Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

News bytes, Labor Day weekend edition

I don’t know if I’ll be blogging any this weekend, so if I don’t, here’s a News Bytes to last until Tuesday:

  • A Catholic school in Colorado saw a student chant “white power” and other students say that “All Mexicans should go back to Mexico!” Nice to see that they’ve learned a lot from their Christian education. (For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.) Being against illegal immigration is one thing, but being racist is a completely different (and unacceptable) animal. Their parents must be proud, huh? Morons!
  • While we’re piling on Colorado here, check this out. A Colorado government school has banned “tag” on its playground. Well, thank God (insert deity du jour here)! You child will never be “it” again, and that may be just the little bit of therapy that Little Johnny needs to get through his traumatic childhood. (See “sarcasm” disclaimer in previous bullet point).
  • Johnny Mac gets desperate: “Vote for me, because I was a POW. Look, here’s the video!”
  • In the Goreacle’s Church of the Earth Goddess, the priest is now offering confessionals for “eco-sinners.” Wonderful. Should they be expecting a visit from energy hogs (and hypocrites extraordinaire) John Edwards and Al Gore?
  • Economic ignorance abounds in Orlando. A gas station close to the airport charges $4.50 a gallon. Motorists cry foul (one even saying “this is a rip-off” and “corporate greed”), yet many fill up anyway. Here’s a suggestion: if you think $4.50 is too much for gas, then find another gas station! Every other station in O-Town charges about $1.90 less, so get to them already!
  • In Canuckistan, the Liberals there think a feces-hiding bird should be the symbol of their party. This one’s just way too easy!

    August 31, 2007 Posted by | news bytes | 5 Comments

  • Abscam Jack being sued by one of his so-called “cold-blooded killers”

    You reap what you sow, you sorry sack of Abscam crap! From Hot Air:

    Well, the Marine Corps investigator has now dropped all charges against 3 of the 8 accused Marines in the case, and only one Marine still stands accused of crimes at the scene. The others are charged with various after-the-fact issues that arose from investigations of Haditha, not the events themselves. Murtha’s aim, of course, in accusing the Marines of murder “in cold blood” was to pin the blame on Bush. But in the process of blaming Bush, he slandered those Marines.

    One of those Marines, Col. Jeffrey Chessani, plans to sue Murtha once he’s exonerated.

    Brian Rooney, one of the attorneys at Michigan’s Thomas More Law Center representing Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani and a former Marine captain himself told NewsMax.com that his client, who is alleged to have failed to fully investigate the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha November, 2005 and not reporting an alleged Law of War violation, may follow the example of another Haditha Marine, SSgt. Frank Wuterich who is suing Murtha for libel.

    Recall that Murtha claimed to base his accusations on internal Marine Corps investigations and reports. Well, I have the 31-page report that the investigating officer issued that exonerated several of the Marines.

    [Excerpts from report here. Click here to see the excerpts from the actual report. – Ed.]

    Based on that reasoning, the case against Wuterich is likely to fall apart too. He is the last Marine against whom charges from that night remain. If the charges against him fall, game over. Jack Murtha will have slandered Marines who acted according to their training during the course of ongoing combat.

    But nope, no criticism of Murtha. Don’t you people support the troops in any tangible way, ever?

    In fact, if one thing seems to unite liberal lawmakers and pundits these days, it’s the art of the lazy and counterfactual smear. “Bush LIED!” “All conservatives from the South are raaacists.” Etc. Smear Marines here, bloggers over there, the president just for fun, whatever, whoever and wherever, why bother to do any research when smears are so handy and easy to write and will land you gigs at USA Today and Time magazine?

    Well, I’m cheering on any Marine who chooses to sue Jack Murtha over his Haditha comments. He got himself way out ahead of the facts, and now the facts are sneaking up to bite him on the backside. He deserves it, and it’s about time someone got some justice over one of these slanders.

    If you have not yet done so, feel free to go ahead and question their patriotism.

    August 30, 2007 Posted by | Murtha, shameful | 4 Comments

    One less Taliban camelhumper to worry about

    “He’s dead, Jim!” al-Reuters, the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” network, delivers the bad news:

    A wanted Taliban insurgent leader in Afghanistan, Mullah Brother, was killed on Thursday in a U.S.-led raid in the southern province of Helmand, the Afghan Defence Ministry said, citing ground commanders.

    Brother served as a top military commander for the Taliban government until its removal from power in 2001 and was a member of the movement’s leadership council led by its fugitive leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar.

    Damn that George Bush! Tryin’ to keep a Brother down!

    August 30, 2007 Posted by | Afghanistan, religion of peace | Leave a comment

    Craig story three years old?

    From Ace:

    This is an awful lot like the Mark Foley scandal. The story had been out there for years but, conveniently enough, it was only pushed into the MSM before an election.

    In this case, the arrest report wasn’t leaked earlier when it would have given an Idaho GOP challenger time to suddenly whip up the makings of an insurgent campaign. Instead, it comes far too late for that, making it almost certain Craig will prevail in the primary for lack of a real challenger and then be defeated by a Democratic candidate.

    How do these lucky breaks keep accruing to the Democrats?

    The Roll Call reporter who broke the story himself questions the timing by wondering how it could be that this was never broken previously.

    He could help answer that himself by divulging not the name but the partisan leaning and organizational association of who tipped him the story. Of if it was done anonymously, he ought to say so.

    Dirty tricks like this aren’t all that dirty. It was Craig, after all, who colluded in this by trying to hide what could not be hidden, leaving himself at the mercy of partisan opponents as regards the timing of the inevitable leak.

    And yet the media is awwwwwfully interested in the skullduggery aspects of stories like this when the GOP is behind them — or even whispered to be behind them. Indeed, the rule is generally this: If a leak hurts a Republican, the MSM focuses on the content of the leak. If a leak hurts a Democrat, the MSM plays down the actual information divulged by the leak and instead focuses on the skullduggery of how the leak came to happen.

    Obviously, in both cases, the MSM is casting the GOP as the bad guy. A leak that hurts a Republican proves the Republican is the bad guy. A leak that hurts a Democrat also proves the Republican is the bad guy, because what’s he doing spreading malicious information?

    The MSM now routinely “questions the timing” of even terror alerts but apparently has no interest in the well-timed outing of closeted gay Republicans engaging in highly questionable behavior. Even though this is the second time running that a Late Summer Surprise threatened to turn an election in the direction of Democrats.

    Related: To both the Craig and Hillary! stories.

    While the media floods the zone on Craig, they seem curiously uninterested in the details of Hillary’s shady fundraising from Peter Paul — despite the fact she might soon be under oath and required to answer questions about the matter in court.

    Nope…no liberal media bias!

    August 30, 2007 Posted by | Larry Craig, media bias | 6 Comments

    Barry O trying to be like FDR

    But not in the positive sense (i.e. war leadership). From Forbes:

    “Fine the lenders!” writes Barack Obama here.

    Hoping to prop up his poopy presidential primary campaign, Obama says we should round up “the unlicensed, unregulated, fly-by-night mortgage brokers who are hoodwinking low-income borrowers into taking on loans they cannot afford” and treat them as “the criminals they are.”

    Who, exactly, are these criminals? How does one identify them? What laws does one use to punish them? Obama, the lawyer, oddly never answers these questions.

    In her wonderful book, The Forgotten Man–the book of the year–Amity Shlaes writes how FDR would tell his minions to ignore or retroactively change the law when going after wealthy businessmen such as Andrew Mellon.

    Shlaes writes:

    The president told Congress that though Washington had raised its tax rates, the Treasury was still short $600 million. Roosevelt blamed not the arrangement but the wealthy themselves. Roosevelt, [Treasury Secretary Henry] Morgenthau would tell Treasury officials, “wants to say flatly that our estimates and our methods of estimating are correct, but the citizens–that’s the word he used–found a trick way of finding loopholes.” Roosevelt insisted that these “loopholes be closed and that they be retroactive.”

    If revenues were wanting, Roosevelt didn’t mind investigating, prosecuting or legislating his way to them.

    Panicked for cash, Morgenthau now had his Treasury set about trying to create dozens of Mellons. Roswell Magill of the department audited individual returns in New York and found, according to Morgenthau’s diary, that citizens were using old tax breaks–legally, mostly. But Roosevelt was now set on erasing the old distinction between evasion and avoidance that the Treasury had danced around for so long.

    Roosevelt also set out to prove that the intention of the taxpayer who failed to complete complex returns correctly was malign: Where there was ambiguity, taxpayers ought to be presumed guilty.

    By 1937, investors and businessmen were sick of FDR’s capriciousness. Capital went on strike. Businessmen stopped investing and hiring. The 1932-1936 recovery collapsed, leaving “a depression within a depression,” writes Shlaes. Consequences were dire. In Brooklyn, in 1937, a 13-year-old boy named William Troeller hanged himself. The boy worried that his parents and five siblings weren’t getting enough food.

    When Obama calls mortgage lenders criminals but doesn’t specify the laws broken, he’s playing with fire. Retroactive prosecution, hinted by Obama, is tyranny, plain and simple. 

    Pandering to the economic illiterates in this country is the modus operandi of the left. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. In BHO’s case, I doubt it works, especially with all of that empty suit’s other gaffes considered.

    August 30, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, Obama | 3 Comments

    Silky Pony: Give up your SUV’s, while I keep my big a$$ house

    Seriously, dude, I really want to ignore you, but you just won’t let me, you magnificent ba$tard! From WLOS:

    Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

    The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

    Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

    You’ll have to forgive WLOS, a western NC news outfit, for not being ready for primetime. After all, they left out the rest of the article (helpfully finished by FNC):

    He also said as president he would ask residents to conserve energy and said the U.S. needs to focus on being a leader in creating alternative energy. He said he wants a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions that is lowered each year.

    “We are the worst polluter on the planet. We are 4 percent of the world’s population, we’re putting out 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas,” Edwards said. “America’s going to have to change.”

    Edwards was asked during his appearance how he explained the contradiction of asking Americans to sacrifice while he’s living in a 28,000-square-foot (2,600-square-meter) mansion.

    He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.

    “I have no apologies whatsoever for what I’ve done with my life,” he said to loud cheers. “My entire life has been about the same cause, which is making sure wherever you come from, whatever your family is, whatever the color of your skin, you get a real chance to do something great in this country.”

    So Silky is saying that he did “something great” (you know, suing businesses and doctors for his own personal enrichment? That’s really “something great”!) to get that energy hog he lives in, which I’m just sure doesn’t contribute a thing to that pollution level he bitches about. However, if you drive an SUV, you did “nothing great” with your life to earn enough to buy that SUV. Got that? Breck Girl = great, you = not so much. Thanks for clearing that up, you hypocritical well-coiffed shameless jerk.

    UPDATE at 1:37 p.m. EST: Well, well, well. Lookie here. Obviously Silk’s not just a hypocrite when it comes to his carbon-slurping house…but he owns an SUV himself!

    Edwards, happy to promote his energy-efficient Escape, also still owns a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica midsize SUV and a 1994 GMC truck, according to state vehicle registration records.

    Campaign spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said the Edwardses, who have two small children, use the Pacifica when they need more than two seat belts in the back, and the truck when they need to move furniture or haul something.

    In other words, Johnny Boy only uses his gas hogs when he deems it necessary…as opposed to us peons, who use our gas hogs when we, um, don’t deem it necessary? Or as Hot Air quips: “Because a big Green candidate needs a big, fuel-slurping SUV. (Nobody else does, though.)”

    August 29, 2007 Posted by | hypocrisy, John Edwards | 6 Comments

    Another edition of “Guess Which Party Affiliation?”

