Q: Why do all these Republicans keep slurping my Coke?

A: In an incident that calls to mind our old pal Bob Allen, innocent homosexual Sen. Larry Craig is today being accused of ties to the Romney campaign. Will the anti-gay mudslinging never stop?

Q: How could political discourse in America possibly get any stupider?

A: It can't. It would be literally impossible.

UNTIL NOW.

• MySpace, MTV team on politics [Variety]

Q: The lady or the paper tiger? (or: Is Karl Rove rooting for Hillary Clinton?)

Rove: "Pay no attention to the viable candidate on the right"...?

A: At first, the idea presented in this L.A. Times piece from yesterday seems crazy: Clinton may be a target of Rove's reverse psychology. But is it so crazy, it just might work have already worked?

In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who George W. Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at John Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

Rove has plenty of reasons to prefer Clinton to Barack Obama. Even if Clinton beats whatever dope the GOP nominates, she'll still be a divisive figure her political opponents can marginalize, just as they did when she was First Lady. She's not going to be the Democrats' Ronald Reagan. Obama could change things significantly -- both in terms of pushing through policy and shifting rhetoric -- in ways Hillary can't and won't.

Everyone should be voting Obama. Have I mentioned this?

Q: Why can't you trust a conservative blogger?

A: Because they're full of shit, obvs. Even conservative politicians know that.

(Of course, this doesn't apply to Sean the WASP, whom, like all regular T.A.M.S.Y. readers, you can trust implicitly.)

Q: Who's yr Commander Guy?

A: He's yr Commander Guy:



Yes sir! He's also still yr decider.

Cleveland Steamers
"The Decider"
Treasure Chest, 2006 buy it!]

Also, as it happens, yr flip-flopper. [via Sully]

Q: Why in God's name am I posting a Linkin Park video?

A: Because Daily Kos says Linkin Park's new video for "What I've Done" is "socially conscious" and "making waves." And I just want to be hip with the kids, and the progressive bloggers.

The socially conscious moral of the video appears to be that people suck. Good point!



It's like the Koyaanisqatsi of shitty alternative rock!

But I think Linkin Park is just trying to apologize for having given their band such a dumb name.

Q:uote of the Day | Alberto Gonzales' "reconfirmation hearing"

A: "The Department of Justice should never be reduced to another political arm of the White House — this White House or any White House."

— Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)

P.S.: It's not just Democrats. Everyone hates Alberto Gonzales.

Q: Even the Mormons hate Dick Cheney!?

A: Yeah! Well, okay, it's the Democrat Mormons.

And, okay, there are only, like, seven Democrat Mormons. Which is pretty anti-Mormon of them, frankly, because Democrats try to do crazy things like tell you how many wives you should have, or tax the insanely wealthy (and no one's insanely wealthier than the Mormons!). And Mormons don't like being told how many wives to have except via divine prophecy¹ — and they don't like being taxed except by the Church.

James Snideman, a senior majoring in Agricultural Management, had held a sign with photographs of Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley and Vice President Dick Cheney. "Prophet vs. Profit" was scrawled across the sign. Snideman was asked to remove it.

"In the past we've had religious leaders that give us advice and counsel about what we're supposed to do with the rest of our lives," Snideman said. "And I'm supposed to hear that from a man who I believe has been very questionable in his dealings? There's a big conflict there."

Warner Woodworth, a professor of Organization Strategy and Leadership, has similar concerns, based on "…the example Cheney sets... We ought to have graduate speakers that are the best choices out there in terms of values and ethics and moral responsibility and personal commitment to good principles."

That standard might make it difficult to find suitable campus speakers, especially among politicians, suggests Mike Otterson, spokesman for Mormon leaders.

"You have to accept at some point that you are inviting people who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and... their standards are a matter for them to take care of. I don't think we can become so self-righteous that we can expect everyone to live as we think they should live in order to qualify as a visitor to the University."

Yeah, c'mon, you smug Democrat Mormons. You can't judge Dick Cheney for not living by your rules! YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF HIM!!! Don't be such racists.

Also, remember to vote for Mitt Romney in '08, and you'll be free to judge all day long.

---

¹ And if you don't like it, well, sorry, but neither did Joseph Smith's wife. And here's a good book featuring Cheney's pal Gordon B. Hinckley.

Q: Is Gov. Ted Strickland the greatest thing to happen to Ohio since Devo?

A: Yes. Not counting T.A.M.S.Y., obvs.

PLAIN DEALER: Ohio could become 8th state to reject abstinence-only money

Ohio might become the eighth state to reject federal money for abstinence-only sex education — a decision that public-policy groups say is part of a nationwide shift toward more-comprehensive sex-ed programs.

Gov. Ted Strickland last week proposed phasing out federal grants for abstinence-only instruction, following the lead of governors in California, Connecticut, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. [Wait, Montana? Really? Montana? I mean, good for you, Montana, but — really? Montana? Like Montana Montana? Really? -- t.a.m.s.y.]

"The abstinence-only approach has seen its day, and the support's really waning," said Bill Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States in Washington, D.C.

Incidentally, "I'm vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council, and baby, the abstinence-only approach has seen its day," is a pick-up line I've been using since the late '80s.

Anyway, three cheers for Ohio joining the few states with the cajones to acknowledge that it's foolish (not to mention anti-democratic) to base any curriculum on a policy of suppressing information. I don't know how you did things back in Soviet Russia, but this is America, baby.

The fact remains: No matter how tightly you clamp shut your eyes, how deeply into your ears you dig your fingers, or how loudly or longly you croon "Michael, Row the Boat Ashore," ignoring human nature isn't going to make it disappear. I'm sorry if you find that depressing. But deal with it already.

Devo
Uncontrollable Urge
Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo!, 1978

(Incidentally, "I don't know how you did things back in Soviet Russia, but this is America, baby," is a pick-up line I've been using since the late '80s.)

---

OH, AND ABOUT MONTANA: I almost forgot that Montana's Gov. Brian Schweitzer, is one of them CUH-RAZY politicians who bases his opinions on facts rather than pandering. He's also, surprisingly, a Democrat — elected to govern a conservative state whose voters had grown weary of Republican ineptitude. In other words, his stance on sex ed isn't the only thing he has in common with Strickland.

EARLIER: Is Ted Strickland secretly into musical theater?

Q: Will Mike Bloomberg run for president as an independent?

Mike Bloomberg: Redefines 'green' party

A: He's thinking about it, says the Washington Post. With no pressing need to get a jump on fundraising (millionaires may need your support, but billionaires don't), NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg wouldn't announce his candidacy until early '08, the Post writes.

Market-savvy as he is, Bloomberg might realize that his best chance for the White House, in the current political atmosphere, is to disassociate himself from the idiocy of both parties and run indie-stizz.

Publicly, the Democrat-turned-Republican professes no interest in the top job at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But the founder of the Bloomberg financial news empire has dropped enough hints and has had enough tantalizing discussions with potential supporters that people who observe the city's politics for a living are convinced he is at least thinking about it.

T.A.M.S.Y. implicitly distrusts billionaires, media moguls and anyone who's ever been mayor of New York City — but we might be willing to make an exception for Bloomberg. For God's sake, even the Rev. Al Sharpton likes him!

"He would be a very compelling candidate," said civil rights activist Al Sharpton, himself a once and potentially future presidential hopeful from the Big Apple, and a friend of the mayor's. Sharpton called Bloomberg "Ross Perot with a résumé" and predicted that "if he operates as he's done in other parts of his life, he will put both feet in."

If the rumors turn out to be true, this leaves open the possibility that the 2008 race for the White House could be a three-horse race between a current New York senator, a former New York City mayor and the current mayor. As if New Yorkers needed another reason to be solipsistic bastards?

Of course, in the nightmare night-terror scenario where Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani win their parties' respective noms, I'd jump at the opportunity to vote for "Ross Perot with a résumé." At that point, I'd be willing to settle for just plain Ross Perot.

Q: After stabbing Scooter Libby in the back, how will Dick Cheney wash the blood from his hands?

A: As I'm sure you've heard, Bush administration scapegoat I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was found guilty on four of five counts today. The conviction — for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice — mandates a prison term of 1.5-to-3 years (barring retrials, appeals and/or pardons).

Meanwhile, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, the prime architects of the scheme on behalf of which Libby lied, receive no punishment, aside perhaps from the downgraded political status they'd already suffered as the scandal unfolded.

