I bet someone wishes he just said the N-word…

In perhaps my favorite GOP pre-election scandal of the day, it seems that Florida Congressman Mark Foley is in trouble because of a series of alarmingly too-familiar e-mails he sent to a 16-year-old former page (yes, it was a male page, but the pedophile overtones are a lot more scandalous than the gay ones).

"I am in North Carolina," Foley wrote in one e-mail, "and it was 100 in New Orleans ...wow that's really hot...well do you miss DC...It's raining here but 68 degrees so who can argue...did you have fun at your conference...what do you want for your birthday coming up...what stuff do you like to do."

Eww…can't this dude get a MySpace page like all the other weirdos trolling for high school ass?

Sure, Foley's campaign is calling the story "a political attack and an attempt at the worst kind of character assassination", and they may very well prove to be correct. However, there is a bit of perverted ironic justice to the recent turn of events:

…if it turns out that there's anything to the allegations about Foley, the congressman has certainly provided his critics with plenty of hoisting-on-his-own-petard material. In remarks delivered on Internet Safety Day in 2004, Foley warned that the Internet "provides a new medium for pedophiles to reach out to our most vulnerable citizens -- America's children." And in an interview with National Public Radio back in 2002, Foley, who co-chairs the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, complained that the Supreme Court had "sided with pedophiles over children" when it struck down a child pornography law. "I'm not a prude," Foley said in the NPR interview. "I have no problem with adult pornography. People are entitled to read it, watch it, see it in their homes or in public accommodations. Where I have to draw the line is using children for the excitement of those more mature people who should know the difference and know better."

Seriously, where's the Capitol Hill SVU team when you need it? And why is Jim McGreevey applying for a job in Foley's office?

Even I’m getting tired of N-word week

Loyal readers (hi mom) are likely as burned out as I am about the racist allegations flying around Virginia's senatorial campaign. Don't get me wrong – it is ALWAYS fun calling out hypocritical douchebags – but enough is enough…right?

I suppose it's only fair to end the week discussing the new allegations that have surfaced accusing Jim Webb of being every bit the racist as his opponent, George Felix Allen:

Daniel Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb who supports Allen, says that he remembers Webb telling him in a 1983 interview about college trips to the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles 20 years earlier, when Webb allegedly said he would harass black residents…Cragg insisted that he remembered Webb telling him that he would "click the trigger" of an empty rifle in the direction of the residents, and utter racial epithets.

This sounds bad. However, the story was first reported by the Washington Post, which, conveniently enough, was lead to Cragg by the Allen campaign (all of Allen's accusers came forward on their own, were found by investigative reporters and/or had hoped to remain silent but had private e-mails made public by their colleagues). And lest we be confused, the stories about Allen involve first-hand recollections of people who witnessed the senator's racism; Cragg claims to have heard Webb admit to his indiscretions (the difference being allegations against only one of the candidates would be admissible as evidence in a court of law).

And how about this nugget?

Cragg said he expected to find evidence of the conversation on an audiotape of the interview, but the tape contained no such reference. "Either I turned the recorder off, or later I sat down and I deleted it," claimed Cragg.

Right, either you turned off the recorder, deleted it, or your dog ate it. I understand.

Listen, Jim Webb is no angel. He infamously penned a brief in 1979 entitled "Women Can't Fight" and spoke of a coed Naval Academy dorm as "a horny woman's dream". But let's get one thing clear: there is only ONE candidate in the race who tried to bully a brown-skinned man with a racial epithet, claim the word had no meaning, claim his staff made up the word, then again claim it had no meaning (who knows what the story is today?). There is only one candidate that posed for a campaign ad with a Confederate flag, much like he had posed with one in his high school yearbook. There's only one candidate whose college classmates went on record as hearing and witnessing his racism and only one who opposed a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jim Webb is no angel; but there is definitive proof that George Allen is a pompous, lying, arrogant, bullying racist. Isn't that enough to close the book?

I’m not a racist - it was the guy on the grassy knoll!

I'm sure there are things to write about other than George Allen's use of "the N-word", but none of them are quite as fun. Remember that massive liberal conspiracy? Well, it's at it again:

Ellen Hawkins, who described herself as a rural Virginia housewife and an active Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday that she heard Mr. Allen use the slur repeatedly at a party on election night in 1976. She said Mr. Allen used the term while deprecating the intelligence of the black players on the Washington Redskins football team, which Mr. Allen's father coached. Recalling remarks about its star running back, Larry Brown, Mrs. Hawkins said that Mr. Allen "started in effect bad-mouthing him, saying what a shiftless you-know-what" he was.

I hate to kick a man while he's down – actually, that's a lie. I love it. But kicking him is better than lynching, which besides being disgusting and illegal, may be the kind of thing that the Senator gets off on.

Next up – ‘but some of my best friends are gooks’

After the news broke about George Allen's use of "the N-word" in college, the Senator immediately and vociferously denied it as a partisan attempt to bring him down. On Monday he told the AP, "The story and…assertions in there are completely false."

What else was he going to say? "Yup, I hate them niggers. Spics too." The only big surprise was how quickly facts were uncovered that prove he's a liar.

In the heat of Macaca-Gate, Chris Taylor, a University of Alabama professor of anthropology, wrote to a colleague and detailed the Senator's past racism. Taylor's August 17 e-mail recalled his days as a University of Virginia grad student and how he met Allen while earning extra money doing publicity photo shoots:

I met him twice actaully [ sic]. I did two modelling [sic] jobs with his then wife and she told me about some puppies they were trying to give away. I told her I'd like to take one. So one evening I went out to their place in the country near [ Charlottesville] somewhere. There was a pond quite close by. I asked if they had any waterfowl landing there. George told me about the ducks and geese that sometimes landed there and about the ducks who tried to raise their young but who would have them all devoured by the big turtles in the pond. Well, why doesn't someone kill the turtles and eat them? I asked. George said 'only the niggers around here eat em.'

Just so you get the timeline right, Taylor sent this e-mail a full month before any other allegations surfaced about Allen using "the N-word", and the e-mail itself was made public by the receiver, not sender (this should diminish Allen's inevitable claims of a partisan conspiracy).

Is that all, Senator? You hate the browns , you hate the blacks and you seem to exhibit classic Jewish self-loathing (maybe instead of Felix we should call you George "Woody" Allen). You think being liberal is almost as bad as being able to read. You threw your own flesh and blood through a glass door. Are we leaving anyone or anything out? What's you take on kittens: kill or cuddle?

Felix's Faux Pas

The picture just keeps getting uglier for Senator George Felix Allen. While his racism came into national focus thanks to Macaca-Gate, it seems that his bigotry can be traced to the very beginning of his Virginia roots.

In case you need a refresher, the California-born mock redneck Allen infamously posed with a Confederate pin in his high school yearbook and later appeared in a campaign ad filmed at his home with the flag in the background. And then there's the matter of his record as a lawmaker. " As a member of the Virginia Legislature, Allen opposed a state holiday honoring Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As Virginia's governor, Allen issued a proclamation honoring Confederate History Month that contained no mention of slavery."

But wait…there's more. Now, three of Allen's former University of Virginia football teammates have come forth with corroborating stories of the senator's racism:

"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."

A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," the teammate said.

A third white teammate contacted separately, who also spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being attacked by the Virginia senator, said he too remembers Allen using the word "nigger," though he said he could not recall a specific conversation in which Allen used the term. "My impression of him was that he was a racist," the third teammate said.

To be fair, these allegations were made by only three of Allen's 19 former teammates interviewed by reporters. Some even claim the senator had " no prejudices, biases or anything else." And yet, there seems to be no political agenda driving the outing of the would-be Klansman/Senator. Shelton – the only named accuser – has a bipartisan voting record and has publicly supported Republican candidates. Why would he lie about a man he hasn't talked to in thirty years?

Here's the thing – I hate the whole "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument, but there are more fumes coming out of Allen's campaign than there are at a Phish concert. You may not believe that he liked/likes to use the word "nigger", or that he stuffed a dead dear's head into a black family's mailbox, or that he had heard the word "Macaca" at least once prior to using it to mock a brown-skinned employee of his opponent, or that he spoke fondly about imperial wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, or any other less-than-flattering story in the news. But the facts that we do know about this douchebag (zest for the Confederate Flag, white supremacist voting record, a noose hanging outside his law office) certainly make these new allegations a lot more believable, don't they?

Maneuvers and Manure

We liberals may control the media (or is that we Jews? Or are the two the same thing?), but the Grand Old Party does propaganda like nobody's business. While some of us optimistically focus on the number of congressional seats Democrats may pick up this November, there is a considerable amount of conservative legislation masquerading as "moderate" and "rational" because of clever political maneuvering.

