That was fast...

I get that there's other things going on in the world besides a hurricane, but.... Rick Santorum (@RickSantorum) 8/28/11 11:41 AM This is a marathon not a sprint. http://t.co/IXpsnDA Please help @ ricksantorum.com. #fb#fitn #iacaucus

A large portion of his home state was still underwater when this went out, but fundraising must go on, I guess.

It's highly unlikely that this was a tweet that was scheduled pre-hurricane. The time stamp on the post it links to is 11:00 a.m.

Then again, it's not really all that insensitive. The people without power probably never even saw this tweet. No harm-no foul.


(by the way, if you haven't done it yet, Google "santorum")

The Trump Doctrine

From the office of the Douchebag-in-Chief, the Donald gives us what he would change the United States' foreign policy to if he were in charge:


@realDonaldTrump We should have told the so-called rebels “We will only help if you give us 50% of your oil.” http://t.co/oGMpfCm#trumpvlog


There are so many issues with this statement, I want to shake the Donald's hand. He is such a gold mine of idiocy.

For nearly two centuries, America's foreign policy, as it pertains to military intervention, has been to provide support to peoples who were being oppressed. George Washington wrote, "My best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." Then the official policy of the United States began (in just the Western Hemisphere) with the Monroe Doctrine and spread to encompass the globe. Sure, we didn't always live up to the promise (Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran... ok, we're not perfect), but we don't hold a tyrannized people hostage until they agreed to pay us. Hell, in most cases (as the Donald correctly points out in his vlog post), the United States has invested significant resources in bringing down despots. 


Trump's notion that the United States military should only help people who are being persecuted by their government if they are willing to pay us is antithetical to the great ideals of this nation. To pretend that he is anything but an opportunist preying on our most ignoble instincts would be closing our eyes and turning our backs on our heritage.


Secondary to the moral issue is the economic issue. The only way for the Libyan rebels to give 50% of their oil to the United States would be if the rebels owned it. After winning freedom for their country, they would have to nationalize the oil industry instead of supporting a capitalist economy. Since when did the Donald become a Socialist? Apparently, it's evil-socialism for the United States government to raise taxes on the American people in order to provide health care, but it's ok for the Libyan government to promise half of what amounts to the only natural resource of their country to the United States just so they can get a taste of a tenth of the freedom we have.


Donald Trump pretends at real leadership by spouting hate and blame. We need leaders with substance, not one who is willing to sacrifice the values that made America.

Kickin' It Drudge Style

I'm dedicating this post to the Drudge Report. Man, I love these guys... So much material to choose from.


How about "@Drudge_Report Obama Celebrates Debt Hike at Burger Joint...http://drudge.tw/pIZe0j" Nothing washes down a debt ceiling deal in which you got none of the tax hikes that you asked for like a cheese burger and a shake. And can you believe what Obama did with that shake?? "@Drudge_Report) Pushes Fatty Milkshake on 11-Year-Old Boy...http://drudge.tw/qSWNLo" Can you say DIABETUS? I knew it!! DEATH PANELS!


What else?


With the debt deal done, Congress has gone home for a break for the month of August. This of course means... FUNDRAISING TIME! Too bad the President has to put off his fundraising for a few days so he can celebrate his birthday.

"@Drudge_Report Obama's 50th Birthday a 'Massive Campaign Event'...http://drudge.tw/nyGHqy" Oh. My. God!!! This is a great idea! Why didn't anyone else ever think of thi... hold up (I'll come back to this). Aren't we in a financial crisis? What does he think he's doing having an extravagant party? Spending all of that money on a lavish party in Chicago! The last thing this economy needs is people going out there and spending money on things. Take a page out of Governor Rick Perry's book: Hold a day of prayer and fasting. Remember the last guy from Texas who said that we should go out there and spend money to help the economy? Yeah, that's right! He got voted out of office in 2008. Sorry W, but we pray our way to a stable economy. Oh, so yeah, why didn't anyone ever come up with raising campaign money on their birthday before? Well, because they did. In 2007, Hillary Clinton held a birthday bash with the most expensive tickets going for the FEC maximum donation amount at the time. Since then, that maximum amount has been raised (to about 10x of what it was then), so of course some of the tickets at Obama's birthday bash/fundraiser are at this new limit. Also, in 2007, First Lady Laura Bush asked for $61 donations to the RNC in honor of President George W. Bush's 61st birthday. (Yes, this isn't the same as $35K, but hey, at least Obama is giving you a nice night out away from the kids.) And birthday party fundraisers are a common practice: PA State Senator Vincent Hughes, Former CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, President Clinton, Mayor Bill Haslam - Knoxville, TN. So, thank you Drudge Report for finding two non-stories and turning them into stories of the sinister actions of a dastardly, economy-destroying power monger.

First post! (really, this is the best title I can come up with)

It's honestly sad when The Onion pretty much nails it with this headline: Democrats, Republicans Celebrate Pitiful Excuse For Common Ground

What I've been able to make out of it all is that the Republicans wanted spending cuts and the Democrats wanted tax increases on the wealthy. The deal gives the Republicans some spending cuts, but not the ones they wanted. The Democrats get no tax increases, but they get to be part of a bipartisan committee to discuss it further. Basically, R's get some cuts if they agree to even THINK about tax increases. And if the committee can't come to a future agreement on deficit reduction, there will just be more cuts. How this is even considered a compromise, I don't know. (And if I've got this explanation wrong, I apologize. But seriously, trying to understand this mess is ridiculous, and I doubt even 30% of the 536 people responsible for voting on it get it.) [UPDATE: Check out this infographic explanation from NYT.]

What I'm really loving is the all of the online spewing going on over this. Let's begin, shall we?

@newtgingrich Before vote, Boehner and McConnell should pledge only to appoint to the spending committee those who rule out tax increases.

I'm surprised no one else thought it would be a good idea to appoint someone to a committee that was supposed to work on a bipartisan compromise as long as they refuse to even consider the other party's requests. Newt, you are a visionary.

@GovMikeHuckabee The fact that we're still discussing the debt ceiling shows the lack of leadership of this Admin. Need to balance budget & quit spending.

Yes! True leadership comes from ending debate and accepting the other party's position. This is especially true if part of the compromise you've reached is to continue the discussion.

@redcountry Cold, but: if someone rolled Giffords in tonight and told her to raise her hand, that means the debt deal is a good one? Gawd.

Ahem...  "Fuck you". No, seriously. I mean it.