Rahm Emanuel

I've blogged about Rahm before, but its a good time to remind everyone who he is.

Rahm is currently the chief of staff for Obama. Before that:

• He worked for Mayor Daley as a fund raiser.
• He worked for Bill Clinton as a campaign adviser, and was instrumental in his defense during impeachment.
• Rahm earned $320,000 working 14 months, starting in 2000, for Freddie Mac. He was appointed by Bill Clinton.
  
• After that, he was hired by a fund raiser for Clinton to work as an Investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. He made $16.2 million in 2 1/2 years.
• Then Rahm became a state senator. While he was doing that, he worked as a campaign strategist for Governor Blagojevich.

That makes him the first person I know of who has worked for both an impeached president and an impeached governor.

I'm important to remind you; when he worked for Clinton, he was appointed to the board of Freddie Mac in 2000. In 14 months, Rahm earned $320,000, or about 1/3rd of a million dollars in a little over a year.

So to me, it came as no surprise that Rahm's name came up when Blago was suspected of bribing people. I even told several people that I expected Rahm to be indicted as a person who was complicit in the scandal.

I was, however, surprised to read this headline in Politico as the indictment came down for Blagojevich:

Indictment suggests Rahm, brother were victims of extortion attempt

Rahm was a 'victim' of extortion???

Its time to remind everyone that Rahm worked as a campaign strategists for Blago.
Rahm was apparently looking for $2 Million for 'athletic facilities' at a school. This leads to the obvious question: how was Rahm being punished?
Unless, of course, Rahm was looking to profit somehow off of the two million dollars worth of 'athletic improvements' on one school.

But I digress.

When Blago was first indicted, Rahm ducked reporters.
The Obama administration was quick to say that they had to be quiet, because a criminal investigation was under way.
Then things got weird.
It was discovered that Rahm had spoken to Blago on a number of occasions.

I believe that Rahm had pitched a 'senate candidate' to Blago. Blago, being Blago, would have asked for something in return.

I know I have to convince some people, so let's start with the section of the criminal complaint that everyone has heard.
This is on page 68, number 104:

ROD BLAGOJEVICH suggested starting a 501(c)(4) organization (a non-profit organization that may engage in political activity and lobbying) and getting “his (believed to be the President-elect’s) friend Warren Buffett or some of those guys to help us on something like that.” HARRIS asked, “what, for you?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied, “yeah.”
[snip]
Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.”

That's section 104 of the criminal complaint. Its the one talking point that the WH apparently pushed to the press... the fact that Rod said "Fuck them." if all they wanted to give was appreciation. But Rod was speculating about what they might say... because he kept talking about working out a deal.

That's clear from the next few notes in the criminal complaint:
From section 105:

Later on November 11, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A.
Advisor A indicated that he will stay “on top” of getting the Senate Candidate 5 information leaked to the particular Sun Times columnist. ROD BLAGOJEVICH again raised the idea of the 501(c)(4) organization and asked whether “they” (believed be the President-elect and his associates) can get Warren Buffett and others to put $10, $12, or $15 million into the organization. Advisor A responded that “they” should be able to find a way to fund the organization.

Just so that its clear... Blago hadn't given up on the idea of a deal with the president-elect (Obama.)

The idea of a deal is kept alive from day to day. From Section 106:

ROD BLAGOJEVICH noted that the President-elect can ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and others for money for the organization. ROD BLAGOJEVICH states he will ask “[Senate Candidate 6]” to help fund it as well. HARRIS said that funding the 501(c)(4) would be a lot easier for the President-elect than appointing ROD BLAGOJEVICH to a position.

From section 107:

On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor B. ROD
BLAGOJEVICH discussed with Advisor B his idea for a 501(c)(4) organization. Advisor B stated that he likes the idea, but liked the Change to Win option better because, according to Advisor B, from the President-elect’s perspective, there would be fewer “fingerprints” on the President-elect’s involvement with Change to Win because Change to Win already has an existing stream of revenue and, therefore, “you won’t have stories in four years that they bought you off.”

From section 108:

The advisor said he likes the Change to Win idea better, and notes that it is more likely to happen because it is one step removed from the President-elect.

Note how often the advisors are concerned that they stay one step away from the president-elect.
Like... a Chief Of Staff. From note 112 (my emphasis added in Blue):

On November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted to be able to call “[President-elect Advisor]” and tell President-elect Advisor that “this has nothing to do with anything else we’re working on but the Governor wants to put together a 501(c)(4)” and “can you guys help him. . . raise 10, 15 million.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted “[President-elect Advisor] to get the word today,” and that when “he asks me for the Fifth CD thing I want it to be in his head.” (The reference to the “Fifth CD thing” is believed to relate to a seat in the United States House of Representatives from Illinois’ Fifth Congressional District. Prior intercepted phone conversations indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others were determining whether ROD BLAGOJEVICH has the power to appoint an interim replacement until a special
election for the seat can be held.).

Who is the President-elect's advisor? He's the same guy who was from the 5th congressional district of Illinois: Rahm.
From section 113:

Also on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wants the idea of the 501(c)(4) in President-elect Advisor’s head, but not in connection with the Senate appointment or the congressional seat. Advisor A asked whether the conversation about the 501(c)(4) with President-elect Advisor is connected with anything else. ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied that “it’s unsaid. It’s unsaid.”

I hope you're following.

