Friday, January 16, 2009

douche for saturday....



boy george!!
new song a tribute to obama...shocking isn't it?

Thursday, January 15, 2009

friday's daily douchebag....


caroline kennedy!!...
none of this bunch is like jfk....

January 15, 2009
Caroline Kennedy losing ground in another NY poll
Posted: 06:37 PM ET

From Rebecca Sinderbrand
Kennedy is getting more bad news in the latest poll out of New York.


— A new survey of New York voters is the second poll in two days to find Andrew Cuomo pulling away from Caroline Kennedy.

Four in 10 registered New York voters in a Marist poll released Thursday say they would would like to see Cuomo, currently the state’s attorney general, tapped as Hillary Clinton’s Senate replacement. Twenty-five percent of those polled think New York Gov. David Paterson should pick Kennedy for the spot.

A month ago, both Kennedy and Cuomo drew the support of one in four New Yorkers.

Cuomo now holds a clear advantage over Kennedy among Democrats (39 to 31 percent), Republicans (40 to 16 percent), and voters not registered with a political party (42 to 24 percent), and across most regions of the state. Only in New York City is the daughter of former President John Kennedy come close to Cuomo’s showing: she is the favorite of 31 percent of the city’s voters, compared to the 36 percent who favor Cuomo.

Other candidates for the Senate seat — Nassau County executive Tom Suozzi, and Reps. Steve Israel, Carolyn Maloney and Kirsten Gillibrand — each draw single digit support.

There are some more red flags for Kennedy in the new survey. Her favorability numbers have tumbled over the past month, with fewer than half — 46 percent — saying they have a positive impression of her, compared to the 60 percent who felt the same last month. Cuomo’s numbers have held steady, with 60 percent saying they view him favorably, compared to the 64 percent who answered the same way in last month’s survey.

Just 41 percent of the state’s voters think Caroline Kennedy would do an above average job as senator; 62 percent say the same of Cuomo. And 20 percent of those surveyed say Kennedy would perform poorly — double the 10 percent who said the same of Cuomo.

A majority of New Yorkers — including majorities of both parties, and both genders — say Caroline Kennedy has been treated fairly by the media, although that number is lower among women than men. Fifty-one percent of the women polled say Kennedy’s media coverage is nothing to complain about, while 57 percent of men gave the same answer.

The phone survey of 603 registered New York voters was conducted on January 12-14, 2009, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

daily douchebag(s) for thursday....

our first organizational winner...
the APobama!!
AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend


January 14, 2009 - 13:51 ET

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?

To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.

"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.

That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.

To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece (as recounted in the MRC’s CyberAlert), starting with a lede designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and including the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead:

President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.

■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year....

The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt's inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."...

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association's Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush -- twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC's reality TV show, "The Benefactor," in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.

"As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the...devastation of the tsunamis," he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.

Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: "Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities."

Obviously, that’s not the media’s message to Barack Obama this year. And no one in the press is going to argue that, with the nation at war, the new President should be satisfied with cold chicken salad and pound cake.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

daily douchebag for wednesday....





gomer fu*kin' pyle...
i mean...mike fu*kabee!!

from hot air......

Oh my: Couric and Gibson were perfectly fair to Palin, says Huckabee

From what I can gauge of grassroots sentiment these days, this is tantamount to desecrating Reagan’s grave.

Evidently he doesn’t see the bias inherent in questions like, “What do you read to stay informed?”

There are a lot of X factors [about running in 2012]. Including his fellow evangelical Christian Sarah Palin. There’s a natural tension between the two, especially since Palin took the vice-presidential-nominee slot many predicted would go to him. Huckabee, diplomatic and biblical, says the Alaskan governor “energized” the party. I ask him if she was treated fairly by the media. “There were a lot of unfair things. Sexist things that would never have been asked of a male candidate.” He pauses. “Now I must say I did not think that either the Charlie Gibson interview or the Katie Couric interviews were unfair. In fact, if anything, Katie Couric was extraordinarily gentle, even helpful. [Palin] just…I don’t know what happened. I can’t explain it. It was not a good interview. I’m being charitable.”

He pauses. “I think it was overpreparation. She’d been hammered by McCain’s aides, ‘Say this, don’t say that.’”

Huckabee has met Palin a few times and talked to her backstage at the Republican National Convention.

“Did you give her any advice?”

“I didn’t figure that she was shopping for my advice.”

“But she sure was shopping.”

“Yeah,” chuckles Huckabee. Then stays quiet. I set him up for an easy spike, but he holds his tongue.

Even now, the debate is raging in Headlines over whether her point about being able to see Russia from Alaska was taken out of context. Exit question: This is at least the third time he’s taken a dig at her since the election. How worried is he about 2012?

from the desk of pat buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan
Obama's Choice: FDR or Reagan
by Patrick J. Buchanan
01/09/2009


Barack Obama, it is said, will inherit the worst times since the Great Depression. Not to minimize the crisis we are in, but we need a little perspective here.

The Great Depression began with the Great Crash of 1929. By 1931, unemployment had reached 16 percent.

By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent -- among heads of households. And in those days, there was no unemployment insurance, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no welfare.

FDR's answer: vast federal spending, tough new regulations on business and higher taxes -- like Herbert Hoover before him, only more so.

The Depression lasted until war orders from the Allies brought U.S. industry back to life. Before 1940, not once did unemployment fall below 14 percent. In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

Politically, the New Deal was a smashing success, with FDR's landslides in 1932, 1934 and 1936 virtually wiping out the GOP.

Yet, economically, the New Deal was a bust, failing utterly to restore prosperity. Despite the indoctrination of generations of schoolchildren in New Deal propaganda, that is the hard truth.

Consider, now, how Ronald Reagan responded to the economic crisis of 1980, the worst since the Depression. In the "stagflation" of that Jimmy Carter era, interest rates had reached 21 percent and inflation 13 percent.

Reagan's answer was the tight money policy of Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and across-the-board tax cuts of 25 percent, while slashing the highest rates from 70 percent to 28 percent.

While unemployment hit 10 percent in 1982 and Reagan lost 26 House seats, in 1983 the tax cuts kicked in.

From there on out, it was boom times until Reagan rode off into the sunset, having created 20 million new jobs. "The Seven Fat Years," author Robert Bartley called them.

Reagan had followed the lead of Warren Harding and Cal Coolidge, who had cut Woodrow Wilson's wartime tax rates of near 70 percent to 25 percent, resulting in "The Roaring '20s," a time of unrivaled prosperity.

The JFK tax cuts of the 1960s, also a Reagan model, were equally successful.

Harding, Coolidge, JFK and Reagan all bet on the private sector as the engine of prosperity. All succeeded. Franklin Roosevelt bet on government. And the New Deal failed. It was World War II that pulled the United States out of the Depression ditch of the 1930s.

Comes now the financial collapse and economic crisis of 2008, inherited by Obama, with 40 percent of all stock values wiped out in a year, foreclosures pandemic, and unemployment near 7 percent and surging.

In crafting his solutions, Obama seems to be brushing aside the Reagan, JFK and Harding-Coolidge models, and channeling FDR and the New Deal Democrats.

Already staring at a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit for the year ending Sept. 30, about 8 percent of the entire U.S. economy, Obama intends to add a stimulus package of $700 billion to $1 trillion, yet another 5 percent to 7 percent of gross domestic product. The resulting deficit would be twice as large as Reagan's largest, 6 percent of GDP, which was the largest since World War II.

And how is this Niagara of money to be spent?

Hundreds of billions will go out in checks of $500 to $1,000 to wage-earners and individuals who do not even pay taxes. This is much like the George McGovern "demogrant" program of 1972, where every man, woman and child, if memory serves, was to get a $1,000 check from the U.S. government.

Other hundreds of billions will go to shore up state and municipal spending. Other hundreds of billions will go for "infrastructure" projects, another name for earmarks, which is a synonym for pork.

Now, as Obama does not intend to raise taxes, at least now, he is going to have to borrow this near $2 trillion from foreigners or U.S. taxpayers, or the Fed will have to create the money. Undeniably, this will have an impact upon the economy. But what will that impact be?

Where in history, other than World War II, is there evidence that such a mass infusion of spending restored prosperity?

Obama and the Democrats are taking a historic gamble, not only with their careers but with the country. If this monstrous stimulus package, plus the trillions in hot money, do not work; if the two ignite rampant inflation, rather than real growth, we are all out of options. The toolbox is empty.

And what will follow may truly resemble the 1930s.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

daily douchebag for tuesday


too easy...
she could be it everyday....
susan robbins(sarandon)

Monday, January 12, 2009

daily douchebag...

todays is......
nikolai grushevski!!

Man Wants To Lick Hooters (In The Courtroom)
Fri Jan 09, 2009
Nikolai Grushevski, a man from Corpus Christi, has filed a lawsuit because Hooters wouldn't let him work as a waiter, which we guess would be called a Hooters Boy.

"Hooters tries to circumvent the law by referring to its waiters as 'Hooters Girls.' Hooters is wrong," claims the lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court in Corpus. "Just as Southwest Airlines attempted nearly three decades ago with stewardesses, the waiter's position addressed herein is being limited to females by an employer '...who merely wishes to exploit female sexuality as a marketing tool to attract customers and insure profitability.'"

Exactly. Thankfully, the lawsuit says that Grushevski isn't trying to stop the restaurant from hiring Hooters Girls.


According to the lawsuit, Grushevski applied in person at a Corpus Christi Hooters, where the manager told him that the restaurant - locally and nationally - doesn't hire men as waiters. The lawsuit calls Hooters "brazen" for denying men the Hooters Girl right, and says that Grushevski didn't want to be a Hooters Girl, he simply wanted to be a food server.

In 1997, Hooters paid seven Chicago men $2 million after they filed a similar lawsuit. As a result of the settlement, the position of kitchen and bartender were deemed "gender neutral."

Hair Balls couldn't reach Grushevski or his lawyer, and a Hooters spokeswoman (no spokesman?!) hasn't responded either. We'll post an update as soon as we hear back from either.

Update: Alexis Aleshire, a spokeswoman for Hooters, e-mailed us some information about another federal lawsuit that eventually determined that in order to be a Hooters Girl, you must be a woman.

Aleshire also included a comment from Mike McNeil, vice president of marketing for Hooters of America: "The good news is that when this happened the last time, Hooters benefitted from an avalanche of positive publicity and public support for keeping Hooters Girls, well, girls. If we lose this go around, you can next expect hairy legged guys in the Rockettes to line up and male models in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. You wonder why people just can't leave good things alone."

Sunday, January 11, 2009

the daily douchebag.....


todays, a double...
fergie and her douchey husband or whatever he is...

From my wife's high school.....


my wife dawn in the middle,during her heyday as a Ledford cheerleader....

Ledford Panther.....
Madison Hedgecock....

Hedgecock’s Hard Hits Liven Up Giants
Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

With an accent of North Carolina and the style of Gomer Pyle, Madison Hedgecock elicits smiles and prompts banter.

Published: January 9, 2009

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. — After a recent practice, fullback Madison Hedgecock stood in the Giants’ locker room discussing facial hair, which has grown on him lately. He mentioned the mustache of the professional wrestler Hulk Hogan.

Despite his tractor-driving persona, Hedgecock has the physique and the showman’s flair for Hogan’s line of work. Might Hedgecock someday consider wrestling? He quickly dismissed the notion, but his smile widened.

“I might be good at it,” he said, pointing to the side of his head and twirling his index finger. “I am a little different.” Then the 6-foot-3, 266-pound Hedgecock grabbed a team aide for a precise pantomime of wrestling techniques.

As the slow-motion demonstration continued, Brandon Jacobs tried to leave the room, dodging Hedgecock’s gyrations as he rolled his eyes and scooted by. “Excuse me, country boy,” Jacobs said. “Cock-a-doodle-doo!”

Hedgecock is the fullback who clears paths for Jacobs, Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw, the running backs for the Giants, who will play the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday in an N.F.C. divisional playoff game at Giants Stadium.

Before and after practices and games, Hedgecock entertains his teammates with his humor and his random observations. With an accent from North Carolina and the style of Gomer Pyle, he elicits smiles and prompts banter.

When someone asked Hedgecock about the Giants’ linemen, he said they were all “ugly and fat” in a voice loud enough for them to hear. One of the eavesdroppers was Kevin Boothe, a backup lineman.

“He’s a special guy,” Boothe said of Hedgecock. “He’s full of comments. He talks about his farming expeditions. A lot of people don’t realize some of the stuff he says is pretty intelligent. You’ve just got to listen to him.”

And sometimes they just have to watch. When Hedgecock scored the only touchdown of his career, on a 2-yard pass reception in a 37-29 victory at Arizona on Nov. 23, he brushed away his teammates, squatted in the end zone and pumped his arms. He later explained he was “rowing to Hawaii for the Pro Bowl” and added that a Giants executive told him it was the worst touchdown celebration ever.

Earlier, against San Francisco, Hedgecock was bumped by a 49er after a play. He responded by falling over backward as if in a dead faint. This tricked an official into penalizing San Francisco. “That’s one way to get on TV,” Hedgecock said.

Between whistles, however, Hedgecock is all business. Jacobs and Ward each gained more than 1,000 yards this season. Jacobs was asked about Hedgecock’s help. “Madison goes in there headfirst,” he said. “He clears the holes out. I am glad we got Madison in the killer deal from St. Louis.”

The Giants chose him on waivers from the Rams early in the 2007 season.

Hedgecock heard he was cut from St. Louis while driving a combine on his day off. He does similar chores these days in a rural area of New Jersey.

Hedgecock has no tattoos and no plans for any. “I’d write something stupid and have to erase it,” he said. He enjoys topics that are not city slick.

When asked about his beard and mustache this week, he said he was trying to look Amish because the Giants are about to play a Pennsylvania team. Jacobs, Ward and Bradshaw are known as Earth, Wind and Fire, so what should Hedgecock be called?

“We call him the Preacher because he says he likes to baptize people when he hits them,” Ward said. “He’s the best fullback in the N.F.L. by far. The offensive line is the bread and Madison’s the butter.”

On a few passes this season, Hedgecock appeared to have butter on his fingers when he dropped balls. He said this week that he had a dislocated finger that has since healed.

He caught eight passes for 52 yards this season, including a 13-yard gain for a first down in a critical 34-28 victory over Carolina on Dec. 21. His receptions usually come after he blocks: short tosses as a late option for Eli Manning.

Hedgecock carried the ball only once on a handoff this season. He was stopped for no gain on a third-and-1 against Carolina. “They stunted and there was nowhere to go,” he said. “They had us.”

But he excels at blocking. Kevin Gilbride, the team’s offensive coordinator, said that Hedgecock primarily hits linebackers but that he has become sophisticated about rescuing plays when defensive linemen beat offensive linemen.

“It won’t be noticeable necessarily to the outside world, but his teammates appreciate it and I know his coaches do,” Gilbride said. “He adds significantly to the toughness that we have as an offense.”

Danny Clark, a linebacker, said Hedgecock “will bloody his nose and he’ll wipe it off and keep going.” He added: “I don’t think every linebacker in this league looks forward to lining up against him. He’s a stud. He’s a blue-collar guy. He’s the epitome of a New York Giant.”

Hedgecock, sometimes a man of many words, occasionally turns taciturn and speaks mostly with body language: the shrug, the smile, the tap on the shoulder of his questioner. How would he define himself? “I’m just a humble fullback,” he said.