Twas the night before Christmas
And all through DC
Smiling Libs, pouting Cons
Were all you could see.

So while it might not be perfect
It’s still worth the cost.
To McCain and his pals, I say:
Suck it. You lost.

So, this is hardly a surprise. In this economy, everybody’s trying to keep their jobs. Even guys like Parker Griffith.

POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.

According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith’s district in northern Alabama.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.

While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among Democrats.

He has bucked the Democratic leadership on nearly all of its major domestic initiatives, including the stimulus package, health care legislation, the cap-and trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform.

He was one of only 11 House Democrats to vote against the stimulus.

Signs of Griffith’s dissatisfaction with his party began to surface publicly during the summer recess, when he received an earful of criticism from constituents.

After the November off-year elections, he told POLITICO that he wanted to be called an independent Blue Dog and not a Democrat. He said the point of the elections was clear: “I should be nervous.” 

At some point, Parker Griffith will stand up with orange-faced Oompah Loompah John Boehner and get a big ol’ slap on the back for the “courage” to change parties.

The same slap on the back Arlen Specter got when he saw the writing on the wall, and switched parties to keep his clout… Griffith did what I’m sure a handful of conservative “democrats” are considering… changing their “D” to an “R” so they don’t have to change their “Employed” to “Unemployed” in 2010.

Let’s face it: In certain districts, the “mandate” was more about being sick of Bush/Cheney than it was enthusiasm for Obama. And in these states, these democrat representatives are only democrats because they were slightly to the left of the guy who was really to the right.

And in 2010, that’s probably not going to be enough. Disillusioned progressives will more than likely stay home. And annoyed tea partiers will be screaming their heads off and filling their trucks and mini-vans with like minded people wearing stupid hats and dressed like it’s 1776.

So guys like Griffith have one of three choices:

* Appeal to their voters that they are a moderating voice within the Democratic party with no proof they were able to do that.
* Retire, and be irrelevant.
* Switch parties, and suddenly become the prettiest girl at the prom.

For more, swing on over here:

With a lot of fanfare, but very little reason for it, it looks like Obama is going to get his top domestic policy accomplished this year. Health Care for most. And since I can’t really put things in sarcastic finger quotes here, I’ll just say it like this: “Huzzah.”

This is a mutt of a bill – a frankenstein mish-mash of ideas that could have been, and should have been, a hell of a lot better than it actually is.

Yes, Harry Reid had to tickle Ben Nelson’s undercarriage, and play patty cake with dour opportunist Joe Lieberman to make it happen.

Yes, an aide to equally weaselly Bart Stupak reached across the aisle – and the legislative branches – to try to sink the health care bill when it wasn’t nearly as oppressive and anti-choice as he was hoping for.

All these democrats, working in a bi-partisan manner with conservatives… to water down a bill, or to attack a woman’s right to choose, or to protect insurance company interests. It’s ridiculous. And yeah, these people deserve our scorn.

But blaming the democratic party as a whole, and blaming Obama for not being able to wrangle 60 senatorial cats in a burlap sack, is a little unfair.

I may not like every person with a “D” in front of their title, and I do not vote for every “D” I see. In 2008, I voted for Obama, because I was sick of a Republican party that shifted way right on me, and started cramming a “our way or the highway” point of view down my throat.

And that Republican party hasn’t changed. If anything – by catering to birthers and evangelical hard-liners, they have gotten worse.

Every single Republican has lined up against this bill. Am I supposed to believe there wasn’t ONE republican that wanted to make this work in either the house or the senate?

40 senators cannot agree on anything. Except, of course, that they want their white house back. And that’s what this is all about.

These people with the “R” in front of their name lined up in unison at the beginning of this presidency, not over this bill. They lined up in unison on this bill, because they wanted Obama to fail in this thing. The Republicans aren’t opposed to any specific issue other than the President that will be signing the bill.

It is that simple.

They wanted this to be, as lunatic Republican theocrat Jim DeMint said, the “waterloo that would break him.” It may still yet.

It’s not a flaw in the Democratic party that they had to compromise to get 60 of their members to agree on a piece of legislation. That’s what the big tent is about. I, nor should any American, want the important debates of our day to be dictated without debate and dissent.

It is a flaw in the current version of the Republican party that not a single congressman or senator had the stones to vote for it. Not one. Everyone of these weak-willed individuals were in such fear of being lambasted – by tea party, by the conservative media, idealogues in their own party – that none of them had the courage to say “You know what? I’ll vote for it if you include XXX.”

Not one.

So yeah, we can all be disappointed in what this bill is, because of what this bill could have been.

But when I think about why it’s not – as much as I’d like to leave a bag of burning dog crap on the doorsteps of people like Nelson and Lieberman… they, and the party in power, are not completely to blame for what happened here.

It’s not the Democrats, who allowed dissent and debate, and were trying to accomplish a goal that a majority of Americans elected them to do.

It’s the Republicans who are running the next election campaign on every bill that comes through the House and Senate, that were the biggest roadblocks to what it seems a majority of Americans wanted.

So, no. I won’t blame Obama for that. There are plenty of other things going on that have lessened my enthusiasm for this President. But on the issue of health care, I think he had no choice to be a pragmatist in the face of an enemy with a drone-like mindset of a Star Wars storm trooper.

And I will not have selective memory of that, come 2010 and 2012.

ABC has booked Rihanna-beater Chris Brown for an interview and a performance on “Good Morning America” — right after the network canceled guy-kisser Adam Lambert.

Brown will do a taped tell-all with Robin Roberts, followed by a performance of songs from his new album. But TV insiders say the appearance, slated to air the week after next, has outraged feminists and gay activists who wonder why a convicted girlfriend abuser is more palatable to the network than an openly gay man who broke no laws with his raunchy performance on the “American Music Awards.”

They aren’t alone.

Seriously?  I mean, SERIOUSLY?

Look, what Lambert did was silly and immature – just as it was back in the day when Madonna did it.  Everybody freaks out for five minutes and then it becomes about as important as who cut a fart.

But the timing of this – canceling Lambert for being juvenile, and then airing Chris Brown who is a vicious thug… this isn’t a case of apples and oranges, this is a case of apples and OJ (of the Simpson variety).

It’s extremely hypocritical and I’m willing to bet, doesn’t stand.

Ever since the idiocy of “Balloon Boy,” I have been pining for the moment where fame-whores finally cross a line, and face serious repercussions for their stupidity.

Maybe here.  Maybe this.

AP – Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the couple who crashed the White House state dinner, may face criminal charges, the Secret Service announced today.

Jim Mackin, the agency’s spokesman, said this is one reason the Secret Service has kept mum about what happened when the couple, who are auditioning for the Bravo reality show “The Real Housewives of DC”, arrived at the security checkpoint Tuesday. They were not on the guest list for the dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but managing to get into the party, where they posed for photos with Vice President Joe Biden and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“As this moves closer to a criminal investigation there’s less that we can say,” Mackin said. “I don’t want to jeopardize what could be a criminal investigation. We’re not leaving any option off the table at this point.”

By now, you know the story.  A couple of empty-souled “socialites” desperately
trying to get onto “The Real Housewives of DC” somehow managed to crash a
state dinner.

You also know by now, they managed to come in contact with the
President of the United States.

For the rest, head on over to HUFFPO.

It was a little more than a year ago that John McCain introduced Sarah Palin to us, the final nail in the coffin of his presidential campaign.

As comedians, and humorists, let us take a moment and be thankful – for all she has given us in the past, and all she will give us in the future.

It’s not as funny as this:

But we should be thankful nonetheless.

Happy Thanksgiving, all.

However, doing a piece where you counter a scientist representing fact with narrowmind James Inhofe (R-OK) – that’s less balance and more news organization covering their asses for fear of being called biased.

Clearly, I’m biased.

Everything is polarized and everything is hyper-partisan.  Evolution, reproductive rights, Guantanamo… everything that happens today gets tossed into the grinder so the left and right can eat each other’s faces off, for the entertainment of the news viewing public – and there’s no end in sight.

Except for this little light at the end of the tunnel, courtesy of Newsmax:

It’s no secret that former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Fox News host Glenn Beck share great respect and admiration — so their fans can be forgiven for wondering: Is a “dream ticket” of Palin-Beck ticket completely out of the question?

Perhaps not.

Palin initially chuckled when Newsmax broached the idea. But then she had some serious words of praise for the popular Fox personality.

“I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I’m not there yet,” Palin tells Newsmax. “But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He’s a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he’s so bold — I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he’s very, very, very effective.”

Oh, sweet Jesus, yes.

For the rest, head on over to Huffpo!

FROM YAHOO NEWS:

For the second time since Sarah Palin stepped into the national political spotlight, a photo of the former Republican vice-presidential candidate featured on the cover of Newsweek magazine is sparking controversy. Palin herself blasted the “out-of-context” cover as “sexist” on her Facebook page.

Originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World, the photo features the former Alaska governor in short runner’s shorts. It was part of a multi-photograph slideshow that accompanied an article about Palin and her love for the sport titled, “I’m A Runner.” In her Facebook post late last night, Palin took issue with Newsweek using a photo from an article about health and fitness to promote an analysis piece contemplating her relevance as a political figure:

“The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness — a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention — even if out of context.

So, let’s be honest:  The Newsweek piece on Sarah CLEARLY has an agenda.  ”She’s bad news for the GOP and for everyone else too” sums it up – whatever the piece has to say, and I haven’t read it yet, it ain’t gonna be flattering.

So knowing that – knowing the article is going to probably be an editorial about why she’s a crash-and-burn waiting to happen – why not use the cover as an editorial cartoon?  Why not use this cheesecake photo of Palin on the cover with Carrie Prejean still fresh in everybody’s mind?

Yes, of course, it’s the difference between apples and… hard core pornography.  But I doubt I’m the only one realizing “attractive female conservatives” are having image issues this month.

If you like Palin, this probably infuriates you.  But if she makes the hairs on the back of your brain stem stand up, I’m sure you feel otherwise.

That being said, this is another instance of the wolf-killer who cried “victim” crying victim once more.

