see:this article

it's a tad bogged down right now on the Toledo Blade site, but the article shows that extensive research fails to turn up proper licensing for Good Ol' (not so bright) Joe. Even Joe's employer is not licensed to work outside of Toledo proper. Like that company really makes 250,000 in profits. I live about 50 miles as the crow flies from Joe, and when guys like him open their mouths - infer that others are 'sheep' and apparently doesn't think McCain is capable of lying - it just burns me up.

Hey Joe! Every time McCain opens his mouth and quotes Washington on the care of returning or retired veterans, he's lying. McCain has one of the most deplorable records in that regard.

I'm swamped with real work - but this was just too juicy to pass on.

Seems a reporter was trying to interview McCain last March on pregnancy, birth control etc. I include this excerpt - but the most laughable part is more towards the end - I just don't want to spoil it for you:

    Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

    Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

    Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

    Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

    Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Here's a link to the full - but fairly short interview - it's quite the riot...'McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention'

I've been swamped in my professional life recently and have not posted in several months - but enough is enough. As a veteran myself, I am incensed by McCain's one-excuse-fits-all remedy, so here is how to smack that twit where it hurts -- On VETERAN's ISSUES. Let's see him use his excuse for this.

I first posted this info back in February - I bring selected portions back as it is incredibly relevant now.

Ever hear Old McCain quote Washington? He uses the following:
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation."
Too bad his record on related votes pales horribly compared to Obama or Clinton, and I suspect Biden, too.

But that was exactly the case as he demeaned Kerry in 2006 and through to today - his record on Veteran issues is abysmal - and that's being charitable. In fact, on the whole - in almost every measure, even the lowest scoring Democrat in Congress score as well or better than the highest scoring Republican.

Here is a nice synopsis

Disabled American Veterans
Key Votes - McCain Scores 28%
Key Votes - Obama Scores 92%
Key Votes - Clinton Scores 93%

Vietnam Veterans of America
Key Votes - McCain Scores 37%
Key Votes - Obama Scores 92%
Key Votes - Clinton Scores 88%

IAVA graded McCain a D, Obama a B+ and
Clinton an A- (unfortunately, this page no longer survives)

Apparently, MCCain wants to reap the rewards of being a POW while telling all others to go take a hike to the hot spot down below.

What a dick!

Spread the word.

As anyone who watches at all knows, it isn't every guest that spars well with Colbert on his show.

Michelle just had possibly the most important appearance of anyone ever on the show.

Her demeanor and responses were exceptional, not to be missed - she was pretty unflappable.

I'm sure parts of it will be on the news channels

Mary Matalin and James Carville?
The Judas Duet?
The Dastardly Duo?

The Big Double Whammy

talk about diabolical

Call me naive - but I was unaware that things worked in some places as discussed below. Guess its just the way things have been done in the places I've lived.

I've stumbled upon an interesting article that does an excellent job of positing two sides of a situation that raised my eyebrows a bit. One can easily see the paradox that arises as goes the Obama philosophy - or maybe - just one of the integral thrusts of his message of changing politics. One also easily empathizes with the people who may feel short-shrifted if the Obama campaign does not concede the issue.

From the article:

The dispute centers on the dispensing of "street money," a long-standing Philadelphia ritual in which candidates deliver cash to the city's Democratic operatives in return for getting out the vote.

Flush with payments from well-funded campaigns, the ward leaders and Democratic Party bosses typically spread out the cash in the days before the election, handing $10, $20 and $50 bills to the foot soldiers and loyalists who make up the party's workforce.

It is all legal -- but Obama's people are telling the local bosses he won't pay.

That sets up a cultural clash, pitting a candidate who promises to transform American politics against the realities of a local political system important to his presidential hopes. Pennsylvania holds its primary on April 22.

A little further into the article comes this paragraph

"This is a machine city, and ward leaders have to pay their committee people," Campbell said. "Barack Obama's campaign doesn't pay workers, and I guarantee you if they don't put up some money for those street workers, those leaders will most likely take Clinton money. It won't stop him [Obama] from winning Philadelphia, but he won't come out with the numbers that he needs" to win the state.

