Golf?! GOLF??!!!?!?!@*!#

I almost posted about this yesterday when I first heard what Bush said about golf, but I was too flabbergasted to get it into words. Leave it to Olbermann to do the job for me. This is an impressive rant, to say the least. I'll let him speak for himself.

Also, btw, kudos to MSNBC for encouraging people to embed their video in their blogs, as opposed to suing people for doing the same. Someone, somewhere, got his/her head out of his/her ass about that kind of thing and realized that it was good advertising to put out video vignettes to a wide audience. (Duh.)

New feature you'd probably never notice

I added a Bushisms widgit to the bottom of the page, 'cause it didn't fit on the side. And, for some reason, I still get some startle value out of some of this stuff.

Why is Dick Cheney dressing like Truman Capote?

BFL

I don't know how I didn't know this, but a BOMBSHELL from Rachel Maddow on Olbermann last night. I had no idea! The Crawford Ranch? Bought just as GWB started running for Pres. He and Laura have never lived there. And they're moving to Dallas when they leave DC. So even when talking about the ole family ranch? BFL!

No wonder there's so much brush to clear. He just started on the brush-clearing job when he got this other (allegedly) busy job. Hard to keep up with the yard if you've only ever been there on vacation.

As usual, Colbert nails it

My favorite bit starts around 2:20.

A fat lot of help he'll be!

George W. Bush never was a successful oilman, really. How did he make all his money? Via corporate welfare and eminent domain. Here's a slice of a very informative article that I read back in 2000, in the New York Times:

Mr. Bush became a multimillionaire in the process, setting himself up financially for his run for the presidency. In one blow, he acquired not only wealth but also the resume he would need to triumph in politics.

Yet a close look suggests that Mr. Bush got the opportunity to be a baseball owner mostly because of his connections. Moreover, his investment was immensely profitable in part because he and his co-owners were shrewd bargainers who charmed and bullied the city of Arlington into giving them a great deal, with the local taxpayers paying more than $135 million to help build the Rangers a stadium.

''The largest welfare recipient in the state of Texas is George W. Bush,'' said Mark S. Rosentraub, a sports economist who formerly taught in Arlington and is now at Indiana University. ''The numbers speak for themselves. You cannot accept $135 million from the taxpayers of Arlington and then be against welfare.''

Mr. Bush and his fellow owners even got the local government to seize the property of other landowners and, in effect, hand it over to the Texas Rangers so that they could make a profit on it. All this was shrewd business and a tribute to Mr. Bush's savvy and vision, but critics complain that it is hard to reconcile with his speeches about limited government and private property rights.

''If a conservative is one who believes in limited government, this whole transaction shows how hypocritical it is for Bush to claim to be a conservative,'' said Jim Runzheimer, a lawyer in Arlington who opposed the public subsidy to build the stadium. ''He got the government to pay his expenses, and that flies in the face of capitalism.''

Yet Mr. Bush was simply doing, exceptionally successfully, what sports franchises everywhere have frequently tried: getting taxpayers to swallow some of their business costs. And to the extent that Mr. Bush's job at that time was to make money for the team's owners, he was eminently successful. ("The 2000 Campaign: Breaking into Baseball; Road to Politics Ran Through a Texas Ballpark, by Nicholas D. Kristof, Published Sept. 24, 2000.)

Yup, they seized private land for the new stadium complex. So much for small gummint.

I recall reading that he never really made any money in oil, but kept getting jobs in the industry because of his dad's connections. And that he'd always wanted to be baseball commissioner. Why didn't he get that job instead?

Argh!

About a month ago, I told my sister that I thought that Bill Clinton was actually working to undermine Hillary's candidacy -- maybe unintentionally/subliminally, but nonetheless. After all, he's always been the consummate campaigner. When he was running, he rarely made a misstep. But now he's screwing up royally. It's got to be because, deep down inside, he doesn't really want her to win, doesn't it?

The last few days, I've been hearing pundits say the same thing. See, I should be actually blogging what I think when I think it, so that I can become one of the elite blogosphero-types that get Listened To. Yeah, that's what I oughtta do.

I've always basically liked Hillary, except for those glaring moments when I wonder what she could be thinking. But I also like Barack and, if he gets elected, I hope that he can count on the same combination of charisma and good strategic advice that we've seen throughout this campaign. He seems relatively unruffle-able, and he clearly has a good campaign team keeping him on message. Whether it works to actually unite Americans, who knows. Whether it works to inspire less pessimism in America globally -- well, that would be even better.

My biggest concern, no matter who gets in, is to what extent they can resuscitate the Constitution. I never thought I'd see the day that the government of this country (all branches) would be able and apparently more than willing to relegate the Law of the Land to the shredder. Will no one in the Legislature or the Judiciary stand up for the Constitution, at long last? Doesn't the United States government care -- don't the people who were elected to these posts give enough of a damn, any of them, to stand up and say "Enough!" loudly and persistently? What the hell is happening to us?

