Thursday, June 26, 2008

Scratch another one from the list

Obama's 'Dick Cheney' pick just took his final bow. According to the Mississippi Sun Herald:
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama should not select former Sen. Sam Nunn to be his vice presidential running mate because of Mr. Nunn's support for doing business with the terrorist state of Iran.

'Sam Nunn voted to allow the General Electric Company to do business with Iran despite that the U.S. government had labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism,' said Tom Borelli of Action Fund Management, the investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a publicly-traded mutual fund. "Someone who supports doing business with an avowed enemy of the U.S. has no place in the White House,' Borelli added."
Obama recently mentioned he is looking for "somebody who can be a good president if anything happened to me. And I want somebody who can be a good adviser and counsel to me." want your Dick Cheney. Sam Nunn was the best bet. A statesman. Well versed in foreign policy. The yin to your yang.

Annnnnd he does deals with Mahmoud Ahmadinutjob. Oops.

So who is left? Tom Daschle is probably the next safest bet. The former Minority Leader has the DC experience and his former staff is pretty much running the Obama campaign.

God help us all.

Scalia's Top 8 Quotes

Well, the US Constitution scored a major victory today in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Case. If you don’t know what happened maybe it would be best if you moved on and watched The Hills . The full opinion can be found here. Legal scholars will be opining about this case for years to come so it wouldn't be prudent to do any legal analysis here. However, I do find Justice Scalia quite humorous so I put together a list of the Top 8 Justice Scalia Quotes from the DC v. Heller decision.

1. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

This one sentence just prevented a revolution while also keeping the Obama Campaign relevant.

2. Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

OMG OMG, did he just call Stevens Grotesque? Oh no he didn’t. I can just imagine them sitting around the back rooms of the SCOTUS drinking scotch and smoking cigars calling each other 'grotesque'. 'Grotesque' is my new favorite slur.

3. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.

Thanks for the shout out to the Chicago-land area. Go Cubs! This is our year!

4. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.

Seriously Stevens, did you not even read Miller? WTF? Seriously???

5. The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.

Justice Scalia is using Alice in Wonderland to tear apart your argument. Damn, this guy is good. What’s next, a Chewbacca defense

6. JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.

Not only are you Grotesque, but you are also dubious. Justice Stevens, go take a shower.

7. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.

Interest-balancing sounds like a great phrase to use to promote fascism or communism or both.

8. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Wait… I don’t get are just interpreting the Constitution? But what if a law totally sucks?

Stay Classy, Gen. McPeak.

The politics of personal destruction is alive and well in politics. I just HOPE they CHANGE their tune, because this is getting ridiculous.

While Obama's people continue to make up accusations that simply aren't there, the most senior Military official to back Sen. Obama has taken things to another level:
"He was fresh out of jail, you know," Gen. McPeak said. "Skinny kid. All beat up of course, physically. But quite thin. They weren't feeding him very well in Hanoi. He's done very well at the dinner table in Washington."

Gen. McPeak also said Mr. McCain received special favors when he returned to the U.S.

"McCain was always kind of an exception," Gen. McPeak said.

When told about Gen. McPeak's comments, Mr. McCain's roommate in the Hanoi Hilton was not amused.

"Surely a four-star general can come up with something better than that," said Orson Swindle, a former Marine Corps pilot who, like Mr. McCain, was shot down over enemy territory. "It wreaks of pettiness and sarcasm, and I can't imagine why he can make that kind of comment to imply that John McCain feasts at the Washington establishment."
We're supposed to be in a new Obama-inspired era of environment of substantive and reasoned discussion. Instead we have people like McPeak degrading the debate. In this new era is it really that hard to focus on an opponents positions on policy and their accomplishments(or lack thereof)?


Ok, so I lied about rarely posting about Supreme Court cases. But come on, how can I ignore DC vs. Heller?

By now we all know the good guys won. 5-4. For the uninformed, here's a quick summary of Justice Scalia's majority opinion on the case from Bench Memos:
(a) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.

(b) The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court's opinion should not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.

