Archive for January 2nd, 2008

Huckabee Doesn’t Know The Difference Between Leno And Letterman?

Whoopsie:

Mr. Huckabee on Wednesday professed his support for the striking television writers union just a few hours before he was expected to board a plane for a taping of the “Tonight Show” with Jay Leno where he will face a vocal picket line of striking writers.

Mr. Leno’s program is returning to the air for the first time since the strike began on Nov. 5. Speaking to reporters, Mr. Huckabee said he was unaware that he would be crossing a picket line and believed that the program had reached a special agreement with the union.

Um, no, Huck. That was Dave.

Although crossing picket lines might not be unusual for most Republican candidates, Mr. Huckabee has waged an unusual populist campaign on economic issues, stressing his empathy with the anxieties of working people. On Wednesday, he said he identified with the striking television workers as an author himself and believed they deserved a share of the proceeds from the sale of their work.

Mr. Huckabee’s lack of knowledge about the picket lines outside the Leno show are the latest in a string of missteps that have underscored the ad hoc nature of his campaign. Last week, he made a series of small misstatements about Pakistan that raised questions about his fluency with foreign affairs and raised eyebrows by suggesting that the situation in Pakistan could lead to special scrutiny of Pakistanis at the borders in the interest of national security.

To say nothing of his complete lack of awareness that a new Iran NIE even existed

The Huckabubble must be even thicker and opaquer than the Dubyabubble.

January 2nd, 2008 at 09:04pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Huckabee,Labor

Great Moments In Flip-Floppery

Mitt Romney actually managed to flip-flop in the middle of a speech:

Incidentally, during the speech he lauded Bush for getting us off oil, and then lamented that oil hit $100 a barrel today and that we buy 60% of our energy and that energy independence is a major challenge.  But his cadence made it all seem fine, so it was!  Or maybe straightshooter Joe Klein will call it a gaffe, as he was there.

Brilliant! He was for Dubya’s energy policy before he was against it.

January 2nd, 2008 at 08:03pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Energy,Politics,Republicans,Romney

Honesty Is Such A Lonely Word

Surprising turn of events in the Republican primary race:

Mike Huckabee went on Hannity & Colmes to try and beat down the alleged controversy he caused by showing a group of reporters an attack ad on Romney that he had made but then decided not to run because he’s so pure—though he played it for them anyway—so he could say he didn’t—

“If a man’s this dishonest to obtain a job—then he’ll be dishonest on the job,” Mike Huckabee from the ad that never ran.

Huckabee: Well, we didn’t run the ad, Sean. What we did–we pulled it. I knew that if we said we had made one and didn’t reveal that it existed there would have been the cynicism of the reporters that had said “Oh, you really didn’t have one”, but we did. And I don’t know how you obtained that copy because we didn’t give it to anybody. We had a box of CD’s of em, we gave then to no one. We showed it in that room, for those reporters and the only way they could have gotten it would be to tape it—I guess off a camera from the screen…

(…)

Colmes: I want to know if you stand by the words of that ad? Do you stand by the words in the ad?

Huckabee: I never retracted the words, but I pulled the ad because I felt like that it is the tone and the spirit of the ad that we need…. I made it very clear that when you say things about an opponent’s record that aren’t true or say things about your own record which aren’t true, I don’t know how else you call that…dishonest…

Back to you, Mitt. Huckabee just called you a liar and unfit for office to your face. The copy on H&C just fell from the sky….He actually has the nerve to say that if he didn’t show the attack ad then he would have been attacked for hiding it. I mean, how many Hail Mary’s and Our Father’s should he be required to say as penance for this nonsense?

And it’s a nasty ad for sure. Listen, you only get criticized for your actions—not something you produced but then didn’t run. If his conscience was bothering him so much then all he had to do was shelve it in silence. If any reporter got wind of it, just admit it existed and be done with it. The Preacher is probably trying to get as much publicity on the ad as possible because then he doesn’t have to shell out the Romney bucks to air it.

Wow, I was not aware that dishonesty was now a disqualifier for a Republican presidential candidate; hell, I thought it was a prerequisite.

You have to love how Huck wants to have it both ways, propagating a hit piece on Romney as a way of showing off how not-negative he is. This is just the kind of unapologetic, in-your-face up-is-downism that the GOP just loves.

Maybe Mitt’s problem isn’t that he’s dishonest, but rather that he’s just not as slick at it as Huckabee. (“I have no idea how every media outlet in the country obtained a copy of this ad that was so terrible that I didn’t want anyone to see it – I’ll get my security team on that right away, and I promise to fire whoever is responsible. And by “fire,” of course I mean “promote.”)

I apologize, I just realized that the tone of this post is awfully negative, so please just forget you ever read it. And be sure to tell your friends about all the mean things I said, so that they’ll know to avoid it.

UPDATE: About that ad being pulled? Well, um… not so much.

2 comments January 2nd, 2008 at 05:52pm Posted by Eli

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

Yet Still More Christmas Photoblogging

More photos from Dad’s:

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
Some nice shadows.

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
Probably the shadows’ source.

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
Um.

January 2nd, 2008 at 11:13am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Photoblogging

Wednesday Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging

Admit it, you’ve been dying to know who the hottest guys in the Bible are:

Studies have shown that women are up to 45 percent more likely to read the Bible than men. And no wonder! “With the exception of Delilah and Jezebel, the hot men in the Bible outnumber the hot women 10 to 1.,” says Bibliologist Judith Stanley, author of the renowned book Guide to Holy Hotties. “By reading between the lines, it’s become clear who was sexy and attractive and who was fat and ugly (and boy was Mary a dog)!” …Stanley shares her list of the most handsome hunks in the Good Book exclusively with WWN readers:

1. Jesus. “Jesus was the ultimate hunk,” says Stanley. “God knew no-one wants to worship an ugly savior. That’s why he made Jesus in the image of men He saw on the cover of romance novels. The heaving chest; long, flowing locks like Fabio’s; dark features and a square chin attracted hordes of formerly pagan women.”

2. Adam. When God created Adam, he had no idea how sexy the first man should be to make a female want to sleep with him. So God gave Adam such a huge dose of testosterone that when Eve finally came along she would have been very pleased, except she had no basis for comparison.

3. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. “Jesus was no fool,” says Stanley. “He knew people, especially women, weren’t going to commit their lives to hideous men with beer bellies and warts, so he picked only the most attractive men with the most sex appeal. Mark especially wowed the ladies with his six-pack abs, and was constantly walking around toga-less. Luke was a physician. Everyone knows chicks dig doctors. And let’s not forget Matthew was also called ‘Levi,’ because he was the first man with a great ass in jeans.”

4. Noah. Noah wasn’t the greatest to look at, but he had a big boat and gals really go nuts for a guy with a yacht. Also, he was constantly going on about how much he loved animals, showing that he wasn’t afraid to display his feminine side – a real turn-on for the ladies.

5. Moses. “Oh the things Moses could get away with!” says Stanley. “Do you honestly think he could get the Israelites to give up their nice, cozy homes to wander around in the desert for 40 years unless he had animal magnetism out the wazoo? Of course not.”

6. Satan. “For some reason, there are tons of women who like a guy who’s gone wrong,” says Stanley. “They’re the nurturing kind who feel they can ‘help’ him. Also, it didn’t hurt that he had red, glowing eyes that made biblical women melt under his steady, manly gaze.”

7. Angel Gabriel. …”What God didn’t realize was that Gabriel liked to get off to Sodom and Gomorrah for weekends to enjoy a couple days of debauchery. The loose women of S&G adored him. But the party was over when God got fed up with their shenanigans and smote the place.”

8. Job. “Because Job was a kind, sensitive man who was made to suffer many, many hardships, he got the sympathy vote from the women,” says Stanley. “Lots of times, he acted more upset than he was just to keep the ladies around. He was something of a drama queen.”

I love the bit about Job being a drama queen. Brilliant.

2 comments January 2nd, 2008 at 07:33am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Weekly World News


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

January 2008
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *