Or, attention Kathryn Lopez.

Pricing for infallible text messages starts at just 49 cents.

Dear Donna,

I just wanted you to know — if you didn’t already — that Quentin Tarantino is talking about a remake of your favorite (and mine) Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill!. And according to the New York Post his choice to reprise Tura Satana’s part is none other than Tera Patrick.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen a Tera Patrick movie (though I think I once had a copy of Leg Show with her in it, doing some kind of bondage/mistress pictorial.) But I do think it’s cool that the Q continues to channel his inner Roger Corman.

This is Ms. Satana:

HuffPo reports that John McCain, despite claiming to meet with “independent and Democratic voters,” in his so-called “Town Hall” meetings, is continuing the Bush tradition of campaigning in a bubble stacked with only friendly partisans. Ironically, McCains flackery is exposed by none other than Faux News:

“I reported at the top of this hour that the campaign had told us at Fox News that the audience would be made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. We have now received a clarification from the campaign and I feel I should pass it along to you. The McCain campaign distributed tickets to supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, who of course is a registered Republican, and other independent groups.”

Just carrying on the Bush family tradition, I suppose. How long before he is photographed holding Abdullah’s hand or shining Bandar’s shoes?

A post on Corrente by an ardent Clinton supporter complains that the DNC changed its procedural rules when holding private meetings to decide how to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida!

Of course, the only reason the DNC was even considering the issue was because Clinton and her supporters were insisting on changing substantive prior rulings governing the selection of the Democratic nominees. It was previously determined by the DNC and agreed by all candidates that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count for purposes of selecting the Democratic party nominee as a consequence to their moving their primaries before Super Tuesday — agreed by all, that is, until Clinton and her supporters insisted that the rules must be changed after it became apparent that the only way in which Clinton could possibly hope to beat Obama was to change the substantive rules for nominee selection after the fact, and change them in a way which wildly favored Clinton’s candidacy!

This classic comment:

the key fact for me is that the dnc

changed its own rules,

“flexed its own rules”,

ignored its rules,

re-wrote its own rules, etc

Apparently changing substantive rules on nominee selection after candidates have acted in reliance on those rules is perfectly okay, but procedural violations (perceived or real) in resolving a dispute caused when one candidate later insists on changing those substantive rules ex post facto is a cardinal sin.

Hopefully, this craziness will stop today, after Clinton makes her endorsement.

from today’s LA Times Pantload-spoor.

“If conservatives swiftboat Michelle Obama, it’s all Hillary Clinton’s fault.”

No ties to 9/11, no WMDs and no ties to al Qaeda? Don’t ask Joe Lieberman:

The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

The Democratic Party rejected Bush’s framework for the war on terror — invade a country which had no ties to al Qaeda, no means to harm our nation, and no connection to the attacks of 9/11 — because it was a stupid, counterproductive, and disastrous framework. As a recent Pentagon study stated:

“Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle.”

Why, in the hell should Democrats embrace, as Lieberman urges, a “major debacle?” For the sake of “centrism” and presenting a united front — of stupidity — to our enemies?

Which enemies, by the way, are being increased by the decisions made within Bush’s disastrous framework for the war on terror. The National Intelligence Estimate released in September, 2006 undercut the argument that invading Iraq has made us safer — an argument Lieberman either stupidly or dishonestly continues to implicitly make. Rather, Iraq has made it easier for al Qaeda — the real threat — to recruit and rebuild its networks:

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Measured in terms of significant terrorist attacks world wide, Bush’s framework for the war on terror has resulted in a geometric expansion in the number of attacks world wide: from 208 such attacks in 2002, to well over 14,000 such attacks in 2006. To paraphrase my late mother, “If Bush jumped off a cliff, you would jump too?”

Perpetuating Bush’s mistakes, and endorsing his catastrophic “framework for the war on terror” only continues to strengthen our enemies, continues to squander our financial resources, and more importantly, continues to erode our military and drain its strength. Losing tens of thousands of killed and maimed in a “major debacle” which enables al Qaeda to cultivate more jihadists, and launch thousands of more attacks is no way to make America safer.

I’ve been largely steering clear of the blogwar between Clintonistas and Obamaites, but this post cries for quick comment. Lambert, in a post ironically titled Stupid Roe argument opines:

I keep hearing the OFB (”Obama Fan Base,” a derogation for those who support Obama) talking point that a key reason to vote for Obama in the general is to safeguard Roe. [ed: through Supreme Court appointments.]

If McCain won — if Satan himself won — Democrats would still have control of the SJC. If Dems really want to safeguard Roe, then make Roe a litmus test for the nominees. Then bork whoever gets sent up ’til McCain — or Satan — gets it and does the right thing.

Of course, that would require the Senate Dems to acquire stones, but that would be bad why?

There are plenty of other reasons to vote for the Democrat in the general, but this is not one.

This is incredibly shortsighted. First of all, if McCain wins the general election, he will be in office for 4, or perhaps 8, years. One-third of the Senate is up for reelection every 2 years. Thus it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that the entire Senate could turn over within McCain’s presidency. While this is extremely unlikely, it is not possible to discount the possibility that within that time frame the Democrats may not control the SJC (Senate Judicial Committee) or the Senate, and may not have veto power over a Supreme Court nominee.

Right now, the Democrats have a narrow majority in the Senate, and though that may be substantially enlarged in the general election, we won’t really know exactly what the numbers will be until after the voting is down. If the supposition is wrong, then it is too late to ask for a do-over and decide that voting for a pro-choice presidential candidate does matter, just as it would be too late if the GOP somehow wrested control of the Senate back during McCain’s presidency.

It goes without saying that relying on the Senate to “bork” any candidate who refuses to pleadge to reaffirm Roe v. Wade is equally myopic. The fact that the Senate has been 100% unsuccessful in controlling judicial appointments in the past ought to be a hint that it may be impossible for it to do so in the future.

Realistically, a more likely scenario if McCain is in office is an appointee who refuses to directly state how he would vote on abortion, who plays lip service to the value of precedent in general and Roe in particular. In other words, you get another Roberts.

There have been only 2 Supreme Court appointments by Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years. Apart from the issue of abortion and the continuing viability of Roe v. Wade, there are many other important issues impacted by the current rightward twist of the Court - like voting rights, for instance.

I’ve met Lambert a few times, and have found him intelligent and earnest. But pretending that the power to make Supreme Court appointments doesn’t matter, when Justice Stevens is 88, Ginsberg is 75 and Breyer is 70 is willful blindness. Villify Obama (and his “fan base”) all you want, but you have to be smarter than this. The consequences of an aging Supreme Court and another 4-8 years of GOP judicial appointments would have a substantial and lasting impact on this country.

Classic image on horkog.