Don’t take my word for it, take ABC Blog’s:

Ruling Congress, Dems Rolling in Special Interest Cash

The campaign coffers of the new Democratic House committee chairmen have seen a big jump in contributions from lobbyists and special interests since the Democratic takeover of Congress, according to new campaign finance filings available on PoliticalMoneyLine.com.

In some cases, Democrats in powerful posts are raising more money from special interest groups than the Republicans they replaced.

Boggle.  Let’s see that again.

In some cases, Democrats in powerful posts are raising more money from special interest groups than the Republicans they replaced.

Ahhh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy…

Campaign finance experts say that special interests have been contributing mostly to Republicans over the last 12 years of GOP rule on Capitol Hill.  Now they are having to making quick friends with Democratic leaders.  

“Committee chairmen act as the gatekeepers exercising control of whether legislation moves or is at a road block, deciding what is to be considered when,” says Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “If you’ve developed a cordial relationship with them over time and have given them contributions, it certainly goes to your benefit.”

And right there is the core issue:  Control.  Since the Democrats have control, they are the focus, and they are no more immune then the Republicans.

The chairman to receive the most PAC money was Rep. Charles  Rangel of New York, the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, who reported raising $486,669 from PACs, compared to $7,500 during the same period two years ago.

That’s about a 6400% increase.  Nice work Charlie.

Rangel’s PAC donors compromised more than half the money he raised and represent a broad array of industries including health care, finance, transportation, agriculture, technology, retailers and organized labor.

You can’t make this stuff up folks.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/pagesix_u.htm

DONALD Trump has unleashed a secret weapon in his feud with Rosie O’Donnell - a gigantic black undergarment she wore in the movie “Exit to Eden,” which Trump sent to Barbara Walters on Monday to hang on the office wall at “The View.”

The girdle-like outfit - variously described as “a bustier” and “a giant pair of panties” - was bought at a charity auction by a fan, who then had the relic framed under glass and delivered to Trump.

“I sent it to Barbara to hang in her office because I didn’t want it in mine. It was funny, except that it was really gross. It’s disgusting,” Trump told Page Six. “I feel sorry for [Rosie's] wife. It can’t be pleasant.”

O’Donnell played the police detective partner of Dan Aykroyd in the 1994 comedy described by Leonard Maltin as a “strange cinematic catastrophe.” The two cops go undercover at a sado-masochistic fantasy camp, which required O’Donnell to wear the bustier with garters and stockings while brandishing a whip.

The movie was actually pretty funny.  It is one of the ones she did that really worked with her dry and sarcastic style.  And the garment is as described.  I guess it was just too easy of a target.

On “The View” on Monday, O’Donnell asked Walters, Joy Behar and Elizabeth Haselbeck: “You want to hear what a 61-year-old businessman did today? He sent Barbara . . .”

Walters interrupted: “But this is for me to say. This was sent for me, it was not sent to you.” O’Donnell: “Go ahead, you say it.” Walters: “No, I don’t want to.” O’Donnell: “You don’t want to?”

Walters ended the conversation, “I really do not want to stir up the whole Donald Trump thing again” - leaving viewers wondering what they were talking about.

This is what they were talking about:

Some days, I swear, the politicians make our job too easy.  Such is the case of John “Silky Pony” Edwards, erstwhile presidential candidate and Breck model.

Let’s round it up, shall we?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18157456/

Looking pretty is costing John Edwards’ presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat’s campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as “a unique boutique for the mind, body and face” that caters mostly to women.

A spokeswoman for Edwards’ campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Well honestly, what can you say?  This guy spent more money on one haircut then many people make in a full weeks work, and they expect he will appeal to the regular folks?

Sister Toldjah continues the expose:

John Edwards: Putting the “man” in manicure?

Yesterday, I blogged about Ben Smith’s scoop on presidential wannabe Democrat John Edwards’ tab for a haircut: $400 on at least two different occasions, courtesy of a Hollywood stylist. In one month. Also mentioned in Smith’s scoop were visits Edwards had made to two other salons, but no dollar amount for services was given.

Today, the AP reported on the costs of those other salon visits and it looks like Mr. He Feels Pretty didn’t skimp on those salon visits either:

…

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the former Senator from NC (ugh) had some other salon services performed, like perhaps a manicure, or facial, or purchased some haircare products …

Sure, how can the leader of the free world perform his august duties with a hangnail for crying out loud?  Have some sensitivity. This is the era of the metrosexual for sure.

Besides all the psycho-babble, the next dreaded aspect is the overreactions and copycats.

The overreactions are somewhat understandable, everyone is on heightened alert. But I will never understand what drives the copycats.

I stole these links from Orb at orbusmax.com, so all the work on gathering all these, and the credit, is solely his.

Stupidity is apparently contagious.