"Obama's Approval Hits New Low" While "Hillary Nears All-Time High": Might We See a Clinton Primary Challenge to Obama in 2012?

It was pretty obvious back in early 2009. Obama brought in political enemy Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state as a rough equivalent to the oft-stated principle from the Godfather pictures -- "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." But how long will it last?

According to new Gallup polling -- and despite Hillary in my estimation looking just as lost on the Libyan war as Obama himself -- Hillary's on an "all-time high" like Rita Coolidge in an obscure 007 flick:

"Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and her highest rating to date while serving in the Obama administration. The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998 [following the Bill/Monica Lewinsky scandal]."

But not such good news for the president, as Obama's poll is definitely not rising, even given Michelle's general attractiveness. As Politico.com reports this week on a new Quinnipiac University poll:

"Half of registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41% say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45% said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47% said he did."

The 41% number is a "record low" for Obama, says Politico. [Interestingly, the Gallup polling data puts Obama's approval rating at above 50%, which on its face would not seem to jive with the Quinnipiac poll. However, my assumption is that the discrepancy has a hell of a lot to do with the fact that Quinnipiac polled registered voters, while it doesn't appear that Gallup imposed such a restriction (polling "Americans" in general, apparently.]

All of this new polling begs the question raised more than once before: Would Hillary consider a 2012 democrat party primary challenge from Obama's "right"? It still remains unlikely, and would presumably require Clinton (sooner rather than later) to resign as secretary of state (the enemy fleeing the gates, so to speak).

But if Obama's approval rating with registered voters continues to linger well under 50% in the months to come, he suddenly becomes very vulnerable in the general election despite (1) the huge inherent advantage he has in that election as the incumbent president and (2) the fact that the likely republican challenger will come from the current odd assortment of boring white male retreads and never-weres.

If it becomes pretty clear that Obama may be more likely than not to lose in 2012, I could see Clinton seriously considering tossing her hat into the primary ring. She's previously claimed to rule out a run in 2012, but these politicians all the time change their mind on such things (and make statements taking opposite positions from the past) and are rarely held accountable for it by much of anyone (except me).

Make no mistake, I believe I'm pretty clearly on record that I don't like Clinton and don't think I could ever vote for her. Frankly, as far to the left that the democrat party of today is, I doubt I'll ever again in my life vote for a democrat (I almost always vote for third party candidates).

But if we have to have either Obama or Clinton as president and no one else, give me Clinton because while she's certainly no "moderate" in my eyes, she's also not nearly as hardcore far leftist 20 percenter as Obama. She in many ways takes after her slimeball husband (whom I once voted for, believe it or not!) in that regard:

Like her husband, Hillary is very politically calculated in every single thing she does and will act "moderate" when she feels it's in her best political interests while acting more pure leftist when she sees a political advantage to doing that. Obama's not nearly as good at this. He was good at the "moderate" act during the 2008 campaign, but his efforts to pull it off as president since the distastrous 2010 midterm elections have been lackluster at best.

In other words, Obama's no Bubba! (Or Hillary, for that matter). And that fact could just result in continued poor polling numbers that would lead a Hillary Clinton to seriously consider a primary run. As consummate politicians (very much a derogatory description in my mind, BTW) such as Clinton are fond of often saying: "I wouldn't rule it out."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146891/Hillary-Clinton-Favorable-Near-Time-High.aspx
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52208.html

Big Dog Sen. Chuck Schumer Overheard on Phone Telling Other Dems to Label GOP Budget Cuts As "Extreme." Do They Really Think Independents Will Buy It?

The New York senator and democrat party big dog had a media conference call yesterday with some of his democrat party Senate colleagues. Not knowing that reporters were already on the line, he started talking and directing his fellow democrats to start following a strategy of incessantly labeling as "extreme" and "draconian" anything that republicans propose in terms of federal budget cuts. He indicated that this is the new strategy of the Senate democrat party caucus. (Link to full story at bottom).

About a minute into this little impromptu strategy session, Schumer was apparently made aware that reporters were already on the call. In what must have been quite hilarious for the reporters to hear, a deafening silence ensued for a short period of time. Then the call got going, with the democrats reportedly taking Schumer's direction almost immediately, complete with references to the "extreme right wing" from deranged California senator Barbara Boxer.

This story has made quite the rounds on the net over the past 24 hours, but here's my initial reaction and first question: What's shocking or surprising about this democrat party strategy when it comes to opposing GOP budget cut proposals? Of course they're going to try to label them as "extreme." Most of our pathetic political discourse in this country has devolved into non-substantive efforts to make the other party or other candidate look "more extreme than we are." Yawn.

But this gets to my second question, as raised at the top: Does the democrat party really think the tired old strategy of labeling the other side as "extreme" is really going to work on Independents when it comes to proposed budget cuts given the current climate in the country? I'm actually asking a serious question.

Apparently the democrat party does believe such messaging will work or they wouldn't be using it. And I frankly have no idea how successful it might be with my fellow Independents. Maybe a lot of them will buy into that, who knows. After all, Independents (me not among them) put Obama's behind in office in 2008 after so many bought his disingenuous "moderate" act.

Without at least some polling data to look at, I can only speak for myself on the issue. And I have to say, any democrat who tries to tell me that just about any cut to the federal budget is too "extreme" or "draconian" right now is going to be ringing extremely hollow. It'll just fall on deaf ears. And I'll have a very simple five-word response: $14.2 Trillion. What's your plan?

(And sorry, firing up the ol' printing press ain't a viable retort).

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sen_chuck_schumer_calls_gop_extreme_g3aZDBU7DoCH8KrC4YMEpL

Speaking of Hypocrites: Fat Tub of Goo Socialist Dictator Hugo Chavez Tells His People to Cut Their Calories & Boob Jobs. He & Michelle Should Lunch.

After all, the First Lady loves to lecture us about our diets, and I bet she doesn't approve of boob jobs either. She and the fat ass Hugo should sit down for lunch to discuss those topics over plates of tree bark, spinach leaves and muskmelon, methinks. Whom better to learn from, after all, about how to best go about controlling every aspect of a population's private lives than a bona fide leftist authoritarian dictator?

Chavez has reportedly long railed against his people's cholesterol levels and alcohol consumption. His latest pronouncements concerning the diets of his Venezuelan subjects came during a speech on Sunday. Warning Venezuelans that they need to cut their calorie intake, this goof ranted, "Be careful with weight gain! . . . Be careful with obesity!"

This big boob has also reportedly been crusading against fake boobs in recent weeks, at one point trying to take Venezuelan doctors to task for allegedly "convincing women, many women - not all of them - that if they don't have big bosoms, they should feel bad."

And boob jobs are apparently all the rage in the socialist country. Reports the AP: "Breast enlargement is widely popular in image-conscious Venezuela, where newspapers publish advertisements from clinics offering breast implants on credit and beauty pageant contestants often undergo plastic surgery."

It's even gone so far that last year one Venezuelan politician reportedly offered up a pair of breast implants as the grand prize in a raffle organized to raise money for his campaign! No word yet how that little stunt sat with leftist dictator Chavez.

And finally, of course, no rant or series of rants from that buffoon would be complete without a healthy dose of some deranged anti-capitalism rhetoric. Chavez reportedly took that topic to all-new lows (even by his standards) last week when he suggested that capitalism was to blame for destroying all life on the planet Mars! But does he really need to take it quite that far? Why not just blame it on boob jobs and cheeseburgers?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_VENEZUELA_CHAVEZ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-27-20-03-25

Obama's Minions at "Media Matters" Go Nixonian, Much Like Their Illustrious Leader, in "War of Sabotage" and Building Enemy Files Against Fox News...

...like Leader, like Lackeys, I suppose.

[Preface: This kind of stuff is extremely spooky. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be blogging about it. I'm not in the business of being partisan (since I disdain partisans on both sides) or trying to make mountains out of mole hills. We have the leftist 20 percenters and deranged right-wingers for that purpose.]

