No, she didn't say John Edwards should be killed in a terrorist attack.

But of course the Silky Pony is using this to milk money out of his merry band of imbeciles.

Though she didn't say it, she kinda did, though. As a comically-oriented guy, I find t here's nothing more liberating, humor-wise, than when someone gives me the go ahead to use jokes usually forbidden by the PC police. That bit about Greenwald having had more cock in and out of him than a Tyson chicken regional distribution center? Heck, I used that before on the male-ish Wonkette sissy, and in much the same circumstance: By trafficking in gay smears themselves, they, as they say in court, "opened the door" to my line of argumentation.

I give T-Bogg mad props for permitting me to drop jokes about my fear of brown people, and I almost naked-like Amanda Marcotte for allowing me to explore the studio space about the vagina's resemblance to calimari salad topped with fresh headwound.

Honestly, none of this is meant in a particuarly nasty way. But there just are a lot of jokes -- crude ones, insulting ones, even (gasp!) insensitive ones -- that are just not really permitted anymore, unless you're a professional black comedian. So when a partisan on the other side goes into this territory himself, well, it's the perfect opportunity for some Forbidden Humor, at least in the distancing form of parody.

The trick is that you can't just come off like you're really just using this all as an excuse to say vicious things; I sorta think there has to be a smile-when-you-say that real jokiness about it. I can't read Ann Coulter's mind, but she often doesn't project that. Often she seems to flat-out mean it, and is just using the form of the joke to say something that would otherwise be deemed over-the-line.

Sometimes I just think she doesn't really evaluate how funny her more provocative "jokes" are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and over-the-line jokes really need to be very funny indeed to justify themselves.

That said, she wasn't making a joke here so much as she was making a straight point: People continue to chatter about her "faggot" crack and no one in the MSM has ever scolded Bill Maher for his assassination death-wish.

TiVO Alert! Jack Straw tells me Coulter absolutely embarrasses Matthews on his show tonight. It's on now, but I think there's a repeat at 7 eastern.

After she calls him a liberal douche to the crowd's applause, Matthews becomes flustered and says (paraphrased), "The only thing that scares me more than the existence of Ann Coulter is all you people here supporting her. What is this, Deliverance?"

Coincidentally, I just turned it on and Matthews was running Edwards' fundraising clip of her.

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

Hello, my name is Matthew Sheffield and I am an Ace of Spades guestblogger. I've tried counseling, church, and Kevin Federline's brand of ginko biloba. Nothing's worked. Please blame Ace.

In any case, this Thursday, I'm going to a Democratic presidential debate sponsored by PBS. And, being a blogger's blogger (i.e. lazy), I have decided not to put a second of thought into my questions. Which is why I am asking everyone here:

What would you ask ask Dennis Kucinich and all the lesser mortals?

Thanks to Bob Cox and the Media Bloggers Association for setting this up for everyone. You can find a list of others who are going to be there at the MBA site.

[DemPBS]

Posted by: MatthewSheffield at 12:44 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently this tactic is having some effect, as the NRSC (John Ensign's committee, btw) is having to compile a large list of former donors.

Here's the contact information I dug up:

Phone: 202 675-6000

Website: http://www.nrsc.org

webmaster AT gopsenators.com

That prick John Warner of Virginia is up for re-election this cycle, by the way. I s there no ambitious Republican in the entire state with the balls to challenge him?

Coleman's up for re-election, too. Minnesota residents might want to let him know he's lost their vote if he votes for clouture, and thost illegal immigrants won't be allowed to vote (legally) for five or six years at least.

Susan Collins, too. Frankly, we've been sick of her shit for a while; maybe it's time to sacrifice her.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't really like the tea-bag or peso protests. They're symbolic. I want more than symbolism, because if thousands of phone calls from constituents running 100-1 against amnesty don't sway these guys, a symbolic gesture sure isn't.

Right now I'm thinking:

1) A mass repudiation of the Republican party by de-affiliating and registering as Independent;

and, a bit more controversial:

2) Donating to the Democratic Senate Committee, the one run by Chuckie Schumer.

