Excerpt: If youíve been a Democrat for more than two or
three years, disappointment with your leaders is something
that comes rather naturally. From the 1970s until
well into the previous decade, the party produced presidents
and presidential candidates like Carter, Dukakis,
and John Kerry. These men werenít lovable losers. They were
just losers. Even the lone winner among them--Bill
Clinton--famously and infamously found ways to disappoint.
Excuse me - Clinton was the lone double winner
But the frustration with the administration was
palpable among Democrats today. Members of Congress and
their staffs were asking the same questions I
was: What does the president want? How badly does he want it? A lot of the legislators ended up running for
the exits. And while lack of a clear party line from the White House
surely wasn't the reason for Democratic panic
on Wednesday--the political anger behind the Massachusetts
election is real enough--it doesn't appear to
have made that panic less likely, either.
As you scroll down you're going to read stories
of a president in surrender mode.
He can still turn this around but he needs to
"Weíve invaded Haiti. We dropped troops on
the presidential palace yesterday. The difference between Bush invading
Iraq, and Obama invading Haiti, is that Bush had Congressional authorization." -- Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt,
Yay for bipartisanship! Obama needs to take
a lesson from Bush!
Remember 2006, when there was a huge revolution
in Congress, throwing out the Republican
majorities in favor of Democratic majorities?
The reason was that the voters wanted us to get out of Iraq?
And Bush's bipartisan solution was to escalate
our presence there.
So if Obama genuinely believes that the Massachusetts
senate race was a defeat for Health Care Reform,
he needs to really push extra strong health care
reform -- a public option or even single payer!
That would be true bipartisanship we can believe
But only if Kissyface agrees - or there's no deal.
Excerpt: How do Republicans react when they lose at the
They donít back down -- even when standing fast
seems very costly.
Perhaps the most outstanding example in recent
memory was the 1998 midterm election, held just
four weeks after the House Republicans voted
to impeach President Clinton. Contrary to the hopes
of the GOP leadership, the predictions of mainstream
analysts and the usual historical trends, voters then
repudiated the Republicans, increasing the number
of Democrats in the House by five seats. It was the
first time in more than 60 years that the party
of an incumbent president had won a midterm election.
Yet the Republicans, unchastened by public opinion,
proceeded with their crusade to oust the president.
If anything, the congressional Republicans became
more ideological and more determined to enforce their will...
So when Republicans advise Democrats to reconsider
and retreat in the face of a single special election,
the sensible response should be a question: Is
that really what you would do?
Excerpt: It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of
our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media
is ceasing its live programming operations as
of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out
an orderly winding-down of the business.
The very difficult economic environment has had
a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year
has seen a "perfect storm" in the media industry
generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen
drastically, causing many media companies nationwide
to fold or file bankruptcy. From large to small, recent
bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures
like that of the industry's long-time trade publication Radio
and Records have signaled that these are very
difficult and rapidly changing times.
I'm surprised they made it this long.
It seemed like they didn't make to make any money from the start.
We advertised with them once - they had a $5,000 minimum.
Really? Business was so good you'd reject $2500 and $3500 ads?
This was in 2004, I think.
I called back, maybe 2006 and asked about another ad buy.
I told this guy I wanted another $5K buy (split 10 ways, remember?)
and he laughed and said, "You can't get that
cheap of a deal anymore." No wonder they went broke.
Then I became suspicious when some t-shirt company was able to afford
Sometimes you'd hear a t-shirt commercial at every break.
Did some no-name company really buy $20K worth of ads?
Can you image how many tens of thousands of shirts they'd have to sell
to break even?
Then, on the weekends when some people might try to catch up, they had
preachers. Can you believe that?
Couldn't get a Malloy repeat, no.
Couldn't get a Randi repeat, or Rachel or Sam Seder, no.
Why did they sacrifice weekends to spread the Lord's name?
Did they really intend to make money with this network?
Then Randi said they wouldn't allow her to talk about the 2004 Ohio
screwing we took.
Why didn't they want Randi talking about the subject that gave Bush
4 more years?
Someone told me the station was originally owned by a Republican.
Did we idiot Democrats fall for that old trick again?
Work for a Rethug so he can pull the rug out and say, "Liberals
can't make it on radio." Funny how the majority of the country can't be heard.
Some Radio Handjobs recently gave the "Talker of the Decade" award to
the vulgar Pigboy.
Stern says Rush is SIXTH in his time slot in NY, which isn't even morning
or afternoon drive time.
Randi claimed she always had a bigger audience than Rush - was that
Plus, how does talk radio lose money?
They pay their on-air people next to nothing and they have no royalty
payments for songs,
so why can't a stereo store in Manhattan and a pizza parlor in Brooklyn
keep AAR on the air?
Seems like the whole industry is fixed - am I right?
"Please, will the liberals stop complaining
-- and the conservatives crowing -- that this is the end of Obama's presidency?
Bill Clinton suffered a crushing defeat on health care and a stunning electoral reversal in 1994, and yet
still managed to have a very successful presidency." -- Megan McArdle,
True, but Clinton was a fighter and a fierce counter-puncher.
I know at least one person who thinks Hillary
would have done the same as Obama;
the same ex-friend I have who spent months in
2008 telling me what evil racists Hillary and Bill are,
just like Rachel, and who is now disgusted with
Obama but tells me Hillary is no different.
Oh, like not show up for work? Even the Republicans
in the Senate used to say that
she was one of the hardest-working senators on
either side of the aisle.
I remember during the primaries, they said it
was a BAD thing that Hillary would "do
anything to win."
Maybe it was Dowd, saying "Hillary the badger"
use her fingernails, she'd jump on
your back and bite you and claw at your eyes - and that's why she was
"unfit" to govern.
Sure wish we had some of that badger attitude in the White House today.
Note: If you sign up,
you'll get an instant Twitter alert when
a new page or radio show is fresh and hot.
Subject: Subject: that DanD anti-Israeli
Hey Bart old buddy,
They wanted you to rebuke DanD.
Give anyone with the time and inclination to do
so, a slot for an opposing viewpoint.
Right there - on a linked page - in good old
Go Ahead I dare you,,,,,,lol
P.S. It could get interesting
Since the Middle Eastern quicksand is something into which I refuse
I can't imagine why I would submit to your suggestion.
....but check this out:
Subject: just one more thing
We have to stop meeting this way.
No disrespect, but I wonder if youíve visited
Israel or spoken to many Israelis?
My expertise in this field is a lack of religious
I hold a Doctorate in the field of lack
of religious insanity.
Stating that Israelis donít want peace is like
saying all Americans supported the
horrible, horrible war in Iraq. As you
can testify, we didnít.
say, 60% of Israel was tired of suicide bombs, why don't they vote to move
We have room, and it would be way cheaper in treasure and blood
to move them here than to try to protect them way the fuck over there.
We give Israel what? Wild guess $20B
a year. (How'd I do?)
Why not instead spend $100B
on a five year project to move them to OK and AZ and NM?
They still got their precious desert but they're no longer surrounded
by 20M Arabs who want them dead.
But for the religiously insane, that's a lose-lose.
Dying is what both sides live for.
Sand is fucking sand.
Graduate beyond the non-existent Invisible Cloud Being bullshit and
the logic is clear.
You either want to watch your kids grow up and have their own kids,
you want the non-existent Invisible Cloud Being to be happy.
Christ, what year us this, 600 AD?
You can not serve two masters.
Between your kid's lives and illogical religious supersition, it would
be way cool
if I could depend on my fellow science-based non-Neo-Cons to chose
And if you can't find a way to chose your kids over crazy-ass superstituion,
then I'll just say, as I have for many years, I'm glad you're not my
You'd have to be religiously insane to INSIST on living in a
surrounded by 20M suicide bombers who want you f-ing dead at any
Sidebar: I guess "suicide bomber" and "at any cost" are redundant.
Israel is a melting pot for Jewish people from
all over the world, and most Israeli citizens are actually
secular and do not practice Judaism. Most
of them simply want refuge; to live someplace where they
sincerely hope they wonít be made into lampshades.
Their country is teeny, tiny, and surrounded by
hostile neighbors and the sea. Itís hot
as hell, and talk about cabin fever. Not much room to go anywhere,
and people in the region like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
tend to cause them alarm. Go figure..
My point exactly.
Why should we spend billions of dollars in taxes and thousands of military
lives to prevent your
religiously-insane neighbors from invading your religiously-insane
country? What's the point?
If it wasn't for that darned religious insanity, Israelis would agree
to re-locate, right?
You think a Haitian would have any problem re-locating right now?
If you don't like where you are, but you INSIST on staying there,
don't come to me when your stupidity endangers your people.
A death-free option in moving to the US in clearly presented to the
but they said, "No, we PREFER God's Holy Sand
to watching our children outlive us."
I don't get it.
Personally, the whole mystical sacred geographical
thingie is beyond me, and itís ironic that
ďthe holy landĒ for three different religions
is a place that may never see peace.
You suggest that a desert someplace else might
work out better for everybody, but after the
Holocaust things were hectic, and at this particular
point in time I am really thinking that a new
desert is not exactly a viable option.
I could be wrong. Perhaps the Outback is available.
Dude - it sounds like we might agree!
Chris, we could give the Israelis f-ing Detroit!
Seriously, we have two major cities who could use an serious
influx of Jewish money!
If you have a nice fur coat, the land values in Detroit are unbeatable!
If you miss that whole "by the sea" thing, New Orleans needs Jewish
doctors and lawyers!
Hell, if they had any experience in border control, we
could give Israel southern Arizona and....
Damn, when I hit the home run, can they even find the ball in the bay?
Let's move Israel to the AZ-CA border.
Ladies and gentleman, I give you New Israel!!!
But no, that would make sense so we can't do that.
We'd have better security, we'd save money, we'd save lives,
but you know what the very best part of this plan would be?
And I don't mean to paint with too big a brush,
but if they lose Israel as an excuse - could things change?
If the Infidel pig-footers are "chased away" doesn't that mean the Arabs
Beside, they have nukes.
They can guard my border anyday.
Plus, if they expand in to New Mexico they could defend us from a Texas
Obviously, itís a heated, historically and politically
complicated issue with many facets.
If you want to steer clear of it; fine.
If you want to raise a storm, print emails like Dan Díís.
I printed DanD's e-mail so people could argue directly with him :)
Since nobody in history has ever changed their minds about the subject,
why do people even want to discuss it?
Excerpt: Obama, hammered for taking a hands-off approach
on health care to begin with, has all but disappeared from
the discussions as Congressional leaders attempt
to figure out a way to finalize a health care plan with just 59 Senate
Our sources suggest to us the White House has
been hands-off since the fate of the health care bill went from
nearly done to unbelievably uncertain this week.
Obama's health care message has been to say he hopes
Congress tries to "move quickly to coalesce around
those elements of the package that people agree on,"
a signal many took as backing away to let leaders
do what they think is most politically viable.
A White House aide insisted Obama is "engaged"
on health care
and that "active" discussions are happening in
an around the Oval Office.
Man, it's sad to see him backing down after spending the year backing
How do you walk away from youtr signature initiative?
Excerpt: A major problem for Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
is a lack of compelling leadership from the White House.
"There is never a big legislative thing like this
that happens without the full-throated and muscular advocacy of the president.
They just don't happen without it. Now, they
decided we are going to do this a little differently, we are going to sit
kind of let the legislative process go through
its ebb and its flow and its groans... To the credit of the president and
hey've gotten further than anyone else has gotten.
But what they sacrificed in that was a clear message where voters came
away with the idea of: 'Hey, we are getting something
of value here,'" Weiner said
For Weiner, the administration misfired by thinking
health care could be crafted
through negotiation and not the powers of persuasion
-- not using the bully pulpit."'
Excerpt: The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations
may spend as freely as they like to support
or oppose candidates for president and Congress,
easing decades-old limits on business efforts
to influence federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old
ruling that said companies can be prohibited
from using money from their general treasuries
to produce and run their own campaign ads.
The decision, which almost certainly will also
allow labor unions to participate more freely
in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed
by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions
to candidates from corporations and unions.
Our motto for
this year is - "No Anti-Bush Site Left Behind".
So - if you have an anti-bush site and you are choking on hosting
fees or dealing with threats - let us know and we'll help keep you online.
have that strongest server side spam filtering on the planet.
Check out Marx
Mail for info on how you can have a Spam
Free Email Account.