One thousand citizens turn out to protest at a $2,000/plate AWOL fundraiser in Kentucky. Including:

In all her 67 years, Ann Hall has never protested anything — until President Bush came to Louisville yesterday.

Fed up with the president's positions on education, the economy and a host of other issues, she went downtown with a couple of friends to voice her displeasure.

"He cares nothing about the common person," said Hall, of Louisville. "We decided we're just tired of it, and we needed to do something."

So, carrying a sign that referred to the president as an "idiot," she; Lori Eisenbeis, 68; and Midge Ostendorf, 72, took their place among 1,000 or more protesters who gathered half a block from the Galt House. Sprinkled among the crowd was a handful supporting Bush.

Probably didn't make the news, though. Y'know, unpatriotic and all that.

But wait until you see New York and the convention. Everybody is invited.

I'll let Josh Marshall do the heavy lifting on today's Scott McLellan bullshit-flinging contest:

QUESTION: What's your response to those who suspect that Speaker Hastert is secretly --

QUESTION: Why did they --

McCLELLAN: Helen, I just pointed out the chairman of the commission and his comments. Why isn't that being reported?

QUESTION: But there are other members --

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Mark. Mark was finishing up.

QUESTION: What's your response to those who say Speaker Hastert is secretly doing the White House bidding in refusing to bring up a two-month extension for the commission?

McCLELLAN: Silly, silly idea. I mean, the President supports extension -- supports the extension that the commission has requested. We've made that view known publicly and privately.

QUESTION: Can I follow on that --

QUESTION: Can you answer Mark's question. Can you answer what Mark asked about the one-hour limit --

McCLELLAN: I said, no. I said -- I confirmed that.

QUESTION: And can I just clarify that ...

McCLELLAN: You were thinking about service, I know, when I mentioned that.

QUESTION: What the commission is asking for in that one hour is the entire commission, not just the chair and vice chair. Are you not agreeing to that --

McCLELLAN: The request came from the chairman and vice chairman, and the President looks forward to meeting privately with --

QUESTION: I know. But they followed up by saying that they want --

McCLELLAN: -- looks forward to meeting privately with the chairman and vice chairman to provide them with the necessary information.

QUESTION: Why not all of them? What's the problem?

McCLELLAN: Helen, we have great confidence that the chairman and vice chairman can share all that information with the rest of the commission.

QUESTION: Why do they have to share it? The others have ears.

[Helen Thomas rules. -ed]

McCLELLAN: They're going to have a public report. I talked about how this is extraordinary for a President to sit down with a legislative body such as the 9/11 Commission.

QUESTION: What's the President's problem, really, with meeting all of them?

QUESTION: It's a legislative body? I'm sorry.

McCLELLAN: There are lots of ways -- one, I have always said that there are lots of ways -- it's legislatively created, that's what I'm referring to. There are lots of ways to provide the commission with the information they need to do their work. And we have worked -- we have bent over backwards to provide unprecedented cooperation to the commission.

QUESTION: Not from what we hear.

In short, we should be happy the Prazdent is giving two members of the 9/11 commission A WHOLE HOUR, because it's a legislative commission and there is also unprecedented cooperation and blah blah blah. Also, that dern Denny Hastert just won't extend the deadline for the 9/11 commission, even though we begged him!

In related news, at the Repug national convention in New York, this year, look for:

“Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,” he added. “It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.”

Repugnant.

The Decembrist speculates on whether they will actually happen:

So how does [Bush] get out [of debating]? There hasn't been a presidential election without debates since Nixon in 1972. (Hmm, what does that tell you?) It's now totally institutionalized. David Broder in yesterday's Post suggested that Bush might use Nader, and the demands of the Citizens Debate Commission that candidates with 5% support in polls be permitted into the debates as a negotiating tool to minimize the number of debates with Kerry (or Edwards). But Broder doesn't seem to think that Bush can avoid debating altogether, and I doubt that Nader will be enough of a factor to theoretically qualify for debates even under the looser Citizens Debate Commission rules. Still, this is Bush, and if Rove decides he shouldn't debate, he's not going to debate. How he will pull it off, I don't know, but no one should be surprised if he does.

It's hard for me to imagine that the American people would allow this to happen. There would be a blistering response from the Kerry campaign, and the media would (justifiably) go nuts. Rove will minimize the number of debates, but I can't imagine less than three.

I'll totally enjoy Edwards vs. Cheney, by the way.

Decembrist is unquestionably right about one thing:

But watching the debate tonight, I was struck by how helpful it has been to Kerry and Edwards both to go through this ritual so many times. Despite the worst moderating and questioning imaginable -- Larry King is too dim and Ron Brownstein way too smart to be good debate questioners -- both of them were completely assured and comfortable.

If Bush doesn't improve his speaking/debating style dramatically from what was displayed on Meet the Press, he's in deep, deep trouble. The Dems have benefitted from all of these debates -- and no one will remember them in September and October.