Before you up and comment - please read the entire article first. One more excerpt:

A neutral observer, state Rep. Dwight Evans, whose district is in northwest Philadelphia, said there may be a racial subtext to the dispute. Ward leaders, he said, see Obama airing millions of dollars worth of television ads in the city -- money that benefits largely white station owners, feeding resentment. People wonder why Obama isn't sharing the largesse with the largely African American field workers trying to get him elected, Evans said.

You get some of the picture from these excerpts, the article is a fairly well written quick read.

How does Obama best deal with this idea that would seem to run contrary to one of his main themes? I personally would not begrudge him if he relented, not because I favor his candidacy - but primarily for some of the reasons regarding the economic despair noted by the author. On the other hand - think how much more expensive campaigns if this mode of operation became far more prevalent than it already is.

If you think there are a lot more people who are also unaware of this conundrum or this reality of campaigning in some hard luck areas in a few cities - do recommend it.

I just spent 30 minutes resisting the urge to toss the skillet I was using to make a grilled ham-n-cheese through my television. I'm glad I am not prone to acid reflux and heartburn. Although I have not vomited in at least 25 years, it was getting tough there for a minute.

Clearly, having just listened to C-Span for that fairly brief period, it is time to rush a truckload of Ritalin to our Republican friends.

The House ATTEMPTED to debate a simple bill to re-authorize an allocation for beach water testing with some minor modifications that mandated the use of newer testing methods that provides for more rapid turn-around of results.
The whole time I was listening, it was one idiot Republican after another scolding the floor for 'debating' a bill on water testing (which is vitally important for a slew of reasons) when there were truck drivers outside circling the Capital in protest over high energy prices. Then they each went on wringing each of their hands over the Democratic Congress's inability to reduce energy costs before they won the majority.

It should be noted that largely they each also conceded that they thought the bill on the beaches be passed, but then each went on to waste their allotted time to harp on energy policy; many of them essentially wanted to blame on today's cost on - yup - the Democrats.

Perhaps if they had some Ritalin and they had been on the regimen even two years ago - they might have been able to STAY ON TASK and pass or fail legislation efficiently. And maybe they could remember that they - the Republicans shut down attempt after attempt by Democrats in the last Congress to head off the problems we have today as regards the fuel costs. Of course none even suggested that a good part of the problem resulted from our thinly veiled war for  oil and the costs impact brought by the degraded dollar value that was is a result of what? Oh yeah, that damn war and all the money we have had to borrow from our greatest competition for the oil that exists - China.

Come to think of  it - they need Ritalin <b> and</b> Aricept as the latter just might help their memory, too.

Well maybe not the Aricept - they sure didn't forget to play their favorite red herring - the low Approval rating Congress has, is clearly the fault of the Democrats.

What Hillary never wants to mention when arguing about the popular vote and a topic from time to time here is the specious argument she will make about the popular vote if she closes that gap anymore.

 Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to be upfront except for KO - he did a short piece on it yesterday, but no video of that segment is posted on their site. From 'Democratic Courage' comes the article this is excerpted from.

A new study by Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party author Glenn Hurowitz casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.

The study also estimates that, in a true popular vote system where all states held primaries, Obama's popular vote lead would have increased from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent, because voters in caucus states would have slightly favored Obama based on demographic projections.
A pdf of the study is available for download here.

The numeric increase, in other words - would have been about 600,000 or so, giving Obama about a 1.3 million vote lead.

Also, did anyone catch wind of the University Of California at Davis threatening to send the Clinton Campaign to collections?

Oh yeah - rock solid management skills on display here. Executive experience that even the Enron folks would abhor - they'd give an A for screwing people and an F for being piss-poor at hiding the crime.

Finally - has anyone noticed a significant reduction in the time from comment to appearance? I have. Progress?

Yes the pun IS intended
sorry about the repost - I forget you CANNOT type html here - previewer please...

