You know the left's game is claiming everything we say is a dog whistle for racism or some other H8r sort of thing, right? Of course you do.

Well, to the extent this was a competition -- and let's agree it is a competition, as most things in life are; Chris Matthews competing with Martin Bashir competing with Rachel Maddow competing with Leafy Brained Keith Olbermann to connect-the-dots in the most ridiculous Dog Whistle Messaging Conspiracy imaginable -- that competition has now been Won.

It is Won. The game is Won. The competition is over.

From now on, all the assorted semiluninaries of the dimbulb left will be competing for 2nd Place in the All Time Dog Whistle Derby Rankings.

In the below bon mot, "RWNJs" means "Right Wing Nut Jobs:"

Nailed it.

Thanks to @slublog, whose brain isn't Leafy, but it is poised to grow some leafy shoots.

Posted by: Ace at 01:00 PM | Comments (299)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Just kidding. He's introspective and self-critical here (something our legendarily deep-thinking President appears to be incapable of) and throws, I think, too much blame on himself.

Then again, I didn't watch him much when he was in his Wild Man of TV period.

I did see him do one thing on FoxNews I really did not like. He was doing that chalkboard thing. On the chalkboard he had a map of the world. I believe the immediate topic was the unrest in Libya (which would eventually wind up being Qaddaffi's downfall).

The thing he did which I did not like is pure fearmongering without any suggested pathway through the Valley of Death. He portrayed Islam as single-mindedly seeking to impose a global caliphate on the world. Okay, there's some truth in that (at least as far as jihadi Islamist extremists).

But, on the other hand, he also railed against tinpot tyrants like Qaddaffi.

What I took away from his chalkboard lecture was that anything we did was doomed, futile, stupid, and advanced one dangerous enemy or the other.

By offering nothing more in this than fear, he just seemed to be stoking a fearful reaction in the audience. There wasn't a call, for example, to support Qaddaffi (on the odious, but sometimes true, premise that a monster we control is better than a monster we don't). There was no call to help depose him.

There was no call for anything, except to be fearful of, well, everything.

I don't think that was what Glenn Beck always did -- in fact, that sort of thing always seemed a bit out of character for him, because his general persona is one of good-humor and hopefulness. I think he does have a tendency towards Connect-the-Dot Conspiracy-Type stuff, but, you know, so does 20% of the general population and 30% of the politically-minded subpopulation.

90% of any political chatter really consists of connecting the dots between this and that. Below I got a post out of connecting Obama's "Fulfill Your Dreams" invocation to Chotiner's observations on Obama's babytalk. My point is just that dot-connecting is what politically-minded people do, day in, day out.

But I think it can be taken a bit too far. Only a genius with a Leafy Brain like Keith Olbermann can really see the lines.

But perhaps he feels guilty about Connecting the Dots of Conspiracy and Doom a few too many times, with too emotional a pitch.

He says this:

“I remember it as an awful lot of fun and that I made an awful lot of mistakes, and I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language,” he said. “I think I played a role, unfortunately, in helping tear the country apart.”

“I didn’t realize how really fragile the people were, I thought we were kind of more in it together,” he added. “Now I look back and I realize if we could have talked about the uniting principles a little more instead of the problems, I think I would look back on it a little more fondly. But that’s only my role.”

What does he mean by this? I could guess, but I'd probably be pilloried for my answer. Oh well, I'll guess anyway: I think he means that when people are in a dark place -- as most of us here are, in this Age of Obama -- it takes relatively little to set them off, often in ways that are both politically counter-productive as well as psychologically self-damaging.

I don't like what I've come to think of as "The Henny-Penny Stuff." The shrieking stuff. Some stuff is genuinely shriek-worthy. But most stuff isn't. The country is in such baleful shape that anyone with any sense is always, as Obama might say, poised to shriek.

But not every incidence of a provocation should trip the shriek switch. It's not healthy for the spirit and it's not useful in political mobilization.

Or maybe it's just me who thinks this.

I have Googled for a few minutes now and I see no specific reference for what it is, exactly, he means. All I see is a multiplicity of quotations of the same lines I quote above.

If any of you saw the interview, and know what he meant, specifically, let me know.