Take, for example, a proposal by Senators McCain, Graham and Warner which would strip the right of habeas corpus from political detainees. In other words, detainees couldn't challenge the validity of their imprisonment ("here's proof I'm not a terrorist"), or challenge the legality of their treatment ("here's proof I was tortured").

…Virtually no attention has been paid to this radical and wildly unjust provision, because as bad as the McCain-Graham-Warner proposal is, the president's was slightly worse. And by masquerading as the principled opponents to a handful of the most extreme provisions in the president's proposals, these "dissident Republican senators" were depicted as the moderates in the debate, as the reasonable, serious thinkers who would carefully balance the need for strong antiterrorist measures with the need to safeguard our basic liberties.

The "this may be a finger up your ass, but at least it's not a fist" approach to government shows up again in the debate over Dubya's illegal, warrantless eavesdropping program:

…the understandable focus on the incomparably dangerous [Bush lackey and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen] Specter bill has obscured the fact that there are competing bills sponsored by "independent, dissident Republican lawmakers" that are only slightly less horrible than the Specter bill but still radical and destructive in their own right. Competing bills by Sen. Michael DeWine and Rep. Heather Wilson, for instance, would vest in the president the power to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans without judicial oversight or approval of any kind.

The parallels with the torture debacle are obvious. The torture controversy arose because the president wanted to use techniques of torture to interrogate detainees, and he proposed an extremist piece of legislation to accomplish that. Republican senators flamboyantly opposed that legislation -- thus bestowing themselves with "moderate" credentials -- but introduced their own slightly less extremist proposal that accomplished the same thing (legalizing the torture techniques).

Do you see what's happening here? With virtually no public support for the Interloper or his policies, Republicans are protecting their own hides by lining up in faux opposition to the president's agenda. "Hey, we stood up to Bush!" is a great GOP rallying cry, especially when instead of supporting the worst legislation ever, they're simply proposing the second-worst legislation. But hey, next to a ton of manure, one pile of shit doesn't smell so bad, right?

The Catch-22 is, of course, that Democrats can't really oppose "compromise" legislation because of this diabolical GOP positioning. We have once again been painted into a corner that will force us to "cowardly" defend terrorists if we oppose "moderate" Republication legislation. It's a paradox worthy of Lucifer himself; perhaps Hugo was right after all…

Sticks and Stones

Venezuela President Hugo Chavez is getting a lot of press for a speech at the UN in which he called George W. Bush "the devil" and noted his stench of sulfur. Really, Hugo…the devil? Aren't you giving Dubya a bit too much credit? I mean, call him the Interloper, call him the Wizard, hell, you can even call him a douchebag. But the prince of darkness may be a bit much.

Of course, Republicans are offended. And well they should be; it's not like the GOP throws around hyperbole, right? Uh…guess again.

President Bush, of course, famously labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil" and recently began using the term "Islamic fascists" in campaign speeches to describe America's enemies. Meanwhile, Bush officials and their supporters have been repeatedly invoking the now-standard rhetorical tactic of comparing America's enemies, including other heads of state, to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi threat.

American protests over the improper tone of Chavez's speech were led by U.N. ambassador John Bolton, who decried the "comic book approach to international affairs" and, without any trace of irony, scoffed that nobody above the level of "junior note-taker" was paying attention to what Chavez said. Bolton, of course, was sent to be America's ambassador to the world despite having once contended that "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," and despite almost single-handedly destroying American nuclear weapons negotiations with North Korea by calling Kim Jong Il, on the eve of the talks, a "tyrannical dictator" and the leader of an "evil regime."

Now I get it. Chavez comes off as a world leader light on diplomacy and prone to exaggeration, while the US continues to fall deeper into the pit of hypocrisy. Or maybe it's just the Eighth Circle. I can never tell.

Flip Flop Hooray

In the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry was infamously and repeatedly quoted as voting "for the Iraq war before I voted against it." Branded a flip-flopper on an issue of the utmost national importance, Kerry never truly overcame the label and his seemingly hypocritical voting record.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot…or hoof, if you will. Not content with simply spitting on the US Constitution, the Interloper has set out to render irrelevant the Geneva Convention. That Republican congressional cronies would be on board is no surprise; what is, however, is that Dubya and some of his most ardent supporters today were singing a different tune in the not-too-distant past.

