The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 300

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jul-23-07 12:26 AM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 300

Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 12:40 AM by EarlG

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 300

July 23, 2007
Tricentennial Edition Special

Since I started posting the Top 10 on the message board, it seems that not a week has gone by without someone leaving a comment to the effect of, "I don't know how you can narrow it down to just ten each week." Well to be honest, it varies - sometimes there are ten blatantly obvious entries and I can leave out the small stuff, and sometimes it can actually be a struggle to get ten solid entries together if it's been a slow news week.

But since this is the 300th edition of the Top 10 Conservative Idiots (can you believe it?), I thought I'd go nuts and try to squeeze in every single Idiot I could find. And I found plenty. So this week only, please enjoy not ten, not twenty, but thirty Conservative Idiots. As usual, don't forget the key - and one last thing, since this is a special occasion I want to take the opportunity to thank the people who submit Idiots for consideration each week - you rock (and you make this job a lot easier). :thumbsup:

Okay, here we go...

George W. Bush

The key judgments of the new National Intelligence estimate were released last week. In a nutshell, Al Qaeda has apparently "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" and will "leverage the contacts and capabilities" it has gained since the U.S. invaded Iraq. That's Al Qaeda in Pakistan, by the way, since according to Baghdad reporter Michael Ware "al-Qaeda would be lucky to make up 3 percent of the insurgency" in Iraq.

But pay no attention to all that! Our Great Leader thinks that a resurgent Al Qaeda outside of Iraq is nothing to worry about, and announced last week that, "Al-Qaida would have been a heck of a lot stronger today had we not stayed on the offensive." Er, right. And maybe if you'd gone on the offensive against Osama Bin Laden instead of instead Saddam Hussein, it would all be over by now.

So to the few remaining Bush supporters out there: given the fact that George W. Bush seems to have failed to prevent Al Qaeda from regaining strength, which of the following do you think represents reality?

a) The president has spent five years pursuing wrong-headed policies which have directly damaged our national security, weakened our defense capability, and threatened our safety, or

b) The world works like the Dukes of Hazzard, where the U.S. plays bumbling but lovable Roscoe P. Coltrane who week after week manages to show up just as those terroristic Dukes are getting away.

I mean, do you really think that George W. Bush is doing the absolute best job he can, but those pesky terrorists are always just one step ahead of him? If you honestly don't believe Commander Guy bears any responsibility for making the world a more dangerous place, fair enough - but in that case you must believe that try as he might, he simply isn't quite as competent as the terrorists. Either way, don't we deserve a president who'll be more competent than the terrorists? Could we at least try to rise to that level, for fuck's sake?

Bill O'Reilly

Of course, Bill O'Reilly has got this whole terror thing figured out. Despite the fact that the Bush administration has spent the last six years making America considerably more vulnerable to terrorism, the Falafel Master thinks that Bush has still got that Al Qaeda mojo.

"The threat from al Qaeda is a strong Republican issue." he said last week (apparently not realizing that there are no strong Republican issues any more). "And... Bush knows it. ... The left understands that if al Qaeda does strike America it will be in deep trouble. Liberal stands against Guantanamo and anti-terror measures will come back to haunt the left."

See? All we need is one good terror attack on U.S. soil, and everything will be back to normal. One can dream, eh Bill?

Rush Limbaugh

El Rushbo has got a solution to the crisis in Iraq - just put on a happy face. From the transcript of his show on July 16:

Let me say something here that some will no doubt consider controversial. It's actually a question: "What is the great downside if we stay in Iraq and fight this enemy?" What's the downside?

(snip)

I want all of you who are feeling upset about this - and I want all of you who may be in that 68% number that Newsweek produced - to ask yourselves a question. How is it affecting your life? Why is it affecting your life to the point that you want to stop it? Is it you just don't want to hear about it anymore?

You don't want to hear about the carnage, you don't want to hear about the bombs, you don't want to see the pictures of flaming cars? Then don't turn on the news! But there's something much larger going on here than our selfish feelings about what makes us uncomfortable, as we go about our day, when this incident, this war - aside from you military families - is not affecting any of us personally, unless we let it, unless we get totally bogged down in all of this, let it affect our mood and this and that and everything.

