The worlds most crooked prosecutor.

So by now I'm sure all of you know the names Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson.

For those who dont, first get out from under your damn rock, second heres a quick recap:

Michael Brown was an unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by Officer Wilson. Wilson claims the killing was self defense.

Wilson was arrested, however the Grand Jury refused to return an indictment.

Now its worth nothing the rate of indictments is something like 99.9%, so failing to get one is extremely rare.

Unless of course you are dealing with the worlds most corrupt prosecutor.

Enter a name most of you likely dont know: Bob McCulloch, the Prosecutor in the Michael Brown case.

Key point here: As the Prosecutor he is SUPPOSED to want Officer Wilson put in jail for Brown's murder.

At least if he was doing his job. It turns out, he was more than happy not to do his job in this case.

Ok so first off a brief explanation of what the Grand Jury is and isnt.

A Grand Jury IS NOT supposed to decide guilt or innocence. The only thing a Grand Jury is supposed to do is decide if the prosecutors case sounds plausible (which does not mean that is was probable or what actually happened) . In fact the Defense doesnt even play a role at a Grand Jury, they dont even show up.

Which is the reason the indictment rate is so freaking high.

Basically a Grand Jury is like deciding to go to the doctors office because you think you might be sick. You see signs you think make it likely you are sick, and so you go see a doctor, without really considering the signs you arnt sick before going

Its only after the Indictment that the trial process most of us know from "Law and Order" or being called to jury duty begins. Thats when a trial jury is sworn in, both sides present their cases and guilt or innocence is determined.

To continue the previous comparison, the trial is would be akin to the doctor examining you to decide if you really are sick, or if their is another explanation for what you thought were your symptoms.

Oh one other thing, that may wind up being very important. The Consistutional protection against double jeopardy (that is being tried twice for the same crime) doesnt attach until your liberty is actually at risk, which its not in a Grand Jury because Grand Jury's arnt supposed to determine gulit or innocence.

So yea, this SHOULD have been a slam dunk indictment (which again IS NOT a conviction or sign of guilt). Dead guy was unarmed. Cop had a gun, shot the dead guy. DONE. Indictment reached lets go to trial.

But apparently McCulloch,just couldnt be fucked to do his job this time.

For starters he allowed Officer Wilson to testify to the Grand Jury for several hours. So basically the Defendant got to testify in part of the trial in which the defendant is supposed to play no role.

Actually McCulloch presented ALL the defenses evidence.  Despite the fact that is expressly not what your supposed to do in front of the Grand Jury.

Futhermore, McCulloch didnt cross examine any of the defenses witnesses.....he did cross examine his OWN witnesses however.

Cross examination by the way is the really "fun" part of "law and order", where the DA basically gets the defenses witnesses to change their stories or admit they were lying ect.

Basically the whole point of cross examination is for the other side to challenge the statements made by the witness, partly to ensure they arnt LYING.

But to this jackass apparently the people he wanted to jury to distrust were his OWN witnesses, since they were the only ones he challenged.

Which is even more amazing since as it turns out one of the Defense's witnesses was in fact lying.

Specifically, witness #40, who as it turns out was the only witness who perfectly agreed with Officer Wilson's version of events.

In fact as it turns out, Witness #40 is a self admitted racist (did I mention Brown is black and the cop who shot him (Wilson) is white?) who has a history of mental disorders and has previously lied about witnessing other crimes.

In fact “This lady clearly wasn’t present when this occurred, She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson’s actions, and right down the line with Wilson’s actions. Even though I’m sure she was nowhere near the place.”

By the way, the reason that sentence is italicized and in quotes......those arnt my words, those are the words of Bob McCulloch (AKA the prosecutor) a couple of days ago on the radio.

Alright but lets give him the benefit of the doubt, he found out Witness 40 was lying after the fact right?

Actually NO.

"There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath, Some lied to the FBI. Even though they’re not under oath, that’s another potential offense — a federal offense. I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture.”

Yea, thats Bob McCulloch saying he knew at the time she was lying but thought it was more important for her to testify anyways.....without being challenged on her lies.

Oh by the way, lying under oath is called perjury. Its kinda a major crime. In fact we impeached a President for doing it.

Apparently that didn't really bother this prosecutor.

In fact as he himself said in the same interview I've been quoting:

"It's a legitimate issue. But in the situation — again, because of the manner in which we did it — we're not going to file perjury charges against anyone."

I like that justification by the way "because of the manner in which we did it" I.E. we needed the perjury to throw the case, so we wont actually go after anyone for doing this.

By the way if you think facilitating the commission of a crime (as McCulloch did) sounds like something that should be illegal.... it is.

In this particular case its called "Suborning Perjury" and is both a state and federal crime

OOPS..........................

Oh, thats not the end of McCullough's problems either.

See a Grand Jury, like most jury's is made up of normal regular people.

Which is fine and all except most normal regular people are basically stupid when it comes to knowing the ins and outs of the law.

Hence Jury Instructions. Now what Jury instructions are the explanations of the law given to the jury, designed to simply the law and explain the standard that needs to be meet to violate the relevant law.

Except in this case, McCulloch refused to accuse Wilson of a specific crime (ala, murder 2, manslaughter, ect) and left the specific crime up to the jury, and gave them only a broad guideline of what might constitute an illegal killing........in 1985.

Alright, so in 1985 a case called Tennessee vs Gardner changed the standards where a police officer could use force, and greatly reduced the officers ability to use deadly force

Specifically in the pre Gardner days it was fine for a police officer to shoot a fleeing suspect, now a days not so much.

Which is kinda critical in this case. See pre Gardner, all Wilson would have to do to not commit a crime would be to have Brown resist arrest and run, and he could shoot him......even in the back (as people are claiming happened). Now Brown would have to be presenting a deadly threat to Wilson in order for Wilson to kill him and not commit a crime.

As you can see thats a VERY big difference. And the version the Grand Jury got was the earlier pre Gardner version (which is no longer the law)

And its not like McCulloch moved heaven and earth to correct that "accident" either.


Heres the transcript on the LAST day of the Grand Jury. The Jury had received the flawed instruction on day one

“Real quick, can I interrupt about something?” interjected Alizadeh. “Previously, in the very beginning of this process, I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest.

“So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.

“....And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme Court, I'm sorry United States Supreme Court cases...."

“So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law".…

"I don't want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.”

A grand juror asks, “So we’re to disregard this?”


Alizadehanswers: “It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”


When a grand juror asks more questions,

Whirley chimes in, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”

Now in that quote Alizadeh is Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kathi Alizadeh, basically McCulloch's assistant.

And its not like she cleared things up any. She didnt even tell the jury which part of the statue wasnt legal, just that the whole law is unreliable (which isnt true, it really is just the change I outlined above)

Oh and the "Whirley" who chimed in and ended the questioning of what exactly is wrong with the statue was the JUDGE.

Yea thats right, the judge stopped the Grand Jury from understanding the law.

So yea, it seem that, instead of doing his job Bob McCulloch decided instead to commit a crime, and botch the jury instructions to prevent a trial.

Or as he put it “My job is not to get an indictment, my job is to seek the truth, and seek justice and do what is right and what’s appropriate in there"


Except that actually IS his job, and per our system of justice the first step in determining truth and seeking justice for the victim IS to get an indictment if possible. Not to litigate the whole process in a forum not designed to to do that.

He had a similar horrible excuse for suborning perjury

“If I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on, even though their statements were not accurate."
Look I know their are some really fucking stupid people out there, but I think 98% of the country would need no explanation of why you dont put someone you know is lying on the stand.

So I highly doubt, no matter the outcome of the trial their would have been any conversation.

But now that we know what McCulloch did, there's still the very important question as to WHY.

And I think I have an answer: Bob McCulloch has no testicles.

Ok, so by all available evidence it appears McCulloch didnt want to indict Wilson and intentionally threw the case to ensure Wilson couldnt be found guilty because McCulloch doesnt believe he is.

Thing is, there is actually a legal and common way to do that, its called prosecutorial discretion.

Basically what that means is that at all times the prosecutor reserves the right not to prosecute.

Of course in a high profile case like this one, that kind of decision comes with a HUGE backlash, no matter if the prosecutor wants to indict or not.

