Archive for December 20th, 2007

Great Moments In Christmas

Now here’s something you don’t read every day:

DANBURY — A 33-year-old woman was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault Saturday after allegedly groping a man playing Santa Claus at the Danbury Fair mall.


Details leading up to the alleged fondling are sketchy.

“I don’t know what the deal was. It was just bizarre,” the mall Santa told a reporter, referring all other questions about the incident to Cherry Hill Photo, the company that runs the Danbury Fair mall Santa photo setup.


According to information provided by the Danbury Police Department, officers were dispatched to the mall Saturday at 8:45 p.m.

The mall Santa told police that [the woman] touched him inappropriately while sitting on his lap.

“The security officer at the mall said Santa Claus has been sexually assaulted,” [Danbury Detective Lt. Thomas] Michael said.


Danbury Fair mall spokeswoman Melissa Eigen called the alleged groping “an isolated incident.”

“The safety of our guests and employees is a top priority, and we strive to create a safe and enjoyable shopping environment at all our facilities and Danbury Fair specifically,” Eigen said.

2007 has not been a great year for mall Santas.

Women do love a man in uniform…

(h/t OFF/beat)

1 comment December 20th, 2007 at 10:05pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Weirdness

Feel The Taggmentum!

For those of you who just can’t get enough Romney, WaPo had an online chat with his son Tagg, who is every bit as delightful as you might expect. Observe:

Dallas: Why, to this date in the 21st century, do elected officials feel the need to place their voice into other people’s private lives and say that we the people can’t live that way or be that way?

Tagg Romney: Interesting question. I think a lot of us are frustrated by those who are attempting to expand the role and size of government. Did you see Hillary Clinton’s latest ad? She was wrapping Christmas gifts for the American people–universal pre-K, universal health care, etc. She was right when she said she had a million ideas, America just can’t afford them all. My Dad believes that the greatness of the America comes from the American people–not the government.

Ooo, nice. Tagg gets a question that sounds like it’s about social conservatives trying to legislate morality, and he turns it into a spiel about tax-and-spend big-government liberals like Hillary. Well played, Tagg old bean. Well played. Let’s see how he handles something a little tougher:

Dunn Loring, Va.: Let’s see if you’ll answer this one: If the “war against Islamofacism” is the greatest struggle of our time, as your party puts it, why won’t you or one of your four healthy brothers volunteer to serve in either the military or the reserve military? Particularly as the military has problems recruiting top-notch people and has relaxed the admission standards?

Tagg Romney: Happy to answer it, thanks for the question. At the time I would have joined the military, we weren’t fighting a war and the military was being downsized by Bill Clinton (I think he referred to it as a peace dividend). I decided to go into business and have been actively pursuing that career ever since. I have extraordinary respect for those who voluntarily decide to serve in the military, they are true heroes and deserve to be treated as such.

“At the time I would have joined the military…” Interesting. So, apparently – and I was not aware of this – there’s a very specific and narrow time window during which you can enlist. And if your services are not required at that time, well, that’s it for you, your chance to enlist is gone forever. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that none of the other young Republicans who didn’t serve have ever brought this fact up.

Really, it’s a damn shame (and a remarkable coincidence) that not only Tagg, but all four of his brothers had unfortunately timed enlistment windows, and thus forever missed their chances to defend their country against Scary Islamofascism. That must eat away at them every day. “If only I had known,” they cry. “If only I had known.”

Dammit, now I’m too broken up by this terrible family tragedy to continue. But I think you get the general idea.

1 comment December 20th, 2007 at 09:18pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Elections,Politics,Republicans,Romney,Wankers

Sovereignty, Schmovereignty

“I mean, you’re a – you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.”

If you’re still clinging to the belief that Iraq is in any way a real, independent country whose government has the final word on, well, anything… please stop.

On Tuesday, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council extending the mandate that provides legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq for another year.

