Open Threads

I didn’t plan to end up with this guy as my best friend.

He’s painfully uncool. He watches wrestling for chrissakes. He loves video games and insists on discussing their nuances in agonizing detail, even as I’ve assured him repeatedly that I do not give a fuck. His wardrobe is an odd mix of items that should have died on the Old Navy

Meet Sour Bob’s Best Friend:Post + Comments

Check out this new strategery from the New Republic weblog, which last week spent a great deal of time screaming about how unfair it would be for New Jersey voters not to have a choice, even to the point of stating this whopper:

All of which is to say, you can argue that it’s not fair to allow Democrats to sub in Frank Lautenberg at this late date. You can argue that it violates some cherished abstract principle like rule of law. But, please, spare us the gloom-and-doom talk about what future elections holds if this precedent stands. The answer is nothing appreciably different from the present.

So, what do our fearless defenders of the franchise offer up for us today? A plausible way to UNDO the results of the 2002 election if it does not go the Democrats way:

Conventional wisdom holds that Democrats can’t afford to lose even one seat from their 51-49 (technically 50-49-1) Senate majority. That’s because, in the event of an effective 50-50 tie (49 Democrats plus Jim Jeffords), Republicans would reclaim Senate control by virtue of Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking power. But we’ve long wondered whether the Dems have some margin for error–namely, Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Soon after Jeffords’s party-switch last year, Chafee also dropped hints (albeit in typical flaky fashion) that he might be the next to defect.

Surely the New Republic would not want to overturn an election in this manner, disfranchising all those Rhode Island voters. Yeah, right.

New Democrat Slogan- If you can’t beat ’em, cheat ’em.

Hypocrisy Alert Check out thisPost + Comments

Or common sense will keep the West Virginia Democrats from voting against the left wing of the Democrat Party. From the NY Times Roll call of the vote:

WEST VIRGINIA

Republicans — Capito, Y.

Neither Rain, Nor Sleet, NorPost + Comments

Tony Woodlief is living with the fear of being shot by the disgusting D.C. Sniper, and is tired of being told to ‘go about business as usual.’ Here is what he thinks officials should be saying:

Far worse than pronouncements of public officials, who have to say something, after all, if only because voters won’t tolerate Tony’s version of a press conference (“Guy out there with a rifle. If he’s aiming at you, you’ll probably get shot. If you see him first, aim for the upper body and save the taxpayers some money. Have a nice day”)

Sniper Advice From Tony WoodliefPost + Comments

This headline says it all:

Bay Area standing apart on Iraq vote: MOST LOCAL LAWMAKERS TO REJECT USE OF FORCE

Love your neighbors.

Attention Bill Quick (aka Dailypundit):Post + Comments

If you have not heard already, the Republican candidate Mike Taylor, who was running against Max Baucus(D-MT), has withdrawn because of a negative ad campaign:

State Sen. Mike Taylor, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, will withdraw from the race this afternoon, saying a Montana Democratic Party television ad has destroyed his campaign.

“We have zero left to fight with,” Alan Mikkelsen, Taylor’s campaign manager, said Thursday morning. “The ad has destroyed the campaign. We have no money left and we don’t want to stoop to the same level.”

Here is a description of the ad:

“What bothers me,” Taylor said, “is they are using a picture to assassinate my character. Why use that picture? Are they saying someone from my field in not qualified to be senator?”

Toole, who has fought for homosexual rights for years in the Montana Legislature, said he had complained to the state Democratic Party.

Now, it is obvious what the ad was trying to insinuate. However, Democrats being hypocrites, liars, and extraordinary spinners, I want readers to look for the first Democrat who makes an argument like this:

“The ad was not playing to homophobic fears- it was just showing how inexperienced Taylor was and showing some of his past. What is clear is the obvious homophobic nature of the Republican party, who felt it was necessary to pull their candidate because someone misinterpreted that he might be homosexual.”

Beieve me, it will be uttered by some hack. Democrats aren’t bigots for running the ad- Republicans are for interpreting that a hairdresser must be gay. Trust me on this, and if you see someone argue this before I do, please e-mail me.

Who Will Be The FirstPost + Comments

Why have I never readPost + Comments