… Some of the very Republicans who now say the War Crimes Act needs to be amended were among those who helped write it 10 years ago. [House Armed Services Committee chairman] Duncan Hunter, in fact, was one of the 15 Republicans in the House (there were also three Democrats) who co-sponsored the original legislation, and he also co-sponsored an expansion of the act, covering even more potential transgressions, that passed the very next year. Similarly, in the Senate, the man who shepherded the original bill through that body in 1996, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, is now a co-sponsor of the bill that would gut it.

Bush, too, is not above going back on his word. During a radio address in March 2003, Dubya said he was committed to strict adherence to the accepted laws of war. "The contrast could not be greater between the honorable conduct of our liberating force and the criminal acts of the enemy," he said.

So what happened? Are Bush and the GOP flip-floppers on a scale that goes far beyond John Kerry? It's hard to argue otherwise, at least when you look at the facts.

But I'm not convinced. The self-proclaimed " Decider" is not known to easily change his mind, and flip-flopping – even if/when warranted by new evidence – is completely out of character. No, my guess is that the Wonderful Wizard of the White House talked the talk back in 2003, but never truly intended to walk the walk. Through his blatant disregard for political tradition, diplomacy and universally acceptable behavior, George W. Bush has repeatedly shown that he thinks he is above the law. He may have paid lip service to the Geneva Convention when it was politically beneficial for him to do so, but that was all for show.

When rules don't apply to you, how can you break them? And when you don't mean what you say, how can you ever be judged harshly for going against your word? That's not flip-flopping, friends…that's just a big "fuck you".

Image is Everything (at least when compared to real issues)

Andre Agassi may have retired from professional tennis, but that doesn't mean Canon can't revive its popular 1990s advertising campaign with a new spokesman – George W. Bush.

Much like Agassi, in his early career, seemed more intent on looking like a star than playing like one, Dubya likes to talk tough on terror even though his actions are hilariously/frighteningly inept.

Los Angeles Times columnist, The New Republic senior editor and frequent (and unaware) PatRoW contributor Jonathan Chait reminds us of the day when the Interloper stood on a pile of smoldering WTC rubble and proclaimed "The people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." And while Osama is still running free, that doesn't stop el presidente from pretending to have fulfilled his vow:

…The Bush administration has decided to stake the 2006 elections on Bush's record of fighting terrorism. It sounds like a joke, but it isn't. He let our worst enemies escape; he is on the verge of creating a terrorist haven in Iraq where none existed before; and this is the issue he picks to highlight. Why not run on his record of evacuating New Orleans? Maybe Bill Clinton can run on his record of chastity!

Chait jokes, but the truth is scary. Republicans, following Dubya's lead, are notoriously adept at framing debates under the terms that are least likely to embarrass them. The GOP should be crushed in the upcoming election because they have proven to be incapable representatives and lying sacks of cunt, yet are likely to maintain slight majorities in both houses of Congress because they have positioned themselves as strong where they are really most vulnerable.

(If George W. Bush were an epic hero in Homeric literature, he would brag about his strong and invincible heel. Also, he'd be really old.)

The "walk softly and carry a big stick" days of government are over. Bush, Cheney, Rove & Co. have firmly ushered in an era of "talk loudly and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." Lovely. Teddy Roosevelt meet L. Frank Baum; you two will be rolling over together for the next few years.

Laughable Offenses

Hollywood has generated a lot of buzz recently, and believe it or not, some of it does not revolve around a confused Kazakhstani's nude wrestling match. No, it seems that some television hosts have abandoned scare tactics and over-dramatized reports to deliver real news and opinions. Crazy, huh?

We'll start with "comedian" Bill Maher, whose profession goes in quotes for two reasons: 1) his stand-up comedy is not very funny; and 2) his talk show is more honest and newsworthy than a certain new anchor's gushing debut interview. Anyway, Maher gave a refreshing rebuttal to much of the administration's lies when he spoke this week about patriotism:

Amid all the 9/11 anniversary talk about what will keep us safe, let me suggest that in a world turned hostile to America, the smartest message we can send to those beyond our shores is, "We're not with stupid." Therefore, I contend -- with all seriousness -- that ridiculing this president is now the most patriotic thing you can do. Let our allies and our enemies alike know that there's a whole swath of Americans desperate to distance themselves from Bush's foreign policies.

Hear that, douchebags? I'm a patriot…and PatRoW is my "one if by land, two if by sea" opus.

Moving on, let's look at blogosphere hero and sports-turned news-turned sports-turned news personality Keith Olberman. Last week, Olberman verbally raped Donald Rumsfeld (he was asking for it); on Monday night, he reflected on how the president has criminally altered the global political landscape:

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the president in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that. Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that. Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people. The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, 'bi-partisanship' meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the vice president's words yesterday, 'validate the strategy of the terrorists.'

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is 'lying by implication.' The impolite phrase is 'impeachable offense.'

Now I'm not saying that we should take Olberman's advice and impeach an American president for abusing the trust of the electorate, lying to Congress and breaking dozens of national and international laws, but hell, we have impeached presidents for less. Blow jobs for everybody!

Reading is fundamental…and a political liability in Virginia

I came a bit late to the "Let's call out this racist on his transparent attempt to pander and repair damage done to his image" party, but there's still a few shots to take at George Felix Allen. Trying to move past Macaca-Gate in typical Republican fashion – dirty campaigning for those of you scoring at home – Allen's website has posted a series of press releases that try to paint his opponent in what they think is a negative light. Here is an example:

ARLINGTON, VA – Hollywood movie producer and fiction novelist James H. Webb, Jr. has rejected the request of former First Lady Nancy Reagan to withdraw a television ad that implies the late President Ronald Reagan is endorsing Webb.

"The same campaign that described President Reagan as a 'pompous, arrogant fool' has now dismissively treated the late president's widow with unbelievable disrespect," said Dick Wadhams, campaign manager for U.S. Senator George Allen. "Former First Lady Nancy Reagan deserves much better than the public rejection from James H. Webb, Jr."

Hollywood movie producer and novelist Webb announced he would begin airing on Monday, September 11—the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks…

Apparently, Allen thinks that it is better to be a Confederate flag-toting, Martin Luther King Day-opposing, name-calling bully than it is to be either: a) from California; or b) literate.

Here's the thing – Allen, as well as the dead president he's supporting, ARE FROM FUCKING CALIFORNIA (Webb was born in Missouri ). Oh yeah, and despite the connotations attached to his ten gallon hat, oversized belt buckle and ridiculous cowboy boots/business suit ensemble, word has it that he can, in fact, read some too.

You say ‘worst president ever’; I say toe-mah-toe

The always enlightening Salon War Room plays a game of "he said – douche said" with the Interloper and key members of his administration…and boy is it fun. Or sickening. I really can't decide.

The White House said that the president's prime-time 9/11 anniversary speech wouldn't be a "political" one, and, by the standards of this administration, it wasn't. The president avoided calling his political opponents "appeasers," an argument Dick Cheney reprised in his own anniversary remarks earlier in the day, and he didn't argue, as Cheney did over the weekend, that terrorists are "encouraged" when Americans debate the future of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

…As a candidate, George W. Bush called himself a "uniter, not a divider," someone who would "refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another." As president, Bush declared that you're either "with us" or "with the terrorists," and his administration has made it clear over the past five years that while foreign governments only sometimes have to make that either/or choice, the American people always do.

Two weeks after 9/11, the president's then press secretary told Americans that they "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Five years later, his secretary of defense equates critics of the war in Iraq with Nazi appeasers, his secretary of state compares them with Civil War-era slavery supporters, and his vice president -- never a man of metaphor -- says that the basic Democratic act of voting for a candidate who wants to see the troops redeployed comes perilously close to treason.

Got all that? War opponents are not enemy appeasers…except when they oppose the war. And all Americans are united regardless of party affiliation…except anyone who doesn't agree with the president. And we all need to choose our words carefully…except when we're ruthlessly slandering anyone who stands against us.

I know its all par for the course, but I just thought it needed to be said again. We need to remember these hypocritical words and deeds come November because, as a not-so-wise man once said, "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

...

Maybe I'm a day late in my 9/11 retrospective, but shit, our country is only about 4 ½ years late in catching Osama bin Laden…so let's call it a wash.

Anyway, with all of the horrible memories of September 11 still fresh in our minds, I'm stuck on why some insist on perpetuating the lasting sickness of that day. No one is saying we should look back with fondness, but I swear that some elements of society (re: TV entertainews) have been salivating for the opportunity to replay images of the Twin Towers burning, people jumping and the buildings falling. Their sheer smugness is revolting…and it was everywhere yesterday; from Bill O'Reilly to Matt Lauer, every TV talking head was vying to out-douche his peer and show/talk about the most graphic and horrible aspects of the most graphically horrible day in a lifetime.

I wonder if the media's despicable actions yesterday are in response to what viewers really want, or if what we want is in response to what the media tells us. Are we all just masochists…or are well all just sheep?

Rather than celebrate the lives of the thousands who died, we seem obsessed with making ourselves miserable all over again. I don't need any help in recalling those dark feelings, and I resent the media, politicians, anchormen and office chatterboxes who insist on wallowing in their enduring sadness without acknowledging the fear, relief, and – above all – hate that is stronger than ever in American hearts.

And that's what 9/11 is about, isn't it? We're different now: we're afraid and we hate and maybe – if we're lucky – we have a greater appreciation for our loved ones. I don't need to watch a plane hit a building to remind me of those feelings; they've been with me every day for the last five years.

Drunken Aschlochs

Every so often, a drunken escapade can lead to a life-changing epiphany. OK, who am I kidding? Drunken escapades always lead to life-changing epiphanies, only instead of a DUI and a night in jail, mine may change the world as we know it.

A bit of hyperbole? Perhaps…but perhaps not.

You see, last Saturday I drove to Milwaukee with a group of friends, planning to fill an otherwise boring Labor Day Weekend with the Three B's: brewery, brats and beer. The Miller tour went swimmingly, but plans to take in the Brewers-Marlins game were abandoned when we stumbled upon a local Bavarian bar and its fascinating pastime.

The recipe sounds simple enough: take one giant stump, one large mallet, six feet of heavy chain, one square head nail, a door-to-door cannoli and pepperoni vendor (yes, they do exist) who doesn't speak English and mix with a liter of fine German brew. There really is no explanation for why the game was so addictive, but over the next 8 hours, our group hammered over 200 nails into that poor stump (and yes, two of us may now need rotator cuff surgery).

Anyway, the video is on YouTube (someday I'll learn how to put it in the body of my blog)…but the idea is just taking root. Once we get a few venture capitalists on board, you can look forward to "Aschloch" coming to a tailgate near you; we just have to figure out the most cost-effective and risk-adverse way to expose the masses to this dangerous mix of lethal weapons and alcohol. But really, what drunken buffoon wouldn't pay $1 per nail to race his friends in this simple test of brute strength and depth perception? It's a gold mine, Jerry. A gold mine.

If you want to invest in Aschloch, Inc., or know how we can avoid getting our asses sued by the first idiot who drops the mallet on his buddy's toe, please let me know. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that the future of the free world depends upon it.

***

PS - and like magic, the video is now on PatRoW!

Prepare to be scared

There's a radio station in Chicago that puts its call letters on large billboards next to the tagline "Liberals Hate Us". And you know what? If I chose to listen to this particular conservative talk station, I would, indeed, hate it. Honestly, I don't have a problem with AM 560's tagline, even if I may have a problem with any douchebag who turns in because he likes the billboard.

Here is what I *do* have a problem with. So many websites/online services look at what and where you surf in order to generate targeted advertisements. As you may guess, I get a fair share of political adverts (and a disproportionate number of links written in Arabic), none of which have ever bothered me…until now. Check this out:

Liberals fear him – www.paulbucher.com – Who scares the liberals in the race for Wisconsin Attorney General?

Hear that sound? It's me, quaking in my liberal loafers. This douchebag had the audacity to claim that people should vote for him because he "scares liberals"? Bucher is so proud of his conservative values that he no doubt embraces everything GOP, right?

Wrong. You know what simple fact is missing from Bucher's travashamockery of a website? His party affiliation. Gee, I wonder why someone who scares liberals would choose to omit that he's a Republican…I mean, do you think that he's scared of being associated with the historically unpopular figurehead who leads the party? That doesn't sound like a guy liberals should fear; it sounds like someone we should mock.

He fears the truth – www.paulbucher.com – Who is scared of you connecting the dots?

Intelligent Evolution

A funny thing is happening in the nation's heartland – many of Kansas' moderate Republicans, disgusted with the state party's social conservative agenda, have switched parties and running for office as Democrats. And they said evolution was dead in Kansas…

This November, Democrat candidates will include the former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, a four-term district attorney, and seven other former GOPissants. Credit for their redemption can be attributed to Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and state party chairman Larry Gates…but they had some help.

