In a statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said, "An article in today's Jerusalem Post about the president's position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources -- quoting unnamed sources -- is not worth the paper it's written on... [O]ur preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."

First of all, I am not saying that Junior is planning immediate, or even near-term, military action (he certainly doesn't confide in me). But anyone with half a memory will recall the similar claims made by the malAdministration in late '02 and early '03. This denial is worthless.

Oh, and Dana, does this mean that all of L'il George's "some say" quotes are equally valueless?

Novak may well be talking out of his ass, John McCain has a much deeper, darker closet than Obama ever thought of having. I'm not really sure that he wants anyone shining a light into it. And this is certain to happen if he, or his flying monkeys, start swiftboating.

Ok All,

WES has seen the light, swallowed hard, and however grudgingly, voted for Obama. And the reward is what? More grief.

How about showing a little grace in victory. Or is this a preview of what I'll need to wade through on a grand scale after the convention? If I wanted triumphalist gloating, I'd be a Yankees fan (although happily, not so much recently).

Sheesh.

As a lapsed Catholic, I sure as hell know a deathbed conversion when I see it.

I've been listening to our local NPR station (KUOW Seattle) and they have a member of the RBC on discussing Saturday's meeting.

He's saying that the Board's position was that the MI and FL primaries were beauty contests only, neither candidate had any delegates from either state going into the meeting. The Board used the primary results as a guide to voter preference, not an absolute yardstick. Therefore there were no "Clinton delegates" or "Obama delegates" until the RBC did the apportioning, so there was no 4-vote giveaway.

I'm not commenting on this answer (I don't want to become part of the usual asinine flame wars that these War Room posts attract), I'm just reporting what the member said.

McCain chose a wonderful place to kick off his campaign - New Orleans, where GOP competence and caring was shown in all its glory.

McCain is an awful communicator. He is very shaky on actual facts and any forum that causes him to have to wing it - such as actual questions - not the kind of questions that the TV infotainers embarrassed the viewing public, but rather real questions are McCain's worst enemy.

All true - to a point. In a universe where the people watching the debates actually know the facts, or we could count on a quick MSM reaction pointing out where McSame was making it up as he went along, real questions would indeed be his worst enemy. Unfortunately, we can count on neither.

But at least one can hope that the questions will get above the "flag pin" level.

I'll chime in with bearpaw1 and Stewsburntmonkey (and I don't even wanna know where that handle comes from), but last I imagine Article IV, section I of the Constitution, to wit:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

takes a little more than an act of Congress to actually repeal, but that last sentence may give the bigots an effective argument in court if Congress just decides to neuter the article.

Whaddaya think - fire Johnson and if the McCain people don't STFU about it, just point of this little nugget:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/mccain_camp_advisor_linked_to.php

"I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric," Bush said. Pointing to phrases like "bring them on" and "dead or alive," he said that these "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace."

Isn't it just so W - the one time he tells the truth, he regrets it.

From Italy, President Bush said Thursday that he disagreed with the ruling but "we will abide by the court's decision" -- as if he believes the administration has a choice in the matter.

Actually, I think he does have a choice. Not legally, of course, but if he decided not to allow habeas hearings, just what could the Supremes do about it? I suppose they could complain to the DoJ, for all the good it would do them. And Congress? I'm sure they'd get around to writing a strongly worded letter or two, but I don't think Nancy would be in any rush to start impeachment hearings.

No, I'm pretty sure if he wanted to flip off the Judicial and Legislative branches, they'd sputter and fume, but he'd get away with it.

Hobbs isn't a member of the KKK - as far as I know.

First of all, I didn't take a position on whether Bush deserves to be impeached, and I'm not doing so now either.

Fair & Balanced, eh Alex?

For god's sake man, this is a blog not the straight news section of a newspaper, you're allowed and expected to have an opinion.

if they were selling and who was buying.

Alex, I believe you mean "interstate" rather than "intra-state".

But that's a quibble, the real question is why is anyone paying any attention to this person? If I tell the press about the wild nights that John McCain and I spent involving nose candy, hookers, and trampolines, how much press would I get?

Granted, it never happened and I would possibly fail a lie detector test, but that doesn't seem to be an impediment to getting the message spread.