Has anybody had the opportunity Has anyone ever had the opportunity to savor this incredibly tasty tidbit?

a snippet:

“What
about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they
include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

I mean - the folly of it all! Imagine McCain trying to beat back these
sorts of fires. Sure the narrowest minded twits would like this, but
other than that....

I must say - not only have I a box of 'strike anywhere' matches, I've been collecting kindling, too

<b>Yes, the pun IS intended</b><i> (garsh, ain't I cute)</i>

Has anyone ever had the opportunity to <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/">savor this incredibly tasty tidbit?</a>

A sampler from the article:
<blockquote>Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should
they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be
Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”</blockquote>

<blockquote>Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”</blockquote>

<blockquote>Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just
abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”</blockquote>

<blockquote>Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”</blockquote>

I mean - the folly of it all! Imagine McCain trying to beat back these sorts of fires. Sure the narrowest minded twits would like this, but other than that....

I must say - not only have I a box of  'strike anywhere' matches, I've been collecting kindling, too.

Par for the course, the media seems to have overlooked the latest claim by the <i>Sniper Fire Taker In Chief</i> that she sneaked in while on Leno last night.  Did anyone else notice that while she was insulting our intelligence again with her pathetic excuse for mis-speaking she inserted, 'lots of war zones.'?

Hmm, didn't her mom happen to fly into Korea while she was pregnant with Hillary? Thinking back - when I was eleven or so, I do think I maybe I did see her running behind some other infantry in a clip from 'Nam. I guess I forget how she hand delivered weapons to the so called, 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan during their fights with the Russians.

Yeah, maybe calling her 'Old Stolen Valor' is a bit harsh.

II wish I had, had my PVR running about ten minutes ago when Alex Witt(less, she always seems to be overtly anti-Obama) on MSNBC was interviewing John Conyers about MLK and the matter of McCain being there came up.

Witt asks Conyers about McCain and Conyers politely points out that McCain voted against the holiday in 83, and in 87 when Arizona's governor moved to rescind the holiday within that state - McCain supported the governor. (Of course you may recall, it was the threat from the NFL that made them think twice on that) Conyers then says, 'well it's quite nice of McCain to come here today after all that' (likely not verbatim - I was sleep deprived)

So Witt tries to pump McCain up and points out that McCain did in fact apologize and asks Conyers if he hadn't heard that yet. So Conyers then thanks her for pointing that out and then adds that it was kinda sad that he couldn't apologize in 82 or 87, but how nice of him 'Now that he's running for President', Conyers was really having a time of it trying to avoid laughing any harder as he said that.

In case you are interested this link points to a McClatchy story from yesterday (04/03/08) that strongly suggests trouble around the corner for another money bundler, Kase Lawal, that has helped the Clinton's, even recently.

Oh yeah - if Hillary gets elected - it promises to be 'That 90's Show" all over again instead of truly eventful forward moving governance.

The whole Peter Paul issue is not fully resolved as of yet either.

That freaking moron is just finishing up with a piece on MSNBC.

<b>"many of those companies cited in the report were paid weeks ago"</b>

Either it's an outright lie (surprise surprise) or proof again that the Clinton gang is not agile enough to run a campaign, let alone a nation. Wait - there could another reason - they may think there are only 3 days in a week. So then, technically it would possibly be - weeks ago. The last filing being 11 days ago.

Too bad the companies that were complaining made those complaints just two or three days ago.

Then he had the audacity to claim that Obama "doesn't want the people in the remaining states to have a chance to vote." he also suggested that he personally sent Leahy and others to pull the plug.

Hopefully most viewers will realize Wolfson is a lying sack of dung and get a big a laugh out of it, as I did.

I think I may have just seen one of the most impressive TV interviews of all time - Bill Moyers talking to Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J. Booker segment is a few minutes into it, about 35 minutes or so. On PBS, of course.

Just when you think, 'wow', you have to again, and again.

I'm going to record this when it rebroadcasts in a few hours.

Just thought you might be interested, if you haven't seen it.

Truly apropos