Cheney Shoots Someone

I kid you not.

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.

Harry Whittington, 78, was "alert and doing fine" after Cheney sprayed Whittington with shotgun pellets on Saturday at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.

Armstrong said Cheney turned to shoot a bird and accidentally hit Whittington. She said Whittington was taken to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital by ambulance.
This just in: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has reversed his previous opinion and now says he considers it an ethics violation to fraternize with the veep. He will no longer join Mr. Cheney on future hunting trips.

(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)

Open Wide...

Sad Sack

I can think of almost nothing less “maverick” than wrapping one’s arms around the man whose political machine cruelly and untruthfully attacked one’s family, but kissing the asses of those who funded the attack comes in a close second.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a man in perpetual motion, flew to South Carolina on Jan. 16. His stops included a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. and speeches to local Republican groups. But one of his most important events was not on the public schedule -- a 5 p.m. meeting at a Spartanburg hotel with loyalists to President Bush.

A dozen or so people were in attendance. At least two were among Bush's major national fundraisers. Virtually all had been on Bush's side in the bitter 2000 South Carolina primary that badly damaged McCain's chances of winning the presidential nomination and scarred the relationship between the two men and their rival political camps. McCain was there to woo them…

With a 2008 campaign in the offing, McCain has begun an intensive courtship of Bush's financial and political networks. His recent travels included a December swing through the heart of Bush country in Texas that put him in front of many of the president's leading supporters there…

McCain's activities, which have been shaped under the guidance of his chief political adviser, John Weaver, reflect overlapping political priorities. The first appears to be expanding his fundraising network, starting with Bush's Rangers (those who raised $200,000) and Pioneers (those who raised $100,000).
McCain is also bolstering his conservative credentials by endorsing Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell for governor, meeting with Jerry Falwell, and attending various private dinners with resolutely conservative groups—and let’s not forget his endorsement of George Wallace, Jr., his support for the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment, and his belief that Intelligent Design ought to be taught in schools. Chuck Yob, the GOP’s national committeeman in Michigan, where McCain could face a strong primary challenge against Mitt Romney, whose father was governor of the state, says of McCain that he’s “a lot more conservative than a lot of conservatives give him credit for.”

As far as I can tell, a modern conservative can best be described as a wanton opportunist with zero integrity and an unhinged lust for power who panders to corporations, phony Christians, social Darwinists, and all other manner of hateful gits who have relied on undeserved privilege for generations and would like to keep it that way. McCain the So-Called Maverick fits that bill to a bloody T. He’s no rebel; he’s just another soulless conservative wanker looking for a shot at the Big Time.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Mr. Shakes and I just watched The Constant Gardener, which was very good; I’m not much of a Ralph Fiennes fan (much to Mr. Shakes’ chagrin, as The English Patient is one of his favorite films), but even I appreciated him in this film. I like Rachel Weisz very much, and her Oscar nom for Best Supporting Actress is well deserved for this performance. I’m now interested in reading the book on which the film was based, about which author John Le Carre says he "came to realize [during the research] that, by comparison with the reality, my story was as tame as a holiday postcard.”

Anyhow, it got me thinking about books that have been turned into films, so today’s question is: Which is your favorite movie adaptation of a book or play you love? (Big screen or small screen adaptations are both fair game.)

I’d have to say my favorite is Lord of the Rings, which I know is a bit obvious and trite, but it really was a masterful stroke of genius, vision, and ability turning such a beloved book into such an amazing trilogy of impressive films. And the interpretation was pretty faithful; there were some changes I didn’t totally love (Faramir seemed to be too much of a Boromir II; he struck me as far less corruptible and troubled in the book, although that doesn’t make for much of a story arc in a film), but there were some changes that worked well, too—I know I risk the combined wrath of The Green Knight and Oddjob in saying this, but some parts of the book, especially in Frodo’s and Sam’s storyline, seemed endlessly tedious, and Peter Jackson edited them quite well.

That said, the first film that actually popped into my head when I considered the question was the 1999 Julie Taymor-directed big screen version of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, simply called Titus, and starring Anthony Hopkins in the title role. Titus Andronicus is generally not as widely read, modernly, as many of Shakespeare’s other plays, although it was extremely popular in its day—in both cases, the reason being its unapologetic bloodiness—but it’s one of my favorites, so I was excited to see the 1999 film version. And I certainly wasn’t disappointed. Taymor’s film is gorgeously shot, and mixes the modern with the ancient in a chaotic, but not distracting, cacophony—a quirky reimagining I quite liked, and found more successful than the somewhat similar style of Baz Lurrmann’s 1996 Romeo + Juliet. (I also really loved Alan Cumming as Saturninus.) I’ve recommended Titus many times, but I’m not sure anyone’s ever taken up my recommendation.

