Yes, I said “Merry Christmas”! Not XMas, not “Happy Holidays”…but “Merry Christmas!” I believe in Jesus Christ as described in the Christian Bible, and since Christmas is the celebration of His birthday, then I say proudly to all:
I hope all of you reflect on your blessings in life, and yes, I hope you get cool stuff for gifts! Don’t get blinded by the commercialization of Christmas, but don’t be afraid to enjoy gifts that a loved one got for you because he/she thought that highly of you!
Also, be sure to reflect on how fortunate we are to have friends, families, and loyal readers (in my case) in our lives. Would we be who we are today without those influences in our lives? Doubtful.
I’ll be out of the loop until early next week, due to an impending trip to Memphis. However, I will continue to post next week, so until then, have a wonderful Christmas day!
Dems did what Dems do best: vote fraud.
With the “newly” discovered ballots in liberal mecca Seattle, Democrat Christine Gregoire has had her minions mine enough votes to steal the election by 130 votes. Full story here.
The victim, true governor-elect Dino Rossi, is weighing his options. My guess is that there’s nothing he can do in order to win now. He says that he’s got sworn affidavits from about 250 or so of his supporters in the state (96 in King County) who had their votes rejected, and he’d like their votes to be considered (and recanvassed) using the exact same standards as were used in counting the “newly discovered” King County ballots (and the same standards that were “legislated” by the Washington Supreme Court).
The King County supervisor of elections says he will not consider the 96 in his county, because they’ve already been considered…and rejected. He rationalized that since the “new” ballots were never considered, those ballots could be considered. In other words, Republican Rossi’s voters can be disenfranchised, but under no circumstances will Democrat Greogire’s be.
The Secretary of State in WA says that once counties have cerified their vote counts, they cannot be “uncertified” or reconsidered. So you really have to hand it to the fraudmeisters of King County. Hold off until all other counties have recounted and certified, so you know how many you need to get your horse across the finish line without the other counties being able to correct their totals.
See, here’s the kicker: all other counties have, in essence, locked away their vote totals. About 250 Rossi votes were discarded…for being incorrect in the exact same manner as the counted Seattle “new” ballots. In other words, ballots were not treated the same from county to county and precinct to precinct…a clear violation of Bush v. Gore!
So will Rossi fight for these votes to count, on the grounds that King County violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause (which was the primary basis for the ruling in Bush v. Gore)? If so, will the US Supreme Court get involved? They’re usually loathe to get involved in a state squabble, specifically one where there’s no federal office being challenged or sought. Only time will tell.
The one irrefutable fact is that while Gregoire nauseatingly reasserts her “This election is over” crap, she is incorrect. It is not over until Rossi concedes, or until the legal avenues have been explored and exhausted.
My prediction remains unchanged, though. Democrats have once again (Dailey in Chicago in 1960, Gore in Florida in 2000, Tim Johnson in South Dakota in 2002, etc.) proved that the GOP cannot hold a candle to them when it comes to electoral dishonesty, voting fraud, and commission of felonies in order to get their way.
Congrats, Malcolm X’ers: “By any means necessary”!
Whew! Nothing keeps the hope of Middle East peace alive like the reassurance provided by a Carter-monitored election. He did such a fine job monitoring the elections there in 1996, when Arafat got an “open and fair” 85% of the vote! He also did a splendid job of monitoring the sham election in Venezuela…didn’t see any fraud, so it didn’t happen. The man’s never met a dictator he hasn’t liked.
Well, Ben Shapiro thinks an award should be named for Carter’s audacity: the Jimmy Carter Honorary Golden Peanut of Gall. He has a host of other candidates for that award in mind. Excerpt below (full story here):
The 2004 nominees:
Louise Arbour, United Nations high commissioner for human rights. While representing an organization that has been repeatedly complicit in mass murder, Arbour had the incredible chutzpah to morally equate coalition forces in Iraq with “insurgents”: “The High Commissioner considers that all violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law must be investigated and those responsible for breaches … must be brought to justice, be they members of the Multinational Force or insurgents.” When the storm troopers come, you can be sure the United Nations will be there to condemn anyone who resists them.
Harry Reid (D-Nevada), incoming Senate minority leader. Asked about the possibility that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could fill Justice William Rehnquist’s seat as chief justice, Reid called Thomas “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.” Reid didn’t cite a single decision Thomas had written. If Reid wanted to find an embarrassment sitting on the Supreme Court, all he had to do was look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg; her decisions are often unintelligible (e.g. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc., 1996). But it’s always easier to get away with calling a conservative black man unintelligent.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania). Specter warned President Bush not to nominate any judges who are “anti-abortion”: “When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is unlikely. … I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned.” Specter almost immediately backed off his threat, mindful that his spot as chairman of the Judiciary Committee was at stake. It’s helpful to remember here that overruling Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with being anti-abortion: The plain and simple truth is that the Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating abortion. But for Specter, reading the Constitution as it was written has never taken precedence over reading the Constitution as he wishes it had been written (see Bork, Robert).
Michael Moore, morbidly obese filmmaker. You have to admire a man who despises the U.S. military, yet can keep a straight face while pretending that his anti-war sentiments spring from love of soldiers. This is a man who stated: “I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began, and sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe — just maybe — God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.” This is a man who called Iraqi terrorists “the Revolution, the Minutemen.” Yet he has the remarkable nerve to do his Jeanette Rankin routine in the name of the American soldier.
John Kerry, Democratic presidential nominee. Kerry centered his entire campaign on the fact that he once served in Vietnam, ignoring the fact that had he not returned and testified that his fellow veterans were war criminals, he would be an obscure upper-class, kept man today. Kerry’s gall provided my favorite moment of the presidential campaign. During the third presidential debate, President Bush was explaining how his religious beliefs shaped his policies. “In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty,” he stated. The atheistic Kerry hilariously responded by attempting to out-God Bush: “I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty. Everything is a gift from the Almighty.” Everything, apparently, including a couple of loaded wives and a gift for inspired humbuggery.
While the winner of the Jimmy Carter Honorary Golden Peanut of Gall remains unclear at this time, all the nominees should remember: It’s a dishonor just to be nominated.
