Stephie Meets Larry!

On Monday's show Stephanie relayed a story about her magical airplane ride back to LA from Seattle on MyLaska Airlines (names have been changed to protect the obvious). On this flight Stephie apparently made the acquaintance of, Larry, the only straight (male) flight attendant working the friendly skies. Stephanie also mentioned that she flirted rather shamelessly with Larry and even showed off her runner's calves to him. That got my mind going around 4:00 this morning, I thought I remembered seeing a shot of those gams in an earlier photo. With just a little bit of searching, I came across the shot I had in mind and decided that it merited a little collage, so voila - here it is... Enjoy!!
Click HERE to watch Stephanie's Evening in Seattle.

George W. Bush is a Lying Sack of Crap

Following, I have posted a verbatim transcript from today's press conference (the text below was copied and pasted from the White House's own web site). If there is anyone left on this planet who does not regard George W. Bush as the stupidest, most idiotic, most moronic president who has ever stolen the oval office - then you can't read or think for yourself. Let me point out a few salient lines to you, dear readers: the president claims that he not only did not know about the NIE until last week, he also claims that when Mike McConnell came into his office in AUGUST (2007) and said, "Mr. President, we have new information about Iran and their nuclear plans," he did not reply, "What is the new information, Mr. McConnell?" And if he didn't ask that question, does he have any business leading the free world? I think not. I rest my case, mostly because I am exhausted, and I know that I could not rest tonight without commenting on these highly egregious and suspicious statements made by our fearful leader (sic).

I had to borrow a well-worn phrase from this blog's namesake show as I composed this post. It is, of course, the "Lying Sack of Crap" phrase that has magically become ensconced in the brain of every listener of the SMS. It is a song that haunts us every night as we lie awake at 2:30 in the morning and wonder what kind of world we will awaken to the next day. It is an earworm so powerful as to knock out even the sappiest of '70s songs from our heads. I myself used it just today to jar a rather incessant chorus of " In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, bay-bee" out of my noggin - okay so that was a '60s song - sue me, I'm a few years older than Steph... Anyway, here's to that lovable little jingle that has become an anthem of sorts to those of us who believe in the power of the Stephanie Miller Show, and I'd like to dedicate that little tune to our commander-in-chief (sic) George W. Bush - hit it, boyz (er, Chris)... "You're a lying sack of crap, you're a lying sack of crap, you're a lyin', smelly, stinkin', nasty sack of liquid crap - bing bing"

David.

Q Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.

And the second part of your question has to do with this. Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. The NIE says that Iran had a hidden -- a covert nuclear weapons program. That's what it said. What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program? And the best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the future is for the international community to continue to work together to say to the Iranians, we're going to isolate you. However, there is a better way forward for the Iranians.

Now, in 2003, the Iranian government began to come to the table in discussions with the EU-3, facilitated by the United States. In other words, we said to the EU-3, we'll support your efforts to say to the Iranians, you have a choice to make: You can continue to do policy that will isolate you, or there's a better way forward, so that it was the sticks-and-carrots approach.

You might remember the United States said at that point in time, we'll put the WTO on the table for consideration, or we'll help you with spare parts for your airplanes. It was all an attempt to take advantage of what we thought was a more open-minded Iranian regime at the time -- a willingness of this regime to talk about a way forward. And then the Iranians had elections, and Ahmadinejad announced that -- to the IAEA that he was going to -- this is after, by the way, the Iranians had suspended their enrichment program -- he said, we're going to stop the suspension, we'll start up the program again. And that's where we are today.

My point is, is that there is a better way forward for the Iranians. There has been a moment during my presidency in which diplomacy provided a way forward for the Iranians. And our hope is we can get back on that path again. But what is certain is that if Iran ever had the knowledge to develop a nuclear weapon and they passed that knowledge on to a covert program, which at one time in their history has existed, the world would be more dangerous. And now is the time for the international community to work together.

Q Mr. President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you're saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as "World War III" was making it into conversation, at no point nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, maybe you want to back it down a little bit?

THE PRESIDENT: No, nobody ever told me that. Having said -- having laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger. Nothing has changed in this NIE that says, okay, why don't we just stop worrying about it. Quite the contrary. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn't changed.

And I just explained, Jim, that if you want to avoid a really problematic situation in the Middle East, now is the time to continue to work together. That's our message to our allies, and it's an important message for them to hear. And here's the reason why: In order for a nation to develop a nuclear weapons program they must have the materials from which to make a bomb, the know-how on how to take that material and make it explode, and a delivery system.