So there are my answers—the obvious and the less so. Other good adaptations that came to mind as particularly well done were The Cider House Rules, The Shawshank Redemption, Beloved, and Wonder Boys. I also thought of film adaptations that were better than the books on which they were based…but we’ll save that discussion for another day.

Open Wide...

Oops?

At a House GOP retreat today in Cambridge, MA, Bush’s microphone was accidentally left on for a few minutes during what was intended to be a private session to discuss the domestic spying program, allowing the press to hear his remarks.

After six minutes of public remarks by the president, reporters were ushered out. "I support the free press, let's just get them out of the room," Bush said, intending to speak behind closed doors with fellow Republicans and take lawmakers' questions…

[J]ournalists back at the White House [were able to] eavesdrop on Bush's defense of the eavesdropping. His private statements were basically no different from what he's said in public.

"I want to share some thoughts with you before I answer your questions," Bush began. "First of all, I expect this conversation we're about to have to stay in the room. I know that's impossible in Washington."

He was right.
Anyone else think this sounds like a set-up? “Even in private, the president doesn’t change his story!” At least, you know, until the “mistake” was realized and the mics were turned off. That whole “I support the free press, let’s just get them out of room” bit seems to perfectly straddle a fine line between curt and rude, giving it the aura of genuine candor without really being something for which he could be criticized.

Maybe I just need a tinfoil hat, but considering that critics’ biggest complaint seems to be the appearance of something to hide—why circumvent FISA if it was all legit?—this just stinks of the trail of slime Rove’s grimy little fingerprints leave on everything he touches. Pathetic.

Open Wide...

Busted

First Photo of Bush and Abramoff: White House had initially said there was no record of disgraced lobbyist at 2001 meeting…


[The picture] shows a bearded Abramoff in the background as Bush greets an Abramoff client, Raul Garza, who was then the chairman of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Bush senior advisor Karl Rove looks on. The photograph was provided to TIME by Mr. Garza. The meeting took place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House on May 9, 2001. Told about the photograph in January, the White House said it had no record that Abramoff was present at the meeting. Shown the photograph today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the White House had still found no record of Abramoff's presence but confirmed that it is Abramoff in the picture. McClellan told TIME: "The president has taken countless, tens of thousands of pictures at home and abroad over the last five years. As we've said previously a photo like this has no relevance to the Justice Department's investigation (of Abramoff)."
No record, huh? To those in the reality-based community, that doesn’t mean anything besides sloppy record-keeping. And normally, I know that saying “no record” and “no relevance,” all part of that empire which creates its own realities, is good enough, but the problem is that pretending you don’t know jack doesn’t dispute the picture that says you do.

Open Wide...

And So It Begins…

I’m turning an eye to the future…and seeing the inevitable. Bush isn’t a popular president—hasn’t been for a good long time, even though the GOP and their dutiful shills have managed to convince a large swath of the mainstream media that 40% = beyond reproach. But with midterm elections coming, and multiple problems (known in some circles as “scandals”) plaguing an administration led by a president who’s worn out his terms and a VP who ain’t gonna run, the GOP is starting to get antsy about guilt by association. It was all fun and games to be complicit in the madness while winning was assured, but now it’s time to find that dusty valise and unpack the old integrity again.

When Representative Heather A. Wilson broke ranks with President Bush on Tuesday to declare her "serious concerns" about domestic eavesdropping, she gave voice to what some fellow Republicans were thinking, if not saying…

The White House, in a turnabout, briefed the full House and Senate Intelligence Committee on the program this week, after Ms. Wilson, chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the N.S.A., had called for a full-scale Congressional investigation. But some Republicans say that is not enough.

"I don't think that's sufficient," Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "There is considerable concern about the administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this program. It's a stretch."

…Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has also criticized the program, said Ms. Wilson's comments were "a sign of a growing movement" by lawmakers to reassert the power of the legislature.
In his defense, the president explained:

"You've got to understand something about me," Mr. Bush said. "Sept. 11 changed the way I think.”
Insert your own joke here.

Something, as they say, has got to give. And it looks, at times, like the GOP is poised to give it but good to Dear Leader. But here’s the conundrum: While moderate Republicans, national security swing-voters, and conservatives with a libertarian streak are becoming increasingly agitated, the conservative base upon whom Bush has so relied—the bulk of that stubborn 40% who would defend and support Bush no matter what because he’s Patriot #1—are unhappy with seeing his decisions questioned.