So will Cheney, Scooter's old boss, be haunted by his own act of betrayal? Will he be left to wander the halls of the White House in a maniacal haze, ever disturbed by visions of symbolically blood-soaked hands?

Well. Probably not, T.A.M.S.Y. supposes.

Thing is, Cheney's got real blood problems to worry about.

---

RELATED: While taking stock of the fallout from PlameGate, the Washington Post's Andrew Cohen says "Cheney gets my vote for the biggest loser in all of this...

Cheney's friends and opponents alike now have to concede that he was also in this instance at least a meddling, petty bureaucrat who spent time at his undisclosed secure location worrying about how the White House would get back at [Joseph] Wilson, a penny-ante operator in the high-stakes game of politics over Iraq.

Me, I'd still go for the dude bound for prison as the biggest loser in all this, but hey, I like the attempt. And I particularly appreciate Andrew Sullivan taking it one step further and asking Should Cheney resign?

His health is rough; he has been the most disastrous vice-president in history; he has lost two wars; he has lost every ally; he is despised in much of the country; he is now going to be the center of all the questions that the Libby guilty verdict raise. Why did he get so exercized about a two-bit critic during a critical time in the Iraq war? Why would he risk losing his most trusted aide by coordinating a media sting on a minor political opponent?

Um... because he's a total dick?

Why would he risk committing a crime to pursue Wilson unless he had something very serious to hide?

Oh, well, also that. But Cheney's been lying and manipulating media and redefining "legality" so constantly for so long, he probably just lost the ability to gauge which crimes were worth committing to protect which secrets. That's the thing about compulsive lying; it's as corrosive to one's greater sense of logic as is, say, power. Or greed. Or being a total dick.

---

FOR THE RECORD: It's generally against T.A.M.S.Y. policy to make light of our subjects' critical health problems, but we're willing to make an exception for the truly evil. Which includes, obvs, the Antichrist.

Q: How tall is Nancy Pelosi?

People keep Googling this question and finding T.A.M.S.Y., but the post they land on doesn't even address new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's height. Meanwhile, the answer provided by Yahoo! users is preposterously insufficient.

So by popular demand, I went on a fact-finding mission to uncover Pelosi's actual height.


A: In the description of a YouTube video, author Milt Shook describes Pelosi as "about five feet tall." This isn't much of an answer -- but it's literally the only specific reference to Pelosi's height I could find anywhere on the Internet, and I looked for a while.

In an effort to pin down some hard facts, I called Pelosi's Congressional office in San Francisco. They can't be too busy today, right?

"I have kind of a strange question. How tall is Congresswomen Pelosi?" The young woman who answered the phone said she wasn't sure. "Could you ballpark it?" I asked.

"I know she's much shorter than me," she said, "but I don't know exactly how much shorter. I've never really thought about it."

"So how tall are you?"

"5'6." A-HA! A clue!

Possibly the only clue. The staffers in Pelosi's D.C. office were less helpful, and treated the question as though I were asking for nuclear secrets. The woman who answered the phone was unwilling to offer an estimate, although she did eventually transfer me over to Pelosi's press office.

"I've been asked this question several times," the flack told me, "but at this time, I'm not at liberty to give you an answer. If I find out, I can let you know."

"Thanks. Should I leave my number?"

"Your best bet is to call back. Even if you do leave a number, I probably won't call you." Oh snap. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned I'm a blogger.

In other words, the mystery lives on. For now, I'm going with "around five feet tall."

---

DEAR READERS: If you happen to have any better information on Nancy Pelosi's stature, please leave it in the comments.

RELATED: Measure Nancy Pelosi's height with the Great Women wooden ruler (from the estate of Edith Wharton). You'll need around five of them.

Q: Don't kids say the darnedest things?

A: They sure do. Like, for instance, this one little boy, John Edwards, says he wants to be pwesident! Isn't that just adorable!?

---

If you want to know how excited I am for John Edwards' candidacy, I have two answers -- one for each of the two Americas.

In the first America, I am not at all excited, because Edwards is a reminder of the shallowness of the Democratic candidate pool (Barack not withstanding, obvs). In the second America, I am conflicted, because although I long to make fun of him, it seems unfair to ridicule such an innocent and adorable child.

Here's the video of John Edwards announcing his intentions to announce his intention of running for president. The news broke, appropriately, on Rocketboom, which is very popular with the kiddies¹.



