Presidential Paint Ball Game

Here's a great little Paint Ball Game.  All you have to do is select which Presidential candidate you want to be.  Then you navigate through the levels trying to shoot it out (with paintball) with the other candidates both Democrat and Republicans.  I tried it and was able to easily eliminate Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Rudy, but I was stumped by Mitt Romney who shot my Barack Obama in the fourth level.

On a computer the mouse button is your firing button.  The R button is for reload and your arrow keys move you around (never did figure out how to duck!)

FYI

This is just a free flash game you play right from the browser, there is no downloading or anything, just hit play and shoot at the candidates with green paint to you feel content.

NOTE.  If you choose Fred Thompson's character you may wish to stock up on incontinence supplies first.

Bush to Block Money for US Troops to Protect Iraqi Assets

President Bush and Vice President Cheney and a long litany of Republicans have warned us over and over again that Democrats might block the money needed to support our troops in Iraq and NOW President Bush is prepared to do just that to protect Iraqi assets from lawsuits.

The President has snared himself in his own verbal trap.  I have never believed that his attempts to corner Democrats nor Republicans that disagreed with him was the right thing to do, but he used US troops as leverage time and time again to get his way.  He has used the patriotism of the country to drive a bipartisan wedge into capital hill, essentially trying other politicians as unpatriotic troop hating witches or the equivalent.

Now he finds himself in the same position that his own administration has described as despicable or beneath contempt as he prepares to with hold funding that would go to the troops.  It is his veto pen alone that will stop that money from going to the troops.  I guess he is finally getting a small taste of his own medicine. 

He should not be allowed to use patriotism of citizens and US troops like a political wine offered up by the wine of the month club.  Maybe future Presidents might even learn from his mistake and avoid using US troops as leverage in this way as well, its a lever that ultimately proves to be to heavy for any leader that uses it improperly.

Bush to veto bill over fears for Iraqi assets

The "Bush"-Whacked Administration: We have the top political quotes

For all of you Quote Mongering Birds out there, I have bird feeders full of quotes(and bad analogies) from 2007, but here are four of my favorite quotes identified by  The "Bush"-Whacked Administration blog.

“Put your big-girl panties on.” – Education Secretary Margaret Spellings' advice to deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino, who replaced Tony Snow as White House press secretary (Meowwwww

“Dumb as hell.” –President Richard Nixon, on tape, talking about Fred Thompson (Being called dumb by Nixon? That’s gotta hoit)

“I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody (Vice President Dick Cheney) who has a 9% approval rating.” – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Ouch)

“(I have) a wide stance when going to the bathroom.” Senator Larry Craig trying to explain why his foot touched the foot of an undercover police officer in an airport men's room known for gay pick-ups (Gonna take me another 2 weeks to get that image out of my head…)

The "Bush"-Whacked Administration: We have the top political quotes

There are more, but I thought these were the most humorous.  In truth, most of the notable quotes that relate to the Bush Administration just are not terribly funny giving the seriousness of how much the administration has failed over the last 7 years.  After that much failure, bad quotes just ads insult to injury.

Now that said, I suspect that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might have said, “I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody (Vice President Dick Cheney) who has a first name of Dick.”

The Three Way in Iowa (John, Barack and Hillary)

There is a true three way race for the Iowa Caucus between John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in that order.  Edwards needs to win with a good margin to move into other primaries.  Edwards must beat Obama in Iowa to stay in the race at all.

Clinton needs to show in either Iowa or New Hampshire, but she can not tank in either and especially not in both.

Barack Obama, just needs to maintain his place in the top 3 until South Carolina where he will probably walk away with the Democratic primary once the Oprah factor pulls in the female vote against Hillary.

For now though the attention is on Iowa first and the other trophies will come into play shortly there after.

Lieberman Endorsing John McCain - Loyalty and Bipartisan cooperation still exist

It may be hard to believe, but there is still an ounce of loyalty and bipartisanship left in Washington DC these days.  The evidence will manifest in a few hours when Joe Lieberman (former Democrat and current Independent) will endorse his old friend John McCain (Republican and Potential Independent).

These two old friends have crossed party lines many times in the past, but these days the bipartisan divide has made it almost uncool to cooperate with the other side.  By default, moderate politicians are out of style.

One of the things that both of these moderates share in common is that they are both perceived as war hawks.  They are both gambling on a successful war or at least an end to the war.  Things are looking up as a result of the surge, but looking bad as the conflict between the kurds and Turkey heat up and as the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan both deteriorate.

This pair has been riding an elliptical machine around their respective parties and they have both suffered throughout the ride.  But it just might be possible that if they were to pair up in 2008, they might be able to bring about a resurgence of moderation in politics that is needed to heal the country.  They might even keep each other honest and that triffecta might just be too much to ask for.

inspiration - Lieberman to Cross Aisle to Endorse McCain

Politicians Pandering to Religion and Weakening the Constitution at the Same Time

 

After watching a recorded version of Meet the Pressthis afternoon,I wrote a  column on No More Incumbents  about Mitt Romney.  In my opinion, Mitt Romney appears to be one of the most dangerous candidates running for office in either party and a good deal of the potential risks that he brings to politics in the United States was evident in his interview on Meet the Press with Tim Russert.

Over the last few years politics has taken a nasty turntowards the light of embracingthe mixing of church and state within US politics. In my opinion this is extremely dangerousfor the United States.  The founders of our country may have been religious in their personal lives, but they specifically founded the countryto be separate church and state after witnessing first hand the perils of countries that were led by either religious zealots or political leaders that would take advantage of religions and their followers.

I am also extremely troubled byall the politiciansin both parties that have embraced the notion that they have to express themselves in terms of their own personal beliefs and religion. There's not supposed to be a litmus test in politicsrelating to religion, however almost every candidate running for officefor president has purposefully made it a central aspect of their campaigns to come out and state their religious beliefs and how important those religious beliefs are in their politics.  Even those candidates that are simply pandering to this notion and coming out and stating things about religion like a corporate employee embraces a laptop rental program, the candidates probably don't even believe in religion any more than an employee really cares what brand of computer they get at work.   These politicians, like Hillary Clinton affecting the persona of a Southern black minister and Barack Obama doing the same, they  are furthering the conversation and embracing the concept that religion is important in US politics and this has the potential to weaken our Constitution and our country.

To see in depth interviews with each of the Candidates see these netcasts or transcripts on msnbc.

• Dec. 16: Mitt Romney (R): Netcast | Transcript
• Dec. 9: Rudy Giuliani (R): Netcast | Transcript
• Nov. 11: Barack Obama (D): Netcast | Transcript
• Nov. 4: Fred Thompson (R): Netcast | Transcript
• Oct. 28: Chris Dodd (D): Netcast | Transcript
• Sept. 23: Hillary Clinton (D): Netcast | Transcript
• May 27: Bill Richardson (D): Netcast | Transcript
• May 13: John McCain (R): Netcast | Transcript
• April 29: Joe Biden (D): Netcast | Transcript
• Feb. 4: John Edwards (D): Netcast | Transcript
• Jan. 28: Mike Huckabee (R): Netcast| Transcript

Mitchell Report on Steroids in Sports Due Tomorrow

Tomorrow many major sports stars are going to be outed for steroid use.  A Congressional report, dubbed the Mitchell Report is due to be released and it is being hyped as either an outing or a bomb shell for major sports stars.

In recent weeks Barry Bonds has been indicted for perjury in relation to steroid use and Marion Jones was stripped of her Olympic medals today.

But tomorrow there could be a wave of people identified. So far there has been a lot of focus on the most high profile athletes but tomorrow there could be many A- and B and C athletes identified.  That could end the careers of lesser athletes with little name recognition and might definitely detract from others abilities to earn as much.  Instead of living the life as high rollers they might be kicked to the back of the player bus and get pushed into cheap hotel las vegas as opposed to the swank and posh regime.

Even more so, some may see time behind bars probably more often for perjury as in the Bonds case than in any other break in laws.

Reducing Gridlock on Equality in Sentencing for Crack

The Supreme Court paved the way and today the United States Sentencing Commission voted 7-0 to reduce punishments retroactively for prison inmates sentenced for trafficking in Crack.  This could shave as much as 15 - 17% off the total term of their sentences if the prisoners meet requirements for parole under good behavior.

It does not end the disparity in sentences for crack versus regular cocaine.  The commission as well as the Supreme Court have both referred this issue back to Congress to rewrite the rules.  The rules were written twenty years ago, when it was believed that Crack was more dangerous than cocaine.  That assumption has proved to be inaccurate and has led to a severe racial disparity in mandatory sentencing for what is essentially the same crime.

This is likely to be a hot button topic during an election year, and it will be an up hill battle between politicians looking to provide equality and those looking to appear tough on crime. 

The White House is against a reduction in sentencing for existing prisoners.  So far the Commission and the Supreme Court have enabled prison officials time to deal with the applications for early release, but there are many concerns about the safety issue of letting a mass exodus of prisoners out of prison, while providing them with the services they need to assimilate back into society successfully, from parole to drug treatment centers, to job training and beyond.

Retroactively, Panel Reduces Drug Sentences - New York Times

Iranian Assessment Result of Military Intercepts

In WWII, the US and the UK fed a great deal of misinformation to Germany and Hitler to trick them into believe that the D-Day attack would take place in the South of France as opposed to the beaches of Normandy.  This false intelligence forced Hitler to spread his forces thin across France and enabled the Allies to cut off those troops after the invasion.

This week we have been subjected to one apparent snafu that would have us believe that the US received multiple intelligence intercepts from signal intelligence, human intelligence and other sources, that when put together painted a picture that Iran had no nuclear bomb intentions or capabilities after all.  The media has portrayed the scandal of this around the fact that President Bush has been pushing us towards war with Iran. 

But if Iran is even one quarter as smart as the former Persian empire, this could all be a lie designed to misdirect us.  When you know that your communications are being intercepted by your enemy and you can not stop the intercepts, your best defense is to lie with half truths, partial truths and onion peels.  You surely do not state right out over the air waves your most important secrets.

If the intelligence community has become that gullible (which I do not believe to be the case) then they might as well pack it in and take up a sales job pushing platform beds.  I suspect that this is a multi-leveled ruse designed by Iran to fool us, and the public acknowledgement of the information is designed to do two things.

1. Make Iran believe that we believe their lie
2. Trick Democrats and Republican candidates running for President that are on the old guards least favored list into stepping into a pile of intelligence crap so that they will make fools of themselves.

This appears to have succeeded already where Hillary Clinton is concerned.  Her reaction and the vote pushed by Democrats in regards to Iran makes her look twice fooled by President Bush and even Hawkish on War.  It remains to be seen where this issue will really shake out.

Info from Iranian officers fed U.S. change in nuke assessment - CNN.com