Now, the movie bashes Reagan quite a bit, blaming him for everything under the sun from his days as Governor of California to his days as President. However, Conservatives need to fight the temptation to bash the film and call for some kind of restitution. That's just what the "hippies" want them to do. Just let the movie run its course, which will be a short stay in theaters and then reruns on basic cable. In the meantime, enjoy seeing hippies die.
By the way, did you know that Dwight Schultz, the guy who played "Howling Mad Murdock" on The A-Team is a conservative radio talk show host on the Internet? I found the Sayet link on his website. What a crazy, yet wonderful world.
Expect this to be the first and last time you hear about it.
MORE: Find an article online that's not from a conservative blog about Diane Feinstein's resignation from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. Go on, try it.
And they ask, "What Liberal media?" Don't make me laugh.
First the sailors are captured and accused of entering Iranian waters, which they may have by accident, the line between Iranian and Iraqi waters in the Persian Gulf is very, pardon the pun, fluid. Be that as it may, the script goes exactly as one would expect. Iran takes them hostage; Britain says, hey, give them back; Iran say, no, this was an act of aggression; Britain says, nuh uh!; Iran says, okay, we'll release the inferior female, but we're going to have them confess on television; Britain threatens to "escalate"; Iran says, okay, just admit you did wrong and we'll return them; and so on.
In other words, Iran is having fun poking the West in the eye and in the meantime buying time until they get their nukes. It's a story that played out over and over again in the 20th Century, but it seems that we've learned nothing. If we don't take the Mullahs and their nuke program out, we're going to see the Middle East slip further into darkness.
Great Britain hasn't been preparing for this moment in history as Fred Thompson shows us.
The MSM and the Democrats would be furious, but it would be a strong shot across the bow and send a strong message to everyone that the president has executive powers and is granted the right to use them by the U.S. Constitution. The Democrats are going to investigate every single action the President takes from here to 2009. Bush should take a bold stand to protect the Office of the Presidency. I guarantee you that his approval numbers would go up if he made a decisive move.
Fox was Bush's campaign chief in Missouri in 2004 and was listed as a "Ranger'" by the president's re-election campaign, meaning he raised at least $200,000. He also donated $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a political group that produced and ran advertising questioning Kerry's war record in Vietnam.
Kerry, who earned a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts as a Navy officer in Vietnam, said Bush made the right decision to withdraw Fox's nomination.
"Sam Fox had every opportunity to disavow the politics of personal destruction and to embrace the truth," Kerry said in a statement. "He chose not to."
Total crap. The Swift Boat Veterans outed John Kerry as the fraud that he is, and his crying shouldn't be enough for Bush, the guy who actually won the presidency, to withdraw nomination one. If the George W. Bush I voted for were here, he'd say something to the effect of, "I won and you lost, chumley. Therefore I get to appoint who I want, and if you don't like it, we'll play hardball."
Even worse, Bush's withdrawal of the nomination is essentially a stamp of approval to all the criticism that the Swift Boat Veterans got and continue to get from those that wish to silence their political speech, and it just aids those who are trying to criminalize the executive powers of a Republican president. Very bad move.
"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Okay, even though I'm not one of them, I've often defended the so-called Christian Right from the frequent attacks they get from the Left and the MSM, but this sort of thing makes much of that criticism valid. When you have a religious leader telling the media, a man isn't Christian enough for a political base to lend it's support, it smacks of when certain parties on the political Left say that Barack Obama "isn't black enough." Dobson, Falwell, Roberts, all these guys who claim to speak for the conservative base are no better than Jesse Jackson claiming to speak for all blacks when they spout this kind of rubbish. They're perfectly within their right to support or not support someone based on their religious convictions, but when you start acting like you are the official kingmaker, you out yourself as a egomaniacal joke.
As the gang at Free Republic point out, it also plays right into the hands of the MSM, who seek to drive a wedge between the various factions of the GOP. (Hat tip: Hot Air)
"Some people wonder if you are in denial."
"Some have suggested that you're capitalizing on this."