Shortly after that, in early December, everything blew up in Rod's face.
The prosecutor, Fitzgerald, had to act before Blago appointed someone. In the meantime, a clear path to the president-elect was being formed... through Rahm Emmanuel.

Now you can interpret this information many ways.
Obama fans will no doubt say that even if "advisor A" spoke to the President-elect's Advisor (who would most likely be Rahm), that any quid pro quo was 'unsaid'.
I would point out that if Blago thought that his former campaign strategist Rahm would go along with such a scheme, he was probably right.

The fact is that Rahm has a lot to answer for... and I don't know why the media is not asking him about it.
Rahm has left a trail of shady dealings with shady people. I find it near impossible that he is innocent in all of this. If he was, it would be the first time that he didn't profit from dealings with a shady character.

Who is this guy, at Obama's International Press Conference?

Please take a look at the first 10 seconds of this video.

This is a screen cap taken from the video. Note the guy in the Blue shirt, pointing. I highlighted it with a circle.

When I watched this press conference, I was watching streaming Fox News coverage. (I added the circled highlight)
They cut away from the president and showed a 'front' view of this guy pointing. (Highlighted)

Then the president called on someone in the direction he was pointing to... the woman from India.
From what I saw of the guy in blue, he didn't have a press pass on. He looks American.
What I want to know is: was this guy part of the White House? Is he an aide whose job it is to let the president know who he should ask?
Or is he just some tool that happened to be there, pointing at a reporter he liked?
If you know the answer, please leave a comment.

New Obama promise broken!

The AP gets credit for actually calling the president out on this.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

The short version is this: Obama is putting out a massive tax on tobacco. Anyone who thinks about this realizes that poor people smoke too.
Obviously, this massive tax will hit the poor the hardest.

A world currency??

Look... I know that there is no way that it would happen.
Heck, having a world currency would be as stupid as getting the government involved in our health care. Wait. What???

Here's the scoop:
Tim Geithner, your treasury secretary, and the guy in charge of socializing the bank and auto industry (slight sarcasm there), was speaking to the Council of Foreign Relations a few days ago.
According to Politico...

Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and "evolutionary."

Read the article. I don't think that Geithner understood what the governor of China's bank meant. If that's true, its scary that our Treasury secretary didn't understand China's proposal:

The world economic crisis shows the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help "to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

Its completely understandable that the governor of China's Central bank wanted to take over all of the banks. That's China. That's the whole "Hey, how about if we all live under one ruler and have one currency" kind of thinking.
-And like I said, its scary, but possible, that Geithner, the same man who is spending us into oblivion with bailouts, misunderstood China's way of thinking and what the governor said.

But what made Geithner comment - out loud - about the governor of China's ideas without realizing that he is, you know, the Treasury Secretary?

I think it helps if you really think about what the Obama administration is about:
Celebrity.
Getting on television at every opportunity, no matter what the show. Sharing every single thought of yours, no matter how half-assed it is.

But you can't do that when you are the president. You can't do that when you are the Treasury Secretary of the US. Because people will taking your thoughts seriously, even if you don't.

Did Obama know what the Stimulus Bill Contained?

Remember how Obama pushed the Stimulus bill through?
Remember how he said it couldn't wait?

When Obama promoted and signed the bill, known as:

House Report 111-016 - MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR JOB PRESERVATION AND CREATION, INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SCIENCE, ASSISTANCE TO THE UNEMPLOYED, AND STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL STABILIZATION, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Did he know that it contained this phrase?

`(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

If he didn't.... he shouldn't have signed it.
If he did, then he is a complete fraud and a liar.

So you know, these are the co-sponsors of that bill:
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 1/26/2009
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 1/26/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 1/26/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 1/26/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 1/26/2009
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] - 1/26/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 1/26/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/26/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 1/26/2009

They are either incompetent, or liars. Take your pick.
One thing is for sure... if you believed in Hope&Change from Obama?
WAKE THE FUCK UP!

"Let's make soldiers use private insurance for their wounds!"

No one could be that dumb.
Really... how on earth would anyone come up with the idea of making private insurance companies pay for expenses related to a soldiers injuries while he was serving?

Well, that's what Obama tried to do. From American Legion:

The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

Its such a stupid concept, that I can't believe it ever got out of the realm of discussion in the White House. Somehow, it did. I gotta wonder what asshat tried to pass this through?

This is what the Military.com said about it:

The Obama administration is considering making veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat and service-related injuries.

You need to read the comments.
Here is one of the nicer ones:

Only in America can a man who has no business getting elected as President, get there, only to continue to punish those that fought to get him there. This Administration is already out of control and sending the Nation further down the wrong path. It never ends with this clown. Having been retired now, I'm glad I don't have to follow the orders of such a pathetic man. He appears to have no ethics or morals. What an embarrassment to that Office!

That was one of the ones I could print.
Of course, Veterans groups were outraged. According to Fox:

President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care.

The Veterans made a big deal out of it, until Obama's spokesperson came forward, and admitted that they had made a mistake.

"In considering the third-party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday in a written statement. "However, the president listened to concerns raised by the [veteran service organizations] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans' and their families' ability to access health care.

What a load of crap. These asshats proposed something really, really dumb.
The only question is why they ever thought it was a good idea.

US is 'opposing' the lawsuit against torture

What does this mean?
It means that the new boss isn't that different from the old boss.