It seems rather than face this backlash McNonuts....err McCulloch basically tried to fake a trial, to con the rank and file into *thinking* Wilson was found innocent, therefore it wasnt McCulloch's fault he wasnt convicted. This way the process appeared legitimate (it wasnt) giving McCulloch the way out he needed, and done at a time in the process he has basically total control of what happens, ensuring his chosen outcome.

And he might have actually gotten away with it too, except I think he got just a bit too carried away when he promised to release all the evidence he gave to the Grand Jury to the public.....presumably thinking to add more fake legitimacy to public perception.

But it was that released evidence that led people to discover Witness 40 lied, and the Jury instructions were possibly intentionally unclear.

Which resulted in the interview he did that I've been quoting from, where he tried to explain it all away as not a big deal, only to basically admit to a crime live on the radio.

But hey on the upside, maybe he can share a jail cell with Darren Wilson.

Cause yea, remember back when I was explaining a Grand Jury, and I mentioned Double Jeopardy doesnt attach until a trial jury is sworn in?

So yea, turns out the very guy McCulloch was trying to get off can still be rearrested and recharged at any time with no constitutional protection. And given what McCulloch is admitting to in terms of rigging the last one it seems thats only going to be a matter of time. (And my guess is no matter Wilsons actual guilt or innocence, this whole mess really wont have helped his case or reputation at all)

So yea, for failing to protect the guy he did all this to try to protect, it seems McCulloch may not only be the worlds most crooked prosecutor, but the worlds dumbest one as well.

And next on the republican's failed promised agenda......Keystone XL.

So maybe late last week you saw a headline about how the House of Representatives approved the building of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Well heres the thing: DOESNT MATTER.

Just like how my last blog pointed out that the GOP kinda overpromised on the whole Impeachment thing (and the whole Obamacare repeal thing). Well they kinda overpromised on the whole Keystone XL thing too. And now they are trying to cover their asses.

Although to be fair to the GOP this overpromise was a lot harder to see coming then the last one.

Ok so heres the deal, despite winning the election earlier this month, the new congress isnt actually sworn in until January. So this new "news making vote" is actually the 9th or so attempt to pass Keystone with this congress. It always passes the house and fails in the senate.

The thing is, the timing isnt an accident. Doing the vote right now is intentional. Because the problem is, this time around the bill just might pass. And for the Keystone XL supporters, that is actually looking like a bad thing

Ok so their are already 45 Republicans willing to vote yes, and the bill itself has 11 democratic cosponsors. So thats 56 yes votes. 3 more Democrat's have indicated they are willing to vote yes, which brings the total to 59....one vote short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

And its also widely believed that President Obama supports and would sign this bill, so overcoming the filibuster is the LAST hurdle before the money for this thing is approved and it gets built (and to be honest, most of the southern part has already been built, its the northern half alone thats drawing all the controversy and attention)

Now normally, this would be a great thing for the Keystone XL supporters, but there's a problem.

 

Yea it seems the American Government kinda forgot about Canada. And turns out Canada may have already killed the Keystone XL pipeline.

Ok so this gets a little complicated but let me see if i can explain.

In 2010 the "original" Keystone pipeline (KP) opened. It runs from the same spot as the Keystone XL will, but it runs east for a while inside Canada, entering the united states basically parallel with the Mississippi river, then heads south to town of Steele City Nebraska before heading off to Illinois.

The already built and operating part of the XL pipeline runs from Steele City down south to Texas.

So wheres the problem? Well the planned northern part of the XL pipeline is supposed to replace the existing KP pipeline, but unlike KP the XL pipeline is supposed to run due south into the US, then Southeast to Steele City. Now this has the advantage (from the oil companies perspective) of running through American oil fields in Baker Montana.

Now the problem that has generated so much controversy in this country is that between Baker and Steele City is one of the worlds largest reservoirs of Fresh Water, that irrigates 25% of the countries farm land and provides drinking water for the populations of 8 states. Basically the last place you can risk an oil spill.

But the Republicans and our president seem willing to take that risk. However long before the XL gets to Baker it has to pass through 300+ miles of Canada, including a couple of major Canadian fresh water reservoirs.

And unlike our government the Canadian Government sees that as a dealbreaker.

So much so that a couple of weeks ago they approved something called the Energy East Pipeline,

Now that pipeline runs from the same spot as both the KP and XL, but runs east all the way across Canada to New Brunswick just north of the American Border with Maine.  

And the most important part is Energy East is owned by the same company, Transcanada, that proposed Keystone XL.

And therein lies the problem. See Transcanda now has everything they want. A pipeline running from the oil sands in Canada to Texas (the KP and southern half of XL) and a new pipeline to handle the higher amount of oil they think they can drill (Energy East) .

So they no longer have any real reason to fight for Keystone XL.  And there is the problem for the Keystone Supporters.

See even if the Keystone XL bill passes the senate, the company behind it no longer wants to build it. and if the government builds it, it stops 300+ miles short of anything. So its kinda useless. In fact it would be the literal definition of a waste of money and resources.

So yea to avoid looking like an absolute embarrassment this bill needs to fail, but is all set to pass.

Which is the secret of the timing. With the end of the congressional session fast approaching, the president has the rare chance for something called a pocket veto.

See normally after congress passes a law the president has 10 days (12 calendar days since Sundays dont count)  to veto a bill or it becomes a law even without his signature.  But if congress should happen to be adjourned during those 10 days, like say for the holidays like Thanksgiving, if the President refuses to sign the bill it's considered vetoed.

Which is the real win win for everyone.

The President doesnt actually HAVE to veto the bill, so he cant be attacked for killing it.

But Keystone XL doesnt actually get built, which means the embarrassing secret of its uselessness stays a secret and its supporters dont get caught.

And the supporters get to trump the largely ignored construction of the southern half as the "triumph" of the bill they are going to pass on Tuesday because most people have no idea the jobs that the Keystone project are supposed to bring have already come and gone for that part of the country.

So the supporters can claim they followed through on their promise to bring jobs, and no one notices the fact the bill is officially a joke, and no one takes the hit for killing the bill.

So yea, thats how the next part of the Republican's promised agenda is going to fail......and why they probably want it to.

The Republican Impeachment trap.

So unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the next Congress will be fully republican controlled.

Which is ironic, because it looks like the first major problem facing the new Congress is going to be Republican voters.

A poll that came out yesterday survived voters on their opinion of impeaching Obama for any reason.

Nationwide, 69% said their was absolutely no reason to consider impeaching Obama.

BUT  among just republicans....50% said Obama needs to be impeached. And among the Tea Party faction of the GOP, 64% said impeach him.

And well thats real bad news for the new Republican Congress.

You see for years now Republicans have floated the idea of impeaching the president.

For example about a year ago the GOP held a close door meeting expressly for discussing that possibility. as one of the participants put it

“We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate. . . . Is there anything else we can do?”

Before that the guy Obama beat in 2008 said that as it related to Syria

"Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that.”

and so on and so one.

Impeaching Obama first picked up steam in 2009 after the stimulus and Obamacare were passed.
People preaching it at the time suffered under the false impression that impeaching Obama would automatically repeal any bills he'd signed....and thats not how it works.

But despite eventually getting that fact straightened out the ferver among republicans never went away.

Now of course up till now it never mattered. As John Boehner pointed out to justify his lawsuit of the president last year, Impeachment didnt matter, because without Republican control of the senate they couldnt actually remove Obama from office. And to be fair to the speaker he was far from the first to used that justification not to impeach.

But now we have a republican senate, so clearly the first thing they are going to do is impeach obama right?

No actually. Because they cant. And for a reason so simple I need only 4 letters to explain it

MATH

Pure basic simple math.

The Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority to remove the president from office.

No matter the outcome of the two pending senate races the GOP wont have it, they will have only 52-54 senators, leaving them 12-14 votes short of impeachment.

But see even having to explain that to their supporters who believe they gave the GOP everything they needed for impeachment, isnt the GOP's biggest problem.

The GOP's biggest problem is that, there was NEVER any chance of them being able to impeach and remove the President, and anyone who can do basic math has know that since the day after election day 2012.