What a coward Couric is. This is a typical ploy used by members of the MSM. Anytime you hear the word "some" in a question, you know that the question is being used to either let the politician slam his critics: "Well, these people are out of touch extremists." or it's a way of saying what the reporter thinks but putting the charge in the mouths of "some people." This wasn't a grilling, this was Couric pretending to do a hard-hitting piece when in fact she was taking what is obvious - that Edwards is using his wife's cancer for political gain - and softening it up by making it seem like she doesn't think that, it's just other people.
If I were a politician, especially a Republican politician, I would cut off any reporter that asked a question with the words "some" or "critics."
"Mr. President, some say..."
"Well, your critics..."
"Give me names!"
UPDATE: Well, I guess you could say the Popinjay is on the "cutting edge of societal evolution." I posted the above at 8:47am Pacific...15 minutes before Rush Limbaugh began his radio program. Today Rush said the following:
Her question was, "I guess some people would say that there's some --" by the way, I made this point at the beginning of the program, and I know a lot of people are going, "Hey, you know what? She really hit them with tough questions." Yes, but every tough question was prefaced with, "Some people are saying, some people say." If I were Edwards, I would say, "Well, who? Who's saying it? You're saying it, aren't you, Katie? You're the one asking me the question. Why don't you have the guts to put it in your voice instead of blaming it on these other people. Who are these people?" That's how I deal with it. I get this question all the time, "Some people say that you're X." I always say, well, who? Who are they? Anyway, you find out the journalist is not talking about anybody else, they're just talking about themselves. Anyway, Katie's question, "I guess some people would say that there's some middle ground. You don't have to necessarily stay at home and feel sorry for yourself and do nothing, but if given a possibly finite period of time on the planet, being on the campaign trail away from my children a lot of time and sort of pursuing this goal, it's not necessarily what I would do."
Now, I'm not gonna claim 100% credit for this. I might have heard Rush or someone else say something like this in the past and filed it in my subconscious, I don't know, but regardless Maha Rushie and I seem to be on the same wavelength, and we couldn't be more right.
UPDATE II: Liberal mad at Katie. What a complete load!
McCain-Feingold was the last straw for McCain and conservatives just don’t trust Mitt. Rudy gets away with lefty positions in the past because he is a proven leader. He busted the Mob. He cleaned up NYC. He led on 9/11.
That pretty much says it all.
But why was he so funny? There are a lot of reason for this. I've taken improv classes and study comedy as a hobby. I'm always intrigued by what makes something funny or not funny. In the case of Calvert, it came down to three things: Truth, Innocence and the power of David Letterman's credibility as the king of irony.
When Calvert first appeared on Late Night with the stage name Larry "Bud" Melman, he was an instant hit. I've watched the clip of him handing out hot towels at the New York port authority on YouTube about a dozen times this week. Each time I'm in hysterics. Calvert reads the cue-cards with horrible timing and he doesn't have a clue how to handle the microphone and conduct an interview properly, but this isn't an act. That's what so important about it. He's honestly doing his best and he's so innocent and ignorant to how it should be done that it makes him hilarious. It reminds me of Mrs. Slocombe on Are You Being Served?. The running joke on the show was her calling her pet cat her "pussy." It always got a laugh, but the reason for this was the fact that Mrs. Slocombe was so innocent that it would never occur to her that was she was saying was a double-entendre. If we even remotely got the notion that she might realize what she was saying, it would cease to be funny.
The other aspect you have to look at is the power David Letterman had as the host of a late night talk show that was a sort of anti-host. He was constantly mocking that which he was presenting, and he could do this because Late Night offered the public the alternative side of the entertainment industry. It wasn't Tom Cruise pushing a movie, it was Captain Beefheart incoherently pushing his latest album.
Writer Ken Cancelosi puts it beautifully:
The pairing was as perfect as it was bizarre. Even as Letterman delighted in his creation in those early days, we were baffled. Here was a man so untalented, so utterly devoid of performing skills, you just had to stare at him in wonder. But the character aligned nicely with Letterman's style as a performer and a host, which centered on satirizing, even attacking, the very idea of being a performer or a host. In Letterman's numerous cooking segments, for instance, the point seemed to be to destroy the very idea of a cooking segment; it was nearly impossible for the audience to learn anything because the focal point was always Letterman's (a) incompetence and (b) utter disinterest in whatever process was being demonstrated. Letterman almost never played characters in the way that Carson did; he usually played David Letterman not even trying to play a character.
