Dave Wiegel.

There has long been this controversy, of sorts, surrounding the “JournOList” emailing list, I guess since either it began or since it was discovered to exist.  It took on a conspiratorial overtone — the Liberal Media, or at least the part that now throws out several blog posts at a good little clip — was hasing out the “Line” to follow for the day, and Journolist was today’s version of the ComIntern.

I was never all that impressed by this concept, the mental relationship of those that held onto this coming across like this New Yorker bit on how Children imagine the conversation at the “Grown Up Table” goes.  I imagined the actual conversations tossed about in this closed space were rather uninteresting, and that anything of interest would be the most likely items to end up farmed out into publically available opinion pieces, and a lot of stuff of rather “Villager Clique” inside-their-particular portion of the Beltway inconsequentiality.  The latter is what the leaked emails show.  This is not all that interesting or original an opinion of Matt Drudge.  Maybe there is something cabalist about the call to deny linking to the Examiner, which I guess we’ll see if this Standard Oil-ish Monopolistic Trust will be broken up any day now.

Really, the person who leaked this crap is a bottom feeder.  Motive?  I like this one I see that it was a liberal charging against his defense of Rand Paul.  But that’s too cute by half.  Myself, I cannot say that Dave Weigel registered with me — his links popped up to my consciousness on occassion — he amplified the odd assortment of Alabama politicians’ campaigns so en vogue these days.  I think he was the one who followed through in flushing out the odd assortment of politicians digging for the Birther vote.  And the three or four posts on the 90 year old ex-Trotskyite not fully comfortably ideologically classified Godwin’s Law breaking Perpetual Economic Doomsday Cult Leader — well, there’s always a better than even chance I’ll link to that.

I was aware, by breezing through the comments on the occasion I bumped to the link over to his blog, that “Movement Conservative” was hostile to him as a person following some doings and corners of corners of the “Conservative Movement” in unflattering manner.  I note that yesterday, the number one story in the blog aggregator I checked in with (nothing special — google) was the Dave Weigel story, and the number one slot — redstate dot com.  This is a weird set of priorities, all things considered — there are things of more import in the world, like, I don’t know… this is interesting.

Blackwater changed its name (it’s now called Xe), but its reputation has stuck to it like crude oil on a Gulf bird.

So it wasn’t much of a surprise that when news of a $100 million contract with the CIA broke this week, some members of Congress were very angry.

“I’m just mystified why any branch of the government would decide to hire Blackwater, such a repeat offender” Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, told ABC News. “We’re talking about murder… A company with a horrible reputation that really jeopardizes our mission in so many different, different ways.”

Cue Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign rhetoric, and…
Nay.

Someone at the National Review’s corner marks this as the “low Point” for the relationship between the Conservative Movement and the Washington Post.  If they say so — I thought that happened when they published the investigative pieces about Watergate.  Weigel then slides into the argument from Newsbusters about the new Spitzer — Parker CNN program — Parker is too Alan-Colmish; Weigel goes on about kooks.

I don’t cry for Dave Weigel, barely aware of his existence, nod about here , and he’ll pop somewhere in a hurry.  Possibly something is said of the Washington Post, but nothing nobody already knew.  There’s something there in the bifrocation of sides — we have two sides, pick one or the other — Dave Weigel currently more useful to the Progressives, though change our partisan alignment 40 degrees or so to encampus different issues and he’ll become more useful to the Conservative Side in due time.

Okay.  That’s the last straw.  I’m voting for Nader.

‎

Obama had to axe General McChrystal.  End of story, and I think if you could pin down the partisan hacks who thump that “he just spoke the truth” down by laying down the scenario, leaving out the party references, they would have to admit it.
Then again, the professional Military apparatus would have no problem spotting the bias toward the “D”.  See here:

1993: Air Force Maj. Gen. Harold Campbell ridicules President Clinton during a speech in Europe, calling him “gay-loving,” “pot-smoking,” “draft-dodging” and “womanizing.” He retired after accepting a fine and letter of reprimand.

‎

I flipped over and past and through several Conservative talk radio programs for brief jaunts.  It is a whole different universe.  They bring up Truman and MacArthur.  The analogy for Obama and McChrystal is not apt — like it or not, Obama and McChrystal are on the same goddamned page on the Afghan mission — Obama gave him everything he demanded and maintained contempt.  It’s possible his frustration came from wanting an out?
The one good thing I get out of the talk radio spoutings on Truman, or the little I picked up, is a good little “finis” to some neo-conservative Truman love-fest and “why can’t the Democrats be more like Truman?” — The Weekly Standard once posited that Truman would fit the Republican side of the aisle today with his hawkish foreign policy.  As always, the historical lines bring out something to the effect that MacArthur advocated Insanity, Truman let him go, and Truman was accused of Appeasement.  It was good to hear Truman being called an appeaser, flashback to 1950 political dis-entanglements… string the line through to today.  The parties look about the same, actually… for some ill effect.
… I don’t know what satire of Jingoistic extra-military cadre that a clique might have appropriated back then for a self-described nickname, ala “Team America”, though.

Looking about on the political controversies of Vernon Jones, I see that he is running for Congress.  Why?  Can he win?

Understand, in 2008 he ran for the Georgia Senate Democratic nomination — and put out this flier:

On March 23, 2007 Jones announced he was running for the United States Senate against incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss. His campaign saw immediate controversies. In campaign literature, Jones sent out a flier in which he appeared in a picture next to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with the words “Yes We Can.” However, Obama himself stated he not only never posed with Jones (the picture had been digitally altered), he did not endorse Jones or any other candidate for the Democratic nomination for Senate. In response, Jones blamed his “liberal opponents backed by the liberal media” for trying to ruin his campaign.

Things got hairier from there, and apparently it runs in his political nature.  One thing you might fault him for in a Democratic primary?

Another source of criticism leveled against Jones, mostly by chief rival Jim Martin, attacked his more conservative national record. On his campaign website, Jones acknowledged being a conservative Democrat, and in an interview, told the press he voted for George W. Bush.^[9] Additionally, Jones donated more than $2,464 in two separate donations to the Georgia Republican Party in 2001.

It was with that that once he lost to the nomination to Jim Martin — his black support base eroded between the initial primary election and the run-off as the rules of “Identity Politics” goes to waste against the issues–, the National Democratic Party swooped in and made the elction between Martin and Chambliss a race they were willing and ready to fight for and pour some resouces into.  Watching the campaign polls, Martin was always down by 3 to 6 points.  Chambliss just barely was forced into a run-off, Martin’s vote percentage matching Obama’s reasonably “on the edge of contesting” vote total in Georgia, a Libertarian candidate siphoning off a few percentage points that forced it into the run-off.  There, Martin was swamped — the black vote not motivated to the polls, the Conservative Base had an early rallying call — an early erosion of White Southern voters against Obama — the Republicans brought in Zell Miller for some campaigning and Jim Martin brought in … Jay Z???

What makes me ponder the existence of Vernon Jones, out of the political graveyard?  Something about here:

The buzz among many savvy Republican and Democrat insiders is that Jones is doing Chambliss a big favor. Chambliss probably doesn’t have to worry about his seat. He has a solid base among the new-segregationist, religious-nutcase, hate-Atlanta bunch.

But it’s just possible the Democrats could find a viable Senate candidate – such as Jim Butler, a progressive and well-connected trial lawyer from Columbus. If Jones, prior to May 2008 when he’d have to formally declare his candidacy, appeared to be running for the Senate, he’d siphon support and money from other candidates. Jones is a celebrity in DeKalb, with its large black and liberal base that’s essential to a statewide run by a Democrat.

He could be the bomb that blows apart a true Democratic bandwagon on its way to unseating Chambliss.

It’s worth recalling another DeKalb pseudo-Democrat, Denise Majette. The anti-Cynthia McKinney Republicans in DeKalb crossed over to the Democratic primary in 2002 and sent Majette to Congress. Two years later, she made a run for an open U.S. Senate seat and was soundly trounced by Republican Johnny Isakson, as everyone knew she would be.

Republicans nurtured her political career from the beginning. They knew a GOP candidate couldn’t hope to unseat McKinney in DeKalb.

Had the Democrats fielded a real candidate in the Senate race against Isakson, there was the slimmest chance the Republicans would have lost. Majette had no chance, but she could snare the black vote and ensure that the Democratic nomination for senator went to a sure loser: her. Was she a convenient fool, or will she be the recipient of Republican favors in the future?

Skip forward two years.  Skip over to the neighboring state of South Carolina.

Look.  I already said that I don’t find the election results of a complete unknown beating another unknown.  The pull of Alvin and the Chimpmunks and Al Green the singer beats the pull of Vic any day of the week.  But there remain some problems with that candidacy — could Alvin Greene please have filled out his quarterly filings with a bunch of “$0” allotments, please?  Those FEC filing requirements aren’t there for your health, are they?  (At the very least, they force a candidate into an active, even if anemic, political campaign.)

…

Okay,  to ween away from the shiny object that is that kooky candidacy — it bears some import to mention some more reasonable but probably not competitive Senate candidates.  Roxanne Conley is running against Chuck Grassley in Iowa.  Seems a good person to vote for if you were in Iowa.

Hm.  Interesting Letter in the paper.

Uncomfortable exposure
We shouldn’t have been surprised, I guess, that while at a family gathering outside the Rose Festival Waterfront Village looking at the floats, a group of police department-condoned nude bicyclists/exhibitionists pedaled by, waving at all the people, including the small children in our group. What a sick statement that makes to the general population and the children. Why does this perverted minority in Portland have the right to disturb the majority? This is clearly wrong. A society has the right to establish mores and values by the majority. The “Rose Festival” now to us will simply connote “anything goes” and out-of-control liberalism.  

We will boycott Portland events and urge others to do so in the future, at least until there are more rational government and police enforcement entities in office.

CHRIS and KATHY SCHELLER
West Linn

To clarify the situation for Chris and Kathy Scheller of West Linn, and from what I understand, Nudity is legal if it has no Sexual Gratification attached to it — or to put another way — the Nudity is legal so long as you go out of your way to be unsexy.  So there are your mores.
Wait.  Was this in the floatation exhibition thing?  I thought they pedalled away in disunion with a

Did you hear about Pat Robertson’s outrageous remarks?
Actually the remark not all that outrageous.  Or, better to say they are outrageous — maybe even as outrageous as other things he has said, but with the depressing remark that it’s a tad too normal a sexist trope.  Anyway, Dog Bites Man — Pat Robertson noted.

So, you hear about what Rush Limbaugh had to say?
Okay.  As with Pat Robertson, it sort of seems pointless to backtrack whenever Rush Limbaugh says something “provacative”.  But I’m a bit at a loss.  The thing about Rush Limbaugh is that there tends to be an item of “nuance” in his “provacations”.  To his admirers, he’s “exposing Liberal hipocrisy”, and there’s a supposed set up with these things.  Bear in mind, I am not defending him per se, so much as giving him his definition.
So what do we have with this one?  Really, nothing so much as I can tell.

What Limbaugh is expressing is his frustration at seeing every year an evergreen story about Childhood Hunger, that students who rely on the School Lunch Program are now left without that meal.  He does not want to hear about such a problem, or to consider it a problem he would have to deal with in any measure.  His experiences — the listeners’ experiences, presumably, are that when they were children, they could easily obtain food from the Pantry and Refrigerator in their house.  There is a smidgeon of resentment about the poor spending  food stamps on cheap processed junk food in lieu of preparing more nutritious food items — such that we hear about the potato chips and “perhaps even can of corn”.  Skip to the Dumpster Diving and the curious remark about “videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive” —
Understand, when I hear of a remark from Limbaugh, I always try to sort out what attitude he’s trying to “expose”.  I may be giving him too much credit for this one, but I … guess there might be a hinge-point here.  Did he, like, see an article in the Village Voice vaguely supportive toward Anarchists’ videos on how to most healthily “Dumpster Dive”?  Is this just showering resentment to the middle class, even lower-middle class, audience members to deride poorer people than them and helply identify with them the upper class they strive to be part of?  Then again, some current trends suggest the possibility that we’ll just cut parts of the public out of the Economy, so the game becomes one of projecting the children fifteen years into the future.

[…]

So, did you hear about Jerry Brown’s outrageous remarks?  Still smarting from the Dead Kennedys song, I take it.

But back to the problem of the children…
Orrin Hatch thinks their parents are all on drugs anyways.

There is a spectre that looms over the midterm elections, and it’s kind of weird.  It came from out of Representative Barton’s remarks, which posit the Democratic Party with a pivot point.  The Democratic Party just might end up losing the most negligible of ground.  Roll down the Senate seats — it’s long been pegged that the Republicans start off with four currently held contested Senate seats — North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, and Delaware.  Maybe Indiana or Delaware will shift — but I doubt it.
After that — shoot.  The Republican candidate — Mark Kirk – in Illinois has run into a headache.  In Nevada, if Harry Reid were given the opportunity to draw up a profile for any opponent he could, he wouldn’t dare draw up “Tea Party Favorite” Sharron Angle.   The fifth most likely Republican pick-up seems to be Colorado, where the Democratic candidate has surged upward in the polls, seemingly based on a consolidation of Hispanic support in the wake of political happenings over there in Arizona.  And, no I don’t see “Tea Party Favorite” Pat Toomey beating Joe Sestack in Pennsylvania — (Wait.  Wasn’t that Sestack scandal the new Wategate?)
Meantime, Charlie Crist has consolidated Democratic support in Florida after quitting the Republican Party and is skipping ahead of Marc Rubio by a sizable amount — the the effect that I gather Crist will end up beating (“Tea Party Favorite”) Rubio.  Ohio and Missouri are toss-ups, and New Hampshire almost is.  I’ve been trying to keep an eye on the polls in Kentucky — my guage is that “Tea Party favorite” Rand Paul will end up winning the election on Election Day by eight or so points but who knows?  North Carolina comes across about like that.  And the Democrat in Louisiana seems to have had a polling up-tik — frustrating things happening off the ocean there.
So, I gather Republicans pick up two three seats, where a month ago I’d figure they pick up five or seven?

Even as the “party in power” has troubles “reconciling the contradictions” of the public opinion, it is simply a matter that in a period of Economic Frustration, eventually the concerns of leading Republicans like Rush Limbaugh toward reading about the existence of poverty (even relatively low level) seem a little misplaced.  Actually, this exchange largely reminds me of this SNL bit.

Perhaps you saw this bit Jon Stewart did on Wednesday.  “Fool me twice, Shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me 8 times — am I a F#ing Idiot?”  And ba-de-dumb, ba-de-boom — So, what’s that about other sources of energy and moving off our addiction to forieng oil or Oil in general?

There is one thing about the clip that needs to be noted, though.  The clip for Ronald Reagan came from the year 1981, paying homage to the concept even as he was removing the Solar Panels from the White House, even as James Watt was appointed to the Interior.  The clip for Bill Clinton came in 2000, Bill Clinton sliding out the door and leaving a maker for the historical record, “Eight long years, did some things, dealt with a hostile Congress, and as for thing I didn’t deal with — oh, I was aware.”  George Herbert Walker Bush’s clip slides easily toward “Oil Exploration”.  In the great panoply of eight presidents, we have a two decade hole — and really, W always seemed to fill his State of the Union messages with free floating domestic concepts he never had any interest in grabbing to the ground — though, I suppose that makes W (as we would expect) the most glaring example of the premise.

Unless we go the nature of Multi-National Corporate marketing, the premise of “Sell the Sizzle, not the Steak” moving into hyperdrive to “Selling Concepts” — grounded or not in the reality.  Create a logo that has a premise behind it and communicates a message.

There is something I want to see tackled.  I keep hearing politicians from various states wander on and off the stage making pronouncements about moving forward to a post-oil economy.  Sometimes making it clear that their product is “a short term fix”, other times an answer.  “And the greatest source for Wind resides right in my home state of” — Fill in the Blank.  I suspect we’ll know we’ve arrived somewhere when a plurality of people, and not just a fringe, jump “off the grid”, or something in a 1979 book  with a mere residual out in the state of Maine — and this becomes something other than a sales gimmick  stashed in a college town enclave — AND when some politician from, say, the state of Montana comes out and states that what we need is investment in — whatever, and the Greatest source of whatever in the world resides in Connecticut.”
… Lest we suffer the T Boone Pickens Effect.

Wait.  What?
Sharron Angle is the most radical major-party candidate to seek statewide office since David Duke was the Republican nominee for governor in Louisiana in 1991.
This may or may not be true.  It sure is jarring, at any rate.  Whatever I think of her politics in the aggregate, somehow I just can’t quite squash these politics into a one dimensional line, to place Sharron Angle’s Prohibitionism on a continuum with David Duke’s Institutional Racism.

If you want me to dredge forth a Senator or Senate candidate with some similar third party pedigree, I can quite easily point to Senator Bernie Sanders in Vermont.  And I can also state that between the time he ran against Patrick Leahy to the tune of a mere few percentage points to the time he joined Patrick Leahy in the Halls of the Senate, his Party brethern — Pete Diamondstone — had found him lacking and ran against him… to the tune of .2 percent of the vote.

The oddest thing is the stories permeating into broader media about Sharron Angle.  This week, the Oregonian ran an AP (or similar wire service) story about Sharron Angle on what just might be the most banal item in her background.  In the year 1984, it seems, right there as Ronald Reagan was cruising to a 49 state victory, Sharron Angle changed her voters’ registration from Republican to Democrat.  Odd?  Perhaps.  Interesting?  Not really.  When she comes out of hiding, sometime after her current intensive coaching sessions at the NRSC with John Cornyn fine-tuning her down to the proper talking points, when she finally gets out of the media world she is inhabiting where she can find use for Thomas Jefferson — the same use as Congressional candidates in Alabama have for other Founding Fathers, I suppose — people to commiserate about with in their minds on armed insurrection — when she peaks into broader media for an interview, I don’t want a question wasted on that topic.

We do have this appearance to go on.  She don’t much like.

In light of recent Republican Party ramblings for the party factions to call a “truce” on Social issues — everyone’s distrustful about that one — maybe we can leave aside the social issues of the legalization of Alcohol or whether two parents should be working while raising a child and just stick to whether she agrees with Representative Burton.

So.  It’s been, what, ten days?  How many votes did Summer Shields receive?  Still waiting?
The party hacks blocked Summer from running in the primary as a Democrat, so he’s a write in candidate. No word yet on the results.
No word then, any word yet?  Go to the Elections Office and demand a count.  And, no, Lizard People does not count.

“I am announcing today my candidacy for the Congressional seat currently held by Nancy Pelosi, as a write-in candidate in the general election. I would have preferred the opportunity to defeat Speaker Pelosi in last week’s Democratic primary. However, due to a technical problem with my voter registration, I was disqualified from appearing on the Democratic Party primary ballot.

That’s the closest we’ve heard about the why.  Anyway, the Campaign Continues, I guess.  Novel approach — just keep running even after losing an election.  Move onward so people can sight you like so.

Meanwhile, the campaign for Rachel Brown is getting some notice.  Apparently there is a campaign video on the LPAC websites which shows Rachel Brown going through all the administrative processes in getting on the ballot — walking up to the Mass. elections division office window, submitting signatures, and finally, being certified on the ballot.  Visual evidence in the wake of the Great Summer Shields Campaign.  Which, you know, maybe there was a quid pro quo with the “Party Hacks” in San Francisco on that one — “We leave you off the ballot — and you get to not be on the ballot.  Deal?”

My guess is that years from now, we will be referencing the “Frank – Brown” debate format the same way we do now the “Lincoln – Douglas” format.  Scholarships will be rewarded in debate tournaments to students who mastered the technique — you have one debate sparrer in the audience throwing out a Hitler reference, another at the lectern responding with an Insult — points earned by style and technique.

The Massachusetts 4th Congressional Democratic Primary 2010 Race:

Watching Rachel Brown roam the Mashed Potato Circuit of Party meetings and dinners (the type Alvin Greene was invited to but didn’t attend), I imagine party honchos at various low-level meetings making some quick decisions, it’s possible that we won’t see Rachel Brown at too many more of these.  “Should we bother inviting her to any more of these?” The “Party hack” conspiracy continues, in the clatter of this video — skip to 3:40 on “Mars”, and to  5:05 for the “WHAT?  Boo!” of the crowd.

The quickee description of this meeting is here, complete with what I suppose we’ll see more of in the way of LYMer responses.  Thanks again for the erudition, I’m not sure I can tell you how you have influenced my whole basis of thought!!!  Hm.  There’s a piece on LPAC for you, I suppose, that makes liberal use of puns on the word “frank”.
Really, I’m afraid, of course, that this primary contest already peaked last August.

  “Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported this policy?”  (No, I’m afraid to photoshop the word balloon in the image and to stick the Obama – Hitler face pamphlet in his pocket is a case of too much effort for too little reward.)

This has a pretty niche market.  But it’s more digestable to read than to watch the actual Larouche conflab itself — beyond my level of tolerability.  So we get this… and maybe you care, maybe you don’t care about the internal office politics of a Cult’s boot-licking session… Like I said, a pretty niche market.
About 20 minutes into the rambling discourse, John Hoefle rather daringly and quite unwisely injects his own theory into the mix, hypothesizing that the oil disaster is a London response to the American people’s war on Obama and British imperialism.
Boy…, that was a mistake, John!
Lyn rebukes John—right on camera!
“No!! I don’t believe in event-driven history! I belief in policy-driven events!”
Oh. Poor John. He nervously digs his massive paws into the aged fabric of his pants leg, eyes darting back and forth, perhaps feeling as though he has been thrown headlong into a canyon of denunciation! Nancy Spannaus is afraid to even blink, lest Lyn should hear it.
Lyn grinds additional salt into John’s heavily gored heart by denouncing “those older people, even older members of this organisation who think in short-term hit-and-run operations.” Ouch, John. Ouch.
The sad thing for John is that, of course, he said the same thing as Lyn, that the spill is “a policy driving the events at hand,” and he knows he did. It is evident by the excruciating conflict scored into his face. But the horrible reality is, he stepped out onto a limb confident in his ability to woo his elder and better with decades of EIR-brand geoeconomics, but utterly failed to take into account his master’s unpredictable propensity for sawing the limb out from under his enormous ass.

The item of relevance comes about here.
For extra frosting on the cake, Lyn brings up the “Jeremy Case” in great detail, insisting that Jeremy’s unhappy family life made him a confessed suicide prone character on heavy medication to handle chronic suicidal tendencies.  […]
“Not only does the mother continue to conduct a campaign of lies … some within the United States, some former associates, have latched onto the Jeremy case as sympathizers of the British Empire, demanding justice.”
Nancy chirps, “And they’re all led from higher up, aren’t they?”
Fortunately, assures Lyn, “We have the force of history on our side.” John Hoefle folds his arthritic paws lightly in relief, believing the worst is over for him.
So it is there that I jump to the video.  Launch over to 37:55, and I pick that moment only because it is here that I get a good few seconds of a visage of John Hoefel and see to what the above account in referring.  And there we get a few minutes of something … um… something entirely convoluted and maddening.   I can’t diagram this.  To 42 minutes — “Glass Steagall” — No, seriously!  (End at 43:35 — “We have the force of History behind Us.  [I have to write about it… working on it] We are riding on what is potentially the Road to Victory.”  Hm.  We have another incoherent jumbo of randomly thrown historical names coming soon.

Erica Duggan has more grounded concerns than the “force of history”.  But, well, Larouche is concerned.  You see here that Howie G is concerned. 
Take Dave Emory at arms’ length.  More sanely, and more insanely:
Jeremiah was in Germany to attend a conference hosted by the LaRouche organisation. The Ham&High understands the group headed by American radical Lyndon LaRouche has applied to be an ‘interested party’ at the inquest.
Clever ruse of control, that.

I do want to point out something of note from wikipedia:
But then again, nobody in the world is foolish enough to take Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet and Dennis King serious.
Flawed though wikipedia may be — its history is of giving the Larouchies too much credence in shaping these articles — I see a recent banned user diggint away at the article for “Glass Steagall” alongside one of the larouche articles — this is just ridiculous.  First, citing Jimb Wales seems like cursing Steven Spielberg for the stickiness of of the floor of your local Multiplex.  Second, there are just too many incarnations here for that to be credibly believed by this isp #.  Thirdly, I’ve seen too many people on the web referencing wikipedia and seeing the warning sign — recently, a black fan of David Duke on “what happened to Jeremiah Duggan” — which, I take that brand of severe and acute Contrarianism to be just the sort of alignment susceptible to this crap.

Back to the electoral political campaigns of the trio — Shields and Brown… Not to be outdone, the campaign for Kesha Rogers continues at Post offices and Airports in the Houston area.

“And then you have Barack Obama on the other side, whose policy is to bail out the financial markets and kill people, that’s why we put the mustache on him,” the man at the booth told a passerby.
Only organizations with a nonprofit status can apply to solicit at the airport, and they are assigned to specific locations on a first-come, first-served basis.
The airport said it neither endorses nor supports the display.
Good to know the Airport doesn’t endorse the display.

In the “I voted for the Larouchies in 1986 Illinois” camp in explaining the situation in South Carolina.
And, I probably shouldn’t note but Cliff Kincaid has a headline regarding a recent MSNBC piece about the quote-in-quote “Radical Right”, prominently featured Alex Jones, with title “MSNBC Works With Alex Jones to Discredit Tea Party Movement.”  Hard to take that one seriously.