From Obama (lipstick on the pig), then David Letterman (who clearly told an ill-conceived joke) and now Newsweek… for someone who is supposed to be tough as nails – a self-described pitbull with lipstick  - she sure tends to spend a lot of time whimpering like a poodle that got it’s paw caught in a car door.

For me, this is one more instance of Sarah Palin refusing to take any responsibility for her actions.  This photo wasn’t taken before she entered national politics… this is from two months ago, as she was trying to reposition herself as an intelligent voice for the Conservative movement.

This photo was her choice – just like, say, choosing to whip crowds into racist frenzies before the election, or marginalize moderate conservatives after it.  And as with all of her choices that come back to bite her, the problems they cause, the failures they become… they’re always somebody else’s fault.

They have to be, right?  The alternative is, she’s the dim one, she’s the one that’s making the bad choices, she’s being rejected… and that’s clearly unacceptable.

You don’t quit Sarah Palin – Sarah Palin quits you.

Let’s be honest:  The Newsweek piece on Sarah CLEARLY has an agenda.  ”She’s bad news for the GOP and for everyone else too” sums it up – whatever the piece has to say, and I haven’t read it yet, it’s not gonna be flattering.

So knowing that – knowing the article is a piece about how Sarah Palin has image issues and is a crash-and-burn waiting to happen – why not use the cover as an editorial cartoon?

Using this cheesecake photo of Palin on the cover with Carrie Prejean still fresh in everybody’s mind is absolutely intentional.

Yes, of course, it’s the difference between apples and… hard core pornography.  But I doubt I’m the only one realizing “attractive female conservatives” are having image issues this month.

If you like Palin, this probably infuriates you.  But if she makes the hairs on the back of your brain stem stand up, I’m sure you feel otherwise.

That being said, this is another instance of the wolf-killer who cried “victim” crying victim once more.  From Obama (lipstick on the pig), then David Letterman (who clearly told an ill-conceived joke) and now Newsweek… this self-described pitbull with lipstick sure tends to spend a lot of time whimpering like a poodle that got her paw caught in a car door.

TO READ THE REST, ZIP ON OVER TO HUFFPO

In the latest skirmish in his war with TLC, Jon Gosselin has filed a $5 million claim against the network, saying its representatives damaged his reputation and career by preventing him from working with other media outlets.

In the suit, the reality star dad claims that the network contacted various media outlets he’d been in touch with to persuade them to stop dealing with him. 

“Their behavior has caused Jon great anguish and it has caused him financial losses,” says his attorney, Mark Heller, who maintains Gosselin did not have an attorney or a manager present when he signed the contract for Jon and Kate Plus Eight with TLC last year.

Dude, shut up.

Nobody owes you another show, another shot, another anything.

Read the rest at Huffpo, by clicking here.

The Mormon Church blinks.

SALT LAKE CITY — The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake city laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The Utah-based church’s support ahead of Tuesday night’s vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.

“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage,” Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.

Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday’s action could have broad effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80 percent of lawmakers and the governor are church members.

“What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event,” said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. “I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don’t have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies.”

So, this is better.

A few months ago, I wrote a series of blogs at Http://www.marmel.com, asking – hoping – for Hollywood to boycott Sundance.  (http://marmel.com/2009/08/utah-says-its-okay-to-discriminate-against-gays-its-time-to-boycott-sundance/ if you are curious.)

I don’t know where you stand on gay marriage, but the idea that people could be discriminated against at work – simply FIRED for being gay, as was legal in Utah and had happened in Utah… this was something I found untenable.

That Utah’s lawmakers continually allowed it to happen, disgusting.

That the new Utah governor – who took over for the more progressive Jon Huntsman – defended this discrimination like the coward he was, even less acceptable. (whatever “more progressive” means in Utah, by the way)

After much hand wringing and behavior unbecoming of someone in the 21st century, the Mormon church now thinks it’s wrong to discriminate against gays in the work place, or when looking for housing.  Why the change of heart?

Probably two reasons:  One, they realize that in the other 49 states, they’re just as likely to face discrimination as the people they don’t like… so perhaps the pot and kettle should start getting along.

Two, public relation disasters like this, from the Colbert Report:

I’d love to say this Church saw the light, and had a change of heart.  But then again, I don’t care.  If this gets Utah to stop treating gays like second class citizens in the work place or when they’re trying to find a place to live – if this bill passes, then I bear no ill-will toward the state of Utah itself.  Their government, and their state, no longer bear the brunt of my indignation on this issue, and I will get off my “Boycott Sundance” horse.

I’ll go back to doing what’s easier:  Seething at individuals.  Railing at an entire church is exhausting, and feels like punching a wall.

For the gay community, there are probably decades of work to be done, and damage to be reversed.  Generations have been soiled with the idea that homosexuals are second-class citizens.  The discrimination will more than likely still happen and people will have to be vigilant.  It will more than likely fall to younger people than I to populate that state with kinder, less xenophobic souls.

The national and regional debate over gay marriage is hardly over.

But because you need to reward good behavior, hurrah for the Mormon Church for this.  They have now left the middle ages and are living in the 1950s.  It’s a baby step, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

We’ll see what happens Tuesday night.