Respectability... AllenG suggests this is all about attempting to get TimeWarner and ComCast to pick up his cable channel.

That does make sense. As I understand it, Beck is sitting on what I have heard called "a mountain of money."

It is therefore likely his ambition has grown: He doesn't want to be a "rodeo clown" anymore (as he once described himself). He wants to be a Player, and that requires a certain level of restraint.

And so he could be attempting to reassure the hard progressive dickbags he has to deal with that he's every bit as capable of restraining himself as is, say, Leafy Brained Keith Olbermann, and therefore his cable channel should be aired.

If that's his goal, well, I approve. The fact of the matter is that rodeo clowns are dime a dozen; there will always be a new rodeo clown. Should a Rodeo Clown slot open up, due to the last one retiring, or moving on, or denouncing all his old beliefs and founding a company called Media Matters, there will be a new Rodeo Clown filling the slot within days.

But Players are rarer, and much more important.

So if he's attempting to sand down some of his sharper edges in order to become a Player, well, that's almost certainly good for the cause, generally.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:05 PM | Comments (333)
Post contains 959 words, total size 6 kb.

No longer punished with a baby.

It's instructive to note the shift from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama. Bill Clinton straddled the issue, rhetorically, by declaring that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." By adding the last word -- really nothing more than a rhetorical fillip, because he opposed all restrictions -- he at least attempted to signal to pro-life people that he understood the act of abortion did in fact have moral consequences.

Whether he did believe this I have no idea. But he did at least try to signal his understanding of, and concern about, the moral consequences of abortion.

His political posture was thus: If you're pro-life, I am voting against you; I will use my power as President to advance the interests of your opponents and thwart your own; however, I will at least give you the courtesy of a rhetorical nod towards the plausibility and respectability of your position. I disagree with you, but I will grant you that your position is well-founded, even if it is one I do not favor.

Compare this to Barack Obama, who today proclaims abortion an unambiguous moral good, something that permits "everyone" to "have the same freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams."

Standard progressive boilerplate on abortion usually includes a flourish acknowledging, for example (and I'm fake-quoting this from memory, not any particular document), "supporting women as they wrestle with these difficult choices."

Well, apparently we're wrestling with difficult choices no longer. Now it's about freedom and the opportunity to pursue your dreams, Wendy Davis style.

This isn't just about Barack Obama's decision that there are no more difficult questions to wrestle with on this issue. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo similarly declared that one side of the issue was wholly illegitimate, with not a shred or speck of decency to it, and thus could not longer be tolerated in an entire state.

During a radio interview on Friday, Cuomo pointed out that Republicans were in the midst of a schism, where conservatives worked against moderate Republicans.

"Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves," he said. "Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if thatÂ’s who they are and theyÂ’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because thatÂ’s not who New Yorkers are."

Over at the All-White Racist Newsletter The New Republic, a progressive critic faults Obama for talking to Americans as if they were children. I have similarly faulted Obama for his endless baby-talk.

The progressive left praises Obama's endless chatter as elevated and enlightened, but in fact he only says four categories of things:

1. Things which are true, but are so obvious that it is insulting to be told them in such condescending terms.

2. Things which are not obvious, because they are also not true.

3. Heroic self-reference.

4. And the Middle Class.

But let me quote some of TNR's Isaac Chotiner's observations:

There was a time, of course, when the very idea of having a president who is smart and engaged seemed like a luxury. Obama's intellect—well caught by Robert Gates in his new memoir—marks an improvement over many other people who have held the office. Remnick defines the style as "the professorial immersion in complexity." The more familiar way in which liberals characterize this is to say, as John Stewart said during the 2008 campaign, that Obama talks to us "like adults."

Does he? I'm starting to have my doubts. Yes, the president is capable of giving intelligent and mature answers to questions. But the intent is so obvious—and the effort shows such strain—that the answers feel more condescending than enlightening. Remnick's piece, in fact, doesn't show Obama's complexity; it shows Obama applauding his own complexity. The president is like a novelist who demands on telling you the motivation of every character, except he is the only character.

The result is that he actually ends up speaking to us like children.