Sebelius and Gates have been abetted by the social conservatives who dominate the Kansas Republican Party. When conservative Republicans won seats on the state school board, for example, and changed the science teaching standards to include the theory of intelligent design, Kansas became a national punch line, and moderate Republicans squirmed.

[Paul] Morrison, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that it took more than a call from Sebelius to persuade him to switch. Morrison, who calls himself a "very, very moderate person," felt that incumbent Phill Kline had turned the attorney general's office into a platform for partisan politics. Kline made headlines when he attempted to access the medical records of Kansas women who'd had abortions. "So much time and energy," Morrison says, "is being spent on pursuing a narrow partisan agenda that most people don't agree with."

For Cindy Neighbor, who's running for the state House, the decision to ditch the Republican Party came when she looked at a platform that included opposition to stem cell research and support for school vouchers and the teaching of intelligent design.

Hmm…maybe we should encourage more ridiculous right-wing agendas and outlandish hyperbole. I mean, if we shake the few sensible apples off the GOP tree, the Democratic Party stands a much better chance at capturing moderate/independent voters and passing legislation that matters, right?

Actually, some people disagree. Kansas State University Political Science professor Joe Aistrup thinks that " the addition of former Republicans may be shifting Kansas Democrats to the right. Any time, as a party, you start expanding the base to include former members of the other party, you're recalibrating the party to a more moderate point of view." And Thomas Frank, author and self-proclaimed player on "Team Liberal" says that, "I don't think it's that great a victory if people come to the Democratic Party without any kind of change of heart, or if the Democratic Party is just becoming full of moderate Republicans. Then that's, in some ways, a terrible defeat for my side."

As much as I want to see Team Liberal win (and dude – when are we getting team jerseys already?), I can't help but think that we have to make room for all moderates, at least in a state as Red as Kansas. Core liberal issues may never play in the Sunflower State, but I think we need to swallow our blue pride for a chance to capture as many offices as possible. Maybe Kansas will never fully embrace the liberal revolution, but there's a good chance we can help its citizens evolve into a mindset a bit more appropriate for the 21 ^st Century.

Darwin would be so proud.

Desperate Douchebag

Remember when I was Lieberman-obsessed a few weeks ago? Or when I couldn't get enough of bashing Scott McClellan? Well, it seems that PatRoW's new whipping boy isn't a boy at all, but she's every bit the douche of my previous victims and I just can't stop laughing at her.

And apparently, I'm not the only one.

As Floridians prepare for next week's primary, the Orlando Sentinel makes an interesting plea on behalf of a much-maligned GOP cunt candidate: "Vote Katherine [Harris], if just for the entertainment":

Dumping Katherine would be like yanking Desperate Housewives halfway through the season. Our very own Bree Van de Kamp puts on that peach sweater, screws a smile on her face and bravely carries on even as her ungrateful Republican family stabs her in the back and the world disintegrates around her.

Do you want to miss the meltdown in the season finale?

Kat's tenuous grasp of reality was on full display Thursday night as she appeared on Hardball. Salon recapped some of the highlights:

Harris on polls showing that Nelson will "crush" her in November: "You can make polls say whatever you want."

You know, except that I have a chance of winning. But you can make the polls say virtually anything else.

Harris on a former campaign advisor's claim that she said God told her to run: "That's silly, that's just silly. I wouldn't be so presumptuous about what God would say. I think that's up to His own decisions."

You know, except that Jesus loves me and hates the Jews.

Harris on why Republicans seem to have a "great dislike" for her campaign: "I don't think there's a great dislike. In fact, across the board, Republicans have supported me in every place we have gone."

You know, except in the polls. Republicans have supported me everywhere else, though…

I’d like to thank my chief strategist, Osama…

Addressing the American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City yesterday, the Interloper gave some interesting justifications for why it is critical for the US to maintain its illegal war and occupation of Iraq:

Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the 'third world war is raging' in Iraq. It would come as news to the number two man of al Qaeda, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, 'the place for the greatest battle.'

That's right – he went there. No longer content to let his VP make silly claims that terrorists are emboldened by a primary election, or his SecDef blatantly lie about the state of affairs in Baghdad, Dubya is now "proving" our moral obligation to fight by quoting Osama-freaking-bin Laden!

What a fucking douchebag. We have to fight because Osama says so? Since when does American foreign policy take its lead from oil-rich, Saudi extremists?

Oh yeah…