The MOST important news item... EVER!!!

The Senate votes to condemn a newspaper ad they don't like. Because seriously... f**k the troops actually in Iraq, Petraeus had his feelings hurt, and that's WAY more important.

I feel like I'm in an episode of "Life Goes On", and all the politicians and bloggers have turned into Corky.

Dipsh*ts on parade.

It must be AWESOME to be so smart. Sometimes I just WISH I were as smart as Insta-douchebag Glennnn Reynolds:

HOWARD KURTZ WRITES:

This frustration with journalism extends to a slew of other controversies. Is Sen. David Vitter being truthful in denying involvement with a New Orleans prostitute who was paid by Hustler magazine? Is Sen. Larry Craig dissembling when he denies soliciting sex in a men's room? Did Alberto Gonzales give faulty testimony and make misstatements about various Justice Department controversies or is he a liar?

Hmm. What recent political scandal is he missing? Hsoot, it's on the tip of my tongue . . . .

Of course, it seems sh*t likes to breed more sh*t... so Newsbusters felt the need to chime in.

Let me break this down using small words so these imbeciles can understand: Vitter = public official. Craig = public official. Gonzales = public official. Hsu = NOT a public official.

Notice which one of those things is different? I'll give you a hint... it begins with "H" and ends with "I can't believe you're all such f**king morons". The Hsu scandal might have actually been important, if Clinton had NOT given back the money... and Hsu had NOT been indicted and the Dems NOT roundly criticized him. The reason no one gives a sh*t, except you sh*t-for-brains, is that it's a NON-story... and the only reason you bring it up is because you're pissed-off about YOUR party being so corrupt. Or more to the point, you're pissed that your party keeps getting CAUGHT being corrupt.

The Hsu has dropped. Let it GO.

(Biden == Crazy) while (Dude who calls gun 'baby' == Sane)

Mickey Kaus is about as insightful as a sea otter... and not those cute, holding hands ones either. I'm talking about one of those mean, rabies-filled sea otters.

In his piece about the YouTube Democratic debate, he seems to take issue with Biden speaking his mind:

I agree that the Biden response to the gun-toting You-Tuber was revealing--it showed Biden lacks even moderately calibrated snap judgment--and it was revealing in a way that a) wouldn't have happened with a non-YouTube debate, in which the questioner most likely wouldn't have gotten past security, let alone the screeners, and b) reflected Biden's alleged fatal flaw (or one of his several alleged fatal flaws), namely his cringe-making, unhinged spontaneous reactions.

His "a" part shows exactly why these kinds of debates are so needed, but his "b" part suggests that Kaus want his politicians to dodge and lie in response to questions asked of them. It's possible that he's gotten so used to our Executive branch never giving direct answers, that it scares him when someone actually does. Sadly, Glenn Reynolds, who usually has a decent head about such things, falls in the same camp:

The big news isn't the diminution in Biden's already microscopic chances of becoming President, but the collateral damage to other candidates and the Democrats' brand. It's hard to win swing states if gun owners hate you.

I wonder if anyone of them actually watched the video? The guy isn't holding a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or even a handgun. He's got a (automatic? semiautomatic?) AR-15 built for military use... and he's calling it his "baby". It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, this guy just has a few screws loose - and yes, I realize he was probably just being a tad facetious. Most of the other candidates would've hemmed-and-hawed around the subject, but Biden told you straight out. And it sucks that people like this idiot Kaus think he should be penalized for being honest and forthright.

The other completely stupid thing that Kaus brings up:

Am I crazy or did Barack Obama just get suckered into saying that as President within a year he'd personally meet with Fidel Castro?

I'll answer both questions with a "yes". The arguments against meeting with "enemy" foreign leaders is insane to me. Just because you meet with them doesn't mean you'll be giving out hand-jobs under their desk... it's just meeting!

Imagine if you had a hostage situation at a bank or on an airplane. Is Kaus suggesting that you shouldn't talk to the hostage-takers? Is he saying the police should just ignore them and hope they go away? Of course, that would be bats**t looney to suggest such a thing. But just because you send in a negotiator, doesn't mean you have to give in to their demands. You talk to them, and see if there's a mutually beneficial road to a peaceful solution. As Obama brought out last night, Reagan met with the Soviet leaders, and no one freaked out about that. So what's the problem with meeting with Iran or Syria? The only difference I can see is the religious one. and that's just sad.