I'm With Joe.

(Link regarding Lieberman's opposition to the Senate's Reid health care bill is set forth below). Like Lieberman, I would also like to see a health care reform bill, and I've even tried to tell my liberal and progressive friends that I'd even be open to a new federal government entitlement to help those who can't afford health insurance obtain it. But I draw a line in the sand (like Lieberman) at a public option, which I'm convinced is intended and will probably ultimately result in almost virtual control of the health insurance industry by the federal government (i.e., a single payer system or something very, very close to the same). I do not want that. I do not want to see the federal government in the health insurance business. The radical progressives very much want it, which says a lot right there. Am I open to a federal government entitlement that helps pay for health care coverage for those who can't afford it? Yes, as already stated above. But I cannot accept the federal government starting its own health insurance agency. Just can't do it. Even if I'm wrong about a public option eventually resulting in a virtual single payer system, I have other concerns: I trust our federal government to run something like a health insurance agency about as much I trust my ability to heave Mark Mangino for a world-record shot-put toss. Boot the public option, and a lot of my opposition evaporates. I hope Lieberman sticks to his guns in the same way.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

I light my torch & wave it for the New Moon...

...on Monday. It's a $140.7 million opening weekend in the U.S. for "The Twilight Saga: New Moon." People sure do love their vampires these days.

http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1586102.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMi8gnhQZzc

OK, So If I Needed to Ram an Important Procedural Vote Through a Legislative Body on the Road Towards Passage...

...of a massive monstrosity of an ultra-liberal bill that no one's read or digested, and containing a public option unpopular in the country and intended to ultimately arrive at a single payer system, and without any bipartisan support whatsoever, what might I do? Well, I might make sure that such vote occurs well into the evening hours of a Saturday night, when the media is largely asleep and most of the nation is focused upon the college football games. I might do that. But then again, that would make me a chickenshit, now wouldn't it? Or a democrat. Same difference, in my estimation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Talk About Three Faces That Only a Liberal or a Conservative Could Hate.

I thought this was a great pic, as it now sits atop Politico.com's main page. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. Conservatives hate these guys because they are not conservative. Liberals hate these guys because they are not liberal. Such is the way that conservatives and liberals roll. I generally like all three of these guys for consistently exhibiting an independence of thought that often eschews doctrinaire thinking and the desire to have one's viewpoints neatly and mindlessly align on a vertical totem pole of conservative or liberal ideology. For the record, I did think McCain was too old and tired to be running for president in 2008, and I did not vote him (nor Obama). At any rate, the linked story below explains an interesting rift that's developing between the three of them as McCain strongly criticizes the efforts of Graham and Lieberman in working on a cap and trade bill that might garner a measure of GOP support and make it through the Senate. By the way, since the Senate is set to vote on the Harry Reid health care monstrosity at 8 p.m. Saturday night, maybe the Senate dems could try to ram through the ole cap and trade at 9 p.m.? You know, sort of kill two pieces of America with one stone? Heck, maybe a little second stimulus at 10 p.m.? The trifecta!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29747.html

Another Saturday Vote on a 2000-Page Monstrosity (This Time The Reid Senate Monster).

Meantime, no one (inside the beltway or otherwise) has had any chance to meaningfully digest anything close to the totality of this massive bill. Sorry, folks, as much as I distrust the repubs and the conservatives, the dems in control in Washington are truly a pathetic, scary bunch. I fear very much the havoc that their massive ultra-liberal, progressive, huge government ram-rodded pieces of legislation are going to perpetrate upon our economy, our future, not to mention the America that so many of us have grown to know and love during the course of our lives. Never before in my life, until gazing upon the radical progressive strain that now controls our federal government like an Iron Curtain, have I ever felt so hopeless as an American. It's getting to the point where neither your voice nor mine means much of anything. Regardless of popular dissent towards these massive pieces of non-sensical crap legislation, the dems really just don't care. They don't care that they are about to pass one of the most radical, sweeping pieces of legislation in American history without so much as any opposite party support (save one or two stragglers, possibly). The wisest of politicians I've noted during my lifetime (on both sides of the aisle) have always said that you don't pass radical, groundbreaking legislation like this without even so much as a significant minority of opposing party votes in your favor. The phrase I've coined in this space before: Scary Days. And unfortunately, they just get even scarier come Saturday night, I suspect. And for all of my radical progressive and garden variety liberal readers of this space who blissfully go about their lives without ever questioning their government now that the dems are in office: You frankly make me sick. Not one ounce of free thought in your mind -- You might as well just start wearing a T-Shirt in public proclaiming that "I am a Left-Wing Dittohead, I thinks not for myself." Scary Days.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091119-717535.html

Dems Are Losing A Lot of Independents, But Do They Really Care?

The linked Politico.com report is entitled, "Dems alarmed as independents bolt," but if you read the story, many of the dems quoted are downplaying the trend and trying to spin it as not that big of a deal. But I wonder if that's what they really think behind the scenes? What I've consistently seen from dem powerbrokers in Washington is a desire to ram through massive pieces of legislation irregardless of popular support for the same, and so maybe dems as a whole truly don't give a rat's behind what the independents think or do. But at the end of the day, I think these trends are concerning to dems, even if they are hesitant to admit it publicly. After all, the Independents decide elections, and you would have to be a political fool to turn a complete blind's eye towards them.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29646.html

The Fat Man's In One Big Fat Pickle, And I'm Not Referring to Cheeseburgers or Fatback Over Here.

University of Kansas head football coach Mark Mangino faces allegations of improper verbal and physical abuse of current and former players (first link below). As I commented elsewhere (second link below), I just really hope there was no flatulence involved.

http://www.kansascity.com/666/story/1575397.html
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=7082449

Hillary & Sarah on an Independent Ticket in 2012? The thought occurred to me tonight out of the blue. Don't even know what to make of it.

I was watching Hillary blathering on today about she'd like to sit down with Palin (whom she's never personally met) for coffee. Couple that with the generally complimentary things that Palin has always had to say about Clinton. How could such a marriage of strange bedfellows every possibly happen, you ask? Well, first of all, it probably never would. But say Hillary saw an opportunity in 2012 to take on a low popularity Obama, running on a theme of being an alternative to the unpopular and radical "progressive" far left strain that has basically taken over the dem party. Not that I think Hillary has too huge of a problem with the "progressives," but make no mistake that she is not one of them (NOR is she what one would describe as a "moderate"), and she is a consummate politician, and I could conceivably see her going Independent against the radical far left IF conditions completely aligned for such an event. And I'm telling you folks, a lot of strange political winds are blowing throughout the country, unseen at any point in my life, so I would never say that Hillary going Independent is an impossibility (although I acknowledge that it's an improbability). To reiterate, Hillary is no progressive, but she's no centrist either -- she's basically a garden variety liberal, although those folks scare me much, much less than the "progressives".

So how does Palin fit into this equation? Different dynamic there entirely. Palin would never become an "alternative" to the repubs' far right conservative base because that's what she is, a far right conservative. BUT I could see her running as an Independent against the republican party given that there is a huge old-money-style as well as elitist component to the far right that really dislikes Palin because she wasn't educated in the Ivy League, and she dares to be a former mayor of a town of 9,000 (the radical "progressives" hate that about her too, by the way). I could conceivably see her finally getting so fed up with the traditional repub powerbrokers that she would turn and run as an Independent.

So, then, how would Hillary and Sarah, two 1000-miles apart politicians, ever possibly link up? Only one possible way: Both of their insatiable desires to WIN higher elected office, that's how. About 40% of this country is now Independent, and if you give those folks (my people) the option of such a completely unprecedented ticket as that which Hillary-Sarah would offer, you would probably get most of their votes plus a ton of non-liberal dems and non-conservative repubs at the same time. In other words, an Independent ticket could actually win the presidency. An obvious conundrum: Who would be at the top of the ticket? Well, they would have to hash that out, but frankly I'd assume Hillary since she was ever so close to winning the dem nomination last year over Obama, but came up just short. In contrast, Palin has obviously never run for pres before.

So am I really advocating such a ticket? I'm not so sure. It was more just a very strange thought that occurred to me tonight. In this strange political climate, nothing would surprise me, and I bet we will be seeing all kinds of weird things like this in the months and years to come. But as for me: Hillary has always been too far left for me to consider voting for, and Palin likewise too far right. But the two of them together on one ticket? Seems intriguing, fascinating, and at least something that I would consider.

The Mainstreaming of Palin? This Has Gotta Be Chappin' the Far Left's Behind!

And for that, I have to laugh tonight. She coming out with a book, she's on Oprah, she's doing photo ops with Barbara Walters, she has Hillary Clinton saying that she'd love to meet Palin. The Radical Progressives must be a stewin' tonight (!) and pondering their next hateful false rumor to concoct and spread about Palin.

For the record, my views on Palin have been made very clear in this space over time. She's a devout right-winger, I'm not, and I doubt that I could ever vote her, especially given my additional viewpoint that she's not exactly what I view to be presidential material -- sorry, but she's a little loopy (just a personal observation completely divorced from her viewpoints and ideology). And I've always contended that these characteristics make her virtually unelectable. But, I will say this about her: She seems to be a politician who has very much made a career of people underestimating her, and I'd be the first to admit that I could be underestimating her too.

Further, I'm don't mean to be all doom & gloom when it comes to Palin. Just because she may not be quite my cup of tea doesn't mean that I personally dislike her, because I don't. I respect a lot that she's originally from a ton of 9000, as I am, and I still recall how that fact played a huge role in me having a "moment of clarity" in 2008 concerning precisely what it was that Obama and his people were all about (the day McCain selected Palin, the first words in response from the Obama campaign were that McCain "has seen fit to choose a former mayor of a town of 9000 as his vice presidential running mate" -- that's Classic Liberal Elitism, and it only set in concrete for me the true colors of an Obama who was trying to convince us all that he was some kind of "moderate" -- But I digress).

The far left HATES Sarah Palin, mostly I believe because she does not act like she's supposed to act in the far left's eyes. She's an attractive, self-made woman, and so she's not supposed to be anything other than a liberal, at least in the slanted estimation of the far left. It's sort of Clarence Thomas-syndrome at work in my view. But to tie this off, Palin continues to be a fascinating political figure (even if I still ultimately think she's not a serious contender to ever be president), and despite my disagreement and misgivings with a lot of her ideology and rhetoric, I will still continue to defend the smalltown gal every time the radical left fabricates another one of their slimey rumors or false reports about Palin, because that kind of crap always rub me the wrong way. And in the meantime, we'll just keep watching the intriguing and ongoing political saga of one Sarah Palin.

Bow Wow Wow!

Drudge headlines tonight with the "story" that "Obama Bows to Japanese Emperor"!!! Anyone recall when NBC news anchor Brian Williams took a bow before Obama (second pic above)? So what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose? BTW, while I don't think it's the best journalistic practice for a newsperson to ever take a bow before a politician (or anyone else for that matter), I have to say that I couldn't give a rat's behind about Obama's bow today. Who cares? You know, folks, I can't even imagine the daily mentally tortured existence that it must take to inhabit the far right or far left and to concern oneself with this type of silliness. Life's too short.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUwnOsTm96A

The Idiot Speaks!

He's warning us about federal government power and control getting too big! Stop the presses! This from the same fool who lied to us about the pretense to invade a sovereign country (Iraq) that he knew had no WMD's, and a goof who embraced big government spending like it was going out of style. Here's a question for all of you readers: What exactly did we do to deserve idiots like Bush as our president, backed with (the old phrase for 45 RPM Record B-Sides -- "time to play B-sides", as BOC so famously said, but I digress) Obama as the successor (the most radical in either direction president in American history). What did we do to deserve such a$$-clowns? What did we do? It's absolutely pathetic. Well, at least I never voted for either one of their sorry a$$es. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote for another dem or repub anytime soon. I think for myself, I am Independent, I eschew the doctrinaire thinking of these two extremist BS parties. They don't represent me. And they don't represent you. Join the Rager Revolution!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/bush-warns-threats-freedom-economic-growth/

Top Right-Wing Media Stories Tonight: TX Gov Cries Socialism and Crying Mom Tells Obama to Make a Decision on Afghanistan.

E.g., the current http://drudgereport.com/. (By the way, you're damn right he needs to make an Afghanistan decision already, but I digress). Are these really the top 2 headlines of any news that's out there right now? Reminds of the W years, when the left-wing media on any given day would similarly trumpet a comparison of W and the repubs to Nazis and following grieving mom Cindy Sheehan wherever she went (BTW, it's hilarious and so pathetic and hypocritical how the left-wingers no longer care about Sheehan and her protests now that a dem is president). Who out there is duped by this constant barrage of right-wing and left-wing media and politician propaganda? This stuff is purely tabloid, and not real news that has any effect on the lives of your or your loved ones. If you actually pay any mind to all of these kinds of silliness, then you need to open your eyes and your minds. Do not let this national media (either side) dictate to you what's important. Because these media outlets are basically just propoganda machines for the dem and repub parties. Think for yourself, folks!

Top 10 Actual Threats & Sophomoric Insults That Radical Progressives Are Hurling Towards Any Dem Who Voted Against the Pelosi Health Care Bill...

...As extracted from the below-linked Politico.com story:

10. The dems who voted against this bill lack "self-confidence."

9. "This is the last straw with you."

8. "You're deceptive; You're a slap in the face."

7. They "emanate weakness."

6. They are "weak sauce."

5. "You're a traitor."

4. We're announcing ad campaigns to "target" you now in your district.

3. Give us back the money we previously donated to you.

2. "There will be a price extracted from you" / They will "pay a real price if they continue to take this position."

1. We will "beat them up in their district."

Such tolerance of opposing viewpoints! The real "big tent" party! Doesn't it make you want to run right out there and join the dems? Not. (And yes, for the record, the repubs are little different in this regard).

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29385.html

It Seems Pretty Clear How the Radical Progressive Dems Are Going to Try to Ram Their Public Option Health Care Bill Right Down Our Throats.

In the days to come, look for an allegedly "moderate" bill to come out of Senate majority leader Harry Reid and his minions -- a bill with no public option or a somewhat watered down one (perhaps with state opt-out rights or a "trigger"), and a bill which will be able to get 60 votes in the Senate. Then, such bill will go to conference committee, where dems will "merge" it with the House's massive Pelosi bill and its much more "robust" public option. Look for such "merger" to be little more than making the Senate-passed Reid bill look much more like the Pelosi bill, i.e. taking the Reid bill and driving it very far to the left. Once that process is complete, as best as I can tell, the only vote that would be needed to pass the "merged" bill in the Senate would be a vote that only requires 50 or 51 votes -- and not 60. I don't know folks, but I think we can see this one coming up Main Street from these sneaks. You had to know, with all of the immense power that the radical progressives now wield in Washington, Congress and all across the spectrum of our federal government, that they would probably find a way to ram-rod their massive ultra-liberal health care legislation through Congress. I still hope they fail in this endeavor, because most Americans do not want this. We want reform and change to the health insurance system, but we do not want this. That is, most of us do not want health care legislation that is designed to (and will likely ultimately result in) total federal government control of the health insurance industry. What a nightmare.

Good to Hear Obama Referring to Opponents of His Health Care Plan as "Extremists." Very Presidential.

(Link below)...And entirely consistent with the kinds of disrespectful statements (Nazis, right-wing extremists, brownshirts, etc.) we heard all summer long from congressional dems, who hurled the same at anyone that had the audacity to disagree with them on the health care reform issue. Nevermind that plenty of the dissenters were Independents, non-conservative repubs, and non-liberal dems. Yep, that's the world view of the far leftist "progressives" who control the dem party: Agree with every single one of their radical views or else it's you that's the extremist. Yawn. And, of course, the conservatives are little different when it comes to anyone who has the nerve to disagree with them on any issue. As I've said many times in this space, we are controlled by two little tent parties who do not represent me nor the huge swath of this country that is neither "progressive" nor "conservative." Good to see today that our illustrious president is no different, not that I have ever been under any illusions.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/lawmakers-detail-obamas-pitch/

On a Dark Day On Which It Appears that House Dems Will Ram-Rod a Massive, Unpopular and Unread Public Option Health Care Bill Right Down Our Throats..

...(subject obviously to Senate passage) (not to mention a day that saw a truly pathetic and embarrassing performance by my University of Missouri football team against the mighty Baylor Bears), I find that just trying to get back to a few of the simple pleasures can help one put a few things in perspective. And so it was tonight that I was motivated to road-trip it the closest White Castle restaurant to the Kansas City metro area. That would be the one in Wentzville, Missouri, about three hours east of Kansas City (although I was driving from Columbia, not KC). You'll find that very few of life's worries and concerns cannot be placed on a temporary backburner when one has a nice, greasy White Castle Crave Case (30 sliders with cheese) available to shove into one's piehole. 30 Pack of Stones, 30 Pack of Sliders. What health care bill, by the way? And what's a Baylor?

(Postscript: I would generally not condone consuming White Castles, and it does go against my habitual diet -- But every now and then, especially on a dirty, rotten day like this one: It's OK.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Pssssst: They're About to Ram a Health Care Bill With a Public Option Through the House.