So bloody sick of people waving the flag in a threatening manner and shredding the Constitution at the same time. It's like a funhouse mirror; everything is completely topsy-turvy. Without the Constitution, what does the flag represent? Lies, deceit, treachery.

To me, it's not enough to say you're going to change the country if your first step is not to demand that our leaders, our judges, our legislatures stand up first and foremost for human rights, dignity, habeas corpus. For keeping not only *our* young people alive and out of a pointless war, but also for the innocents who are not Americans from dying for this miserable mistake. To make sure that people get a fair trial. To destroy secret prisons, to stop anything resembling torture, and to apologize for what's been done. To stop pouring money into lost and misguided causes and right the economy. You know, the Bill of Rights. And, dammit, to make those who are responsible for these crimes be held accountable.

Ah yes, I remember it well

Remember how Ralph Nader said there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore? So that was a good reason to vote for Nader? Remember how some people believed that? Like just enough people?

This is a funny country sometimes.

It could have been worse

If indeed John McCain has/had an "intimate relationship" with a lobbyist, at least it wasn't with:

1. Charles Keating
2. Russ Feingold
3. A terrorist

So there's that, at least.

Also - it's Abe's BD too.

I wonder what he'd be thinking about the elections this year.

(This image is borrowed from this guy's blog, and I really hope he doesn't mind.)

3rd Annual Shoot Your Friend in the Face Day

The ritual is: You shoot your friend in the face, and then make him apologize on TV for having a face and therefore making it possible to be shot in it.

Primarily pissed off

The excellent John Hodgman reminds us today to Hope and to Vote (right here: good evening: HOPE).

My dilemma has been, in fact, that I've been failing in the Hope department. Believing in and trusting an idealistic candidate seems far, far away from any experience I have had in such a long time. I've really been of two minds about all this, and it's a rare experience. Having gotten used to resignedly marking my ballot for the least scummy individual, I'm confused -- and frankly, a little freaked out -- that there are choices this time. Some of the differences are nuanced, some are more obvious, and sometimes a preference toward one candidate's ideas has to be weighed against a different issue, a different candidate. How weird is THAT?! I'm glad to be reminded that Hope is not only an acceptable emotion, even in politics, but that it's one of the birthrights of American citizens. Thanks for that, Mr. Hodg-man.

OK, with all that said, let me backtrack to the Michigan primary, so-called. I voted, despite the fact that my vote has been stolen by the National Democractic Committee, or the Michigan Democratic Committee, or by both of them acting like big babies. Everyone I know voted, and everyone who voted in the Michigan Democratic Primary was kissed off. Government by the people, stolen by the temper-tantrumming committees that are supposed to be watching over the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Of course, Florida has the same problem. And I am truly pissed off.

I'm wondering: Is there a class-action suit being filed against the Democratic Committees, national or otherwise? If not, shouldn't there be?

Ultimately, I'm sure I'll be happy (more or less) with the outcome -- at least at the primary level -- despite all the weirdness of "superdelegates" and all this nonsense that makes my head hurt. And I'm sure I'll vote in the general election for that candidate. Unless, of course, my own party sees fit to somehow disenfranchise my state again.

\ | /
- H -
/ | \

Interesting Publishing Trend

I heard today about another book that's being released whose premise is the need (and a prescription to effect) a revival of the conservative movement. So let me get this straight: Someone thinks that the conservative movement is nearly dead? Even during a Bush presidency? Sure, I know that there are a ton of people who are appalled by the current conservative movement, but it hardly seems dead. Are these people thinking that lack of primacy equals death rattle? Even while we are still mired in the ongoing hell of this administration (and a lot can happen still in this year), there's a call for revival?

Oh, I know -- I understand that they feel threatened. I do love that there's panic in the ranks, even while the ranks still run the show -- especially due to the fact that the ranks run the show. Nothing works better to undermine the conservative movement than to have the conservatives in charge for awhile.

Wouldn't it be funny ...

... if it ends up that the Republicans' preferred choice for a Democratic President (if they have to choose) is Hillary Clinton? That'd be a hoot.

Coinage of note

David Rakoff, in his book Don't Get Too Comfortable, uses the term monstrocracy. I presume it's his coinage. I think this should become a regular part of our political parlance.

Am I now ...

... a member of the "Blogosphere"? Does my singular voice, provided to the world via this here instrument of dissemination, cause a deep rumbling of existential concern from those in Power? Will I now, 'cause I gots me a blog, cause mainstream mediorites to come running to hear my pronouncements?

I'm just wondering, 'cause, if that's the case, I should probably say something of substance.

Whuzza?!

I just heard Pat Buchanan defend Hilary Clinton to Rachel Maddow. My head is sploding.