You could find just about everything at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this week: the bumper sticker that says "Happiness is Hillary's face on a milk carton," the "Straight Pride" T-shirt, a ride on an F-22 Raptor simulator at the Lockheed exhibit, and beans from the Contra Cafe coffee company (slogan: "Wake up with freedom fighters")…

"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.
What to do when you want to throw someone to the wolves, but the wolves won’t bite?

Good luck, GOP. That’s a tough fence to straddle, friends.

(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)

Open Wide...

Friday Cat Blogging: I’m Their Bitch Edition

The Heretik reports, “The cats now control the keyboard.

Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell.

About nine million years ago - two million years after the cat family first appeared in Asia - these successful predators invaded North America by crossing the Beringian land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska, a team of geneticists writes in the journal Science today.

Later, several American cat lineages returned to Asia. With each migration, evolutionary forces morphed the pantherlike patriarch of all cats into a rainbow of species, from ocelots and lynxes to leopards, lions and the lineage that led to the most successful cat of all, even though it has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage: the cat that has induced people to pay for its board and lodging in return for frugal displays of affection.
Forsaken its predatory heritage, huh? Tell that to any mouse, moth, or crumpled bit of paper that mistakenly finds its way into the collective path of the two McEwan huntresses, Matilda and Olivia.


“You’re mine. Don’t forget it.”


Cute but deadly.

Open Wide...

Somebody Issue an Amber Alert

Locals in Hampshire have been told not to approach six missing water buffalo as "they are able to spray dung across large distances".

…Police believe the animals were stolen because there was no trail of tell-tale dung at the scene.

According to BBC online a police spokesman said: "They should not be approached from behind... as the animals are able to spray dung across large distances." (Link.)
Hampshire police have issued an APB and images of the runaway buffalos. They were last seen spraying dung all over Americans’ civil liberties. An unconfirmed source also reported seeing the buffalos pissing on the Constitution.


If you see any of the dung-flingers, please contact the Hampshire police immediately.

Open Wide...

Nekkid

Mannion is soliciting examples of great nude scenes or sex scenes, gratuitous or not. My all-time favorite sex scene, which is also a nude scene, is in The Piano, when Holly Hunter and Harvey Keitel finally get down to business. It’s just a wonderful scene, in that it is both breathtaking and realistic at the same time, and aided in no small part by the fact that Holly Hunter has a spectacularly beautiful body. (Harvey’s is nothing to sneeze at, either, it has to be said.)

Another of my favorite nude scenes is in Velvet Goldmine, when Ewan McGregor as Curt Wild—half Iggy Pop, half Lou Reed—gets his dick out onstage and jumps up and down, committing to celluloid the very definition of wild abandon.

As an aside, Mannion’s been discussing the disparity between female and male onscreen nudity. My feeling is that at least part if it is attributable to the fact that most straight women don’t mind seeing women nude onscreen—largely because our entire culture normalizes the sensuality of the female form, which even women themselves can’t escape—nearly as much as most straight men mind seeing men nude onscreen. Also, I don’t know many women, or even gay men, who get especially eroticized at the sight of a flaccid cock, which is all our ratings system really allows, so male frontal seems rather altogether pointless, aside from instigating amusing “Grower v. Shower?” debates.

Open Wide...

Interesting

Ann at Feministing:

Father votes best…

...if he has daughters, that is.

New research shows that male legislators who have daughters are more likely to cast liberal votes on women's rights issues-- especially reproductive rights.

Yale economist Ebonya Washington compared the voting records of fathers in Congress to scorecards maintained by NOW and the American Association of University Women. And regardless of party affiliation, the more daughters they have, the higher their voting record score on issues like flexibility for working families, pay equity, abortion rights and violence against women. Legislators with all daughters have scores that are 12 points higher than those with all sons.

So what about mothers in Congress? Uh, there aren't enough of those to draw firm conclusions.
At first blush, this seems reminiscent of studies showing that people who actually know openly gay people are less likely to be homophobic, and people who have active friendships with people of other races are less inclined to hold racist attitudes toward any race. This is another real benefit of multiculturalism—not just providing access to those previously excluded, but providing opportunities to traditionally favored groups to expand their understanding of others.

And that’s the real issue when we talk about whether it matters if a party leadership is almost exclusively white and straight and male; if those white, straight males can relate to and empathize with women, gay men, and men of color, and translate that empathy into legislation that sufficiently addresses their needs, then it’s not a problem. But that has not been, historically, the case. Multiculturalism stands to change that, both in broadening access and making the race, sexual orientation, and/or gender of legislators less important, because all of us will understand one another that much better.

Open Wide...