While the attention of the media and much of the nation has been focused on killers in Texas and Florida, House dems are fairly quietly working towards a vote on Pelosi's 2000-page monster of a health care bill, which includes the public option. Looks like the dems are going to try to ram it through the house, with barely enough votes for passage, sometime this weekend (although there is some talk a vote might slip until early next week). Further, it looks like the monster will be going through changes, additions and deletions right up until the time they vote on it this weekend, meaning that none of us ever get to see the final bill before it's voted on (obviously, Pelosi has broken her 72-hour pledge, at least as I understood that pledge). Oh well, they do still have to try to ram-rod something through the Senate too, and that may be a little tougher. Regardless, as I've said before, these are Scary Days. I'm convinced that any bill with a public option will eventually result in a single payer system, i.e. total government control of the health insurance field. If the thought of that does not scare the hell out of you, then there's little that I can do to help you.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5gDY7q4FTgc

What's Happened to American Journalism?

...When it's not incessantly slanted to one political side or the other in an effort at pure political advocacy, then it's just plain wrong on the facts that it reports. For hours today, all of the media, including Fox News (which has sort of become a new catchphrase of mine), reported that the suspect in the Fort Hood massacre was dead. Turns out, as revealed in the military's presser a few hours ago, that the reports of said suspect's demise were greatly exaggerated. Imagine that. WTF American media? I repeat: WTF? And I don't really care if your source for the suspect's death was the military itself (which it probably was) -- that's a cop out. Where was your confirmation? In addition, am I such a stickler so as to expect that you would make damn sure that a person has actually kicked the bucket before you report it as fact, regardless of what the military told you? This is a pathetic day for American journalism. But any more, aren't they all?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-05-Fort-Hood_N.htm

"We Won Last Night!," Crows a Gleeful Nancy Pelosi Today. Baghdad Bob, Meet San Fran Nan!

You may recall Baghdad Bob (the former Iraqi information minister) from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As American troops overran Baghdad, ole Bob was on television making statements such as, "I say to you, categorically, that there are no American troops in the Baghdad." Flash forward to today, when the American version of out-of-touch Bob -- San Fran Nan -- actually claimed victory for the dems from last night's election results. As Bill Cosby would say, "R-I-G-H-T!" The dems won last night. And I bare a striking resemblance to Brad Pitt. In addition to Baghdad Bob, San Fran Nan also reminds me today of that old Tony Montana line from Scarface: "I always tell the truth, even when I lie." I mean, it's one thing to spin -- all politicians do so. But to take what actually occurred, and then simply claim that the opposite is what really occurred -- That smacks of a person who is simply delusional or a person so arrogant with power that she feels as if she can get away with saying anything. Or, in the case of San Fran Nan, probably a lot of both. And this person is second in the line of presidential succession? Good grief.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Pelosi_dismisses_impact_of_New_Jersey_Virginia.html

How Long Before Far Leftist Bruce Springsteen Denounces New GOP Gov. Christie's Playing of "Born to Run" Right Before Christie's Acceptance Speech?

I'd put the over/under on that one at about an hour. But I'm just trying to grab your attention, because regardless of The Boss' political views, he's an American rock and pop music icon, and the music is all that really matters. But I digress.

As for tonight's election results: As I discussed in the last few days in this space, while I think it's good that a few of the radically controlled dems are losing tonight, you won't find me celebrating republican victories. The repubs are the party who gave us a Neo-Con fringe ruling the very top of our federal government, which needlessly cost us numerous young American lives taking over a sovereign country, which posed little threat to us, on the false pretense of WMD's (which I remain convinced that "W" knew full well were in all likelihood not present in Iraq). But that aside, my post from the past few days basically predicted a repub clean sweep tonight, and it appears that the "conservative party" guy Hoffman in the New York congressional race will lose to the dem Owens. This is somewhat surprising, given that Hoffman was viewed as a more probable win for repubs than Christie in New Jersey.

The reason I mention the New York race is because I view that result as somewhat of a positive, even if it means another leftist dem in Congress. That's because this was a race in which national right-wing big wigs such as Palin, Hannity, Pawlenty, etc., tried to influence the race by endorsing the "conservative party" candidate and thereby effectively forcing the GOP candidate Scozzafava out of the race. I concede that Scozzafava was basically a liberal, not a moderate or centrist in any sense of the word, and probably had no business calling herself a republican. But regardless, I think it's a real positive that the far-right conservatives can try their best to influence a local election and yet come up empty. That makes me laugh. As do the significant dem losses tonight in New Jersey and Virgina. Overall, a pretty good night for an Independent!

Perhaps This Was the Reason for ABC's Rumored Hesitancy to Air the Remake of the "V" Series...

