Galley Reader C.L. notes that the self-parodic Andrew Sullivan (did you know he was in a Gap ad once!) has ascended to new heights of self-parody and suggests a fun game:

Trying to get Andrew Sullivan to publish your most over-the-top email about the greatness that is Obama. If I weren’t swamped with work, I would be all over this. Here’s a quick attempt:

“It seems improbable–dare I say providential?–that of all times, it is during Holy Week that Obama has reached out to heal our nation’s soul. No, he cannot redeem us by himself. But he can be a vehicle of that redemption, an agent of restoration. Through him, America’s original sin can at long last be overcome, and the better angels of our nature, restored. Yes, he can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.”

This shit is shockingly easy to write.

Can’t agree with that last part. C.L.’s blurb has a breezy genius to it that’s beyond my poor powers.

I imagine that getting Sullivan to run your email would make one feel like John Candy in Splash after Penthouse finally publishes one of his letters.

But if you don’t want to actually tug on Sullivan’s chain (so to speak), I’d suggest another fun game:

Before an Obama event takes place, write a short paragraph praising Obama’s performance in the most over-the-top manner possible. Then, after Obama does his thing, pluck a graph from Sullivan’s (or some other apologist’s) “analysis” and email them to friends, daring them to guess which is real and which is Memorex.

So no one gets the idea that this is a partisan thing, I’ll cop to doing this from time to time with friends concerning Mitt Romney and certain of his more, um, enthusiastic supporters during the earlier portion of the primary season.

Galley Friend D.B. sends us this story, which should put undecided GOP primary voters over the top: Ric Flair is endorsing Mike Huckabee. On the heels of this Huckabee ad, I’d say we have a winner:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&rel=1]
So who would the other logical wrestling endorsements be?

* Brooklyn Brawler endorses Giuliani

* Mr. Perfect (may he rest in peace) endorses Obama

* Hacksaw Jim Dugan endorses McCain

* Honky Tonk Man endorses John Edwards

* Vince McMahon endorses Hillary

* Ted DiBiase (in his Million Dollar Man gimmick) endorses Romney (so does Ted DiBiase in his evangelical Christian gimmick)

* Mic Foley/Mankind/Cactus Jack endorses Ron Paul

Surely you have others . . .

Just a quick aside:

Am I missing something, or did Patrick Ruffini just call Hugh Hewitt a liar?

Ruffini today: “Anyone who argues that this isn’t jump ball between some permutation of Giuliani/Romney/Thompson is probably lying to you.”

Hugh Hewitt last week: “The third quarter fundraising is coming to an end, and so has Fred Thompson’s honeymoon, leaving one of three people as George Bush’s successor–Senator Clinton, Mayor Giuliani, or Governor Romney.”

We have a routine in my house most mornings. My wife takes the first shower, I stop in the study on my way to the kitchen to start breakfast. In the study I quickly check the headlines to make sure that the world is still standing before I start scrambling the egg whites. Most days everything’s fine. Some days it’s not.

A few initial thoughts:

* I would not want to be London’s Mitt Romney–in charge of organizing their Olympics. One of the great advantages of having the Olympics in Salt Lake was that the city didn’t have an enormous soft-target of a public transit system, like the Underground. Whoever has that job won’t be getting much sleep tonight.

* We should all be proud of our president. In direct contrast to his reactions on September 11, 2001, he was clear-minded, strong, and very nearly eloquent this morning:

The contrast between what we’ve seen on the TV screens here, what’s taken place in London and what’s taking place here is incredibly vivid to me. On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you’ve got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn’t be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill — those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them, we will bring them to justice, and at the same time, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.

That’s good, strong stuff.

* Anyone who buys the line that these attacks are in response to Britain’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan should be ridden out of town on a rail. You know what terrorists do? They kill people. It’s who they are. They don’t need provocations and their “reasoning” is always post facto. The people of Bali weren’t fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no Iraq and Afghanistan on September 11 or at Khobar Towers.

There is no appeasing these people. If the Western allies pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, there would still be attacks for some other slight–maybe the affront of having troops in Saudi Arabia. If our Zionist infidel troops were pulled out of the Hijaz, there would still be attacks because there are Jews in the Holy Land. If the Jews were scrubbed out of the Holy Land, there would still be attacks because there are Gucci stores in Riyadh. It never ends. And so we should care not at all about why these monsters tell us they are making war against us.

What we should care about is making them dead, as quickly as possible. To their credit, George W. Bush and Tony Blair seem to understand this.

This Boston Globe story on Mitt Romney is pretty unbelievable. It assails the governor for his out-of-state speeches and runs a bevy of quotes by Democrats who are unhappy with him. But the cherry on top is that the authors end with a bit of political analysis about whether or not Romney’s strategy can work:

”Romney has put himself between a rock and a hard place because he is trying to pursue two incompatible strategies: To run for reelection in a socially progressive state, and running a national campaign appealing to right-wing social conservatives,” said state Democratic Party chairman Philip W. Johnston. ”I think it’s virtually impossible to do both. Only a political genius could do both, and I don’t know anyone who’s accused Mitt Romney of being that.”

The Globe‘s analysis of the situation comes not from a poli-sci professor, or political expert, but from the state Democratic party chairman? Are you kidding? And they end the piece with his ad hominem attack, without giving Romney a chance to respond? Disgraceful.