politicalpartypoop.com

by Mona Charen

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A It was not so long ago — only four years — that a significant number of Democrats in the U.S. Congress evaluated the available evidence and voted to authorize war with Iraq. Eighty-one Democrats in the House, including a fair number of liberals like Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., endorsed a “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.”

It’s instructive to glance at that document now — particularly since so many Democrats are adopting the pose of Poor Misled Legislators. Here is some of what those Democrats signed on to:

 ”Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary. . .
 ”Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq . . .

 ”Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people . . .

 ”Whereas members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq . . . “

 The resolution is exhaustive, listing all of Iraq’s sins, and also all of the legal, moral and strategic arguments for military action. 

 No one forced those 81 Democrats to support the resolution. But since they chose to do so, one would expect that before utterly contradicting themselves, they would at least offer some explanation beyond the pathetic cry that they were duped. Last week, 29 Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing force in Iraq voted to set a timetable for withdrawal. As the Monty Python knights proclaim in the face of French taunting in “Spamalot,” “Run Away! Run Away! It seems like a helpful solution.”

 Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., offered the most reasoned argument (and that is faint praise) for this switcheroo, claiming that “Two major failures led us to war . . . First was a massive intelligence failure in assessing Saddam’s WMD capability. The second — equally grave — was the politicization of intelligence by the President . . .” No, it is the Democrats who have politicized the issue of intelligence. During the Clinton administration and during the long run-up to the Iraq War, every leading Democrat in the nation, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy, endorsed the view that Saddam was building WMDs. (For direct quotes see Snopes.com.) Only after the Iraq War dragged on did liberals begin to suggest that George Bush had invented the entire threat.

 The Harmans and Murthas and Kerrys are now urging retreat — which they perfume with the term “redeployment.” But it fools only themselves. Certainly the enemy would be in no doubt about what withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now would signify. Al Qaeda would claim victory (and they’d be right). Iran would accelerate its violence in pursuit of a Shiite Islamic Iraq subservient to Tehran and might well succeed. Muslim moderates from Egypt to Lebanon to Jordan to Pakistan to Afghanistan would be routed. Islamists in countries friendly to the United States, like Turkey and Indonesia, as well as Islamists in nastier corners, would feel a rush unlike anything they’ve experienced since the USSR left Afghanistan. It would be gasoline on a fire.

 John Kerry, in his Senate floor speech, predicted that an American withdrawal would improve our reputation among the Europeans. Liberals worry a great deal about what the French think of us. They ought to spare some worry about what the Islamists think — because as brutal as they are today, they will be even more ferocious when they smell blood in the water.

Al Gore charges that President George Bush has “broken the law” and implies that Congress should have initiated impeachment proceedings against Bush for unspecified crimes.
In a fund-raising e-mail sent out under the banner of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with the subject line “Unprecedented,” Gore declares:
“The evidence now makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that George Bush has repeatedly and insistently broken the law and the corrupt Republican Congress has shirked its constitutional duty to hold him to account.”
While Gore omitted using the “i” word, the consititutional remedy for a president who breaks the law is the House’s impeachment process followed by a trial before the Senate.
“In my view, a president who breaks the law poses a threat to the very foundation of our democracy,” Gore said, noting the seriousness of his allegation. “As Americans with a stake in the future of our country, we must act quickly and decisively. We have less than five months to win the six seats we need to control the Senate – and pull our country back from the brink of a constitutional crisis.”
Gore states that Bush’s “nightmarish regime” has been responsible for an “unprecedented expansion” of executive power and says: “I have never seen leaders that act with the contempt for the truth that I have witnessed in George Bush’s administration.”
The e-mail seeks contributions of $50, $75, or more to aid senatorial candidates and sets a goal of raising $1 million before June 30 to counter the Bush administration’s “truly breathtaking disregard for American values.”
Ironically, Gore notes that he has run for president twice and says: “I know what it takes to win.”