...Politics? As discussed previously in this space (first link below), even stranger than ABC's decision to greenlight the remake of a mediocre 1980's sci-fi series was the reported rumor that ABC was experiencing hesitancy to even put the show on the air despite the show already having been produced. (BTW, the remade "V" debuts tonight on ABC at 7 p.m. central time -- an ABC picture of some of the characters is above). The rumor at that time was that such hesitancy pertained to some silliness about extraterrestrial "aliens" being the focus of the series (which really made no sense). Well, here's perhaps a different (and much less non-sensical) explanation for ABC's alleged hesitancy: The Chicago Tribune today reviews the upcoming series (apparently having been given a sneak peek) and reports that many of the series' themes and events can be interpreted as commentary negative to the so-called "Obamamania" wave of the past year (see second link below).

Regardless, ABC is airing the series (although did it really have any choice financially since the thing had already been produced?), and so I suppose the rumored "hesitancy" is largely a moot issue. At any rate, the Tribune review indicates that the new series is very well made, even if you happen to dislike the supposed anti-"Obamamania" commentary. Based on that positive review, I hope to have a chance to see it.

http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/10/weird-stuff-from-tv-network-abc.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-tc-tvcolumn-v-1102-1103nov03,0,7062976.story

Looks Like a Probable Clean Sweep for the Elephants Tomorrow in the Gubernatorial and Congressional Races. But You Won't See Me Celebrating.

The question that will be the subject of all the media and politician spin tomorrow night and thereafter will be whether these likely results are a "referendum on Obama." Well, I say who gives a rat's behind. Yes, they are a referendum on Obama & The Dems at this moment, but hardly so with respect to 2010 or beyond given how quickly these things change. I see a GOP party right now that is ever-increasingly controlled by its far-right conservative extreme, with an ever-diminishing place for anyone in the party who is not also a right-wing conservative. The dem party is little different, with little place for anyone who is not a "progressive" or, at the bare minimum, a liberal. Just another election, same old tired story: Two out-of-touch, extreme-controlled parties who fail in any way to represent a huge swath of this country. It seems clear that the right-wingers will be partying tomorrow night, while the leftist dems will be doing their best to spin a nice face on to a negative story. Meantime, so many of us across the country will just be yawning.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125720723841924171.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

"We **** Everything That Moves!!!"

Hillary Clinton this weekend actually made a public comment that "We tax everything that moves and doesn't move" (first link below). Immediately, I was reminded of the famous Dennis Hopper line from the movie Blue Velvet, although he was dropping an F-bomb in place of the word "tax" (see hilarious video, second link below, which also includes his classic line, "Heineken, **** that **** -- Pabst Blue Ribbon!!!"). Well anyway, I saw Clinton's line and I had to blog about it, but truth be told: (1) When she says "we," she appears to be referring to the United States in general, rather than her party; and (2) I think she's basically telling the truth -- here in the U.S., we do tax just about everything that moves and doesn't move, which is very unfortunate. Obviously, there has to be tax revenue for our government entities to stay in business, but I think I'd like to see those taxes limited in the number of different things that are taxed. Put another way, if local, state or federal government legitimately need to raise taxes in a particular instance (and sometimes it is legitimate, although very often not), then raise an existing type of tax (income is always there and available) and stop trying to find new things to tax all the time. And a final note: Do check out the video contained on the second (youtube) link below: I found it tonight in putting together this blog post, and it is very funny!

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2009%5C10%5C30%5Cstory_30-10-2009_pg1_1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxsIGtju1So&feature=PlayList&p=81C2CA61EA068F36&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=33

This Seems Completely Out of the Blue on a Saturday Morning.

New York GOP congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava (say that name 10 times quickly) has suddenly suspended her campaign this morning, leaving only "conservative party" candidate Doug Hoffman and dem guy Owens in the race. I'm intrigued by what might be going on behind the scenes here. Scozzafava is a fairly liberal republican, not merely a moderate from what I've read (frankly, I've kind of been wondering why she's not a democrat in the first place). Anyway, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and a whole host of other deranged right-wingers have been focusing on this New York race and have been endorsing the third-party conservative candidate Hoffman over the GOP candidate Scozzafava. I would assume that all that pressure from the far right finally got to Scozzafava, but who knows. BTW, I often rail on dems and repubs in this space for having no place in their parties for centrists. However, I've remained silent on Scozzafava because, as noted above, I really don't think she's much of a centrist -- instead, she appears to be fairly liberal and probably should be a democrat to begin with (sorry Jeeves to end a sentence on a preposition).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/31/republican-scozzafava-suspends-new-york-congressional-campaign/