Liberal Democrats are Evil, Especially Nancy Pelosi!

Huh. I'm watching Dateline on NBC as I type this, and I'm being bombarded by political ads. There are almost no ads for anything but politics, and NBC shows tonight (as with most nights lately). But I noticed something interesting. While the pro-Obama, pro-Democratic ads are fairly standard issue, there's a common thread in the Republican ones.

One ad was an official Mitt Romney ad (he approved this message), and one was against Shelley Berkley, from the National Republican Senatorial Committee . The theme of both? Democrats are bad. Particularly liberal Democrats! Especially President Obama and his liberal Democrat "friends." Both feature shots of Nancy Pelosi, both with ominous graphics, and a sharp, staccato emphasis on words like "liberal, Democrat."  Naturally, the word "Democratic" is never used, it sounds too nice.

It's certainly not new to try and make liberal and Democrat into dirty words. It has been a mission of the Right for decades. But the similarity of these ads was striking, and the deliberate emphasis on those two words, and the somehow evilness of Pelosi was unmistakable. The stimulus, bank bailout, Affordable Care Act--all are attributed to Pelosi, and her reckless liberal spending. Two of the three big votes are also described with a hard rightward spin: wasteful stimulus, government takeover of health care, facts decidedly not in evidence. See for yourself:

The Romney one is only interesting because it's from the candidate himself. Rather than strictly focusing on Obama = bad, or Romney = good, it's trying to tar the entire Democrat[ic] Party. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact ad. The one I did find from earlier in the week seems to be a prototype of the one I saw on television, but you'll get the idea.

Rev. Phelps' Church to Picket AZ Tragedy Victims' Funerals

This post isn't really about outrage over Rev. Fred Phelps and his crazy Westboro Baptist Church (which is mostly populated by members of his own family). What WBC does is very predictable: take a high profile tragedy, and glom onto it in the most profane way possible. It's what they do.

Image of former Democrat, Kevin Dujan
from Joe.My.God.

What caught my eye was a post by a "former Democrat" Kevin Dujan, who runs the anachronistic website, Hillbuzz. Dejected after Barack Obama won the Democratic primary for the 2008 presidential election, Dujan became a PUMA, that unusual political breed of Hillary Clinton supporters who pivoted 180 degrees, and inexplicably became staunch tea baggin' conservatives.  He (and they) became so disenchanted after their preferred candidate lost, they decided to go against everything she stood for. Which makes very little sense, but there you go.

Such cognitive dissonance can generate amusement and/or frustration in a reader of Hillbuzz. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a regular reader, only clicking through when Dujan says something stupid or embarrassing enough to garner a mention on a site I do read. This time, I was at a worse site, FreeRepublic.com, having my curiosity stoked by Saturday's shooting spree at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' public event in Arizona. Any time something tragic happens, FR can be counted on for some of the most extreme, hyper-partisan, far-right wing stuff, and I like to keep tabs on that.

Anyway, someone at FR linked to Hillbuzz, which is odd, because Dujan is openly gay, something loathed and detested--it's a requirement to post there--by FReepers.  I guess when they agree with something, they can ignore certain things. There's that cognitive dissonance again. Hillbuzz wrote an article about Rev. Phelps' despicable plan to protest at a nine-year-old victim's funeral. But what does Dujan focus on? The fact that Phelps once considered himself a Democrat. Yeah, Kevin sweetie, I don't think the man's past affiliation with the Democratic Party is the lede here.  There isn't a Democrat alive (outside of whatever members of his church who might consider themselves thus) who'd claim him. And there isn't a thing about Phelps' whack job philosophy that lines up with Democratic politics.

Dujan himself once considered himself a Democrat. Democrats wouldn't claim him either.

[Excerpt (emphasis added)]

BRACE YOURSELVES: Democrat Fred Phelps and Westboro Hate Group announce plans to picket 9-year-old shooting victim Christina Greene’s funeral. A new low for Democrat hate groups.

The Left does some truly despicable things in this world, but this is a new low for Democrats.

Former three-time Democrat gubernatorial candidate Fred Phelps Jr. (commonly called just “Fred Phelps”) and his Westboro Hate Group have announced plans to disrupt the funeral of 9 year-old shooting victim Christina Greene. . .

You can read more (but I wouldn't recommend it) at: Hillbuzz

Here is Why Democrats MUST Vote in November

Conventional wisdom says that there is an enthusiasm gap in the electorate, and that many Republicans are simply going to win by default. Democrats will stay home, and a stampede of elephants will crash into Washington.  I've seen the polls, though the land-line telephone methods of most of them leave me somewhat dubious. I've even seen dejected, defiant liberals ranting and raving on blogs, about how Democrats don't deserve to win.

Sorry, folks. My memory isn't that short.  I can remember beyond the last 19 months.  I remember what it was like when Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay held sway.  I thought those guys were outrageous in their cartoon villainy.  But I had no idea what they had on deck for 2010.  Add this to the fact that the new hard-right GOP/tea bagger contingent plans to "reset" things to 2007--when the recession started--and has pledged that they will not change just freaks me the hell out.  THINK, Democrats. How did you feel about life in America in 2008?  How much did you like Republican rule last time? 

I know you want to kick the Democrats in the balls for not being liberal enough.  But you're talking about handing things over to a party that thinks that Democrats are extreme, radical, Marxist, fascist, commies!  We're not talking about a pendulum-swing from left to right.  We're talking about a pendulum that is currently slightly to the left of vertical being forcibly yanked to the right wall and lashed there.  It could be entertaining to watch this new group of loons attempt to legislate.  But I'd rather not be one of the people affected by that legislation. A lot of damage could be done in two years, and for all the imagined damage Democrats have done since 2009, it will likely pale in comparison. 

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about voting this year. But I'm damned sure going to.

Why the President's Party Affiliation Matters

Image from Washington Post

Huh. Whattaya think of this?  Apparently, when there is a Democratic president in office, every income bracket does better financially, rich or poor.  When a Republican is in office, the rich get richer (but not as much as they did under a Democrat), and everybody else? Not so much. 

Read all about it, from Ezra Klein, here:  Why elections matter, in one graph

Dear Democrats, We Need to Talk. --The Gays

Doing my part to spread the word (via: AmericaBlog)

ACTION: Sign our open letter to the Dems on ENDA and repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell!

Dear Democrats,

We need to talk.

This may be a hard letter to read, but I need to figure out if this relationship is still healthy for me.

For the longest time, I thought we had something special. Remember how much fun we used to have back when we were young, and control of the Congress and the presidency was just a crazy dream? You always used to ask me for help, and you knew I'd never turn you down.

You were so adorable when we were courting. Sure, you never really understood me, but I liked that you seemed to try. The White House cocktail parties were totally fun, and that Easter Egg Roll is something I'll always cherish. Or remember the time you let me march in the Inaugural parade! Other than that whole Rick Warren thing, I really thought we had a connection.
I know you kept telling me that you weren't ready for marriage, but I was willing to wait since you had promised so much else in the meantime.

But now, I've kind of had it. I'm just not getting what I need out of this relationship. You rarely call me anymore, and when you do it's to ask for money. We talked about joining the military together -- but now it seems like you are flaking on that commitment. You promised to protect me from the homophobes at work, but you don't seem to be in a hurry to actually do it. And -- that Department of Justice brief thing was just cruel. I'll never understand why you did that.

It almost seems like you're embarrassed by me in public. I know not everyone in your family approves of us, but before you got your new job, it seemed like you didn't care what they thought and were always ready to fight for me. Now, it's like you're a different person.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I still think we have a future. I want us to have a future. But I need this relationship to be healthy for both of us. And I just can't get excited anymore by your empty promises and half-gestures.

I need you to take a real step. You know what I'm talking about -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I still worry every day that I can be fired in 29 states just because I'm gay. And my friend who is transgender can be fired in 38 states. I know you can do it. You've helped protect people from employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, disability and many other characteristics. Each time me and my friend have been left behind. It's our turn. ENDA's time has come.

It's our turn to be welcomed into the military as well. I want to serve my country openly and proudly. I was so excited when you promised you would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year after 17 long years of putting up with it.

Now, I can't even get you to talk about DADT.