Yes, pay no attention to the fact that the occupation of Iraq is greatly increasing Islamic radicalism and the threat of terrorism around the globe; don't worry about the dramatic weakening of America's defense capabilities; close your eyes to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians; never mind the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being shipped out of the country. Military families excepted, this war isn't affecting you personally - so just shut up, smile, and support our president, dammit.

Peter Pace

But maybe Rush is right - according to Gen. Peter Pace, things are picking up in Iraq! Never mind this BBC report which notes that, "Civilians continued to bear the brunt of the violence with 463 deaths - the highest number in any of the past five weeks," and "Fuel shortages remain a major problem for Iraqis, with long power cuts and fuel queues a common feature of civilian life, particularly in Baghdad," and "Mutilated bodies are still a familiar sight in Baghdad hospitals. Al-Yarmouk reported 46 bodies were brought in, all beheaded."

Remember, that's not important because it's not affecting you personally. And anyway, according to Pace, "what I'm hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here."

A sea change, eh? Ahoy matey! The tide is a-tuning! Pay no attention to the c-ARRR bombs and the ARRR-son and the sectarian mass-ARRR-cres. Fifteen men in a unmarked grave, yo-ho-ho and a bottle of flaming petrol.

In fact, things are going so well in Iraq that Peter Pace also announced last week that "the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup."

Whoopee! Just when you thought Our Great Leader's Manly Surge couldn't get any more priapismic, Surge 2.0 comes along!

"We're (doing) the kind of thinking that we need to do and be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," Pace said.

Oh really...

Eric Edelman

Apparently "the kind of thinking that we need to do and be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now" includes everything except any kind of plan to get the troops out of Iraq safely. Recently Sen. Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to the Pentagon asking whether plans had been drawn up to withdraw troops when that becomes necessary. In response Clinton received a tart letter from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman, who incidentally used to be an aide to Dick Cheney and who once had a room "festooned with Cheney photos." (That's right.)

Edelman snapped, "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia."

So, you don't have a plan then. Why didn't you just say that?

The Bush Adminstration

It's a shame the Bush administration doesn't have a plan to get out of Iraq, because last week Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki said that U.S. forces could leave, and I quote, "anytime they want." Ha ha! Nice one. It took less than 48 hours before someone had a word in his ear, and according to the Associated Press Maliki revised his comments to "Iraq's security force is on the road to taking over from US troops."

But the prime minister had better be careful about straying away from the party line in future - according to Newsweek, Our Great Leader has got plans for Iraq's leadership if they don't deliver the goods soon:

There are signs that the White House is also losing patience with Maliki & Co. The White House is seriously considering a plan to lock Maliki and the others in a room until they come up with compromises on vexing issues like sharing oil revenues, says a White House official who asked for anonymity speaking about a sensitive matter.

So you want to lock those pesky Iraqis in a room, eh George? I bet you do. After all, locking people in a room until they hand over their oil is what democracy is all about.

Why not pile them into a naked pyramid while you're at it?

Tony Snow

If George wants to lock Maliki in a room he'd better do it quick - the Iraqi parliament has decided to take the month of August off. (Presumably Our Great Leader won't be inviting them to clear brush down on the pig farm.) Now, locking them in a room aside, one can certainly argue that it's galling to watch Iraqi lawmakers take a month off from their duties when they're still miles away from creating a workable govenment - but not White House spokesman Tony Snow (who apparently wasn't briefed on the locked room plan). When questioned about the vacation at a press briefing last week, Snow flippantly remarked, "You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August. I'll pass on your recommendation."

So, I guess U.S. troops will be getting a vacation too then? After all, if 130 degrees is tough on Iraqi lawmakers, one can only imagine what it's like when you're wearing a helmet and body armor, stuffed into the back of a Humvee.

The Pentagon

And speaking of Humvees, it was revealed last week that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has finally requested funds to purchase more Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs), which are designed to protect troops from roadside IEDs. Bombs planted on Iraqi highways, which detonate underneath miltary vehicles, are the number one killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.

According to Think Progress:

Gates' request for the vehicles "comes about 2½ years after Marines in the field made an urgent plea for" MRAPs. Last month, Gates claimed that he had only recently learned about the benefits of MRAPs from reading a newspaper article, even though the technology was developed in the 1970s and the Pentagon had tested them in 2000.

Coy C. Privette

Out of the way, David Vitter! More hypocritical Republican sex fiends coming through!