To Edwards' credit, he does seem to have a better grasp of his own talking points than he did last campaign. For instance, he seems to know what several of the words mean (I mean, aside from when he says he wants to get engaged in genocide).

Once you get past his wide-eyed idealism, though, is there any there there?

Edwards might be saying all the right things (or, at least, saying what the kids want to hear) -- but the average digg.com user could cough up the same shpiel, as could Ned Lamont, as could I.

Take away the photogenic smile and the handlers arming him with sellable talking points; does Edwards have the cunning to get shit done in the Oval Office? Good thing we'll never find out, because the answer would likely disappoint you.

ANDBYTHEWAY: Edwards' online campaign headquarters is still OneAmericaCommittee.com. Which is kind of funny, because didn't the "two Americas" concept flop pretty badly last election? Does the Edwards camp really think rephrasing a bombed slogan is the best bet they have? Did they prepay for several hundred years rights to the URL in 2003, and can't afford to cut their losses?

It's things like this that make me confident that Edwards '08 ain't gonna fly. What worries me is the possibility of his adorable face being enough to snag the Dems' nomination. Please, God, no. To be continued.

---

¹ On a semi-related note, what the hell is going on with this Rocketboom interview? Do all of their breaking news briefs begin with 20 seconds of trying to figure out how the camera works? Are they trying to out-unprofessional Amanda Congdon? Is new media trying to out-retard old media? Is a smokin' rack the new large brain? Are dim-witted hotties the new intelligencia? Does this mean John Edwards is going to win? Am I crying hysterically right now?

Q: How is Turkmenistanian President Saparmurat Niyazov doing?

A: Good question. Hold on, he's a good friend, I'll call him...


Oh shit. He's dead.

This is very sad news, but probably no one is sadder about it than Saparmurat Niyazov himself. He used to be his biggest fan. Via the Associated Press:

The Turkmen leader, who has ruled the energy-rich Central Asian nation since 1985 when it was a Soviet republic, created an elaborate personality cult, renaming months and days in the calendar after himself and his family, and ordering statues of him to be erected throughout the desert nation.

He was my kind of president. The emperor kind. Anyway, my condolences to the Turkmen people. By the way, no one calls them "Turkmenistanians," you stupid racist.


This one's for you, Saparry!

---

Voxtrot - Your Biggest Fan [mp3]
Your Biggest Fan, 2006

Q: Is it too late to be posting about Election 2006?

A: Not if I say it's not!

I subscribe to approximately three hundred thousand of National Public Radio's podcasts, which -- like all of the podcasts I subscribe to -- I almost never listen to (probably because I spend so little time on the Cleveland subway). I just like all the space they take up on my hard drive.

Anyway, a few days ago, I was trying to catch up on one of the more interesting of these podcasts, NPR's Driveway Moments, (i.e., segments so compelling, theoretically, you can't bear to leave the car), and I came across one I found particularly hilarious: Dire Predictions & Disastrous Votes, Melissa Block's interview with two of the country's premier campaign-ad voice-over guys, Dennis Steele and Scott Sanders, whose voices you will likely recognize.

The best part is when they re-imagine nursery rhymes as melodramatic attack ads (John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt / His name is my name too / Whenever we go out / The people always shout / "Hey, what about Iraq!?"). Really, it's very funny. Check it out.

Q: Why is it important to be careful what you wish for?

A: Because I seem to have killed or maimed a U.S. Senator. And possibly ruined the government.

Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson Falls Ill, Undergoes Surgery [WaPo]

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) was in surgery last night after falling ill at the Capitol, introducing a note of uncertainty over control of the Senate just weeks before Democrats are to take over with a one-vote margin.

Wait, let's go back to recycled news! Recycled news is comfortable and familiar, like a childhood blanket!!! PLEASE GOD LET'S GO BACK TO RECYCLED NEWS!!!!!

EARLIER: I hate the comfort, familiarity of recycled news

Q: What is this morning's least surprising news development? Or should we just call it a three-million way tie?

It's probably a bad sign for the state of international journalism when you look at the morning's headlines and the only surprising answer is in the weather forecast.

Lake Erie: Beginning to look a lot like Christmas?

Not that I'm complaining about the forecast, mind you; I was just outside, and it's a balmy 52°. After this post, I'm heading straight for the beach. Surf's up, beyotch!!