I'm not kidding. $10 or $25 donated to this organization isn't going to have a major impact, but faxing that receipt to Ensign, Burr, Coleman, Kyl, etc., may have an impact.

Apparently money talks. Just ask the agribusiness and tobacco sectors that seem to have such sway with Senator Burr.

Let's let them know they won't be getting a dime from us anymore, and furthermore, we'll donate to the Democrats just out of spite.

In fact, I know of one person -- me -- that might be voting Democratic quite a bit. (Except for President, assuming the Republican nominee is anti-amnesty, which I think is a safe bet.)

They don't care about what we think or what we want. The only thing left that they might possibly care about is what we actually do. We can't vote against them right now, but we can let them know that's what's coming with a tangible, dramatic, cash money no confidence vote.

As George Bush said, "You're either with us or you're against us." And if you're against us, why shouldn't we begin working to push the Democratic Party into a more moderate position by joining that party?

I've had it myself. They think that in six months we'll forget all about this. I won't.

They're dead to me if they do this. The trouble is, I don't think they quite understand this -- they've gotten so used to fucking us over left and right (earmarks? runaway spending? ) and us always coming back home like chumps.

We have to make it clear that this is it, this is the Rubicon. This is, very seriously, the death of the Republican Party as we have known it.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (124)
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

This isn't really the clip I wanted from Swimming With Sharks, but I think it's a pretty close analogue for the regard the Republican Establishment (here, represented by Buddy Ackerman/Kevin Spacey) has for its constituents (represented by Frank Whaley).

Skip to 6:40.

Shut up, listen, learn. You have no brain. What you feel doesn't mean anything.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, this is admittedly a cheesy idea, but it's getting some support in the Hot Air community, so I figured I'd air it here.

This spring, CBS canceled the television show "Jericho," which had a moderately large following. Fans of the show were understandably irritated, so they devised a plan to get it back on the air. In the final episode, the main character repeats a line from World War II in response to his enemy's surrender demands - "Nuts!"

The "Jericho" fans decided to go with that theme and sent literally tons nuts to CBS in protest, and it worked. The show will return in the fall.

This gave me an admittedly silly idea. How about a tea party? Send a bag of tea to the White House, and to every member of Congress who represents you.

Yes, yes...it's a stunt that will probably not defeat this bill, but what it will do, if enough tea is sent, is show the extent of voter anger over this bill and get some general media attention.

With the bag, send a note explaining why you're doing this and expressing your intent to vote against the member of Congress if they refuse to follow the desires of those they represent.

I'm planning to encase the tea bags I send in clear packing tape to prevent leakage/security issues. Or another solution is just to send the tea bag label with your note.

Posted by: Slublog at 11:15 AM | Comments (85)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

Not over:

The Senate voted today to bring the controversial immigration bill to a vote, sparking a debate over whether or not the bill serves the publicÂ’s will and best interests, reports CNSNews.com Staff Writer Nathan Burchfiel. "The American people do not like this [immigration] bill," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) says, adding, "Our phones are ringing off the hook."

Polls suggest Session may be right: a June CNN/Opinion Research poll found that only 30% of respondents supported the bill and a June NBC poll shows 74% of Americans supported imposing fines on businesses that hire illegal immigrants and 65% supported increased border security.

But, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) encouraged his colleagues to vote in favor of pushing forward on the motion, anyway. "We need to proceed with this legislation and send to the American people a better life for everybody..."

Posted by: Ace at 11:14 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

A vote for cloture is a vote for amnesty -- and some may seek the political cover of voting against the bill on its merits while pushing it through with a Yes vote on cloture.

On the other hand, it's possible that some are seeking to pose as pro-amnesty by allowing the bill to be resurrected while planning on voting against the real cloture later this week. That's what one Kaus emailer hopes, at least:

I think the first cloture vote is now itself possibly becoming a sort of kabuki for some senators, like Burr and Bond, as they will vote to proceed today to impress the leadership and the Grand Bargainers, in hopes of keeping their relationships decent with them for future favors. These guys can afford, they calculate, to vote for cloture today, knowing they can still filibuster it on the second cloture vote. (I think the message has been gotten by most that a traditional kabuki move of voting for cloture and against the bill won't work anymore.)

So this raises an absolutely critical question: what will happen between a vote to proceed today and the next cloture vote? The outrage and pressure, mainly from the right, will have to triple. If people like Burr, Bond, McConnell, etc. vote to proceed today and then don't get absolutely swamped with constituent outrage, their reaction will be "that wasn't so bad, I can do it again."

The pressure and calls and emails have to be ratcheted up at least triple. And people we've forgotten about as they've been so low-profile -- Ensign and Coleman especially, plus the buffoon Gregg who avoided all attention until the past few days, as well as folks like Burr, Bond, Hatch, Cochran whose intentions aren't clear -- need to be blitzed.

And this douchebag Brownback.

It's not over yet. It's almost over. But not quite over yet.

Here are those numbers again.

Okay, Senator Burr -- so you voted "Yea" on something you claim wasn't the "real vote." Now the "real vote" is coming -- final cloture. Are you going to claim that that, too, isn't "real"?

A vote for cloture is a vote for amnesty.

Get Ensign: Drew writes:

Ensign is a big one. He's head of the of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and is charged with raising a lot of money to get Republicans elected to the Senate.

We need to make it clear that amnesty = no money and no support.

Posted by: Ace at 09:38 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Stanley Kurtz at the Corner has the feeling that this vote exposes something ugly in American politics:

Something about this immigration battle doesnÂ’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, thereÂ’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. ThatÂ’s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and thatÂ’s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.

Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet itÂ’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, itÂ’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when weÂ’re at each othersÂ’ throats, thereÂ’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.

I’m still stuck on the way this bill was going to be pushed through without a public airing of crucial provisions, in the two or three days before Memorial Day recess. But I should be stuck even further back–on the way this bill was cooked up in a backroom deal that bypassed the ordinary process of public hearings. We take them for granted, but those civics textbook fundamentals are there for a reason. We’re going to pay a steep price for setting the fundamentals aside.

Senators who believe that by passing this bill they will at least be getting a divisive issue out of the way are making a serious mistake. This is not 1986. The immigration issue is far more prominent now, and it will only grow in importance. Demographics, and the problems of assimilation in a globalized world of satellite dishes and easy travel will see to that. Look at how votes on the war have come back to haunt Democratic politicians. Votes by legislators of both parties on this bill will be haunting them–and all of us–for years to come.

Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal AmericaÂ’s divisions. I fear itÂ’s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, itÂ’s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.

Indeed. While I've been on the losing side of many votes, I always understood why: They public wasn't with me. There were politicians who pushed the position I liked, but in the end too few of them, as the great majority of Congressmen followed majority public opinion.

Not this time. Not this time.

Why is that, precisely?

Instapunk... has been asking what precisely is behind this for some time.

Posted by: Ace at 08:58 AM | Comments (58)
Post contains 512 words, total size 3 kb.

NRO lists those claiming to be against the bill but who will nevertheless vote for cloture and thus pass it.

Hot Air gives it one last go with an attack ad.

It seems to be over. As Congress has never been known for its bravery in defying strong public opinion, the question has to be asked: What, precisely, has put such stiffness in the spines of Gregg, Burr, etc?

They're not campaigning for the bill, so they don't seem to believe in it. And yet they're voting for it.

Apparently they answer to a cash-money constituency.

As this is prima facie evidence of corruption, these tools have to be removed from office ASAP just as a matter of general political cleanliness.

Correction: I'm told that Cochran and Hatch actually voted against this, so I took their names off the list of politicians whose spines seem to have been stiffened by greenbacks. I took Bond off too, as he will, supposedly, vote against this when it gets to the final closure vote.

Posted by: Ace at 08:46 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.