    A little compare and contrast from Protein Wisdom:

    Former State Senator convicted of taking bribes in Tennessee Waltz sting

    Unfortunately, he appears not to have been a (closeted? In denial?) gay Republican. Otherwise, his party affiliation may have found its way into the article. You know, eventually. From the Commercial Appeal:

    His voice breaking and fighting to hold back tears, a contrite John Ford asked forgiveness Monday from his family, the public, and foremost, from the judge who holds his future in his hands.“I accept the jury’s verdict. And I take full, total and complete responsibility for my action,” the once powerful state senator said in a hushed yet direct voice.

    Speaking from a podium 10 feet away, Ford looked directly into the face of U.S. District Judge J. Daniel Breen, who will issue a sentence this morning, and told of the pain, embarrassment and humiliation he’s endured since his 2005 indictment followed by his conviction in April on a single bribery count.

    Unfortunately, the Commercial Appeal’s only coverage of the Sen Larry Craig story comes from the AP, which introduces the latest — Craig’s denial that he is gay — thus:

    A defiant Sen. Larry Craig denied any wrongdoing Tuesday despite his guilty plea this summer in a men’s room police sting, emphatically adding, “I am not gay. I have never been gay.”Craig, a third-term senator from Idaho, proclaimed his innocence as well as his sexuality less than an hour after Senate leaders from his own Republican Party called for an ethics committee review of his case.

    “This is a serious matter,” they said in Washington in a written statement that offered neither support nor criticism of the conservative senator.

    A bit of compare and contrast. For what it’s worth.

    Which is probably not much. After all, a teensy little discrepancy in standards for what prompts mention of party affiliation in stories of government corruption is not really all that important. I mean, it’s not like we’ve noticed a trend or anything, right?

    Besides, Ford was just taking bribes and making threats to shoot people. Whereas Larry Craig? — he brushed his gay foot up against some cop hoping for a little bit of porcelain seat lovin.

    Burn him, I say.

    And of course, Newsbusters shows a similar little nugget:

    In its continuing coverage of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the Associated Press now reports:

    A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Idaho Sen. Larry Craig Tuesday after Craig said he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men’s room.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee seeking an investigation into whether Craig violated Senate rules by engaging in disorderly conduct.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) may qualify to be described as a government watchdog group. What the Associated Press should have told its readers is that CREW is an extraordinarily partisan watchdog group.

    According to its Web site, CREW has initiated lawsuits or lodged complaints against Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), and House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH).

    Moreover, CREW has launched Federal Election Commission complaints against the campaign committees of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), and former speaker of the House Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

    Oh, and then there’s CREW’s complaint against Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) leadership PAC. And, of course, CREW has sued the Bush administration.

    Even the Associated Press should be able to recognize a pattern here. It owes it to readers to clarify that this watchdog group only watches one side.

    Just like PW and NB show, it’s not like this “Oops, I forgot to list the party affiliation of the perp and he just so happens to be a Democrat” incident hasn’t happened before. Nope…no liberal media bias!

    August 29, 2007 Posted by | Larry Craig, media bias | 2 Comments

    It depends on the meaning of the word “poor”

    Our own government can get Clintonesque with words, too. From Neal Boortz:

    Today the Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty in America. Let’s take a quick glance at the people who are classified as “poor” in this country, thanks to an article by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector:

    • 46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
       
    • 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
       
    • Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
       
    • The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
       
    • Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
       
    • 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
       
    • 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
       
    • 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
       
    • 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

    In other words … it’s all a fraud. Aren’t you surprised?

    Also, consider this: you can have a massive amount of wealth and still be “living in poverty”! How? Simple.

    Let’s say you have invested in yourself wisely over the years. You got a good education, you lived within your means, didn’t have kids prematurely, didn’t do drugs, made sound money moves and investments, etc. By age X, you amassed a few million bucks and decided to retire early. Your beachside house and luxury cars are paid in full, you have no debt, and you no longer pull a paycheck or have any income (except for some modest investment income to pay for food, utilities, property taxes, etc.). According to the feds, you live in poverty because you no longer have income!

    I’d say it’s time to change how they calculate “poverty”, whatsay?

    August 29, 2007 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance | 3 Comments

    Ringing endorsement: Fidel luvs Hilldawg/Barry O, misses Jimmah & Bubba

    From al-Reuters:

    Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.

    Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.

    “The word today (from whom? – Ed.) is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate,” he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba’s Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

    Who’s your buddy, Fidel?

    Castro said former President Bill Clinton was “really kind” when he bumped into him and the two men shook hands at a U.N. summit meeting in 2000. He also praised Clinton for sending elite police to “rescue” shipwrecked Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives in 2000 to end an international custody battle.

    He said his favorite U.S. president since 1959 was Jimmy Carter, another Democrat, because he was not an “accomplice” to efforts to violently overthrow the Cuban government.

    The commie dictator just loves him some Democrats, doesn’t he?

    August 29, 2007 Posted by | Bill Clinton, Carter, Castro, Hillary, Obama | 2 Comments

    Washington comPost: Christians are fair game, Muslims aren’t

    Just don’t accuse them of political correctness, though. They’ll get madder than a jihadist camelhumper watching a Madonna video. From FNC:

    A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.

    The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday’s installment of Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus,” in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

    The installment did not appear in the Post’s print version, but it ran on WashingtonPost.com and Salon.com. The same will hold true for the upcoming Sept. 2 strip, which is a continuation of the plotline.

    The Washington Post Writers Group syndicates “Opus,” and the Post is the cartoon’s home newspaper. The syndicate sent out an alert about the two strips in question, according to Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago.

    Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded “emotionally” to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.

    Well, we can’t have a bunch of pissed off Muslims running around in the newsroom and getting their turbans in a bunch, now can we? Continuing:

    There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources.

    Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate’s newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.

    “The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers,” Lago said. “I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. … We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues. And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever.”

    OK, what does the comPost think about cartoons that might offend Christian sensibilities?