(c) D.C.'s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession prohibits an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any standard of scrutiny, that ban falls. The trigger-lock requirement makes self-defense impossible. D.C. may use a licensing scheme.
First off, this clearly sets a substantial precendent that will make it very difficult for further assaults on the second amendment anytime in the near future. Liberals may challenge the decision with other cases, but Supreme Court Justices, even when on the losing side, are cocky when it comes to their supreme body setting precedence. They won't allow any cases to even be heard that may even come close to turning over this decision. In other words, this is a huge win for the Constitution.

Now onto the fun part. The right to bear arms.
Justice Scalia has himself a way with words. This is particularly evident in a portion of his opinion that focuses on just that:
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, thereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of "bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
As a friend said, can you imagine Scalia being in the same room as Stevens when the "incoherent" Justice read those words? "Hi guy who considers himself to be really smart. Your opinion is grotesque. See ya tomorrow."


Wednesday, June 25, 2008

I Don't Think the 8th Amendment Means What You Think It Means

Posts on Supreme Court cases will likely be few and far between here as 1) I'm not a lawyer; and 2) I can only bullshit so much. But the ruling this morning had me pretty frazzled.

In the case of Kennedy vs. Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that the rape of a child should never require the death penalty. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion limits the death penalty to crimes involving acts that intend to cause death and in fact do so. He uses the 8th amendment as a means to support his argument, stating that in this case, the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

But constitutionally speaking, did Kennedy and the majority get it right?

Simple answer. No.

The fact of the matter is that the 8th amendment speaks only to the punishment, not the crime. As in, is the punishment itself cruel and unusual? Now if the question was to whether Louisiana had started using stoning, quartering or death by laxative overdose as a means of punishment, Kennedy may have a point. But it wasn't.

Unfortunately, we're once again stuck with a Supreme Court who feels the need to encourage messing with the intent of the Founders. Justice Kennedy, let the United States be what it was intended to be, a nation based on federalism. Let the states decide how to respond to the crimes committed within their borders.

And please, stop working outside your job description.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Hey you! Swing voter! Look at this!

Eeeny meeny miney mo!

As talk of potential Vice Presidents continues to increase, we are going to find more and more public vetting taking place. This may include names being leaked by the campaign to gauge public reaction, independent or conservative journalists/ organizations reviewing the record of the potential nominees or simple news stories that make ya go hmmm.

Two of the big names currently being talked about are Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former DHS Secretary and PA Gov., Tom Ridge. Pawlenty has been the favorite of late, and that means plenty of record dissection.

Methinks the Club for Growth and online blog communities like aren't going to be too happy with Pawlenty after this analysis of his record by Cato:

Pawlenty, who reportedly coined the term “Sam’s Club conservative” to describe his political philosophy, has been an economic populist and big-spender generally. Among other things, he:

1) Supported government subsidized health care for all children as the first step toward universal health insurance, and opposed President Bush’s veto of a Democratic bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP) to families earning as much as $83,000 per year;

2) Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform, including a “health care exchange” and an individual mandate;

3) Has called for banning all prescription drug advertizing, and seeks government imposed price controls for drugs offered through Medicare;

4) Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children;

5) Pushed a statewide smoking ban smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars;

6) Increased the state’s minimum wage;

7) Imposed some of the most aggressive and expensive renewable energy mandates in the country;

8) Was an ardent supporter of the farm bill;

9) Received only a “C” ranking on Cato’s 2006 Governor’s Report Card, finishing below such Democrats as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and tied with Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

If there is one thing Mike Huckabee learned in the primary season, it's that it is VERY hard to get rid of the 'big government Republican' label. If Club for Growth jumps on this anti-Pawlenty bandwagon it will be very hard for McCain to pick the mulleted one.

Then we came across this little gem from Roll Call today.

Ridge Files Very Late for Albania
By Anna Palmer
Roll Call Staff
June 24, 2008
For almost two years former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge failed to register a nearly half-million-dollar lobbying contract that he had with the government of Albania.

(hat tip to Marc Ambinder)

Wellllllll that won't help Mr. Ridge very much either.

So, who is left? Charlie Crist? Mitt "I spent $90 million and all I got was a lousy 11 states" Romney? Bobby Jindal? Or my personal favorite, Sarah Palin?

"Um. Ok. I'll sit down and shut up now."