Rush Limbaugh: Detained for possible illegal drugs - Crooks and Liars
Rush Limbaugh Held for Drugs - Fire Dog Lake
Gun Toting Liberal - Rush Limbaugh, ‘The Truth Detector’ gets busted again for illegal drugs

Rush Limbaugh Detained With Viagra - Raw Story

Rush loooooves his drugs  - Daily KOS

Rush Limbaugh Detained At Airport For Possession Of Viagra… - Huffington Post
Rush Limbaugh -  My DD
BREAKING: Rush Limbaugh reportedly detained at airport for possession of illegal drugs - America Blog
Rising Hedgeman

Liberal are having a collective orgasm over Rush being caught with Viagra.
Oooooooo! Big fucken scoop.
Hey while out in Vegas I got a kick out of checking out all these middle aged and older white guys slinking into the bars and clubs checking out tail. BUT this thing that was funny to me was the fact that these likely pillars of the community, ushers at their churches, community/business leaders, teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians whatever were not fishing for the stringy hair, thin blue eyed, busty blondes, they were going after the sistas, the more ghetto the better. These old white guys living in lily white communities wanted a piece of forbidden booty. You don’t think they had some Viagra on standby? 
So you think I’m going to give a fuck about Rush or any other dude with some damm Viagra cause he wants to get his groove on?
Fucken idiot hypocrites! Many of those people I peeped in Vegas are probable your dads, uncles and grandfathers.
So get over yourselves!

Cover-up of Haditha killings wrong, he says

By Elizabeth Baier
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted June 25 2006
American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

This man is a certifiable lunatic, The grandpa Simpson tag Malkin laid on him fits like a glove.

FULL ARTICLE

by Matt Lewis FROM HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE 
 

Like many conservatives, I felt a sense of Shadenfreude when the Dixie Chicks announced plans to cancel about half their concerts planned for their current tour.

While their anti-Bush comments were the single greatest contributor to their fall, several factors conspire to keep them down.

The Dixie Chicks burst onto the scene in the late 90’s with a fresh look and a fresh sound. They combined traditional sounds like bluegrass with an irreverent sensibility (who can forget “Goodbye Earl?). Until they arrived, it’s hard to recall any famous country “girl” bands (though I’m sure they existed).

But like all success, theirs spawned imitators. For example, SheDaisy has had some big hits, recently. And though Sugarland isn’t an all-girl band, I would argue they are now occupying The Dixie Chick’s niche.

Jennifer Nettles — Sugarland’s lead singer — has the same spunk as Natalie Maines — minus the anti-Bush rhetoric. And with hit tunes like Baby Girl and Something More, Sugarland has soothed the cravings that country listeners have had for the Chicks’ sound.

And like the Chicks, Sugarland has proven to have crossover appeal. In fact, Nettles recently recorded a duet with Bon Jovi (Who Says You Can’t Go Home?).

Were it not for Nettles, country fans might have missed the Chicks more, and thus, been more willing to forgive.

Of course, instead of fighting Sugarland for their country base, the Chicks decided to concede their country fans, hoping instead to gain success in the crossover world.

Their marketing strategy sought to re-brand them as the “thinking man’s” country band. The fact that you can buy their cd at Starbucks says something. It is doubtful that Toby Keith would sell many cds at Starbucks (now Crackerbarrel, on the other hand…).

Here’s the problem: How do you re-brand a band called “The Dixie Chicks” and make them endearing to the Volvo-driving, latte sipping crowd? I mean, the name screams “redneck.” (I propose they rename themselves The Latte Ladies.)

As you can see, the Chicks find themselves without a home. They have been replaced in the country world — and have not been able to successfully transition into the Starbucks world. It will be interesting to see what their next step is.

CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO “VENT” FROM HOT AIR WITH MICHELLE MALKIN ON THE DIXIE BITCH…ER UH CHICKS

 YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK, what the hell?

Story By Joe Kovacs
World Daily Net.com

Despite raging wildfires across the American Southwest in recent weeks, the state of California sent more than four dozen firefighters 300 miles south of the U.S. border to battle blazes in Mexico.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) last week dispatched two engine strike teams with a total of ten engines and 54 personnel after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office approved a request by Baja California Gov. Eugenio Elorduy Walther.

“This is believed to be the first time that CDF personnel have traveled so far beyond the border to assist its neighbor,” said CDF Fire Capt. Jesse Estrada. “Under longstanding agreements through the Border Agency Fire Council response agreements are in place for assistance for one mile over each side of the border. A response this far into Mexico required thorough planning and logistical support.”

He maintains the state “was able to fill the request while still remaining ready to respond to any wildfires here in California.”

Even though the teams returned on Friday, the idea of sending U.S. firemen to Mexico when American states are in the midst of major conflagrations has some people shaking their heads.
Mexica Movement activists protest in L.A.

“How can we send our American firefighters to a hostile, Third World country where just months ago, the same citizens who are here illegally in the U.S., were chanting ‘DIE GRINGO’ as they marched down the streets and waived the Mexican flag? Are we stupid?” one relative of a California firefighter told WND.

“Worse, what protection is offered to U.S. firefighters if they get hurt … ? What protection do they have from disease while in Mexico? Who is paying for CDF to fight fire in Mexico? Certainly Mexico isn’t. That’s right folks – again, it’s the good ol’ USA taxpayer footing the bill for Mexicans in their own country. This is more loco than the human mind can comprehend. … It’s pathetic.”

This weekend, 23 large blazes were burning more than 275,000 acres in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, officials have reported 54,686 wildfires have scorched some 3.2 million acres nationwide this year, three times the average of just over 1 million acres by this time.

Experts are concerned about tinderbox conditions that could spark a season of historic severity.

“Basically, you have had low precipitation since the late 1990s, and now, a winter in which we got close to no precipitation” in the Southwest, Chuck Maxwell, a meteorologist with the Department of the Interior, told the Los Angeles Times. “The fuel moisture levels are very low. The humidity is very low. There are lots of places now that are as dry as we have ever seen them.”

Doug A., left, and Sam B., center, joined by Lane F. participate in the annual Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Parade on 5th Avenue, Sunday, June 25, 2006, in New York. This year the parade motto is The Fight for Love

They participated!? I have always found it interesting that somehow Gay folks dressing up like circus freaks, grabbing each others crotches and tongue wrestling in public is suppose to exhibit “pride!?” By what fucken definition?
I’m just trying to imaging black folks during the civil rights era, dressing up like clowns, looking like buffoons, slobbering on each other and acting retarded wanting and hoping to be taken seriously. 

by Gabriel Schoenfeld
07/03/2006, Volume 011, Issue 40
From The Weekly Standard

CAN JOURNALISTS REALLY BE PROSECUTED for publishing national security secrets? In the wake of a series of New York Times stories revealing highly sensitive counterterrorism programs, that question is increasingly the talk of newsrooms across the country, and especially one newsroom located on West 43rd Street in Manhattan.

Last December, in the face of a presidential warning that they would compromise ongoing investigations of al Qaeda, the Times revealed the existence of an ultrasecret terrorist surveillance program of the National Security Agency and provided details of how it operated. Now, once again in the face of a presidential warning, the Times has published a front-page article disclosing a highly classified U.S. intelligence program that successfully penetrated the international bank transactions of al Qaeda terrorists.

Although the editors of the Times act as if prosecution is not a possibility, not everyone concurs. One person who is still mulling the matter over is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Asked in late May about the prospect of prosecuting the Times and others who publish classified information, he by no means ruled it out. “There are some statutes on the books,” he said, “which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility.”

Unsurprisingly, given what is at stake, even that tentative opinion elicited a fire and brimstone denunciation from the Times. An editorial on May 24 dismissed as “bizarre” the attorney general’s “claim that a century-old espionage law could be used to muzzle the press.” It has long been understood, added the 
newspaper, that the “overly broad and little used” Espionage Act of 1917 applies only to government officials and “not to journalists.”

But this interpretation, even if it were accurate (which it is not), is entirely beside the point. The attorney general did not mention the 1917 Espionage Act or any other specific law. But if the editors of the paper were to take a look at the U.S. Criminal Code, they would find that they have run afoul not of the Espionage Act but of another law entirely: Section 798 of Title 18, the so-called Comint statute.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

I’m not going to bother to comment. Anybody who has peeped this blog knows I think Dean is a straight up retard. Dean and the Democrats STILL refuse to communicate a specific alternative plan of action in Iraq, not counting John “grandpa Simpson” Murtha’s Okinawa idiot bullshit.

The head of the Democratic Party blamed the Bush administration’s “failed political leadership and lack of foresight and planning” for turning U.S. soldiers into targets for the Iraqi insurgency.
In his party’s weekly radio address Saturday, Howard Dean said the Republican plan of “stay the course” is not an option in the 3-year-old war and emphasized the Democratic call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin by year’s end.
He also rejected the Republican criticism that Democrats want to “cut and run.”
“Among the victims are brave American soldiers who are the targets of an insurgency because of failed political leadership and a lack of foresight and planning,” Dean said. “We don’t want another wall with 55,000 names of courageous Americans who were let down by their government.”
The reference was to the black granite memorial in Washington with the names of those who died in Vietnam.
Dean described the Democratic proposals offered in the Senate last week, including the start of a phased redeployment of troops and an accounting of the war’s costs. The Republican-controlled Senate soundly rejected two Democratic plans calling for the United States to begin withdrawing most of the 127,000 American forces in the war zone.
Republicans contend that leaving would amount to a policy of retreat that would threaten national security. Vice President Dick Cheney said withdrawal of U.S. forces would be giving the terrorists what they want.
During the Senate debate, John McCain, R-Ariz., said leaving Iraq would “risk disaster” there. “Withdrawal and fail, or commit and succeed,” he said.
Dean argued that Republicans don’t have a plan.
“‘Stay the course’ is not a plan. Saying the problems in Iraq will be left to the next president is not a plan. Our troops deserve better,” he said.
Dean added that phrases such as “peace is at hand” and “the insurgency is in its last throes” are made by what he called an increasingly desperate administration.
Cheney said last week that he stood by his statement that the insurgency was in its last throes.
Dean rejected the “cut and run” moniker, saying Democrats “will defend America, but we will be tough and smart.”
In heated rhetoric, Cheney and White House adviser Karl Rove have assailed Democrats such as John Kerry and John Murtha, both decorated Vietnam veterans. Rove said those Democrats “may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles.”
Said Dean, “A majority of the American people don’t believe the president is telling the truth, while the administration and its supporters question the patriotism of veterans who disagree with them, accusing them of ‘cut and run.”‘

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 25, 2006
SALT LAKE CITY — Republicans are betting their control of the House on the issue of immigration, and no test case is being watched more closely than the party’s primary election here.
Five-term Rep. Chris Cannon says he opposes amnesty for the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, but supports a “guest-worker” program that would allow them to stay in the country indefinitely.
Challenger John Jacob, a local developer and political novice who forced the primary by defeating Mr. Cannon at the Republican convention last month, calls such proposals “amnesty” and says Mr. Cannon should be removed from office.
“We need to stop up the borders now,” he said in a taped debate last week on the University of Utah’s public television station.
This campaign in a state where President Bush received 72 percent of the vote in his 2004 re-election bid has turned the politics upside down.
Mr. Jacob accuses Mr. Cannon of siding with Mr. Bush on the issue of immigration. Like Mr. Cannon, Mr. Bush supports a “guest-worker” program. The president also supports a Senate immigration-reform bill that would grant citizenship rights to millions of illegal aliens. Mr. Cannon denies that he supports that proposal.
Mr. Bush has taken to the airwaves to urge Utah voters to re-elect Mr. Cannon.
“Chris Cannon is an effective leader for Utah in Congress. He’s a strong Republican, a proven defender of traditional family values,” Mr. Bush says in a radio commercial that doesn’t mention immigration.
At more than $1 million, the protracted Utah primary is estimated to be the most expensive in 15 years.
House Republicans have determined that immigration will be a winning election issue.
Last week, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois announced that House Republicans would delay negotiations over the Senate bill. Instead, they will hold hearings across the country before the November elections to gauge whether voters prefer the Senate “amnesty” bill or the House bill aimed at securing the border and enforcing federal immigration laws already on the books.
Polls suggest that voters overwhelmingly prefer the House approach.
Internal nationwide polling conducted by House Republicans and obtained by The Washington Times shows that 84 percent of voters agree that “we have to stop the flow of illegals before we address what to do about those who already are here.”
The poll, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates in late April, found that 80 percent of Democrats and 91 percent of Hispanics agree with that approach.
The Senate specifically rejected a proposal that would have delayed the more contentious aspects of the bill until the homeland security secretary certifies the border as secure.
Polling for the Salt Lake Tribune found similar positions. A poll conducted last week found that 56 percent of Utahans support the construction of a wall along the border with Mexico and 54 percent oppose providing a path to citizenship for illegals.
Also, 71 percent support repealing a state law that allows the children of illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at colleges and universities. Tuition reductions for illegals is included in the Senate bill and has been supported by Mr. Cannon.
Although Mr. Jacob is capitalizing on the immigration issue, his campaign has hit some rough spots in recent days.
In a radio interview, he admitted that he had once enjoyed recreational gambling, which is strictly prohibited in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon religion dominates the state.
He also raised eyebrows when he complained last week to a Tribune reporter that the devil had dogged his business deals, preventing him from spending even more of his personal fortune on his primary campaign.
Mr. Jacob does not seem to be worried that his comments will be offensive in this strongly religious state.
“I shouldn’t have said it,” he said jokingly. “The devil made me do it.”

By Don Feder
GrassTopsUSA.com | June 23, 2006

Post Via FrontPageMag.com

When leftists start caterwauling about civility, it reminds me of when my kids were young.

When my daughter Anna was 5 and my son, Jonathan was 4, World War III broke out in our household at least once a day. Anna’s modus operandi, as she explained it to her grandfather, was: “I hit Jonathan. He hits me. Then I tell Mommy.”

In essence, that’s the leftists’ civility scam: They hit us. We hit back. Then their media lap dogs begin howling about incivility and yapping about the decline of gentility in the political debate (which, if I’m not mistaken, started with the presidential election of 1800).

It comes on cue; Ann Coulter writes a book and liberals start spewing about mean-spiritedness.

In her latest foray (Godless: The Church of Liberalism), Coulter observed that the “Jersey Girls” – four 9/11 widows who turned themselves into tools of the hate-Bush establishment – reveled in their celebrity status. OK, she called them “harpies” too.

Low blow! the media referees of political pugilism cried. (These self-appointed refs always seem to be gazing off into space when left-wingers rabbit-punch conservatives, or deliver a debilitating kick to the groin.)

Conservative obnoxiousness is a marketing device, the pundits explain. Coulter does it to sell books. Rush Limbaugh does it to boost his ratings.

“There’s something about the momentum of sustaining a reputation based on noise,” sniffs Roger Rosenblatt, “culture critic” for Time Magazine (whose idea of intellectual colloquy is eye-gouging anyone to the right of Mother Blood). Rosenblatt explains, “Someone like Coulter, in order to sustain a reputation that she’s forged for herself, is likely to think, ‘What can I say now?’ Eventually, how insulting can you get?”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former enabler-in-chief who spent most of her married life plotting to destroy the reputations of women who accused her predator-husband, ran to give the Jersey Girls a big hug. “Perhaps her (Coulter’s) book should have been called ‘Heartless,’” the lady widely known for her warmth and humanity sneered.

But Coulter’s comments about the Jersey Girls weren’t gratuitous. She devoted a chapter in her book to the way the left picks spokesmen whose suffering is supposed to immunize them from criticism — Cindy Sheehan, Nick Berg’s father, Christopher Reeve, the Jersey Girls, etc. When we respond to their crackpot carping, we’re admonished for our stunning insensitivity.

Meanwhile, the left has perfected the gentle art of character assassination, while complaining about the politics of personal destruction. Their idea of a civilized dialogue is calling us really-mean Nazis, while our mouths are taped shut.

The quintessence of liberal civility is the thoughtful fashion in which the left expresses its disagreement with the policies of George W. Bush.

When a liberal writes a book about the 43rd. president of the United States, the words “lies,” “liar,” “stupid” or “evil” must appear in the title. The trifecta of liberal Bush-bashing would be a book titled “The Evil Lies of Stupid Bush” (or, “The Stupid Lies of Evil Bush”).

Illustrative of the liar-liar-pants-on-fire school of liberal analysis, here are just a few of the titles offered on Amazon.com:

The Lies of George Bush by David Corn
Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn’t Tell You by Paul Waldman
Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush by Jerry Politex
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq by Christopher Scheer, Lakshmi Chaudhry, and Robert Scheer
Bush Lies In State by Michael McCourt; and
Aliens And Cowboys: Bush’s Legacy of Lies by Jefferson Lang.
Coming soon to a bookstore near you, Neener-Neener/ I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I? — The Intelligent Liberal’s Guide To Political Discourse by Franken Rodham Moore.

Or, consider the way leftists routinely demonize their opponents:

Evangelical Christians – Ignorant, superstitious, violence-prone fanatics intent on establishing a theocracy and putting homosexuals, abortionists, pornographers, feminists, Moslems, and Ron Howard in death camps.

Gun Owners – Homicidal maniacs who want to arm toddlers with howitzers and kill Bambi.

The U.S. Military – Stone-cold killers, Lt. Calley-clones programmed to indiscriminately murder women and children and torture detainees.

Pro-lifers – Religious fanatics, misogynists who want to turn women into breeding stock, violence-prone fetus-worshippers who care about life only in the womb.

Immigration Reform Advocates – Xenophobes who are betraying America’s nation-of-immigrants heritage and have an irrational fear of diversity as well as anyone named Juan or Jose.

Politicians Who Support the U.S. Presence in Iraq, but either A) Didn’t serve in the military, B) Served, but didn’t see combat or C) Served, saw combat, but failed to win the Medal of Honor – Chicken Hawks, nancy boys, hypocritical jingoists who’ll defend America to the last drop of the other guy’s blood.

In academia, where leftists are demigods, the dialogue has reached heights of elegance and refinement worthy of a Victorian drawing room.

Take Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the Americans who died in the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns” responsible for America’s “mighty engine of profit,” while their killers were heroes who made “gallant sacrifices” to strike a blow against the American Reich.

Can Roger Rosenblatt be reached for comment? I don’t recall Senator Clinton condemning Churchill’s comments as “heartless.”

Besides the fact that she loves America and doesn’t sound like a raving lunatic, here are the essential differences between Coulter and Churchill: 1) Coulter isn’t paid by Colorado taxpayers; 2) Students aren’t forced to sit in a classroom and listen to her. (Actually, no one is forced to listen to her); and 3) Professors aren’t getting all weepy while defending her academic freedom.

Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference between us and them is that we can argue as well as inveigh. They can only hurl invectives.

In her new book, Coulter is caustic and cutting. She also makes a devastating case against lieft-wing crime-control policies (the ultimate oxymoron), abortion, stem-cell research, global warming, evolutionism, and public education.

Leftists can’t argue because – 1) Their positions are illogical and indefensible; 2) They’ve controlled the culture for so long that they’ve lost any debating skills they once had (their mental muscles have atrophied); and 3) Since they consider opposition to their agenda by definition evil, they think it’s beneath their dignity to debate us.

That’s why leftists can’t succeed at talk radio – that, plus the fact that they’re humor-deficient. I may not always agree with Rush, but he’s an articulate, persuasive advocate. As a talk show host, Al Franken (author of the carefully nuanced book Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot) is a great – whatever it is he’s supposed to be.

Because left-wingers can’t debate, they are forever telling us that on certain issues “the debate is closed” – words I’ve never heard from a conservative.

That and demanding that their viewpoint be subsidized. Speaking at the “Take Back America” conference on June 15 (these days, the left is always taking something back), Rep. Bernie Sanders (VP – Vanguard of the Proletariat – Vermont), urged his fellow progressives to take on “right-wing nuts” (how’s that for civility?) in talk radio – perhaps Sanders should teach them how to dial a telephone – and demand that conservative stations and newspapers provide “alternative points of view.”

Apparently, controlling the networks (with the exception of FOX), America’s newspapers of record, Hollywood, public education and the liberal arts faculties of 99.9 percent of colleges and universities isn’t enough. Sanders wants to force conservative media outlets to subsidize the opposition. (”Mommy, Rush has a weekly audience of 20 million. Make them give me my own talk show!”)

Coulter’s book now is #1 on The New York Times Best Sellers List. Clearly, we need a government program to force book-buyers to purchase left-wing tracts.

As a survival skill in the political arena lieftists shaped, conservatives have learned verbal street-fighting. But at least we’re not hypocrites. We don’t sucker-punch the other guy and then start whining about the appalling lack of civility when he hits back.

Ok, Ok, I know I posted something similar a few days ago, basically same story different take, some of the same links. This entry from FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog a right leaning blog I had not peeped before. It has been suggested that those of us bloggers on the right should keep the story alive as long as possible. Basically because liberals are a bunch of fucken hypocrites. The “little ole us” blogger AGAINST “THE MAN”. Evil conservative corrupt gubment, business man. Bloggers are just little ole simpletons wanting to make the world a better place. Plez!
Hey I’m broke, I want someone to throw me a damm check for fucking up a liberals day. 
 Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos

 
DAMM! THESE PEOPLE WON’T GIVE IT UP, I JUST WROTE ABOUT THIS CRAP BELOW! CAN’T YOU LIBERALS COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE!?

Former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines has leveled a shocking charge against Fox News: The leading cable news network makes up its stories.
In his new autobiography “The One That Got Away,” Raines – who, ironically, resigned over made-up stories at the Times – writes: “Fox, by its mere existence, undercuts the argument that the public is starved for ‘fair’ news, and not just because Fox shills for the Republican Party and panders to the latest of America’s periodic religious manias. The key to understanding Fox News is to grasp the anomalous fact that its consumers know its ‘news’ is made up.
“It matters not when critics point this out to Foxite consumers because they’ve understood it from the outset. That’s why they’re there.”

Further on in the book he attacks Fox again:

“Fox Television showed us the future - outright lies and paranoid opinions packaged as news under the oversight of Rupert [Murdoch], a flagrant pirate, and Roger Ailes, an unprincipled Nixon thug.”

After the conservative Web site Newsbusters ran several excerpts from Raines’ book, one e-mailer wrote:

“Fox may have a conservative slant but it is usually quite clear when they go from straight reporter mode to giving their own two bits worth.”

Another e-mail says: “I guess if there’s anyone who should recognize ‘made-up’ news when he sees it, it would be Howell Raines.”

Raines was executive editor at the Times when the Jayson Blair scandal erupted in 2003. Blair, it was revealed, had fabricated stories, inventing quotes and even entire interviews. Raines resigned about a month later, after less than two years at the job.

By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 23, 2006(CNSNews.com) - Declassified portions of an intelligence report being promoted by two U.S. lawmakers confirm reporting in 2004 by Cybercast News Service that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas, when his country was invaded by coalition forces. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said the new report confirms that approximately 500 such weapons have been destroyed by the coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies are in a race against terrorist groups trying to control the remaining weapons.“This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone … that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or that may still be in Iraq,” Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said at a press conference releasing a summary report from the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC).

 Republican Infidelity!? God I swear you liberals are losing your fucking minds!

By Ron Chusid from DEM BLOGGERS BLOG
Republicans love to claim to be the party of family values, but may have problems in 2008. The Washington Monthly finds that “just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.”