The Supreme Court’s blessing of super PACs has flipped political fundraising on its ear, but it’s also sparked a wave of creativity, as each PAC tries to separate itself from the rest of the pack.

Super PAC monikers run the gamut, from downright bizarre to stirringly sentimental.

There’s “Your America Inc.,” not to be confused with “My America Inc.” And dig the delicious contradiction between “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” and “Americans for a Better Tomorrow Today.”

Irony alert: There’s even an “Ending Spending Fund,” which apparently hopes to end spending by . . . spending.

Some of our favorites are the aggressively patriotic ones. In an effort to out-Mom-and-apple-pie one another, the funds seem to be taking on ever more dramatic monikers, like “A Promise to Our Children,” “America for Americans,” “the Faith Family Freedom Fund” (and the similarly alliterative “Family Faith Future Fund”), “No Mercy Super PAC” and the “Now or Never PAC.”

And then there are the simply puzzling names, such as “Americans for More Rhombus” (a geometry lover, perhaps?), “Why Not ZoidPAC?” and “Justdrinkthekoolaid.”

One reason for the oddities is that all it takes to open a PAC of one’s very own is a letter to the Federal Election Commission announcing the formation of your PAC. Super!

And the LIE goes to . . .

We always knew Karl Rove was good at what he did. We just never realized how good. Rove, writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, offers an excellent skewering of President Obama’s recent campaign documentary.

The video “is riddled with . . . inaccuracies and misleading claims,” Rove writes.

For example, Rove says that “As for inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression: Perhaps Mr. Obama has forgotten the Carter presidency, which featured double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and high unemployment.”

In a deft final stroke, Rove even dismisses Obama’s killing of Osama bin Laden as really no big deal.

“As for the killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama did what virtually any commander in chief would have done in the same situation,” Rove writes. “Even President Bill Clinton says in the film ‘that’s the call I would have made.’ For this to be portrayed as the epic achievement of the first term tells you how bare the White House cupboards are,” Rove says.

Alas, our colleague Greg Sargent spotted a minor problem in the analysis.

It’s true that Clinton said “that’s the call I would have made,” Sargent notes in his blog, the Plum Line. “But here’s the full quote from Clinton, at the 12:30 mark in the film:

“He took the harder and the more honorable path,” Clinton says on the video. “When I saw what had happened, I thought to myself, ‘I hope that’s the call I would have made.’ ”

Rove deftly left out the two little words “I hope,” which does alter Clinton’s quote ever so completely. (The online version corrects that lapse.)

Awesome work. Worthy of the first-ever Loop Inspired Excision award.

Another loyal reader

Much fun has been poked at Dan Quayle’s intelligence. But in fact he’s a gentleman and a scholar.

Our evidence? A Loop fan spied Quayle on a flight Wednesday morning to Fort Worth. Seated in first class (natch), the former veep was using a Kindle — and his choice of reading material was, of course, the Loop. Our witness says he was absorbed in our item about Mitt Romney’s chance to woo Ron Paul voters by championing marijuana legalization.

After perusing our pot post, Quayle went on to read some heftier pieces, including the Financial Times — and, the witness said, he gave barely a glance to Dick Armey’s piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “What do Republicans believe?”

His interest in the marijuana item made us recall those claims on the eve of the 1988 presidential election by Brett Kimberlin, a federal prison inmate who said he sold pot to Quayle in the 1970s.

Quayle always denied the allegation — and there was never any evidence to support it — but as he well knows, you can’t spell “potatoe” without “pot.”


We typically don’t get our wine and spirits news from Food and Drug Administration filings, but in this case, a bit of bureaucratic paperwork revealed a fascinating mixological development.

E & J Gallo — makers of such fine products as Boone’s Farm and Turning Leaf, as well as higher-end, estate-bottled offerings — apparently wants to put a new spin on sparkling beverages. They’re asking regulators for the all-clear to tint their spirits with “mica-based pearlescent pigments.”

Mmm, sounds about as delicious as a peach-schnapps wine cooler (but at least it’s a more enticing add-on than that icky pink slime being used in ground beef). They claim that the additive is safe and has no impact on the “human environment.”

An FDA spokesman explains that the glittery pigments are already used in such products as frostings, candy and chewing gum, and that Gallo is simply seeking a new use for them in distilled spirits.

Interesting, but we think we’ll stick with champagne.

With Emily Heil

The blog:
intheloop. Twitter: @InThe LoopWP.