Melman took Letterman's strategy a step further without even trying. He was already was a character, so performing was beside the point. Their kinship was highlighted when Letterman "acted" opposite Melman, whose utter inability to disappear into a role made the sketch into an anti-sketch. Here, and even more so in the bits where Melman went on location and spoke to Dave in the studio via satellite, the humor was born out of watching Melman stew on national television. All he could do was bark one or two lines over and over again.
And this takes us to why David Letterman has been such a failure at CBS, in my opinion. Letterman was perfect in his role as the "anti-host" on Late Night, but he wasn't able to accept his limitations. His goal in life, his whole reason for living, was to try and be the next Johnny Carson. He worshiped Johnny so, and wanted more than anything in the world to be him. When Johnny retired, the battle was on, and when NBC wouldn't meet his demands, he went to CBS to host an 11:30pm (ET/PT) show. Gone was the studio with it's industrial look (i.e. exit doors near the desk, cheap looking backdrops, etc.), now he had a fancy set at the Ed Sullivan Theater, he wears fancy suits and has almost nothing but A-list guest. But Dave is Dave. While he tries to be Johnny, his iconoclastic manner still rears his head. It's pretty obvious which guests he likes and doesn't like. I'm sure Johnny had guests he didn't like either, but you never knew it. Johnny's golden rule was "make the guests look good." Do that, and in turn, you look good. Letterman doesn't have it in him to do this. Instead, he's often rude and flippant to certain guests, and in the time slot and studio setting of the CBS Late Show, it looks tacky, not edgy. He never should have made the move he did in 1994, but his ego wouldn't allow him not to.
Fortunately, Calvert DeForest made the move with him and made the show better with every appearance, but it made you want to hearken back to the days when he and Dave did edgy comedy, late at night on NBC. The little war Dave was always having with the notoriously cheap NBC added something to their brand of comedy, but I guess those days are gone.
I highly suspect this is a ruse by Alterman. Call me crazy, but I really don't believe that anyone who writes for a reputable (or in the case of The Nation, semi-reputable) publication could be this stupid. Therefore, I think he's having us on. After all, there are really stupid people out there who believe everything they read. Like Goebbels said, tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth. That's Alterman's hope.
This, for instance, is classic comedy:
-Al Gore went before Congress today with his Global Warming tales. One Democrat called him a prophet, while a Republican dared call him "totally wrong." He was quickly tarred and feathered by CNN.
-The author of the brilliant Hillary "1984" Internet campaign video has been unmasked; a staffer for an Obama consultant. He's been fired, but his work will live on.
-Rush Limbaugh and Governor Schwarzenegger talked it out on Rush's show today. They reached a compromise: Rush agreed to keep smoking cigars with the Governor and Arnold agreed to keeping selling out.
-At an anti-War (or pro-terrorists) rally in Portland, Oregon, a U.S. soldier doll was burned in effigy....and the country yawned. Nary a word from CAIR of the DNC. Couple this with recent vandalism on a Congressional office and a Wisconsin recruiting office and you have to wonder if the Weather Underground is making a comeback.
Granted, I wasn't around in the '60s, but doesn't it feel like we're on the cusp of another 1968?
Not many are aware that from 1975 to 1979, Ronald Reagan penned and broadcast over 1,000 radio commentaries on the political issues of the day. It was these editorials that helped Reagan lay the groundwork for his plans to transform the nation in the 1980s. They also show us the vast intellect how the actor turned politician that many thought a dim bulb. He was, in fact, an ideological genius (and in one of the radio commentaries even called for the legalization of marijuana on libertarian grounds!).
Perhaps taking a page out of Reagan's playbook, former Senator Fred Thompson has been a frequent guest-host for radio icon Paul Harvey. It's even been speculated that he would take over for Harvey when he passes on, but I think he may have bigger plans in the hopper.
These radio commentaries by Thompson have been available at National Review Online and linked by the gang at Hot Air. I've been listening to them and let's just say, if Thompson is planning to run for President (or VP), he's saying all the right things. Allahpundit says of these radio gems, "In no slaughterhouse, in no butcher shop, shall there be found meat as red as this." He's right. Listen to this one where he takes the Mexican President to task for his criticism of our immigration policies.
The new Reagan? A little early to make that call, but he's definitely on the right track.
Bryan at Hot Air puts it best:
Though President Bush and then FEMA head Michael Brown took most of the criticism in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (much of it justified), the real villain in that storm was Gov. Kathleen Babineau Blanco. She was indecisive. She brought in Clintonistas to help her cover for her deficiencies and politicize the storm. She kept the Red Cross from doing all it could to help the people left behind in New Orleans. Her performance during the Katrina crisis should stand in the annals of time as one of the worst executive performances in US history. Alongside “Chocolate City” Mayor Ray Nagin, no doubt.
There is so much to be learned from this story. First, it shows just what so-called animal rights' activists are all about: self-loathing. They hate mankind and anything to do with mankind. It's not about the animals.
Second, it shows just how compassionate mankind can be. They could have easily let the animal die or put it to sleep, but instead, they take care of it, love it, treat it...humanely. There's a reason the root of that word is "human."
WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.
I'd really like to believe the President this time when he says he won't back down. I really, really hope he means it.
No fight...no fight at all.
Now with this U.S. Attorney thing, Chuck Schumer says, 'well, yeah, Clinton fired all of them in '93 but Bush fired U.S. Attorneys that were investigating cases detrimental to him or not investigating cases that were beneficial to him.' However, no one seems to know what these cases are. This mountain of evidence seems to be for Chuck's eyes only, but even if there is evidence, it's still the president's prerogative.
Bottom line, we have a Stalinist movement to make it a crime for a sitting Republican president to exercise his executive powers. How is this able to happen? One, our President refuses to fight back. Two, few people in the general public even know what U.S. Attorneys are and how they fit into our system of government. This in turn makes point three possible: We have an Orwellian up-is-down, black-is-white argument coming from the Democrats. The MSM reports it, doesn't question it and it becomes common knowledge that 'Bush illegally fired U.S. Attorneys.' That's all it takes in today's society.
It often reminds me of that scene in Last Temptation of Christ where Jesus (who is dreaming of what life would have been like if he hadn't been crucified) confront Paul who is telling his story. He tells him to stop spreading these lies or he'll tell everyone the truth. Paul tells him he doesn't care if it's the truth or not; "I created the truth out of what people needed and what they believed." Created the truth. It's always been the case, but I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that this practice is now more prevalent than it has ever been in the United States. Germans know what it's like to have their leaders create the truth, as do the Russians and the Poles and the Czechs. In America, we have a political movement and media organizations whose purpose from sunrise to sunset is to create the truth.
Bush lied, people died. The media has a conservative bias and needs "fairness." Global Warming is fact and a contrary opinion should be punishable. These are just a few examples of what happens when a people allows its leaders to "create the truth." This is gonna be a tough fight. My natural inclination is to be pessimistic, but this country has a way of coming around when the time is right.
What time is it?
Temperatures are predicted to reach a high of only 43-degrees on Wednesday in Washington, but look for high-heat to come out of Al Gore's schedule appearances on The Hill!
Gore is set to solo before Rep. John Dingell's [D-MI] all powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the morning and Sen. Barbara Boxer's [D-CA] Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon.
Both are expected to have overflow seating, and protesters, both for and against Gore.
Gore will get a 30 minute opening and then Boxer and her republican counterpart, Sen. Inhofe, each get 15 minutes each of questioning in addition to their opening statements. Other senators will only get 5 min of Q & A.
"Democrat Dingell is a big global warming skeptic, so do not expect him to go too lightly on Gore," predicts a congressional source.
Yeah, and I'm Buck Rogers. This is just gonna be another Oscars party filled with adulation and swooning over this fraud. What a mess this country is turning into.
Today, the Democrats put on a show as they called Valerie Plame Wilson to testify before Congress. They were very careful to not mention the name Richard Armitage and the AP followed suit as best they could. After doing a Google News search, you can find the AP story all over the place in which Armitage is mentioned in the 11th paragraph in the shorter version and in the 22nd paragraph in the longer version. The BBC at least had it in the 7th paragraph.
It's really, really scary what can be accomplished in today's media culture. I'm really surprised and ashamed at the lack of fight from the Bush White House on this and the U.S. Attorneys story. We joke about Republicanism being outlawed (see below), but I'm starting to think it could happen.
10-Point Plan for Rebuilding the United States after Bush's Destruction
Bush has blown up the world. Now the onus is on Democrats to say how they would put it back together. Nice move. I say, resist and tell it like it is. The war and the domestic crisis are the messes that Georgie made. Here are the steps I suggest to remedy this terrible situation.
1. Tell the people that George Bush and his friends are killers, liars, and thieves and that not only shouldn't they listen to him and them, but that they all belong in jail.2. Get George and his friends out of the way -impeach, or if no time, wait till election-then put them in prison where they belong. No more reason to be afraid of what they say, calling opposition 'cut-and-run' Democrats. Let them say it from prison and see if they can 'cut-and-run' from behind bars.3. Get the people he deployed to the disaster out of the disaster.4. Rebuild the US first. Rebuild the schools, roads, infrastructure, housing, education system, medical insurance and other needs neglected by the Republicans over the last eight years, as they went on their killing spree and spent all of our money.5. After cooling the Republicans by arresting most of them and shutting their stupid mouths forever, start working on reversing Global Warming.6. Revoke all the tax cuts made by the criminal Bush clan.7. Remove all the "Justices" put in place by the Bush clan, including on the Supreme Court.8. Abolish all the bullshit programs put in place by Bush clan, including Medicaid "reform" and the provisions attached to the 'no-child-left-behind' scam. Surely Bush was left behind.9. Consider the possibility that the Republican ideology contravenes the Constitution because its policies and beliefs endanger the well-being of the people. Consider making the Republican Party illegal.10. Start a party that opposes the Democratic Party from the left of the Democratic Party and makes the Republican Party a detestable relic of the past akin to the slave-holding Southern rebels.Dr. Rec, The Rec Report Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D.
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown,” called the surge. So the bottom line here is the surge is working. I hope I'm not speaking out of school, but Matt Drudge sent me an e-mail this morning. After he posted this story he started getting death threats and hate mail from kooks accusing him of lying and putting out this kind of news. Drudge said, “You know, it wasn't until I started getting all these that I actually realized that you are right, they do want to lose.”Yep.
What is this morbid obsession that liberals have with Fox? It's as if Democrats, pampered and spoiled by so many decades of the mainstream media trumpeting the liberal agenda, are so shaky in their convictions that they cannot risk an encounter with opposing views. Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and 98 percent of American humanities professors to do their bidding. But no, that's not enough -- every spark of dissent has to be extinguished with buckets of bile.
Coulter is a smart woman with formidable energy, and whether liberals like it or not, she is a high-profile feminist role model in her appetite for aggressive debate. But Coulter seems to be regressing rather than growing intellectually and sharpening her analytic skills. She evidently leaves no room in her life for study and reflection. I take books seriously (which is why I left the scene for five years to write "Break, Blow, Burn") and thus hold against Coulter the part she has played in the debasement of that medium. Her books may rake in millions but won't last because they are shoddily constructed. Coulter should be using her syndicated column for her topical opinions but her books for more considered contributions. "Godless," for example, which intriguingly postulates the quasi-religiosity of contemporary liberalism, should have stimulated wide discussion but was so thrown together and full of holes that it was easy to dismiss and went unread outside her core audience.
I was full of admiration at this demonstration of the beauty and efficiency of the modern distribution system, which I extolled in the first chapter of "Sexual Personae" as a male-created artifact of civilization. It is one of the many gifts of capitalism that are invisible to academic leftists, who nevertheless expect the light switch to work, their cars to start, and the grocery store to be constantly stocked with fresh milk, orange juice and produce.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton – with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Anyway, Davis is usually pretty swift, so it surprises me that he hasn't looked at my theory, that Thompson is setting himself up to be a ready-made Vice Presidential pick. It makes so much sense, and under Dick Cheney the job has certainly become a lot more than just casting a tie-breaking vote. I agree with Davis that the GOP race will probably come down to Giuliani and Romney, but whoever wins out I think may give a long hard look at Thompson for a running mate. Mark my words.
Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) is complaining that network Sunday morning public affairs programs are still dominated by Republican and conservative voices even after a mid-term election that saw the Democrats take over the House and Senate.
Hinchey said he was calling on the networks "to do the right thing and provide equal opportunities for Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress."Hinchey suggested the networks have an affirmative obligation to be fair. "The American people are the owners of the public airwaves," he said in a statement announcing his March 13 press conference, "and the networks have an obligation and responsibility to use those airwaves to offer a balanced presentation of ideas and perspectives from Democrats and Republicans alike."
His thinking defies explanation.
Other candidates were trying to sidestep the Nevada debate because they claimed that the sponsoring television network, Fox News Channel, was conservatively biased.Obviously his thinking is flawed, but the point he makes is valid and correct.
“If you want to be the President of the United States, you can’t be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically,” Kucinich said. “No one is further removed from Fox’s political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership.”
‘Shock, horror’, he says. ‘Exposing that a journalist has a Marxist background is like exposing that he wears trousers.’
However, he has been working on his conservative bona fides, he has great name recognition (being an actor) and he is from a semi-Southern state (Tennessee). His appearance on Fox News Sunday this morning was a good one where he seemed to say all the right things (give or take), at least as far as the Conservative Base is concerned. I also like the way he directly answers the questions (a rarity these days). He didn't hedge on any of the answers and pretty much said yes or no when asked. He also has a nice, folksy way with words. My favorite: "[Armitage] evidently wasn't a designated bad-guy, so they passed right over that."
Allahpundit points out that despite how amazing the notion is, he is late to the game. I suspect he knows this and is setting himself up as the picture-perfect, ready-made Vice Presidential candidate. I have to say, I'm buying it. I think he might just have everything the GOP is looking for in a number two. He's Southern, well-known, experienced as hell, smart, witty, and Conservative. He and Giuliani would be a dream ticket in my book.
And hey, they would definitely win the bald vote!
MORE: Don Surber's take.
The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.
WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science, the president of the Czech Republic warned Friday.Can this man run for President of the United States? I'm serious.
Speaking at the Cato Institute, a public policy think-tank, President Vaclav Klaus said that environmentalists who clamor for policy change to combat global warming "only pretend" to be promoting environmental protection, and are actually being driven by a political agenda.
"Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," much like the idea of communism or other "-isms" such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide.
MORE: A great take from Protein Wisdom:
I’m sure the idea of registering journalists makes people like Harry Reid feel a tingle in the unmentionable places. Don’t answer the tough questions, don’t respond to people who disagree with you ... just shut them up by whatever means necessary. Campus speech codes, theatening broadcast licenses, pushing to get the “Fairness” Doctrine reinstated ... at every turn, contemporary American “liberals” are proving that “Progressive” is the new “fascist.”
One of the best fansites of the show: Are You Being Served? Forever has a roundup of the coverage. (Hat tip: dcthornton)
Oh, and by the way, the CBS Evening News is still in 3rd place, even after the news room was talking about "how much ass they were gonna kick" during Katie's first week. So now they bring in a proven loser to try and fix things.
They will never, ever learn.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews spoke with Libby juror Ann Redington on HARDBALL. Juror [#10] says she would support a Bush pardon for Libby.
Chris: You're for a pardon out of sympathy for the defendant.
Ann: Yeah, I think in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.
Chris: Which is the leaking of a CIA agents name.
Uuuggghhh!! I swear to G-d I'm going to have a stroke! There was no crime committed!!! Valerie Plame was NOT covert!! and even if she was, it was the beloved Richard Armitage that outed her!!!!
MORE: Ann Coulter: "This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican."
Less than two months after ascending to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors, the NYT will splash on Wednesday Page Ones.
The paper claims, according to newsroom sources: One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.
The paper's Mike McIntire and Chris Drew get front placement [side by side with Libby Coverage] for details of Obama's most recent financial disclosure:
It shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.
A spokesman for Obama says the senator did not know that he had invested in either company.
Two ways to look at this. 1) This could be a product of the Clinton Machine which I'm sure still holds a lot of sway with the Pathetic Old Grey Lady. 2) This could be the POGL's way of getting an Obama scandal out of the way early in order to help the new Messiah. Factor in the fact that nothing is likely to come of this, and I'm more inclined to go with the second choice, believe it or not.
