Hastert is...

History!

After announcing his resignation on Nov. 15, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) today formally handed in his letter of resignation, which goes into effect at 10:59 PM CST tonight. A special election will be held to fill his position on Feb. 5. See the full letter HERE.

Buh bye Dennis Hastert... We will always have your many scandals to remember you by!

What more can you say about a Congress critter that doesn't even know the words to the national anthem?

Would the right wing ever allow a Democratic politician off the hook for completely not knowing the words to the national anthem, the way House Speaker Dennis Hastert very obviously does not?

Will the real Trent Lott please stand up?

Via Andrew Sullivan:

I have no independent information on this, but the Trent Lott story may have a new twist. Click on the link at your own discretion. It would seem completely impossible, if it weren't for the recent past. A reader posits an alternative theory:

Through my journalism work, I hear Lott is actually resigning in order to try and head off a really bad scandal. Somebody was threatening to air photos of him being polite to a black person.

What's he talking about?

"The boy happens to be real, and his 'stage name' is Benjamin Nicholas. One of the politicos Big Head DC has learned he’s alleged to have been involved with is the married Sen. Trent Lott, 66, who unexpectedly announced his retirement on Monday. Lott is well-known to have been against a plethora of gay rights issues throughout his terms in Congress. He was also good friends with Sen. Larry Craig throughout his time in Congress. Nicholas told Big Head DC today via e-mail that he didn’t want to go on the record to talk about his dealings with Lott, because, said Nicholas, 'Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now and I don’t want to add to it.' However, e-mail and other records confirm that the two have met on at least two occasions. 'All I can say at this point is no comment,' Nicholas told us. 'It’s the professional thing for me to do.' In a subsequent e-mail message, Nicholas confirmed that another publication is working on a story about a 'possible relationship' between Lott and himself, but Nicholas also 'politely declined' an interview for that story. 'As I said before, Lott has quite a bit on his plate right now and I don’t really want to add fuel to the embers,' Nicholas told Big Head DC."

Image via Towelroad

More Via Towelroad:

And as far as that "other" publication, Larry Flynt just told FOX he's "hoping to expose a bombshell" within the next week or two. We'll see, I guess.

Take it for what you will, but given that 2007 is the year of the hypocritical Republican, nothing would surprise me.

Nothing surprises me when it comes to the GOP anymore... And, here, Nicholas denies the claims.

Waiting for the next issue of Hustler to hit the newsstands... lol

Lott retiring from the Senate?

Maybe...

NBC News has learned that Trent Lott's in the midst of informing close allies that he plans to resign his senate seat before the end of the year. It's possible a formal announcement of his plans could take place as early as today.

Like a child that is losing a game, he'll take his ball and stomp off home in the Mississippi mud. If this rumor is true, it will make for another open Senate seat for the broke, and broken, GOP to defend in the next round of "kick the bums out!" (h/t C&L)

Left and right Bloggers will remember Lott fondly when he is gone... For his scalping:

O’Keefe’s judgment later won out. Pack judgment was wrong— in this case, extremely so. Lott became the first majority leader in Senate history to resign under pressure. How it all happened is told in the new case study from Harvard’s Kennedy School, “Big Media” Meets the “Bloggers.” (By Esther Scott, supervised by Alex Jones of the Shorenstein Center at the Kennedy School of Government. Available only in pdf form here.)

My favorite moment in the story is when O’Keefe’s counterpart at another network asks a more senior producer in the Washington bureau to look at what Lott said that evening at Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. “No, I don’t think it’s anything” says the more experienced pro.

This gave O’Keefe some pause, causing him to second-guess his judgment. “I think there is something to the [notion] of pack journalism,” he reflects, “of individuals believing that if something is noteworthy, … everyone will get it… If they didn’t all get it, then it couldn’t possibly be a newsworthy item.”

The conservative writer David Frum would later call Lott’s words, “the most emphatic repudiation of desegregation to be heard from a national political figure since George Wallace’s first presidential campaign.” But when “everyone” didn’t get it, O’Keefe began to doubt himself. That’s how group think works.