The Obama Administration, taking its first position in a federal court on claims of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, urged the D.C. Circuit Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit by four Britons formerly held there. In addition, the new filing argued that a recent appeals court ruling makes clear that “aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights.”
Really?

Wow. You didn't argue that when Bush was in office.
AP summed it up like this:

The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

Which proves that Obama was full of crap. Along with everyone who still supports him, after arguing that he was opposed to 'torture.'

POTUS playing it the same as previous administration

After telling us that the detainees couldn't/shouldn't be held, Obama's administration is trying to pretend like they are 'changing':

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is leading the administration’s effort to develop a new detention regime, took pains to tell the court that the administration’s effort was ongoing, and that its legal position could evolve. Moreover, the administration said its new position only applied to current Guantánamo detainees — not to “military operations generally, or detention in other contexts.”

There is a lot of hair-splitting on the issue with the Obama administration, who is trying to pretend like they've changed the outcome completely, when they really haven't.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm glad tha tthe administration is continuing to hold bad guys. But they were completely dishonest about the previous administration. -And now that its their responsibility to keep bad guys detained, they've gotten religion. So to speak.

Everyone should remember who Charles Freeman is

Obama had his first fundraiser with terrorist William Ayers.
He hired a racist as his 'spiritual advisor'.
Then came this lunatic, Charles Freeman, who he tried to hire on as his chairman for the National Intelligence Council.

"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."

The article from Politico details how Obama repeatedly had to distance himself from aides that he had hired who had loony points of view on Palestine.

Speaking of Nationalizing Banks...

Here is an article in the International Herald describing it:

As public outrage swells over the rapidly growing cost of bailing out financial institutions, the administration of President Barack Obama and lawmakers are attaching more and more strings to rescue funds.

I'm not a socialist. I just want to nationalize your banks, health care, and make everyone employed

Audio of Obama denying that he's a socialist.
I just wanted to booklink it, so that years from now, everyone can say "Oh yeah... I guess I should have seen that coming"

Obama reads teleprompter, thanks himself

He's such an idiot.
Okay, so this is what happened:
Obama is having a press conference with the Irish Prime Minister. Obama reads his comments. The Irish Prime Minister goes to read his comments, but then realizes that its Obama's speech.

Obama, trying to 'save the day', gets up to read his speech. Again.

But during that time, someone has switched out his speech with the speech of the Irish Prime Minister's speech... so unknown to Obama, he's reading the PM's speech.
And he doesn't realize it, until he thanks himself.

Now tell me: If this were any other president, wouldn't that be the lead story on the news? About how silly it that the president didn't know he was reading someone elses speech?

Worst President / Dow ever

From the Seattle Times, of all places:

Stocks turn in worst performance for new president

Keep in mind... its Seattle. So they probably think of this as a positive.
The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen 21 percent during Obama's first seven weeks in office. Count back to Election Day and the results are even bleaker: That afternoon, the Dow closed at 9,625. Now it stands at 6,547, a loss of 32 percent.

Who would guess that a man who preaches socialist policies would cause the Dow to drop?

Is Wikipedia really scrubbing criticism of Obama?

A while back, I went to correct some entries on Bill Clinton on Wiki.

I need to point out that I hate Wiki. I think its a dumb idea, because it pretends like its an unbiased source. However, each article ends up being edited by those who have the most passion on any subject, whether or not that passion is correct.

Imagine a Wiki entry on 9/11.
Heck... just visit the site.... and check out the history of edits on September 11th. You'll note that on any given day, some conspiracy nut edits the page.

With that in mind, I kinda cringed when I read this post:

Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.

I normally don't put much weight into World Net Daily. But this time, I do. We've all been there. If you say something negative about Obama, the most passionate people won't hear it. At all.
Its scary.

Obama bristles at being called a Socialist

And I get angry when people say that I love dark chocolate.

The Washington Times sums it up:

President Obama was so concerned that he had appeared to dismiss a question from New York Times reporters about whether he was a socialist that he called the newspaper from the Oval Office to clarify his policies.

Here is the audio of the call.

Charles Krauthammer rips Obama a new one

Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "$2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.

Read it. Its brilliant.

How to have a dishonest debate

Every once in a while I wander over into another person's blog to debate a point.

I found "Please Cut The Crap" in a roundabout way. On a political BBS, one of the writers (nicknamed Claimsman) started a thread with a bunch of facts that had no attribution. I was curious as to where he was getting his facts, so I Googled the information contained in the post.
It turned out that the guy had copied and pasted from someone's blog.
That's how I found this post entitled "Why Should We Even Listen To Right Wing Pols?"

If you go there, you'll find that the poster lists off a bunch of 'facts' to explain how 'red' states are fucked up. An example:

Here's a list of the top ten states by median income: 1. Maryland, 2. New Jersey, 3. Connecticut, 4. Alaska, 5. Hawaii, 6. New Hampshire, 7. Massachusetts, 8. California, 9. Virginia, 10. Minnesota.But more interesting are the BOTTOM ten states; 50. Mississippi, 49. West Virginia, 48. Arkansas, 47. Kentucky, 46. Alabama, 45. Louisiana, 44. New Mexico, 43. Oklahoma, 42. Tennessee, 41. South Carolina.

You'll note that the poster never gives an attribution... the source for all of his facts.
Whenever I see that, my 'german shepard ears' perk up. It means that someone is trying to hide the whole truth. Or in this case, he could just be making some crap up.
So I challenged him. I commented on his post. I told him about how stats, when unattributed, can lie.