He's not shy about it. I'll give him that. The founder of leftist 20 percenter group "Media Matters," David Brock (pictured immediately above), says his organization is upping the ol' ante against Fox News Channel. He says he and his fellow leftists at Media Matters are embarking on a new "all-out campaign" of "guerilla warfare and sabotage" against Fox News. (Link to Politico.com's full story at bottom).

Politico.com reports over the weekend that "the group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites." Politico says this represents a "shift from media critic to a new species of political animal."

Says Media Matters' Brock: "The strategy we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment. [The new strategy is] war on Fox."

Indeed. This new strategy reads like a Nixonian playbook, complete with building files on "enemies," sending out goons to bother private citizens in their own homes, trying to sick regulators on people to shut them up, and other assorted dirty tricks that might be described as making Nixon’s henchmen look like garden-variety amateurs. More on all of that in a minute. But first, a little background to this sort of mindset is necessary:

The Nixonian Mindset of Today’s American Leftists

We've seen it on full display almost from Day 1 when it comes to the ultimate leader of the leftists, Barack Obama: Rhetoric and tactics reminiscent of the notorious "dirty tricks" famously employed by the administration of Richard M. Nixon in the late 1960's and early-to-mid 1970's.

These sorts of tactics and rhetoric are an affront to all common decency, not to mention to the basic freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America. To wit (and as documented in the archives of this blog):

-August 5, 2009: Obama's administration encourages Americans to report to the White House anyone viewed as having a "fishy" opinion on the democrat party's health care monstrosity.

-December 18, 2009: Obama threatens democrat party congressman Peter DeFazio by telling him, "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother!" Put another way: You better toe the line even when I don't do every single thing you fellow far leftists want, or else there will be real political consequences for you.

-January 29, 2010: Obama crows, "I am NOT an ideologue!" Much like when Nixon famously spouted, "I am NOT a crook," the proclamation rang completely hollow.

-August 18, 2010: Obama's leftist-in-arms and then Creature of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called for any investigation of those opposed to the building of the Ground Zero mosque. Translation: Shut the people up with whom I disagree by sicking government regulators on them (very similar to one tactic in the new Media Matters strategy, as documented below).

-December 10, 2010: Deranged right-winger Karl Rove accuses the Obama administration of compiling an "enemies list" just like Nixon did.

-December 26, 2010: Obama calls his critics "enemies," again conjuring up images of Nixon’s infamous "enemies list."

Media Matters' Master Plan

With that background in mind, check out the full-on Nixon-style full-court press that Media Matters is planning against Fox News (my thoughts on the right-slanting Fox News are set forth further below). Suffice it to say that there's a lot of "assembling" goin' on. As Politico.com reports and as Media Matters freely admits:

-Media Matters is "assembling opposition research files not only on Fox's top executives but on a series of midlevel officials." This will involve "conducting 'opposition research' on a dozen or so 'mid and senior-level execs and producers,' " including "recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them."

-"The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes.” [BTW, if Fox has defamed or invaded the privacy of someone, why does that person need some leftist group to help them sue? They don't, of course. Instead, this part of the strategy appears squarely concocted to manufacture lawsuits of limited or no merit against Fox News.]

-Media Matters "has hired two experienced reporters [a very loose use of that term], Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik [Woodward and Bernstein, they are not], to dig into Fox's operation and to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor."

-Media Matters "has hired an activist who led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid [demented right-winger] Glenn Beck's show” on Fox. [Actually, the Beck angle is very difficult for me to criticize a whole hell of a lot. That demented freak is totally loony tunes. I've frankly wondered where in the hell he's gotten his audience, from the beginning.]

-"Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox's parent company, News Corp, an effort which most likely will involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company's interests there."

-In connection with that aspect of the new strategy, Media Matters has "hired an executive from [radical far leftist website] Move.On.org . . . and also is looking for ways to turn regulators [see my Nixonian Mindset section above] in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network."

-Media Matters "will focus on [News Corp CEO and Fox head man Rupert] Murdoch and try to disrupt his commercial interests – whether that be here or . . . in London."

-The involvement in Media Matters of radical leftist interests such as MoveOn.org is not isolated. The group currently operates on a $10 million annual budget, one-tenth of which is bankrolled by far leftist moneyman George Soros, Politico.com reports.

-Just for good measure, Media Matters intends to engage in a "broader project to take advantage of internal dissent" at Fox News. Says Media Matters: "We made a list of every single person who works for Fox . . . and we went out to try to meet them.” [That sort of thing is purely Nixonian. Nice job, Media Matters!]

Slimeball Stuff

I'm on record on this blog probably dozens of times before: Fox News slants to the right and should be ashamed of itself for doing so and still holding itself out to the public as a legitimate news organization.

The very same criticism applies equally to all of the left-slanting so-called "mainstream media" outlets (although there's nothing "mainstream" about them) such as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and all of the left-wing newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. So where's the Nixonian effort aimed at all of those so-called "news" organizations?

I had to laugh out loud (literally) at Media Matters' purported justification for its new Nixonian strategy towards Fox News. Said Media Matters: "Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public."

AS IF any of the left-slanting and left-leaning media outlets are any different from Fox News in that regard! Nope, to the out-of-touch American 20 percenter leftist, morality is only to be applied to right-wingers. But when it comes to them (the leftist 20 percenters), any tactic, any strategy, any word or action, is justified so long as it tends to support the leftist cause. But if a right-winger does the same thing, it's wrong. Hypocrites, to the last. (And very dangerous ones at that).

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html

"ROCK CHALK SHOCK"! "This Is One of the Most Shocking Upsets that We've Ever Seen in the NCAA Tournament": VCU 71, Kansas 61.

Those were the words of television analyst Steve Kerr as lightly regarded #11 seed Virginia Commonwealth University roughed up, shocked and upset #1 seed Kansas ("KU") today by double digits to go to the Final Four. (Link to full story at bottom).

Fittingly, snow currently falls heavily on this late March day in both Lawrence, Kansas and in Kansas City, much like VCU (a team which barely even made the NCAA tournament) snowed all over KU's road to the Final Four. Two things seem fairly apparent to me. First, KU appears to have taken VCU lightly. They probably paid way too much attention to the fact that VCU lost earlier this season to Richmond -- a team that KU pounded earlier in the Sweet 16 round of the tournament a few days ago.

Second, KU choked. The jayhawkers went a pathetic 2 for 21 from three-point range. And they shot a paltry 53% (15 for 28) from the free throw line. That's called letting the pressure of the moment get to you.

And I wonder whether there will now be any questions about KU's highly compensated head coach, Bill Self? Yes, Self has his one national championship from 2008, but the fact remains that apart from that one year, Self has never gone to a Final Four. Take away 2008, and Self is sort of Kansas version of the old Missouri head coach, Norm Stewart: Great in the regular season but Mr. Elite 8 when it comes to the NCAA Tournament.

Self now has exactly the same number of Final Four appearances (one) as VCU's young upstart head coach, Shaka Smart. And Self has fewer Final Four appearances than the mid-major head coach at Butler, Brad Stevens (who now has two).

Of course, the obvious retort of KU Fan to a Missouri guy saying these things would be to say, "that's still one more than Missouri has." True enough. But Missouri isn't thought of as one of the "elite" college basketball programs, and Missouri doesn't have one of the most highly paid head coaches in college basketball. Food for thought.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42296683/ns/sports-college_basketball/

One Lost Her Crown and The Other Allegedly Lost Her Top! Two Queens Making News This Weekend for Very Different Reasons. Plus Brooklyn Decker Update!

The two royal family members are Italian glamour queen Marika Fruscio (first pictured hottie wearing a crown at the top) and Miss San Antonio Domonique Ramirez (the second pictured crowned lady above). Marika is a regular pair (err, face) on my Ladies Panel, while in February I discussed in this space the curious case of Domonique being stripped of her beauty pageant crown for "eating one too many tacos."

Well, good news for Domonique this weekend, while the news is just plain oddball when it comes to the Italian glamour model Marika. And yes, as promised, I have some breaking Brooklyn "Double" Decker news as well down below:

She Lost Her Top, or Did She?