The Harvard study has gotten notice in Blogistan, but its stingy formatting (the pdf is encrypted and won’t allow you to cut and paste) has been discussed in greater depth than the story it tells, perhaps because we think the events are well known. According to legend—partially confirmed by the report—webloggers from Left and Right were responsible for pushing the Trent Lott story into the news, after the mainstream media missed it.

“The Internet’s First Scalp” said John Podhoretz in the New York Post. That’s hyperbole, but the report makes clear that webloggers had a crucial role. It also delimits and describes that role. Now we know more precisely why—and when—the bloggers were needed.

Who will Ron Paul support?

That is, if Ron Paul, the closest thing to a real conservative - being a right tilted libertarian - in the GOP, weren't in the running?

Last month, during a Republican debate, Ron Paul was asked whether he promised to support the GOP nominee next year, no matter who emerges from the primary process. “Not right now I don’t,” Paul said, “not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.”

Apparently, in the ensuing weeks, “not right now” has become “no.”

Paul called his Republican presidential rivals, including frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, “neo-conservatives” whom he couldn’t support in the general election should his own bid fail.

“They think we’re supposed to spread our goodness through force,” Paul said. For example, none will pledge not to wage war on Iran, he said. “How could I support something like that?”

Apparently, he can’t. But it means that of the top seven candidates in the Republican field, Paul is the only one who isn’t prepared to support the party’s eventual nominee. It’s not the kind of thing that will go over well within the party, but then again, Paul’s interest in the Republican Party appears nominal — it’s a venue for him to advance his ideas and agenda, not necessarily an opportunity for him to lead the party.

We know it isn't any republican candidate that is in the running right now. We can take a guess on whom he would support based on past statements:

The conservative Senator Chuck Hagel would be one choice, if he were running (obviously), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

There is a reason that both, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, enjoy a large base of support from activists on the left and right, and are both derided consistently by the corporate owned media. It is because of their commitments to saying what they stand for and believe, their constant fights against the illegal occupation of Iraq, and actually voting by the standards of their public statements.

But Paul and Kucinich are both labeled wackos and fringe candidates by the media standards.

Go figure?

This kind of populist type backlash from grassroots in the left and right sure as hell isn't because people think that the media darlings and self-fulfilling-prophesied "top tier candidates" are competent, honest, have integrity, or are even relatively sane judging by their patchwork of flip-flops, twisting of truths, and circle-jerk logic demonstrated by their votes and statements and resulting in continued failures for Democracy, and for America.

Breasts, Legs or Laughs?

A little family Thanksgiving humor for you:

An elderly man in Phoenix calls his son in New York and says, "I hate to ruin your day, but I have to tell you that your mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough."

"Pop, what are you talking about?" the son screams.

"We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," the old man says. "We're sick of each other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Chicago and tell her," and he hangs up.

Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. "Like heck they're getting divorced," she shouts, "I'll take care of this."

She calls Phoenix immediately, and screams at the old man, "You are NOT getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there. I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?" and hangs up.

The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife.

"Okay," he says, "They're coming for Thanksgiving and paying their own fares."

Some end of year fun!

This Holiday Muckorama Contest seems like a really fun way to beat the Muck out of the wingnuts some more:





Maybe some of Connecticut's own video Bloggers would have some extra fun putting together their own video offerings for this?

The one problem with this contest: All these criminals should be getting mugshots, not free mugs. TPM should be sending the free mugs to readers like myself! lol

Time to Label a Traitor...

... exactly what he is. A TRAITOR:

Karl Rove approached Time magazine for a job. Time, however, rejected Rove as “essentially like an unindicted coconspirator in a whole host of felonies”:

Time’s editors apparently felt the cost/benefit analysis wouldn’t be in their favor if they embraced the man who has done more than anyone to keep the spirit of Joe McCarthy alive and well in American politics. … “They think Karl is essentially like an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies.”

