Don't say I never did anything for ya, buddy.

Plus, I just don't think I can stop with my "inside baseball masturbatory" posts, despite your consternation and protestation. It's part of my charm.

So, in that spirit, I would like to post an entry by Ace's co-blogger LauraW that pretty much sums up the day's debate in the "Comment of the Year" thread.

No, rho, the argument is that you're a douche for complaining about the content of someone else's blog. You make demands for your preferred content, like Ace fucking works for you or something. You are a demanding douche. There's no other way to put it.

As far as inside baseball: I have it on good authority that Jack M. is a sexy bastard and that all his self-love is entirely justified. Women follow him like he's the fucking pied-piper of pussy.
Posted by lauraw at September 29, 2006 03:52 PM

Are you still happy, rho? You've made the front page! All Ace's content are belong to you!!!!

As for me? I leave all further discussion of rho to others. It's Friday night, and I see the gates of Hamelin in front of me. Time to start playing the tunes.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe we can get one of these two to run as a write-in in Florida.

Thanks to Ray, via HotAir. Allah, by the way, wiil have Zawahiri's video up within an hour. He's apparently hitting the Democratic talking points pretty hard.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

But not over the scandal; so that he can spend more time with his children.

Well, other people's children, but close enough.

Florida Republicans are scrambling for a write-in candidate who is either a) a straight family man with no possibility of scandal or b) a closeted gay candidate who's actually figured out there are an awful lot of pictures of boys on the Internet.

Via The Corner.

Update: Via GayPatriotWest, he's Foley's resigned.

The gay issue is a dicey one. On one hand, it's considered invasive to inquire into someone's sexuality.

On the other hand, the CIA does so, for a good reason-- a closeted gay, or anyone with secret sexual behaviors (infidelity, etc.) is a definite security risk. In politics, it's a major political risk to boot.

Of course, Barney Frank isn't without his boyfriend-related political problems, either.

But this bastard seems to have been hitting on a teenager.

I don't think there's the legal predicate for it, but I wonder what a bigger investigation into what else he might have been up to would show. Although I joked about it (inappropriately), I suspect this guy has a lot of underage porn on his computer.

Creep. Why do people with penchants for criminal behavior like this go into politics at all? Are they looking to get caught?

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Caution: NYT link.

The NYT spins this as Democrats asserting themselves against a weakened Bush. Apparently the fact that Democrats facing close reelection campaigns supported the bill doesn't indicate anything.

The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President BushÂ’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the partyÂ’s many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. All of them voted against the bill, apparently calculating that Mr. BushÂ’s handling of Iraq has undercut the traditional Republican strength on national security and will insulate them from what are certain to be strong attacks from Republicans not only this year but also in 2008.

Democratic opponents of the legislation said their political position was driven by a substantive determination that the bill, which creates rules for interrogating and trying terrorism suspects, is fundamentally flawed and a dangerous departure from founding American principles.

“The only reason to worry about the politics of it is if you don’t understand it and don’t have the guts to stand up and defend your vote,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considering a presidential race.

Over all, 32 Democrats voted against the measure while 12, including some of those in the most difficult re-election fights, backed it. Among the latter was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose perceived support for Mr. Bush has brought him political trouble at home.

It was a stark change from four years ago, when Mr. Bush cornered Democrats into another defining pre-election vote on security issues — that one to give the president the authority to launch an attack against Iraq. At the time, many Democrats felt they had little choice politically but to side with Mr. Bush, and a majority of Senate Democrats backed him.

So what is the Democratic position on detainee treatment? Once again, no one knows. There is no position; there is only political positioning. If you want tough treatment of terrorists to save lives, Democrats are in favor of that. If you want kid-gloves treatment in order to preserve our moral superiority, well, Democrats are in favor of that, too.

They're in favor of whatever's required to get your vote, and also in favor of whatever would cause you to vote against them, but they prefer to emphasize the positive.

Posted by: Ace at 11:05 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Good Lord.

One of the sexiest men in the world? I'm not even sure if he's one of the sexiest men in his own pants.

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 AM | Comments (58)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

After two episodes?

Then what was the point?

Oh yeah. Ratings.

The show wasn't as cringe-inducing as I expected, but mostly, it seems, because the producers stacked the racial deck. Each racial group was given one obvious layabout/moron/flake. (I don't know if the black tribe was-- they lost a guy right away and so it was hard to see who their weirdo was. But I imagine they had one.) So the show was stacked to be less about race vs. race than competents vs. incompetents within any tribe.

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

This seat just went from a likely hold to an almost certain loss.

First I called bullshit on this story. After all, isn't Mark Foley one of the Congressmen liberals are always claiming is gay?

Republican House member from Florida who was expected to cruise to reelection faced questions Thursday about the propriety of e-mails he sent to a teenage page on Capitol Hill, potentially adding to the GOP's political struggles as it attempts to maintain its congressional majority.

Six-term Rep. Mark Foley, a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the House Entertainment Industry Task Force, is being made to explain a series of e-mails he sent in 2005 in which he asked the page how old he was and requested a photo.

Ah.

The e-mails, copies of which were obtained by The Times, indicate that the boy, 16, then complained to another congressional staff member, noting: "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out."

In another e-mail sent to the page, Foley, 52, said of a second teenager working on Capitol Hill, "He's in such great shape."

A Foley spokesman acknowledged that the congressman had sent the e-mails to the page. But the spokesman said they reflected nothing more than an innocent interest in helping young people take their pants off.

Okay, I added "take their pants off." But the "helping young people" thing? We've heard that before, haven't we?

For what it's worth, Mark Foley claims the tumult is just "character assassination."

George Michael immediately offered his support, further dimming Foley's political star.

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

An attempt to forestall any further political fallout until after November. No one will comment on the appopriateness of these inscriptions, I'm sure, claiming they must "wait until the review is completed."

Tom Smith, Chairman of the commission which built this abortion, claims:

Smith said Wednesday it never occurred to him during the February meeting to check on details of the inscriptionsÂ’ wording.

“We never thought anything would be inappropriate,” he said. “It didn’t sound like there would be anything controversial.”

Never occurred to him to check the "details" of the inscriptions' wording?

The funny thing is, given this is a government operation, that's almost believable.

Memorials Are The First Draft Of Bullshit History Update: Iowahawk has an exclusive-- early rejected inscriptions for the "memorial."

Thanks to skinbad.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Where are those Rove Mind Rays when you need them?

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a pretty cool animated map of the Middle East through the ages.

It might be 'Old'... Real Old.

Posted by: Ace at 08:37 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.