Look, these real estate or investment scandals never amount to anything when Democrats are involved. We've got Scooter Libby convicted of lying to investigators who were investigating a crime that never happened while we've got Harry Reid making all kinds of shady deals in Nevada and William Jefferson (D-La) storing dirty money in his freezer with not a whiff of outrage.
Bottom line, you could find proof that Obama is serial killer and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans.
Of course, it's America that's the fascist state, right?
I have no idea whether Scooter Libby is a “good man” or a partisan hack, but I certainly hope he has a Bush pardon in his pocket or in his shoes I’d be making a break for the border. I never feel more foreign than when observing contemporary American justice, which seems to the outsider to have absolutely no sense of proportion. Mr Libby has been convicted of lying about his recollection of a conversation. The lies about who leaked Mrs Wilson’s name, the lies about what her husband was told in Niger and what he reported back to the CIA and how he got the job in the first place, all these are still out there. And in particular the leaker Armitage – who remained silent as the drip-drip-drip of speculation corroded the Administration’s integrity month in month out – remains a beloved figure on the social scene, full of delightful asides and amusing gossip. Only the peripheral lie about the minor lie arising from major lies is to be punished.
The Bush Administration can be faulted on several grounds for its conduct here, but one of its earliest errors was apologizing for the notorious “16 words” in the SOTU that started this thing:''The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The British government stands by that statement. So does Lord Butler, in his investigation. In stepping back from the statement, the Administration showed an astonishing political ineptness, and in effect legitimized Wilson’s core grievance.
Three years on, meanwhile, MI6, the French and others still know far more about what’s happening on the ground in Africa. The real scandal has always been that the world’s most lavishly endowed intelligence agency’s idea of an investigation is flying in a politically-motivated tourist for a long weekend.
I bet Barbara freaked out on him.
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.
Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."
"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."
I'm sure if Jesus saw the Edwards' house, he'd be outraged, but hypocrisy aside, I'm getting real tired of this Paul Wellstone Redux shtick that Edwards is trying to pull. First off, America is the most generous country on Earth, bar none, so this talk that we're selfish is not only a crock, it's insulting. Second, a trial lawyer from North Carolina is not gonna fly as the next Bobby Kennedy (who was a fraud himself). John, this campaign is your 14th minute.
Now, this could be the driving force behind this documentary, or these guys could just be intellectually curious. My view is to believe the latter, but keep a sharp eye out for the former.
Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.
‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.
The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world’s poor.
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.
Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.
A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."
Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don’t believe you – it’s taken ten years to get this commissioned.
"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists – people with qualifications – are the bad guys.
"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.
"It’s very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.
"Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."
Did you see in there how many times the world "controversy" was used? Not surprising as most views that are contrary to religious dogma are labeled controversial, even when they're based on solid fact. This Durkin guy better keep looking over his shoulder when he walks down the street, his life is about to get very difficult.
Tikrit (eCanadaNow) - A suspected leader of the group Islamic State in Iraq, which has ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, was detained in northern Iraq on Sunday, Iraqi security forces reported.
Muharib Mohammed Abdullah, aka Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, was arrested in a joint raid by Iraqi and US soldiers in the city of Duluiya.
“This is a great success for the Iraqi security forces, comparable to the killing of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi,” the Salaheddin provincial administration in the town of Tikrit said in a statement.
Good news if true.
I'm pessimistic, but if we should catch bin Laden, Robert Gates is gonna be the most popular man in the country.
"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton – with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)[...]Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukrainians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas – 299 million of you are going to have to go.
The reception Mr. Giuliani gets at CPAC tomorrow will be telling. Two years ago, even a year ago, he could have gotten a hero's welcome — a thank you for his service on September 11 and little scrutiny otherwise, with the presidential contest so far away. Not so here in early 2007. By the time this crowd meets again, the primary could be all but decided. Tomorrow will be a time for sizing up, a time for kicking the tires, a time for some tough questions from a room filled with people who could hardly have imagined a former mayor of New York City being the frontrunner for the Republican nomination just a few years ago.