These lying sacks of treason from the unindicted Libby files deserve no better reference than that. Here is the traitor Rove plotting and scheming with one of his other traitorous GOP buddies:


Via Steve Benen at TPM:

If you're just joining us, Novak reported yesterday that Hillary Clinton's "agents" are gossiping in Democratic circles that the Clinton campaign has "scandalous information" about Obama, which they reportedly will not share.

Of course, as a matter of journalism and professional standards, Novak's piece was a textbook case of media irresponsibility. His column shouldn't have even run -- Clinton supporters (who he will not name) are allegedly spreading rumors about rumors (which he cannot identify) addressing an Obama scandal (which may or may not exist). Joe Klein suggested that Novak may have "simply abandoned all pretense of being a journalist."

What's most striking, however, is the full-scale war between the Clinton and Obama camps in the wake of the piece. Mark Halperin has a timeline of events, which is both lengthy and painful.

A few observations. First, Novak's column smeared both Clinton and Obama, and the two campaigns proceeded to make it worse by spending the entire day bickering over what was, as a practical matter, a dumb column devoid of any substance.

Hook. Line. And. Sinker. Candidates, campaigns, Blogs, commenters, and supporters everywhere bit and swallowed the traitors' typically GOP ploy.

Never forget what you are up against.

What is wrong with this picture?

I try and stay out of the direct line of fire of diaries specifically bashing candidates on the left, except when someone asks a direct question of myself concerning it, but there is something seriously wrong with this picture, and it mirrors failures past:

At some point maybe the Democrats and the commentators will remember that the thing that matters is not whether Mrs. Clinton’s eyebrows are straight but that the Republicans she and the others are running against are carbon copies of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. The Republicans are running on Bush’s policies only — in fact, on the need to expand them and make them worse.

So who are Democrats criticizing? They savage one another. What a dumb game, politics.

No matter what candidate you are talking about on the Democratic side, there is a serious problem with their savaging of each other instead of respectful debates on the actual issues. It is the same problem in many of the Blogging communities. These candidates and their supporters would be well advised to use their time to present their positions clearly on each of the many issues that are so important to this nation, and contrasting their positions with the failures of the Republican side.

The problem for many of them is that they do not present their positions clearly, leaving the primary voters with little to go on except for "cash cow support" and perceived oneupmanship. And, in the case of online debates at Blogging communities, the readers perceptions of the savaging of diaries and comments from various Blogging supporters of different candidates cannot be much better.

I am not pointing a finger at any candidate, Blogger or supporter specifically. It seems like it is coming from every camp. Heck, some of my comments could be perceived in the same manner.

I may not be a member of the Democratic party, but for those of you that are... You might want to reconsider your tactics so that when it comes time to "get inline" with whatever candidate your party puts forward you won't have already exposed and reinforced all of the weakest points of every single one of your own candidates for the few GOP supporters remaining in the "echo chamber" to latch onto.

Of course, efforts like this would have to be started at the top of the campaign level for it to be truly effective.

Strong, clear positions from the Democratic candidates forcefully directed at the real likelihood of the continuation or, as Denis Horgan points out, the further EXPANSION of bush failures by any of the new republican faces on a "Stay the course!" policy of failure.

Without this kind of campaign, the Democratic party only risks its chances of delivering a knock-out-punch message in the '08 elections to the Republican party to wake the fuck up from their lunatic policies if they hope to ever be considered as "serious" politicians with even a vague grasp of reality again.

This is your chance at showing the real differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. OR, it can be your chance to mirror past failures of both parties.

As it stands, very few of the Democratic party "leaders" have given me any reason to hope for anything better. Nor have they lead their followers down a much better path.

Real News, Noam Chomsky, Iran

Eight minutes long... Get your coffee now so you can pay attention:

The Real News

Minor Update: For an eye opening comparison of bush failures to Chomsky successes follow this link...