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.

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

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.

If you can’t even manipulate Larry King, you need to hang up your eye-liner and go home.  The deets:

Tuesday in the middle of her interview with King. Visibly disconcerted by King’s usual rapier like queries, Carrie was finding it difficult to keep her poise through the show. However, matters came to a head when King allegedly asked the former ramp blazer and beauty queen about her recent settlement with the Miss California USA pageant.

King pointedly asked Carrie to come clean on why she agreed to strike a compromise deal with the pageant and reportedly consented to drop the charges of libel, slander and  religious discrimination which she had earlier brought against the Pageant organizers.

“Why settle since you had a fight to carry on?” King demanded of Carrie. Prejean cornered and embarrassed, didn’t reply.

King further insinuated, “You can’t even say why you settled?” This time Carrie lost her head and responded with an angry retort, “Larry it’s completely confidential and you are being inappropriate.”

Despite King chucking the subject and passing on to another caller, Carrie was far too incensed and disconnected her mic before the guy on the line could mouth his query and gesticulated  to someone off camera.

She signed off saying, “Yeah, I think you are being extremely inappropriate right now…. And I’m about leave your show.”

Are you kidding me?

Read the rest HERE at Huffington Post!

Lets ignore the fact that she’s qualified.  Lord knows, others will.   She’s two!  Two!  Two things the Supreme court needs all rolled up in one!

Good luck dismantling this one without becoming even more of a fringe party!

Athough, hey, doesn’t meant they won’t try.  It’s already starting!

One conservative group did not wait for the formal announcement. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network, issued a statement calling Sotomayor a “liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written.”

Sotomayor’s elevation to the appeals court was delayed by Republicans, in part out of concerns she might someday be selected for the Supreme Court. She was ultimately confirmed for the appeals court in 1998 on a 68-28 vote, gathering some Republican support.

Among those voting against her was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will hold sway over her confirmation.

“I’d say the stakes are higher for the Supreme Court,” he said recently. “The Supreme Court sometimes seems to be acting as a continuing constitutional convention, so I am concerned about that.” He said Sotomayor would be entitled to a “fair hearing” if nominated.

Aw, that’s mighty white of him.

I love the fact that ten years ago, Sessions tried to derail this because this woman might – MIGHT – have a chance at being on the Supreme Court.

Now, they’ve both been living their lives for nearly a decade and he gets to take another flailing shot at it.  Good luck, wingnut!

Ah, this will be a fun day for demogoguery.   All sorts of rhetoric roasting on an open fire!

One day late for the barbecue, but who’s up for some weenies?  Senator?  The floor is yours.

UPDATE! 

EAT ME, OLBERMANN… I HAD IT FIRST.

Sanford, Perry Named “Worst Person In The World” On Countdown (VIDEO)

Governors Rick Perry (Texas) and Mark Sanford (South Carolina) were selected as the tonight’s “Worst Person(s) in the World” because they’re hosting a conference call to organize and promote Tear Party 2.0. Olbermann explained that he made his selection to point out the irony inherent in a movement claiming to be “ordinary Americans, unaffiliated with any party, certainly not the tools of big government governors,” being organized by two governors.

Right? Boys, better talk to your hairdressers; your not-so-grassroots are showing.”

I have blogged about this before.  I will blog about it again.  

There are some who want you to believe that tea parties are some grass roots effort to contain government, but I find it whiny sore-loserdom, brought to you by the good people at Fox News, who need an angle.  

THIS.

WAS NOT.

A “MOVEMENT.”

UNTIL THE DEMOCRAT WON. 

So, I find these tea party folk mostly to be a bunch of people who hate  the fact there is a Democrat in office, even though the republican they backed was tossed out by a solid majority of smart, introspective, fed-up Americans.   Obama supporters WERE the tea party.   They tossed out the party in power.  THAT is revolution, folks.

It’s not their fault that the horse you backed (McCain / Palin) sucked.   Put on your big boy pants and deal.

Just like the other side did for eight years.

So – I am reposting my tea party post. Here’s why:

Hoping to recapture the grassroots energy of last month’s “tea parties,” Republican Govs. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Rick Perry of Texas will host a tele-town hall Thursday that’s being dubbed “Tea Party 2.0.” 

Wow.  The guy who said he didn’t want the stimulus and took it, combined with the southern gentleman playing footsie with secession.  Excellent choices, tea folk.  Really showing off your independence and libertarian roots.

The Republican Governors Association said it is expecting 30,000 people to participate in the town hall, which will take place roughly one month after the much-publicized anti-tax tea party rallies held in hundreds of locations across the country on April 15, the tax filing deadline. 

Sanford and Perry will each speak for several minutes before opening up the town hall to up to an hour-long question and answer session. 

Yeah.  Can’t wait to hear the intelligent, challenging questions that will come from the choir.  ”On a scale of ‘I hate Obama’ to ‘I don’t believe in Democracy unless my guy wins’ how would you rank our current president?” 

Look – I think anybody who disagrees with Obama has every right to stand up against him.  But please… PLEASE, stop trying to convince me it – and this – is  anything but partisan.  

If you don’t lie to me, I’l respect your opinion a little bit more.

