Tuesday, welcoming Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the White House, President Bush couldn’t resist getting in a joke about his chef.

First, said Bush, “I want to tell you how proud I am to be the president of a nation that — in which there’s a lot of Philippine Americans. They love America and they love their heritage.”

Second, he continued, “I am reminded of the great talent of the — of our Philippine Americans when I eat dinner at the White House…. And the chef is a great person and a really good cook, by the way, Madam President.”

Just to round out this (pretty much) dead thread, and back to the topic at hand,
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2590

Well, it took me about 15 minutes on Google Images to discover that John McCain’s (R) own caucus — the National Republican Senatorial Committee — uses three different likenesses of the official seal…for fundraising purposes:

So, you know, STFU, Ruffini.

I’m sure many people only know the term douchebag as a prejrative. That when asked what a “douchebag” is would only be aware of it’s use as a synonym for “jerk” and would be surprised to find it is an actual physical object.

When you say “He sucks.” can’t it just be a comment on his ability without it also being a comment on his sexuality?

Why do you think of “douchebag” in such a negative context? Just how do you define “douchebag,” anyway? What sorts of traits do you associate with feminine hygiene products and people you dislike? Is it a dislike of the feminine part, or the hygiene part?

Thanks for the good laugh, Sean.

J.

My name is Jay, and I’m a sexist…

“Hi, Jay!”

J.

Like I said, it’s a bipartisan stunt.

And I don’t like “douchebag” because it is, in and of itself, sexist. That’s why I usually call ‘em “assholes” and “dipshits” and “scum” and “weasels” and “sacks of shit” — nice, gender-neutral epithets.

Or, when I’m really, really worked up, “pig-fucker.”

Jon raised a valid point, though — why is it fair for Oliver to call Lieberman and Kaus douchebags, but some sort of great outrage for someone to call Obama a douche?

I’m thinking it’s a form of heresy…

J.

Inquiry is, of course, a good thing. More questions should be asked. It’s how we make sure we understand what the other guy really means before we go off and rip ‘im a new one thereby lessening the chance for finding out we actually pretty much agree. It’s how we make sure our “leaders” aren’t getting away with all that they have been getting away with.

But the “I’m just asking questions” excuse has also been used far too much lately as a cover. E.g., the person who disingenuously says “I’m just trying to understand, why doesn’t Obama wear a lapel pin? I’m just asking.” who really has no interest at all in any real answer. The real intent is to make the statement “Obama isn’t patriotic”.

I didn’t realize the term “douchebag” was misogynist. I get that it is for *ahem* feminine hygiene, but it flows better than “enema bag” which would be asexual.

Plus “Douchebag of Liberty” is teh funnay.

Rather, I just asked him just what he means by “douchebag,” and if he really is a misogynist as he appears he might be.

Personally, I don’t care for that term, and don’t use it. I understand that it’s become more popular of late (partly, I’m sure, thanks to Jon Stewart calling Robert Novak “Douchebag Of Liberty”), but I still don’t care for it — precisely because of its implications.

J.

Like “When did he stop beating his wife?”

Just askin’.

Besides, I never said Oliver was a misogynist; I’m just asking questions…

J.

Come to think of it, when one couples your excessive use of that term with your constant objectification of women (especially Jessica Alba) and your opposition to Hillary Clinton, and quite a case can be made that you are, indeed, a sexist and misogynist.

Hell, one could even tie in your pronouncements of your fondness for your “weiner” dog and speculate if you’re one of those women-hating gay men, and the objectifying of women is merely cover for your denial of your homosexuality…

Nah, that’s going too far. I’ll just stick with the “sexist, misogynist” theory.

J.

So we’re blaming him now for having opponents who screwed up?

What you’d said: “In those cases, like his “adopting” the seal of the presidency, waiting for icky, annoying formalities like elections was just too much to ask of him.”

How about formalities like making sure you have all the proper filings required to get your name on the ballot. Should we ignore those? Because in his initial race Obama didn’t. He did what was required and got his name on the ballot. Others didn’t, he pointed it out, and they got left off.

Jay, I agree keeping your opponent off the ballot thru basically legal maneuvers isn’t the most admirable thing. But it was how the game was/is played in Chicago. And I can’t see a real problem with doing unto the other exactly what they would try to do to you as long as it is all within the rules, as it was.

This isn’t that far from those who complained about Obama beating Hillary in the primaries because he played the game better than she did.

And so he should be held responsible for Ryan pressuring his wife to have sex with him in public sex clubs. Yeah. That makes sense.

Oliver Willis: “Joe Lieberman is a douchebag.” http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/11/08/joe-lieberman-is-a-douchebag/

Oliver Willis: “Mickey Kaus is a douchebag.” http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/10/27/mickey-kaus-is-a-douchebag/

Or was it just in the past few days, when you saw an opponent using the word?