Looks like my earlier prediction was correct. King County (Seattle) waited until last to release their hand count results, presumably so they could determine how many votes they needed in order to deliver a fraudulent win to the Democrat.
Tuesday night, the King County elections office released their preliminary findings, which says that their hand count is complete, and the Democrat shaved the winner’s margin from 49 votes to -8 votes. That’s right. The Democrat is claiming a whopping eight-vote win.
To add insult to injury, not only do these people have no shame in perpetuating vote fraud on the people on Washington state, but now they’re calling for the Republican to concede! The sheer, unadulterated gall of these animals! The message is clear: “We’ve finally gotten the result we wanted, so we can now stop everything and officially declare the race over.”
I’m not one to advocate suing one’s way to victory, but I’m also not one to advocate sitting back and allowing the other side (who lost both the original count and machine recount) to mine for votes in the biggest county (and biggest partisan county) that aren’t even valid. Much as I hate to say it, I hope Rossi sues to keep his well-earned and legitimate gubernatorial victory. Time will tell what will happen here.
Oh, yeah…the story is here. I’m sure that like Florida in 2000, much will happen here over the next several days. As a Floridian (albeit non-native) who was embarrassed by the debacle in 2000 here, I’m glad to see this mess happening somewhere else.
Great column! Burt Prelutsky has an op-ed in the Washington Times about his transformation from liberal to…well, we don’t know. He doesn’t say he’s a conservative. He could be a libertarian. Who knows?
Anyway, he voted Democrat from LBJ in 1964 through Dukakis in 1988. He said two things drove him away from being a liberal once and for all: Robert Mapplethorpe and Bill Clinton.
Who was Mapplethorpe? This excerpt explains (full story here):
Mr. Mapplethorpe, in case you’ve forgotten, had received a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts over the strong objections of North Carolina’s Senator Jesse Helms. The senator argued that the government had no business subsidizing a man who devoted his career to photographing naked children. Naturally, in elite circles, that made Sen. Helms a southern rube who couldn’t tell the difference between a pedophile and an artiste.
Yes, liberals defended the NEA subsidizing Mapplethorpe’s kiddie porn. Now, we all know that the moral compass of liberals has been demagnetized, but little did we know just how depraved they could be. Defending not only a pedophile, but defending the practice of subsidizing said pedophile’s “art” (if you want to call it that). If that’s not proof that liberals never spent a public dollar they didn’t like, then nothing will.
Anyway, he continues:
When the issue was finally brought up late that evening, I was the only person who spoke out against supporting Mr. Mapplethorpe legally or financially. In the first place, I never thought the federal government had any business supporting the arts. In a country as large as America, I figured if an artist couldn’t appeal to a sufficient number of people to earn an honest living, it wasn’t a federal subsidy he required, but vocational guidance.
In the second place, I didn’t think the WGA (Writer’s Guild of America) should be wasting the hard-earned dues of its members supporting some creep who could only have his creative vision satisfied by having an eight year old-child stripped down and posed for his camera.
That night, when I was out-voted 18-1, I realized the enormous gulf that separated me from the liberals in the room. It wasn’t simply that we disagreed about Mr. Mapplethorpe. Their very clear message was that there was no real need to consider what I was saying. It was enough that the ACLU was on Mr. Mapplethorpe’s side, and a southern conservative was opposed. Like brand-name shoppers, it was enough for them to read the labels. That was really all they needed to know.
After talking about Mapplethorpe, he then states that Clinton (or, as he puts it, “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s husband“) was the second reason he bolted from the liberal side. Funny that he juxtaposes Clinton with Mapplethorpe. While Clinton diddled young interns, at least unlike Mapplethorpe, they were of legal age. Disgusting, but perfectly legal.
I’ve often noted that, despite the risk of being branded as a bigot by total strangers (remind me later to give a flying fornication what liberal strangers think of me), it seems as though your average white person doesn’t feel the need to defend the indefensible…specifically, when another white person commits a heinous act (i.e. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, pedophile priests, etc.). Generally, white folks are not very forgiving of deprave acts against humanity, irrespective of the race of the predator.
Yet let a black (or a woman, or a gay, or a gay black woman…you get the idea) commit an attrocious and horrific acts, such as killing an ex-wife and her waiter, and the black community comes to the defense…but not of the victims. No, of the perpetrator.
I’m not trying to imply that blacks are somehow more accepting of acts of depravity than are whites or other ethnicities. Not at all. Actually, Coulter has a column whereby she ends with this obervation, which sums up my point:
Speaking of O.J., I keep hearing TV commentators say the Scott Peterson jury was influenced by the O.J. jury. Besides the fact that the jurors themselves say O.J. never crossed their minds until the press started asking them questions, the comparison is absurd. Among the burdens liberals have placed on blacks is the nutty idea that all blacks are obliged to defend the worst elements of their race.
White people don’t feel a need to defend Jeffrey Dahmer or Scott Peterson. Go ahead, kill him. If we did, the Judgment at Nuremburg would have ended in a hung jury. In fact, the biggest dilemma we usually face after a case like Scott Peterson’s is, “Lethal injection, or Old Sparky?”
I agree. It seems as though liberals have put such a burden on blacks by convincing them that if a black person is accused of commiting a heinous act, it must be a racist attempt to frame an innocent black man. Does it escape the realm of possibility that O.J. Simpson or Rae Carruth (former NFL player who had his pregnant girlfriend and unborn child killed) or others like them are actually really guilty as charged? And if they’re guilty, shouldn’t they pay?
Reasonable people can disagree on the death penalty, no doubt. But why do seemingly reasonable people become downright irrational when it comes to determining guilt of the clearly guilty? I reject the notion that one’s race should be a factor at all when deciding guilt or innocence, either in criminal court or the court of public opinion.
So the Washington governor’s race is down to one county: King County. King County is where Seattle and its leftist latte drinkers live. The Democrat, who trails by 50 votes in the entire state, is hoping that enough votes can be mined in King County to steal…er, SEAL…the election for her.
Kinda clever, when you think about it. King County is the LAST one to be counted. All of the rest are done. King County is one of only a couple of counties that the Democrat won, but she won it by 60% – 40%. I guess they figured that if all other counties were counted first, then they know how many votes they need to mine for in their last county.
If you want to see the vote totals, here they are: link
There’s a link to look at county results, too. I could be wrong, but something tells me Seattle is going to pull this off for the Dem. We’ll know by next Wednesday.
I may have a pinched nerve, or sciatica, or something like that. My left leg tingles, occasionally (but rarely) throbs, and I have an infrequent stiffness in the middle of my back. I went in for X-rays yesterday, so my doctor will read them next week. It only bothers me when I’m sitting down for a while…which is ONLY a HUGE part of my job!!
Anyway, so if I don’t post as often as I usually do, that’s why. I’ll keep up as much as I can. Thanks for the words of encouragement, and let’s keep up this fight!
Embattled Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld is catching hell from the unlikeliest of places: other Republicans.
GOP Senators Trent Lott, John McCain, and Olympia Snowe (okay, she’s a RINO) are expressing no confidence in Rummy and are advocating a change in leadership at that position. Full story here.
I like the guy. He speaks condescendingly to the Washington press corps, so he’s alright in my book. But if he’s going to be a liability to Bush, then Bush ought to consider allowing Rummy to “resign.”
Then again, Bush is in his second (and final) term, so screw the detractors…even if they’re from his own party!
That’s the headline blared by the AP today. For Heaven’s sake, aside from staring at punchcards, there is absolutely nothing about Ohio that mimics Florida in 2000…not to mention the convincing 119,000+ votes that Bush defeated Kerry by in Ohio.
No, the massah poverty pimp himself, Jesse Jackson, is now accusing the electronic voting manufacturer of rigging machines for Bush. Uh-huh…whatever. Go back to knocking up women you’re not married to and paying them off, Jesse.
Try to stifle laughter as you read this excerpt from the AP:
Jackson said activists noticed Bush generally received more votes in counties that use optical-scan voting machines, raising suspicions that the machines were calibrated to record votes for the president.
Oh…my…Lord. The AP is actually trying to pass this off as a serious charge. Well, OK…fine. I have a theory about this. See if you can follow me, since it’s not too hard:
The reason that Bush “generally received more votes in counties that use optical-scan voting machines” may be that Bush — are you sitting down for this nutty theory? — actually GOT more people to vote for him than Kerry got to vote for him. Isn’t that how states are usually decided? The most votes in that state wins the state? Considering that Bush lost very few of the battleground states, and that he picked up New Mexico and Iowa (states he lost in 2000), and that the only state he lost from his 2000 column was New Hampshire…is it really that hard to accept that Bush simply got more votes than did Kerry?
Then again, if you’re a liberal, that is one statement of fact that you can never accept. How ironic, though, for liberals! These same people acted like Gore’s 500,000 popular vote win in 2000 was decisive (less than 1% higher than Bush), and the Electoral College was outdated…yet now, Bush’s 3.3 million votes (and full 3% more popular votes) more than Kerry is a “close” election, and Kerry needs to shoot for Ohio to deny Bush’s Electoral College win! What a difference one race makes!
The governor’s race in Washington state finished with a narrow 42-vote win for the Republican candidate, out of nearly 2.8 million votes cast. In typical Dem fashion, a fight has ensued. And now, it looks like the latte-sippers in Seattle are willing to abet electoral fraud.
Elections officials in the liberal stronghold of Seattle’s King County have now “found” (after not one, not two, but three counts) 561 “previously uncounted” ballots. Since King County went about 60-40 for the Dems, that would be more than enough to overcome the 42-vote margin they need. How do you misplace, forget, or otherwise neglect to count 561 ballots after three counts?
In the state Supreme Court, Dems are trying to include previously-ruled ineligible votes. The state’s Supreme Court isn’t showing its hand yet. The Democrats’ legal counsel is recommending that WA voters should now go to the polls…with their attorneys! Good grief. The exchange between said counsel (Burman) and Justice Bridge:
Burman: “We are in favor of finality. But we are in favor of finality after it’s done fully and fairly, accurately and civilly, and that is part of the manual-recount process.”
Bridge: “Are voters supposed to take a lawyer now when they go to vote just to make sure everything” is done correctly?
Burman: “If they care enough, if they are worried enough about the errors, perhaps they should.”
Emphasis is mine. Full story here.
State GOP Chairman Chris Vance correctly observes: “It’s either gross incompetence or vote fraud. I guess we should just keep expecting King County to find votes until they find enough.”
It’d be a nice change to see the GOP in the Senate finally figure out that they keep getting more Senate seats for a reason: Americans want their agenda implemented. They want an end to unconstitutional liberal filibusters of judicial nominees. The Constitution calls only for “advice and consent” of the Senate, and nothing about a supermajority.
Glad to see Harry Reid openly promising to obstruct further. Alas, Reid was just re-elected last month, so he’s in for another eight years. That could work to the GOP advantage, just as Dasshole worked to their advantage.
From the Washington Post:
As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush (news – web sites)’s judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist.
Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president’s 229 judicial nominees in his first term — although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan (news – web sites). Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the “nuclear option,” to thwart such filibusters.
“One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end,” he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a “formula for tyranny by the minority.”
So far, at least, Democrats are refusing to forgo filibusters and say they will fight any effort by Frist to act unilaterally to end them for judicial nominations. They warn that it could poison the well for bipartisan cooperation on other issues in the upcoming Congress.
“If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it’s not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back,” incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. “I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up.”
Democrats, however, face several constraints. Democratic strategists said that some of the party’s senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist — a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002.
With a Supreme Court nomination, Democrats could be blamed for deadlocking the court at its current four conservatives and four liberals, making it impossible for the court to decide the toughest cases.
White House officials are willing to say little about their Supreme Court strategy and brush off questions by saying simply that Bush will choose the most qualified candidate. But several lawyers and former administration officials who have discussed the issue with West Wing aides said they see indications that Bush is headed toward nominating what one called a “strong ideological conservative” rather than accommodating Democrats with a choice who would be confirmed with little controversy.
One of those signs is that despite Bush’s rhetoric about bipartisanship, Democrats say he has done little to reach out to them since his reelection. And some administration officials say they believe any goodwill that was established would quickly evaporate with the president’s first Supreme Court nomination.
Several knowledgeable lawyers said the White House has discussed a strategy of explaining a conservative pick by saying that the nominee is of the same stripe as the justice being replaced. “Anybody except for a strong ideological conservative is a waste of a fight,” one adviser said. “What they plan to say is that they would not be fundamentally changing the makeup of the court.”
Several administration officials said Bush signaled this strategy last month when he nominated White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general, taking him out of the running for an immediate appointment to the high court. Gonzales would be more likely to be viewed as a centrist pick than some of the other lawyers under consideration. Administration officials said that although Gonzales is likely to be considered for a future seat, the first choice will be someone whom conservatives will embrace immediately.
Scholars agree that a bitter showdown could shatter the fragile comity that is essential for action in the Senate and set a precedent for further erosion of minority party rights in the chamber. “I think we’re headed into uncharted waters in terms of the scope of the filibuster and the retaliatory moves that are being contemplated,” said Sheldon Goldman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, an expert on the judicial nomination process.
At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber’s presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling — far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures.
It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush’s choices.
Senate GOP leaders say no final decision has been reached on whether to use this maneuver (which they prefer to call the “constitutional option”) and, if so, when. But they have signaled they may do so next year, either shortly after the new Congress convenes in early January or — more likely, some Republicans say — after Democrats mount a filibuster against another judicial nominee.
Historically, lawmakers of both parties have engaged in filibusters — a word derived from the Dutch name for pirates to describe a process of unlimited debate that has been enshrined in the Senate for two centuries — mostly to block or delay final votes on legislation. But filibusters have also been used against judicial and other nominations, although never in such a systematic manner, Republicans said. In 1968, Republicans filibustered President Lyndon B. Johnson’s choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fortas’s likely rejection by the Senate.
During Bush’s first term, Democrats successfully filibustered 10 of Bush’s 52 nominees for appeals courts, while acceding to the confirmation of 35 others. The appeals court confirmation rate was low, but not as low as the rate for President Bill Clinton (news – web sites)’s second term, Democrats said.
Democrats contend the 10 filibustered judges are too far outside the legal mainstream to warrant lifetime appointments, describing them as the cutting edge of an effort by Bush to pack the courts with ideologically driven conservatives. They also argue that, during the Clinton administration, the GOP majority in the Senate blocked action on dozens of judicial nominations, without need for a filibuster because they could use their majority-party powers to bury nominations in committee or block them through anonymous “holds” on the Senate floor.
Republicans counter that, even though the number of filibustered nominations is small, the Democrats are trampling on the Constitution by denying a straight up-or-down vote for even a single nomination. The Constitution, they note, requires two-thirds majorities for treaties, constitutional amendments and other specific matters but calls for only the “advice and consent” of the Senate on judicial choices, with no reference to any super-majority for confirmation.
Democrats disagree, arguing that the Constitution empowers Congress to set its own rules of operation and does not specify the size of a majority needed for judicial confirmations because the issue was to be left to the Senate to decide. “What about all these people who say they want a literal reading of the Constitution?” asked Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee (news – web sites).
Although frustrated Senate leaders have resorted in the past to tactics involving at least some aspects of the nuclear option, none of the confrontations approached the significance — or political explosiveness — of the current dispute, with implications stretching beyond the issue of judicial nominations.
Although it would not directly threaten filibusters on legislative issues, critics believe it could open the door to further erosion of the Senate’s long tradition of unlimited debate as a last refuge for political minorities and a brake on precipitous action by presidents and legislative majorities. Although Bush would have an easier time getting the judges he wants, Democrats warn that he could run into trouble on Social Security (news – web sites), tax simplification and other major second-term initiatives that will probably require Democratic cooperation for passage.
Use of the nuclear option “would make the Senate look like a banana republic . . . and cause us to try to shut it down in every way,” Schumer said. “Social Security and tax reform need Democratic support. If they use the nuclear option, in all likelihood they would not get Democratic support” for those and other initiatives, he added.
Republicans considered the nuclear option last year but backed off because they lacked the votes to prevail. Emboldened by a gain of four seats from the Nov. 2 elections, many of its most ardent supporters believe they now have the votes to win.
The Fortas analogy is spurious. Fortas had major ethical problems, and Dems dropped their support quickly. No Bush judicial nominee has been accused of any ethical problems…and no, liberals, actually interpreting the Constitution is not considered unethical.
And why this continued crap about Republicans “reaching out” to Democrats in the Senate? Screw the losers…to the victors go the spoils! If Americans think the GOP is too heavy-handed and power-drunk, they’ll vote them out. Funny how it works that way, huh?
If the Democrats are going to electorally rebound, they’re going to have to remove Michael Moore and Moveon.org from their party. At least, this is the sentiment from liberal publications The American Prospect and The New Republic. George Will observes the following in his column:
Some liberals simply cannot control their insuppressible reflex to look down their upturned noses at the American electorate. Writing in The American Prospect, a liberal monthly of which he is co-editor, Robert Kuttner, in a thoughtful analysis of Democrats’ difficulties developing a distinctive values vocabulary, argues that “when Democrats fail to articulate pocketbook issues as values, class resentments become cultural ones,” and Republicans prosper. Then, in his penultimate paragraph, his own cultural resentments against the American majority, as he imagines it, drive him into a ditch:
“Bill Clinton won election by declaring, as a matter of values, that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be poor. Middle America forgave him for treating gays as people.”
Ponder that second sentence. Kuttner could not resist a spasm of moral vanity. He had to disparage “middle America,” which means most of America, as so bigoted it denies the humanity of gays. If liberals like Kuttner keep thinking like that, in December 2008 they will be analyzing their eighth loss in 11 elections at the hands of voters weary of liberal disdain.
A better analysis of the Democrats’ difficulties comes from Peter Beinart, writing in The New Republic, which he edits. His “An Argument for a New Liberalism” actually argues for an old liberalism, that of 1947. Beinart focuses on foreign policy, to which Kuttnerism — the belief that most Americans are viciously ignorant — is pertinent.
In 1947, Americans for Democratic Action was founded by anticommunist liberals who, galvanized by the onset of the Cold War, were contesting with anti-anticommunists for control of the Democratic Party. The ADA, said one of its founders, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., believed that liberalism had been “fundamentally reshaped” by a “historical re-education” about the threat of Soviet totalitarianism.
When Moore sat in Jimmy Carter’s box at the 2004 Democratic convention, voters drew conclusions about the party’s sobriety. Liberalism’s problem with the Moore/MoveOn faction is similar to conservatism’s 1960s embarrassment from the claimed kinship of the John Birch Society, whose leader called President Eisenhower a Kremlin agent.
The reason Moore is hostile to U.S. power is that he despises the American people from which the power arises. Moore’s assertion that America “is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe” is a corollary of Kuttnerism, the doctrine that “middle America” is viciously ignorant.
The (snip) means that excerpts were cut in order to get to the relevant points. They don’t alter the points therein.
There’s more to read, and I encourage you to read it, since it’s not very long. But the overall point is that the less reactionary liberals know their problem is in part “guilt by association”, and they fear that they can’t stop the problem from continuing.
Reid is the new Senate Democrat leader, with Daschle having been discarded by South Dakotans. Reid was hilariously referred to as a “conservative” by the New York Times! Funny, I know of no conservatives who have referred to Clarence Thomas as an “embarrassment”, but what do I know?
Former Reno talk radio host Brian Maloney knows first-hand how the liberal Harry Reid can be a headache, and he warns conservatives not to underestimate Reid’s viciousness. From Maloney (full story here):
Let’s shatter some myths: One, he isn’t the bipartisan-division-healer the press has made him out to be. His recent mean-spirited slam against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on “Meet the Press” ought to shatter this faulty perception.
Two, the low-key image he’s created is exactly how he wants to be seen. It’s to disguise a very experienced operative in the art of political hardball, a skill developed across years of getting Nevada’s good ol’ boys to do exactly what he needed.
Most of all, he isn’t a moderate (or laughingly, a “conservative” as the New York Times labeled him recently). Aside from some pro-life positions held until recently, due to his Mormon faith, his voting record is liberal.
This hasn’t wavered: In 1996, Americans for Democratic Action, a leftist group, gave Reid a solid 85 out of 100 approval rating based on his votes. The American Conservative Union consistently rates him in the single or low double digits on a scale where 100 reflects full agreement on bills. He’s not far from Ted Kennedy territory. National Journal has given him liberal marks especially on economic and foreign policy issues. Waffling on the abortion issue to appease the party base is the one recent change.
Maloney chronicles how Reid almost thugged his way in getting Maloney off the air, and would have done so had Seattle not called Maloney up to the big leagues. I guess this is what passes for liberals as a “bipartisan-division-healer”, huh?
I think it was a mistake for Bush to have nominated a man without a thorough background check, and that failure has resulted in a little bit of an embarrassment for him. Former NYPD Police Chief Bernard Kerik may have been a good fit for Homeland Security top dog, but when part of your job deals with immigration law and you may have violated said laws by employing a person of questionable immigration status…well, needless to say, it doesn’t look good.
Having said that…
The two-faced nature of Democrats has come through again. Senate Dems, especially Florida’s own Bill Nelson (who will be defeated in 2006 by Jeb Bush), have taken a sick pleasure in this development. We’re talking about the man who will run an agency that is dedicated to our republic’s preservation, yet these sickos see nothing but political opportunity. And they wonder why they keep losing elections?
By the way, the hypocritical nature of it comes into play when you consider that both of New York’s Senators, Hillary Clinton and Chuckie Schumer (noth Democrats), gave glowing endorsements of Kerik. Those outside of NY have been the vocal critics, thus undermining the credibility of those two…especially telling, since Shrillary likely plans on running for President in ’08.
According to Doug Hattaway, spokesman for the failed Gore coup in 2000, the problem with Democrats during elections is not the message or the vision. No, that couldn’t possibly be it! The answer is simply…technology.
Well, OK…technology AND willingness to lose major elections in order to buld an infrastructure of minor election wins.
Full “insight” here. Note that in typical liberal modus operandi, Hattaway thinks the elctorate just doesn’t get it…not that bright.
While the DNC has excelled in fund-raising and get-out-the-vote organizing, it has done nothing to build a Democratic brand that clearly communicates the party’s vision, values, and goals. That is one reason why so few voters understand what it means to be a Democrat.
See? We morons just just understand them properly! Well, thank goodness they’re going to help us figure them out, huh?
Also, note their list of potential successors to McAuliffe:
A variety of candidates are being named as possible successors — among them former governors Howard Dean of Vermont and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire; former mayors Wellington Webb of Denver and Ron Kirk of Dallas; operatives like former White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, New Democrat Network president Simon Rosenberg and strategist Donnie Fowler; telecom executive Leo Hindery; and US Representative Martin Frost of Texas.
What do nearly all of those people have in common? They’ve lost campaigns that they’ve been in or have run for someone else! Dean lost in the ’04 Dem primary, Shaheen lost her NH Senate bid against Sununu in ’02, Kirk lost his TX Senate bid in ’02, Ickes (who runs the Media Fund, a 527 group prominent in ’04) lost for Kerry, and Frost lost his House seat in ’04. So yeah, pick from one of those losers!
Recall this story next time you hear liberals bemoan right-wing special interests. Yes, the libs have more than their fair share of them (e.g. trial lawyers, educrats, unions, race-hustling poverty pimps…er, “civil rights” leaders, etc.). But this should be a front-and-center reminder of what the American Democratic Party has become.
From the AP:
Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the “professional election losers” who run the Democratic Party: “We bought it, we own it, we’re going to take it back.”
A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn’s political action committee to the group’s supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.
“For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base,” said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC’s Eli Pariser. “But we can’t afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers.”
Under McAuliffe’s leadership, the message said, the party coddled the same corporate donors that fund Republicans to bring in money at the expense of vision and integrity.
“In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive,” the message continued. “Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
Pariser urged MoveOn supporters to help support a DNC chair with a bold vision to represent Democrats outside Washington. Democrats will vote at their February meeting in Washington on a successor to McAuliffe.
DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera declined to engage in a tit-for-tat with MoveOn, but praised McAuliffe’s efforts.
“Call me crazy, but I think the fact that for the first time in party history we outraised the Republicans, and did so primarily through grass-roots fund raising is something to be proud of,” Cabrera said.
Among those vying for the party chairmanship is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news – web sites), an early darling of MoveOn’s cybernetwork of activists when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.
We should pray to God (translation for liberals: the Creator of the universe…that would NOT be Bill Clinton) that Dean becomes the leader of his party, and that MoveOn continues to “own” it. Those two ingredients make a recipe for further liberal electoral disaster!
Leave it to American liberals to defend the indefensible. The overseer of the scandal-plagued and misery-perpetuating “Oil for Food” program at the UN, Kofi Annan (whose son personally profited from this program at the expense of the well-being of the Iraqi people) has found a friend. Actually, a series of friends. House Democrats are asking their fellow Americans to cut Annan some slack and allow him to continue his job as UN Secretary-General.
Full story here.
This bolsters my argument that American liberals believe in UN superiority over the United States. Kofi is their hero, despite his impotence as leader.
Look at it this way: Annan’s biggest defenders have been Syria, Libya, and Iran. Looks like liberals keep “good” company, huh?
Ann Coulter points out how, in their attacks on Dr. Condi Rice and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, liberals are now guilty of racism that they usually accuse their GOP counterparts of possessing. Case in point:
On the Sean Hannity radio show, Democratic pundit Pat Halpin defended Sen. Reid’s laughable attack on Thomas by citing Bob Woodward’s book “The Brethren,” which – according to Halpin – vividly portrays Thomas as a nincompoop.
I return to my standing point that liberals don’t read. Harry Reid clearly hasn’t read any of the decisions Justice Thomas has written, and Pat Halpin clearly hasn’t read “The Brethren.”
“The Brethren” came out a decade before Thomas was even nominated to the Supreme Court. The only black Supreme Court justice discussed in “The Brethren” is Thurgood Marshall. That’s one we haven’t heard in a while: I just can’t tell you guys apart.
How many black justices have there been on the Supreme Court again? Oh yes: two. It’s one thing to confuse Potter Stewart with Lewis Powell. After all, there have been a lot of white guys on the court. But there have been only two black justices – and Democrats can’t keep them straight. Two! That’s like getting your mother and father confused. I can name every black guy on a current National Hockey League roster: Is it asking Democrats too much to remember the names of the only two black Supreme Court justices?
The full column is here, and I insist you read it! OK, I humbly request that you read it! It’s poignant and hilarious, in typical Coulter fashion. Just read the excerpt above again if you doubt it.
From the Media Research Center:
With “OUTRAGED 9/11 WIVES” as the on-screen heading, Monday’s Good Morning America featured Kristen Breitweiser and Patty Casazza, to denounce those opposed to the intelligence reform bill, without bothering to mention how both endorsed John Kerry. (In a Kerry ad, Breitweiser declared that since “I want to look in my daughter’s eyes and know that she is safe…I am voting for John Kerry.” Casazza had pined that “on 9/11, my life was in a long, dark tunnel. Now I can see some light. John Kerry has the answers” and after Bush won she worried the public was in more danger.) On GMA, Breitweiser launched into left-wing paranoia about how “Defense contractors need to recognize the fact that with $40 billion of a budget being spent on things that are not making us safer, we need a director of national intelligence to reallocate those funds to human intelligence on the ground.” Casazza demanded: “What do we say to our children at this point in time? My son is 14. In three years he could be drafted to go to the war if that is brought back — you can go to war, but we will not protect you here at home. That’s unconscionable.”
It isn’t as if ABC were unaware that there are many 9/11 families who oppose the bill. On last Tuesday’s (November 30) World News Tonight, Linda Douglass reported: “The legislation is still being blocked by the two committee chairs. Armed Service Chairman, Duncan Hunter, who argues the bill dilutes the power of the military. And Judiciary Chairman, James Sensenbrenner, who is demanding national standards for driver’s licenses to deny them to illegal immigrants. Some September 11th families support that.”
ABC then played a soundbite from Peter Gadiel at a Capitol Hill press conference: “No bill should pass this Congress, unless it includes border security and driver’s license measures.”
In a December 1 Washington Times story headlined, “9/11 kin support provisions on illegals,” reporters Stephen Dinan and Brian DeBose explained (an excerpt):
A group of families of September 11 victims yesterday told Congress to scrap the entire intelligence overhaul effort this year and start over next year rather than pass the pending bill, which omits strong immigration security provisions.
“You allowed the murder of my son. I will not allow you to kill my daughters,” said Joan Molinaro, mother of a New York City firefighter who died September 11, as she first held up a picture of her son and then a picture of her two daughters. “No bill should pass the Senate, the House, anywhere, unless it contains immigration reform — you secure our borders, you keep my girls alive.”
She and fellow leaders of the 300-member 9/11 Families for a Secure America sought to counter the publicity machine of those who support the bill by running radio commercials praising key House Republicans who blocked the bill from coming up for a vote on Nov. 20. The ads instead blame senators…
That Good Morning America is exploiting the pain of 9/11 victims to advance their liberal agenda is not shocking…but it is sick!
How about that? I actually feel bad for Kweisi Mfume, the recently resigned President of the NAACP.
Make that, the recently deposed president of the NAACP. While I’m at it, I’ll refer to the organization as the NBLAC (pronounced “No Black”): National Black Liberals Against Conservatives (or Caucasians). When you see how their Chairman, Julian Bond, refers to Republicans as “Taliban” and “the white people’s party”, you’re hard pressed to dispute the NBLAC label.
Anyway, much was made last week about Mfume’s “retirement”, and the media fawned all over him. Now it looks like maybe he did deserve his props, but for other reasons. From Human Events Online:
Don’t believe the well scripted press conference where former President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Kweisi Mfume, announced his resignation. Mfume did not resign from the nation’s oldest and most prestigious civil rights organization. He was kicked out, following a long simmering feud with NAACP Chairman Julian Bond.
The two began feuding after Mfume nominated National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice for his 2003 NAACP Image Award. Furious that Mfume was reaching out to the Bush administration, Bond responded by nominating “Boondocks” cartoonist Aaron McGruder for his Image Award. McGruder had ridiculed Rice in his comic strip and later called her a “murderer” for her role in the war in Iraq.
The rift grew as Mfume continued to reach out to the Republican Party. Mfume realized that by reflexively voting Democrat in every election, the black voting populace has given away most of their political bartering power. After all, what incentive is there for either party to go out on a limb for blacks, if it is taken for granted that blacks will automatically vote Democrat? In effect, the black voting populace has created conditions that make it very easy for both parties to take them for granted. Mfume rightly reasoned that by reaching out to the Republican Party on issues that they already agree with — like empowering faith based charities, supporting school vouchers, etc. — the black voting populace can send the message that they’re no longer willing to blindly support the Democrats. Faced with the prospect of fleeing voters, the Democrats would be forced to make new overtures. This competition, in turn, would instill both parties with a sense of urgency for addressing those issues that black Americans routinely rate as their chief concerns. This competitive pressure would provide the black voting populace with increased political options — and increased bartering power. Somehow this point was lost on Bond, who dug in his heels with mind numbing intransigence. Over the next year and a half, the rift became unmendable.
The final tear came after the election. Mfume suggested sending a letter to President Bush, mapping out ways that they could work together to help the community. Bond rejected the idea. Mfume sent the letter anyway. To Bond, this was an unforgivable. A few weeks later, Bond had Mfume voted out. The message was clear: There is no room within the NAACP for intellectual diversity. Just loyal servitude to the Democratic Party.
This is a crime. This is a shame. This is the sad state of the nation’s most storied civil rights organization.
From the Wall Street Journal opinion pages:
We think it was Justice Brandeis who said the states should be laboratories for reform. Regarding health care, Tennessee tried a decade ago and the price is now coming due. Hillary Rodham Clinton should call her pollster if she plans on carrying the state in 2008.
In 1994, Tennessee passed what was then a very hot New Democrat idea–call it government managed care–a version of the reform the former first lady was also pitching nationwide. TennCare promised the impossible dream of politicians everywhere: Lower health-care costs while covering more of the “uninsured.” They got the impossible, all right. After 10 years of mismanagement and lawsuits, TennCare now eats up one-third of the state’s entire budget and is growing fast. Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, is preparing to pull the plug and return the state to the less lunatic subsidies of Medicaid.
The TennCare concept was for the state to operate like an HMO, providing health insurance to those who needed it and paying the premiums for those who couldn’t afford it. The idea was even sold as a cost savings because it would provide “managed care” (volume discounts, preventative care, etc.). TennCare opened enrollment to hundreds of thousands of people who did not qualify for Medicaid, even to some six-figure earners. Costs quickly exploded, and despite attempts to tighten eligibility rules the program still covers 1.3 million of the state’s 5.8 million people.
The skyrocketing costs led previous Governor Don Sundquist, the Republican who had inherited the program, to try to impose a state income tax. His efforts failed, fortunately, but in 2002 Mr. Bredesen was elected promising to cut TennCare’s costs.
That, too, has been impossible. Left-wing legal activists have sued the state with impunity to underwrite the cost of nearly unlimited care. A Nashville non-profit called the Tennessee Justice Center has hamstrung reforms for years by suing to enforce a series of consent decrees, some of which predate TennCare.
Prescription drug costs alone increased 23% last year, as there are effectively no limits on the number or types of drugs the system will pay for. If a doctor prescribes aspirin, TennCare pays for it. Ditto for antacids for heartburn and other over-the-counter products. If TennCare denies a claim for a drug or any other type of care, an appeal can be filed for next to nothing. Fighting each appeal costs the state as much as $1,600 in legal fees. With 10,000 appeals filed every month, it’s often easier and cheaper to pay a claim, regardless of the merits.
TennCare is now in worse shape than it was a decade ago. Three of the 11 privately run Managed Care Organizations that insured TennCare patients and administered the program have fallen into receivership. Amid the legal wrangling, Blue Cross Blue Shield all but pulled out of the program. Today the state has assumed all the insurance risk and pays most of the premiums.
Mr. Bredesen has proposed numerous reforms to reduce costs by limiting care, and the legislature overwhelmingly endorsed them earlier this year. But they sit in limbo while the Governor negotiates with the Tennessee Justice Center to end its lawsuits. With the talks at an impasse, Mr. Bredesen has instructed state officials to start thinking about dismantling TennCare. “It makes no sense for one facet of our responsibilities–health care–to be able to come to the table first and eat and drink all it wants, and then if there is anything left over, we then can consider our other responsibilities,” he told the Tennessee School Board Association recently.
Good for Mr. Bredesen for recognizing that the entitlement mentality inevitably leads to fiscal perdition. Has he told Mrs. Clinton, not to mention certain Republicans in Washington?
Who’d a thought it possible…a Democrat with good sense about health care?
(Sigh)…these people have no shame.
Ohio is going to be certified today. Bush’s official margin of victory in Ohio is about 119,000. So Dems do what they do best…sue.
They want to contest the results, though they say out of the other side of their mouth that they’re not trying to do that. From the USA Today article:
Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus lawyer working for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, says overturning the result is not the objective: “We should verify the accuracy of the vote and the process by which the vote was achieved.”
Oh, so that’s all! And since there’s zero chance of overturning the result, here I was, cynically thinking it was nothing more than a naked attempt to cast doubts on the legitimacy of Ohio’s election (and, more importantly, Bush’s re-election). How silly of me to deduce that!
Hat tip to South Dakota Politics blog for this one. The following excerpt is telling. The post on SDP here references a blog that is run by Democrats in South Dakota:
However, it is also time for people to take a good, hard look at its citizens. People involved in the Daschle campaign said they became alarmed during the last month preceding the election at the downright viciousness and hatred exhibited by ordinary people. One campaign leader said, “The fact is that these are not nice people. Why would anyone want to live among them?” Again, South Dakotans tend to mouth all the cliches about the clean and crime-free way of life they cherish while some of the meanest and most bigoted people in the nation are setting a malicious and perfidious tone to everything they touch. It is time to address what some of the citizens of South Dakota are really like.
And this, observes SDP of the above post:
That right there is the contempt and condescension that Daschle and his supporters had for South Dakotans. No doubt that contempt and condescension were factors in his defeat.
Yet another instance of how liberals ooze with arrogance and contempt for ordinary (especially rural) Americans. Also another instance of how Dasshole was putting on a facade to get elected in South Dakota, and once the election was lost, there was no need to keep up the facade anymore. While many are outraged by this, I’m actually amused…no, I’m downright giddy at how much this clearly sticks in the craw of liberals. Heck, Dasshole losing seems to make them a helluva lot madder than Kerry losing!
Ed Koch is a former mayor of New York City. Democrat mayor, pretty liberal guy. Yet he endorsed Bush this year, and said that Kerry and the national Democratic party was on the wrong side of defense and the war on terror.
Koch is no Zell Miller. Miller is a conservative Democrat, some would say a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). Koch disagrees with Bush on tax cuts, Social Security, welfare, etc. But Koch very much loves his country and believes that all other issues are trumped by national security and the war on terror, and he believes that his party has failed miserably in that regard.
Anyway, his commentary is here. He offers some advice to the national Democrats on how to move their party to a different direction…in his words, “center left” instead of the current makeup of “radical left.” Here’s a tidbit from it:
Since the elections, Democrats have declined to take any action to start moving the party in a different direction. It may happen, but I doubt it. If changes don’t take place, I have no doubt that the reverses the party suffered this year — a four-seat loss in the House, a five-seat loss in the Senate and, of course, an unsuccessful presidential bid — will continue.
In order for the Democratic Party to reverse these losses there has to be a major realignment. The Democratic Party should be center left. It is or appears to be radical left.
While I disagree with his take on a number of issues he mentions, I agree with some others (such as his take on partial-birth abortion). I also respect the fact that he articulates his points well and is not the least bit unreasonable…which means the national Democrats will ignore his advice. We should hope they do!
Brokaw’s gone from NBC. Wednesday was his last night.
Rather is retiring in the spring from CBS.
Now of the original “Big Three” nightly news anchors, all that’s left (no pun intended) is Peter Jennings. How long until the Canadian hangs it up? Couldn’t be soon enough.
Hat tip to Neal Boortz for this:
In his first major foreign policy speech since he was reelected, President Bush took the world to school over the whole issue of pre-emptive action in the war on terror. No longer held back by political considerations, Bush explained American policy in terms even the Axis of Weasels will understand. Or they should.
Said the president: “The success of multilateralism is measured not merely by following a process, but by achieving results. The objective of the U.N. and other institutions must be collective security, not endless debate.”
Have you seen that television commercial where this guy is choking and his friends sit around the table talking about the Heimlich Maneuver? Finally someone from another table walks over and actually performs the maneuver instead of just sitting around talking about it. The announcer says “less talk, more action.” That’s George Bush. The friends sitting around the table with the choker probably aren’t all that pleased with the character from the other table. Who the hell does he think he is to show them up like that? Obviously the choker’s friends are French.
Bush wasn’t through: “Defense alone is not a sufficient strategy. There is only one way to deal with enemies who plot in secret and set out to murder the innocent and the unsuspecting: We must take the fight to them.” Translation: we have to kill Islamic terrorists before they kill us. He also talked about the idea of advancing freedom and liberty in the Middle East: “By taking the side of reformers and democrats in the Middle East, we will gain allies in the war on terror and isolate the ideology of murder and help to defeat the despair and hopelessness that feeds terror. The world will become a much safer place as democracy advances.”
The message is the same now as it was 3 years ago: you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists. Good show!
Boortz is absolutely right. I seem to recall after 9/11 that Bush told the world that anyone (person or foreign state) who harbors or abets terrorists will be treated as a terrorist as well…no differentiation. This is one thing about Bush that has always pissed off the left: He says what he means, means what he says, and backs it up with action instead of hollow rhetoric.
Horowitz notes that Franken referred to him in Franken’s book “Lying Liars” as a “racist.” Well, Horowitz usually ignores such invenctive, but Franken’s used it one too many times. Horowitz’ response:
There is not a single sentence, or phrase, or comment of mine that could be cited to justify Franken’s attack.
Nonetheless, Franken isn’t alone. A cottage industry has sprung up on the Internet that is a left-wing version of “Red Channels,” the infamous newsletter that provided lists of Communists in the McCarthy era. Web sites like Public Eye, NameBase, MediaTransparency, People for the American Way and the Southern Poverty Law Center store up distortions like Franken’s and keep the witch hunt going. This version of the McCarthy blacklist could be Franken’s source.
Their metier is spinning policy differences into questions of character and basic human decency. Their side is the side of reason and virtue, ours that of venality and sin. No matter. My answer to Al Franken is this: I am going to post your photograph on FrontPageMag.com, which is viewed by a million visitors monthly. The photo will be identified with these words: “Al Franken: Racist.” The photo will be prominently posted until you apologize to me publicly for this attack. When you have made an apology, I will either disclose my evidence for characterizing you as a racist or withdraw the charge.
He’s not lying. I went to FrontPageMag.com and lo and behold…there it is, front page!
You go, dude! Don’t let that liberal sleazeball get away with his baseless invective any more!
Some idiots just don’t get it. Story here.
The reporter told me that Reid and his colleagues see things very differently. They think that the election of the new Senators in the South has nothing to do with judges. They think that Daschle’s defeat also had little to do with judges.
They apparently believe that they lost all five contested seats in the South because these are “Red” States (States which the President carried in this past election) and these new Senators were just carried along with President Bush.
As to Daschle, South Dakota has a history of tossing out its Senators after three terms, plus, according to these Democrats, there were many local issues which contributed to the Daschle defeat.
I guess we could call this “Democrats in denial.”
They point to Democrat Senate losses this year as nothing more than “red state coattails.” Interesting, when one considers that Bush won Colorado comfortably, but the Democrat Senate candidate Ken Salazar defeated Republican Pete Coors. Folks like new Senate Dem Dog in Charge Harry Reid must be asking themselves: “How could that be?” Kinda shoots the “red states coattails” theory to Hades, huh?
So go on, dumb#sses…keep obstructing judicial nominees. Some people are just too damned thick to understand what an electoral slap across the face is. Tommy Daschle learned the hard way. Who’s next?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett