This morniing, reading the WaPo's sizzling scoop on that sweet deal Obama got on his mortgage, my thoughts first turned, once again, to my favorite comment here ever.  It was by anneeliz  

"Oh, sweet merciful god. Please make the stupid stop. It burns, it burns."

The mere fact that it was "below average" meant it was fishy?  Is there anyone left in the MSM who even took a damn math class after eighth grade?  I try mightily to pay less than average for gas these days.  I do it through an amazing new device called "comparison shopping."  It works this way: you look at several different businesses offering comparable products and then you choose the one with the lowest price.  People who do this tend to pay "below average."  People who don't tend to pay "above average."  And then, and I know this is tricky MSM, but follow along with me, if you add the amount all of us paid together and divide by the number of us who were doing the paying, you get an "average price."  No really.  Even more amazingly, very few, if any, may actually be paying that "average" price because its not a "real" price.  Its a statistic. 

And, of course, throughout the day, as we shook off the torpor induced by the stupidity, the more we thought about it, the stupider it turned out to be. 

Maybe we were lulled into a sense of false security, in believing that this brand of stupid would abate when John Solomon went to his natural home, working as an editor for the Moonie Times. 

Alas, how naive we were.  This story is the result of an immutable law of modern political journalism.  A law  almost as well established as the one that says the presumptive Democratic nominee is a "flip-flopper" from the time the nomination is clinched until the convention and then, after the convention is the most liberalest politician ever in the entire history of these United States. 

This other law of which I speak is that each and every  business transaction more complicated than buying groceries with a check is inherently suspicous and likely evidence of corruption if a prominent Democrat is a party to it. 

Thus, for example, Harry Reid bought a piece of property, transferred it a limited liability company with a partner and then, then the LLC sold the property, Reid made a profit.  Hmmmm, all highly suspect.  And when John Edwards sold his house in D.C. into a rising market, why, he made a profit too.  And the Clintons?  Don't get me started about them.  Why that awful Whitewater scandal was just so full of scandalous scandals, I don't know where to begin. 

And, of course, after he made some serious money as an author, Obama bought a large house.  Mmmmm, mighty fishy if you ask me.  Surely there must be something very, very wrong here. 

But Republicans?  Why would you ever want to look into their business dealings?  Everyone knows they're corrupt so they're not being hypocrites which means it isn't news.