The move violated both the Iraqi constitution and a law passed earlier this year by the Iraqi parliament — the only body directly elected by all those purple-finger-waving Iraqis in 2005 — and it defied the will of around 80 percent of the Iraqi population.

Earlier in the week, a group representing a majority of lawmakers in Iraq’s parliament — a group made up of Sunni, Shiite and secular leaders — sent a letter to the Security Council, a rough translation of which reads: “We reject in the strongest possible terms the unconditional renewal of the mandate and ask for clear mechanisms to obligate all foreign troops to completely withdrawal from Iraq according to an announced timetable.”


James Paul, director of the Global Policy Forum, which follows the United Nations’ intrigues, said that while “there’s concern in many delegations at the United Nations about what is going on,” Security Council delegates “are under instructions from their governments to lay low and pass the U.S. resolution.” According to Paul, the move “shows the despotic power of the U.S. government to force everyone to knuckle under, no matter how much the law is violated.”

It was an egregious assault on Iraq’s nascent democracy, as well as its supposed “sovereignty,” and can only encourage more bloodshed. Yet the commercial media has so far ignored the story entirely, reporting only that “Iraq” had requested that the mandate be renewed.

The real picture is dramatically different. Just as some congressional Democrats in Washington have tried desperately to limit Bush’s ability to maintain troops in Iraq forever — inserting various conditions into the endless series of supplemental spending bills that have financed the occupation — and been thwarted by the administration, so too has a majority of Iraq’s parliament come out against renewing the mandate without attaching conditions to it, including a requirement that the United States set a timetable for withdrawal.

…This move speaks to the degree to which occupation and democracy are mutually exclusive, and to how Bush and Maliki must run roughshod over the Iraqi legislature (not to mention the U.S. Congress), sacrificing opportunities for political reconciliation along the way, in order to maintain an almost universally despised American military presence in the country.

It’s a pretty impressive trick, really. Dubya’s thumbing his nose at the collective will of the people and their elected representatives in not one, but two countries. Awesome.

If there were a Nobel War Prize, Dubya would win it every year.

December 20th, 2007 at 08:15pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Constitution,Corruption/Cronyism,Iraq

It All Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word “With” Is…

Or “saw.” Or “march.” Or possibly “my.”

Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to score political points. Even if it means lying outright about his father.

I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.

Uh huh.

He made a similar statement Sunday during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said, “You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights.”

Right. Got it — dad marched with MLK. Even David Broder says so, and supplies some corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative….

As Mitt Romney recalled in his address, his father was able to remind people that he had marched with Martin Luther King Jr. (through upscale Grosse Pointe, Mich., in support of open-housing legislation).

Problem is, it’s not true. None of it. As the Phoenix’s David Bernstein reveals (see also update here) in some superb digging, George Romney never marched “with” — i.e., in the presence of, at the same place at the same time — Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here’s Bernstein, who in addition to calling out Romney, calls out Broder:

[W]hile the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights, the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so. Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 – not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church’s discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign.Asked about the specifics of George Romney’s march with MLK, Mitt Romney’s campaign told the Phoenix that it took place in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. That jibes with the description proffered by David S. Broder in a Washington Post column written days after Mitt’s College Station speech.


But that account is incorrect. King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published. “I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society….

Faced with the unfortunate reality that Mitt was making things up, his campaign has retreated into a hilarious Humpty-Dumptyism about what it means to “march with” someone. You see, it doesn’t mean that you were actually there. It means that, well, you participated in a march about a related topic on a different day, and maybe you thought about the guy while you were doing it.

Mitt, in other words, was “speaking figuratively, not literally.”

I am not making this up. Apparently, it’s all about what the meaning of “with” is. Can you believe that, after Bill Clinton’s debacle over the meaning of the word “is,” another political figure would try something like that?