Coy Privette, a retired Baptist pastor, conservative lawmaker and outspoken advocate for Christian groups, was charged Thursday with paying a prostitute for sex acts.

(snip)

Privette, a prominent Republican with a 30-year career, is one of the state's most vocal opponents against alcohol sales and legal gambling. He also serves on the State Baptist Convention of North Carolina and as president of the Christian Action League of North Carolina.

Suggestion: whomever wins the GOP presidential nomination should propose a Department of Prostitution to deal with this growing trend among prominent Republicans.

Bob Livingstone

Speaking of David Vitter, former Rep. Bob Livingston urged the disgraced Lousiana senator to "stay strong" last week - which is odd, since Livingstone didn't take his own advice back in 1998, quickly resigning from Congress when it was revealed that he'd conducted an extramarital affair. Livingstone was just about to become Speaker of the House, taking over from famed GOP adulterer Newt Gingrich. Funnily enough, Livingstone's empty House seat was filled by none other than Rep. David Vitter, the very same man who went on to become a U.S. senator and shag lots of prostitutes.

So by all means take Livingstone's advice and "stay strong," Sen. Vitter. Or follow his example and have the good sense to resign. Your choice.

Jay Garrity

I noted in Idiots 296 that one of Mitt Romney's closest aides was taking a break from the campaign after he was accused of, er, impersonating a police officer.

Jay Garrity, who serves as director of operations and is constantly at the side of the former Massachusetts governor, is accused of leaving a lengthy message with the answering service of a plumbing company on Mother's Day, identifying himself as "Trooper Garrity" of the Massachusetts State Police and complaining about erratic driving by a company driver.

Well it turns out that Garrity's antics are apparently widespread throughout the Romney campaign - the Boston Herald reported last week that Garrity "created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail to strong-arm reporters, avoid paying tolls and trick security guards into giving them immediate access to campaign venues."

The bogus badges were part of the bizarre security tactics allegedly employed by Jay Garrity, the director of operations for Romney who is under investigation for impersonating a law enforcement officer in two states. Garrity is on a leave of absence from the campaign while the probe is ongoing.

But why shouldn't Garrity impersonate a law enforcement officer? After all, his boss is impersonating a presidential candidate.

By the way, Mitt...

That makes you look like a dick.

John McCain

More bad news for John McCain last week - according to MSNBC, "As was expected after the McCain campaign's shakeup last week, McCain's three top press aides have all resigned."

His top press aides have quit? You know a campaign is heading for disaster when the people who are in charge of telling the media how awesome their candidate is get up and walk out. In fact, it seems that McCain is so aggravated by his rapidly dwindling hopes of becoming president that he's decided he's going to hold his breath until he turns blue. According to CNN:

I'm not going to talk about my campaign anymore," McCain said in a sharp tone. "I'm finished with talking about it. I've talked about it for two weeks. I will not discuss it or any aspect of it. Thank you."

So there you have it - John McCain is still running for president, he's just not going to talk about it.

Fred Thompson

Last week it was revealed that candidate-to-be Fred Thompson "has avoided revealing his fundraising figures by exploiting a legal loophole whereby he says he is simply 'testing the waters' for a campaign - even as his supporters build an infrastructure for his all-but-official run," according to ABC News. Thompson's GOP opponents claim that this is a violation of campaign finance laws.

With the help of a former FEC chairman on Thompson's payroll, the ex-Tennessee senator is evading, at least for now, the requirements of the campaign finance system that he helped reform. In the words of an attorney associated with another campaign, Thompson is "playing footsie" with the campaign rules.

Well that sounds like exactly what the country needs - a president who skirts the law in order to conduct his operations behind a cloud of secrecy. Mmm, you know, I think I'm just about ready for a president who does that.

Rudy Giuliani

Is Rudy Giulani's campaign on the wane? Could be! While he's still the ostensible frontrunner, recent polls show him slipping a bit. But there may be other indications that Rudy is going to limp to the finish line - according to a New York Daily News report last week:

Rudy Giuliani is a named partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, but that hasn't stopped some of the law firm's attorneys from backing his rivals for President.

Nearly one-third of the firm's attorneys who made a personal contribution to a presidential campaign during the past three months picked a candidate whose name is not on their paychecks, Federal Election Commission records reveal.

Four gave to Bill Richardson, three to Barack Obama and one to Christopher Dodd, all Democrats. One backed Giuliani GOP rival Mitt Romney.

You know what Rudy? Perhaps they're just sick of you going on and on and on and on about September The Bloody Eleventh.

(Incidentally, this gives me an excuse to link to my favorite video of all time.)

Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani

Still, it's going to be an uphill climb for all the GOP candidates come election time. TPM Cafe noted that an AP/Ipsos poll of Republicans released last week revealed that their current faves for the presidential nod stack up like this:

Mitt Romney: 11%
John McCain: 15%
Fred Thompson: 19%
Rudy Giuliani: 21%
None of the above: 25%

That's right - a plurality of Republican voters prefer none of their candidates for president. What a hoot.

The White House

According to a report in the Washington Post last week, the White House may have violated federal law by arranging for "top officials at the Office of National Drug Control Policy to help as many as 18 vulnerable Republican congressmen by making appearances and sometimes announcing new federal grants in the lawmakers' districts in the months leading up to the November 2006 elections."

But I'm willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don't think those Drug Control Policy officials showed up at those appearances to engage in partisan political activity, I think they were there to make sure the candidates weren't backstage snorting coke off each other's buttcheeks.

The Pentagon

If there's one good thing to come out of the Iraq debacle, it's the that U.S. now has a whole country where it can test out its new futuristic killing machines. Last week it was revealed that:

The airplane is the size of a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles.

The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada.

The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill.

Robot attack squadron, eh? I wonder who came up with that one...

Dick Cheney

Meanwhile, Cheney has apparently found time to start putting pressure on George W. Bush to launch an attack against Iran. According to the UK Guardian:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

(snip)

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

I can just imagine how that conversation is going to go...

Cheney: Let's invade Iran! Don't you see how great things are in Iraq? Just as we predicted, it's become a beacon of democracy for the Islamic world! They're throwing flowers at our feet! You're going to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever!

The Decider: Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhokay...........

The Bush Administration

Indeed, there's a lot of talk these days about attacking Iran. Cheney's hot for it, McCain's joked about it, and former Democrat Joe Lieberman recently announced that "Although no one desires a conflict with Iran, the fact is that the Iranian government by its actions has declared war on us." Yeah Joe, sure nobody desires a conflict with Iran. Just like Our Great Leader didn't desire a conflict with Iraq, right?

Funny thing though - nobody seems to be making much of a big deal out of the fact that "the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from ... Saudi Arabia," according to the Los Angeles Times.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

Yes, that's certainly awkward. Perhaps George W. Bush should go for a stroll and contemplate the situation.

FEMA

You'll no doubt be surprised to learn that just two years after Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush's FEMA still can't find its enormous bureaucratic ass with both hands. Long after the hurricane destroyed New Orleans along with large swathes of the Gulf Coast, FEMA leaped into action and delivered 200 million pounds of much-needed ice to the disaster area. Unfortunately that was way more ice than was needed.

So what did FEMA do with the 85 million pounds of ice they had left over, which their own regulations said needed to be disposed of after three months? Did they try to cut some of their losses by, for example, selling it on the open market? Did they simply dispose of it once it had passed its three-month "use by" date?

Don't be silly. FEMA shipped the ice to various storage facilities all over the U.S., and are only now going to throw it away after keeping it frozen it for two years at a cost to the taxpayer of $12.5 million dollars.

Duh.

Alberto Gonzales

Oh, Alberto. According to Think Progress:

In a closed-door meeting today, the House Intelligence Committee questioned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the "reasons behind Gonzales' controversial 2004 visit to the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, reportedly to pressure the ailing attorney general to endorse Bush's surveillance program." According to chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TV), "Gonzales did not express any regret."

Understandable. Gonzales is unable to tell the truth, dispense justice, and uphold the Constitution - why should he be capable of such a useless human emotion as regret?

George W. Bush

There was some good news for Alberto Gonzales last week though - George W. Bush has considerably reduced his workload. According to the Washington Post, "Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege."

How convenient! So Congress subpoenas the Bushies, the Bushies don't show up (which is a crime), but it's all a wash because the corrupt Justice Department isn't allowed to prosecute any member of the Bush administration who blows off their legal obligation to testify before Congress. Which basically means that the Bushies can break the law whenever they see fit and nobody can do anything to stop them. Which therefore means that we're living under a dictatorship. Ho hum.

Dick Cheney

And if you think that's dumb, wait till you see this. Dick Cheney recently decided that he had no obligation to submit to investigations of the executive branch because unbeknowst to everyone but himself, the vice president's office isn't actually a part of the executive branch. (See Idiots 296.) According to the Los Angeles Times:

For the last four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has made the controversial claim that his office is not fully part of the Bush administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies' handling of classified national security information, officials said Thursday.

Cheney has held that his office is not fully part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets.

But what's this? According to Raw Story:

Weeks after claiming that it was not a part of the executive branch, the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney appears to be readying an independent assertion of executive privilege.

That's right - despite claiming to not be a part of the executive branch, Dick Cheney is now attempting to avoid subpoenas by claiming a separate executive privilege from that of the president.

Here's how it works: the president has a legally-dubious claim to executive privilege which allows him to attempt to keep his conversations with key aides private. The power of executive privilege is legally dubious because it appears nowhere in the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, the Court ruled that "this privilege is not absolute but can be overcome if a judge concludes that there is a compelling governmental interest in getting access to the otherwise privileged conversations," according to LandmarkCases.org.

So what Dick Cheney is saying is simple. Despite not being the president, nor by his own admission being a member of the executive branch, and in a case where there is a compelling governmental interest in getting access to privileged conversations, you can go fuck yourself.

The Media

Hats off to Senate Democrats, who finally painted warmongering Republicans into a corner last week by forcing them to publicly filibuster the Reid-Levin amendment to the FY08 defense authorization bill. The amendment called for troops to start coming home from Iraq within 120 days, and once Republicans realized that they couldn't stop the amendment on an up-or-down vote (yeah, I said it), they were forced to filibuster for 30 straight hours in order to prevent the Senate from voting on it.

So, let's recap - Senate Democrats had the votes to pass an amendment which would effectively end the war, and Republicans obstructed it using a filibuster. Pretty straightforward, right? Sure - unless you're a member of the media.

"Senate Rejects Iraq Pullout" blared the headline on the front page of the Washington Times. "If the Democrats start blocking every initiative - even in the name of a cause that 70 percent of Americans support - it'll be hard to peel off the obstructionist label," noted the Washington Post's Lyndsey Layton. "Filibuster Fails to Force Iraq Vote" trumpeted the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Senators facing an all-nighter now as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to filibuster," charged veteran journalist Diane Sawyer.

HELLO???????? IS THERE ANYBODY THERE???????

Utah Republicans

State leaders in Utah were invited to a free screening of Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko" last week. Surprise - they didn't show up. Believe it or not, Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Obviously) didn't come because he was too busy raising money for his cancer-stricken brother who has no health insurance.

Said Wimmer, "Michael Moore's movies are full of lies and half-truths and I don't see how this will be any different. Until we have a firm grasp on the problem, I don't think anyone will be able to solve it." A firm grasp on the problem? Your brother can't afford to pay for his cancer treatments! "Charity never faileth," said Wimmer. "It's the way to handle most of these uninsured situations." Apparently Wimmer is a powerlifter who is "benching for bucks," raising money by soliciting donations for every pound he lifts.

It makes perfect sense - we shouldn't increase taxes slightly to provide all Americans with universal health care like every other industrialized nation in the western world - instead we should go out and grovel for assistance at charity powerlifting events. I'm sure this will come as a great comfort to, say, uninsured people with no immediate family or other means of support, or the homeless. Who's going to go out and do a "benching for bucks" event for them, douchebag?

Meanwhile, Rep. Bradley Daw (R-Naturally) dismissed the movie, saying, "I don't wish to support a filmmaker cut from the same cloth as Joseph Goebbels. The solution to our health care system is not socialism, which has never been successful in the long run." Well, okay, unless you count Medicare and Medicaid.

Incidentally, Daw has a much better solution to the problem of healthcare. On his website he complains that "since the 1950's, health care delivery has not been market-driven" and that the simple answer is to "make the consumer aware of what health care costs" by "going to a low-cost/high-deductible plan with a health savings account." The result? "This simple change would motivate consumers to ask the doctor how much a procedure will cost and possibly seek a less expensive alternative."

Good plan! Because if there's one thing wrong with the health care system in this country, it's that patients simply aren't making enough of an effort to shop around for less expensive treatment alternatives.

NBC

Turns out that NBC has a potential problem - re-running episodes of "Law & Order" featuring Fred Thompson over the summer may violate FEC rules "that would force the network to provide equal time to other candidates running for president," according to the Washington Post.

NBC chief lobbyist Robert Okun has reached out to the GOP presidential campaigns of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, among others, to inquire whether they would make a major issue out of Thompson being featured in reruns this summer.

Under the equal-time rule, if a network gives time to one political candidate, it is required to provide the same amount of airtime to his or her opponents. In other words, if Thompson appeared on a "Law & Order" episode for 10 minutes during prime time, NBC would have to give Thompson's rivals for the Republican nomination 10 minutes of prime time each.

Er, hello? Last I heard there were Democrats running for president as well. What are they, chopped liver?

Tom DeLay

It would be a shame if I had to put this giant list together without mentioning Mr. Tom DeLay, so thank goodness he decided to drop this bombshell last week:

Former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay told a gathering of College Republicans that a link exists between legal abortion and illegal immigration in America. The remarks were included in a video produced by writer Max Blumenthal and posted at The Huffington Post.

"I contend (abortion) affects you in immigration," DeLay told the Washington-area gathering. "If we had those 40 million children that were killed over the last 30 years, we wouldn't need the illegal immigrants to fill the jobs that they are doing today. Think about it."

Okay, I've thought about it, and you know what? It makes total sense. How stupid are we to be importing foreigners to do shitty jobs for a pittance, when we could have been creating our own vast American underclass all along? The man's a genius.

The Bush Administration

North Korea recently decided to shut down its Yongbyon plutonium production facility and allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to view the site. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley called the move "a good first step."

A good first step? As Josh Marshall notes at Talking Points Memo:

The Clinton administration had a deal with the North Koreans in which the US - actually a consortium of the US and its allies - gave fuel oil and a promise of diplomatic normalization for the North Koreans to shutter their plutonium-producing nuclear facility. The Bush team called this appeasement and set-up deliberately scuttling that deal, which indeed happened. The North Koreans proceeded to get back into plutonium production big time. And it's now assumed that they made a few actual weapons with the stuff. Realizing that they'd shot their mouth off with no idea what an alternative policy might be for the Korean Peninsula, they eventually started creeping their way back to the Clinton policy, to which point they have now arrived.

So, back to where we started, only now the North Koreans probably have several nuclear warheads instead of what was probably none in early 2001.

Yes, it's another smashing diplomatic success for the Bush administration...

Mark Olson

Follow-up: back in Idiots 269 I noted the story of State Rep. Mark Olson (R-MN) who was arrested in November 2006 for allegedy beating his wife. Last week the trial came to an end and the verdict was handed down - Olson was acquitted of committing bodily harm, but found guilty of causing his wife to fear bodily harm, a misdemeanor.

But the details of the trial are quite strange. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

In closing arguments Friday morning, defense attorney Jill Clark told the jury that Olson had endured several years of violent arguments with his wife, including her hitting him at least once, throwing his Bible in a rage and stabbing his favorite dresser hard enough to bend a filet knife.

(snip)

Heidi Olson, 50, testified that her husband pushed her down, not once as he said, but three times and threatened "to finish the job" before he left. Heidi Olson, who is larger than her husband, admitted hitting him once and said he assaulted her several times, including bruising her arms once by throwing two Bibles at her.

(snip)

Olson, 52, said Friday, "I have no intention of resigning my office ... even if they (fellow legislators) asked me."

Or what - he'll throw Bibles at them? Bizarre!

Militant Creationists

And finally, last week the Associated Press reported that "University of Colorado police are investigating threatening e-mails with anti-evolution messages sent to biology professors at the Boulder campus."

Police Commander Brad Wiesley says the e-mails claim be from a religious group but investigators don't know whether more than one person was behind them.

He said the e-mails were considered threatening and made reference to killing people who back evolutionary theory. He said they didn't contain any specific threat against any individuals.

"The people that are worried in biology are certainly concerned. I mean it's not every day they're threatened by somebody who doesn't agree with the work that they're doing and so there's heightened concern," said Wiesley.

Okay, I have a question for these militant creationists which should put the issue to rest once and for all.

If you don't believe that humans evolved from apes, how do you explain this?

See you next week!

-- EarlG