Now, the Iranians -- the most difficult aspect of developing a weapons program, or as some would say, the long pole in the tent, is enriching uranium. This is a nation -- Iran is a nation that is testing ballistic missiles. And it is a nation that is trying to enrich uranium. The NIE says this is a country that had a covert nuclear weapons program, which, by the way, they have failed to disclose, even today. They have never admitted the program existed in the first place.

The danger is, is that they can enrich, play like they got a civilian program -- or have a civilian program, or claim it's a civilian program -- and pass the knowledge to a covert military program. And then the danger is, is at some point in the future, they show up with a weapon. And my comments are, now is the time to work together to prevent that scenario from taking place. It's in our interests.

Why I Will NOT Be Endorsing Senator Hillary Clinton

Last night, I was sitting in my living room in Tulsa, OK talking with a friend and the conversation turned to politics (not an unusual turn for talk in my house these days). I asked my friend what her thoughts on Hillary's chances are, and her answer sums up my greatest political fear: she said, "Hillary will come very close to winning the White House, but in the end she will fail." That fear was underscored by a recent Zogby poll that showed Hillary vulnerable if not outright defeated by five of the clowns that currently make up the Republican field of presidential contenders. Sure, I voted for John Kerry in 2004, and I voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and I did so with the trepidation that comes with the almost certain knowledge that I was NOT voting for the person who would win the race. Although I have not forgotten about the voting poll shenanigans in Ohio that likely tipped the scales to Dubya in 2004, and of course, I am as convinced as I was that November night in 2000 as I drove home in Albuquerque, NM and cheered out loud into the night when Florida was called for Al Gore, that Mr. Gore's presidency was stolen out from under him and more importantly out from under the American people. But I am worried. In a country that has announced over and over again that they would prefer a Democratic leader over a Republican leader, why is Hillary the name that is on the tip of every wealthy GOPer's tongue as the candidate that they claim to fear the most?

I have suspected that the GOP has been planning a campaign against Ms. Clinton since she began to hint that she might seek the oval office. Karl Rove has already strategerized himself a plan to defeat Hillary, and I don't think that the rhetoric will seem new or fresh. Rove's plan is simply to recycle some old critical lines that will, I fear, appeal to all of those Republicans who hate the Clintons with a passion heretofore reserved for Satan, condoms, and Islamofascists.

I know that I am not pointing out anything that hasn't been whispered in every Democratic Committee Meeting since Hillary threw her hat in the ring, but I am predicting a much closer race if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and I just don't know how much this tired old political heart of mine can bear. Why don't we nominate somebody like Governor Richardson, whose resume alone would be fun to watch the Republicans try to challenge? Or Barack Obama, who I'd love to see get the nod, just to watch all the redneck Republicans squirm as they try to run against a person of color without playing the race card (and you and I both know that the party of Macaca and Trent Lott and Bob Jones University can't get through an entire election cycle without putting their pale white foot in between their thin little lips =).

I have, up to this point, hedged my bets. I have sent checks to Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson and even Dodd, when he stood up in the Senate against the egregious FISA bill that was poised to slip through the Congress and would have undoubtedly been signed by the president. The FISA bill is a horrendous piece of legislation that would have carved up a few more of our ever-shrinking civil liberties. But I vow, as of today, that I will not send another dime to Hillary Clinton - no matter how clever her marketing ploys are. I want a real change in Washington D.C., and as much as I admire Bill Clinton and miss his leadership, Bill is not running again, it is his wife Hillary who would be our nominee and I fear another presidential also-ran.

Those of you who have been reading this blog over the last several months, may wonder if my lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton can be traced to her refusal to attend "Prez on the Rez." I must answer that charge with a Clintonian "yes and no." I understand that campaigns make calculated choices everyday about which events will yield better results, and I also understand that Hillary's choice to not attend "POTR" was made by her and her staff at one time and reflected Hillary's priorities at the moment, which may not be her priorities a few months later. Still, I also know that when Hillary declined our invitation to join "POTR," the event immediately became a lower priority for Obama and John Edwards. She was, afterall, the leader at that point in the race and her choices influenced the choices of the other candidates.

So I, like a dog, do not readily forget slights such as Hillary's cold shoulder toward Indian Country, but that is not the primary reason I am not onboard her wagon. It is her stance on Iraq, her recent vote for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment, her inability to take a stand and then stand her ground, all of these reasons and personality characteristics that Hillary has displayed have me waiting on the sidelines until the Oklahoma primary vote on February 5, 2008, and I'm hoping that at that point in time, my vote will still make a difference.

See Frank Rich's Op-ed Piece in today's NYTimes: Who's Afraid of Barack Obama?