Triplett.

Now if only King County would also get out of the business of providing roads, parks, libraries, courts, law enforcement, jails, elections, social services, buses, public safety, public health, emergency management and a few other things, we might eventually get county government down to the size where Susan Hutchison is actually qualified to run it.

Looks like I’m not the only one calling for an end to Metro’s inflexible 40/40/20 rule. Over on Crosscut, State Sen. Fred Jarrett (D-Mercer Island) echoes my complaint about the rule sacrificing efficiency for sake of political expediency:

There are a number of strategic and tactical steps Metro can take to use the crisis as an opportunity to shape the region’s future. First, the failed “20-40-40” service allocation formula must be scrapped. Originally put in place as a political way to make each region of the county feel there was some degree of equity in the allocation of service, it has instead created an artificial barrier to the county’s ability to shape regional mobility and support our growth management goals.

Meanwhile, Dow Constantine, the Democratic nominee for King County Executive released a reform plan today that also calls for the rule’s repeal. I guess great minds think a like.

In an article in New York magazine, a man operating a small business in New York City made this startlingly honest confession:

I hate to say it, but there’s no way I’m hiring a black guy to work for me.

Is this a good indication of how racism still significantly affects our society and continues to create artificial barriers to success for minorities? Absolutely, but not in the way you think. The business owner who made that statement isn’t a racist at all. He runs one of New York’s marijuana delivery services, and he knows that if he hires a black man to be a delivery person, that person is significantly more likely to get arrested on his route. He then tells reporter Mark Jacobson:

Fact is, pot is legal for white people but not for black people, which is total bullshit.

Recent arrest statistics compiled by Queens College Professor Harry Levine back up this observation:

In this way, the NYPD has arrested tens of thousands of New Yorkers every year for possessing small amounts of marijuana. These arrests are expensive, costing nearly $90 million a year. And there are other costs: an arrest record can result in severe collateral consequences, like loss of employment, or the chance at a college scholarship. Spending the night in one of the City’s overcrowded holding pens or in Riker’s can itself be traumatic.

The most alarming component of these arrests, however, are the racial disparities. Nearly 90% of all those arrested for possession of marijuana are Black and Latino. Whites comprise 35% of the City population, but make up less than 10% of all those arrested for possession of marijuana. These disparities are not indicators of who uses marijuana–over 1/3 of all adults U.S. have tried marijuana, and anyone on a casual weekend stroll through the Upper West Side or Prospect Park will find a number of white people puffing away.

As Gabriel Sayegh also points out in that same post, the number of arrests for low-level marijuana possession have risen from 900 in 1993 to 40,000 in 2008. With nearly 90% of those arrests being of minorities (and most of them young), those arrests tend to erase the kinds of opportunities that would otherwise be available. This trend hasn’t just been with marijuana either. All forms of drug enforcement – especially the long disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing guidelines – have created a gigantic divide between how the drug war affects white communities and how it affects minority communities.

It’s become fashionable to claim that racism in America is largely over and that the folks who claim it isn’t are attempting to exploit the gullible. The numbers from America’s drug war emphasize how false that belief is. Wherever one goes in America, the racial disparity in drug arrests is only becoming more extreme. In California, blacks are only 7% of the population, but make up 33% of marijuana felony arrests. There are six times as many whites and blacks in the state, but more black men are picked up for marijuana felony offenses than whites, even though whites and blacks use marijuana in equal percentages and there are six times as many whites in the state. From coast to coast this occurs, giving us a massive disparity in our prison population and creating a huge wealth gap between white and minority communities.

What’s interesting to note about this phenomenon is that throughout the criminal justice system, from prosecutors to police officers to judges, the individuals within the system will be adamant that they’re not racists themselves. And I think most of them are telling the truth. The system itself really isn’t the root of the racism. The racism tends to come from what the community expects of this system and pushes politicians to do with it. When it’s understood that way, as the manifestation of lingering American eliminationism, the results we have start to make more sense.

