DrewM sent this to me a while ago... Basic message: Osama bin Ladin was unsuccessful in bombing the Capitol.

Barack Obama's bosom chum, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, was successful at bombing the Capitol.

At Hot Air-- complaints that an ad about a white Christian-born American terrorist is, um, Islamophobic. Or something.

And another racist McCain ad, linking him with a dead white male. That's right-- age-old fears of homosexual necrophiliac miscegenation.

The Ultimate Taboo. The Third Rail of American politics. Subject of the incendiary, suppressed William Faulkner/Roger Corman movie, The Long Hot Summer I Spent Having Hot Gay Sex With a Zombie Schvartze (aka Abaschlong, Abaschlong).

First Reviews: The Ad is a Summer-Blockbuster Hit! How do I know?

Well, you always know how effective an ad is based on how badly liberals sputter indignantly and incoherently over it. Let Michael Crowely of TNR explain, or rather notexplain, why the ad is such a monster hit:

Here We Go

You thought Corsi was swift boating? This is swift boating. The 9/11 link is completely and utterly revolting.

And that's the entirety of the post. Why is the 9/11 link revolting? "Shut up, that's why."

Hmmm... let me actually bother to do what scary-important TNR writer Michael Crowely didn't have time for and make something akin to an argument.

The 9/11 connection is perfectly warranted because, in case Crowely hasn't noticed, we are in a world war against terrorism. (A low-intensity world war, but a world war nonetheless.) Part of this war is fought in the arena of ideas. One of the contested ideas in this war is whether terrorist tactics are morally justifiable under any circumstances, including, crucially, when employed by an angry political minority which passionately wishes to change US policy but does not have the conventional military might to do so through regular warfare.

It is the stated, and well-nigh uncontested (except by some on the left) that the answer to this question is a forceful "No."

It is the past, and current, position of William Ayers, Barack Obama's longtime friend and political ally, that the answer is an enthusiastic "Yes." Indeed, Ayers' only regrets about bombing the Capitol and so forth was that he "didn't do enough" and stopped actively engaging in terrorism too soon.

The left is very big on "soft power" and winning hearts and minds, in contrast to hard power and winning territory and air wars. Very well. If that's the case, then Obama's close friend, the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, should be of even greater concern to liberals than it is to conservatives, as liberals are the ones emphasizing the soft, lead-by-example moral suasion aspect of the war -- an aspect that Obama's unrepentant terrorist friend William Ayers badly undermines.

Furthermore, Ayers is a disgusting, despicable creature, a cheap, cowardly thug who planted bombs and whose organization murdered policemen.

Does Obama support domestic terrorism? Oh, I doubt that. But let's also get it on the record, too, that his friendship with Bill Ayers surely must indicate he's not exactly repulsed by it, either.

That's an awful lot to get past.

How many unrepentant rapists have you personally befriended in your adult life, Michael? How many convicted but proud murderers? How many such repellent creatures have you found so charming that you could easily put aside qualms about their past crimes to become fast friends with them?

Beyond that, of course, it is simply incontestable that if a Republican were friends and political allies with a former abortion-clinic bomber or other sort of domestic terrorist -- someone who still advocated such measures, by the way -- Michael Crowely and the whole of TNR would be very interested in such a friendship, and would gleefully contrast that Republican's stated position against Islamofascist terrorism with his tacit acceptance of, and possible approval of, domestic terrorism in the right situation.

Tell me I'm lying, Michael. Tell me.

Thanks to Allah for pointing that out.

Thank You, Andrew Sullivan! McCain says "fair game" on Rezko, Wright attacks.

Not that we needed that okay. But still.

Oh, and Obama says the ad is "despicable."

You know what's despicable, Barack? Befriending an unrepentant terrorist who still supports violent terrorist bombing against your country, Barack.

How many houses does McCain have?

I don't know. Here's a good question: How many bombs did your friend Bill Ayers build and plant?

At least four? Seven? Thirty?

Posted by: Ace at 01:11 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 760 words, total size 6 kb.

He has military experience and voted against the war.

He fits, Kristol says, Obama's description of a "workhorse not a showhorse," and has, ahem, the respect of his fellow senators.

He also never refers to Friday night by the Satanic term "Shabbas."

DNC sources were excited about the possibilities of Reed. "Reed would provide the starkest possible contrast to Joe Lieberman, should McCain tap him as veep," one insider said.

"Jack Reed has attended more than thirty Easter egg rolling contests in his life," the DNC insider continued. "Joe Lieberman? Not even one. It's like he's 'out to get' Jesus or something."

"All over again," the source added, after a dramatic pause.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

A fed study says yes, by gum, WTC 7 did collapse due to runaway fires and thermal expansion of key structural elements.

One surprise: Jet fuel apparently didn't contribute much to the collapse. At least not directly, in a fuel-splashes-over-to-WTC-7 sense.

You know what the Truther's theory is, right? They only imply this, but I believe what they're saying is that Flight 93 was actually supposed to hit WTC 7 -- but it crashed.*

So, alas, the government had a building wired with explosives but without a plane to hit it and "explain" the collapse... and, alas, either those bombs detonated due to fire, or the government decided to detonate the bombs to make sure they weren't found by firemen.

Or the guy who owned the property said "Pull it!" Or something.

I continue to be perplexed why Truthers believe the public wouldn't have been suitably angered by the mere fact off planes full of passengers smashing into the Twin Towers -- why they believe that it was really the collapse of the buildings (long after almost every victim of the disaster had already died, and almost (almost) every living soul in the buildings had been safely evacuated out) -- was really the crucial part of the Fake Pearl Harbor.

That, without the collapses, we would have all just said, "Eh, so Al Qaeda hit our buildings with planes with living hostages aboard and killed 3000 people in total. Big deal. The buildings are still standing, aren't they? Sure they'll have to be demolished due to being structurally compromised, but that will be our decision. Let's just chillax before making any hasty decisions or indulging in loose talk that might hurt Al Qaeda's feelings."

The fill-the-buildings-with-bombs theory only makes sense (in terms of government motivation) if it is postulated that the government believed that the hijackings, crashes, and mass-murders were not a strong enough drink to get us all drunkenly rambunctious for a Trans-Caspian Pipeline (or whatever); no, what we really all needed was the chaser of the collapsing towers. That, and only that, would get us hot for vengeance.

Because, otherwise? What fucking sense does it make to take the huge risk of filling buildings inhabited by tens of thousands of workers all day every day with enough explosives to put a battleship into low orbit?

Anyway. I'm sure this new finding from the US government, which by the way murdered 3000 people as a goof, will finally settle the issue.

* Actually, it didn't crash; it safely landed in Cleveland all passengers aboard were evacuated off, spirited to prison island, and then murdered, and then the plane was sent back into the air with a remote-control pilot and lots of already-dead corpses as "passengers," but then it somehow disappeared, and a crash that never actually happened was faked, or... something.

I don't know. They change their stories on this a lot, and their stories never make much sense in the first place.

Posted by: Ace at 10:56 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

A liberal ex-military man confesses to being a D&D dork, ridicules Michael Goldfarb, and, um, calls him a chickenhawk while he's at it.

Basically, he calls him out. Over D&D.

I have played Dungeons and Dragons for years. Started with the old "blue" rule book from 1977-78, graduated to the 2nd Edition hardback books later, waiting eagerly on a small family dairy farm in northwest Arkansas for the newest module or book to come out. Working a part time job to make enough cash to afford the hobby and spending weekends staying up all night trying like hell to survive Tomb of Horrors.

Rural upbringing, hardscrabble life... it's a biographical campaign commercial. About his D&D bona fides.

Yes, I'm a card carrying geek. And at the ripe age of 17, I raised my right hand and swore to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Just like Senator McCain. Just like all veterans do. And you know what? In basic training, in the streets of Panama City, in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and in fact, all over the U.S. military, there were D&D players. It was one of those things you never expect.

Dude, you must chill.

Why? I wonder what the fine folks at the McCain camp think about things like teamwork, loyalty, duty, honor, responsiblity, friendship, and good old wholesome family entertainment -- all things I learned and practiced playing D&D. Apparently, not too much, as noted in the quote above. It seems Mr. Goldfarb, with the blessings of his employer, has decided that anyone who plays Dungeons and Dragons is some sort of anti-social uber nerd, incapable of manly activities, such as political blogging or being shot down over Hanoi.

Seriously now, you're frightening the children.

[Many D&D dorks] became doctors, lawyers, excelled in business, the arts, and even politics. And a more than a few of them put on the uniform and stand by the colors. And more than a few of them have come back from the very wars that men like Mr. Goldfarb have sent them covered in the colors, the same colors that are given to grieving mothers, wives, and girlfriends.

I cannot believe he's linking D&D with the flag-draped coffins of America's war-dead.

Yes, Mr. Goldfarb, I play Dungeons and Dragons. And I have, in my home, a very large box filled with medals and decorations that prove my service to this nation. Where were you, sir, when your country called? Oh yes, writing for the Weekly Standard.

While gaming geeks rallied around the flag.

This guy's a serious as a heart attack. About knocking D&D as dorky. Did I mention that?

What the fuck, man? In the words of Johnny Mac, "You cannot be seeerious."

There's D&D, and then there's Mazes & Monsters. And this guy just joined Tom Hanks in the storm drains with his +3 Nailgun (double damage against sleeping homeless men who are really disguised Red Dragons, triple damage against concerned college staff psychiatrists).

Given my own expertise in politics and D&D, I gotta think I'm going to be on Nightline soon to analyze this important issue.

Thanks to DrewM.

McCain Desperately Attempts Damage Reduction (DR)!

But uh-oh -- he's holding a 4th Edition book. That just puts him in the middle of an even thornier political controversy. No matter how much he struggles, he gets pulled deeper into this sticky controversy (much like fighting a Gelatinous Cube, I should note).

Thanks to Slublog, who snapped the picture at a McCain fundraiser at OrcCon. He netted $35,000 and preview copies of The Compleat Slayer's Guide to Dire Badgers.

It's August! Before I was a big macher in the media (eh-eh-ahem), I always used to hear about the Silly Season of August, when the lack of real stories forced the media to cover really trivial stuff.

I'm still waiting to see that.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 899 words, total size 6 kb.

I would put this in the sidebar, but one datum makes this good grist for comment-fodder:

Check out the projected total votes for both candidates.

Would that be a) awful or b) awesome or c) awful in some ways, and totally, undeniably awesome in others?

It's not that unlikely: Assuming that Obama really turns out black and disaffected leftists votes, he might get abnormally large margins of victories in Blue States, and also keep his losses in Red States to abnormally thin margins -- but while still losing all the traditional Red States.

Upshot: The country dodges the bullet and doesn't elect Barack Hussein Obama, but we also prove that we're not racist! Yayyyy! Everybody wins! (Except Obama.)

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

If Obama says, "Abramoff", you say Ayers. If he says, 'you have a lot of houses', you say, "Rezko"

Responding to Obama's taunt about not knowing how many homes he owns, Team McCain goes for the balls.

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

As a conservative I know I'm screwed no matter who wins this year, it's just a matter of degree but I'm really starting to enjoy this campaign. And it hasn't really started yet!

Obviously the McCain folks realize just how nasty this campaign is going to get and I imagine that's got to be factoring into the VP selection. I think that's a strike against Lieberman, at least I hope it is. Yeah, Joe will go after Obama on Iraq but will he throw the Rezko/Ayers type dirt?

This is a job for one man and one man only...Bob Dole.

Added below the fold...The Obama ad on this 'controversy'. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:16 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

The DNC keeps digging negative information up on Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), and that negative information mostly seems to be repeated statements that he's Jewish.

In six paragraphs denigrating Cantor, they rack up five points in a game of Pin the Tail on the Hebe.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

S. Weasel writes about negative campaigning and includes a nifty graphic for visual learners.

Every four years, sure as shit, the media yammers about whether the Dems should “go negative” because the Republicans always “go negative” and even though people say they don’t like it when politicians “go negative” it really does work. So sure enough the Dems “go negative” and it doesn’t work and the Republicans “go negative” and it does work and the talking heads declare that Democrats are just too doggone nice to pull off the whole “go negative” gambit.

You know, for the smartypants egghead academic party, yÂ’all sure can be pinheads.

Go read the whole thing.

As for her exit question, sure, it counts as going negative when all you do is complain that your opponent will surely go negative and that makes baby Jesus cry. But this only brings it through Step 1: it is true there will be negative campaigning. The charge doesn't come close to making it through the second step: it isn't significant.

So, of course, you don't get very far complaining about negative campaigning.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:27 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh.

Thanks to Man of Substance.

OOPS Update: Forgot to mention that the vid is by these fine people.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:08 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Anyone who uses the names of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq as part of a political punch-line is subhuman scum. If they had any moral scruples, such people would be too embarrassed to show themselves in public. They are scum and barely articulate scum. But they aren't criminal scum.

Yesterday, a federal district court permanently enjoined the State of Arizona from prosecuting Dan Frazier, a man who sells "Bush Lied -- They Died" t-shirts which list the names of 3,461 soldiers who died in Iraq. The order also enjoins private citizens from suing him under a state-created cause of action for selling the t-shirts. The order is here (PDF). The statute, if you were interested, is here.

Arizona created the law last year with exactly this type of anti-war activity in mind. Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas now have similar laws.

The judge concludes that the marketing and sale of the t-shirts involves inextricable, core political speech. With no way to tease out the commercial activity (which may be regulated) from the political speech, the whole disgraceful mess comes under the strongest protection of the First Amendment. He doesn't go so far as to hold the statute entirely unconstitutional, just unconstitutional as applied to Frazier.

According to CNN, he is also being sued by a solders' family in Tennessee for $40 billion in damages. I can't find anything more about that case, but it's possible that there are some common law causes of action for privacy or publicity under which they could prevail.

The cure for objectionable speech is more speech. So fuck you, Dan Frazier.

Thanks to genghis.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:07 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.