*

Obama's form of children-talk is different from George W. Bush's. Obama's signature move, ironically, involves refusing to give simple answers to questions, a habit for which he clearly prides himself.

Chotiner now quotes Obama's on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand style of appearing "deep" on the question of drug legalization. I'll spare you Obama's quote (which states a great many Obvious Things) to get to Chotiner's characterization of the answer:

It's not just that the answer is now maddeningly long. Nor is it merely that Obama exhibits his annoying tic of stating his opponent's case in the most extreme, over-the top way (who exactly thinks marijuana legalization is a "panacea" for solving "all these social problems?") It's also, again, the condescension. We know there are other sides to the issue. We know the issue is complex. We know there are slippery slope arguments about drug legalization. But either he doesn't think that we know these things or, more damningly, he must remind us that he knows them, too.

The reason he does this, I would argue, is that he is more interested in telling us how he thinks than what he thinks. His defense of the NSA, for example, has largely rested on his statements that he and his team are trustworthy and thoughtful people.

Chotiner may be annoyed by Obama for condescending to his own kind (progressives), but he's just wrong that Obama is full of complexity -- more so than George W. Bush.

Why were progressives so angry at Bush's rhetorical style? Because Bush would state certain propositions (most importantly, that we would no longer tolerate states which do business with terrorists) without any nuance and without acknowledging the criticisms of his position and the drawbacks of it.

That is, Bush entirely ignored the progressive critique. And for doing so, he was labeled a "dummy." He just doesn't understand the arguments against his own ignorant positions, the line of reasoning went.

But compare this to Obama's statements on abortion. Does he signal, at all, that he even understands the moral consequences of his own position, or the moral attractiveness of the pro-life side? Of course not. Like the Cowboy Bush, he simply shoots from the hip and smokes the evil-doers (those who disagree with him) out of their caves.

Obama's Hamlet Act -- where he lists the upsides and downsides of a policy, which, itself, is a trivially easy thing to do -- is reserved for one situation only: The situation in which an important part of his progressive base disagrees with him -- on the NSA, on drug legalization, and, previously, on gay marriage.

On these issues, he feels the need to at least rhetorically flatter those who are part of his coalition but oppose his policy, stating, as Bill Clinton did once with respect to abortion, "I'm voting against you, but I appreciate the seriousness of your philosophical position on this point."

But George W. Bush did that as well, for God's sakes. So has every politician. Every politician understands when he's upsetting a significant bloc of his coalition and must attempt to mollify them by at least flattering them while imposing a policy that thwarts them.

Chotiner doesn't notice Obama's Smoke Them Out of Their Caves Cowboy Rhetoric on abortion, or on socilalizing the economy, or a dozen other issues because, I'd imagine, Chotiner agrees with Obama's basic take that these opinions are beyond the pale and marginal (or, at least, ought to be marginalized). He did notice when Bush did that to his opinions, because, of course, they were his opinions being haughtily dismissed.

I agree with the bulk of Chotiner's characterization of Obama's alleged Smart Talk. It exists simply so that those in his coalition who are disappointed by his decisions at least have a rhetorical hook upon which they can hang their continuing support. "Hey, he's doing everything wrong, but at least he talks like he understands, unlike that cretin Bush."

And I agree that Obama's alleged "nuances" and "insights" on policy are neither terribly nuanced nor particularly insightful. Obama seems to approach the Presidency as if he were a 2L law student merely issue-spotting on an exam, a fairly minor skill in the scheme of things. Yes yes yes, you've successfully spotted the issue of res ipsa loquitor, but can you now actually give us the right answer on this issue?

Obama's mere listing of Factors That Must Be Considered is the easy part (the issue-spotting), and then he wishes us to take his victory on the easy part as also a victory on the hard part (actually resolving the issue properly).

I do depart with him on whether or not the alleged "nuances" Obama brings to these discussions are much different than those Bush brought to the table. Bush spoke in nuanced ways, too, for example, about abortion (paraphrasing: I am pro-life myself, and I wish the country to be pro-life, but right now the country does not celebrate the "Culture of Life" required for this position to win out; but I will use my power to rhetorically and programmatically bring about such a state of affairs).