Yeesh

“The President can’t imagine that someone who is President of the United States could not have faith, because he derives so much from it,” Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, said. “I can see him struggle with other world leaders who don’t appear to be grounded in some faith,” he said. He added, “The President doesn’t care what faith it is, as long as it’s faith.”

— from Jeffrey Goldberg's profile of Bush-speechwriter Michael Gerson in The New Yorker
I find disturbing, and insulting, anyone who can’t relate to a person who isn’t religious because they can’t conceive of a moral code derived from an earthly source. There are plenty of religious people who have respect for atheists, and recognize that they can derive both inspiration and ethics from philosophy and science; the insistence of some religious people, including our president evidently, to “struggle” with that notion is ridiculous.

A not insignificant number of religious people who act as though atheists are inherently suspect tend to subscribe to a simplistic view of their religion. Believe in god and do what he says and you’ll get into heaven; don’t believe in god and you’ll go to hell. Many of the “you’re gonna go to hell” crowd don’t do good works; they just follow their god’s rules, and often interpret them to mean making life miserable for anyone who disagrees with them. If they do manage to do something to help someone else, it’s only because they’ve got the promise of heaven as a reward, not because of any particular altruism.

Meanwhile, the atheists (and, often, liberal religious people) they so distrust tend to do help others because they think it’s the right thing to do, full stop. Helping others is the end in itself. No carrot and stick needed.

The reason Bush struggles with people who “don’t appear to be grounded in some faith” is because he can’t conceive of a person who would try to do the right thing for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do. Only the threat of an eternity in flames keeps him on the straight and narrow—and even that regularly seems to be lacking sufficient motivation.

(Hat tip Ezra.)

Open Wide...

Where were you three years ago?

Paul Pillar, a former CIA official, who served as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, says the WaPo that the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote…

In his article, Pillar said he believes that the "politicization" of intelligence on Iraq occurred "subtly" and in many forms, but almost never resulted from a policymaker directly asking an analyst to reshape his or her results. "Such attempts are rare," he writes, "and when they do occur . . . are almost always unsuccessful."

Instead, he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.

The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."

The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.

They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."
Not to sound ungrateful to Mr. Pillar for confirming—yet again—a bunch of stuff we already knew, but how much good does this do us now, three years into the war? Aside from the fact that there’s little chance of Bush and his Merry Band of Malefactors ever being held accountable for their cherry-picking and manipulation of intelligence anyway, wouldn’t this information have been more useful before thousands of troops and Iraqi civilians were injured or killed and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money had been flushed down the toilet or redirected into Daddy Warbucks’ coffers?

When asked why he did not quit given his concerns, Pillar said in the interview that he was doing "other worthwhile work in the nation's interest" and never thought of resigning over the issue.
What about going to the press? What if all the people who have come out after the fact—whether it be the lead-up to the war, the EPA’s obfuscation over Ground Zero, the FEMA debacle, the domestic spying program, or any other of the Bush administration “scandals”—had, instead, gone to the press and told their stories over and over until someone listened? And if no one listened, then started a blog, put together podcasts, whatever, in an attempt to stop any of these things from happening instead of just pointing the finger back at the Bushies after it’s too late?

There’s always someone to say, “I raised concerns” or “I felt uncomfortable, but…” There are even people who have resigned to “spend more time with their families.” But what I really notice is a plethora of people who are willing to say they objected to things being done by various government agencies while they were in those agencies’ service and helping them do those things, and a lack of people who had the willingness to put country above self and make any kind of real attempt to stop those things from happening. I can’t help feeling that there’s a whole lot of blame being cast back at the Bush administration by people who were once complicit, even if “unwillingly,” in their machinations.

Open Wide...

Friday Blogrollin'

Stop by and say hi to:

429News

Angry Black Bitch

Blah3

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Nachos

Pseudo-Adrienne’s Liberal-Feminist Bias

Red Hair & Black Leather

TalkLeft

Open Wide...

February 10th, 2006: Scandal Roundup

The Bush administration, from its very outset, and especially since the lead up to war with Iraq, has provided us with an endless succession of scandals. To the great consternation of individuals intelligent enough to qualify as bona fide homo sapiens, they have each, one after the other, sunk almost without trace. However, as I look around at the headlines today, I see that an unexpected number of these submerged scandals are coming up for air. And they are managing to do so despite the Administration’s attempt to recapture the news cycle with their cynical “look at how many times we’ve foiled Al Qaida,” ploy that they wheeled out yesterday; a surprising tactic, given their noble penchant for suppressing operational information that they believe may help the enemy.

