Because, of course, if Pickens WAS going to fund a group that was going to do its level best to destroy Obama through lying slander, he'd say so if some reporter asked him. So if he says he's not going to do that, well, that pretty much settles the question.

And of course, Pickens is the ONLY rich guy that wants the President to be the guy whose solution for any problem whatsoever is "cut taxes." So it's Pickens or nobody, and Pickens said it wouldn't be him. So there you go. I'm glad we got THAT sorted out.

Posted at June 20, 2008 2:01 PM in response to Will There Even Be Any Scary Right-Wing Groups Swift-Boating Obama?

Oh, bull puckey. McCain will never, never, never never never catch or kill Bin Laden. He's too convenient as a boogey man. He's Goldstein from 1984, basically, and McCain is O'Brien, and the rest of the country is Smith. Or that's how it'll be if McCain wins, anyway. "We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran."

Posted at June 19, 2008 8:11 PM in response to McCain: I Will Kill Bin Laden; Obama Won't Say What He'd Do

Is that, by any chance, because his kids are -- umm, what's the word I'm looking for -- boys?

The thing that's insulting about "boy" is its application to an adult black man. The defense that the word is in common usage to refer to male children is no more a defense than it would be to point out that female dogs are called bitches so it's ok to call Hillary that too.

Posted at April 14, 2008 8:59 PM in response to Rep. Davis (R-KY) Apologizes For Calling Obama "That Boy"

So you're saying that your church is just the one individual Catholic church you go to, but you're not actually part of the Catholic hierarchy. Right? You can't be held accountable for the sins of the Catholic church in general, because YOUR priest didn't diddle any altar boys. The bishop, the archbishop, the pope, that whole thing, you reject that; you're the kind of Catholic who just belongs to the individual congregation but not to the broader organization. Right?

Have you discussed this attitude with your priest? Because I expect you'd need to say about 6,000 Hail Mary's for every day you don't repent of this attitude. The Catholic Church's attitude about this is that it's all one big church and you're all part of it. So nice try. You're a member of a church that covered up pedophilia for years. If you have some sort of ingenious excuse for why it's still ok for you to be a member, maybe you ought to give a little more credence to Obama's reasons for staying with his church.

Posted at March 21, 2008 8:21 PM in response to Gallup: Obama Catching Up To Hillary Again, But Still Hurt By Wright

Nice try, but things haven't changed quite that much. If Obama had married a white woman, and all his children married white partners, their children would be "octoroons," i.e. black, or the nastier word if you prefer. Those were the rules in the days of the confederacy, and in the minds of those "white working-class voters" that are so devoted to Hillary, they're still the rules.

Posted at March 21, 2008 11:27 AM in response to Asked Whether Advisers Are Pushing Wright Story, Hillary Demurs

The Wright controversy isn't about race, it's about religion. If Obama were good buddies with a black plumber with extreme views about race, it wouldn't even make page 6. The problem is, it's a clergyman, and there's a basic assumption among a lot of people in this country that if you go to church, you'll do anything your preacher tells you to do. It's an easy assumption to make because there are a lot of people for whom it's 100% true: your preacher says to kill the abortion providers, you don't ask questions, you just get a gun and do what you're told. And those people are quite ready to believe that if Wright tells Pres. Obama to round up the white people and put them in labor camps, Obama will say "Sure thing, Rev."

I think today's speech probably defused the controversy among people with high enough IQ's to grasp the nuances. I just hope the other 90% get the memo.

Posted at March 18, 2008 1:24 PM in response to Full Text Of Obama's Big Race Speech: A Big Break With Political Precedent

Well, that's exactly the nature of a constitutional crisis. This is an aspect of the separation-of-powers doctrine which, frankly, the very clever guys that wrote the Constitution just didn't think through all that thoroughly. The basic problem was summed up nicely by my Constitutional Law professor: "Ok, Congress, you go ahead and send the sergeant-at-arms over here to enforce your subpoena. We'll have the 97th Airborne here to meet him. Good luck with that." When it comes down to a confrontation between the Executive and Legislative branches, the reality is that the Executive wins, because the Legislative doesn't really have any enforcement powers at all; the Executive pretty much owns those.

What Pelosi is proposing, in essence, is an appeal to that other branch, the Judicial one. It has even less enforcement powers than the other two; as far as I know, the Supreme Court doesn't even have bailiffs. But for some odd reason, it still commands respect; it says "jump" and the other two branches say "how high?" That's why everybody meekly submitted to the really appalling Bush v. Gore decision, for example. When the Executive Branch starts defying the Judicial Branch, we'll know the system has broken down completely. Right now, both Executive and Legislative seem to be ready to accept the Judicials as the official referee.

Posted at March 1, 2008 12:04 PM in response to Pelosi Makes Criminal Referral for Contempt Citations of White House Officials

I keep wanting to Obama campaign to point out that John McCain has the same first name as John Gotti, the Mafia kingpin. "You don't want a president who's part of the Mafia, do you? Well, umm, actually, (cough) McCain isn't (cough), BUT HE HAS THE SAME FIRST NAME, WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?" I think that really makes the point. Of course, I'm not the candidate, and bright ideas like that are why it's probably a good thing. But still, I'd like to hear someone say it.

Posted at February 29, 2008 10:56 AM in response to What's in a name when the name is Hussein?

You know, I sent Hillary an email inviting her over to my house in California for tea and cookies, and the campaign didn't even have the decency to respond. I guess she's just not interested in MY vote. If she wanted to, she could just get on a plane and head over here, it's just a 2-hour flight from Texas; it's not like she doesn't have a plane at her disposal. But she's not doing it. she's doing some rally or something in Austin instead. What a horrible person she is. Clearly she has nothing but contempt for my demographic. We voted for her in droves in California back on Super Tuesday, and now she just wants to throw us away like a used Kleenex. Well, that's it for me and Hillary. If she can't be bothered to show up at my house precisely when I want her to, she's not my candidate any more.

Geez. The Democratic party requires that candidates for nomination win elections in certain states in a certain order. The candidates don't have any control over that. The idea that winning a primary election is an all-consuming process shouldn't really be a big news flash for anyone with basic literacy skills.

Posted at February 23, 2008 8:02 PM in response to Tavis Smiley Still Clueless in New Orleans

I think the producers of "24" should have a chat with their copyright attorneys about this. Strikes me as pretty clearly a "derivative work." If the music wasn't straight off a "24" soundtrack, it was clearly meant to sound like it was.

Not that Joel Surnow is likely to take any action, since he's a famous kisser of Bush butt. Hell, maybe he produced the commercial; that would explain the resemblance.

Posted at February 23, 2008 7:27 PM in response to House GOP Cuts New Intro for 24