Chotiner either sees Bush's nuances as cynical attempts to have it both ways, or thinks that there are no nuances here at all, because he's so committed to the pro-choice side that he doesn't acknowledge there's a respectable opposition at all.

And this blinds him from seeing that Obama is doing the same sort of things as The Demon Bush.

Obama just takes a great deal longer to get the part where he says "splunge," and feels the need to praise himself and his intellect and temperament a great many times along the way.

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (598)
Post contains 1644 words, total size 11 kb.

All the news is kind of frozen today (east cost bias) so some crumbs.

1. The Number 3 House Republican Has A Lousy Idea About Amnesty. Naturally, It's The Worst Possible Option

GOP Whip Keven McCarthy is now on board with a "split the baby" idea for amnesty...legalization but no path to citizenship.

"The principles aren't written yet, but in my personal belief I think it'll go with legal status that will allow you to work and pay taxes," McCarthy said.

McCarthy made clear that he did not favor carving out a new path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally. But his position appears to comport with the views of other senior Republicans who have called for illegal immigrants to have access to the existing route to citizenship once they receive an initial legal status and fulfill other requirements.

The reason this is the worst option is it makes almost no one happy and just annoys everyone more.

There are studies that show that plenty of illegal immigrants don't care about citizenship. They just the chance to work here legally. On the other hand are activists (including Democrat politicians who want more voters) who will settle for nothing less.

As a practical matter giving people here illegally legal status still ignores the law as written and advantages them over people who have gone through the legal process and had to wait their turn.

It also is just uncomfortable. America has been about the chance to come here and become an American. Having a permanent segment of the population foreclosed from that part of our tradition seems wrong on an instinctual level. It's too much like what you see in places like the Mideast where foreign workers are imported but are foreclosed from ever becoming part of the country where they spend their lives.

I know that sounds contradictory since that's the system we have now (and it would no doubt work differently here than in a place like Saudi Arabia) but somehow codifying it represents turning away from a basic American value.

Politically, it's untenable because no matter what they say now, if you agree to legalization today, liberals will pocket that and comeback tomorrow demanding you give these same people citizenship or risk turning America into an apartheid state (you know that's exactly what they'll say".

And so the GOP will have angered their supporters by putting illegals at the front of the line, have handed the Democrats a partial victory and a club to keep using on the GOP.

If you stand in the middle of the road you'll only get hit by traffic going in both directions. The GOP never seems to learn this basic lesson.

2. Is The "Establishment" Supporting A Candidate In Nebraska Simply Out Of Spite?

Last week's podcast guest, Tim Carney, takes a look at the GOP primary fight for the Senate in Nebraska and finds an interesting divide.

Both candidates seem pretty conservative at first blush but one, Ben Sasse, is backed by the dreded "outside groups" like The Senate Conservative Fund and The Club For Growth. While the other Shane Osborn has the strong support of lobbyists.

Here are some of the headliners for a DC fundraiser for Osborn (to be held at the HQ of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Wayne Berman and Charlie Black headline Osborn's D.C. fundraiser. The two K Streeters are pillars of the GOP establishment. They backed Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz in 2012. And they supported governor-turned-health-secretary-turned-lobbyist Tommy Thompson over two Tea Partiers in a heated Wisconsin primary that same year.

Lobbyist Rick Murphy, who threw a fundraiser for Dewhurst last cycle, is also on OsbornÂ’s host list.

So is Billy Piper, who was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellÂ’s chief of staff from 2002 to 2010. Today, heÂ’s a lobbyist at the K Street firm Fierce, Isakowitz and Blalock. Also on the host list are Piper's boss Kirk Blalock and colleague Kate Hull.

When you check out Piper, Blalock and Hull’s lobbying resumes, you see why the K Street wing can’t find peace with the conservative base. Blalock's firm pocketed about $1.5 million lobbying for government-sponsored enterprise Fannie Mae from 2002 until the company collapsed into federal conservatorship in 2008. Federal filings show Blalock lobbying for Fannie on “GSE Reform,” which means he lobbied (successfully) against Republican efforts to rein in Fannie’s unsustainable inflation of the housing bubble.