But while I've no problem with thermometers hearkening back to bygone days, I find it disconcerting that the rest of the news is headed the same direction.

Granted, we all approach the news these days expecting a bit of recycled material. You know, things like United States trapped in meaningless quagmire, or Kremlin murders guy who says bad things about Kremlin, or Israeli/Palestinian relations growing tense or Republican president is idiot. It's the nature of history to repeat itself, and the nature of journalists to barely notice. I get all that.

Still, something about today feels even more recycled-er than ever. I initially thought maybe Google News was running a "greatest hits" compilation of the past year, or the past 30 years -- or the past 130 years, considering that Jack the Ripper is evidently still murdering British hookers.

Four stories in particular, though, stand out as particularly unsurprising. Help me choose the unsurprisingest!

---

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO DUH

1) IRAQ WAR = UNPOPULAR: Americans Say U.S. Is Losing War [WaPo]

Look, anyone who reads this blog regularly, which is at least three people, knows that I have always supported things that make the Bush administration look bad (e.g., reality). But the daily polls revealing that people think the war is going poorly -- am I still expected to find this fascinating? Do newspaper editors think I wake up each morning to thoughts of, "Gosh, I wonder if the past 24 hours of bloody mayhem and chaos have led Americans to embrace the war enthusiastically! Where can I get some numbers on that?"

2) JEWS = NUCLEAR: Israel's Olmert under fire over nuclear remarks [Reuters]

Lehrer: 'Who's dated now, bitch?'

Granted, I do appreciate the rather awkward faux pas-ness of this story. The old, "I'm sorry, did I just say we had nuclear weapons? What I meant to say was HEY WHAT'S THAT OVER THERE [runs away]." That's just solid Borscht Belt humor.

My issue with this is more, Since when did we not know Israel had the bomb? I totally didn't know it was supposed to be a secret. Frankly, I'm just glad it wasn't me who let the cat out of the bag. Granted, I base all my information on who does or doesn't have the bomb on a 40-year-old Tom Lehrer song.

3) DAVID DUKE = BIGOT: KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews [FOX Cleveland]

You know, I'm just blue-skying here, but it seems like we're getting to a point where we can't trust David Duke's insight on sensitive ethnic issues anymore. I don't want to jump the gun or anything.

Actually, I have to disqualify this story's lack of surprisingness, because I find it way too hilarious that (a) David Duke still gets speaking-engagement work, and (b) in Iran. Let's just pray he's being shadowed by a documentarian, because Live from Tehran, It's David Duke! is going to be the There's Something About Mary of 2007.


4) ANGELINA JOLIE = HOMEWRECKER: Jolie Fell in Love with Pitt while He Was Still Married [E Canada Now]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so that's how she got inseminated by his sperm!

Q: Why is Virginia still a pale shade of yellow?

Bob Ross: Is ready when you are, Virginia Board of Elections.

A: These jokers down South apparently think the Senate race is still up for grabs! How adorable.

Um, guys, I hate to break up the party, but you can put away your abacuses -- T.A.M.S.Y. already called Virginia for the Democrats like a million years ago. Not to mention I'm pretty sure we all decided ("we" being "me") that control of the Senate had been Montana's to decide. You think I go around Photoshopping news that doesn't exist? Macaca please.

(Christ, sometimes it's as if the entire nation isn't even reading my blog...)

Point being: It's long past time for the New York Times to put their money where their liberal bias is and paint that beyotch blue already.

Honestly, I haven't seen such irresponsible laziness since Tom Sawyer tricked me into whitewashing that fence. God, what an asshole.

Q: Rumsfeld resigns!?

Wait, he can't resign, not yet! I'm not finished with my "Why Donald Rumsfeld must resign" post! I totally worked hard on it!!!

Dammit, Bush administration, of all the times to demand accountability!

ALSO: Bush Admits He Lied About Rumsfeld For Political Purposes [ThinkProgress]

Yeah, because if you had admitted you were thinking about firing Rumsfeld, it would have like totally screwed the Republicans. Oh wait, no, the exact opposite.

I'm sorry, did the Republicans want to lose this election? Because it's been a while since I've seen such campaign incompetence from anyone that wasn't a Democrat.

Q: After months of speculation, debate and constant muckraking, the fate of American democracy now rests... on two dudes from Montana?