Jake Tapper's political blog ran an amusing story detailing the happenings of a McCain campaign energy forum today. Clearly, advance didn't properly vet the panelists and this guy snuck through.

The report:
During a roundtable discussion on energy security at Santa Barbara's Natural History Museum, one of the panelists invited by the McCain campaign to sit onstage beside the candidate -- disagreed with the Arizona senator's energy plans and lambasted his nuclear energy proposal.

"I'm a little bit bemused that I ended up on this panel," said Michael Feeney, chair of the Santa Barbara Land Trust, a non-profit conservation group.

He excoriated a proposal McCain outlined last Wednesday to build 45 new nuclear plants in the United States by 2030 and another 55 in later years.

"I don’t understand how it’s not compromising our environmental standards to propose a crash program to build more nuclear power plants when the industry has not complied with the federal law that requires there to be safe disposal for the radioactive waste," Feeney said.

McCain responded by citing the example of nuclear technology in Europe and Navy ships powered by nuclear energy.

"My friend, the technology is there. The Europeans do it. I mean it's safe. It's being done. So, to think that that is going to require some pain on the American people economically when the Europeans-- 80 percent of the French electricity is generated by nuclear power. They are doing fine," McCain said to applause from the audience.

"It's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken," McCain said, "It's a not-in-my-backyard problem, we have got to have the guts and courage, to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody," McCain said.

"And I'd like to have you respond but the United States Navy has sailed ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them, we have never had an accident, we have never had a problem. And I think the world is safer, the world is safer due to the presence of the United States navy with nuclear power ships on them," McCain said.
After this beatdown the panelist proceeded to sit down, cry and shit himself.

Do you like choices in private health care? Oh well.

No matter that the #1 constituent issue in some districts is keeping Medicare advantage plans available...

The House Majority tied cuts in the Republican medicare reform baby to the "Doc Fix" bill that postpones cuts in medicare payments to doctors. The bill passed as many republicans couldnt convince voters of the Democrat trickery.

So by placating Physician organizations, we take benefits away from many of their patients, so their patients cannot afford to go to said doctors...

Someone help me here, even I cannot spin this.

Monday, June 23, 2008

We started with your savings, now we'll take over oil. Thank you.

This past week many House Democrats have called to nationalize American energy production. If Congress thinks it is a wise move to socialize our energy supply, look no further than Hugo Chavez. This proposal is clearly wrong and goes against every principle of freedom and democracy that has defined our nation.

"Greenies" want us to use less energy. They get excited when gas goes up in price because less people drive. However, this won't solve anything. The good news is that we're working on it, without nationalizing, overtaxing or being completely stupid.

Also on Capitol Hill today I saw protesters for the mortgage bailout bill. A sign read "Housing is a human right" or something similar. Really?

It's a right for me when I work and save money (not buying expensive shoes or Skinimax) and pay my rent. I then have a right to live in my house. But is it a right for those who knowingly take bad mortgages in an inflated market to complain when they can't afford their payments less than a year later?

I'm sorry, ma'am, you can't afford that house, but the government will pay it off for you!


Live where you can afford to live and work harder or smarter to be able to afford your dream home, don't rely on the government dole. When this passes I'm going to a formerly forclosed home and letting my dog run around in their backyard. When they ask me what I'm doing, I'll let them know since my taxes paid for their house, I'll be using the backyard every once in awhile. Thanks.

Side sarcastic note: Is it a right for those in Africa who build their own houses in villages out of sticks and mud? Or the miles and miles of refugee camps? I don't think they have any say in the matter. We should ship the protestors to Africa...

Dogs and Cats living together. Mass hysteria!

Or something like that.

The standard bearer of the mainstream media, the Associated Press, published an article today detailing the deterioration of the world as we know it into a mish mash ball of goo.

"Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.

Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.

The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance."
First off, how is this even news? Second, how does an organization let something like this get published? The answer?

Sympathetic left-wing writers are setting the context for the candidate who provides us the HOPE and CHANGE, we so despertately need.

Or so they'd like to tell us.

Wait a second? They give us some context? Do tell!
"American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the U.S. has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation (stagnant growth combined with inflation) and Iran hostage crisis of 1980; the dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s.

"All those periods were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored," he said. "Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again."

Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House."
Oh, ok. Well that makes more sense. I feel a lot better now that we're getting the whole story behi.......wait a second. Um. What was that last part?
"Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House."
Ya know, AP, you can at least try to be subtle.

Meanwhile, I think there likely are some members of The Greatest Generation that want to kick the living crap out of these writers.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up...

Here comes Hillary's audition:
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Once fierce rivals for their party's nomination, Obama and Clinton will make their most public display of unity to date next Friday.

The two Democrats will campaign together then, the Obama campaign announced. No word yet as to where they will do it or how.

The e-mail release simply stated, "Further details to be announced soon."
Rumors of the demise of 'VP Hillary' have been greatly exaggerated.

After she dropped out, there was much talk of Hillary 'forcing' herself onto the ticket. Clearly, as long as that story was running, Obama couldn't choose her as his running mate.

But now? The arm twisting story is gone and instead here comes the 'unity' audition.

I can picture it now....

(scene: Obama Campaign rally. Thousands screaming Hillary's name)

Hillary: And now I'd like to introduce the next President of the United States!!!

:Hillary's head explodes:

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Drill. Now.

A message from Newt.

Just this week, President George Bush, Senator John McCain, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist all called for lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling. And U.S. Representative Lynn Westmoreland has started a pledge in the U.S. House in support of American oil production that has been signed by 126 members of Congress.

Now, we need your help to reach our next goal: 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican national conventions this fall. I hope you will add your name to this list by signing the petition at
I signed. So should you.

Boom Goes the Dynamite

I always thought something like this would have been fun back when I worked in the Cannon House Office Building.

Ya know, Cannon vs. Longworth vs. Rayburn.

Longworth would get its butt kicked.

Bring on Sarah Palin

McCain has already taken the offensive on the energy debate, showing an interest in 'Deep Sea Energy Exploration' (nice one, Frank Luntz disciples) and increased nuclear energy. Now it seems he is setting up himself to not only make the right policy decision, but appease the conservative base at the same time.

From the Springfield News Leader:
For years, McCain has opposed drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Refuge Area (ANWR).

But during today's town hall meeting, McCain said he'd be willing to reconsider that stance.

“I would be more than happy to examine it again,” McCain said.
Next step, tour the area with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. As Governor, she has the moral authority to explain why ANWR should be opened up for drilling. Of course, it also is a pretty decent way to set her up to be the VP nominee. After all, who wouldn't mind seeing this face at State funerals overseas?

What the Fourth Estate Was Trying to Say

"Good point, DJ."

Buried Nugget of Brilliance

While I may think my dear friend DJ Tablesauce comes off as slightly bitter that Obama has chosen to take advantage of his "gift" for fundraising (obviously not a real gift; as DJ pointed out he is reaping the benefits of an extremely emotional group of supporters), he makes an excellent point about the need for a real policy debate. The RATIONAL voters that are desperate for change want that change in the form of substance. They're sick of bickering and partisan rhetoric. McCain could capitalize on this particular desire for change by touting his long list of policy successes and being concrete and concise about his plans for the future. His "green screen" speech was excellent, although sadly overshadowed by the backdrop, and he'll do well to keep in that vein. While neither of these candidates has the management (read: gubernatorial) experience voters tend to like in their candidates, McCain has the edge in talking about government reform. He's the only Republican candidate who had and should take advantage of the ability to bring fiscal conservatism back to column red.

I Really Hope Someone is Keeping a List Somewhere

Another day, another case of 'what the hell, are you kidding me!?!'...

Today Senator Obama broke his pledge of public financing for his campaign and admitted that all that talk of NAFTA being "devastating" and "a big mistake," was just silly campaign rhetoric that he didn't mean.

This is hope and change? We were promised a new kind of politics. If anything, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than more of the same, if not worse.

But the bigger question is whether it will have any effect on NovFive?

It seems that intensely committed Obama voters are broken into two categories...the Obamamaniacs and the Partisans. To those that see him as the political messiah, will highlighting these kinds of retractions and political gameplaying be effective? Likely not. And the partisans, well, they just want to beat Republicans so Obama could dropkick their own Mother and it likely wouldn't change their vote.