Blalock lobbied for Obama's stimulus on behalf of the windmill lobby, the American Wind Energy Association. Blalock and his firm also lobbied for wind-energy subsidies and federal rules forcing utilities to buy wind-generated power.

Sasse wanted to avoid any rift with Mitch McConnell but since the Senate Conservative Fund supported him, McConnell was having none of it.

Just keep in mind the list of people supporting Osborn next time you hear that the "outside groups" are only in it for the money.

Do you really think all those lobbyist dollars are flowing out of the goodness of their corporatist hearts?

3. John McCain Doesn't Like Richard Sherman Of The Seattle Seahawks.

That's reason enough for me to like Sherman even more.

Since both Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana, will the traditional bets between local politicians include pot this year?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:50 AM | Comments (469)
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

It should surprise nobody that the GWU-Battleground Poll is my personal favorite. The combined effort of the Tarrance Group and Lake Research, it has almost 400 pages worth of cross tabs, and the latest release has a real doozy buried within on the generic ballot question (overall, Republicans have a two-point edge). Unemployed men are planning to vote one-point more Republican than their employed counterparts. Among women, however, who overall break by six for the Democrats, and whose employed subset break 48-34 for the Democrats, unemployed women split evenly, 41-41.

A point is nothing, but a fourteen-point disparity? A few folks on Twitter wondered if stay-at-home Moms were included in that, possibly mucking the result, and the must-follow Logan Dobson clarified promptly:

As soon as I can get a hard link, I'll try to attach the crosstabs for you poll junkies. Moderates break narrowly for the Republicans and Hispanics are evenly split, two groups Republicans have been trying to win over. But if I were a Republican looking for a small bloc showing surprising favor (and a means of hammering back against the idiotic "WoW"), there you go.

Posted by: CAC at 09:46 AM | Comments (333)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Wednesday.

The bone-chilling cold and snow won't stop this year's March for Life.

The UN's Syrian peace negotiations did not start well. "Expectations are low for either a swift end to the military deadlock or an end to the Assad familyÂ’s decades of rule."

Subcompact cars perform poorly in crash tests. No shit. So do cardboard boxes.

[ RSS]

[On iTunes]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (350)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

• Obamacare May Not Be Substantially Reducing The Number Of Uninsured
  
• NY To Use Eminent Domain To Seize WW 2 Vet's Property
  
• VDH: Obama's Recessional
  
• Government Conspiracy Theories Aren't Crazy
  
• Teen Expelled For Performing In Pron Allowed Back To School
  
• Argentina Trying To Keep Capital Inside The Country
  
• 20% Of Households On Food Stamps
  
• Post-Racial? Try Post-Responsible
  
• Target Dropping Healthcare For Part Time Employees
  
• The United States Of Paranoia
  
• 55 Million Abortions Since Roe
  
• Protect Firefox Browser From The US Government
  
• Should Christie Resign From The RGA
  
• Wendy Davis Doubles Down
  
• I Simply Don't Have The Thighs To Pull These Off
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:55 AM | Comments (340)
Post contains 112 words, total size 3 kb.

Truth: The Latest Weapon of the Patriarchy

Because the true facts about Wendy Davis' life are just another front in the War on Women and she's not going to take any more mansplaining attacks from her opponent, Greg Abbot, or anyone else.

We're not surprised by Greg Abbott's [her Texas governorship opponent] campaign attacks on the personal story of my life as a single mother who worked hard to get ahead. But they won't work, because my story is the story of millions of Texas women who know the strength it takes when you're young, alone and a mother. I've always been open about my life not because my story is unique, but because it isn't.

The truth is that at age 19, I was a teenage mother living alone with my daughter in a trailer and struggling to keep us afloat on my way to a divorce. And I knew then that I was going to have to work my way up and out of that life if I was going to give my daughter a better life and a better future and that's what I've done. I am proud of where I came from and I am proud of what I've been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. And I guarantee you that anyone who tries to say otherwise hasn't walked a day in my shoes."

Here is a picture of Greg Abbot. He hasn't walked a day in her shoes  - or at all since a tree fell on him 30 years ago, paralyzing him and requiring almost a year in rehab. Clearly he knows nothing of suffering.