First up is the Katrina Scandal:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Democrats investigating FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina say they have documented nearly 30 instances in which federal and local government officials gave early reports on Aug. 29 that levees had broken and that New Orleans was flooding, including one report at 8:30 a.m. the day of the storm.

That information is likely to raise fresh questions about why President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff were evidently unaware of the flooding until the day after the storm.
Uhuh, we’re all shocked, I’m sure.

Then we have the Valerie Plame Scandal:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told a grand jury he was "authorized by his superiors" to disclose classified information from an intelligence report to reporters, according to the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.
The Nuremburg style of defense that he is attempting to employ here is reprehensible, but it is certainly encouraging that he is being compelled to pass some of the blame up the chain of command. I see he is attempting to have it both ways, since he is deliberately vague, and fails to name any names. His lawyer has also denied that any such thing was said. However, this is a crack that the special prosecutor will (hopefully) take a crowbar to.

Both of these, now rather moldy scandals, have reemerged against the background of the still unfolding Abramoff scandal, and the NSA spying scandal. SURELY, the Democrats can make something of this, assuming of course that they manage to come up with a concise, thoughtful and marketable election platform - one that can be contrasted with the problems listed above. Though it has to be said, they are already cutting it fine, as the deafening pre election drumbeat of Republican propaganda will start working up to its crescendo soon, and once that gets going the Democrats better have something more substantial than “there’s a better way” to counter it with.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Given twenty-four hours to spend any way you wanted, with no limit in terms of cost, what would you do? (The only parameter is that you can't magically beam yourself from here to there, so travel time must be a consideration, with your current location at your starting point.)

I'll have to think about this one before I answer...

Open Wide...

Reid and Abramoff

The AP is reporting that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had more involvement with Abramoff’s lobbying firm and clients than previously disclosed.

Here’s what I think about this story: I suspect that its impetus was the RNC or some other arm of the GOP, in a continuing effort to construe this story as a bipartisan scandal. I also suspect that even most Americans who have a sense of that aren’t going to appreciate the distinction that “Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken contributions from him… Abramoff is a convicted felon and no one has suggested the other partners we might have dealt with have done anything impermissible.”

All of the stuff outlined in the article may, in fact, be “just a typical part of lawful fundraising,” but that doesn’t mean that it appears ethical to most Americans who have no idea how bought and sold our elected representatives actually are. (Nor does it mean that it is ethical.)

Frankly, I’m not impressed by “technically legal” and “technically not a bipartisan scandal.” And I know that goes against the party line, but I don’t really care. If the reporting in this story is accurate, which Reid’s office doesn’t seem to dispute, then what the Dems are accusing the GOP of doing and what the Dems did themselves is nothing but a distinction without a difference.

We can do infinitesimally better doesn’t have much of a ring to it.

And, yes, I realize that one Dem vs. lots of Repubs does not an equal problem make. And, no, I’m not trying to start a circular firing squad just for shits and giggles. Of course I’d like the Dems to win elections, but not if it means wriggling away from pointed fingers on dubious distinctions that, in the end, don’t really mean much at all, only so they can continue to succumb to the stranglehold of lobbyists corrupting the whole system.

This isn't me complaining; it's me hoping for more.

UPDATE: For a different opinion than mine, see Scott at MyDD. I absolutely understand the points he makes, and yet I still don't feel that the particular exception he notes makes a world of difference. I don't know. The whole situation feels a bit to me like saying a blow job isn't cheating, but wev. What do I know?

Open Wide...

Move Along, Nothing to See Here…

Oh boy. The McClellatron 3000 is at it again:

During today’s press briefing, Scott McClellan was asked to respond to claims made by Jack Abramoff in emails published yesterday on ThinkProgress.

Reporter Victoria Jones asked whether President Bush was sticking by his assertion that he does not remember meeting Jack Abramoff in light of the Abramoff emails, which discuss “almost a dozen” meetings with the President.

McClellan dodged the question, falsely claiming that Bush had already addressed the issue, but did not dispute the validity of Abramoff’s emails.
Think Progress has the video and transcript at the link.

Open Wide...

Oh, But He Didn't Mean That...

Are you ready for your daily Duckspeak?

Bill O'Reilly says Put Al Sharpton in chains.

And "uproarious" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Now get ready for the Two Minute Hate. Doubleplusgood.

Open Wide...

Spot On

LeMew:

You know who needs to really, really shut up? People who 1)are crying rivers of crocodile tears about how the friends and family of a civil rights leader comport themselves at their funeral although they've never met, and 2)could care less about segregationist sympathizers being appointed to the federal courts.

Open Wide...

De-Lurk Day


Hello, lurking Shakers! Pop your heads up and say hi.

Don't be bashful...

Open Wide...