To explain this, I wrote about divorces and marriage.
You may have read an e-mail that was being passed around a while back about how 'red states' have a higher incident of divorce then 'blue states'.
That e-mail was partially right.
There are a number of red states that have unusually high divorce rates when compared to blue states. But that's because those blue states have much lower marriage rates.

You can't get divorced if you don't get married in the first place.

I wrote all of this in a reply to that blog. It seemed like the post was deleted, so I posted again... and "Milt Shook", the owner of the blog, replied with this:

As for sources, there are multiple sources in many cases, and they're easy enough to find. I didn't see the need to cite them. I'm not sure what the point would be, actually. I stand behind them.

Milt also gave an answer suggesting that he didn't know what a divorce rate was. So again, I suggested that it would add more weight to his posts if he gave sources for them. We wrote back and forth 2 or 3 times. -And then Milt shut down the comments.

I need to note that all of my blog is moderated. I don't expect anything less from anyone who owns a blog. You don't want someone posting something bizarre or inflamatory in response to something you said. But what Milt Shook is doing is dishonest. He's pretending like its an open debate... with no attributions. When you challenge him on it? He shuts you out.

All while complaining that conservatives are shrill and dishonest.

Newsweek confirms what we already know about Obama

Which is, that he's trying to head us towards socialism.
Of course, in typical Newsweek fashion, they want to argue that we're 'already' socialist... and that it was really Bush who did it.

We Are All Socialists Now
In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.

Someone should tell everyone on the left that GWB is a socialist.

Yet ANOTHER article on Obama killing the Dow

From economist Michael J. Boskin

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

Fantastic businessweek article on Obama's Dow debacle

Please, please, please look at this chart.
The only reason why I'm not printing it is because I don't want to violate the copyright.

Then tell me that Obama has nothing to do with the Dow tanking.
From the article:

"Polls still show the President has strong popularity among the general U.S. population, and Obama continues to command power in Congress. But among investors, fairly or unfairly, there is griping that the new Obama Administration is at least partly to blame for the recent slide in stocks. Since Nov. 4, Election Day, the broad Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is off about 25%, and since Jan. 20, when Obama took office, the "500" is down 15%. "

The graphic kind of makes the point.

Obama's fudging the numbers on Health Care

According to ABC news, Obama's health care initiative started out with the usual slaughtering of facts:

“The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds," Obama said at the opening of his White House forum on health care reform. The problem: That claim, based on a 2001 survey, is simply unsupportable.

The website does an excellent job of running the numbers. I love when when people challenge what politicians say, but especially now.
This is roughly 1/7th of the economy, and the government is planning on taking it over.
I want you to think about that... and then see what the administration is doing... above.

Rush Limbaugh at CPAC

Here is a great YouTube video of Rush at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Watch the full series if you have the time. Rush really nailed what conservatives believe.

If you ever wondered why people love Rush, look at his statements that start at around 6:30 and end at 7:30. It will help explain why we're angry right now.

Obama's budget (or how do you cut a deficit in half? By doubling it!)

That sound that you're hearing is our collective pocket being picked:

An eye-popping $1.75 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year underlined the heavy blow the deep recession has dealt to the country's finances as Obama unveiled his first budget. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy -- the largest since 1945. In 2010, the deficit would dip to a still-huge $1.17 trillion, Obama predicted.

What the fuck? Seriously, people... what the fuck? Obama is literally doubling the deficit. Then he has the balls to suggest that he's going to cut it in half in a few years? What the fuck?

Wall Street Journal explains why taxing the wealthy won't work

Why is it that the Wall Street Journal is the only newspaper to actually run the numbers?
WSJ analyzed Obama's proposal to tax the wealthy to help control the deficit.

A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010.

No kidding?
So you're telling me that Obama's suggestion that we could tax the rich to make up for his budget shortfall was bullshit?
Who woulda guessed?

Obama's appointment to Urban Affairs

Barack is setting up a new agency to funnel money into cities (or more accurately, Democrat voters). According to the Executive order:

In the past, insufficient attention has been paid to the problems faced by urban areas and to coordinating the many Federal programs that affect our cities.

"Coordinating federal programs" is another way of saying "getting money to".
Now the unusual twist to this is that the man that Obama wants to appoint to this position has a little bit of an ethics problem. Guess what it is?

The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money, a Daily News probe found.

Ironically, for the position that Obama is hiring him for, this seems to me like his resume. I mean, isn't his job going to be to funnel campaign cash to Obama in exchange for urban redevopment?

Remember: Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, was an advisor to Clinton (who was impeached.)
Then Rahm worked as a fundraiser for Chicago's Mayor Daley.
Let's not forget that Rahm worked as a 'chief campaign strategist' for our impeached governor Blago.

With all of that in mind, getting kickbacks sounds like it would make Obama's new hire overqualified for the job.

Obama's dangerous new budget and health care

Obama's planning to take over health care.
His 'downpayment' is $634 Billion dollars. I don't think I'm understating that if you are spending $634 Billion on a downpayment for anything, you are getting ripped off.
From the article in the Washington Post:

Nearly one-third of the money would be generated by eliminating subsidies that the government pays insurers that sell Medicare managed-care plans. Instead, the Medicare Advantage plans would be put under a competitive bidding process, for a savings of $175 billion over the next decade.

I want for you to re-read that, and think about what it means.
Hospitals and doctors would get $175 Billion less dollars. What do you think it would mean for those hospitals to get $175 Billion less dollars, while being required to cover more people?
Where will those hospitals cut back?
Will they buy less new equipment? Purchase less MRI equipment?
Will they fall behind on technology, because they can no longer afford the latest thing?
Will they have to fire nurses? Janitorial staff?

Because here is the thing: when a hospital is taking in less money... they have to cut back somehow. Like any business, the health care industry can't just operate at the same level with less income.
Why won't Obama mention this? -Or the media, for their part?

John Boehner "Gets it"

From The Hill:

“From everything I’ve seen, it looks like the era of big government spending is back,” he told reporters at a lunch convened by the Christian Science Monitor. “My question to my Democratic friends is how are you going to pay for it?”

The usual way... smoke and mirrors.

First line that I couldn't make up

A combative President Barack Obama warned on Saturday he was bracing for a fight against powerful lobbyists and special interests who sought to pick apart the $3.55 trillion budget he wants to advance his agenda of reform.

What the fuck?
Are you kidding me?
What was David Alexander thinking when he wrote this drivel?

How does a president 'fight special interests' to spend $3.55 TRILLION dollars?
What special interests?
Taxpayers?
People who hate government money being wasted?
Anyone with a soul?

Barack just pushed through the $800 BILLION dollar Pork plan.
That was after Democrats forced through $700 plus BILLION of TARP money.
Now Barack wants to spend $3.55 TRILLION more... and he's afraid of 'special interests'??
Who?
Who's left who isn't getting money already from the federal government???

Seriously, Barack, what the fuck???
And to David Alexander, who bought that line of bullshit hook, line, and sinker: are you kidding me?

Bill Maher on Tavis Smiley, Christianity, Socialism, and Me

I just caught Bill Maher on Tavis Smiley tonight.

I remember when used to like Maher... when he didn't seem to have any particular political loyalty, and didn't feel a need to ridicule Christians.

Bill reminds me of myself when I was 12 years old.
I decided that Christianity was too weird, with the whole 'myth' of a guy that I couldn't see or touch. I knew how everyone else had clearly been duped into buying into that whole religion thing.
To me, there was little difference between Santa Claus and religion. Only I understood that there was no such thing as Jesus, and it hadn't occurred to anyone else who was Christian. It was clear to me that Christians felt a need to believe in something to comfort themselves from the idea of being mortal.

Not too ironically, I ended up joining a Christian Youth group. Not because I was religious, but because I was joining all kinds of groups in high school looking for a place that I could belong. The Chess club was fun, but I wasn't good enough to mount a challenge to the Grand Masters of chess. I was in musical theater, but I wasn't that musical. I was pretty shy. But in the youth group, I kinda fit in. Except for, you know, believing in Christ and stuff.
The Christians I met were good people. Most of them didn't do drugs. That suited me because I didn't either. They believed in the helping others, and they were, as a group, sensitive people. There was a lot of love to go around.

When I think about it now, I find it ironic that I felt so superior to them. Because in some ways, I was jealous of them for having the one thing that I didn't: blind faith in something greater.

When I first joined the youth group, I found myself occasionally trying to point out the holes in Christianity. I thought that if I merely pointed out what didn't fit, the smarter people would give in to the simplicity of logic and I'd 'convert' them.
What I discovered was that there were a lot of smart people who had blind faith... and that 'converting' people into my lack of belief was not a worthy goal.

At some point, it occurred to me: what was I trying to win?
If I succeeded in turning those people into agnostics like me, then what did I gain? Okay... so someone would think like me. But what if I'm the guy who is wrong, and they were right all along?
Moreover, what would they gain?
I realized that a lot of people dedicated their lives to doing good deeds through their religion. That they help people out, avoid anger and confrontation, and sacrifice material gain because of their faith.
What did they gain if I somehow managed to take that away? If I managed to talk them out of their religion?
It seemed like I was just trying to selfishly prove myself right.

When I watched Bill Maher on Tavis Smiley, he reminded me of that 12-year-old version of me.
Maher ridiculed the concept of Faith as a lack of critical thinking: believing in something that you have no knowledge of.
But then he contradicted himself with his own act of faith:
Maher said that he "had a feeling that Obama's" belief system was closer to Bill's.

Obviously, he has no rational basis for this.
Obama has said constantly and repeatedly that his religion and belief in Christ is important to him.
Yet, Maher calls Obama a 'rational thinker.'

Thus the disconnect. The rules are always different with Obama. When other people profess a belief in a higher power, they are delusional for believing in a myth. When Obama does it, we 'all understand' that he 'doesn't really mean it', and we forgive him for lying to get elected.

But that wasn't all.
Bill Maher defended the idea of taking over the banking system and nationalizing it.
He said that Obama should just call it something besides socialism, and take over the banks anyway in a few years.
I just watched him say that, and I still can't believe it.

When it came to more socialism, Maher said:
"I think the model we need to look for is Vladimir Putin"
He argued that Putin took money back from those who had reaped untold profits: "We need that money, so someone needs to go and do a Putin."

Finally, he said that Obama is the first president with a real sense of humor since Kennedy:
"This is the first president who has genuine wit, and its very real"

Again, I used to like Bill Maher. That was sometime before he spent his nights at the Playboy mansion while trying to suggest that he knows how to take care of the little guy. It was before he got into the mode that its okay to take money if you need it.

I don't know exactly when Bill Maher lost his soul. I just relish the irony that he's angry at people who think his needs saving.

