January 20, 2010
Evel Marcia probly couldn’t spell there names
August 14, 2009
WRAL out of Raleigh/Durham reports that John Edwards will admit he's the father of the Hunter child
What, you don’t remember this post from back in early May? “You heard it here: John Edwards will be forced to take DNA test, accept paternity.” I voted for this guy in the primary. What a disaster he would have wrought upon the Democrats.
Sources: Edwards to admit paternity of ex-mistress’ child
Raleigh, N.C. — Sources have told WRAL News that they expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress’ 18-month-old daughter.
Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, confessed last August to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who served as a videographer on Edwards’ 2008 campaign. He has denied fathering her daughter, saying his relationship with Hunter ended before the child was conceived.

The name of the girl’s father isn’t disclosed on her birth certificate.
Andrew Young, a long-time Edwards aide, initially claimed to be the father of Hunter’s child, but he is reportedly writing a book in which he will claim Edwards is the father.
A federal grand jury is investigating whether Edwards’ campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter to keep quiet about the affair.
Hunter spent nine hours last Thursday at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, where the grand jury was meeting. She brought her daughter, Frances, with her.
Young was at the federal courthouse in July when the grand jury was meeting.
Sources said Edwards’ public admission could come before the end of the criminal investigation.
Edwards’ attorney, Wade Smith, couldn’t be reached Thursday for comment.
July 2, 2009
How Republicans work scandals (Mark Sanford edition): You guys are crazy. You guys are hypocrites. It's all your fault.
FIRST: Once the scandal is beginning to break, slough off the controversy. ‘You guys have lost your marbles. You’re just fishing. You’re a whackjob, cuckoo.’
–”…By the way, this has nothing to do with Governor Sanford…just disappearing! HIS WIFE DIDN’T EVEN KNOW…FOR DAYS! She didn’t, ok, she didnt call for helicopters, or 911. Apparently, apparently their marriage is so dead that she didn’t even call for police. I suspect she killed him, yeah.”
–”Or he killed her…”
–”Yeah–I’d like to bring them both in for questioning, now that we know where he is!”
–”What’s next Governor Sanford–fishing at Christmas? We know how that works.”
–”We know how it works! You and your wife–double murderers!”
SECOND: When the guy turns out to be as bad as suspected, get angry: “Stay away! Fuck you! You’ve got no right, you hypocritical jerks.”
“You don’t get to judge.
The Library of Congress could hardly contain chapter and verse of the multitudes of ways the press and the other Democrats have gotten away with judging Republicans by wholly different standards than that applied to Democrats. But that double standard is
both obvious and as wide as the Grand Canyon. You show no honor, no equity, no fairness, and no scruples yourselves. You, to put it mildly, do not police your own.
We do. We’ll deal with Sanford. We have standards (you don’t), and we have a long history of punishing and purging our leaders who prove unworthy of trust. For your part, serial adulterer Bill Clinton remains a rock star as far as you are concerned, and that about sums up the standards to which Democrats hold themselves..
So, spare us your mock outrage, your tut-tutting, your finger-wagging, your eyebrows furrowed in anger. If you are well and truly outraged by Mark Sanford’s adultery, but could not trouble yourself to muster even a little mild disapproval against the cretin who wiped his feet with the honor of the office of President of the United States, then you are a hypocrite yourself of the lowest stripe. You are unworthy to judge.
So just shut up.”
THIRD: Turn it around: “You know what? Now that I’ve thought about it, it’s really all your fault…”
The ‘morality and responsibility’ people in American politics, there you go.
June 30, 2009
Publicly pathetic, selfish douchebag Governor Mark Sanford, exhibit #1 why it's a bad idea to be a Republican
Weren’t we already done with this guy? Wasn’t everybody saying how lucky he was that MJ kicked off when he did, eclipsing Sanford’s ugly public whipping? [see here and here]
You’d think he’d have been practically weeping while thanking his super-lucky stars for a reprieve from the unblinking spotlight. Instead, he’s apparently been jealous of the shifting attention. A fresh round of head-scratching and outrage began today as a number of his new statements hit the media, painting him as someone who is deeply flawed and needlessly forthcoming about his private life, to the point of surely hurting and embarrassing his family even more than they are already.
Why in the world would somebody do this? Simple: it’s because he’s an unhappy Republican. He’s finally coming clean about how hard it is to live within the impossible confines of perfect patriotism, patriarchy and Love for Jesus, and now he just can’t dam the catharsis. These lonely cries for attention make for some very sad, brutal stuff.
AP Newsbreak: SC gov ‘crossed lines’ with women
COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he “crossed lines” with a handful of women other than his mistress — but never had sex with them.
The governor says he “never crossed the ultimate line” with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed Sanford’s once-promising political career…
He says that during the other encounters he “let his guard down” with some physical contact but “didn’t cross the sex line.” He wouldn’t go into detail.
Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur.
Wow. You can bet that his wife doesn’t want to hear all the pointed details, so why the hell is he going on about it publicly? It’s pretty obvious, actually–petty selfishness. And he’s doing all this after the breaking Jackson story? Terrific.
Sanford Calls Mistress His ‘Soul Mate’

