faboo mama

Holy crap!  No one’s calling for anyone on the GOP side.  Minutes ago, McCain was up 34%.  Now, Huckabee and McCain are split by 3 votes, with Huckabee ahead.

WTF?

From First Read:

Asked at a house party whether his cabinet would be made up an “old boys network” Giuliani said it was presumptuous to discuss who would be in his administration, and referenced a book on how Abraham Lincoln selected his political rivals for his cabinet.

“The cabinet would look like last night’s debate,” he said, before adding, “with one exception.”

Wouldn’t it have just been easier for him to say ‘yes’ instead of playing coy?

To read the post at First Read, they seem to think that the “with one exception” line is more important than the fact that Giuliani just said that women and minorities have no place in his cabinet.

Not a shock. I know, but I’ve been reading comment sections these past few weeks, paying particular care to the Clinton and Obama commenters. It’s interesting in that with Clinton you can tell who is a Democrat who hates her vs. who’s a Republican who hate her. Democrats (at least the ones who most likely didn’t vote for Nader) don’t like her because of her record in the Senate. Fair enough. The deranged Republicans don’t like her because of her husband. None of them can actually talk about what she’s done in the Senate. They mention all kinds of actions or policies from the Clinton administration, and somehow Sen. Clinton is at fault. Following that logic, Laura Bush is responsible for trading Sammy Sosa, ignoring the PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US”, and waging two illegal wars.

Doesn’t make much sense does it?

Now with Obama, the yawn-inducing “He’s a Muslim” line is used, but so many people are aware that that’s a lie, that people who use that tend to get mocked. Following that “smear”, is the “Why doesn’t the media use his middle name? [insert creepy music] It’s HUSSEIN!!!!111!!” [thunder/lightning/cymbals crashing] Replying to these people I ask the following questions and never get an answer:

1. When is the middle name of any candidate ever used?
2. I seriously doubt those nincompoops could tell me Mike Huckabee’s or John McCain’s middle names (without Googling it, but how can I verify that?).
3. I have a friend named Hussein who’s a Christian minister. I know a Jewish guy who’s last name is Hussein. I know a guy from Kenya who’s first name is Hussein. I even know a half-Phillipino/half-Indian guy named Hussien. He’s Catholic. Is the name Hussein supposed to mean something?

Since Thursday night though, glimpse at the comment sections on MSNBC, ABCNEWS, or CNNs sites, especially on those articles and post about Obama. It’s pathological among those people. I understand that the GOP and the Bush administration has proven to them the canard that if you tell a lie enough people begin to believe it, but this has gotten ridiculous.

Same reason Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton should never be president. We have a separation of church and state in our Constitution. We do not have a religious requirement for a person to become president. We should never entertain the thought of a religious leader, no matter the religion, to become president. This means that several of my family members and friends should never be allowed to be president.

I’m okay with that.

I just want those people who feel that Huckabee is a good idea for a president because he’s a minister to think about their hypocritical feelings if Huckabee was a rabbi or an imam. Think of all those idiot Republicans and GOP media types who make a big deal of Senator Obama attending a Muslim school as a child, in a Muslim country and the lies and idiocies they spread about the Christian Senator wanting to turn this secular country Muslim. Not just your average run-of-the-mill Muslim, but a psychotic-beheading-jailing-the-rape-victim sort (I had to throw in the beheading so you won’t think I was talking about, Bill O’Reilly). Then think about how you feel when I say: Huckabee as president is dangerous because he is a Baptist minister and would turn this country into something out of A Handmaid’s Tale. Or worse.

Damn, that was fast. I wanted to see if my fauxBFF had anything up on HR regarding the debates. Instead, I got treated to this.

Love the tagline.

Those stone-aged, zany, torture loving Taliban GOP candidates have decided to come out of hiding and actually do the CNN/YouTube debate. You’ll remember that after the Democrats did their CNN/YouTube debate, the Taliban GOP candidates all quickly decided that having regular people ask them questions was more than they should have to deal with and all of a sudden “scheduling conflicts” arose.

If you read CNNs website, you’d be under the impression that Serious People have been doing Serious Research in filtering what questions will be shown. If you watched the Democratic debate, you’ll see that the Serious People were more interested in showing clips from people who seem to get their news from Faux, repeating old lies and distortions. Which makes this statement all the more interesting:

“This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates,” said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. “We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates.”

I seem to recall more than a few Republicans asking questions of the Democrats (click here for a link to all shown questions) and even looking at the submittals, I wonder how they determine how the people are registered. Very few of them claim a side, they generally go straight to their question. One can only assume from this that one of the negotiating points for the GOP candidates to actually show up, is if they get only Taliban GOP-friendly questions.

This should make for an interesting evening regardless. I know that each Taliban GOP candidate is nutso in his own special way, some of them crazy in 5 different ways, but each debate allows you to learn just how bass-ackward these dudes are. Hey, maybe tonight we’ll learn that none of those white males on stage think that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, or people of color should be given an education.

MSNBC had a ticker on it’s site that Al Hubbard (BFF of Bush from his Havard biz school days) is resigning. As you know, Al Hubbard is the Director of the National Economic Council. If you managed to go about your life not knowing Al Hubbard exists, then you’re in company with maybe 90% of the rest of the world. But that means you missed this from 2005. Mr. Rose Colored Glasses explains the economy to the masses. Or you may remember him from his full of liesl op-ed on the SCHIP that ran recently in USA Today.

But does it matter? All we need to wonder about is how much is he going to get for his book?

I was thrilled last week when I found out that zanyMike Ferguson was not going to seek reelection. He had to resort to all kinds of dirty campaign tricks to win in ‘06. Funny, I had always assumed (yet another) gay scandal would have done him in. Then of course Dennis Hastert is done. The act that despite being a Republican he has kept his word and handed in his resignation yesterday has me positively giddy. But the one that had me happier than a pig in shit is the surprise announcement of Trent Lott’s retirement. That’s one less klansmen in the Senate, so that means there’s only 67 more left! Kidding. Sorta.

Ant any rate, I think Lott’s announcement now brings the total up to 18 or 19 GOP party boys who don’t like to actually do any work when they can’t just rubberstamp the president’s desires. Nice work ethic there guys and congrats to the 3 of you who managed not to be involved in a gay sex scandal. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, it’s just that you didn’t get caught.

Now, he’s saying the WH lied about the Plame leak. What’s with all this unethical Republicans that only get the nerve to speak up after they “retire to spend more time with their families”? And how is it possible that all the people who decide to finally speak up after the Constitution and this government have been shredded manage to never to be at fault for their own unethical actions and downright lies?

Oh wait, they got books to sell.

Fuckers.

Yes, I’ve ignored Paul’s huge online haul. I’m not dazzled that he’s managed to swindle Americans (probably the same sort that voted for Bush with gusto) into giving him money.

I am impressed by the American public’s general willingness to be swindled. Many people like Paul because he’s against the war. That’s nice. Many people, like me, were against the war before it started. Many people realized in 2003 that the war was a bad idea and the Bush Adminstration had no idea what it was doing. Paul has been a staunch detractor of the war. I’ve seen some great speeches by him on the floor of Congress stating how bad the war is and how terrible it’s been managed. That does not make me want to give up my rights as a woman, as a black person to someone who happens to agree with me on one thing.

Granted, I am a proud liberal and I could never vote for anyone with an R or I behind their name just because they agree with me on one thing. Hell, I haven’t ever voted for fucking Dianne Feinstein (D[ha!]-CA) because she votes with the GOP on most of the issues that are important to me.

Ron Paul’s supporters are quick to defend him with, “He won’t take away your rights. He’s for state’s rights!”. Yeah, Le Shrub ran saying he was for state’s rights too. Remember? That was his answer on just about everything that the couldn’t or wouldn’t give a solid answer to. “[Whatever] is a complicated issue. I’m for state’s rights.” He was for state’s rights as long as they fell in behind his administrations poorly planned and pro-corporatists interests. Paul strikes me as one for state’s rights as long as it’s not affecting him personally. Oops, guess that’s all libertarians.

Oh well. At least he’s not a tyrant-in-training like Guiliani.