Ok so in this election the GOP started with 45 seats. Of the seats contested in the election 21 were Democrats.  Which means that if the GOP had run the table and defeated EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT, which no one expected, they would have had 66 seats.

A 2/3rds majority is 67 seats. Meaning even under the best possible conditions they would have been a single vote short.

Like I said, pure and simple math.

Simple enough that Republicans knew this. They've known it for years

But that hasnt stopped them from telling their base that if they ONLY gave them the senate they could totally impeach Obama.

Well it kinda turns out thats exactly what the party voters wanted and the voter gave them exactly what they asked for.

So now the new Republican Congress is stuck in a trap of their own making. They cant actually deliver the goods they promised, and knew that when they promised them.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican Base is going to feel about that when the truth comes out (which will be seconds after the first Republican has to make an excuse for not impeaching Obama)

Oh and if that wasnt bad enough......the other major promise the Republicans made, to repeal Obamacare....well we all know that bill is going to get vetoed.

And how many votes does it take to overcome a veto in the senate? 67.

So yea, that was another set of goods they've known for years they would never be able to deliver on and lied about it.

Which means when it comes to their own party, the new senate hasnt even been sworn in yet and things are already looking pretty bumpy........

American Jihad comes to A-blow-s........

So some of you may have heard of Dr. Keith Ablow. If not all you need to know is he's Fox News' resident on air psychiatrist. I dont mean he's the shrink the FOX guys go to, I mean he's the idiot they trot out anytime they want a psychiatrist to explain how getting your head that far up your own ass is actually the sign of a healthy mind.

Which is kinda ironic, given that if anyone in this world is a candidate for major mental help, its Dr. Ablow.

Among his "expert opinons" he's presented on FOX, he's probably most well known for: claiming, psychologically, Newt Gingrich's 3 marriages made him more qualified to be president than anyone who had only had one; and the world cup was a planned distraction by the Obama Administration so no one would notice Obama's failure in Ukraine. He's also made statements that waiting in line at the airport builds the mental discipline needed for a strong economy; that the uni-bomber might actually be on to something; and the color pink is responsible for the destruction of masculinity. Oh and also, transgender people dont actually exist, they are a myth made up by liberal educators.

Anyways he has just written his most recent column for FOX news, and honestly its kinda hilarious......if you like laughing at retarded people who publish columns for FOX news.....which I do.

His subject is on how to win the war on terror and get america back on the right track all in one fell swoop.

He begins.....

"Among the many definitions of jihad are a "war or struggle against unbelievers" and "a crusade for a principle or belief." Given those definitions, I believe it's time for an American jihad.

An American jihad would reawaken in American citizens the certain knowledge that our Constitution is a sacred document that better defines and preserves the liberty and autonomy of human beings than the charter of any other nation on earth."

Because apparently the Constitution has super powers. Its like a cross to a vampire.....if we just love it hard enough, it will create a super-shield and everything will be ok

"The Constitution, along with the miracle of our nation's founding and the providential history of America fighting and winning war after war against oppressive regimes, proves our manifest destiny not only to preserve our borders and safety and national character at home, but to spread around the world our love of individual freedom and insist on its reflection in every government."

Well the good news for the Catholic Church. Since the standard of miracle is now "shooting at people until they decide they have better things to do then shoot back....and were never fully committed to returning fire anyways" you can basically easily canonize whoever the fuck you want now. Like seriously guys, if it takes you more then 4 days to find the 2 miracles required to make whoever you want into a saint, your doing it wrong by these standards.

I also kinda like the opposing messages here.
On the one hand, we oppose oppressive regimes that force their beliefs down peoples throats. So we are going to end them by forcing our beliefs down peoples throats.....

"An American jihad would embrace the correct belief that if every nation on earth were governed by freely elected leaders and by our Constitution, the world would be a far better place. And an American jihad would not only hope for this outcome, but work toward it."

Translation" An American Jihad believes that if only every nation on earth did what we told them to do we would find we liked them better......

"We would begin at home, as every great world movement does. We would not only allow, but teach, Americans — including American children — to internalize and project their justifiable feelings of pride in our democracy as superior to all other forms of government."

Oh god damn it, who wants to explain to the good doctor we arnt actually a Democracy?

But hey I'm glad he's proud of the government he doesnt have.......

"In grade schools we would teach the truth that the founding of our nation and its survival in the face of communism and fascism weren’t just good luck or good planning, but preordained by our commitment to the truth about the essential nature of man."

That truth being unstated....because you know even he has no idea what he's talking about.

"And we would embrace the certain knowledge that history will eventually spread our values all over the globe"

Because you know, again, we HATE oppressive regimes that do that, and need to take a stand against them.

"We would tie American aid to incremental changes not just in the attitudes, but in the fundamental structures, of countries. These changes would move those countries, slowly but inexorably, toward reflecting our Constitution in their own charters"

Because like any good oppressive regime, we are going to tell the poor, sick, needy ect to fuck off and die quickly unless their leaders (who likely arnt poor, sick or needy) capitulate to our demands.

"We would unabashedly fund pro-democracy movements around the world, partly with government funding and partly with donations from American citizens. Through these donations we would seek to double the budgets of the CIA and our Special Forces, seek to fund an international mercenary force for good and provide our veterans unparalleled health care."

Hmm, donations that fund the CIA and the Military? I believe those are called TAXES you fucking moron.

Although credit where its due....the term "donations" does at least sound more patriotic......

"We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations."

Ah so lets see, we are apparently going to add a requirement to the "Sacred" text of the "perfect" Constitution requiring only US citizen's with single country citizenship can be in the congress...

But hey I guess even sacred texts have a few typos. (no one tell the members of congress with dual citizenship......Ted Cruz looking at you)

Also I like the idea we are going to show our respect for liberty by taking a dump on other countries laws......

"We would accept the fact that an American jihad could mean boots on the ground in many places in the world where human rights are being denigrated and horrors are unfolding."

Because hey, nothing says respecting human rights in fear free ways then american martial law enforced by guys with guns.

But in fairness to Dr. Ablow, our strategy of interfering with guns because its possible horrors are unfolding did bring us a stable and threat free Iraq........

"Because wherever leaders and movements appear that seek to trample upon the human spirit, we have a God-given right to intervene — because we have been to the mountaintop of freedom, and we have seen the Promised Land spanning the globe."

Oh for fucks sake.....who wants to tell the good doctor that the Promised Land is literally a term for Israel?

Because his plan for American Jihad now seems to be
1) force american culture and government down everyones throats.
2) to prove the supremacy of american cluture and government, as soon as we get done, set up a totally different culture and government (israel) to run the damn world.

I'm just saying....you'd think that would run contrary to his point.....but I assumed he had a working mind.....my mistake.

"An American jihad would never condone terrorist acts of violence against our adversaries or the targeting of people simply because their beliefs are different from ours.

Wait a minute we WONT be targeting people who's beliefs are different then ours? cause like seriously up to that sentence thats been the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of your article.

I guess the Jihad's off....everybody go home......

 "But for those who malignantly demonstrate their intentions to subjugate others, there would be no quarter." 

Because only WE are allowed to do that????? Cause again thats kinda the idea your pushing here.

Good News is: Dont leave yet guys the Jihad is ON!

"An American jihad would turn back and topple the terrible self-loathing in our citizens set in motion by President Obama, beginning with his "apology tour” — a psychological plague. It would make American pride not only acceptable, but celebrated, again. And, remember, American pride is nothing more than being proud to support truths that are self-evident, irreducible, elemental and inevitable"

Actually, to be honest, I kinda agree with Doctor Ablow on this one. See the Obama "Apology Tour" never actually happened. (do you think if it had it wouldnt have been in EVERY campaign ad of 2010, 2012 and 2014?). In fact the Obama  "Apology Tour" is basically a plague the right wing collective psychologically infected themselves with and like most psychological problems is the sign of a deceased mind and someone who may need professional help.....

"An American jihad would make every tax dollar a tithing and the squandering of those dollars a sin."

Wait, before you said they would be "donations", now suddenly taxes are tithes?
Actually to be fair, it doesnt really matter since the definition of tithes is basically "a tax"

"An American jihad would make every hour spent working in an American company — or founding one — an offering."

To whom exactly? and what am I offering them? an hour of work? Well yea I already do that, and then they pay me for that hour.....thats how fucking employment works......

