Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Ummmmmmm . . . Hooooooooooo-kaaaaaaaaay.

WTF is that about?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Ummmmmmm . . . Hooooooooooo-kaaaaaaaaay.

That bitch is out of her fucking mind.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You guys have weird gods. At least it's better than Dick Cheney's satan worshipping.

So two polls show Sestak ahead now. What do you think - does he have a shot?

I'd have said those polls were aberrations a month ago. That was before Sestak started running these ads accusing Toomey of supporting offshoring of jobs to China. The ads are great, snarky hit jobs involving a variety of scene shifts, each of which is signaled with a big Chinese gong going off. Each ends with the screen turning red and a Chinese flag appearing in the background. Sestak's also blasting Toomey's Wall Street background relentlessly. I think this stuff is sticking, and I think it might work the same way a run of great last minute ads put Sestak over Specter in the primary.

However, Sestak may be hurting himself with one ad showing a montage of video clips in which Toomey proclaims himself anti-abortion and in favor of allowing states to decide whether the practice should be legalized. There are a lot of crazy Catholic voters in the state, and tons of "states rights" militia-types in the middle of the state.

I think Sestak has to bring in Philly and Pittsburgh to win. I think it's a toss up.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That bitch is out of her fucking mind.

TM

Which one?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Which one?

The one who hasn't been discussed to death throughout the 90s already?

On another note, here's O'Donnell talking about what a Constitutional scholar she is: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politic...tion.gaffe.cnn

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The one who hasn't been discussed to death throughout the 90s already?

On another note, here's O'Donnell talking about what a Constitutional scholar she is: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politic...tion.gaffe.cnn

TM

Who knew she had a petard on which to be hoisted?

Now can someone do one of those montages for Rubio, Angle, Paul, Toomey and some of the other learned TPers out there?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That bitch is out of her fucking mind.

I'm imagining she got totally baked and thought it was a good idea. Then the next day she checked the "Dialed Calls" log on her phone and was all, "Uh-oh."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Who knew she had a petard on which to be hoisted?

Now can someone do one of those montages for Rubio, Angle, Paul, Toomey and some of the other learned TPers out there?

Like many Americans, over the past several years I have been the recipient of multiple unwelcome voicemails from the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. These calls have come in the middle of the night, at the crack of dawn, even at the dinner hour favored by telemarketers. Regardless of the time of day, all of these voicemails have one thing in common: she always sounds like she’s drunk-dialing me, except she appears to be completely sober.

I know what you’re saying: “It’ll never happen to me. Virginia Thomas doesn’t even have my phone number!” Well, that’s what I thought, and several years of trauma counseling later, I’ve come to realize (the hard way) what a fool’s paradise I was living in. Consider this: according to a recent study, the odds of Virginia Thomas leaving a threatening voicemail for you are higher than those of Christine O’Donnell correctly identifying the First Amendment. With those grim statistics in mind, here are three simple steps you can take if and when Mrs. Clarence Thomas calls:

1. Start apologizing the moment you hear her voice. Remember, like a bear at a campsite, Virginia Thomas does not want to eat you, she’s only after your food, and in this case, your apology is the only thing protecting you from Mrs. Thomas mauling you to death. If apologizing does not work, clap your hands loudly into the receiver in the hopes of scaring her away.

2. When she says, “This is Virginia Thomas,” reply, “No, this is Virginia Thomas. Who’s calling? Wait a minute—is that you, Anita Hill?” When she denies being Anita Hill (and she will), say, “There you go again, with your infernal lies. This is like Clarence’s confirmation hearings all over again. You disgust me, Anita Hill.” With any luck, accusing her of being Anita Hill will disorient her long enough for you to summon help.

3. Get in the habit of answering your phone, “Long Dong Silver residence.”


One final note: if you get a call in the middle of the night and there is silence on the other end, that is not Virginia Thomas. That is Clarence Thomas.

The New Yorker

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The New Yorker

All very funny, except Tip #3, which was uncharacteristically puerile and diminished the piece as a whole.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

All very funny, except Tip #3, which was uncharacteristically puerile and diminished the piece as a whole.

In The New Yorker, no less!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I'm imagining she got totally baked and thought it was a good idea. Then the next day she checked the "Dialed Calls" log on her phone and was all, "Uh-oh."

And for those of us who've been here a few years, finally the reason Atticus switched so quickly that time

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Jim Lindgren, at Volokh, on how "separation of church and state" was read into the Constitution:

6. The phrase “Separation of Church and State,” as Philip Hamburger establishes in his classic book on the subject, is not in the language of the first amendment, was not favored by any influential framer at the time of the first amendment, and was not its purpose.

7. The first mainstream figures to favor separation after the first amendment was adopted were Jefferson supporters in the 1800 election, who were trying to silence Northern clergy critical of the immoral Jeffersonian slaveholders in the South.

8. After the Civil War, liberal Republicans proposed a constitutional amendment to add separation of church and state to the US Constitution by amendment, since it was not already there. After that effort failed, influential people began arguing that it was (magically) in the first amendment.

9. In the last part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, nativists (including the KKK) popularized separation as an American constitutional principle, eventually leading to a near consensus supporting some form of separation.

10. Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed (or was it the Klansman’s Kreed?). Before he joined the Court, Justice Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.” In 1947, Black was the author of Everson, the first Supreme Court case to hold that the first amendment’s establishment clause requires separation of church & state. The suit in Everson was brought by an organization that at various times had ties to the KKK.

11. Until this term, the justices were moving away from the separation metaphor, often failing to mention it except in the titles of cited law review articles, but in the last term of the Court they fell back to using it again.

12. As Judge Roberts pithily pointed out in the hearings, only one justice (Breyer) thought that both of the leading establishment clause cases delivered this last term were correctly decided.

I wasn't familiar with the KKK angle -- maybe I haven't been reading Penske's ouevre closely enough?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Which one?

I applaud her. I have a whole list of people, dating back to the 1960s, whom have wronged me. Quarterly, I open a bottle of wine, no younger than 1990 vintage, drink it, and then pick a name at random and call them late at night and conduct a festivus style upbraiding. Is that odd?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Jim Lindgren, at Volokh, on how "separation of church and state" was read into the Constitution:



I wasn't familiar with the KKK angle -- maybe I haven't been reading Penske's ouevre closely enough?

I wish Kleagle Byrd was alive to weigh in.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I wish Kleagle Byrd was alive to weigh in.

Woohoo!

Atticus? That'll be ten bucks, please.