US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

rode a dolphin through crystal waters to the rainbow tower (but that wasn't HOOM enough)

Unbeatable Dan Lacey-type image, though.

well this was entertaining: kucinich is worthless

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/stats-say-kucinich-may-be-least.html

the only thing of value he has is his smokin hot wife

Sarah Palin spoke in Orlando recently, and nameckecked the local Congressman. LULZ brought in response. Guess who:

http://www.graysonforcongress.com/newsletter_detail.asp?OptInEmailId=314

omg "chillbilly"

Alan Grayson cracks me up

I am perfectly happy for this man to carry on bringing LULZ as long as there are LULZ to bring.

My fave: Scientists are studying Sarah Palin's travel between Alaska and Florida carefully. They hope to learn more about the flight patterns of that elusive migratory species, the wild Alaskan dingbat.

yeah I don't want him to be President or even Speaker but as attack dogs go this guy is good value

chillbilly is clearly the worst alt-country subgenre

http://toomuchonline.org/the-‘party-of-no’-may-now-rate-a-new-label/

so this Great Recession meme seems to have taken root. is that what we're calling this now?

could've put these on the GOP thread lol. two profiles of manic dickback pimp-video-pimper andrew breitbart

http://www.slate.com/id/2247593/
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/03/ff_andrew_brietbart/

where is that 'breitbartocalypse' clock site? can't find it anymore. times up!

so the deal with breitbart is: the left is annoying (ok yeah) and though the right is a lot more annoying, they love him because they think he is entertaining and cool, and he is enough of a narcissist to go with whatever side pays him more money and makes him more famous?

and the left "freak out" over him = the left using his comments to raise $$$ and attention for themselves

great concluding graf at that wired piece

He takes a breath. “They call us tea-baggers. They call us racist, sexist, homophobic, and we are finally punching back. It’s over, dude. It’s over. You think you’re gonna be able to put the genie back in the bottle? It’s over. And if you don’t like my aggression, there are going to be millions more of me,” Breitbart says, the cell phone connection skipping in and out. “Because the new media provides the tools and there are millions out there who are outraged. Now they realize, ‘Wow, anybody can do that. We can hold these people accountable. We have the means. We have the technology.’” Then Breitbart hangs up. He has more interviews to conduct, a speech at the National Tea Party Convention to prep, and bloggers to talk to. The O’Keefe story might still turn out very bad for Breitbart. But there is no way he’s going to let someone else tell it.

MILLIONS OF OUTRAGED TOOLS.

we are a nation of racist comment box trolls and we will not be held back!

"We are finally punching back" vs. "The new media provides the tools"

Wasn't it just revealed that all the footage of the guy dressed like a pimp was just edited in later?

In 1991, Breitbart was a bored twentysomething from Brentwood, a ritzy entertainment-industry enclave in west LA. A hyperactive news junkie, he read several newspapers and watched several newscasts a day. A low-level movie production job had left him disgusted by what he saw as Hollywood’s culture of limousine liberalism. He was miserable. “Kurt Cobain without the record deal,” he says. “Just give me the gun.”

So he got his start as an LA junkie?

why did no one give him a gun?

the breitbartocalypse is just 7 hours away.

http://sumofchange.blogspot.com/2010/03/breitbartocalypse-is-coming.html

ime using new media tools to get millions of people to do whatever it is he intends to do, usually results in mass chaos and fragmentation via constant infighting. i mean dude, it's the internet.

these two blog posts should be required reading for wavering congressional democrats imo.

not very good differentiation there, but hopefully you'll see it's two links.

they'll get the votes, i'm pretty sure. at this point may be a matter of.. a few holdouts basically trying to get as much as they can from leadership in exchange for their vote.. either that or figuring out how to distribute the "no" votes

mark my words, this rumbling about the Democrats being "punished in November" is being vastly overstated. At best, the GOP will re-take the House and even that is, I think, a pretty big long shot. What's more likely is that the Dems lose seats in both chambers, leaving them with a weakened and probably very narrow majority.

also this sort of thing happens pretty much every midterm election, historically speaking

trying to see it as some some narrative push instead of just the ebb & flow of democracy is totally media never ending horse race stuff

Republican obsession with bestiality rears its ugly head once again:

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: "You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy.'"

"Now how dangerous is that?" asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona's GOP Senate primary.

"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point," he continued. "I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."

The former Republican congressman then insisted that the "only way" to prevent men from marrying horses is to create a federal marriage amendment. Hayworth noted that he supports such an amendment.

In fact, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling striking down a ban on gay marriage defined marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

Posted it upthread.

It does get more delicious with each rereading.

The amendment preventing people from marrying horses should specify that it's referring to horses of ALL ages, because some of those colts and fillies are like daaaaaaayum

http://i39.tinypic.com/axxrb.jpg
daaaaaaaaaaaayum

Lookit those haunches. Hard to resist.

Our two threads are blending together again. I thought this one was supposed to take over from that other GOP one, since it had 4300+ posts by now?

yeah i dont know why that gop thread never got locked

this. fuckin. guy.

http://gawker.com/5494119/rachel-maddow-vs-the-man-who-thinks-gay-marriage-is-sorta-like-beastiality

― k3vin k., Monday, March 15, 2010 10:31 PM (2 minutes ago)

I thought this one was supposed to take over from that other GOP one, since it had 4300+ posts by now?

this one's catching up fast (3432 posts).

wait, that's wrong. i must be on drugs.

looks right to me?

yeah. i was confusing the "summarize what's happening with the gop," "continue summarizing," and this thread.

oh my God these fucking people - "we have a disagreement." NO MOTHERFUCKER EITHER THE SUN'S OUT OR IT'S NOT, WE CAN'T REALLY DISAGREE ON THAT UNLESS WE'RE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.

almost have to hand it to the guy, it's not like anyone watching maddow would even think about voting for him anyway

ah that interview is up soon on the maddow rerun. will try and sit through it. (she is also interviewing the sportswriter michael lewis later, now that should be worthwhile)

Someone photoshop a man riding a horse with Just Married painted on its side and cans tied to the tail.

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/minor/files/2009/08/putin-and-his-horse.jpg

almost have to hand it to the guy, it's not like anyone watching maddow would even think about voting for him anyway

― k3vin k., Monday, March 15, 2010 10:51 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

much love to rachel but neither of them is doing this for any other reason than to agitate and raise $$ for his or her own side

much love to rachel but neither of them is doing this for any other reason than to agitate and raise $$ for his or her own side

^^^ otm & this dynamic is really depressing to me if I dwell on it

welcome to...

the terrordome