But Wendy "Storyteller" Davis is doubling down:

And Stephen Green has a diabolical suggestion for Abbot:

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:59 PM | Comments (710)
Post contains 1402 words, total size 15 kb.

I love Wikipedia. I actually love it. I get lost for hours in it.

It's just so amazing: Virtually every subject you could possibly have an interest in, briefly explained, all at your fingertips.

A gigantic hyperlinked encyclopedia.

So, here's what I discovered today. Actually, I discovered four things, but this is the most interesting, I think.

Anyone ever hear of the "frequentive form" of a word? It's a process by which one inflect a word to indicate repeated or intense action.

This is actually a thing in English. Or at least it was. In older versions of English, you could just add -le or -er to a verb (usually a verb) to indicate a repeated action of that verb. You'd have to make some minor spelling changes to make sure the word flowed properly.

Now, we can't do this anymore. I can't say that I wankle instead of "wank" to indicate the repetitive mechanical fury with which I abuse myself, whirring and sparking like a misfiring industrial robot.

But you used to be able to do this in English, and everyone would understand what you were saying, because people understood the convention of adding -er or -le to a verb to indicate frequency or intensity.

But some "frequentive" forms of words became so widespread that they became words in their own right, which survive in English to this day. A great list is here, but here are some of my favorites:

bat --> batter. Repeatedly bat.

pat --> patter. Repeatedly pat. Like rain on a roof.

swathe --> swaddle. Repeatedly swathe.

wrest (as in seize) --> wrestle. Vigorously, continue "wrest" someone.

daze --> dazzle.

crack --> crackle. Okay that one is obvious, but did you know there was a specific rule for forming the frequentive form? So shut up.

bob --> bobble.

jig (the dance step or skip) --> jiggle.

float --> flutter. (How awesome is that?)

gleam --> glimmer. It's so obvious now, isn't it?

wade --> waddle. There you go. Makes perfect sense.

pool --> puddle. I guess it probably had a "poodle" transitional form.

Okay, now guess where jostle comes from, employing the rules and pattern above.

If you guessed

joust --> jostle

...then you guessed right.

Here's my absolute favorite. They slightly changed the spelling here, as they did with "swathe" and "puddle."

But you know where slither comes from?

Guess.

Well, here's the answer:

slide --> slither

Is this awesome or am I just easily amused?

The Problem Is... Per "Tom Delay," in the comments:

The problem with wikipedia is it's a a vast sinkhole of information. You
look up one thing and suddenly it's 4 hours later and you're reading an article on Antman.

Literally LOLed, because yeah, I've done that. And I did end up on Antman.

On this timesuck phenomenon of the "Wikiwander," Last Refuge of a Scoundrel sends this blogger's recounting of the various odd places that Wikipedia hyperlinks have taken him.

Posted by: Ace at 03:46 PM | Comments (615)
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

I frequently point to Cuccinelli's too-red-for-blue-Virginia social positions as a reason for his loss.

Here's the other big a reason: McDonnell was a popular governor. What should have happened is this: McDonnell campaigns with Cuccinelli, tells people "This guy is going to keep Virginia on the same prosperous path I kept it on, vote for him."

That didn't happen, because McDonnell was rendered a liability (or at least not particularly valuable) due to his acceptance of pricey gifts from donors.

He's now been indicted in the matter by a federal grand jury. His wife has been indicted as well.

The charges against the couple were outlined in a document filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia that details how McDonnell and his wife accepted more than $135,000 in gifts and loans, trips, designer clothing and other items from Jonnie Williams Sr., former CEO of Star Scientific.

...

The 14-count indictment, filed Tuesday, charges McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, with a wide array of official corruption. Specifically, the McDonnells were charged with wire fraud, conspiracy and obtaining property under the auspices of their official offices.

Maureen McDonnell was also charged with obstructing the government's investigation.

I'm sure there'll be no such shenanigans under the new reign of Terry "Snow Wouldn't Melt In My Mouth" MacAuliffe, and I'm sure that if there were, Obama's Justice department would similarly lodge a large list of redundant charges (all criminalizing the same basic actions).

Posted by: Ace at 03:17 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.