So as the list of Obama's hypocrisies continues to grow, will the leaners and swing voters be swayed? Perhaps, but these are the same voters that more often than not recognize that politicians say what they need to say when it's politically expedient. Clearly, Republicans can't rely on winning them over by simply denigrating Obama's character.

As can be highlighted in today's poll by Rasmussen, McCain must win this election on policy.

After hearing the views of both McCain and Obama, most Florida voters agreed with McCain--61% said it was likely that offshore drilling would reduce gas prices. Only 34% disagreed and said that offshore drilling would not accomplish that goal.
These are the kinds policy wedge issues that McCain must continue to hammer on if he has any chance of winning. Obama has already staked his ground. No offshore drilling. No nuclear power. The candidate of change? Hmmm.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Anybody there?

Republicans and Democrats in Harmony! Senators and Representatives holding hands and skipping through a meadow! These mortal enemies have come together against a common foe: dead bodies in federal buildings. They also agree on the need to keep drug users out of federal daycare centers! Who knew it would be so easy to foster accord on the Hill.

A House subcommittee held a hearing today to express their horror at a GAO report which showed that gross incompetence and mismanagement at the Federal Protective Service was leaving high-security federal buildings vulnerable to terrorist attack. A Senate subcommittee will hold a nearly identical hearing tomorrow.

They have a point. Given that elements of the two most devastating terrorist attacks on U.S. soil -- Sept. 11 and the Oklahoma City bombing -- were aimed at federal buildings, this isn't an abstract risk, it's a reality. If you can't make security at federal buildings a funding priority, posturing on "national security" is a just that ... posturing.

Todays Tidbits

Lowlights On the Hill:

Tomorrow, reps will vote on whether to give federal employees "equal" maternity leave as private workers, increasing the 12 unpaid week benefit to 8 weeks paid / 4 weeks unpaid (but can then use vacation days) for any federal employee that births a child, adopts a child, or gets a foster child. 8% of private employees get 8 weeks paid leave for only giving birth. What are you going to name your foster kid? (H.R. 5781)

Also, a vote to outlaw 'abuse' at residential programs for troubled teens. Nowadays, if you are bad, you might be forced to miss dinner. Not anymore. Wonder what Mrs. Hannigan or any military school principle would say about this one. (H.R. 5876)


Check out this little discussed moment of history. Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 57 hours! Amazing that folks don't bring that up EVER.

We HOPE you CHANGE your outfit

In our campaign experience, there are few things more important to advance work than framing the shot. In other words, making sure the media that has come to your event gets the exact shot that you want shown on the evening news. So, we were particularly amused when we came upon this tidbit.

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate. The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

Now, how exactly can something like this happen? Well first off, you need to understand who exactly it is that is in charge of managing backdrops for campaign rallies like this one. More often than not, advance personnel are the most experienced of campaign volunteers and managed by employees of the campaign whose sole responsibility is advance for campaign events. That means one thing....these people should know better. If you're looking for a better shot, you can move and adjust people...but kicking them out? No. Sorry. You only boot someone if they smell like rotten cheese or are dressed like the unabomber.

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.

In this particular case, the type of event means you're not worried placing VIPs in the shot, though some certainly will want to be visible. Instead, you simply are directing the crowd to the available seats, passing out signs to shake and flags to wave. Why do I mention this? Because it highlights the particular effort Obama's staff went to filter out those with Muslim headdress. Does this mean it's official campaign policy? Of course not. Instead, it's likely the fruit of discussions among advance staff about how best to frame the shot.

But at the end of the day, these people are key members of the campaign and influenced by the culture throughout it. Clearly, that culture has enabled the campaign staff to feel obligated to take such ridiculous actions on their own accord.

Finally, what outrage would we hear from the media if this were done at a McCain rally?


Our first attempt at a political viral video...

I predict approximately 27 hits. All from 3rd graders looking for Tigger.

Welcome to Third Base Politics

Yep. The first post.

I guess I'll provide you an understanding of what we'll be doing here at 3BP....

Our goal is to provide yet another perspective in the immeasurable world of opinion that is American politics. Fortunately, there is more than enough material to analyze, interpret and mock incessantly.

We'll try to update once a day...and who knows....maybe more.

Keep an eye out.