Sunday, May 28, 2006

Loyalty to Bush is this Administration’s Affirmative Action Policy


In a veiled attempt to undermine affirmative action for minorities, President Bush in 2003 assailed the University of Michigan’s law school admissions policy as unconstitutional, charging the law school with giving minorities preferential treatment in reaching diversity targets for its incoming class. This principle, however, doesn’t seem to apply to President Bush or his administration.

Blake Gottesman, a.k.a. “Peanut”, Special Assistant to the President and Personal Aide, is stepping down in August to attend Harvard Business School. It’s a great accomplishment considering the school only admits 10% to 15% of its applicants. But to even be considered for admission, the school states firmly at the top of its qualifications, a prospective student “must have completed a degree program at an accredited U.S. four-year undergraduate college/university.”

Peanut on the other hand, only attended college for one year, and never finished. He has, however, dated Jenna Bush, makes the President peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches, and dog-sits for Miss Beazley.

It is inconceivable President Bush did not lend a helping hand in getting Peanut and Julian Flannery accepted into HBS. Loyalty is this administration’s affirmative action policy and loyalty to Bush seems to be Harvard’s too.

– Sam Davis

Convicted GOP Operative to Run Campaign School


No, we're not joking.

The Union Leader reported today that convicted phone-jammer and former New Hampshire Republican Party Executive Director Charles McGee is inviting Republican political operatives to a campaign school that will teach them 'all the tools you need to win.'

For McGee, one of those tools was a criminal conspiracy to block the phone lines at Democratic get-out-the-vote call centers on Election Day in 2002. McGee, one of three people sentenced to jail time for their roles in the scheme, served seven months in prison last year after pleading guilty to conspiracy charges.

To help young Republican organizers decide whether to attend McGee's campaign school, the DNC today issued a list of expected lecture topics:

Charles McGee's Lecture Topics

* Voting Rights: Fundamental Protection, or Annoying Technicality?

* Phone Jamming 101: Telemarketers-They're Not Just a Nuisance Anymore

* The Art of the Cover-Up: When to Call and, More Importantly, When Not to Call

* White House Phone Records: Remember Your Discovery Rules!

* Jailhouse Politics: How to Organize Your Cellblock

The DNC also thought an expected reading list might be helpful.

A GOP Prison Reading List (to help pass the time when McGee's tactics land them in jail, too)

* Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky

* Fox Two: The Story of America's First Ace in Vietnam, by Randy 'Duke' Cunningham.

* Rediscovering Our American Values: The Real Story Of The Union, by Tom DeLay

* True Notebooks: A Writer's Year at Juvenile Hall, by Mark Salzman

* Russian Prison Tattoos: Codes of Authority, Domination, and Struggle, by Alix Lambert"

Friday, May 19, 2006

David Gregory and The Nixonian President



David brought up the Nixon parallel to Bush yesterday while talking about the Border issue. To Bush, disapproval means unsettled. Surprisingly, he then blamed the media:


GREGORY: Let me ask you about your leadership. In the most recent survey, your disapproval rating is now one point lower than Richard Nixon‘s before he resigned the presidency. You‘re laughing, but ...

Video-WMP Video-QT

BUSH: I'm not laughing, I just ...

GREGORY: ... why do you think that is?

BUSH: Because we're at war, and war unsettles people. We got-listen, we've got a great economy. We've added 5.2 million jobs in the last two-and-a-half years. But there's a-but people are unsettled. They don‘t look at the economy and say life is good. They know we're at war and I'm not surprised that people are unsettled because of war.

The enemy has got a powerful tool, and that is to get on your TV screen by killing innocent people, and my job is to continue to remind the people it's worth it. We're not going to retreat hastily. You know, we're not going to pull out of there before the job is done and we‘ve got a plan for victory.

GREGORY: But they're just not unsettled, sir. They disapprove of the job you‘re doing.

BUSH: That's unsettled.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Asking Rove One Question

If we only had more reporters like David Corn we might not be in the mess we're in today. The responsibility of a free press takes on even greater importance when we're told we're "at war" and that the "wartime president" has almost unlimited powers. Her is David Corn's question to Karl Rove at a news conference:

I knew what not to ask Karl Rove: Are you about to be indicted in the CIA leak case?

His answer would be predictable: My lawyer has asked me not to discuss the investigation while it is still ongoing.

But he had just finished a speech on economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute--the hotbed of prowar neoconservatism--and during the Q&A period none of the reporters were addressing the big elephant in the room: the recent chatter in Washington--fueled in part by Rove's recent return to the grand jury room (for his fifth appearance)--that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was getting closer to indicting George W. Bush's master strategist.

I've been trying not to be drawn into the rumor vortex. (A friend emailed to say that a lawyer involved in the leak case speculated that Rove would be indicted this coming Friday.) But a pending indictment--or non-indictment--has been the talk of the town. Still, there was Rove mouthing White House talking points on how swell the economy is, and a roomful of reporters (and lobbyists and policy wonks) were not addressing what was on the mind of many. After all, who yearns to hear Rove explain why the Bush administration is the model of fiscal responsibility?

So I raised my hand.

To his credit, Christopher DeMuth, the president of AEI, called on me. (Introducing Rove, DeMuth had hailed his "strength of character," his "disciplined serenity," and his refusal to complain about the "flagrant unfairness" of the attacks levied upon him.) But as DeMuth was surveying the crowd at the AEI's conference room, Rove jokingly asked him not to call on John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal and then, as DeMuth pointed at yours truly, Rove said, "Don't call on him either."

The microphone was handed to me. "Too late," I said to Rove, and I put a simple query to the man:

On a different subject, Scott McClellan told the White House press corps--many are here today--that he had spoken to you and you were not involved in the CIA leak. Can you explain why the American public...two and a half years later hasn't been given an explanation? Don't you think it deserves one, for it does seem that you were to some degree--though it may be disputed--involved in that leak?

Rove replied:

My attorney, Mr. [Robert] Luskin, made a statement on April 26. I refer you to that statement. I have nothing new to add to it.

Then, with a half-smile on his face, he added,

Nice try, though.

That was it. (You can watch the exchange here.) I hardly expected him to provide a responsive answer. But didn't somebody have to take a swing?

Of course, the statement Luskin released had nothing to do with this question. Luskin had declared that Rove "is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges."

I wasn't asking if Rove was a target or on the edge of being indicted. I was wondering if he had told the truth to McClellan and why the Bush White House has been unwilling to explain why it falsely denied Rove and Scooter Libby's participation in the leak. Lying to the public is generally not a crime. And Fitzgerald's probe--which is geared solely toward investigating possible crimes and determining if a criminal case can be made--is not designed to examine non-criminal falsehoods. It is not Fitzgerald's task to lay out for the American public the truth about the leak and to reveal what happened within the White House. That is--or ought to be--Bush's responsibility. But neither he nor Rove--nor anyone else connected to the administration--seems interested in meeting that obligation.

After Rove's non-response to my question, no other reporter asked about the leak case. They focused on economics, immigration, and the president's low numbers. (Rove noted that the main problem is that the public likes Bush the man but it just doesn't fancy his war in Iraq. How inconvenient.) But after the event was done, there was much dissecting of Rove's state of mind. Did he seem nervous? Anxious? Was this speech--a policy speech--a sign that he was still handling policy in the White House even though the policy brief was officially ripped from him in the recent White House staff shuffle? (The speech introduced no new policy notions; it was almost entirely a defense of Bush's tax cuts, his trade policies, and his stewardship of the federal budget.) That is, no one cared that much what Rove really had to say--other than, perhaps, what he said during the Q&A about politics. (The GOPers will do fine in November, polls are just polls, the Dems have nothing to run on, etc.) They were mostly there to watch and read between the rhetoric.

Rove was on display--which was the point, given Fitzgerald's never-ending probe and the changes at the White House. Perhaps it was indeed merely a "nice try" to address the real issue at hand. But if any indictment does come--and I'm not saying that it will--Rove's you-can't-touch-me dodge-with-a-grin will sure make good footage for the news shows.

(SLIGHT) UPDATE. I see that my pals at the HuffingtonPost are promoting my encounter with Rove on the front-page with this headline: "Reporter Grills Rove On Why He Lied About Involvement In CIA Leak Case." Grill? I aksed one question--and politely. There wasn't even a follow-up. No need for barbecue sauce. That was hardly a grilling.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

We needed a poll to tell us this? - Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush - May 12, 2006: "(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate."

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Dallas Business Journal article: Don't criticize Bush

Alphonso Jackson, the Republican Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told a story recently during a talk he gave in Dallas. Here's what he said, according to the Dallas Business Journal:

Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

You're probably not too surprised to hear that. Frankly, neither am I. And that's the problem.

The Republican culture of corruption has so infected our government that we aren't even surprised to hear a cabinet secretary talk about the "logic" of potentially illegally awarding federal contracts based on political affiliation. That's right -- if this story is true, it is probably illegal. Our taxpayer dollars are required by law to be spent based on merit.

Public pressure for Jackson to resign is already building, and Democrats in Congress are calling for an investigation. You can be a part of the groundswell of support for clean government by demanding Jackson's resignation.

We're shooting for 100,000 Americans sending a clear message to Secretary Jackson that he is not fit to serve. We will deliver your message to him when you sign this petition demanding his resignation:

Jackson summed up what's left of the Republican philosophy of government when he said, "That's the way I believe." The journalist Josh Marshall put it well when he wrote yesterday:

"Just as interesting was Jackson's follow-on statement in which shows his understanding of how government contracting works: political supporters get contracts so they can pump a percentage of the profits back into the political party. Standard machine politics, at best. Organized bribery, at worst. And whatever you want to call it, the guiding principle of all contracting and government spending in the second Bush administration."

That's exactly right. And Jackson isn't the only example of this entrenched Republican corruption. Bush's Republican procurement chief -- the man in charge of spending huge sums of taxpayer dollars -- was arrested and charged with conspiracy in the evolving scandals associated with Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

This kind of mentality must be rooted out. But you don't have to wait until November to send your message that you want change. Sign this petition now and demand the resignation of Secretary Jackson:

Just like many Americans, the media has come to expect this kind of corruption from the Republicans. But it's up to those of us who want change to build public pressure and ensure that our friends and neighbors know that corruption is a day-to-day reality in Republican Washington.

Sign this petition and send your message to Secretary Jackson -- and then pass this message along to your friends:

Enough is enough -- and we're not going to stop until we achieve real change.

Thank you,

Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

Read the Dallas Business Journal article

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Feingold Slams ‘Pundits and Consultants’ Afraid to Stand Up on Terrorism Issues


Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), in a speech yesterday to the National Press Club:

The consultants and the pundits and others will tell you…that it is dangerous to let there be any real light between our position and the White House’s position, or else you’ll get called soft on terrorism. You already hear people saying that the Michael Hayden nomination will be a great opportunity for the White House to show the Democrats are soft on terrorism. And you bet the pundits in this town will somehow suggest that this, too, just like my censure resolution, will cause the President’s numbers to shoot up. You remember that happening, right? It didn’t happen at all, but that’s what they’re gonna say, but it’s not right.

Watch it:

Feingold is right. He announced his plans to introduce a censure resolution on March 12. President Bush’s Gallup rating at the time was 37 percent. Today it’s 31 percent.

Read the full transcript below:

The greatest passion is for us to stand up on the critical post-9/11 issues, from Iraq, to the USA PATRIOT Act, to the President violating the law by authorizing illegal domestic wiretapping. The President likes to say, in response to this sort of concern, that some of us have a pre-9/11 perspective. Many Democrats and others around this country want us to point out that the White House actually has a pre-1776 perspective and that we ought to have the guts to point that out.

Now, you don’t hear this stand-up language here in this town. The consultants and the pundits and others will tell you these positions are “losers” — I’ve heard that literal language for this — and that it is dangerous to let there be any real light between our position and the White House’s position, or else you’ll get called soft on terrorism. You already hear people saying that the Michael Hayden nomination will be a great opportunity for the White House to show the Democrats are soft on terrorism. And you bet the pundits in this town will somehow suggest that this, too, just like my censure resolution, will cause the President’s numbers to shoot up. You remember that happening, right? It didn’t happen at all, but that’s what they’re gonna say, but it’s not right.

I take a different view, with a major qualification. My view is that we should appeal to basic American values in the post-9/11 era by saying we will stand up to this administration’s mistakes in strategy in the fight against terrorism, and that we will stand up this administration’s unnecessary assault on the rule of law in the guise of the fight against terrorism.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

All homeless dogs deserve to be lucky dogs

All homeless dogs deserve to be lucky dogs...

...including the mangy, starving, shy, and crippled ones. That is Straydog, Inc.'s philosophy.

Straydog is a no-kill shelter located near Dallas ( They started out as a husband-wife team whose rescued dog population grew enough in size to begin to annoy neighbors. They then moved out into the country to be able to continue rescuing more dogs. Their rescued dog population currently stands at over 100. Tragically, the wife died suddenly of a brain aneurysm two years ago, and the husband and his Straydog crew have put their hearts and souls into Straydog as a living memorial to her, and as a tribute to all homeless dogs. The crew even work on their days off to bring more light and joy to the Straydog residents. Straydog is often featured by columnist Jaquelinne Floyd of the Dallas Morning News and by Larry Powell. Unfortunately, they still do not receive enough donations to avoid falling into money emergencies on a regular basis. They take their most adoptable dogs to PetsMart in Plano every Saturday and maybe average only 1 adoption a month if they are lucky. Please visit to help. They need cash, foster families, and most of all - good adopters. Straydog has often been crushed in disappointment when adoptive families return their dogs. Straydog has had their share of triumphs and disappointments. Please help them to triumph in the war to reduce the number of homeless dogs!

-Mandy, a malamute-collie mix, had been adopted and returned multiple times. She desperately needed to find a home where she could be an indoor pet in the air conditioning. Mandy eventually found her forever home with a family in Boston who fell in love with her after reading about her on and went to great lengths to adopt her from afar and work with her to settle her into a new home.

-Sydney, a hound mix, had been in a home for nearly two years when she was returned for snapping at a little girl in fear when her collar got tangled. Sydney can't understand why she no longer has her family and is yet again looking for a forever home.

-Sydney's sisters Kat and Mona were recently adopted into their forever homes. Mona had previously been returned once before because of her extreme shyness and because she ate a prized blanket.

-Albert, an elderly Aussie gentleman, was finally adopted by a wonderful lady who saw the potential in a polite older dog.

-Jack and Jill, blind Aussie pups, were abandoned by the roadside because of their birth defect from improper breeding. They are still looking for their forever homes

-Freckles, blind and pregnant, was found walking frantically in circles. She had no eyes and vets cannot rule out that she was intentionally blinded. She is very fearful and has yet to find her forever home

-Julie and Noble, both diabetic, need insulin injections every few hours. They have yet to find their forever homes because of their disease.

-Nikki, rescued when she was incredible thin, wracked with heartworms and with scars all over her body, must have been used as a bait dog in dog fighting rings. She is extremely fearful but has shown absolutely no aggressive tendencies. She is still looking for the right forever home.

-Buster and Dixie were extremely shy and rehabilitated by Straydog, then adopted into what was thought to be a loving foster home. Their "guardians" then moved, abandoning the dogs in the back yard, and a kindly neighbor informed Straydog so the emaciated dogs could be rescued. Buster and Dixie are now back at Straydog, and though they are restored to full health, have now completely lost their trust in humans and it is quite possible they will never find their forever homes.

These are only a few of the dogs Straydog cares for, each with their own stories. The Straydog caregivers spend so much quality time with each dog that their individual personalities are intimately known. Straydog makes every effort to assure that adoptive homes will be permanent. Straydog will not adopt out dogs that have not yet been SPAYED or NEUTERED because lack of education about SPAY and NEUTER are the reasons there are so many homeless dogs on the streets in the first place. Straydog will not adopt out dogs who will be kept outside because they believe all dogs deserve to be indoor dogs to be close to their humans. Straydog WILL adopt out dogs to compassionate people who will treat their dogs as part of their family, providing veterinary care and a stable social structure, to truly make their dog a LUCKY DOG. Straydog ALWAYS accepts returns (but really, please don't!) because they want to know that their dogs will receive the best possible care at Straydog.

Take every opportunity to EDUCATE people about the work involved in owning a dog, and the rewards that come from it, many times over! Encourage your friends to SPAY and NEUTER their pets. Discourage buying puppies from breeders and pet stores. There are already too many wonderful dogs waiting for good homes, and mutts are truly one-of-a-kind. If you must have a particular breed of dog, search for a breed-specific rescue organization. It's a myth that getting a puppy means the puppy will bond more strongly with you. RESCUED DOGS bond most strongly with their guardians, almost as if to say 'thank you'. SPEAK UP when you witness animal abuse or neglect.

On behalf of, (903-479-3497,, all animal shelters/rescues and their inhabitants, Spay and Neuter programs, and all the scared, hungry, sick, and lonely animals out there who have not been lucky enough to find their way to a happy home or shelter such as Straydog, Inc.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Laura Bush flip flops in less than 30 seconds


Yesterday in an interview with CNN’s John King, First Lady Laura Bush said “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with singing [the national anthem] in Spanish.” King then reminded the First Lady that her husband said the national anthem should only be sung in English. She quickly reversed her position, telling King “I think it should be sung in English, of course.” Just 25 seconds had elapsed since her first answer. Watch it:


KING: One of the debates in the country right now is about immigration reform, illegal immigration. One of the controversies is this new Spanish language version of the national anthem. Your husband the president says he thinks it should only be in English. But if you go to the state department website you can find it, I think, in four languages. Secretary Rice says she’s heard rap versions.

MRS. BUSH: Well, we’ve all heard different versions like at the Super Bowl every year. I don’t think there is anything wrong with singing it in Spanish. The point is it’s the United States national anthem and what people want is it to be sung in a way that respects the United States and our culture. At the same time, we are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of many, many languages, because immigrants come and bring their languages.

KING: Is that an issue you disagree with your husband? He says it should be sung in English.

MRS. BUSH: I think it should be sung in English, of course.

World War I critics get pardons

Could this happen again? Laws designed to enhance security after the 2001 attacks encroach on our security. If we cave in to fear and hysteria, liberty will suffer under the guise of security. People are already talking about setting up tent cities to house undocumented workers, who they demand be rounded up.

HELENA, Montana (AP) -- It was a black mark on dozens of family histories that lingered for nearly nine decades -- until a journalism professor and a group of law students examined what happened to citizens who spoke out against the government during World War I.

On Wednesday, nearly 80 people convicted of sedition amid the war's anti-German hysteria received the first posthumous pardons in Montana history, including one who was imprisoned merely for calling the conflict a "rich man's war" and mocking food regulations during a time of rationing.

Governor Brian Schweitzer said the state was "about 80 years too late" in pardoning the mostly working-class people of German descent who were convicted of breaking what was then one of the harshest sedition laws in the nation.

"This should have been done a long time ago," Schweitzer said.

Continue reading....

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Step into my office and bring your Social Security card

The Decider says the economy is hot, but I'm running into more and more people whose jobs are either being eliminated or they're being outsourced. In my own company, new owners are starting to cut jobs. I suppose they're trying to help save as much money as they can in order to pay for their new acquisition. Anyway, I'm starting to look at he employment sites and employment forums to try to get an idea of what's going on out there. I've been lucky enough to be in my current job for over 15 years, but I'm still too young to retire, unless I can find a way to live on $205 a month. It seems like things haven't changed all that much. The HR people (personnel, as we used to call them) still ask the same formula-like questions. Here is some advice from somebody on Craigslist that makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that if you keep the HR person talking, you have a better chance of getting the job, if only to distract them from asking dumb questions.

Try this on your next interview 05/02 14:43:29

Go into your next interview on a mission to get your interviewer to tell you what challenges the company faces (or your potential department faces) and only then try to weave in your history as it relates to solving their problems. This is the right way to talk about your history.

I teach candidates the way to tell if you "win" or "lose" an interview is by figuring out who does most of the talking (assuming they are answering your questions about the business and not just talking about the weather). There is a funny about social interactions. The more time you spend listening and asking questions to someone, the smarter they will think you are. The more you talk and they listen, the more bored your listener gets. They mentally start thinking about their grocery list. Keep them talking and you win.

Your interviewer will obviously have questions you have to answer, but even these questions give you an opportunity to follow up with another question. Make the discussion about the business and not about you and you win because your interview will really stand out. It's really that simple.

Pefect answer to a consultant's question

Q: Where do you see yourself in five years?

Celebrating the 5th anniversary of you asking me this question.

National Anthem Sung In Spanish At First Bush Inaugural


Jon Secada Singing at the White House

On Friday, President Bush blasted the idea of singing the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish. But Bush’s highly-scripted 2001 inaugural ceremony actually featured a rendition of the national anthem sung in Spanish by Jon Secada. From Cox News Service, 1/18/01:

The opening ceremony reflected that sentiment. A racially diverse string of famous and once famous performers entertained Bush, soon-to-be First Lady Laura Bush, Vice President-elect Richard B. Cheney and his wife, Lynne, who watched on stage from a special viewing area.

Pop star Jon Secada sang the national anthem in English and Spanish.

Apparently, Secada singing the anthem in Spanish was a regular feature of the Bush campaign. From the 8/3/00 Miami Herald:

The nominee, his wife Laura, erstwhile rival John McCain and his wife Cindy joined Bush on a platform where children sang the national anthem - in “Spanglish,” Secada explained.

This morning, ThinkProgress revealed that, according to Kevin Phillip’s book American Dynasty, Bush himself sang the national anthem in Spanish. Looks like Bush’s conviction that “the national anthem ought to be sung in English” was something he acquired very recently.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Immigrant support day

Today is set aside for immigrants to boycott work, school and shopping to show how much they matter to their communities. But it may not happen. At the last minute, Congress is offering each immigrant, if they'll skip the boycott, their choice of $100 or a tank of gas.

Vouchers should be ready as soon as FEMA answers the phone. (HaBlog)

Experts believe presidential advisor Karl Rove will be indicted this week, because he described his latest testimony before the grand jury as "Hell." But actually, Rove only said that because they wouldn't let him eat any Twinkies while on the stand. (Jake Novak)

The Gallup Poll asked Americans by region if they preferred to see the name Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton on the presidential ballot. The results were not surprising. In the North and Midwest it was Hillary Clinton, in the West it was Hillary Rodham Clinton, and in the South it was When Pigs Fly.  (comedian Argus Hamilton)

New British military officer Prince Harry has no qualms about seeing combat in Iraq. A person of wealth and means actually serving his country in war. Or, as we say in the U.S., "huh?" (Alan Ray)