Oh, man. That would be brilliant. Positively brilliant, on so many levels. Somebody forward that to Obama's ad team!

Mitch

Posted at August 21, 2008 11:17 PM in response to New McCain Ad: It's Obama Who Has A "Housing Problem"

"And that's the problem in our nation's capital. It's not just the Bush administration, and it's not just the Democratic Congress. It's that everyone in Washington says whatever it takes to get elected or to score the political point of the day," said McCain, who has served 26 years in Congress.

Now that's some nice snark!

Mitch

Posted at August 8, 2008 4:26 PM in response to Obama Radio Ad: McCain And His Lobbyist Buddies Caused Ohio To Bleed Jobs

Nobody's commented on the background “Now I lay me down to sleep” prayer. I don’t know that it is an explicitly Christian prayer, but it certainly isn’t a Jewish one. And it isn’t one a child would say in school, so it isn’t consistent with the superficial message about Cohen’s voting against the religious liberties law. I think it reinforces the “our churches” message.

Mitch

Posted at August 6, 2008 5:56 PM in response to The Shame of EMILY'S LIST: Its Candidate Uses Anti-Semitism To Defeat a Liberal in Tennessee

"electorate is dumb as trees"

Why defame trees like that? I have yet to hear a tree say anything nearly as stupid as what these people said.

Mitch

Posted at June 25, 2008 2:24 PM in response to Focus Group: Pennsylvania Voters Are Suspicious Of Obama -- But Support Him Anyway

I don't get the constant trashing of Greg et al. Don't like the posts? Read something else. It's their blog, fer chrissake!

Mitch

Posted at June 17, 2008 12:12 AM in response to Are you as fed up with TPM as I?

Read the story, JNagarya. The *fact* is that it was not on a public computer. The stuff was hosted in a subdirectory of alexkozinsky.com, which is not a government domain but his own private domain (of which he was no doubt the master...). The tie-in to the bit about his objections to the filtering put on the court system computer indicates his intellectual consistency, if anything. He's a strong libertarian who does not believe in government intervention in private affairs or limitations on free speech, even when it is not a "conservative" viewpoint - and if you don't know the difference between "conservative" and "libertarian," you really ought to look it up. In many ways, libertarians are a lot closer to liberals than to "conservatives." He is not at all hypocritical in his viewpoint and is universally recognized among those with a legal background as being brilliant.

And he is, without a doubt, the most colorful and downright brilliantly hilarious judge ever. It is a shame to see him be humiliated in this way, although he should have refused to sit on that case to begin with, just as a matter of internal conflict avoidance even in the absence of this becoming public.

Mitch

Posted at June 12, 2008 1:34 PM in response to Today's Must Read

But that's not even the worst part - to my knowledge, Gonzales has absolutely no experience that would suggest that he can be of any assistance at all in a patent case, let alone one sufficiently complex to require a special master. This is obviously a pity appointment. And I think somebody ought to look into it since it is so obviously a waste of taxpayer money.

Mitch

Posted at June 8, 2008 12:40 AM in response to Gonzales Gets a Job

That would be the Hanukah Song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEY2KOXrSZI

Mitch

Posted at June 3, 2008 1:32 AM in response to Anti-Semite Hagee Says Antichrist Is a Gay Jew (And Hitler was a Jew Too)

It was a stupidly insensitive but probably innocently intentioned remark. And that is why I think that we ought to let it go, just as Hillary and her supporters showed us how to do with Obama's "bitter" remarks. They said it was a meaningless remark blown out of context and that it meant nothing at all.

Right?

Posted at May 24, 2008 12:05 AM in response to Hillary Invokes RFK Assassination While Describing Why She's Staying In Race

How interesting. In a call-in this a.m. on Fox & Friends touting the interview, I distinctly heard O'Reilly rather emphatically decry the "gotcha" interviews, repeatedly state that "of course" Obama doesn't agree with Wright, that Obama was a linear, logical thinker and so he couldn't possibly believe Wright's nonsense, and that he thought it was inappropriate to try to tag Obama with Wright's beliefs, or to conduct an interview filled with such questions. He also said that his interview with Hillary would be strictly issues-based, that he had 15 real issue questions, and that they would be the questions he'd ask, with appropriate follow-ups.

Given all that, I'm just stunned that he would just throw that out there for Hillary. Stunned.

Mitch

Posted at April 30, 2008 5:55 PM in response to Hillary Tells Bill O'Reilly That Wright's Statements Were "Offensive And Outrageous"