By the way, I'm still agnostic. I still have trouble with a belief in God, and Christ, and the bible. But I'm not as bitter as I used to be, and I've met a lot of very smart people who believe in God.
I know that one of us is wrong. I just don't have the evidence to prove that believers are the ones who are incorrect, and that I'm right.

Obama administration's Scott Shepard

He just joined the Kerry administration as a speechwriter. So you might want to know about him. Here are a few of his former articles:
Obama brain trust short on drama, just the way the candidate wants it

Zogby Poll Says Obama Holds Large Lead In Latest Electoral College Count

Stevie Wonder “Signed, Sealed, Delivered” for Obama

Obama vs. Clinton: Who’s got game?

Obama poised to make history

Obama a product of rugged Chicago politics

Democratic convention kicks off with Michelle Obama and salute to Kennedy

Just so you know where he came from.

Obama defends Bush?

The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails.

In this article on MyWay news, you have to ask yourself, why is Obama doing this unless he thinks he'll be held to the same standard.

And I plan to eat less pizza

Headline from the Washington Post:
Obama's First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit
Keep in mind, this guy just passed a $800 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.
What the heck? Isn't anyone at the WP awake?
This is their second paragraph:

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that he hopes to enact later this year.

But outside of that, they're going to trim the deficit?
What the fuck?

Huffington Post gets story wrong

The Huffington Post fell for a hoax that made it appear as though Fox had made racist comments against Obama.
According to Conde Nast, Someone sent them a YouTube video, and the idiots posted it without question.

Reporters flock to Obama. No, fer real this time!

We all know that George Stephanopoulous used to work for the Democratic party as Clinton's spokesperson, and that now he works for "This Week," in ABC's news program.

You may not know that Obama's new UN ambassador, Susan Rice, is married to the executive producer of "This Week" as I mentioned in This Post.

What you probably don't know is that a bunch of reporters have gone to work for Obama.
I don't mean in the traditional way that reporters have worked for Obama (Hello, Jennifer Loven from AP). This time, the Obama administration is actually paying them.
According to Politico:

In three months since Election Day, at least a half-dozen prominent journalists have taken jobs working for the federal government.

Who are the reporters?

Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune

Is going to work for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
Let's check out some recent samples of her work. Shall we?

As trumpets played and drums rolled, Barack Obama walked smiling out of the Capitol and into the winter sun to take his oath of office, stopping to embrace an icon of the civil rights movement, Rep. John Lewis, and another icon's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

Yeah, I know. It was Barack's inaugeration, and we can't judge her on one article.
So let's find another. This one reflects on how some bitter Republicans are handling Barack's victory:
But for some Republicans, a Democrat in the White House and expanded Democratic majorities in Congress will be just too much.

"I imagine some folks will be sitting in dark rooms drinking whiskey," said a congressional GOP staffer who spoke on condition that he not be named.

Again, one article. How about this one regarding the 'failed Bush presidencies'?

"At one point, Bush talked about his father, and he said 'Sip, my man, don't underestimate what you can learn from a failed presidency,' " recalled Wayne Slater, a political reporter for The Dallas Morning News and one of Bush's earliest biographers.

With that harsh assessment long before he took office as the 43rd president of the United States, Bush had decided he would do things differently from his father. But as he prepares to leave office after eight years, there are many similarities he might have wished to avoid as part of just the second father-son presidential duo in history.

You can read about how the Obama administration wanted to decrease impact on the environment...

Two Green Inaugural Balls are planned, including one featuring a green carpet made from—what else?—a recycled rug. Official invitations to the Jan. 20 inauguration are being printed on recycled paper. The homeless will be handed furs.

Or you can read this earlier article about how conservatives don't like McCain.

You can always read this piece that Jill wrote on Cindy McCain:

An icy wind whips through it as she tromps across hillsides still slick from snow on the Albanian border, wearing well-worn hiking boots and carrying her Prada purse. She's looking out at mine fields and visiting schools where children must thread their way around left-over munitions.

Here's an article that Jill wrote about Obama in 2007, about how he wanted to make American cars more energy efficient. How did that work out?
Its ironic that now Jill is working for the transportation department.

But by far, this is my favorite article by Jill. It was written in 2004, about the 2004 campaign.
Note the headline:

As end nears, it's security vs. hope

Hilarious. Where have I heard that before?

This is a complete list of Jill's stories in the trib. I put them here for reference, and in the interest of openess and, uh, transparency.

Eric Holder's Comments

I've been trying to hold back from commenting on Eric Holder's statements.

For those of you who don't know, he said some dumbass things during his speech for Black History Month. Mainly that our country was "a nation of cowards".
I'm always skeptical when someone says something that stupid, that they almost had to be taken out of context. In the interest of fairness, I present his full speech.

At least a good portion of it.
You'll note that his statement is couched in the terms of addressing race. Still, its a pretty big thing to say that we are a nation of cowards when a good portion of the electorate voted in a black man regardless of his lack of experience.
Oh wait... maybe that's what Eric meant?

Yes, our country doesn't talk about race, Mr. Holder. But its difficult to dismiss this as mere cowardice considering the rest of your speech.
You said that you wanted to use the justice department as a bully pulpit to address why we don't talk about race. The JUSTICE department. The very same department that puts people in jail. The very same department that has the power to fine someone if they are suspected of not hiring someone - or not renting to them - because of their race. How can people be expected to talk openly about race when if they are even suspected of being racist, they can lose their business?

The head of the justice department asking us all to discuss race openly
=
Hitler saying that Jews should be proud to announce their nationality

Yes, there is always the outside chance that you won't be thrown into the concentration camp. -Or fined. -Or lose your job. But who wants to take that chance???

Let's all remember that Eric Holder works for the guy who hired a racist preacher as his spiritual adviser. And when confronted with the fact that his preacher was an out and out racist, Obama demurred that it was a good chance to talk about race?

I'm not dumb. I see a double standard when its being thrown at me.

I think we'd all like to sit down and discuss race openly. I hope it happens one day. But it won't happen when the penalties for improper speech (or improper thoughts) is this high.
No one is going to jump into that fire.

A tea party I'd drink to

On CNBC, one of their reporters went a little bit nuts over the bailout plans and stimulus bill.
He was on the trading floor at the time, and some of the traders seemed to be happy to hear someone finally saying what they were all thinking. Watch the video, and enjoy the tea party.

There is some hope out there

Students in Arizona were watching Obama's appearance... and they sounded skeptical:

Some of the students attentively watched the speech, giving questioning looks and comments, shaking their heads and laughing at some of Obama’s words. Other students listened, occasionally glancing up to watch, while texting on their cell phones, reading a book or finishing school work.

Every once in a while I catch myself making fun of the younger generation as people who just celebrate celebrity and live on emotion. It sounds like at least a few of these kids were credulous about Obama's claims. Good for them.

Sure enough... Obama's press conference had picked reporters beforehand

I reported earlier that I thought I had seen Barack choose reporters from a list that was on his podium. According to the WSJ:

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Yep.

The most transparent administration ever.

Is anyone still buying that load of shit?

Transparency? WTF?

From the "Change" website:

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Yeah... right.
Here's my other favorite part...

• Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

Fuck you, Obama.
Fuck you and your rush to get this pork through before we can look at it.

Democrats push pork bill through without letting the vetting

There will be no vetting process for the pork bill.
The dems have seen to that.
Instead of the 48 hours that they promised to let everyone look at the bill, they are just pushing it through.
This is what Human Events said about the bill:

“The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”

Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven’t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.

Keep in mind, this is the most transparent government ever?
The Democrats need to be called out by the press for this. If they aren't then the press is completely up the ass of the left.

The Democrats, and Town hall complaints

It seems like every time the democrats have a town hall meeting now-a-days, there is some person who gets up to complain about how bad their lives are.
Yet, when they are investigated by the press, we find out that they aren't as bad off as they claim.

Enter Henrietta Hughes, a woman who complained during Obama's town hall about how she couldn't make expenses.
Are we really surprised to find out that she wasn't as bad off as she made things out to be?

State Representative Nick Thompson and his wife Chene are standing by the Henrietta and her son, Corey. They spoke out against the allegations Henrietta is milking the system, even when confronted with the fact WINK News found out the Hughes' sold property, back in 2005. Henrietta and her son sold the land for $47,000 dollars. But Chene Thompson says that was all the money they had for several years and it's gone.

Okay... if you go through 47k in 4 years, beyond your normal $800 a month income, you're doing something wrong. I say that as a guy who has lived on less then $20k a year.
What's she spending her money on?

Hughes owes money on a loan, has her car insurance payment, a monthly storage bill and says she couldn't afford the rent.

So she not only owns a car (my guess is that's where the 47k went), but she has a storage facility. But she can't afford rent???
Folks; this is where the world has gone wrong. People who don't know how to prioritize. She's storing stuff, but can't afford her rent.
I don't know what she's storing... but if she sold some of it, she might have rent. It drives me crazy when people do this.

48% think that government spending hurts economy

According to the poll, taken by Rasmussen:

Forty-eight percent (48%) of U.S. voters say that, generally speaking, increased government spending is bad for the economy.

Thirty-five percent (35%) believe more government spending will help the economy, and seven percent (7%) say it’s likely to have no impact, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

I take back all of those nasty things that I've said about "the people" not understanding the basics of economics.

Apparently, 48% do.

35% are clueless 'tards who think that somehow, the government can spend their money more efficiently and wisely then they can.

-And 7% of "the people", as usual, do not want to commit to an actual opinion.

Oh, that clumsy Barack!

First, he couldn't find the door to the WH. (True story. He mistook a long window for a door.)
Now, bO hits his head on the helicopter doorway.

Just so that I'm not misunderstood... yes, it happens to everyone.
But the fact is, every time that Bush did something silly, it was news. When Barack does something silly, it 'just illustrates how human he his.'
Ugh.

Fantastic comment on Little Green Footballs

With credit given to "Swamprat," who posted this in an open thread on LGF, one of my favorite websites. This is about Obama, and his Pork bill that happens to have some stimulus in it:

...I see this as him getting to try all those socialist ideas he thinks are so grand....I don't want to be experimented on... Finland and Sweden are, yes I know, socialist posterboys...but so are many more failures and dumps. We aren't cut out to be socialists. We are the people who couldn't be constrained by Europe. We are the malcontents, idealists, speculators, dreamers, inventors, debtors and criminals who would not be chained. We don't play well with others, we are brash, outlandish and cunning. Let us do what we do best Mr President, let us be Americans; Leave the socialism to Europe.

That's fantastic, and so completely true.

You are getting conned

Here is one version of how the press is talking about the stimulus bill. It tells us that money is going to education and students:

Students are big winners. Both the House and Senate bills call for the largest-ever funding increase for Pell Grants, the government's chief college aid program for low-income students.

That's true. And its hard to argue that giving money to students so that they can go to college is a bad thing.
However, this is a stimulus bill!
I can't point that out enough times.
Its the same as putting food stamps in a defense bill.

Anyway, Obama will have none of the discussion about it:

President Barack Obama's first prime-time press conference was most remarkable for how he borrowed a page from his predecessor, refusing to accept follow-up questions. It might seem like a petty issue, but it was significant and telling that George W. Bush would not allow follow-up questions in his sessions with reporters.

For those of you who noticed, Obama read off of a list of pre-approved reporters that was on his podium.

Obama's press conference last night

Politico mentioned that Ed Schwartz, a liberal radio talk show host, was literally given a front row seat in Obama's first press conference.

The first thing that I noticed was when Obama called on Jennifer Loven, who is an AP writer who consistently writes dreamily about the president.

It reminded me of what Michelle Malkin said in her post a while back:

She’s got her front-row seat in the Obama White House briefing room guaranteed.

Yep. Not quite "Ed Schwartz" good, but still pretty good.

-Of course, that didn't shock me as much as when I heard him call on a member of the Huffington Post.

Remember when Jeff Gannon infiltrated the White House press corps? And how the reporters felt it was in bad taste to have someone there who so clearly supported George W. Bush?

I guess the reporters are okay with it now.

By the way... I haven't heard anyone mention this yet, but Obama was clearly reading from a list on the podium of reporters to call on.
Did anyone else notice this?

$1,430 for every man, woman, and child

Bloomberg has an excellent article on the pork bill that has a little bit of stimulus in it:

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.

It makes you wonder why they don't just cut a check for $1,430 for everyone.
I'm kidding, of course. The government doesn't trust you to know what to do with money.

Obama plunges into unwinnable war

I don't like to cop the lead story to an article, but this one pretty much sums it up:

After campaigning on the promise to end one war, President Barack Obama is preparing to escalate another.

I think its important to point out two things:

1. This is exactly what Obama promised to do
2. The left completely ignored that this is what Obama promised to do

Yet, now, the left is annoyed that Obama is going to do it.

By the way, for the record, I don't think that Afghanistan is 'unwinnable'. Particularly since its the left who will be going in. They won't be demanding a timetable for withdraw, and they won't downplay our successes while we are there.

CBO says that the Stimulus plan might hurt economy

Tell me something that I don't know? According to the Washington Times:

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

For those of you who are wondering exactly what the CBO wrote:

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth in the form of government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased government debt would tend to “crowd out” private investment—thus reducing the stock of private capital and the long-term potential output of the economy.

This is just basic economics, folks. If you spend government money, you are increasing debt and increasing inflation. This isn't a mystery to anyone who took a course in high school.

Which leads to the obvious question: why is Obama pushing this if he knows that it will, in the long term, hurt the economy???

Using fear to pass the stimulus bill

President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible, a fresh call to a recalcitrant Congress to move quickly.

What???
That's what AP said. So I went to the source, Obama's editorial in the Washington Post. (For those of you who don't know, that's Barack's Pravda)

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

What???
To the point where we can't REVERSE it? You mean we'd be in a permanant recession? Something that could never be changed?
What the fuck?
That's a whole new level of rhetoric.

Imagine a George Bush or a John McCain trying to shovel that shit. It wouldn't happen.

Everyone should read this post by the Coyote blog. He takes this argument apart for the crap that it is. I hope this will get you interested in reading it:

By the way, speaking of bait and switch, these solutions Obama focuses on - health information, energy projects, school rebuilding, and highways - account for at most 6.5% of the total tax cuts and spending programmed by the stimulus bill for the first 2 years (34.1 of 525.5 billion, which is a bit outdated because it is based on a CBO report of last week, and has not kept up with the new pork added by Congress since then).

I've said this before, and I need to repeat it: this isn't a Stimulus bill that includes a little bit of pork. This is a Pork bill, that includes a little bit of stimulus.

AP almost admits that Obama is arrogant

But then they kinda back off.

The new president, seen by some as arrogant, was anything but on Tuesday.

"I screwed up," Obama said repeatedly during a series of TV interviews. "I take responsibility for this mistake."

It was a frank admission from an Oval Office where "mistakes were made" has often been the preferred dodge.

What was Obama's 'mistake'? That part, the article never gets into.

Pepsi joins the pod people

Its official.
I'm in a science fiction movie right now, and most of the people around me have become zombies.

If you click on this website, you'll find yourself at a soft drink website. The soft drink website is celebrating our current president.
I'd like to repeat that.
A soft drink company is endorsing the actions of our current president.

Its hard to tell whether Pepsi stole Obama's logo, or Obama stole from Pepsi. Whatever. The point is that they are far too alike, and both are using vapid sloganeering to sell their product.

I find it ironic that the very same people who would denounce a soft drink company seem to be okay with it now that its behind Obama. Wait... ironic isn't the right word. Scary is.

Anyway, that same company held the 'refresh' symposium... a series of lectures that featured some very left leaning people.

I'm not into boycotts. I don't like the idea of choosing one product over another because the CEO might have belonged to the ________ party. But the next time I buy soft drinks, I'm going to remember this post from the Age Of Hooper, which sums up a bunch of Pepsi ads that were in a subway.

Its getting scarier every day.