    The Aug. 19 “Opus” ended with a joke about the late Jerry Falwell. In that strip, Lola, fresh from a quest to become an Amish nudist, is doing yoga and talking to the penguin character Opus about who goes to heaven.

    “Liberals? Evolutionists? Feminists? ACLU lawyers?” Opus asks incredulously. “Yep,” replies Lola.

    “Kennedy Democrats? French people? Manly women who don’t shave … they’re all up there?” Opus wonders. “Yep,” Lola repeats.

    “With Jerry Falwell?” asks Opus. “Yep,” Lola says again.

    Opus looks up in an aha! sort of moment. “Goodness, must HE be annoyed!” the penguin exclaims.

    “Eternally,” Lola replies.

    Lago said she didn’t flag newspapers about that strip because she didn’t think readers would misunderstand the humor.

    “They’re not going to take it seriously,” she said. (So now she understands Christian attitudes and purports to speak for us? Got it. – Ed.)

    But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended.

    “I don’t necessarily think it’s poking fun [at Islam],” Lago said. “But the question with Muslims is, are they taking it seriously?”

    The “Opus” strip in question takes swipes at Islamists — a term used for radical Muslims — as opposed to moderate Muslims, she pointed out, but there was concern that the distinction wouldn’t be clear. And, she said, racy jokes sometimes draw fire, too.

    WHAT?? The “distinction” between Muslim jihadists and so-called “moderate” Muslims isn’t clear? I thought the “religion of peace” and its defenders condemned radical Islamists? If they do, then what’s the worry over lack of “distinction” between the two groups? If I were a “moderate” Muslim who condemned radical Muslims, then why would I get offended over a cartoon that clearly addresses RADICALS, hmmm? Or is she saying that Muslims are so stupid that they might “misunderstand” clearly defined humor?

    The issue is clear and beyond dispute: Christians are a-OK to attack, demean, ridicule, offend, etc., while all other “protected” religious groups are immune to the same kind of treatment that Christians get. Then again, the P.C. cowards know that ticked off Christians aren’t going to be launching suicide bombing attacks anytime soon.

    1_61_082707_opus.gif
    I’m just begging to be camelbait, aren’t I?

    August 28, 2007 Posted by | hypocrisy, media bias, political correctness, religion of peace | 7 Comments

    GOP Senator caught in gay “lewd act”

    Those of you who know me or who have been around here long enough know that I don’t like hypocrisy, regardless of from which side it originates.  Therefore, I have no qualms about whacking a Republican when he/she has it coming to him/her.  Right Wing Nut House reflects my sentiments here:

    I have made no secret on this blog of my distaste for the Republican strategy of pushing opposition to abortion and gay marriage as litmus tests for GOP candidates and as “wedge” issues to use in campaigns.

    While I acknowledge there are many millions of sincere, devout Christians (and other social conservatives) who see these issues as vital to the moral fiber of the nation and thus worthy of standing them up front and center as the party’s main identity, from a personal standpoint, I strenuously disagree. (This isn’t the part where I agree, but he’s leading up to it. – Ed.)

    Another time I might make the argument that they are not even conservative issues but such a post is not in my pen tonight. Instead, I want to talk about the regularity with which conservative Republicans seem to get themselves into trouble over sex. The latest is Idaho Senator Larry Craig who was arrested in a Minneapolis restroom for “lewd conduct.”

    “At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

    Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could … see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

    Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

    “With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. … Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

    The conduct doesn’t seem lewd to me and the whole story reeks of something very fishy. But the fact is, the Senator pled guilty and probably thought that it would stay out of the papers if he didn’t make a fuss.

    The point really isn’t whether he’s guilty or innocent. The point is that this sort of thing becomes a huge issue because of the way the party talks about gays and the way many GOP stalwarts like Reverends Robertson and Dobson talk about sex. The perception that Republicans are a bunch of bigoted blue noses stuck in the 19th century with Victorian sensibilities about the bedroom turns off a lot of voters – especially the young.

    A brief look at this eye popping poll that shows the vital 18-29 year old group turning up their noses at Republicans is very significant. I was in that age group when I became a Republican and many of my fellow Reaganites were also young, eager conservatives who drank in the enormous intellectual ferment that bubbled up from dozens of places in Reagan’s Washington. We were on the cutting edge and we knew it.

    Nowadays, I don’t blame young people for turning off the GOP. The corruption, the hypocrisy, the sanctimony, and the tired old men pushing tired old ideas to an ever shrinking number of wealthier, whiter, men has the GOP in deep, deep, trouble. If I were that age again, I probably wouldn’t support Republicans either.

    Perhaps the predicted disaster in 2008 will wake a few people up. Not likely based on what happened in 2006. As the left did for 30 years, the push will be for more ideological “purity,” more fealty to what passes for conservative issues today.

    Just at the moment that our country needs the right’s commitment to fight a war against an implacable, unyielding foe, our own stupidity is going to allow the milquetoast left to ascend to power. For that, our children and grand children may curse us for our folly.

    One of RWNH’s commenters observes that in order for the GOP to excel, it needs this kind of “internal examination” of people like Craig, Foley, etc. I don’t disagree with that.

    Look, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a gay Republican. You don’t have to dig chicks to see the damage that liberalism inflicts on the body politic. However, if you’re going to campaign on “traditional family values” and what a big “family guy” you are, it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to avoid public bathroom sexual hookups (especially with other dudes), now would it?

    By the way, Craig was part of Mitt Romney’s campaign team, but not anymore.

    August 28, 2007 Posted by | gay, hypocrisy, Larry Craig | 15 Comments

    TX guv to EU: P#ss off

    I’m not a huge fan of TX Governor Rick Perry, especially since he tried mandating a vaccine (even against parental wishes) in a program that would have benefited a former crony’s…er, “associate’s”…current employer. It had “conflict of interest” written all over it. However, I’ve gotten some of that respect back. From the horse’s (spokesdude’s) mouth:

    Statement by Robert Black, spokesman for Texas Governor Rick Perry, concerning the European Union’s appeal that Texas enact a moratorium on the death penalty:

    “230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.”

    Regardless of whether you agree with Texas’ policies on the death penalty, you gotta like it that the EU was told to go pound sand!

    August 27, 2007 Posted by | Euros, Texas | 6 Comments

    Silky Pony wants you to die of cancer

    …so long as he gets his wet dream of socialized medicine.  From Say Anything:

    As you might expect, it contains a lot of stuff about spending more tax dollars on research and telling people how to live their lives.  But what’s interesting is while Edwards is showing his willingness to spend other people’s money on solving the cancer problem, it turns out that America has the best survival rate in the world for all types of cancer among males and females:

    cancersurvivalraterx2.gif

    What’s funny is that, going by those numbers, it seems the best thing John Edwards could do about cancer in America is keep this country away from socialized medicine which is practiced by nearly every other country on the list.  But, of course, in reality John Edwards loves the idea of socialized medicine and largely ignores that those countries that have it offer health care quality that is below that which Americans enjoy.

    Considering that I have lost loved ones to cancer, I would love nothing more than for that horrific disease to be eradicated from the planet.  However, you’ll have to forgive me if I doubt that socialized medicine or the Breck Girl will lead the way.

    August 27, 2007 Posted by | John Edwards, socialism | 3 Comments

    Bubba lied about ordering assassination of bin Laden

    Bill Clinton a liar?  Get outta here!  From Red State:

    Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, weigh in on the scathing CIA Inspector’s General Report the CIA didn’t want us to see.

    Buried on page three of the web exclusive is a passage which shows that Slick Willie lied during his September 2006 encounter with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. As I’m sure you remember, during an interview, Clinton erupted in anger, became unhinged, pointed his finger at Wallace, and boldly asserted:

    What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

    Isikoff and Hosenball write the IG report criticized intelligence problems when Clinton was president, “detailing political and legal ‘constraints’ agency officials felt in the late 1990s.” Then they mention Clinton’s 2006 temper tantrum and explain Clinton’s prevarication:

    Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)[Emphasis added]

    So now we can see why Clinton went nuts when asked if he did enough to get Osama bin Laden – he knows he did not do enough.

    No matter how many times I watch that video, it always make me think of Clinton getting on national television, pointing his finger at the camera and saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”

    I know, pointing out more Clinton lies is like throwing ice water on the Titanic: it’s just not necessary to make the point, is it?

    August 27, 2007 Posted by | Bill Clinton | 3 Comments

    Oh waiter? A weekend shot of MSM bias, please!

    Unemployment is…too low? From Newsbusters:

    Most Americans understand that unemployment declining is a good thing.

    Yet, the folks at the Associated Press seem confused about this economic statistic as evidenced by an article published Saturday entitled “Help Wanted Ads Go Unanswered in West.”

    In fact, contrary to a media fixated on bashing corporations and business owners as greedy little devils, Matt Gouras’ piece actually elicited sympathy for folks normally in the press’ crosshairs while oddly downplaying the benefits tight labor markets typically bring employees (emphasis added throughout, h/t to an NB reader in Hawaii):

    Record low unemployment across parts of the West has created tough working conditions for business owners, who in places are being forced to boost wages or be creative to fill their jobs.

    The U.S. Department of Labor reports the mountain West region – covering eight states along the Rocky Mountains – has the lowest overall unemployment rate in the nation. The region hit an all-time low of 3.4 percent in May.

    Should be good news, right? Not so fast:

    The effects are everywhere. Logging equipment in Idaho sits idle as companies have a tough time finding workers. A shortage of lifeguards has forced Helena to shorten hours at children-only pools. A local paper in Jackson, Wyo., has page after page of help wanted ads.

    In Jackson Hole, the Four Seasons Resort still had openings in late July. The problem has created longer hours and tougher working conditions for current employees.

    For years, the resort has imported dozens of workers from Eastern Europe who often come as much for the summer recreation opportunity as the money. This year, however, that wasn’t enough and so for the first time the resort also sent recruiters to a high school job fair, said spokeswoman Greer Terry. It only helped a little.

    “It’s been a struggle finding employees this summer,” Terry said.

    Of course, this should be good news for workers that media outlets normally favor in such reports. Sadly, even this was presented with an obviously sour aftertaste:

    “The squeeze is on. You get into these 2 percent and less unemployment rates and you’re moving into a seller’s market with the seller being the worker,” Swanson said.

    Officials worry the razor thin labor market could bind economic growth, although there has been no indication of that yet.

    Amazing, wouldn’t you agree? After all, this has already translated into much higher wages in the region: “Utah workers saw a 5.4 percent average wage increase in 2006.”

    That’s good news, isn’t it? Not according to Gouras: “But questions remain about how long the West can weather the problems that come with low unemployment.”

    The problems that come with low unemployment. Somehow I doubt such problems were being highlighted in the tail end of the ’90s before the tech bubble burst.

    This “low unemployment sucks” post is brought to you by the letters “M”, “S”, “M”, with an assist from “B” and “S”. Nope…no liberal media bias!

    August 25, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, media bias | 8 Comments

    MSNBC duped by parody site

    MSNBC fell for a parody site, passed it off as authentic, then issued a correction that erroneously referred to the parody site as a “hoax”. From NRO:

    “Don’t let this guilty plea fool you, Vick is innocent (like OJ)”   [Greg Pollowitz]

    That’s the title of a supposed Al Sharpton blog post being linked to by MSNBC.com. MSNBC reporter Alex Johnson writes:

    But at the same time, Sharpton argued that the prosecution of Vick was overkill.

    “If the police caught Brett Favre (a white quarterback for the Green Bay Packers) running a dolphin-fighting ring out of his pool, where dolphins with spears attached to their foreheads fought each other, would they bust him? Of course not,” Sharpton wrote Tuesday on his personal blog.

    “They would get his autograph, commend him on his tightly spiraled forward passes, then bet on one of his dolphins.”

    It’s going to take a long, long time for Johnson to live this down. The Al Sharpton blog post he’s linked to is a parody site.

    UPDATE: MSNBC has issued a correction:

    An earlier version of this article quoted from a blog entry purportedly by the Rev. Al Sharpton. MSNBC.com has determined that the blog is a hoax. In July, Sharpton signed a letter with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals condemning dogfighting, saying: “Dogfighting is unacceptable. Hurting animals for human pleasure or gain is despicable. Cruelty is just plain wrong.”

    No, it’s not a hoax. The blog is clearly labeled as a parody site. MSNBC has scrubbed the link from their correction so readers can’t see how easily they were duped.

    Do you see why I often have to include my disclaimer “For those of you on the left, the prior statements were sarcasm (or parody or satire or whatever)”? It’s for the benefit of idiots like MSNBC who can’t tell the difference.

    August 24, 2007 Posted by | humor, media bias | 2 Comments

    Vets don’t like Shrillary? Who knew?

    From Hot Air:

    I don’t get it. Don’t they know she’s a “hawk”?
    vets.png
    Naturally this will be spun as evidence of the military being uncomfortable with a woman as CINC, not as a reflection of their feelings about Hillary personally. That’s okay. The left has already begun inching away from the “chickenhawk” implication that soldiers know best when it comes to all things war. Their skepticism about the Glacier will help fuel that Strange New Respect for civilian opinion. As for the GOP, I don’t know who comes off better: Rudy, who has the distinction of being the only candidate from either party with a lower disapproval rating among vets than among the general public, or Fred, who gets the biggest bump in approval rating among vets vis-a-vis civilians.

    Considering that her and her hubby spent eight years in the Oral…er, Oval…office with a well-known reputation for disdain for the military, and considering their disdain was shared by their partner-in-crime Al Gore as he sent ambulance chasers to FL in 2000 to disqualify military votes from overseas, this should come as a surprise to no one.

    August 24, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, polls, Rudy | 2 Comments

    Silky condemns greed and leasing of the Lincoln Bedroom

    Seriously, I am trying to ignore zero-chance prez wannabe John Edwards, but Silky just keeps that tragic farming accident called his piehole in turbo gear. More Silky Pone-Pone goodness:

    Presidential hopeful John Edwards said Thursday the Washington establishment is corrupt and suggested – without mentioning her by name – that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has been part of that corroded system.

    Edwards’ new stump speech, centered on a a need for change and aimed at his top two rivals, comes just before Labor Day, the traditional start of the primary nominating season in this state where he has seen his polling numbers slip in recent months.

    “Real change starts with being honest, and I want to say something again: The system in Washington is rigged, and I’ll say it again, it’s rigged and it’s rigged by greedy powers,” Edwards said Thursday.

    Presumably, “greedy powers” does not refer to ambulance chasers who shake down corporations and doctors, or people who live in 20,000+ sq. foot energy hog mansions, or people who get $1,200 haircuts, or…well, you get the idea. Anywho…

    What Edwards called “the rhetoric of change” is popular among all the Democratic candidates. Sen. Barack Obama uses the notion throughout his campaign. One of Clinton’s slogans is, “Ready for change, ready to lead.”

    Edwards challenged his Democratic rivals’ ownership of the word at the start a four-day swing through New Hampshire.

    “The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent,” Edwards said to applause, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House’s famed bedroom.

    Ouch. Hilldawg’s getting it from all sides these days, isn’t she? From Barry O’s loudmouth wife to the Breck Girl, the frontrunner’s getting attacked more than a dim-sum in Mikie Moore’s neighborhood. But geez, Silk, why are you waffling now?

    Edwards later said he didn’t mean to target Clinton during his new stump speech, but her campaign felt otherwise.

    He didn’t mean to target Shrillary? Was there another administration well known to lease the Lincoln Bedroom out to high donors of whom we’re not aware? If Silky’s too scared to confront Shrillary head-on and honestly, then what kind of bold and decisive leader would he make? Not a very good one.

    Showing a legal ignorance that would shame anyone in his profession that might actually possess the quality of shame, Silky makes the following absurd observation:

    Edwards, at an appearance later in Keene, also pledged to appoint justices who honor the Constitution and criticized the current Supreme Court.

    “They’ve turned Brown v. Board of Education on its head,” Edwards said, referring to the landmark case that barred segregation in public schools.

    I must have slept through the SCOTUS ruling that re-segregated public schools. If one of you fine folks can point out to me what in the blue hell Silky’s talking about, I’d greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

    In conclusion:

    A Republican National Committee spokeswoman said she recognized Edwards’ message.

    “Voters have long recognized John Edwards as the change candidate in this race, after he flip-flopped from being a staunch war-on-terror supporter to a liberal protester,” said Amber Wilkerson.

    Careful, Ms. Wilkerson! If Silky will use his wife’s cancer and Ann Coulter’s “mean ol’ remarks” as a campaign fundraiser, surely your astute and correct observations will produce the same thing.

    August 24, 2007 Posted by | John Edwards, shameful | 1 Comment

    Jimmy the Dhimmi funded commie land seizure in Zimbabwe

    Whenever I mention that Jimmah Carter never met a dictator he didn’t like, the left gets angrier than Ted Kennedy at the bottom of a Dewar’s bottle. It can be denied no longer. From Jammie Wearing Fool:

    Here’s a shocker.

    Presidential disaster Jimmy Carter agreed to have the U.S. underwrite the communist takeover/redistribution of property in Zimbabwe in 1980.

    Of course, the communists at the Beeb call it land reform.

    US backed Zimbabwe land reform

    The key role played by the United States ahead of Zimbabwe’s independence in resolving the sticky point of land redistribution has just come to light.

    The land issue has always been emotive in Zimbabwe — as can be seen with the current crisis sparked off by the government seizure of mainly white-owned farms in 2000.

    Cutting to the chase, Mugabe and his revolutionaries took property away from white owners and gave it to his buddies. During the negotiations of all this with the British government, who wanted to get out of that mess, they needed a sucker to write some checks to make it all happen.

    Enter Carter.

    “He secretly contacted the US ambassador in London, Kingham Brewster, and asked him to get the then US President, Jimmy Carter, to promise money to pay white farmers for their land.

    Mr Mugabe was angered when the UK stopped land payments.

    “Brewster was totally supportive. We were at a stage where Mugabe and Nkomo were packing their bags,” he explains.

    “He came back to me within 24 hours. They had got hold of Jimmy Carter and Carter authorised Brewster to say to me that the United States would contribute a substantial amount for a process of land redistribution and they would undertake to encourage the British government to give similar assurances.”

    To put this in perspective, the U.S. was in the middle of a major recession at that point, and Carter agreed to help underwrite the Communist takeover of property in another country.

    So how did that work out?

    “But the UK government found that some of the farms were being given to President Mugabe’s close associates, and refused to continue the payments.

    Mr Mugabe was furious, claiming bad faith.

    The path to the seizure of white farms was opened and thus began the long slide to today’s economic chaos.”

    Today, as a direct result of Carter’s contributions to the effort, Zimbabwe is falling apart. They have approximately 5,000% annual inflation, life expectancies in the 34- to 37-year range, and thousands hungry and leaving every day.

    And today the left sees Carter as some kind of hero.

    Actually, the inflation rate is more like 7,600%, but why quibble over a couple thou when it comes to hellishly high inflation? You get the picture.

    Did this schmuck get anything right?

    August 23, 2007 Posted by | Carter, corruption, Mugabe, shameful, socialism | 3 Comments

    “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears”

    That’s the title of the blog entry from Senate EPW Committee member James Inhofe (R-OK), a global “warming” antagonist (in other words, someone I admire!).  Moonbattery has a better run-down, though:

    It looks like we’re on our way to the climate change consensus that moonbats keep barking about — but the consensus will be that significant manmade global warming is complete bunk. From the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

    Washington DC — An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

    “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)

    It turns out the climate is only one third as sensitive to CO2 as the UN’s hyper-politicized IPCC has been screeching. At the current rate of increase, atmospheric CO2 will double around 2070. This would raise temperatures about 0.6°C — completely insignificant considering the climate’s normal fluctuation.

    This might be a good time for liberal elitists in the media and government to move on to a new phony crisis before the public starts to notice the egg oozing down their faces.

    the-goracle.jpg

    The Goracle’s prophesies have been debunked.

    Here’s guessing that the left will try and discredit Wilson and Schwartz by proving that they are doing the work of “Big Oil” because they were spotted putting gasoline into their vehicles.

    August 23, 2007 Posted by | global warming | 4 Comments

    ABC captions Bush speech in typical biased fashion

    From Ace:

    The newsroom is a sacred, magical place where unhinged partisanship never intrudes into actual reportage.

    Except when it does.

    The actual reference occurs on page three of the article:

    After comparing the current war against extremists with the militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam in Wednesday’s speech, he plans to discuss the war in Iraq in the context of its implications for the broader Middle East in a speech next Tuesday at the annual American Legion convention in Reno, Nev.

    abcscreamerpic.JPGIsn’t. That. Special.

    MSM Suddenly Convinced Iraq NOT Like Vietnam, Now That Bush Has Suggested Comparison To Mass Slaughter and Displaced Boat People: Apparently Iraq is only like Vietnam in ways that benefit the Democratic party.

    Who knew?

    Changed! Now reads “New Bush Talking Point: Iraq Like Vietnam.”

    No more caps, no more “AS 14 AMERICANS DIE, DIE, DIE!!!11!!

    ‘Sokay. I got it all screencapped.

    The Actual Text Of His Remarks: Of course the MSM isn’t interested in reporting them. But the Weekly Standard is.

    As Allah points out, Bush didn’t say Iraq was like Vietnam — he said it would be like Vietnam were we to surrender. Apparently the high-nuanced folks at ABC have not mastered the nuances of the subjunctive or conditional moods.

    Nope…no liberal media bias!

    August 23, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias | Leave a comment

    Amnesty does in Johnny Mac…in Arizona!

    Poor John McCain. The media darling du jour has officially jumped the shark. From Conservative Princess:

    We are over McCain. Not that we ever weren’t over John McCain, but you know…we’re not even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his campaign finance. At this point, we’re pretty sure that he’s paying most Republicans to take notice of him. Give him a week and you’ll find his sweaters on eBay. Give him two years and he’ll be declaring himself on hiatus from the Senate.

    Gov. Janet Napolitano would beat Sen. John McCain if the two went head-to-head in an election, according to a new poll.

    In a hypothetical head-to-head race for McCain’s Senate seat, 47 percent of those polled would vote for Napolitano, 36 percent for the sitting Republican senator, and 17 percent were undecided.

    That would be quite the margin, and its strikingly odd, since while McCain sucks as a Presidential candidate, he’s a pretty effective, if obnoxiously moderate Senator. Granted, McCain is both in the public eye more now than usual (making him more of a target), and he’s also in pretty dire straits, but this can’t be a morale booster. By 2010, when McCain is back up for election, the mistakes of 2008 will long be in his past, particularly if he runs out of money by December, but at the moment, it can’t feel good.

    Getting spanked by a bumbling governor like Napolitano would allow Johnny Mac to embark on his passion: $50/hr lettuce picking.

    August 23, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, McCain | Leave a comment

    Kos kooks: Padilla a “martyr”

    I’ve made my feelings known on the Padilla issue from day one, and many of you have disagreed with me. That’s cool, since if friends can’t disagree among themselves from time to time, then the friendship’s not that authentic, now is it?

    However, I think one thing we can all agree on regarding Padilla is that the S.O.B. is no “martyr”. Here’s what was posted at the Kos kooks site (I refuse to link there, so you can either take my word for it or go see for yourself):

    As was the case during the witch trials of yesteryear,

    Neocynic’s diary :: ::
    only the socially unpopular, the mentally ill, and the politically dangerous end up at the end of a noose or in yet another bonfire of political vanity. (If this were true, Kos and his kook minions would have been rendered piñatas years ago! – Ed.)

    From allegations of planning to plant a readioactive “dirty” bomb, to being convicted of having his prints on a piece of apparently “found” by the government. The rest was purely circumstatial.

    The case against against Padilla hinged on one piece of papar: an application with his fingerprints. If this is enough to incarcerate and torture an American citizen, then America the Beautiful has truly fallen to fear, fascism, and intolerance.

    This man was tortured to the point of being mentally incapable of mounting a proper defence. (Has any proof of this been brought forward? I didn’t think so, either. – Ed.)

    What a travesty of justie (sic), what a farce of a trial. (The jurors thank you for the highest respect with which you give them. Jerk. – Ed.)

    Everything points to a coming police state and woe unto all dissenters, both here and everywhere.

    My beef with the handling of the Padilla case was that he is an American citizen and is afforded rights under our Constitution, and the administration stamped on those rights. However, he ultimately did get a trial, and he was judged to have been guilty as charged by a jury of his peers.

    In other words, a homegrown terrorist is to be pitied (if not revered) by the Kos-tards as a “martyr”. If you have not yet done so, please feel free to go ahead and question their patriotism.

    August 22, 2007 Posted by | Jose Padilla, moonbats | 3 Comments

    Moonbat sock puppet figures out why Dems in Congress are reviled

    Sock puppet extraordinaire Glen Greenwald (or whatever alias he’s using today) stumbles upon the key reason that Congress’ approval rating is half of Dubya’s right now. From Say Anything:

    Glenn Greenwald: Democrats Unpopular Because They Haven’t Investigated The President Enough

    Right.

    Because the 300 investigations Democrats launched in the first 100 days of Congress aren’t enough.

    Well, there’s one less thing to wonder, huh?

    August 22, 2007 Posted by | moonbats | 1 Comment

    Dem voter intimidation…by the DNC?

    From Politico:

    The ugly elbowing over which states will go first in the 2008 presidential primary process is due to explode into open warfare Saturday as the Democratic National Committee decides what to do about “rogue” states that are threatening to violate party rules.

    The DNC’s powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. in Washington to decide primarily what sanctions to take against Florida, where Democrats say they will conduct a primary on Jan. 29 in violation of party rules.

    Democrats howl about GOP tactics (you know, those crazy “show I.D. to prevent fraud” ideas?) to intimidate voters, but now they’re thwarting the votes of their own. Geez, it’s not bad enough that Democrats fight to dismiss the votes of Florida soldiers serving overseas, but now they’re fighting their own voters? Such blue-on-blue infighting is delicious, crunchy, and tastes good with ketchup!

    August 22, 2007 Posted by | humor | 1 Comment

    AP gets Clintonesque with words

    From the AP:

    [S]ome Democrats worry that credible reports of even slight improvements in the military situation in Iraq could hurt their party’s momentum, built largely on public disenchantment with President Bush and his handling of the war. …

    Only in AP-speak does “their party’s momentum” mean the same thing as “18% approval and 76% disapproval”, huh? Nope…no liberal media bias!

    August 21, 2007 Posted by | media bias | 2 Comments

    Mrs. Obama to Hilldawg: “If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House”

    How’s about some hot blue-on-blue all-female action? OK, I never said the females were hot, just the cannibalism on the left here. From Chicago’s fishwrap:

    Barack Obama often says that his wife, Michelle, is smarter than he is, stronger than he is, and gives better speeches than he does.

    On a trip to Iowa last week, Michelle was a firebrand, expressing a determined passion for her husband’s campaign, talking straight from the heart with eloquence and intelligence.

    At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part “to model what it means to have family values,” adding “if you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House.” She didn’t elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.

    Because trashing the Hilldawg on her hubby’s serial boinking of women to whom he’s not married is considered “eloquent” and “intelligent”? Whatever.

    Obviously, I cannot stand Shrillary, but I don’t think that Bubba diddling interns is something to disqualify Her Highness from the highest office in the land. Between her Marxist tendencies, her cold-bloodedness, her raw personal ambition and unrivaled egocentrism, her phoniness, her naivite, her poor character, her ignorance of issues, and a plethora of other shortcomings, those seem like matters that should keep her out of the office. Barry O’s wife is out of line on this one.

    But I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t get a kick out of the mudslinging on that side!

    August 21, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, Obama | 6 Comments

    “Congressman of unknown party affiliation charged with assault”

    From Hot Air:

    I saw this story before I saw InstaGlenn’s post but my reaction was the same. Whenever they conspicuously neglect to note party affiliation in an unflattering story, you know exactly which party it is.

    Annnnnd … it is.

    NBC has the Washington airport report. Sounds less like a case of intent to do harm than of overweening entitlement. Go figure.

    Update: Corrections, big media style — just add in the crap you forgot and pretend it didn’t happen.

    Update: Mark Finkelstein reports that CNN’s bulletin also helpfully omitted his party affiliation; I checked the Tivo for the MSNBC bulletin and, a-yup, they omitted it too. Worth cutting the vid? Eh, I don’t think so.

    Nope…no liberal media bias!

    August 21, 2007 Posted by | media bias | Leave a comment

    Silky’s a Nazi fugitive?

    Breaking news from Men’s Vogue (look in the yellow circle, and click the image to make it larger):
    Silky’s a Nazi?
    By the way, that “man of the people” and “champion of the common man” appears on the cover of a magazine whose readership has a median income of $182,548.

    August 21, 2007 Posted by | John Edwards | Leave a comment

    Shrillary: “Surge is working, but…”

    This wench is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief. From the AP:

    New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is “by beginning to bring them home,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday.

    It’s working, so let’s stop it! Friggin’ brilliant, Hilldawg. I just started a diet and lost two pounds already, so there’s no sense in keeping it going, right?

    August 21, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, Iraq | 7 Comments