"An American jihad would make every teacher of American history not only a public servant, but a servant of the Truth."

You know I have a hunch that Dr. Ablow doesnt actually personally know any "servants of truth"....

"We the People of the United States are good and we are right. And we need the spirit of an American jihad to properly invite, intensify and focus our intentions to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution here at home, and to seek to spread its principles abroad."

Because again, as divine as the Constitution is, people just cant see how great it is for them unless its shoved down their throat.

But yea, there you have it the latest ranting of the unhinged mind FOX news uses as their on air expect physiologist......

Rick Scott's Number 1 Fan

So one of the stupidest threats ANY candidate can make in an election is to not show up to the debate.

Because you know, not showing up and giving the other guy hours of free uncontested airtime to get his message out will sure show him.....

Really why not just donate to the other guys campaign fund so he can run ads against you?

Yet for some odd reason, this is EXACTLY what some republican just did.

And not just any republican, it was an incumbent governor. Specifically Rick Scott, republican governor of Florida.

No really, for like 4 minutes Governor Rick Scott basically refused to debate his opponent, Former Republican Governor of Florida, turned Democratic Candidate for Governor Charlie Crist.

Why? well actually rather then tell you.....I really cant do it justice so I'll just show you.

    

The only thing missing from that clip is "LIVE FROM NEW YORK IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT!"

 A couple of things stick out pretty fast

First: This clip exemplifies EXACTLY what is wrong with the media.

So consider the position of the "hosts" in this clip. As far as they know, 1 of their 2 candidates has declined to show up to what is a major hour long (at least) preemption of their usual primetime line up.

And their solution? basically ignore the candidate that did show up and stick their thumbs up their collective asses.

Lets assume for a moment you actually give a flying fuck about someones opinion of an electric fan, well you know when would be the perfect time to discuss that? how about the half hour or so of post debate analysis that follows these things?

But apparently to these jack off's their own opinions are of such interest, not only do they think thats what people want to hear, the actually go so far as to quite the candidate who DID show up from giving his positions.

And hell, sticking his thumb up his ass was the least of the moderators problems.

After all there is actually nothing remotely unusual about a political debate starting with no candidates on the stage. Thats actually how most of them start, then the candidates get introduced and come out.

Now it appears in that clip that Crist was waiting backstage for his introduction, and as soon as he realized he wasnt going to get one, and that the moderator was going to use this standard procedure to create the false equivalency that neither candidate was willing to debate, he hauled ass and got out there.

What the moderator SHOULD have done was introduce both candidates, then explained why one of them didnt come out.

But see that would violate rule 1 of political reporting: "unbaised" mean ALL THINGS must be EQUALLY the fault of both parties. Bringing Crist out, then explaining why Scott wasnt coming, would have made it seem like Scott was the ONLY unreasonable one, and therefore would not have   "unbaised"

Same thing when the moderator tries to cover for Scott by ONLY mentioning the part of the contract that Scott wants him to mention, that being the ban on electric fans.

Which therefore makes Scott seem less unreasonable by giving him "justification" for his actions, and saying his actions were caused by crist's, thereby fulfilling rule one, its BOTH their faults Scott isnt there.

Which would be fine and good, except for one small problem, its NOT TRUE.

The Scott Campaign itself released the section of the contract they cited as "proof" the fan was banned. The problem is, it DOESNT ban fans. What it bans are "any electronics" used by the candidates. Presumably this is intended to mean cell phones, lap tops, ear pieces, anything the candidates could use to get information from.

But Scott Campaign is claiming that the fan falls under the definition of electronic, and therefore was banned, they are NOT actually claiming that the contract out right banned fans.

Which means their justification basically relies on word play, which makes it a very weak justification.

Especially considering that under the definition the scott campaign wants to use "any device used by the candidate that uses electricity" that would also ban the use of the Microphones on the desk the candidates would use to answer the question, not to mention the time clock in front of the moderator to show them how much time they have to finish answering the question.

But I dont see the Scott Campaign demanding the candidates scream their answers while counting to 60 seconds in their heads.....

Oh, except its worse. See not only did the moderator pass off the Scott Campaign interpretation of a rule as the wording of the rule itself, the contract actually DID deal directly with fans. It also contained a sentence explicitly allowing "electronic devices used to regulate temperature" or as they are known to the rest of us Fans.

So yea basically the moderator is outright LYING to people to make both candidates seem unreasonable. Like when he explains the situation he says "Gov crist asked for a small fan to be placed under the podium. The copy of the rules Gov Scotts campaign showed me said "no fans" yet the yet somehow their is a fan"

YES BECAUSE THE RULES SAY THATS OK. Which is probibly why Gov Crist asked for a fan in the first place.....because the rules said its ok, and he's wearing a suit in Florida and Florida is well known for being FUCKING HOT!

Same with the female moderator when she asks Crist a question about the rules. Shes acting like this is an open question.

But heres the thing, the moderators are actually supposed to read the debate rules BEFORE the debate.

So yea, all the moderators KNOW what they rules actually say. But in the interest of looking "unbiased" they pretend they dont and instead operation on the assumption the Scott Campaigns interpretation of the rules is THE rules, that way Crist looks unreasonable.

Second point. At one point one of the moderators claims you cant have a debate without both candidates......why the fuck not?

Unless its an episode of the West Wing, candidates dont actually talk to each other at all during debates.

Usually the moderator asks a general question about policy, both get an answer and retort, and then sometimes the moderator asks one of them a follow up question about a previous stand or point of clarification on the issue.

There is absolutely no reason you cant do the same thing with one candidate. You just double the amount of time he has to answer the question, meaning the process would still take exactly the same amount of time as scheduled.

I mean I suppose officially thats more an interview then a debate, but considering the other side basically forfeited, that actually seems fair to reward the candidate who showed up with basically and extended interview. An heres the thing, if the moderator has done their job, the interview should actually BE challenging because point of the debate questions is supposed to be to challenge the candidate your questioning, and those same questions would be the interview questions.

But then again, that assumes the moderators have done their jobs properly and these 3 ass clowns dont seem to have done so.

But heres the thing, after Scott actually showed up, things got even weirder

Here's Scott explaining why he didnt show up

So you see Scott didnt show up, because he didnt know of the guy who was ALREADY on the stage was going to show up.......

Either Rick Scott is the worlds WORST X-Man, whose mutant power only allows him to in the past, or this is a horrible excuse.

Actually no matter HOW you look at it, its a horrible excuse.

How god damn long does it take to figure out the guy CURRENTLY ON THE STAGE, is actually showing up for the debate. Apparently it takes Rick Scott up to 3 minutes to process the location of a single person.

I'm pretty sure even my old AOL Dial Up connection was faster than that.

But for a second here, lets humor Scott and assume Crist wasnt actually going to show up.

Why would that matter AT ALL to Scott? Even with incompetent moderators, if you walk out, look like your the only one willing to debate the issues, the audience is going to love it and the other guys going to look bad.

Basically if Rick Scott actually thought Crist wasnt coming, he should have been at the curtain, ready to open it in a seconds notice and make Crist look like an elitist little shit who cant even speak without a precious fan.

But whats Scott's claiming here is basically "hey look, I thought my opponent was about to do something amazingly stupid (not show up).....so i decided to do the exact same stupid thing, its not my fault he didnt go through with it "

But even that falls all kinds of short. See the contract is worked out between the two campaigns. So if Crist wasnt going to show up because he couldnt get what he wanted in the contract, and Scott decided not to show up in a sign of solidarity for Crist, it would still raise the question of "what the fuck is wrong with the Scott Campaign that they wont put something into the contract even their own candidate is in favor of?

Also, I mean lets assume for a second that despite the fact its one of the stupidest things he could do, Scott really wasnt going to show up if Crist wasnt, it raises a couple of interesting questions.

1) how badly organized is the Scott Campaign that they apparently forget to station a staffer:
a) in the backstage near the curtain able to look out on the stage
b) near a television that they could actually SEE if crist showed up
c) that they forgot to station the Governor closes enough to the curtain to instantly appear if Crist showed up.

2) Ok so if your not showing up in a show of solidarity with Crist, why did you send a staffer out to the moderators claiming you were protesting Crist breaking the rules?

More to the point if you sent a staffer out to the moderator explaining Crist had "was breaking the rules" and had gotten his way WHY THE FUCK WOULD EXPECT HIM NOT TO SHOW UP FOR NOT GETTING HIS WAY?"

And all of this ignores the much larger and more important fact that fans were expressly permitted in the contract.....that Rick Scott signed.

Yet apparently he didnt actually know what it said.

Which raises the question, how many other things.....like say LAWS, has Rick Scott signed that he doesnt know the contents of.

Does he just make a habit of assuming things say what he thinks they say and signing them?
Does he have any idea of what his own record as governor actually is?  Or is he just assuming the laws are what he thinks they are?

Oh and the final (at the moment) worst part of this.....apparently time hasnt really improved things for the Scott Campaign.

See the day after the campaign Scott's campaign released this statement to the media:

"So, let's get one thing clear: Rick Scott never refused to take the stage and debate. In fact, our campaign was not notified Charlie had even taken the stage because the last we heard, Crist was in an 'emergency meeting' with debate organizers pleading for his precious fan.

"But Charlie Crist can bring his fan, microwave, and toaster to debates -- none of that will cover up how sad his record as Governor was compared to the success of Governor Rick Scott."

Now not only does that "clarification" still contain all of the original problems (why do you care if Crist is showing up and the fan was expressly legal so why would crist be arguing over it/did you actually read the contract), it adds a new ones.

Mainly if Scott's campaign didnt give a shit about the fan, and intended to come out as scheduled, WHY DID YOU SENT A STAFFER UP TO THE MODERATORS WITH A COPY OF DEBATE RULES CLAIMING A FAN WASNT ALLOWED AND YOU WOULDNT PARTICIPATE?

Also, if Scott was going to come out as planned, what the fuck took so long? I mean your claiming Scott was standing at the curtain, waiting to debate, heard the debate start, heard the moderators say he wasnt coming,  saw/heard Crist come out......and just stood there for a few minutes thinking absolutely nothing was wrong.

So yea, the question has to be asked....how little attention does this guy pay to the world?

I mean I suppose the staffer COULD have been a rogue operative, and Scott didnt know the staffer was going the media with that excuse. But then we have the added question of "how poorly is Rick Scotts campaign being run that he cant control his staff AND that his staff is too stupid to go get him when they realized the debate was startin? and why if hes THAT BAD at running his own campaign would you ever want him to run a state?"


So yea. By his own "admission" Rick Scott is:
1) not paying attention to things that are happening in front him him
2) a horrible manager
3) not reading things he signs
4) willing to do something stupid, solely to look as stupid as someone else
5) Incapable of adjusting to changing or uncertain circumstances (like say the location of a debate opponent) until it is too late.

6) not even sure why he does the things he does.

So yea, thats 6 great reasons why you should NEVER vote for Rick Scott for anything, and Charlie Crist didnt even need to say a word.

On the upside, maybe now that someone was actually stupid enough to do it, candidates will stop threatening to walk out of debates because they will realize how fucking stupid a threat that really is....

The KaWAAAAHnsas senate race

So a few weeks back I did a blog where I apologized to Sarah Palin, because it turns out you CAN in fact quit to win.  Now in that blog I covered two stories, one of which involved the state of Kansas.

Ok so to recap for those who didnt read the earlier blog: The incumbent Republican Senator, Pat Roberts, isnt doing so well. Most polls taken at the time of my earlier blog only had him getting about 36% of the vote.

The thing was, that actually meant he win, and get to keep his seat because Kansas was having a 3 way senate race, with the Democrat and the Independent basically evenly splitting the remaining 64% of the vote (so 32% each for those not good at math).

Then the Democrat dropped out of the race, and as predicted most of his supporters went over to the Independents campaign. Which now means Pat Roberts is getting his ass kicked.

Which normally wouldnt be that big a deal, well except in Kansas.

But the thing is, at the start of this election cycle Republicans needed 6 seats to take control of the United States Senate, and (since its assumed they will hold the House as well) Congress as a whole.

And 6 seats is actually quite doable assuming polling holds out.

But that number assumed that Pat Roberts, running in arguably the most republican state in the country was in a safe race for his reelection, which no longer appears to be the case.

And polling suggests that 7th seat republicans would need to win to replace the seat they lose if Roberts loses, is well much much much less unlikely to materialize.

So yea, basically the senate race is Kansas, specifically the Democrat dropping out of that race, could have just cost the GOP the senate for the 3rd election cycle in a row.

So the fact that Roberts is losing is a BIG problem.

Now one caveat, Pat Roberts now only opponent Greg Orman is an Independent, NOT a Democrat. So if elected he COULD hypothetically caucus with the Republican Party and give them control of the senate.

Consider that, if Republicans pick up the 6 seats they are expected to and dont unexpectedly lose any others, the current balance in the Senate, not counting Orman would be 50 Republicans, and 49 Democrats.

Now because the Vice President votes in cases of a tie, and the Vice President is a Democrat the Democrats only need 50 seats to control the Senate, the Republicans need 51 (so the VP cant vote).

So a 51/49 split in this case is a tie, with control going to which ever party Orman chooses to join.

Now of course the problem for the Republicans is, although Orman agrees with them on some issues (immigration) he disagrees on others the Republicans tend to consider more important (Abortion).

Also Orman will basically owe his victory to the Democrats in Kansas, and when it comes down to who in the senate can give him better favors, its usually hard to beat the Presidents party in a situation like this.

So basically Republicans are assuming its much more likely Orman joins the Democrats, and gives them control of the senate.

Which is why the Republican Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, sued to keep the Democratic Challenger on the ballot, claiming he hadnt correctly withdrawn,  Even if not campaigning Kobach and other Kansas Republicans believed just having a name on the ballot might get enough people to vote for the Democrat (presumably believing he was still in the race) to give Roberts a chance.

And in all fairness to Kobach, political motives aside, legally he actually appeared to be correct, the laws of Kansas give specific reasons to drop out and the Democrat hadnt given one of those reasons.

Yet, yesterday, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas ruled unanimously AGAINST Kris Kobach,
They claimed basically that the law needed only a broad explanation to drop out, and that the Democrat had git under that broad interpretation, as had a few other other candidates Kobach himself had allowed to drop off the ballot during his tenure without challenge.

Now this was actually a very fast case, the suit only got to the Court about a week ago, and they already ruled. Which is an insanely short time for deliberations.

But it turns out the speed was not the courts decision, it was Kobach,

See in court Kobach claimed that in order to insure ballots had time to reach members of the United States military they had to be printed TODAY (9/19/2014). So in order to do his job and get the ballots out, he had to know before then WHO was actually on the ballot.

So given that he lost, and he needs to be printing ballots as we speak, this story is over right?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA o ye of little faith, of course its not over.      

As I explained a few months back, the official republican election strategy this time around is "Fuck the Troops".

You see Kobach is now Demanding the Democrats place a NEW candidate on the ballot, and gave them until September 26th to do so.

Which is a week LATER then the time Kobach said he would need to make sure all Kansans in the Military actually got their ballots on time to vote.

So yea, as I see it, Kobach is now left with only 3 explanations:
1) Kobach believed that less time to deliberate in court would increase his chances of winning, and therefore lied to the court, and attempted to abuse the powers of his office. Which, I would assume is illegal
2) The troops are going to get different ballots with different candidates on them then everyone else.....which basically means they dont get to vote in the same election as everyone else. But hey fuck fair elections.
3) Fuck the troops, who gives a shit if they get to vote on time or at all. I mean hell they should have stayed home if they expected their right to vote to be respected.

Actually, come to think of it, 2 and 3, are basically two different methods of the same idea......

Oh and actually, turns out lying in Court, or screwing over the troops isnt the only problem here.

--------------------------------------------------------UPDATE-----------------------------------------

It appears option 2 is our winner. Earlier tonight Kobach announced he is attaching disclaimers to the overseas ballots informer voter this ballot may not count if the democrats name a new candidate, and the person in question must vote again. 

So much for 1 person 1 vote......not to mention honest, free and fair elections.

UPDATE 2
It seems the text of the disclaimer includes a line "To ensure that your vote is counted your ballot must be received by November 4th 2014, UNLESS A LATER DEADLINE IS COMMUNICATED IN OUR SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE TO YOU" (Caps mine)

So yea, the election will be nov 4th, unless its not, which we arnt going to tell you until later.....

Other parts: "You may vote using the ballot accompanying this letter as soon as you receive it, or you may wait to vote until you've received further notification from us,"

Again, no rush folks who knows when the fuck this election will be.....

 "If a replacement ballot is sent to you, and you have already returned the ballot that accompanies this letter, only your replacement ballot will be counted."

Even if you dont send the replacement ballot back......because hey YOUR SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT SO THE REPUBLICAN WINS.....otherwise we dont count your vote (presumably for the independent) so the Republican wins.

-------------------------------------------------Resume Original Post---------------------------------------------


The other problem is that........Kris Kobach doesnt actually have the power to force the Democratic party to do a damn thing.

Consider; How many times have you heard of a 3rd party candidate dropping out, then never actually being replace? All the freaking time.

Also have you ever voted Libertarian or Green or any other 3rd party for president? Did you also vote for that same parties candidate for State or National House and Senate? Probably not, because those candidates didnt exist.

Or how about an unopposed election? Hell I dont think my hometown has had a competitive election for Mayor in my lifetime.

Cause parties are free to run who they want for what ever position they want.....or dont want.

No one can compel them to run anyone for anything.

So this is basically Kris Kobach crying like a baby, with a nice side of fuck you to the troops.

Now what Kris Kobach DOES have the power to do is strip a party of its "major party" status if they fail to meet state standards for such.

Of course theirs a problem here too, namely the requirements in Kansas are about the GOVERNORS race, and say nothing about the Senate at all. And since polls suggest the Republican Governor may actually lose, the chances are 100% the Democrats will clear the 5% of the vote threshold needed to remain a major party in Kansas.

So yea basically this is all just a bunch of WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH from Kobach, but it turns out even that is good news for Democrats. You see just like Senator Roberts and the Governor, Kobach himself is facing a tight race to keep his job. So the more whining he does about this, the more likely he is to annoy voters and lose his job.

At which point he will have plenty of time to sit at home and get the poopy out of his diaper.

I quit: an apology to the visionary Sarah Palin and the 2014 election.

Since 2008, Sarah Palin has been a household name, and the butt of an ungodly number of jokes.
Most of those jokes involve one of two things: shes a moron and she quit.

Now on the charge of her being stupid well:

BUT on making fun of her for quitting......well on that one we may owe Mrs. Palin an apology. In fact the last week suggests Mrs. Palin was merely a trendsetting ahead of her time.

See early last week Byron Mallott the Democratic Candidate for Governor of Alaska, basically the guy running for Palins old job, 1 uped her and quit before the election even happened.

Which means for the first time in the history of the State their wont be a Democrat on the ballot for Governor. 

And I bet your assuming the Democratic party of Alaska is FURIOUS right?

No actually they are freaking overjoyed.

You see, the Alaska Governors race was a 3 way race, and while the incumbent Republican was beating BOTH the democrat and the independent, polls suggested he would have a much harder time head to head with either one individually.

Oh and Mr. Mallott isnt out of the race, he was just announced as the candidate for Lt. Governor on the 3rd party ticket, basically ensuring his supporters wont vote Republican.

Which means Mr. Mallott may be on his way to successfully completing the very stunt that tragically ended the political life of the trailblazing Mrs, Palin, he may be about to win by quitting.

And a word of warning, this ISNT just another Alaska phenomenon. Its taking place ALL over the country.

It happened in Kansas this week too (sorta).

Democratic Senate candidate Chad Taylor announced HE too was quitting his 3 way senate race.
Now their is no "Lt. Senator" so clearly Taylor doesnt expect personal advancement from this.
But what he did expect was to totally fuck up the GOP's chances of taking the senate.

See most people believe the GOP will quite handily take the 6 seats they need to take the senate. In fact most polls only give the Democrats a 35-45% chance of retaining the senate (to be fair, this is similar to the 2012 numbers where Democrats actually gained seats)

The problem is that 55-65% chance of the GOP taking those 6 seats and the senate assumes the GOP wins all the seats they currently hold.

Kansas WAS one of their safest seats, despite having a very weak incumbent. The current senator was leading in the polls despite only drawing 36%, which is actually a winning margin in a close 3 way race.

But now, in a head to head race 36% is a landslide LOSS for the incumbent. You see the independent was a centrist, midway between the Democrat and the Republican, so its unlikely any of Taylors supporters would move to the Republican and not the Independent who is now the candidate most closely aliened with their views.

In fact the polls that have come out since Taylor quit have moved the Democratic chances of retaining the Senate up to 55-85% (no thats not a typo).

It seems that now needed 7th seat may be a "seat too far" for the republicans, especially with other should be safe seats (like McConnell's) more competitive then they should be.

EXCEPT it turns out the story has a twist......the person who oversees the election the Secretary of State of Kansas, Kris Kobach who is a Republican, is refusing to let the Democrat drop out claiming he legally can not drop out of the race.

Now in fairness, it does appear Kobach is legally correct. Kansas law only allows withdrawal from a race if the candidate would be unable to discharge the duties of the office. 

Now at the end of the day this may not matter much, even if his name is on the ballot, the law cant actually force Taylor to campaign or prevent him for campaigning for and endorsing the independent. But if his names on the ballot at all he will get some small number of votes....which could determine a close election.

But yet their is one more twist to go.  Taylor is claiming he actually talked to Kobach's office prior to announcing he was dropping out and got approval from the office to do it. Because of that, Taylor is indicating he may in fact sue.

If he does this could create a situation where the Republicans are actually in favor of the Democrats running, and the Democrats are in favor of not challenging the Republicans for the seat.

All in the name of quitting for that the entire party wins.

So yea like I said, I should stop making fun of Sarah Palin, it appears she was on to something when she quit........she was just too stupid to time it right or get an advantage out of it.     

A republican primary pre-mortem.

I know I know. your thinking the title is supposed to say POST mortem not PRE mortem, because you cant examine something untill its dead. to which I say, you clearly havnt been watching the unofficial republican primary for 2016.

I truly believe and have stated previously that many inside the Republican Establishment, namely RNC chairman Reince Prebus and House Republican Leadership (or at least the leadership team prior to Eric Cantors departure) actually think Hillary Clinton's quest to the presidency in 2016 is this close to a fait accompli.

One needs only look at Republican attacks in the last few months to see this. After all we've all been told the person 100% responsible for the fictional version of Benghazi that exists only in Republican's minds is Barack Obama.....I mean Hillary Clinton.......I mean Barack Obama......I mean Hillary Clinton.  Now ever since they started waffling on whos at fault, suddenly theyve gotten a lot less traction because no one takes them seriously. Yet they HAD to do it because they had to find SOMEWAY to attack President Elect in waiting, Hillary Clinton.

But I think the bigger indicator of the "Hillary effect" on the GOP is the fact that they basically started the 2016 Primary on the Republican side the hour after Mitt Romney lost in 2012. And the single factor they seem to use to pick candidates is who matches up well in polls with Hillary Clinton (I say matches up well because to the best of my knowledge I dont believe their has been a poll yet saying a republican can BEAT Hillary Clinton, of course to reasonable people a poll this far in advance doesnt mean shit and it totally worthless).

And because of that desire to get the "Hillary stopper" republicans have burned through a TON of now presidential ex-candidates.....because no one alive could ever withstand a two year primary.

Now in all fairness to Hillary Clinton, there is 1 republican ex-candidate who managed to implode without her help, former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell.

For those who havnt been paying attention, McDonnell was elected governor of Virginia in the 2009 governors race, one of the first two (new Jersey being the other) state wide races after Obama's election. His win (and Christie's in NJ) was seen as a major push back against the Obama Administration, and he was  even picked to give the GOP response to the State of the Union back in 2010.

And now its possible that as soon as tomorrow,  Bob McDonnell might be headed to jail, depending on how the jury (currently deliberating as this is written) finds him on his 13 counts of corruption, 11 of which basically have to do with him accepting bribes, and 2 of bank fraud.  His defense by the way, is that basically his wife was actually the one taking the bribes on his behalf, he never knew they were actually bribes so never did any special favors

So yea, my guess is even if he's found not guilty on all counts (which doesnt seem likely) his presidential aspirations are over, you cant blame your wife, call her corrupt, and throw her under the bus and have any real chance of surviving an election

-----------------------------------UPDATE: -------------------------------------

In the time it took me to write this the Jury has decided that Bob McDonnell is GUILTY of  11 of 13 corruption counts. 

Still no word if the ex-governor is going to jail, sentencing has been set for JANUARY of 2015, however at this point, no matter the sentence McDonnell is out of basically every presidential race for the rest of his life. So he is now 150% an ex-candidate.

----------------------------Original blog resumes below------------------------------

And theres a second possible candidate who also may be out of the race in a way that has NOTHING to do with Mrs. Clinton......Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

Rand Paul currently has two problems, the first is Jesse Benton, his former senate 2010 campaign manager, and assumed campaign manager for any presidential campaign. Until late last week Mr. Benton worked on the reelection campaign of Senator Mitch McConnell, until he was forced to resign after evidence surfaced that he had previously illegally bribed and paid off people for endorsements in the 2012 presidential election.......when he was working for Rand Paul's father Ron Paul.

Now thats clearly not a crippling scandal for the younger Paul, hence why I still call him a "possible candidate", but its definitely one of a number of issues that might dog Paul should he run, and the only one that ventures beyond the realm of whats legal.  

But like I said, Mr. Benton is only one of Rand Paul's problems. The other is the state of Kentucky itself.

See used to be policy in every state that you could only run for one state wide office at a time, until LBJ got the rules changed in Texas so he could run for Senate and President together. Many if not most states followed suit. However one of the states the didnt is Kentucky. And Rand Paul is up for reelection to the Senate in 2016.

Which means he has to pick one, he can either try to keep his current job or try for the super long shot of being president. And most people always saw his father as the "protest candidate" no one expected him to win and I believe the younger paul is being seen the same way.....so basically everyone admits he wont be president any time soon

Thing is if he runs for president and loses, thats it, he's out of national politics for at least 4 years.....at which point he would have to decide once again to run for president or for what is currently Mitch McConnells senate seat, losing that, its another 2 years till he could challenge for his own seat again.

However should Mr. Paul skip this election (which I actually believe he will do), he CAN run for president in 2020 with no conflict, he wouldnt be on the ballot for Senate that year. In fact he could run for president without this conflict popping up again until 2028.

So I assume for mechanical reasons, Mr. Paul is effectively out of the race, until 2020.

Which brings us to the first ex-candidate Hillary Clinton can actually take some credit for: Senator Marco Rubio.

See at first Rubio seemed like the best choice to combat Clinton. Like her he had appeal to minority voters (latinos in his case) and even had an immigration policy plan that could help hit hillary were the former Secretary of state is likely the weakest, domestic policy, but that early attention to Rubio also brought early attention to his plan......which it turns out wasnt a plan in its current form that the GOP base could stomach and Rubio was forced to lead the charge to block his own bill.

In otherwords he was totally for it, before he was against it. And despite that fact that given the way congress works that CAN actually sometimes be a consistent logical and coherent position (it wasnt in this case) we all know how well that kind of stand can work. Just ask Current President Romney and Former President Kerry.......

Now had he not been elevated so early its possible Rubio could have gotten his plan passed, actually gotten Latino votes for the GOP and had a major accomplishment under his belt to point to in his campaign, but because Hillary had to be stopped yesterday, he was elevated prematurely, and is now basically totally out of the 2016 presidential race.....or possibly any presidential race which given his relative youth (he'd be 45 in 2016) could have been any race in the next 20-30 years.

Next up was Chris Christie. Now I'm tempted to put an asterik on Christie, in that I have always believed Christie was DOA. He had a scandal right when he first took office that involved him screwing up, costing his state billions of dollars, and then blaming a subordinate for his mistake and firing him, Despite Christie getting caught on tape making the mistake he lied about and said he didnt. He then proceeded numerous times to try to "redirect" money from other parts of NJ to cover up his mistake....and was repeatedly overruled by the supreme court of NJ.

And none of that got national attention, however given the narrative there (no accountability, seeming incompetence, attempted coverups) I think that would have ended his campaign had he ever run.

And thats before Bridgegate and the allegations "misuse" of hurricane sandy relief funds, which I believe in the public eye have basically ended his future aspirations, reguardless of what if anything hes actually found guilty of/corrupt, in the trial by public he already lost. Here's the thing though, had he not be elevated to "front runner" status by the GOP need to counter Hillary, theres a good chance those two scandals would have gotten as little attention as the first one I mentioned. So assuming he was cleared by the investigations he could have easily claimed they were "water under the bridge" (all puns intended) and at least attempted a run (although I still think he'd have been sunk when the 3 stories would have simultaneously come to national attention)

Next up was Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin. Like Christie before him, he was next to be [briefly] elevated to "front runner" status. Now Walker had made a name for himself because he survived a recall election after he basically destroyed unions in Wisconsin (although last I checked the legal fight over if that bill is actually law is still on going but most people dont know that). Now destroying unions is like crack to the GOP base, they went totally nuts in love with the guy, who then basically dropped off the map keeping his head down (a good move for anyone actually looking to run for president this early on). Then Christie imploded, and the GOP came a calling.

And for about a week Scott Walker was king of the world.....until he was suddenly revealed to have been under investigation by the FBI for electioneering and campaign finance fraud, an investigation that has already put 3 of his aids in prison.

Now at the end of the day it doesnt look like there's a good likelyhood Walker will be joining them, so this is another scandal that might have been totally missed by the national media and one Walker might have been able to explain away after the fact. But as the then current "front runner" of the non existent "shit we need to stop Hillary now" primary,  well the story got national media attention and now no matter what the outcome EVERYONE is going to want proof the governor isnt corrupt (this being the second investigation into that, and the 3rd if you count the possible illegality of the union busting). Meanwhile and perhaps much more problematic for Walker, one of his 3 aids in prison right now is gay, and his boyfriend was also indicted and sentenced (although not to jail) for corruption in this scandal. Now most Americans arnt going to give a shit that the gov has two gay aids who are dating, but the problem for Walker is the Republican Base he needs to win the real primary arnt most american's. So now thanks to his elevation they have a whole new disqualifying fact that they never would have known about had the media picked up on this after the fact.

Next up, Republican Governor Rick Perry. Now Perry kinda ko'ed himself the last time around with this line:     

But still, mostly out of desperation, some republicans still saw him as a front runner to counter Hillary....cause hey a Texas Republican Governor whose kinda an idiot, what could POSSIBLY go wrong.

And then, as great a candidate as Perry was, well it turns out he has something in common with fellow ex candidates Walker, Christie and McDonnell......he got indicted for a crime, specifically abuse of power as he punished only democratic government employees for drunk driving and not republican ones (although in an ironic twist his indictment is totally because of actions by republicans)

Now look not gonna lie of the 4 governors currently being investigated for crimes, Perry has the smallest chance of actually going to jail, most likely he will be acquitted and may actually be innocent, and no one would ever have heard about this at all if it wasnt for all the national attention.....

And to be honest he might have even survived even with the attention, EXCEPT he felt the need to address the issue to the national media, and said this to ABC news: "I’ve been indicted by that same body now for I think two counts, one of bribery, which I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really understand the details here,"

Now that sounds fine, until you try to figure out how bribery fits into the scandal outline I listed above. Hint it doesnt. Because no one is actually accusing Rick Perry of bribery......but he seems to think they should be.

So yea, either Rick Perry's memory hasnt gotten any better in 4 years and may be getting worse, or hes so corrupt he forgot what corrupt things he hasnt been caught doing yet, or both. Either way, thats a fatal attachment to the preexisting narrative he's an idiot.

Which brings us to the "new" republican Front Runner, Mitt Romney. You remember Mitt Romney right? The guy who lost in 2012, the guys whose lose in 2012 kicked off this massive "we need a front runner NOW" crisis before he even gave his concession speech? Well he's apparently now the best person to solve the problem he created by losing.

or he's just the only one left.

I mean basically we havnt even hit the 2014 midterms yet and the republicans have already burned though an entire primaries worth of candidates trying to find some one ANYONE who can take the aura of inevitability off of Hillary Clinton.

By the time 2015 rolls around I'm actually not sure the GOP will have any remotely viable candidates left.   Consider that so far, in 10 months they have gone through 6.5 candidates (.5 being Rand Paul, cause as I said he COULD run and nothing massively disqualifying has happened to him yet, I just dont think he will), given that the primaries wont start for another 10-12 months, its likely more than a dozen possible GOP candidates will fall before the election even begins.

And its all for naught to. I dont expect Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. As much as republicans are loath to admit it shes actually a conservative fiscally, and is at least more conservative than most democrats on a number of social issues. On top of that her inability to give straight answers on simple questions like "greatest achievement as sec of state?" or "did you evolve on gay rights" dont bode well for her ability to take on those kinds of challenges that presumably the entire democratic field will throw at her. I mean dont forget we've been here before. Hillary was the President in waiting in 2008.....then a guy who sounded liberal (but wasnt) ran to her left, and tripped her up on simple questions like supporting the iraq war, and went on to be president. The blueprint for beating her is there and I have seen nothing to suggest hillary has done anything to address her deficiencies.

Which means when the GOP heads into the general election against whatever democrat actually beats Hillary Clinton, they will be doing so with a much weaker candidate than they ever needed to, because they have preemptively set pretty bad national narratives for their top tier candidates. Not only that, but I expect the GOP is going to get caught with their pants totally down, and will have spend every moment up to the 2016 Democratic Convention attacking Hillary and will have to do both opposition research and attempt a massive narrative switch to attack whoever wins the nomination, which makes it highly likely the attacks will be disjointed and likely to fail.

So while Hillary WONT be our next president whoever it is (I assumed Deval Patrick the gov of Massachusetts until he took himself out of the race last month by announcing he wasnt going to run, no idea anymore who it will be) is going to owe Mrs. Clinton one hell of a debt for clearing the field.

Granted they are also going to owe Rence Prebus one hell of a debt too, I mean its mostly been his belief in the inevitability of Clinton that's driving this whole thing, and he was already nice enough to remove the Republican primary debates from any network not named FOX, thereby ensuring no one will actually know who his candidate is.

Actually that removal is pretty much indicative of my point here. Prebus removed the GOP from the other networks because of rumors the other networks would be doing documentaries of Hillary Clinton.

They arnt, but by the time that had become known, Prebus' RNC had already passed the motion to preemptively officially bar republican participation in ANY debate (including general elections?) on a non fox network. All over something that never happened.

it seems if they know history of not, the GOP seems condemned to repeat the same mistake now. 

Getting outraged over sexy spiders.......

You know I'm always amazed at the shit that gets people fired up sometimes. Especially because it seems more and more frequently they miss the point.

Take for example, Marvel's newly released alternative cover for their new spider woman comic:

A lot of people are getting pissed because they say its way too oversexualizing of the character, and object to the fact it was drawn by a well known erotic artist.

Now on its face that seems all well and good. I mean quoting from the article in Elle about the picture

"All in all, the image seems to toe the line of pornographic; imagine Spider-Man in that position instead, and the concept would have never gotten this far." 

that seems fair right? After all Marvel would never ever put a male in that pose, that pose is purely sexual.

The Vox version of the article even outright points out the differences in how Spider Man and Spider Woman are drawn, stating
"To be clear, that is not how Spider-Man poses or is drawn when he climbs buildings:"
Then to drive the point home, they add a helpful picture of the two you can slide back and forth to see the difference. (you can take my word for it, or go to this link since i cant copy there image)

io9 gets even more specific stating "First of all, even the dumbest, horniest teenage boy on the planet knows there's no fabric on this earth that could possibly cling to Jessica Drew's individual buttocks like that. "

Point is though. Clearly Spider-Woman is forced into unnaturally sexy positions you would never ever ever ever ever find a man in.........

That picture by the way, is the cover of Amazing Spider-Man volume 2, number 30. Which was printed in June of 2001. Oddly I cant find any angry posts about the inherent sexiness of that pose and how its degrading to the character for that cover. Also to i09's point, I'm seeing a fair amount of ass cleavage, but I guess fabric can cling like that to man ass? 

Speaking of past covers no one seems to find objectionable:

.

And these are just the ones with Spider-Woman in them. Of course no one said anything at the time. I could find plenty of other much worse examples with other characters.

All of which leads me to one inescapable conclusion. The people who are outraged either dont know anything about comics or dont actually care about the sexiness. They care only that an erotic artist got a job drawing something that everyone still [incorrectly] believes are children's books. 

 Which is a shame, since they almost have a valid point. Comic book characters are overly sexualized. But lets be honest, some of that is inherent in the idea. These are idealized humans. I'm sure there are very few if any women who naturally look like Spider-Woman. Conversely I dont know very many men who look like this:

Just saying.

Now look I'm not going to lie, the playing up the overtly sexual/physical appearances isnt gender equal. Historically its weighted towards women. However an interesting thing has happened. Most of the images I've used so far are fairly recent (last 10-15 years), and theres a reason for that, thats the current marvel style. Now that style has a very detailed body with "depth" to it, so its a basically allows for much more realistic sexy image then this

That's Ms Marvel crica 1980, and that costume is [rightly] the usual go to default for people criticizing the sex appeal built in comic book characters (mostly women) at the time.

But this is her now, in her much less revealing, hailed as "not sexual" current costume:

 

I dont know about you, but I think I find this second lady much more attractive then the first.

Point is though, ever since Marvel adopted its current style, the sex appeal/sexy poses for Men and Women have gotten much closer. Yes it still learns towards women, but we are getting nearer to equality.....just not the equality people had in mind.

And thats a point everyone upset about Spider-Woman's new cover has missed. You can be against the sexiness of comic characters at this point, but if your only aiming it at women your missing half the point, cause men are strutting their stuff now too

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Incredibly unclothed Hercules....

Oh, hey ant man, what were you doing down there?

Furthermore of all the characters to pick on for being overly sexualized, they seem to have latched onto a awkward choice.

You see Spider-Woman isnt a Spider-Man clone. She has her own unique power set. Including Pheromone control, which she can use to make her opponent feel fear repulsion or attraction.

Thats right, she actually has the power to make her enemies (or friends) attracted to her....and how exactly would you depict that in a visual medium? by making her sexy looking. Which would kinda give marvel an excuse to make her look hot....shes using her powers

Oh and before you point out that's sexist to give that power to a woman, meet Starfox, the brother of Thanos (for those who've seen Guardians he didnt make it into the movie)

His superpower? he can stimulate your pleasure center with his mind (not touching the possible contexts for that with a 10 foot pole) and make you fall in love with him....or anyone else. Oh and did I mention his real name is Eros? And how did he get the name Starfox? Well according to the wasp, he came from the stars and he's foxy......

So yea. turns out Marvel's pretty equal opportunity on that too....well except that both Fox and Spider have been accused of using their powers on a lover......want to guess which one wound up in court fighting a rape change and which one got off scott free? I'll give you a clue, the fact that Marvel didnt make it clear enough Fox didnt rape the women (they stated it in the text, but as an aside after the trial that he hadnt done it, not at the trial himself) is one of the reasons he will likely never be seen again, readers incorrectly think he's a rapist so he's now bad PR for Marvel.

Whereas no one really mentions what Spider Woman keeps doing.....

Anyways point is, the overall argument the people who are outraged over the new cover are trying to make is for the moment still somewhat valid. Women are sexualized more than men in comics. But they likely could have picked a better [read earlier] time to do it, before things started to equalize, they should have picked a different hero then the one with a built in excuse as to why she might look unrealisitically attractive, and the definitely should have picked a different cover to fight over, and a better reason to fight, because as I showed, Spiderman, whom they all turned to to make their point, has been shown in exactly the same pose, which actually undercuts their argument of sexism. Which in turn hurts the valid part of their point.

Now thats the end of this rant, but before I leave you, I uncovered one more comic book cover while writing this that I want to include but didnt really fit well anywhere else:

Whatever Herc and Wolverine were doing right before this cover I DONT WANT TO KNOW!!!!!!!!