A perfect illustration of this phenomenon occurred a few years back in an exchange I had with a blog commenter from the Bay Area. She first left a comment agreeing with me that marijuana prohibition is stupid and that people shouldn’t be arrested for using it. Then, when I mentioned the racial disparity, her attitude changed. She became defensive of law enforcement and falsely claimed that blacks get arrested because they commit more drug crimes (they don’t). Finally, I posted a video of an old episode of COPS, where several black men where being tackled and arrested after buying small bags of weed from an informant. She quickly went from being against marijuana prohibition to expressing gratitude to the police for getting these dangerous people off the streets. To this day, I guarantee you that she doesn’t think of herself as a racist, and if you ever accused her of it, she’d flip out just as she did in the comments of that post.

This is the difficulty in understanding the real level of racism that infects our political debates today, and more specifically, the extent to which racism drives the “teabagger” movement. I sympathize with genuine small government conservatives who have been consistent in their opposition to both Republicans and Democrats. But I also get the sense that they don’t recognize how miniscule they are within the ranks of those who are waving tea bags and calling Obama a Communist.

On the other hand, I think Jimmy Carter is wrong when he says that the reason for such heated opposition is because Obama is black. It’s not simply because Obama is black (one could easily see the same protests if Hillary Clinton was President), it’s because Obama is a Democrat, and the Democrats are seen as the party that represents the interests of black America. The reason we’re seeing such an intense backlash to government spending all of a sudden is not because government is being more irresponsible with its spending than it was during the Bush era, it’s because the perception is that the money is being spent on the undesirables within our society, the same people who always seem to bear the brunt of our nation’s drug war.

As Glenn Greenwald points out in this post, it makes absolutely no sense to be more concerned about the tiny sums of money that we dish out to ACORN for the relatively minor scandal that they’ve been caught up in after years of being disinterested in the vast sums of money that we’ve given to war profiteers like Blackwater, or various war-crime-committing nations, or to the financial services companies that drove our economy into the ground. The only explanation is that ACORN is representative of black America, and therefore is seen as a threat disproportionate to their actual influence. But don’t dare call that phenomenon racist.

For those of you eagerly waiting for a blogger like me to be financially ruined in a libel suit, all I can say is, this ain’t England:

The libel laws of England and Wales are notorious. Libel cases cost little to bring — you can make a no-win-no-fee arrangement with your lawyer — but a lot to defend. According to a recent report, the average cost of defending a libel case in England and Wales is 140 times greater than it is in most of the rest of Europe.

Moreover, English libel law favors the claimant — the person who says he or she has been defamed — in several ways. For one, the range of defenses is more limited than in other jurisdictions. For another, in English libel cases, the burden of proof is effectively on the defendant. In other words, the defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove it is true.

[…] The problem the libel laws create is not so much that critical stories can’t be written, but that they won’t be. As the conversations I had this summer show, for many journalists and their employers the potential for a libel case is a powerful deterrent to criticism: the pieces aren’t worth the hassle.

Yup, if you long for our libel laws to be used to slap down a few of us meddlesome bloggers, that’s exactly the type of journalistic climate of fear you obviously hope to create. But unfortunately for you, here in the U.S., we have something called the First Amendment. So eat me.

Oh geebus.

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady called for a government investigation into whether the government-run subway system adequately prepared for this weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

Please note that the above item is from the Wall Street Journal, that complete communist-socialist-Hawaiian rag.

I’ll type slowly, so conservatives can follow along.

Anti-government protesters and their supporters are complaining about a government service that delivered them to their anti-government protest.

It’s exactly like what happened to the barefoot soldiers at Valley Forge, except the soldiers at Valley Forge couldn’t go home and stock up on frozen meatballs at a Wal-Mart in suburban Virginia.

(Props to Eschaton.)

It looks like this is going to be a busy week for me. There are a number of drug war related stories happening across the state that I want to follow, but I definitely want to address this editorial that appeared on the Tacoma News-Tribune editorial page last week. Specifically this part:

California was already becoming notorious for effectively legalizing recreational dope-smoking through its extremely lax medical marijuana law. Washingtonians were offered their own loophole-riddled marijuana initiative in 1997, and they resoundingly rejected it.

The one they did pass the next year, Initiative 692, was explicitly designed to forbid the California-style dispensaries that operate like commercial marijuana shops. Its sponsors touted its safeguards, including a provision that let a “primary caregiver” provide limited amounts of marijuana to a patient under conditions that precluded drug-dealing.

The key language required a caregiver to “possess no more marijuana that is necessary for the patient’s personal, medical use” and “be the primary caregiver to only one patient at any one time.”

The meaning seems crystal clear: No multi-customer operations. But McCrea and other dispensary advocates have seized on those last four words. In their view, it sounds like, “any one time” means any time a buyer walks through the door.

Accept that logic, and Washington takes a long step toward the wide-open drug-dealing now rampant in California, where some compliant doctors hang out their shingles near dispensaries and pass out marijuana cards to anyone with a vaguely plausible physical complaint.

There’s one point I can’t argue. Marijuana is essentially legal in California right now. The list of qualifying conditions that a person can obtain it for in that state is long enough that any recreational user can become a medical user. Depression, insomnia, whatever, there are doctors throughout the state that will – for a fee, of course! – certify you as a medical marijuana patient. And just about anyone who has used marijuana recreationally discovers that it has some side medical benefits as well, so it’s not hard to tell a doctor, “Yeah, it helps me sleep”, or “Man, it really gets rid of my stomach aches”.

People can complain all they want that this full-scale legalization happened under the guise of ensuring that sick people can have access to a medicinal plant that they find extremely valuable, but that’s irrelevant now. What we see now is that nothing really changed. All of the reasons that were given for not simply legalizing it for recreational use in the first place weren’t valid. Marijuana is legal there, and it has made no difference in how that state functions (or malfunctions). We haven’t seen any huge spikes in use, and in fact the percentages of teenagers who use marijuana in California have been dropping sharply since the medical marijuana laws were put in place.

That point aside, the major flaw with the News-Tribune editorial is that it just assumes that implementing a dispensary system in Washington will turn us into California. There’s no basis for that observation. Washington has a far more limited set of ailments that allow a person to become an authorized patient. I could easily become a medical marijuana cardholder in California, but would not be able to here. Without that long list of accepted ailments, recreational users in Washington would still have to obtain marijuana from criminal organizations. And for reasons that make absolutely no sense to anyone, this appears to be the way that the idiots at the Tacoma News-Tribune want it.

In all of the arguing over the law and hyperbole about what’s happening in California, it’s the folks who use medical marijuana for truly serious ailments who are once again forgotten. Today, I spoke on the phone with the woman at the center of the Grant County case, Rosa Dossett. Living in a very rural part of the state, obtaining supplies of marijuana is not a trivial task, so she relied on her son to grow for her. Her son, David Hagar (who Dossett says does not even use marijuana himself), has been raided twice by Grant County police (he’s also accused of theft). Grant County police also allegedly told Dossett that even with her authorization, she’s still not allowed to use marijuana. If that happened as she said, the police simply lied to her.

Dossett is a cancer survivor and suffers from osteo-arthritis. Her main medical use for the drug now is to manage the constant pain from osteo-arthritis. Unlike a lot of other drugs, the effectiveness of a pain reliever is pretty clear to people. If a pain reliever doesn’t work, you know damn well that it doesn’t work. That’s why I’m always amazed when I see people questioning the efficacy of this drug. Dossett has found that she prefers marijuana to drugs like Hydrocodone because it’s natural, more effective, less chemically addictive, and it can be grown for far less money than what prescription pharmaceuticals cost. Unfortunately, the language of the medical marijuana law allows a judge to decide whether pain patients can use marijuana instead of a pharmaceutical alternative.

It shouldn’t be up to judges or the police to decide which medicines we choose to use. That should be left up to doctors and patients. Some of the leading researchers when it comes to using marijuana for medicinal purposes are based right here at the University of Washington. Here’s a recent study from the Journal of Opioid Management by six UW researchers on the numerous studies showing the efficacy of marijuana. The question of whether or not people in this state with a legitimate medical need should have access to this plant for medical uses has been settled in the minds of the electorate for over ten years. It’s the responsibility of both the Legislature and the Governor to finally translate that legitimacy into a system that works.

UPDATE: It appears that SeattleJew decided to check in from his land of merry make-believe in an attempt to discredit the authors of the Journal of Opioid Management report linked above. One of the researchers, Dr. Sunil Aggarwal has responded with a comment here listing out references to 33 separate clinical trials that have demonstrated the value of marijuana as medicine.

UPDATE 2: Attorney Douglas Hiatt emails me to say that the law does not allow a judge to substitute their medical opinion for a doctor’s, and he expects the court ruling I linked to above to be overturned.

Last week, Central Washington University professor, conservative writer and state Republican executive board member Mathew Manweller had a guest editorial published in the The Seattle Times in which he argued that Republicans should not target Blue Dogs in the 2010 election. It hardly seemed like a controversial idea, since Blue Dogs support the Republicans so much anyhow.

And at any rate, Manweller’s piece was a Republican strategery/tactical debate, so I didn’t pay much attention. Whatever, they’ll do what they’ll do.

But it seems that some on the right have um, taken offense. Like some dude posting at Red State named Martin Knight, who thinks that Manweller might be a Democratic plant.

He’s also an idiot, notwithstanding his obvious self-regard as some sort of intellectual. Or a Democratic plant. I don’t believe there is any other explanation for what he’s proposing that the Republican Party do to itself in 2010.

Notice the “some kind of intellectual” dig. Nice! Now they’re even turning on conservative professors. Funny how anti-intellectualism gets out of hand, isn’t it, Professor Manweller? The title even calls Manweller a “sleeper agent.”

Considering some of Manwellers embarrassing right wing antics, like the time he called supporters of the minimum wage “dumber than a post,” it’s pretty darn funny that there’s a little internecine warfare going on at the WSRP.

Why do I think it’s internecine conflict? Because the attacks against Manweller are being cheered by fellow WSRP executive board member Nansen Malin of Pacific County, who at last sighting was relentlessly attacking Brian Baird because he wouldn’t have a town hall in her living room.

Malin is the “Queen of the Twitterverse,” you know. Professor Manweller better get himself a Twitter account pronto, if he doesn’t already have one, and start tweeting back immediately, because Malin has over 100,000 followers, and the ones that aren’t spambots seem pretty pissed. Sure, it’s hard to make an intellectual argument using 140 characters, and once you use up the obligatory five characters required to type in “ACORN” you’re down to 135, but you can always link to stuff. I’m looking forward to the debate.

PS: I’ll be sitting on the patio.

Seriously, I have proof that I am sitting on the patio.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR0W9SVi48[/youtube]

At the town hall meeting in Centralia on Wednesday night, Rep. Brian Baird turned the tables on a city of Centralia candidate for mayor named Matthew Trent. The Columbian included an account of the exchange in an article this morning:

One of the more contentious exchanges of the evening came when Centralia City Council candidate Matthew Trent approached the microphone.

Trent read quotes from a number of founding fathers, among them Declaration of Independence author and third president Thomas Jefferson.

Trent, who is opposing Centralia Mayor Tim Browning in the November general election, said that he had no doubt Jefferson would consider Baird “an enemy of God and the Republic” for his record on spending and supporting government controls.

Baird responded strongly, refuting the notion that Jefferson would frown upon his record.

“It’s not just my ilk, my friend,” Baird said, noting that there was no budget deficit when former President Bill Clinton left office.

As Chris notes at his blog, Trent is the beneficiary of a public education, attended a public community college and actually works for Lewis County, according to a blog created by Trent.

It’s great that Baird responded forcefully, but with great dignity, and one can hope the lesson he will take back to D.C. to share with leadership is that there is no negotiating with people like this. They’ve concocted a fantasy world of black and white in which they are the sole arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution, and of what the Founders actually intended.

They can puff up their chests and say stuff like this until the cows come home, but until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with them, they’re simply delusional fringe characters who deserve to be rhetorically smacked down with a vengeance.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. Good luck with your campaign, there, Mr. Trent.

Obama will speak to a joint session of Congress, yeah okay. But what’s the end game?

“It’s so important to get a deal,” a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. “He will do almost anything it takes to get one.”

Remind me not to take Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama car shopping, because they’d probably take me to Billy Tauzin’s used car lot.

Fool me once…