The Rip-Off feat. The Judybats and Led Zeppelin

While many bands have used Zeppelin as a jumping off point, a band of inspiration, The Judybats track "Being Simple" is a little too close to Zeppelin's classic "The Rain Song" to just be coincidental.

Check out the Judybat's guitar riff in Being Simple

And now, in it's original for from Zeppelin:

Opposite Marriage XXX

Turns out she just might be a "loose" lady rather than a "Luce" lady.

Carrie Prejean demanded more than a million dollars during her settlement negotiations with Miss California USA Pageant officials -- that is, until the lawyer for the Pageant showed Carrie an XXX home video of her handiwork.

The video the lawyer showed Carrie is extremely graphic and has never been released publicly. We know that, because TMZ obtained the video months ago but decided not to post it because it was so racy. Let's just say, Carrie has a promising solo career.

We're told it took about 15 seconds for Carrie to jettison her demand and essentially walk away with nothing.

I wonder what Fox"News" and conservative bloggers and pundits think of their second-favorite pageant girl now?

Your Tea Bagger Representatives

One has to wonder exactly how anyone with even a partially functioning brainstem can vote for people like this.



And while Rep. King will be tea-bagging it up this afternoon, 15% on his district will remain uninsured. How is he defending anyone's freedoms by ignoring the reality of his district?

And Jim DeMint doesn't seem to know much about the reality of the healthcare debate either.



His state is actually worse off than King's as nearly 20% of South Carolina is uninsured - a fact that should interest DeMint as the each uninsured person drives up overall costs.

King will likely be absent from his elected duties as a legislator and attend the rally that is currently going on at Capital Hill.

The Security Of Scare Tactics

Bachman is still trying rally her troops on healthcare reform, this time telling them to storm Capital Hill.



It appears that this confrontation will take place on the Capital steps, but I'm wondering exactly what sort of security threat this will pose. The reason being is that tea-baggers are known to bring weapons with them. Could this happen today? Who knows.

But what exactly does she mean when she directs the willfully ignorant throng to scare Democratic representatives? Are we talking about jumping out from behind doorways and corners shouting "BOO!" or are we talking about physical confrontation? This could get a little dicey. That is, if people actually show up.

But is it the Democratic Congressional representatives and those that voted for them that should be scared? Perhaps it is the teabaggers that need to take a look at their "leadership's" proposed healthcare legislation.

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendment’s insurance coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

It will be interesting to see how this "protest" pans out. I'm looking for Fox"News" to state that millions stormed the Capital steps.

Remember, Remember

Shorter Sarah Palin

Palin to Promote Book On Multiple Shows On Fox

Claiming that "variety is the spice of life", I find a ominous correlation between Palin and this woman:

Shorter Conservative Pundits: Re: NY-23 / Hoffman

As suggested by Dutch from The Sunshine Empire, this scene from the classic The Princess Bride shows the exact way in which conservatives are attempting to rationalize their strategy in supporting Hoffman in NY-23 race that they ultimately lost and are now attempting to claim some sort of bizaro-world victory.



If Progressives are Westly and Conservatives are Vizzini, then who would Princess Buttercup be?

And Up Is Down

I was waiting for someone within the fringe conservative movement to completely invert reality in reference to NY-23.

Erick Erickson @ REDSTATE claims that Hoffman's loss is actually a big win for conservatives. No, really.

First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.

Actually, he's got this wrong.

Hoffman only succeeded in getting as many votes as he did due to receiving votes that Scozzafava would have gotten. Certainly he would have gotten the twitchy-wingnut-teabagger vote ( or would he? ) because he sucked up to the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. And while Erickson could be only marginally correct in his assumption as to how victorious conservatives were in their assualt on Scozzafava, she was more Democrat that modern Republican anyway. So the more centrist/liberal voters were defaulted to Owens.

I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

That just doesn't make sense to me. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Erickson is essentially claiming that the GOP losing a 100+ year Congressional seat to Democrats is precisely what they were going for. And the kicker within that statement is that he knew all along that Hoffman couldn't win, he was just willing to be an obstructionist. He was willing to do this even if his party were going to lose.

And make no mistake, despite the Beltway spin, we know for certain based on statements from the local Republican parties, that they chose Scozzafava based on advice from the Washington crowd.

And how does Erickson "know" this? Did he have someone steal another Roladex?

So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.

It seems that Erickson has issues with somenoe within the GOP quitting. Perhaps he's forgotten what his girl Sarah did over the summer. And to rationalize your poorly constructed thesis by tossing out the "what if" card is equally as pathetic, as there is no way that all of Scozzafava's supporters would have voted for a character like Hoffman.

Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable.

Third parties lack funding and ability for a host of reasons. Conservatives are going to have to work from within the GOP. The GOP had better pay attention.

So Hoffman was just a pawn in the conservative's game, wasn't he? You see, Erickson realizes that people like Hoffman won't, can't, and never will win, but they are going to continue to cut of their own noses just to spite those within the GOP that they take issue with. There is no clearer picture of a fracturing Republican party than what was just stated her.

For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida. And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down.

What does that even mean, "operating within the GOP"? Does it mean that the candidate there is a blend of Hoffman and Scozzafava? Does it really mean anything, as Erickson and his mouth-agape zombies will rail against anything if it means that they will have to have common ground with Democrats. They did a great job of mucking up NY-23, so I say let them have a crack at Florida, it would be a win for us.