From a company called Glarkware, a noteworthy tool for urbanites (via the Butt):

Urban life is fraught with daily challenges. We're beset on all sides -- by thoughtless co-workers, oblivious roommates, and even regular strangers on the street -- with the flagrant flouting of the simple rules that govern mundane transactions in society. One such rule, however, is that we don't confront those who transgress against the social order -- and that's a rule Glarkware feels was made to be broken.

Now you can confront those who wrong you, in a way that won't result in your getting your ass beat up. Let the Urban Asshole cards do the talking for you, and put urban assholes in their place.

Each card is scored but not folded so you can present them as is or fold them up so that the recipient only sees "Congrats!" before they get "You're An Asshole" and the hard truth on the other side. ...

I wish I had one of these for the guy clipping his nails behind me on the MUNI last week.

Apparently Ralph Nader walked into Dean HQ and asked to be the Vice-President. Dean refused, fearing the schizophrenic campaign that would see his VP denouncing their ticket as "no different from the Republicans".

Here.

Not too funny.



It's all too obvious. Isn't it strange that Urban Outfitters is owned by this idiot?

Over the course of Urban Outfitters' rise to market dominance, Hayne has bled all the politics, left-wing or otherwise, out of his business dealings. "As a company, we don't contribute to any cause except noncontroversial things like a breast cancer walk," he says. "I don't know anybody who is for breast cancer."

Yet Hayne himself is an ardent Republican. He is a financial supporter of arch conservative Sen. Rick Santorum, whose recent comments about homosexuals equated gay sex with incest and bestiality.

When PW asks Hayne about his financial support of Santorum, he initially denies it. And when presented with a computer printout of Santorum's campaign donors from the Center for Responsive Politics website--which cites a $4,650 contribution from Urban Outfitters--he responds: "I'll have to look into this. I don't think this is right." In fact, he and his wife have contributed $13,150 to Santorum and Santorum's Political Action Committee over the years.

Asked to clarify for the record whether he ever contributed to Santorum's reelection campaign, he counters, "I don't want to mislead you. Like many people, I have some affinity for Rick Santorum, and I have problems with some of his positions."

And where does Santorum's position on homosexuality fit in his comfort zone?

"I'm not going to comment on it," he says, irked. "I have my own opinion, but I am not going to share it. Our job as a business is not to promote a political agenda. That's not what we do. There are all kinds of political views held by my employees. Some would be horrified to learn that we contributed to Santorum's campaign, and others would be fine with it. We openly discuss and joke about our political differences."

It's not a mystery that the right would love to suppress turnout of young voters. It's a little strange how obvious they feel they can be about it.

McLellan totally spazzed when someone asked if this decision was based on AWOL's religious faith. RoveCo obviously wants to minimize perception of this as a religious issue. I think it'll be difficult for them.

The following transcript doesn't do justice to McLellan's rising tone and intensity:

Q: Scott, following up on that. On the faith issue, the President has talked about -- this is intertwined with faith, but the Bible has been hotly contested on this issue. Some are saying that it's not in the Bible; some are saying it is. Where in the Bible has the President found this specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the President described it from his views about where his beliefs are, and the principle of this decision.

Q: He talks about faith a great deal. And he talks about he -- his foundation, his new foundation after 40 is based on faith. Where in the Bible --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about how he came to the decision and why he came to this decision. He spelled out the very reasons for acting on this issue now.

Q: Okay, well, maybe I could rephrase the question. You say that the President has talked to theologians. What part of the Bible did they particularly focus in on to help the President to come up with --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they're actually religious leaders from across the spectrum, with a wide variety of views.

Q: But where did they focus in on in the Bible? I mean, because this is a hotly contested issue. Some people say it's in; some people say it's not in the Bible.

MR. McCLELLAN: Right, and you're welcome to religious leaders about that.

Q: We understand there's the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, but did he use that? We want to know.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he talked about, in the Roosevelt Room, about the reasons how he came to this -- how he came to this decision --

Q: I understand what you're saying, but we want to know where the foundation of faith is on this issue. Is it Sodom and Gomorrah? Is it some other part of the Bible?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can consult religious scholars if you want to know those issues.

Q: I have, and I'm asking you.

[McLellan then moves on to another questioner.]

Today's briefing:

Q: Okay. Let me ask one more question. There's this interesting sentence here where he says that "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." So how does gay marriage weaken society, in the President's view?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this goes to the issue of an institution that is enduring and lasting. The President said in his remarks that this is the most fundamental institution in our civilization. And he talked about, in his State of the Union, about the importance of defending these kinds of enduring institutions, that some things -- that some things never change. He actually addressed that in his State of the Union address. And he talked about the importance of making sure that the people's voice is heard, as well.

Q: But specifically, how does allow -- how does allowing gay marriage, allowing two people of the same sex to marry, how does that weaken our society?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a strong value of our society. It's a strong value of our civilization. And we should protect and defend those kinds of enduring institutions in our society.

Poor Scott.

...and bless Helen Thomas:

Q: What does he think the penalty should be, they should go to jail if they break this law that eventually he hopes to have?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes that we should protect and defend the sanctity of marriage, Helen. That's what this is about. And there are people --

Q: They should go to jail?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, that's not the way the President is looking at it. The President is looking at this from making sure that activist judges and local officials don't redefine this enduring institution in our society.

Read Andrew Sullivan, who is today historically eloquent about the hater-in-chief:

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

There is more, and you should read it.

...not tons of sympathy out there for Andy Sullivan, I'm afraid:

If gay Republicans came to you and said, "I'm sorry, I want to work with the Democrats now", would you say, "OK", or would you laugh at them and tell them to go away?

If a random gay Republican came up to me and apologized and wanted to work with me and my party to defeat George Bush, I'd shake his hand and say glad to have you, all is forgiven.

However, if Andrew Sullivan came up to me and wanted to apologize, I'd tell him to go fuck himself.

Some people you can't just forgive. If Sullivan's really sorry he backed Bush, he'll have to prove it to me.

...Eric Alterman, too:

But why is it that it takes a direct attack on Andy’s own identity for him to realize that this administration has no concern for anyone but the wealthy business elite, conservative Christians and neocon strategists who make up its political base? Funny how this arch-defender of the Bush/Ashcroft assault on our civil liberties has become so attached to the U.S. Constitution all of a sudden now that they’re coming after people like him.

Reuters, via Friends of March:

LONDON (Reuters) - An ageing rock group gave themselves a facelift by getting a group of teenagers to stand in for them on the video of their latest song, helping them score their first chart hit for some 15 years.

Convinced the music industry is prejudiced against wrinkly rockers, The Alarm gave themselves the pseudonym The Poppyfields and persuaded a group of fresh-faced youths to mime their part.

"They did it to show they wanted to be judged on music and not on their image and haircuts of 15 years ago," said a spokesman for the band.

The single, 45RPM, went into the UK charts this week at number 28.

Here.




(Starting bid was $2100. Auction ended with no bidders...)

TWIN COBRA FIST!


Here. Via Monster.

From Wonkette:

A Harris poll has found that two thirds of Americans believe executions should be televised. Three in 10 said that Osama bin Laden should be the first victim and 21 percent said they'd pay to watch. Eighteen percent said Saddam Hussein should be executed on TV, and 11 percent said they'd spring for pay-per-view.

Left Coaster includes the following disclaimer at the bottom of a post about Education Secretary calling the NEA a "terrorist group":

FAIR USE NOTICE

This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

The post contains excerpts from a copyrighted Associated Press article.

Has a blogger been accused of copyright infringement? It's only a matter of time, and I'll admit to some trepidation about using photos (or editorial cartoons) from news sites -- even if it's for subsequent commentary.

...some thoughts about the issue here, including a step-by-step walkthrough of Section 107 from a blogger's perspective.

...Wired has a similar article that might be useful.

From today's transcript:

Go ahead.

Q: We know the President married well and we know he has trouble with English, but does he really have big biceps? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: No, but you did bring up an issue that the President feels strongly about, and that is to promote healthy choices. And it's something he has been very committed to, leading by example on.

Al-Qaeda infiltrator, obviously.

...ah. The questioner is referring to this Bush speech:

I want to welcome the nation's new governors, Barbour and Fletcher, Kernan, Blanco, Walker, Tulafono and Schwarzenegger. (Laughter and applause.) Last time I was with Governor Schwarzenegger it dawned on me that we have some things in common. We both married well. (Laughter.) We both have trouble with the English language. (Laughter.) We both have big biceps. (Laughter.) Well, two out of the three. (Laughter.)

Boring. The mystery was cooler.

Fred Kaplan on the slow, sad fall of Colin Powell:

At times, Powell has taken his fate with resigned humor. Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Yorker last year of a diplomatic soiree that Powell attended on the eve of war, at which a foreign diplomat recited a news account that Bush was sleeping like a baby. Powell reportedly replied, "I'm sleeping like a baby, too. Every two hours, I wake up, screaming."

The Sunday Express (UK) reported this weekend that Osama was surrounded by US forces and it's only a matter of time until he's captured.

Without comment on how likely this actually is, I refer you to Ezra at Pandagon speculating on the impact of Osama's capture on AWOL's re-lection:

As the conventional wisdom goes, capturing Osama would make Bush a lock for reelection. I'm going to make the counter-argument and say that Osama's capture would be terrible for Bush's reelection. In fact, it would be one of the worst things that could happen to him.

Read it.

Nader just jumped the shark in a spectacularly historical way.

His legacy is no longer intrepid consumer advocate and lefty stalwart. Now he's another crack-addled monkey (see Perot, Ross).

Best ignored.

Yummy. Now I need some links.

...what he said. Sigh.