You promised to change. I know that you can. But why should I stand by your side when you can't keep your promises to me?

I get that you're scared. But I'm scared too -- scared of losing you. You need to prove to me that you really care. You need to finally give me the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, like you promised.

I have enough disappointments in my life. I need you to not be one of them.

Love,

The Gays

Health Care Reform Vote Later Today

Image from source, Politico

Can you remember a time when we weren't talking about health care reform? It's easy to forget that we went through all of this before in the 90s. I'm hopeful that today's vote succeeds, though it has gone further than the Clinton plan by actually coming to a vote in the first place.

Like in the 90s, Democrats still can't "message" worth crap. Just like then, Republicans are terrific at it, coming up with catchy names, and succinct two- or three-word phrases. "Death Panels" may not be true, but danged if it didn't catch on. Just like with "HillaryCare" this bill is deemed "ObamaCare." The same voices we heard decrying it then are even louder this time. Thanks to the continued popularity of talk radio, the dominance of FOX "News" amongst conservatives, and the internet, there are differences this time around.

Always easy to stir up, exciteable conservatives are in a frothy lather over this issue. The Limbaughs, Becks and Hannitys have managed to turn this issue into the most dire and dangerous encroachment of government power ever. The tea baggers were born, and offshoots and spinoffs keep a-coming, complete with misspelled signs and ever more violent rhetoric. For that reason alone, I long for this battle to end, preferably with a "win."

[Excerpt]

Dems race to lock in final votes

Democratic leaders are still locking down the final votes needed to pass the centerpiece of their domestic agenda – a historic rewrite of the nation's health care laws that would expand health insurance access to nearly every American.

They hope to secure the votes of a trio of veteran Blue Dogs – Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California, and retiring Reps. Marion Berry (Ark.) and John Tanner (Tenn.) – as well as a handful of anti-abortion Democrats who could break from hard-liner Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to back the bill. . .

Read more at: Politico

Democrats: There is NOTHING You Can Do to Woo GOP

Yep, Rachel Maddow again. Her Rachel Re: segments are almost always excellent, but this one manages to both kick but and take names. For real. Hypocrisy is nothing new in politics of course, on either side of the aisle. But the nerve of the current GOP to be so vocally trashing (with help from FOX "News" and talk radio) the stimulus plan, while taking credit for it back home, is a little stunning. Or at least it is when it is all laid out for you.

Stunning and tedious really. There's no way to go through the list of these Republican legislators without it being repetitive. Stick through it if you want to hear all their names. But at least jump ahead to the final fourth of the video, where Rachel is just so dead on right in her plea to Democrats: knock off the optimistic talk of bipartisanship, and kill the filibuster. It makes no difference how good the policy, or even if it originated on the GOP side, they are not going to vote with you. Rachel does everything but tell them to grow a set.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jon Stewart: A Majority of 100 is 60?

This is one of the better clips The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has done in a while. How Democrats got cowed into believing that they need 60 votes to get anything done--and still can't manage to do anything without watering it down--is one of the most baffling political facts around. Jon puts all of our frustrations (and by "our" I mean we "far left liberals") into a very funny, and very true rant. Excellent.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Sunday Morning Update

After having had the entire holiday season off work, I convinced myself that Monday through Thursday of last week was merely a four day "work break" before my vacation resumed. But here we are on Sunday already, and my fantasy is about over. With the still reduced work schedule in place though, the four-on, three off rhythm is still pretty tolerable. What is nearly intolerable is my regular Sunday morning routine of watching the political chat fests.

It's getting pretty tedious. For the third weekend in a row, one of the primary topics was still the failed underpants bomber and "what it all means." Worse, on at least two of the shows, the leaders of both political parties, Tim Kaine and Michael Steele, were yapping and yapping, mostly about inconsequential stuff. I've always detested these sorts of politicians, regardless of party. The only one I could really stomach was Howard Dean. Mostly, they're smarmy and calculating, and nothing they say can be viewed as 100% true. . .it's all through a political lens, all of it.

The big deal this morning somehow became Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's ill-advised choice of words about Sen. Barack Obama as he was campaigning for President. What Reid said was correct, that Obama had a great shot at the job (he won it, after all), because he wasn't "too black" for a majority of America to vote for him. That may not be politically correct--or even very nice--but it's true. If Obama's manner was like that of Kat Williams or Martin Lawrence, there is zero chance he'd have won. But it's not a smart thing to say, and of course he used the incredibly old-school word "negro" while doing it. Still, Reid apologized and Obama accepted uncategorically. That should be that.

Still, Michael Steele--who has his own very full slate of problems--tried his Muppet-headed best to turn this into a white-hot issue. His call for Reid to step down as Leader struck me as a desperate attempt to take the shame spotlight off of Steele (who had his own stupid "racist comment" moment just this week).

I thought that This Week with George Stephanopoulos was going to be a step up, when I saw that there was no Kaine or Steele on that one. Then I heard the dreaded words, "Liz Cheney." Enough! I'm taking The Other Half's advice, and I'm bailing on the political shows for the week!

For Everybody Who Was Afraid of a Democratic Majority

Republicans, what you've been told by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others is a lie! The Democratic majority voted for by the American people in 2008 was not the death knell of the United States! Why? Because, no matter how many Democrats are in power, it doesn't matter! They're cowed by the screaming tea baggers, and the rabble-rousing that has gone on in Right Wing World over the summer!

So, yay! Despite the fact that Democrats have commanding majorities, they cannot. Get. Their. Shit. Together. Period.

Glenn Greenwald on the Difference Between Conservatives & Liberals

Image from source, Salon

I've written many a post on the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. The problem with such a post of course, is that they're inherently subjective. They're usually pure opinion pieces, rife with generalizations. So even if you're right, you can't often prove it definitively. Well, this post comes as close as I've seen to a verifiable case. Glenn Greenwald doesn't just fill his piece with opinion, he backs them up with sources and links. It's good stuff, check it out.

[Excerpt]

A major difference between conservatives and progressives

One of the linchpins of the Bush presidency, especially during the first term (and well into the second, until he became a major political liability), was the lock-step uncritical reverence – often bordering on cult-like glorification – which the “conservative” movement devoted to the "Commander-in-Chief." An entire creepy cottage industry arose – led not by fringe elements but by right-wing opinion-making leaders – with cringe-inducing products paying homage to Bush as "The First Great Leader of the 21st Century" (John Podhoretz); our "Rebel-in-Chief" (Fred Barnes); "The Right Man" (David Frum); the New Reagan (Jonah Goldberg); "a man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius" who is our "Big Brother" (John Hinderaker); and "the triumph of the seemingly average American man," the supremely "responsible" leader who, when there's a fire, will "help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, 'Where's Sally'?" (Peggy Noonan). . .

Read more at: Salon

The Young Turks Rant on Weak Democrats

No time to post tonight. The Other Half's brother is in from out of town, and we're entertaining. So, I'll go to my "go to," The Young Turks. It's always a great source for a good post when I have no time to research.

Here, Cenk Uygur is on a rant about the fact that--even when they have all the power--Democrats still have a propensity for weakness. Particularly a weakness for standing up to, or flat-out ignoring Republicans. It's a great point. When Republicans have power, they have no shyness about stepping on and squashing anything and everything from the opposition party. And while I don't think we need to be quite as ruthless, it would be nice to see a little backbone. We've been waiting a loooong time!

GOP Struggles With Inaguration of a Democrat

One of the biggest surprises of the victory in November, culminating with today's inauguration, was that I didn't ever get a huge sense of schadenfreude. It's kind of like finally getting out of debt, or the work you do after you get that shiny new computer home. The anticipation is so great, the expectations so high, that there is something of an anti-climax.

Yes, George W. Bush is out of Washington. Most of his pals are out of any sort of power. Barack Obama is in the White House, and Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress. We got everything we wanted (short of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate), and I am happy about that. But I really thought I'd be whooping and hollering about the departure of the other guys. I'm thrilled that they're gone--don't get me wrong--but I'm just not feeling vindictive or nasty about it. I'd love to see them held accountable, but I don't feel much like twisting the knife.

People on the National Mall didn't feel the same way, it would seem. They booed Bush, Dick Cheney and Chief Justice John Roberts. They sang "Na, na, na, nah, hey, hey, hey, goodbye!" And I thought that was a little classless, a bit like the angry folks at a Sarah Palin rally. But you know what? This has really been a classless President. And a disastrously bad one. So, while I don't feel so inclined, I'm not about to deny my liberal brethren the opportunity for a little schadenfreude themselves.

And when it gets the GOP collectively sad and blue? Well, after the neck-stomping they've given Democrats for eight years, it's a little hard to feel bad for them.

[Excerpt]

For GOP, it's hard to say goodbye

. . ."The one sorry note were the boos for President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Justice Roberts," said Khan, who was among a group of former Bush aides standing just a short distance from Obama as he was sworn in by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

"And singing the goodbye song," Khan said. "That was uncalled for."

Others GOP stalwarts, such as Ralph Reed, for former head of the Christian Coalition, made the conscious decision to stay away. But that only offered only so much protection. . .

Read more at: ChicagoBreakingNews

Joe Lieberman Rewarded for Betrayal?

Photo from source, Raw Story

It is clear that Democrats--at least those who hold office--are anxious to just let bygones be bygones when it comes to the last eight years. It's a magnanimous idea, and a complete turnabout from how Republicans do things.

But this keyboard warrior is feeling grumpy about Joe Lieberman's positive treatment today by Senate Democrats. I mean come on, he campaigned against other Senate Democrats, against Barack Obama, and aggressively for John McCain. I understand that they want that magical 60-seat majority, but really? What's a guy got to do to get a Democratic Senator pissed at you?

The ugliness of all things political over the last eight years has riled up what is now being called the "netroots." And while most of us are feeling a much smaller sense of urgency these days, we're still very angry. We waited patiently for the Presidential election and put up with "impeachment is off the table," because we were sure that once it was safe to do so, we'd finally get a little justice. Not so much.

So while the heat is off for now, I think elected Democrats would be wise to follow through with their promises, and do something positive--progressive--with their new found power. Because if they turn out to be just a flip-side of the last eight years, we're simply not going to be there for them in 2010 and beyond. I mean, why bother?

[Excerpt]

Lieberman keeps chairmanship

Democrats voted to let Joe Lieberman keep his plum committee post, despite the Connecticut senator's divisive campaigning on behalf of Republican John McCain's presidential bid. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Rachel Maddow's "Special Comment" on Joe Lieberman

There's been a lot of talk this week about "the Joe Lieberman problem." Lieberman campaigned aggressively for John McCain, and for some of the Republicans lower on the ticket. He criticized Barack Obama in scathing terms at times, and spoke at the Republican National Convention. Does anybody remember that Lieberman was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2000?

Mind boggling. And though Lieberman is no longer a Democrat (he's now the sole member of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party), he has caucused with them for the last two years, giving Democrats nominal control over the Senate. Now that there will be at least 56 or so Democrats in the Senate (possibly more), Lieberman's usefulness is reduced, though possibly still important. So if the Democrats put Joe out to pasture, will it be a case of cutting off their noses to spite their faces? Maybe not. Watch Rachel Maddow's "Rachel re:" bit for a very intelligent take on the matter.

Fear Factor: Republicans Wired to be Afraid?

Image from DrWill

It's an interesting article, though I'm not sure that fear is the biggest emotional difference between Republicans and Democrats. Fear certainly does work in getting people to vote Republican when they otherwise might not have. I thought that was mostly skillful (if sleazy) Rovian marketing.

Without fear (and a lot of cheating), George W. Bush wouldn't have had a prayer in the 2004 election. He had already shown himself to be a malapropism spouting boob. But they worked the "war President" angle hard, making sure to issue a "terror alert" any time their strategy started to flag. It was at least good enough to sway enough people to make the election close enough to steal.* Meanwhile, liberals like me were baffled. We rolled our eyes at the color-coded terror chart, didn't buy the "Library Tower" or "Manhattan Bridge" terrorist plot stories for a second. . .in short, we heard the boy cry wolf far too many times.

[Excerpt]

Liberal? Conservative? Blame it on a fear factor

Die-hard liberals and conservatives aren't made; they're born. It's literally in their DNA.

That's the suggestion of a study by a group of researchers who wanted to see if there was a biological basis for people's political attitudes.

They found to their surprise that opinions on such contentious issues as gun control, pacifism and capital punishment are strongly associated with physiological traits that are probably present at birth. . .

Read more at: Politics West

*EDITOR'S NOTE: Before you write me off as a paranoid tin-foil hatter for saying 2004 was stolen, I have seen evidence that it was. I believe 2000 was too, but 2004 for sure. Sources to check out, here and here and here. Unfortunately, much of the material I've read on the subject occurred before I had a blog. Finding the links now may take more time, but I may do a story it in the near future.

Toby Keith is a Democrat?

Image from TobyKeith.com

Mglphrp godricklap phliddleput schlumpifarq pradump glurg. . .

Sorry, I think my head imploded for just a second there. The inexplicably popular, country music singin', Ford Truck hawkin', boot-in-your-ass, trans-westite "cowboy" is a Democrat??? Wow. If that does a number on a liberal brain like mine, imagine what his Republican fans must be going through!

From AP: Toby Keith praises Obama

And there will be no excerpt, because I don't want the AP copyright Nazis after me. . .

Why is Obama Not Improving in the Polls? I Know!!!

Image from source, International Herald Tribune

The big question in politics this week is, "why is Barack Obama not improving in the polls?" Pointing to the low approval ratings of George W. Bush--often cited as one of the worst Presidents in US history--and other factors, the pundit class thinks this is a Democratic year. Big wins are predicted in the Senate and House. So why is Obama only a few percentage points ahead of John McCain?

Let me take a stab at it, because I believe I have the answer. Over the last sixteen years, voters have become increasingly polarized. There may have always been "die-hard Democrats" and "resolute Republicans," but there used to be a vast middle ground. Not anymore. These days, those two groups have swollen to encompass most of the electorate.

I don't fit in either group, but then I rarely do. Multiple choice questions always frustrate me, because my option is usually between a) and b), or c) with a little d). But I defected from the Republican party in 1992 after the incendiary Pat Buchanan speech at the convention. I could have been turned back along the way, but the tone of Buchanan's speech has only been magnified in the ensuing years. I'm a Democrat by default, because I find the current Republican party offensive in nearly every way.

And in those two paragraphs, you have your answer. You have people who count their political identity as a defining feature of their personality. They can't change their party any more than they can change their sexual orientation. Then, you have people like me who are so viscerally opposed to the other party, they cannot in good conscience vote for anything but their default party. Barack Obama is only up by a handful of percentage points because that is all that is left.

How'd I do?

[Excerpt]

Why is Obama not improving in the polls?

It is a question that has hovered over Senator Barack Obama even as he has passed milestone after milestone in his race for the White House: Why is he not doing better?

Read more at: International Herald Tribune

Repbulican Ad: WTC in Flames, Don't Vote Democrat

Image from source (again), Raw Story

Remind me again, what Party was in power on the morning of September 11, 2001? What two cities had their--presumably heavily guarded--airspace invaded by aircraft that had been off-course with plenty of warning? What Party's President sat in a children's classroom like a deer caught in headlights? What Party's former President was having breakfast with the brother of Osama bin Laden that very day? What Party's President invaded an uninvolved country as retaliation, draining us of blood and treasure? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an R.

Remind me again why we shouldn't vote for a Democrat?

[Excerpt]

Billboard displays burning World Trade Center with slogan, 'Please Don't Vote for a Democrat'

A political billboard in St. Cloud, Florida reads "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat" over an image of the burning World Trade Center.

Businessman Mike Meehan, who paid for the ad, says he's "only trying to help Republicans." The billboard also carries a link for Meehan's website, TheRepublicanSong.com, at which he says, "I claim to be a man of God" and promotes his political song and video. . .

Read more at (excuse me for double-dipping): Raw Story

Get Active: Why are You a Democrat in 2008?

When I posted Why are You a Republican in 2008, I was unaware that there is a parallel video challenge on YouTube for Democrats. Here is that challenge. Yes, the spokesman, Howard Dean, is also an old white guy. But at least he doesn't have the evangelist/car salesman hairdo the Republican guy is rockin.' And excitement is actually a word that might describe the enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate this year.