The Net has been abuzz this weekend with the so-called "story" that Marika Fruscio took off her top and showed her sizable rack late last week on an Italian television show (as if she hasn't already done that same thing plenty in the European glamour rags!).

But alas, as best as I can tell, this is just a Facebook hoax. According to the linked report, the alleged video is making the rounds on Facebook, but don't click on it! The report says that if you do, "you will basically be spamming your friends by liking the page automatically and posting it on your wall."

Jeez. Glad I ran across that dude's report before trying to watch or imbed that stupid thing in here. BTW, I got wind that something was going down with Marika after receiving a lot of traffic this weekend from people apparently looking for this reportedly sham "story."

"One Too Many Tacos"? The Judge Didn't Buy It

Also a lot of traffic here this weekend from people looking for the latest on the former (and now restored -- read on) Miss San Antonio, Domonique Ramirez. She was stripped of the Miss San Antonio crown a few months back because the pageant board (through its spokesperson) said that Ramirez had "one too many tacos" and "too many chips and soda," allegedly putting on weight as a result.

Domonique took the pageant board to court, and late last week she won her case! The pageant board now has to restore her crown, and the "board" is reportedly none too happy about having to do so (link at bottom). There may be a hitch, however, as the pageant board is making noise about possibly appealing the judge's decision.

A link to my earlier post on this story is down below. My prior conclusion on this story was that even though the pageant board gave lip service to its decision also being based on Domonique being "late" to one or more of her post-pageant scheduled appearances, it was very clear to me that a significant factor (and perhaps the overriding factor) in the pageant board's decision to strip her crown was the board's view that Domonique had put on weight.

Of course, that was a completely pathetic decision since these "beauty" pageants are supposed to be about a lot more than just physical beauty, such as intelligence, ability on one's feet, and academic achievement. I'm glad to see the judge restore her crown, and hopefully that's the end of it. Stay tuned…

Brooklyn Decker Downsizes!

No, she didn't downsize her mammalian protuberances! Thank God. I'm talking about her hair, where the Net is going crazy this weekend with accounts of Double Decker (the blonde pictured three times above) chopping 10 inches off her curly blonde locks, allegedly to "mimic" Jennifer Aniston (link to People Magazine's story below) (see the last picture immediately above for the new "do").

Two points here: First, I don't think this completely hot supermodel is trying to do anything to "mimic" much of anyone, including Aniston (Aniston herself, admittedly, being one of the absolute hottest early 40-something ladies anywhere on the planet).

Second, if Brooklyn Decker wants to shave her head bald, stick a Frankenstein-style iron rod through her gullet, or even tat and pierce up every inch of her gorgeous melon, she's still going to be one of the most insatiable young ladies to visit the planet since the birth of Christ. If you don't care for the shorter locks, then get over it already! Dame is hot, regardless! If I was an early 30-something dude, I might even consider dating her myself.

http://techie-buzz.com/social-networking/marika-fruscio-spam-spreading-on-facebook.html

http://www.ksat.com/news/27326309/detail.html

http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2011/02/happy-valentines-day-indeed-rather.html

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2011/03/23/brooklyn-decker-chops-10-inches-off-her-hair/?xid=rss-topheadlines

High School Dude Says to School Secretary: "Can I Have Your Autograph, Miss? I Saw You in a Porn Film"!!!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Signs of the Apocalypse? Bikini, Burger & Spaghetti Cat Fights Break Out on the East Coast While Big Apple Subways Grow Even Weirder! BigDaddy Style:

Is the world ending even in advance of December 2012? Nevermind Japanese earthquakes and tsunamis, America waging war in Libya, and the unrest throughout the Middle East. Nope, much closer to home this week (and all caught on tape -- see below), we've got wild bikini burger bruiser brawls in Florida and a crazy spaghetti incident aboard a New York City subway -- a place that just seems to get weirder by the minute!:

"Damn, These Folks Are Slow!"

Those were the impatient words of 31-year-old bikini-clad Kimesa Smith as she waited inside a Florida Burger King for a Whopper Jr. and fries. Calling herself a "first time spring breaker," Smith says she just wanted to get some food down her piehole before engaging in a night of boozin'. But the grub was taking forever, not to mention that the employees didn't have "no smiles on their faces." So Smith starting arguing with employees, and that's when all hell broke loose!

Smith next leapt atop the burger joint's front counter and went hardcore like "Original Gangsta" New Jack at the ECW Arena! Looks like she was up there "shaking her ass like a salt shaker" (to quote the immortal words of one MC Ren/NWA), as she first tossed her sack of food in the direction of the workers.

She then grabbed a huge plastic charity jug full of coins and flung it at them. Smith also threw a another customer's soft drink at them and, just for good measure, started yanking on the manager's hair! Several of her friends also joined in. "We tore the Burger King up. I don't play no games," she spewed in broken English.

Smith's "antics" quickly drew the attention of some cops, who tried to slap the ol' cuffs on her. "Take your damn hands off me, you can't touch me," she barked at them. But Smith had a more thoughtful take on the entire event in an interview afterwards. Now facing a misdemeanor battery charge and possible time in a different kind of joint, Smith observed, "If I knew this was gonna happen, I would've gone to Taco Bell."

The Spaghetti Incident

Much like Kimesa Smith, the young lady just wanted to get her grub on as she rode the New York City subway. But they just couldn't let her pound down her messy meal in peace! From across the aisle, another woman shouts, "What kind of animals eat on the train!?" And the pasta business only picked up from there!

The noodle munchin' lady wasn't gonna have any of that! "You fat BITCH!", she yelled back. The two then got in each other's faces, prompting each to exclaim (predictably) "get out of my face" to the other. Then the pasta poundin' lady got all worked up and proceeded to toss her takeout meal right at the other woman! The fisticuffs ensued from there before this sorry scene was finally broken up by onlookers.

This spaghetti incident has reportedly sparked a gigantic debate this week in New York concerning proper subway etiquette (isn't that a contradiction of terms?) and whether all eating should be banned on the trains. It's also highlighted for the world to see just how oddball things have become in and around the Big Apple's subway system:

Subway Insanity

The linked AP story details how the great spaghetti incident is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to subway silliness. For one thing, New Yorkers are apparently obsessed with subway etiquette issues:

One dude put up a bunch of "official-looking" fake signs in the subway purporting to prohibit various forms of conduct that he felt inappropriate on the trains, including (1) nail clipping ("The sound is incredibly annoying and the nail bits go flying all over the place") and (2) nose-picking ("Keep your finger out of your nose"). I have to say that while the former sign seems rather trivial, the latter one I think I could probably endorse.

Another subway traveler, while pregnant, took to keeping count of "how many times fellow commuters offered her a seat on eight [of the city's] subway lines." Her research culminated in a series of rudimentary "pie charts" that she posted online to reflect her findings -- ranking the different subway lines from best to worst in terms of their seat-offering propensities. Only wish I had so much free time on my hands as these New Yorkers!

And it ain't just the etiquette police who are going ape$hit down there in the subway system. Just in putting together this story, the AP observes that it witnessed the following odd assortment of characters inhabiting the space in and around one of the city's subway lines:

(1) A man approaching the train "while baaing like a sheep"; (2) a woman "in a huge, fur-lined parka hissing at two large rats on a platform"; and last, but not least, (3) a pair of old codgers "belting out 'Papa Was a Rolling Stone' at triple its normal speed."

It may be the "City That Never Sleeps," but methinks a few of the locals may need to be put to sleep. That may be the most humane thing to do.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/florida/meet-panama-city-bk-brawler-653092

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110324/new-york-subway-spaghetti-debate-110324/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367706/Women-fight-subway-spaghetti.html#

"Active Bomb Sat Three Weeks in Detroit Federal Building."

What's Rove got to say about this? What was his role? Did he defuse it? Did he put it there in the first place? Did he do both in order to be an attention hog? Was he trying to cover the whole thing up? Was there any torture involved? Where was that Scooter Libby character when all of this was going down? And does this mean that Rove is now a militia man? Let's get some cameras in Rove's face and really grill him! Get The Widow on the Set!

Actually, as best as I can tell, Karl Rove has no connection whatsoever to the Detroit story. But that didn't stop ABCNews.com late yesterday, which ran the above headline at the top of its website with the very same picture immediately below it.

Jeezal peezal, if you're going to cast a deranged right-winger in a false light, at least aim a little higher, ABC News! You mean to tell me that you couldn't have tossed in a Bush photo (feel free to use my old standby – the Bush phone-the-wrong-way pic)? Or Palin even (similarly you can use my Palin "boob job" photo from the Belmont)? Heck, you could have even gone with Cheney or Rumsfeld -- both much bigger fish than the slimy ex-chief of staff!

For the record, I'm not suggesting that the error was intentional by ABC. Doubt if it was (the picture was ultimately changed, I noticed later). But it just looks bad for this left-leaning member of the so-called "mainstream media." Not that I have much sympathy for Rove. He's a creep. Not to mention, I bet he couldn't diffuse or plant a good bomb to save his damn life!

Obama Says "Installing Democracy" Is Goal in Libya: HYPOCRISY, Perhaps on the Grandest Scale in Human History. How Are These 2 Idiots Any Different?

As an initial matter, yes indeed a number of the pictures above are fairly graphic (although, they can get MUCH MORE graphic). Well guess what: That's what War is – HELL – and it's why you do not get involved in one unless it is absolutely necessary – a lesson that our two pathetic, out-of-touch political parties could use to learn for the first time in their sorry lives. But alas, they never do. So here--we--go:

We've been told by Obama's White House for several days that the "goal" of our involvement in Libya is to protect Libyan citizens and "rebels" from aerial bombardament (from forces loyal to evil murderous dictator Moammar Gadhafi) through the imposition of a "no fly zone." But it turns out the real goal is none other than George W. Bush-like "regime change" through the neoconservative principles of forcibly removing Gadhafi and "installing democracy."

It's from Obama's own lips, as the story broke late yesterday (link at bottom) concerning a White House readout of a Monday night telephone call between Obama and the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Yayyip Erdogan in which the two leaders "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country by installing a democratic system that respects the people's will."

Now, I have little doubt that we will quickly see the White House try to distance itself from those words and to claim that the readout isn't accurate. That's as predictable as stench in an Alabama $hithouse. But I won't be believing a word of it. Only a fool would. Because intelligent people stand up to others and tell them not to piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

And BTW, how in the hell are we "spreading democracy," anyway, by taking actions supportive of the Libyan "rebels"? Every account out there on the Net says that Al Qaeda, not to mention Iranian interests, are firmly entrenched with this so-called Libyan "rebellion." Put another way, "democracy" is not going to visit Libya anytime soon. Pathetic.

All that aside, let's get down to the real point: This guy Obama may be the biggest hypocrite in the history of the civilized world! This goof was out there bashing Bush right and left in 2008 for the Iraq war -- an exercise which itself was little more than an effort to "transform the country by installing a democratic system," i.e. pure neoconservatism and the very same goal of the current Libyan operation.

Indeed, all of the 20 percenter leftists that Obama represents (he represents no one else in the country) have bashed Bush endlessly for years over Iraq! And now their guy -- His Majesty himself -- is out there proclaiming privately to foreign heads of state that we're going to get Gadhafi and spread American democracy into Libya! This is truly slimeball stuff.

Say one thing, do another. No character. No conviction. Just a whole big load of bullshit. Same old story.

At least I'm consistent. The Iraq War was bullshit. Our involvment in Afghanistan beyond a year or two has been bullshit. And our current involvement in Libya is bullshit. Yep, bullshit pervades.

And as an Independent, it's me who's the mealy-mouth?! Me who stands for nothing?! Me who talks out of both sides of my mouth?! Nope. That would be your illustrious president, ladies and gentlemen. Hope those of you who voted for him (I did not) are proud today. Pin a medal -- or a Nobel Peace Prize as the case may be -- on him!

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1

http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-enforcing-the-libyan-no-fly-zone-20110322