COLUMBIA, S.C. (CBS) ―South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford called his Argentine mistress his “soul mate” Tuesday, but said that he would try to fall back in love with his wife…In a lengthy and emotional interview with The Associated Press in his Statehouse office Tuesday, the governor described five meetings with Maria Belen Chapur over the past year, including two romantic, multi-night stays with her in New York before they met there again intending to break up.
What the hell? That’s fucked. But there’s even more:
The once-promising presidential prospect said he is committed to reconciling with his wife, but professed to The Associated Press his continued love for the Argentine woman at the center of the firestorm that gutted his political future.
In emotional interviews with the AP over two days, he said he would die “knowing that I had met my soul mate.”…
Sanford insisted his relationship with Maria Belen Chapur, whom he met at an open air dance spot in Uruguay eight years ago, was more than just sex.
“This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” Sanford said. “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”
What a self-centered little douchebag. Oh, you’re really getting the public to sympathize with you, Sanford, you poor unfortunate romantic. I’m sure no one will care about the damage you’ve done to your family, or how hurtful all today’s comments will be to your wife and kids, we’re really just worried about your broken heart and shattered ambitions.
I can’t imagine how the kids are going to have to deal with all these additional revelations, including the fact that Mom was a mistake: the unexciting ‘not soul-mate’, that should sit pretty well with them.
This is why it’s a bad idea to be a Republican. At some point, the idiotic confines of public perfection and the high-wire morality march become too much to bear any more, and everything’s gonna break, and then you’re gonna act like an even bigger douchebag than you already are.
And will the right-wing finally wake up to the impossible demands they make of their politicians for the convenience of using ‘values’ to bludgeon the left? Or how these demands destroy more potential leaders than they create? Hell no.
Instead, they’ll just try to beat us with it like they do everything else. This is an actual ‘Red State’ post written in the aftermath of the Sanford fiasco, I’m not making this up:
To majority media and other Democrats : we police our own, and you don’t get to judge
By all means report the facts. I’m sure you’ll be happy to cover every salacious detail. Have at it. Be sure to cover the pain and suffering of Governor Sanford’s family. While you are at it, cover the depth to which all South Carolina and nation-wide Republicans and conservatives rightly feel betrayed.
Beyond that, just shut up. Shut your lying, hypocritical, power-above-patriotism, hyper-partisan, two-faced, shamelessly double-standard bearing pie hole.
You don’t get to judge.
The Library of Congress could hardly contain chapter and verse of the multitudes of ways the press and the other Democrats have
gotten away with judging Republicans by wholly different standards than that applied to Democrats. But that double standard is both obvious and as wide as the Grand Canyon. You show no honor, no equity, no fairness, and no scruples yourselves. You, to put it mildly, do not police your own.
We do. We’ll deal with Sanford. We have standards (you don’t), and we have a long history of punishing and purging our leaders who prove unworthy of trust. For your part, serial adulterer Bill Clinton remains a rock star as far as you are concerned, and that about sums up the standards to which Democrats hold themselves..
So, spare us your mock outrage, your tut-tutting, your finger-wagging, your eyebrows furrowed in anger. If you are well and truly outraged by Mark Sanford’s adultery, but could not trouble yourself to muster even a little mild disapproval against the cretin who wiped his feet with the honor of the office of President of the United States, then you are a hypocrite yourself of the lowest stripe. You are unworthy to judge.
So just shut up.
June 25, 2009
June 24, 2009
June 23, 2009
Juan Cole, citing London's Chatham House, says the Iran election was definitely stolen
Chatham House Study Definitively Shows Massive Ballot Fraud in Iran’s Reported Results
An authoritative study from Chatham House (pdf) , the renowned UK think tank, finds that with regard to the official statistics on the recent
presidential election in Iran released by the Interior Ministry, something is rotten in Tehran. The authors compared the provincial returns in the 2005 and 2009 elections against the 2006 census and found:
· ‘In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100% was recorded.
· At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent Conservative majority.
· In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.
· In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas. That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces flies in the face of these trends.’
…Ahmadinejad got 13 million more votes this time than the combined total for all conservatives in 2005. The authors of this study concede that Ahmadinejad could have held on to all the 11.5 million hard line voters from 2005. But how likely is that, really? Some of those who voted hard line surely found Ahmadinejad’s style abrasive and his policies, such as provoking high inflation through pumping too much oil money into the economy as a reward to his constituents, annoying.
So over all, let’s say he captured Rafsanjani’s entire faction in the face of Rafsanjani’s own dislike of him.
That would have give him less than half of his new votes. So he would have had to convinced over half of the voters who sat 2005 out to vote for him; but those were the ones most disgusted with the hardliners. Or he would have needed to win over substantial amounts of the old Khatami reformist vote. Not likely.
And in 10 of 30 provinces, the hard liners did poorly enough in 2005 that Ahmadinejad would have had to gain the votes of all those who did not vote that year but did vote in 2009, of all the Rafsanjani pragmatic conservatives, and of nearly half the reformist vote.
Even in East Azerbaijan, here were the numbers in 2005
Ahmadinejad: 198,417
Hard Liners: 232,043
Non-voters: 684,745
Rafsanjani (pragmatic conservatives): 268,954
Reformists: 690,784
and the result in 2009:
Ahmadinejad: 1,131,111
…The numbers do not add up. You can’t have more voters than there are people. You can’t have a complete liberal and pragmatic-conservative swing behind hard liners who make their lives miserable.
The election was stolen. It is there in black and white. Those of us who know Iran, could see it plain as the nose on our faces, even if we could not quantify our reasons as elegantly as Chatham House.

tough. Please let me know if you have gotten my last two eamils (sic) so I know it is working in getting to your part of the world …
Loving father, caught in a candid moment with his son, awww.
because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]