But for now, here’s my feeling, a month ago:

April 15:  The tax day tea party movement is gaining steam, as TV celebrities and political figures try to glom onto what might be a burgeoning populist groundswell. Neil Cavuto and Sean Hannity of Fox News will join events in Sacramento and Atlanta. Newt Gingrich will be in New York. And on Friday Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) proposed to make a law honoring April 15 as National Tea Party Day.              

Before they register that displeasure, Vitter wants them to register as Citizen Co-Sponsors of his effort to “force the Senate to recognize this day as a formal protest by the people against these policies.”

An organizer of the tax day protest outside the Treasury Department in Washington, D.C. told the Huffington Post that several Republican politicians — it now seems Vitter might have been one of them — had asked to speak at the event, only to be rebuffed because, as the organizer puts it, “We’re not a function of the Republican party.”

Newt Gingrich might be an unwelcome guest at the event in New York if anybody reminds protesters that the former congressman flip-flopped to support the bailout of the financial industry.

CNBC’s Rick Santelli, the man whose barely-intelligible cri de coeur brought this whole thing about, will not be participating in any tea parties on tax day.

Oh, now you want fiscal responsibility? Now you want a tea party? 

Ah, I get it. Taxation without representation. Very clever.

In other words, now that a Democrat is in the oval office, you have a problem paying taxes. Not your president. Not your government. Hence the tea party. You’re rebelling against an unfair rule.

Hey, so you know what?  EAT IT.            

Honestly – I’ll go back to a more civil discourse after this but this is ridiculous.

In 2007, I paid my taxes. I had a good year. And that money disappeared every time somebody farted in Iraq.

But instead of whining like a child because I wasn’t getting my way, I expressed my displeasure with my vote. 

Cut to 2009, and now a bunch of “super patriots” are trying to start a movement. Why? Because they don’t have the patience, tact or humility in their loss – a loss that’s not even 100 days old yet, by the way – to try to convince people as to WHY their side deserves another shot.

Nope, they want to tip over the table and start over.

Like the infants they are.

You don’t get line-item vetoes on the stuff the government pays for. If you want to enjoy things – like national security, or a paved road, or a park, or public schools or anything else that comes along with living in a civilized nation where people are taxed to pay for things that a country needs – then you have to put up with the fact that government is going to make decisions you don’t like.              

You know, like a lot of people did the last eight years.

Like I did for most of the last four.

See… I didn’t want to take my football and go home just because I had a problem with what my government was doing, because I believed in democracy. And when your side loses in a fair election, it’s still democracy. 

Tea parties. I swear to God.

Growing up, I always thought “tea parties” where for babies.

 

 

 

 

 

You know what? I still do.

 

Http://www.marmel.com

Remember all the horsecrap about how he was a maverick?  How he was going to buck the system?  How he was going to represent real change in Washington?

“Ah… Ah… Ah… B*****T!” (Fake sneeze).

From HUFFPO:

The soul-searching of the Republican Party has boiled down to a rather simplistic question: to moderate or not to moderate. On Sunday, the man who led the GOP in the 2008 election — Sen. John McCain — came down on the side of the latter, telling ABC’s “This Week” that, like Dick Cheney, he did not “want to moderate.”

“I think we’re kind of in a word game here,” said McCain, when played a segment of a recent interview in which the former vice president said moderation was not the best course for the GOP. “I don’t want to moderate either. I think our policies, the principles of our party, are as viable today as they have been in the past. In all due respect, the previous administration, by letting loose spending get completely, out of control, by betraying some of those principles of our party, cost us a couple of elections. And maybe I didn’t do good enough job communicating with the American people. But we have to improve our outreach and our communication, and that doesn’t mean betray our principles. I think it means adjusting to the 21st century in communications, in values, in goals, in all the things that American people want.”

“For many years, we have seen parties down and parties up,” he said. “That is the great thing about American politics. Having said that, do we have to do a better job of getting our message out? Do we have to do a better job recruiting candidates? Do we have to do a better job at outreach, outreach to many Americans that don’t feel that they can be part of our party? Absolutely.”

“I think we have to be an inclusive party,” he said. “[But] that does not mean betrayal of the fundamental principles.” As for the future, he insisted that electoral politics works “in cycles.”

In other words, he wants to pretend to be a maverick, pretend to be for change, wear the cool “I’m with change” T-shirt, but has no intention of doing it in any policy, whatsoever.

Exactly, by the way, what cost him the election.

So it seems that this is the path that the Republicans are going to take in 2009 and 2010 – that they were right, that they didn’t get their message out, that it’s unfair – waa waa waa, where’s my tea party, boo hoo hoo.  As opposed to the lesson they should have learned, which is you can’t disenfranchise your moderates, boot them out of your tent, and wonder why you and your 20% of the populace can’t carry a bucket of water, let alone an election.

There’s a difference between listening to experience, and fearing the new.

Me?  I don’t care.   The more they do this, the better chance the Obama administration will be able to pursue their goals – and I will be able to make my 2010 decisions based on how things have either gotten better, or worse.

So, please – don’t moderate.  Don’t evolve.  Don’t change.  Don’t reach out to me.  It makes my decision easier if you’re not even trying to make me feel welcome.

Thank you for showing me the door… but your house sucks anyway.