Ah, but it gets even worse, if you can imagine that:

Romney: “My own eyes? You know, I speak in the sense of I saw my dad become president of American Motors. I wasn’t actually there when he became president of American Motors, but I saw him in the figurative sense of he marched with Martin Luther King. My brother also remembers him marching with Martin Luther King and so in that sense I saw him march with Martin Luther King.”


He added, “You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there – excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it’s a figure of speech.”

I weep for the state of English literature. And New English sports fandom.

December 20th, 2007 at 07:00pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Elections,Republicans,Romney

A Modest Proposal On How To Achieve Immigration Reform

It’s very simple, really. Latinos need to start telling pollsters that they love Republicans and intend to vote Republican, and in fact actually do so in states and districts that are not up for grabs (maybe not quite so much in blue states – best not to take chances)… In other words, make it appear that Latinos are now a core of reliably Republican voters.

Once that idea has been established, I guarantee that the GOP will swallow its inherent hatred of brown people, and move heaven and earth to fast-track the citizenship process to bring in all those new Republican voters. At which point Latinos can go back to voting against them and openly hating their guts. Hot damn, that would be a beautiful thing.

(Note: This strategy could potentially be used to stop the disenfranchisement of black voters as well.)

December 20th, 2007 at 11:22am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Immigration,Politics,Polls,Racism,Republicans

Rush Limbaugh Ponders A Mysterious Mystery

Who could have planted this terrible, awful story in the National Enquirer? And how did it slip past their rigorous fact-checking process?

This National Enquirer story, John Edwards’ lovechild, I’ve been having trouble with this. I’m not sure I buy this. But I think I understand why the story hit last night. From NBC: “In an Insider Advantage poll in Iowa, John Edwards leads among 977 likely voters, 30, 26, 24 over Clinton and Obama. He’s also the clear second choice winner, 42, 29, 28 over Clinton and Obama. It’s the first poll to show Edwards solely in the lead in Iowa since July.” Bammo! National Enquirer story hits last night: Edwards has love child. Now, less than three weeks until an important election, and we have another liberal dirty trick. We’ve had Obama “selling drugs.” We’ve had Obama going to madrasahs, and Muslim parents, or mother and grandparent. So now we got another liberal dirty trick: Edwards has begat a love child. Now, this obviously didn’t come from the Republicans. The Republicans have their own problems to worry about before messing around with a Democrat campaign. But I’ve been trying to think: who leaked, who planted, who dropped this story right before a neck-and-neck primary?

So let’s go through the list of possibilities. Could it be Obama? Well, we’re told he’s not that kind of guy, that he eschews the politics of old and these dirty tricks and opposition research, and he wants to run a new campaign, a higher level campaign, above all of this. He said he doesn’t run that kind of campaign. Bill Richardson? Would Richardson drop this kind of bomb? Don’t think so because he’s actually running for veep. He’s not running for president. Chris Dodd? Do you think Chris Dodd would do this? Chris Dodd wouldn’t hit double figures in the polls if two of the big three dropped out, and he knows it. Kucinich? This doesn’t strike me as something that Kucinich would do. How about Biden? Would Biden do this? Joe Biden? Maybe Biden’s campaign leaked it. Wouldn’t he like to move up in the cauci? He’s got more experience than the three of them, and this could be his last chance. The thing about Biden, though, he wouldn’t do this until somebody else did it first, because he copies. So I doubt that it’s Biden. If it’s not Obama, and if it isn’t Richardson, and it’s not Dodd, and it’s not Biden, and it’s not Kucinich, who could it be? Who would plant this kind of a story, this ugly story right before the election? It beats me. I cannot think of anyone.

That’s a stumper – I can’t think of anyone with a track record of planting bogus scandals and smears in the media, can you?

Also: The National Enquirer??? Did Rush fret about whether the Bill Bradley campaign planted those stories in The Weekly World News about how Clinton was getting advice from space aliens?

3 comments December 20th, 2007 at 07:29am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Edwards,Elections,Media,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




December 2007
« Nov   Jan »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *