Recently in Moonbats Category

Glenn Reynolds notes that the McCains have $100,000+ in credit card debt: "That should enhance his credibility on the deficit."

Fair enough, I see the irony as well.

Meanwhile, over at Huffington Post, Seth Colter Walls is having a moonbattathon based on... his own ignorance of charge cards:

With news of the McCain family's six-figure credit card debt cropping up today, its not too hard to imagine a little light-hearted chuckling among middle class folks getting a look at the spendthrift habits of elites. As The Hill reported this morning, based on disclosure reports released today, Sen. John McCain and his wife Cindy owe at least $100,000 to American Express, with a "dependent child" also holding a card with a balance between $15,000 and $50,000.

So what? I travel frequently on business. I can tell you from personal experience that it's very easy to rack up $20-30 grand in a month from hotels, car rental, airfare, etc., and I don't have an enterage following me 24/7. The McCains are campaigning for the Presidency, while I'm sure the campaign takes care of some expenses directly, the fluid nature of campaigning would make using a charge card (and getting reimbursed later) necessary.

Seth continues:

But not all credit card debts are created equal. In fact, according to a prior disclosure form filed in May that was provided to The Huffington Post, a significant amount of the McCains' credit card debt is being held by American Express at an interest rate of zero percent -- making their debt a lot less like the costly credit card pitfalls facing many Americans and a lot more like the big sweetheart loans that can get national political figures in hot water.

Wow - some scoop you've got there, Seth - you've uncovered what most folks already know. The most common American Express card (indeed, the only up until a few years ago) is interest free. Not just to the rich, but to everyone.

Besides, if the McCains were getting sweetheart deals, what use would they have for a joint card at 25.99%?

This one made me laugh out loud:

Zero-percent credit card interest rates are not exclusively for the rich or well-connected, of course. But the most common offers of that kind are often capped at a few-thousand dollars and shed their zero percent rate after six to nine months

Um, no, Seth. Even a standard Gold card has no limit and no interest unless you pay late - a category which the McCains apparently fall into. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

There's so much low hanging fruit to pick when it comes to criticising McCain - is this really the best they can do?

Amnesty International USA will be in Dilworth Plaza to protest Gitmo:

Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) brings its national tour of a life-size Guantanamo prison cell replica to Philadelphia beginning Friday, May 30 until Sunday, June 1. On Saturday, May 31, AIUSA members and other activists will gather from noon to 2 p.m. in Dilworth Plaza (adjacent to City Hall) in Philadelphia, to listen to local musicians, the Late Nite Drifters and Tom Mullian, experience the cell and continue to push the Bush administration to shut down the U.S.-controlled detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

That's the Guantanamo Bay facility that's full of people who, if they had the opportunity, would kill the protesters along with their family and friends and consider it a good day after doing so. And indeed, many of those who have been released from Gitmo have returned to the battlefield to fight for al-Qaida or the Taliban, either of which would provide prisoner treatment that would make Gitmo look like a day care center in comparison.

The exhibit will be complete with starry-eyed, deluded moonbats in stylish orange jumpsuits. AIUSA is also asking visitors to make useful idiot videos:

Visitors may tour the cell and record a 30-second reaction video that will be posted on youtube.com and tearitdown.org.

I hope they get lines of people to look in the camera and say "It's better than these killers deserve". I suppose we wouldn't see any of those clips on you tube, though.

I hope you are all having a wonderful long weekend. TB, the kids, and I certainly are. Yesterday we had a movie night, and broke with our usual routine to dine in front of the TV. The movie was National Treasure: Book of Secrets. The movie fell somewhat short of the first due to its predictability, but the banter and special effects were top notch. And there was a hint of a third movie to come which we'll definitely want to see.

Today, the kids are over at a schoolmate's house for the afternoon. TB is taking it fairly slow since she's recovering from a tooth extraction combined with a sinus infection. Me, I've got around 35 pounds of pork shoulder (butt roast) on the smoker - it's pulled pork for dinner tonight.

Had we not received the invite for the kids, I would have liked to have driven south to the tour of Dover's Revolutionary War veterans at Christ Episcopal Church Cemetery in Dover. Did you know we lost 25,000 people in the Revolutionary War? Not all were battlefield deaths, most died from disease or in prison ships. Casualty-wise, the Revolutionary War differs dramatically from our current conflict in scope. What the first war does have in common with today is that the troops then, as now, were all volunteers.

While all those who have died in defense of our country deserve respect and remembrance today and every day, there's a special place in my thoughts for those who willingly serve knowing that they may not survive. It's a devotion and love for country and countrymen that some Americans don't feel and can't understand. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as this is a free country and folks can believe as they wish. Still, I can't fathom the need for some to take a day like this and use it to deride the sacrifices so many have made for our country.

For example, I saw a post yesterday on another blog suggesting that we separate Memorial Day into two holidays - one to "honor the troops that were drafted into fighting", and another to shower contempt upon those "schmucks that signed up for it" who "knew what they were getting into". This means volunteers, including, for example, the 25,000 I mention above and the 6.3 million who volunteered during during the second world war.

However, it's still a free country, and I don't mind having volunteered 20 years of my life toward maintaining his right to spit contempt and ignorance.

Back to the real nature of the holiday, though. TB and I wish for all of you to have a safe and happy holiday as we honor and thank those who gave us the freedoms we enjoy today.

Especially the volunteers.

For Jenna Bush and her new hubby over at CBS News:

I hope they”ve both been sterilized so as not to spawn any more GOP scum.

With lots more over at the Pirates Cove.

Rep. Robert Wexler has put up a website, in conjunction with Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin, asking for nutroots support of impeaching Cheney. On the page titled "Why We Need Hearings", we get a refreshingly honest view of what drives many Democrats, and it's what we all knew already:

I was serving in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee for the ridiculous and politically motivated impeachment hearings of President Clinton. During that witch hunt Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Ken Starr wasted a year and a half on investigations and hearings about President Clinton's personal relations. However, this attempted coup d'etat by Republicans against President Clinton was not and should not be the standard of impeachment that was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution.

First, impeachment hearings are only proper when significant allegations exist that the President or Vice-President, or others civil officers, committed actions – within their official duties – that constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' The allegations against Clinton – involving a personal affair - never reached this threshold. The serious charges against Cheney involve alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President; namely war and peace, the widespread violations of civil liberties, and the security of the United States and our covert agents.

Unlike the show trial put on by Republicans against President Clinton, a proper impeachment hearing would involve a fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship.

Yup, that's right - it's all about getting even for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Oh, and here's Wexler in a supporting video - listen to his voice become louder and angrier - he practically spits into the camera - as he displays a "fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship":

Hyperbole, indeed. Do you really think it's possible for someone so animated in his characterization of the administration's actions to be "fair and objective"?

Hope you caught the headlines in the background. I've linked them for you:

• "If Libby is Pardoned, Scrutiny Should Follow" - Since Libby wasn't pardoned, I guess scrutiny isn't necessary.

• "Former Press Secretary Points Finger at Bush, Cheney for Deceit in CIA Leak Scandal" - Noticing a pattern here?

• "A Judgment on Cheney Is Still to Come" - Wexler just can't get over Plame, can he? He must have missed the news about who the leaker really was. That matters little, though, since the theme is "any excuse for revenge".

It's a shame this soap opera was canceled last month. A year of impeachment hearings with this kind of tinfoil nonsense would give the Republicans their best hope of regaining Congress.

Posted on Delaware Watch is the below video on Diego Garcia. I'm not studied on the primary subject of British policy in Diego Garcia, but the second minute of the piece paints the US military as baby killers. Sadly, this kind of disgusting totally untrue smear of the troops happens far too frequently in leftist circles. It is beyond dispute that no military in history has worked harder than ours to avoid civilian casualties.

The piece does show what appears to be horrible treatment of the indigenous population of Diego Garcia. However, its view of the U.S. military is so dishonestly wrong that the rest of the piece is highly suspect.

There's a lesson here. Journalists who really care about exposing injustices should check any ideology at the door else risk discrediting any good they might accomplish. Same goes for those who spread it.

Update: If the atrocities outlined in the film are real, then notable are the dates - the key years for the United States' involvement are between 1961 and 1968 - all during Democrat administrations.

I'm sure that makes it all OK, right? Since it was for the "common good", after all...

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

Well, his antics over the last few days helped his image with someone:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the first real test of grassroots support for the eight Democratic Presidential candidates, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored a stunning first place finish nationally and topped every other candidate in 41 of 50 states, according to results released late last night by Democracy for America (DFA).

Of the 150,000-plus ballots cast, Kucinich received more votes than former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama combined. Kucinich tallied 49,364 (31.97%), compared with Edwards' 24,078 (15.6%), Obama's 21,403 (13.86%), and Senator Hillary Clinton's 6,504 (4.21%).

Of course, it's a self-parodying poll:

Undeclared write-in candidate and former Vice President Al Gore scored second nationally with 24.77% of the vote, and he "won" six states: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida.

Hmmm. Unscientific web poll with numbers dramatically at odds with any respected national poll, over-the-top fanaticism for wildly non-mainstream views.... Wonder how much bleed-over from the fans of Ron Paul? Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen Ron Paul's supporters in the same place and time as Kucinich's supporters? Hmmm?

Have been watching C-SPAN and the drama unfolding with Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution. Steny Hoyer tried to table the resolution, but the Republicans all switched votes to keep the resolution alive. This was to embarrass the Democrats who are already under fire for the endless and fruitless investigations. Currently, there's a motion to send it committee, where it could be kept low-key (and unembarrassing to house Dems). Looks like that motion will pass.

Had the Republican's gambit worked, the house would have debated for an hour followed by a vote. Republicans would have had a field day shaming the ludicrous assertions in the resolution, such as "Keeping all options on the table" meaning that Cheney was conspiring to wage war with Iran.

Back later with more...

Update from Yahoo/AP:

Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Bruising indeed. It would have been fun to watch, too. Statement from the White House in the same article:

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

And I managed to make it all the way through the post without exploiting the extraterrestrial angle!

It's kind of a girl fight story with a little moonbatty BDS thrown in to stroke the base:

"Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire," Edwards said, referring to two crucial early-voting states.

"She's giving the administration exactly what it wants again."

Edwards also warned in a speech in Iowa City, that the Bush administration was trying to use attacks on US forces in Iraq, to justify a war with Iran.

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran," he said.

This stuff from Edwards and the others is going to be pure gold for the Republicans next year. We've already seen Hillary play the "victim girl" card, so expect it to be played after she wins the nomination and the Republican candidate points out any inconsistency, no matter how accurate, in her positions. Having Democrats make the point instead will be so much easier.

Do you think these folks are going to rally around Hillary after she gets the nod? Count on it. And even the least amount of critical review from the press will prompt the best tap-dancin' you've ever seen. All the latest dust-ups between Hillary and the other candidates also serve to illustrate that they know how dishonest their positions are - it just takes a heated primary to get 'em to admit it.

Oops.

I tried to call, but couldn't get through at all. Of course he'll say that the "interested citizens" are all supports of his impeachment effort. My guess is that folks on the right tipped 'em over the edge. Yay, team. Or perhaps he couldn't establish an up-link with the mother ship:

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is planning to re-schedule a nationwide conference call to discuss Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney after tonight's planned event encountered technical problems stemming largely from the overwhelming volume of calls from interested citizens.

The Kucinich campaign apologized for the snafu, explaining that staff had significantly underestimated the number of call-ins, and public interest in the issue exceeded technological capacity. The call will be re-scheduled within the next few days.

Kucinich, author and prime sponsor of the impeachment measure against Cheney, will be introducing a privileged resolution to the House tomorrow (Tuesday) to force a vote on the matter of impeachment.

I'll let you know if/when they reschedule.

Update (11/6/07 7:45AM): "Stay tuned for the day-long circus."

Update (11/6/07 9:48AM): Welcome Michelle Malkin readers! Thanks for the link, Michelle!

Oh, and if you didn't make it here through Michelle's post, head over there - she has the full text of the UFO-fueled resolution to impeach Cheney in all it's lunatic glory!

Dennis Kucinich is hosting a nation-wide call-in straight from the mothership tonight @ 7:30 p.m. ET to discuss his loony impeachment resolution.  This has the potential to be entertaining yet nauseating at the same time.  If you want to listen to a bunch of crazed alien-sighting-addled rantings complete with barking moonbats cheering him on:

• The call-in number is (641) 715-3300.
• When the operator asks for an access code, key in 324341#.
• The call is  open to all interested citizens.

If he opens up the call for questions (unlikely, but who knows?) I might ask him what his position is on aliens performing medical experiments on humans, and if he thinks Cheney is responsible.

Update: Thanks for the link, Hot Air!  And welcome Hot Air readers!  We're just getting going again after a very, very long break, so not many recent posts yet - but feel free to look around!

Only in the extraterrestrially-addled brain of Dennis Kucinich could the phrase " ... if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran" be transmogrified into "From the Oval Office on down, this Administration has been targeting Iran as the next domino it wants to topple..."

Shame and embarrassment over being associated with an obvious loony like Kucinich is surely going to cause a drop in the numbers for the next national poll about UFO sightings and abductions.

This online film from Nickelodeon has to be seen to be believed. I can't understand the mental process that drove them to feature children being utilized as unwitting tools by the anti-American World Can't Wait (WCW).

While it's to be expected from WCW (they've targeted young impressionable minds before), for Nickelodeon to glorify this kind of disgusting propagandizing of children is beyond reprehensible.

Goodbye, Nickelodeon. You're no longer welcome in our home.

BTW, I don't place all the blame on Nickelodeon. Simple decency prevents me from expressing my feelings about this child's parents - he surely didn't sink into the WCW cesspool on his own.

h/t Michelle Malkin and ArmyWifeToddlerMom

From yesterday evening on Fox News (via Hot Air):

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

A few folks were willing to give him a pass the last time. Not me, and I knew he'd repeat it sooner or later. To Charlie, our troops are greedy and/or desperate mercenaries who lack the civic spirit to join the military for altruistic reasons.

And we get some insight as to why he feels this way: "...as I did when I was 18 years old". Since the only reason Charlie joined was to escape his own poor neighborhood, that must be why everyone else joins. Very sad.

Maybe the lack of opportunity was what drove him to seek public office as well. You know, 'cause nobody would submit to being interviewed on Fox News if they had a decent career.

Over at Hot Air, watch the video of Charlie defending his proposal to reinstate the draft (something he's done before, if you'll remember).

Allahpundit couldn't follow it. Michelle couldn't follow it. It's mostly nonsense.

However....

It really sounds to me like he's suggesting that the troops aren't patriotic since money was all that lured them into service.

Added to Kerry's infamous moment of Freudian clarity and Murtha's characterizations, does that mean that Democratic leadership views the troops as stupid, lazy, cold-blooded mercenaries?

Maybe he'd like to eliminate pay, benefits, and bonuses to the troops. You know, so only the real patriots would want to serve be conscripted...

Well, good luck with that, Charlie.

Other bloggers confused by what Rangel said:

Conservative Blog Therapy
Jeremayakovka
Right Voices

After all, we've been thinking the same as Mort for some time now...

Update: Thanks for the link, Gary. And you don't need to steal it, you're welcome to use it anytime!

Naturally I'm talking about oil, folks. Something that's cheaper and easier to get everywhere else on the planet - and as a result, domestic production is a rusting shadow of it's former self.

The good news is the Dems' regognition that given the lack of a mandate for their reign in Congress, there's a limited amount of punishment they can mete out:

Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

The bad news is that energy independence has a different meaning to the left than it should. Indeed, their plan is to discourage it:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

The subsidies in question are intended to encourage domestic production, something that has become excessively cumbersome and costly due to decades of liberal regulation and roadblocking:

Topping the list for repeal are:

_Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

_A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.

Of course, these are going to be easy targets for the Democrats, as the oil companies are none too popular with folks on the right or left after posting record profits in recent quarters. I accept that I'm in the minority on this issue.

But a little common sense should be applied here. Shouldn't any legislation pitched as promoting "energy independence" make domestic harvesting and refining of oil cheaper and easier? Seems to me this will have the exact opposite effect.

Keep an eye on the horizon, though, as there are darker views on the oil companies that if acted upon, will serve to punish the poor and middle class even further:

Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."

Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.

I'm tempted to quote Milton, who wrote several good passages about the petty behaviour the left's proposals demonstrate. Instead, I'm going to butcher a quote from Jean Baudrillard - originally in reference to Halloween, it easily and accurately adapts to our new Congressional majority:

There is nothing funny about the left. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.

Yesterday gave us a couple of closely-related profiles in negativity:

Halfway around the world, a man driven by hatred performs an old ritual intended to cause ill toward President Bush:

Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the "potion" and smeared some on his face.

"I don't hate Americans, but I don't like Bush," said Pamungkas, who believed the ritual would succeed as, "the devil is with me today."

Closer to home, a group of people driven by hatred performed an old ritual intended to cause ill toward President Bush:

WASHINGTON - Nancy Pelosi was unanimously named speaker-elect by House Democrats Thursday, the first woman set to take the post that is second in line of succession to the presidency.

Like Mr. Pamungkas, the Dems even had their own sacrifice, a carefully selected old goat offered up by a snake who crowed about the goat all week:

Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first woman to head the U.S. House of Representatives, suffered an embarrassing defeat on Thursday when fellow Democrats rejected her choice of a key foe of the Iraq war as her deputy.

At least the Dems had the good taste not to smear any of their sacrifice on their faces.

Added: Before I get tons of angry emails saying that these two events aren't even remotely similar - yes, I know, the Dems didn't use Broccoli. But Pelosi comes from a state that grows it. So there.

Now that campaign rhetoric is no longer necessary, they can stop pretending:

WASHINGTON - Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him.

Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. "I can't say that we won't do it, but there's no guarantee that we're going spend a lot of time on controversial measures," Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday.

In Senate parlance, that means no.

Of course, we knew this all along, didn't we? Indeed, rather than risk accidentally finding out what the terrorists are up to, the Democrats would rather follow Conyer's dream of endless investigations and impeachment:

Indeed, rather than move to authorize the program, Democrats said they would push in January to investigate how the program had been run and would seek legislation to restrict or ban outright the use of wiretaps without warrants.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is all but assured of taking over the House Judiciary Committee, has been one of the fiercest critics of the program and some other counterterrorism operations, saying he considers them abusive and potentially illegal infringements on civil liberties.

The shedding of such tears for the trampled rights of terrorists in far-away countries is because they care, folks. They care.

Update: To those in unwrapped territory eagerly anticipating that the new Congress will sate their hate-driven lust for presidential blood, the operative word is "Joyous".

Hey CREW, if you folks are still into attacking churches, how's about checking this out?

NASHVILLE -- In his race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) has been outspent by millions, and his image has been battered by a barrage of negative ads, including the now-infamous spot with a blonde floozy that has been pulled off the air. Several polls show him trailing.

But being an underdog has its own righteous appeal, and the campaign used that status yesterday not only to rally voters but as evidence that God had looked with favor upon the Democratic campaign.

The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, Ford told an African American crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that "we got something else at work."

"I think the congressman said something wise -- we got another manager in this race," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the group.

(crickets chirping)

um, guys?

(crickets chirping)

I thought so.

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

Via Little Green Footballs, a revealing view of Ned Lamont's base:

It certainly fits the pattern I've noticed among some Lamont supporters. I'm not ready to put a label on it, save to say that even just a small hint of it here and there is certainly disturbing and sad.

The nutroots know how utterly unappealing these views are to most Americans, and some are trying to keep a lid on any open discussion that may cast them in a bad light. Right now, in some places, if you use a normally acceptable far-left greeting such as "Gaza is a gulag", you might be answered with "...let’s leave this subject alone until next Wednesday. Please."

How very sad.

And in his world, as you might expect, we're just as bad if not worse.

The good news is the ringing endorsement he gives to the movie "Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam":

"This film has to be seen to be believed."

Hopefully lots of folks will take Glenn's advice.

From Kerry's website earlier:

Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative..." - In other words, "It's a shame that the troops (and the rest of you ignorant peasants as well) are too lazy and uneducated to understand the finely nuanced humor from my superior intellect."

This is as forced an apology as I've ever heard. And the addition of swipes at the right just give the impression that he hasn't had a change of heart since he made the "I don't apologize" speech yesterday. He's sorry anyone was offended, but not sorry he said it.

Even if, as he says, was making a joke about Bush, it would still warrant an apology. I've griped about the level of discourse in politics before, nowhere is it more of a problem than among our elected officials. The decline of statesmanship in Congress over the last thirty years is truly shameful. As a country, we deserve for our elected officials to set standards for dignity and grace. They can and should disagree - just act like adults.

Making jokes about the troops or the president in this manner is simply juvenile. It shows a distinct lack of maturity and character. The inability to offer a simple and contrite apology when necessary is a serious flaw - one that Kerry seems determined to display over and over.

Nope - this didn't cut it.

Here's a sad tale about someone who probably would have cheered Kerry's meltdown as a good thing for the left. That is, he would if he hadn't been so busy with problems of his own:

A US lawyer who released information in 2000 about President George W Bush's drunken driving conviction has been arrested after he dressed up as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and waved a fake gun at traffic.

Police in South Portland, Maine, arrested Thomas Connolly, 49, of Scarborough, Maine, and charged him with criminal threatening.

An earlier version of the story (now removed) included this:

Police said the costume included plastic dynamite, grenades, and a replica of an AK-47 assault rifle.

The earlier version also stated that Mr. Connolly has been doing this kind of thing for years, frequently donning a George Bush Mask and dancing around on overpasses. This fellow didn't just snap yesterday, folks. He's been simmering in a BDS stew for a very long time.

Now you might think that someone this disturbed would be a loner - after all, what kind of family would out up with a guy who hates Bush so much that he dresses up in terrorist garb to harrass motorists? Just to prove that there really is someone out there for everyone:

His wife has described him as "marvelously eccentric."

This should give hope to sane singles everywhere. If he can find and keep a mate, then truly nobody should have to be alone if they don't wish it.

Connolly ran for Governor of Maine in 1998, and is considered a hero by many on the left for releasing details about George Bush's DWI back in 2000.

Sometimes we all wonder at the lunacy of the leading lights of the left without remembering that someone out there approves of and supports these "real men". Connolly is one such supporter.

Speaking as a 20 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I'd like to let John Kerry know that I didn't join because I was lazy and stupid. Even more insulting than his statement is this attempt to blame others for his greasy smear against the troops:

Washington – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:

Nut-jobs? What Kerry said was clear as day. But if you quote it, you're a nut-job?

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

Yes I do think a veteran would - if he's in the Democratic Party. Kerry forgets about his own remarks about our troops "terrorizing women and children in the dark of night", and the infamous verbal criminal conviction bestowed on our troops by his pal Murtha. Oh, and I did serve - a hell of a lot longer than Kerry, too. Having met Kerry's criteria, I suppose he would respect my right to speak out:

Mr. Kerry, you're a despicable excuse for a human being. To denigrate me and the millions of veterans and active duty in order to get a cheap shot during a political speech shows you to be lacking in both intelligence and soul.

Ahem. Back to Kerry's misdirection:

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

Typical - drag in the sick guy as a sympathetic victim - maybe it will distract someone from Kerry's sad remarks about our military professionals.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

This entire line has been proven a lie time and time again. Oh, and when did Katrina become a country?

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

"Real Men"? Going for laughs won't get him out of this. Kerry has shown his contempt for servicemen over and over again, even as he aspired to lead them. Thank God he didn't get the chance.

Kerry screwed up big this time. And has the gall to declare himself a "real man" while he tries to blame his mistakes on President Bush and "right wing nut-jobs". In the meantime, real men (and women) are putting their asses on the line in Iraq and elsewhere. And Mr. Kerry better hope for all our sakes that what he thinks about them isn't true.

Update: Kerry makes a statement to the press, says it was a botched joke. I'm hoping to link a site with video soon.

Update 2: As usual, Hot Air has it!

Alec runs away from his moonbattery. But just enough to temper the bad publicity he's gonna get from narrating an Arnold Schwarzenegger hate-fest complete with Nazi imagery. He doesn't feel bad enough to issue an apology - can't let go of all the hate, you know...

"Running with Arnold" is not a bad film. It isn't a good one either. The people of California have the right to reelect an unqualified man to lead their state, and they have the right to do so without unfair and ultimately offensive images of the Third Reich thrown in for bad measure. Don't forget to vote on November 7th.

And Alec knows bad films:

The comments are interesting. While many of them praise Alec for getting it off his chest, some are claiming that the Nazi images are nothing to feel bad about. And not one that I saw suggested he apologize to Arnold, which he should. I guess they also see he's not really sorry.

Update: Maybe I have it wrong - perhaps Alec's retreat is because Nazi comparisons are out of fashion. The truly unglued are now comparing Republican elected officials (and their families!) to Iranian Mullahs. Just when I think I've seen it all, the hate-obsessed left ascends to new levels of offensive.

...but occasionally it comes out for all to see. There's a pattern this year - the racist treatment of Steele, racism (and yesterday's possible anti-semitism) in liberal blogs. The constant screeching of "racism" at conservatives in cases where there is none.

Hate does this - nothing else can.

Does anyone really think these people will calm down and start acting like adults if they win?

Of course, we know where they aren't:

Jack Carter has tried to reach out to Nevada voters who the Carters say 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry ignored. He talks openly about his Baptist faith, and appeared last weekend with his father at a black church in Las Vegas.

But it's okay when they do it....

When Lynne Cheney was ambushed last Friday on CNN, she make Blitzer look like an idiot. So it should be unsurprising that CNN would retaliate:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynne Cheney is deflecting talk of the sexual content in her novel "Sisters," a 25-year-old book that resurfaced in a campaign Friday and is stirring up controversy.

The novel, featuring a lesbian love affair, was brought up Friday amid a contentious Senate race in Virginia. Soon a Democratic committee and Cheney herself -- in an interview on CNN -- were weighing in.

This is probably one of the weakest hit jobs ever, though. The author of the article clearly has not read the book "Sisters", makes no quotes to back up the assertion, and is confident that you won't be able to either:

Readers will have a hard time judging the content of the book for themselves. The few copies available are selling for hundreds of dollars each.

On Amazon.com Sunday, four used copies of "Sisters" were being sold, ranging from $695.95 for one in "acceptable" condition to $999 for a copy in "collectible -- good" condition. Ebay had two copies available, with requested opening bids of $200 and $500. Froogle.com, on Sunday afternoon, found the cheapest copies available barely under $300.

Some of these prices were set before the latest blow-up over the work of fiction. It was not immediately clear what impact the last few days have had.

So where does CNN expect you to get the information to judge for yourself? The Democrats:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release listing sexual passages in books by Cheney and other GOP conservatives, including Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The DSCC said Cheney's books featured brothels and attempted rape.

'Cause we all know the Dems would never say anything mean or untrue about a Republican, right? And after all, that seems to be where CNN gets much of their news nowadays, so why shouldn't you?

Harold Ford shoots a campaign commercial in a church. Seems like material support to me...

Think Melanie Sloan will notice?

One of the left's most repugnant figures is Michael Rogers. He's the sleaze who's been claiming to have a list of gay Republicans he intends to expose. The rest of the left seems to at least privately applaud his disgusting campaign - as long as it helps the cause, right, guys?

Outing a few minor staffers has been greeted by collective snores, I guess he's decided to up the ante with a little guilt by association. Press release here.

Anyway, the pond was left uncovered for a brief time today as Rogers set his sights on none other than Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican Party. Apparently in Michael Roger's world, if you have a gay friend, you must be gay yourself:

Today, I challenge to James Dobson to ask Ken directly: Are you a member of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" and do you expect my followers to support you at the polls?

Rogers seem to forget an itty bitty fact - Ken Mehlman isn't running for office, and Dobson's "followers" won't see Ken's name on any ballot. Oh, and there's also a very lame video there with nothing to support his innuendo. Zzzzzzzzzz.

I'm waiting for his claim that President Bush is gay cause he knows Dick Cheney's daughter. What a pathetic loser.

Yes, CREW gave me a visit. I didn't believe it at first, so I emailed CREW through their contact page and received confirmation that the comment was genuine. I'll have to admit to being very surprised - I'm not usually kind in my posts about CREW.

I posted a few days ago about CREW's complaint to the DOJ concerning Curt Weldon. A comment was posted by Naomi Seligman Steiner, CREW's Deputy Director, taking issue with what I posted. Here's her comment:

In response to your wrongful assertion, CREW did recieve the e-mails as they appear. They were redacted upon receipt. CREW did not edit them in any way.

Naomi Seligman Steiner
CREW

The statement challenged by Ms. Stein was this sentence following the images of the emails:

"All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing, I smudged out a few names they left in place."

I wrote this to explain the two visually different types of editing done on the images - the heavy black lines vs the smudging I added. No other point was intended by the statement. However, I should have worded it differently. CREW's letter to the DOJ states that the emails were provided to them in pre-redacted form:

"Although the emails CREW received were heavily redacted, we have been able to authenticate them."

My apologies to CREW for the error, and the original post has been corrected.

The remainder of the post stays as is - please note that no other portions of the post were challenged in any way.

And the Democrats are outraged. How do we know they are outraged? Because they leaked it:

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

While I'm encouraged that some effort is being made to determine the sources of the leaks, this story is near zero for me. Why? 'Cause there is nothing but suspicion here so far. The Democrats correctly state that a large number of people have access to the NIE, and we don't know if the staffer ordered the report for someone else or for himself.

What I still don't get is why Congress ignores the press (and their role) in all of this. Classified information requires controls and boundaries. Once it crosses outside of those boundaries, it's no longer classified information - it's stolen classified information. One would think the government could leverage this to compell reporters to reveal the leakers as part of a criminal investigation, since receiving stolen goods is a crime. Until we do, the leaks will never stop. And while the left may think it's cute to leak classified data for political purposes, the fact is that it harms our country when they do so.

So until I see someone being prosecuted, I'm going to have to assume that this staffer suspension (along with all of the promises of investigation for past leaks) is simply intended to be eyewash - red meat for the base.

For me, though, it's a flavorless meal that leaves me not just unsatified, but starving.

This time in Kansas:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today asked for an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into the activities surrounding the reelection efforts of Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline.

During the week of September 12, 2006 several Kansas-based news organizations published an internal campaign memorandum authored by Attorney General Kline that detailed his efforts to recruit churches to aid his reelection efforts. The memorandum includes several activities that may constitute illegal support of the Kline campaign by Kansas churches.

Kline identified Light of the World and Wanamaker Woods Nazarene, both in Topeka, and an unspecified Basehor-Linwood church as churches that had agreed to help disseminate his campaign literature. Redistributing partisan campaign literature is a violation of tax laws that forbid churches and other public charities from intervening in elections.

Three guesses which party Kline belongs to - and the first two don't count. Don't Democrats ever step into churches, Melanie?

John Conyers has released a new book, based on his "Constitution in Crisis" report. From the press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff, "George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution", is now available in book form, with an introduction by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration, and a Foreword by Congressman Conyers.

Having an introduction by "Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration", gives an appropriately delusional beginning to a tome that promises to be full of delusion and deception. I'm sure Conyers and his partners in this saw the news last month on Plamegate. To continue this nutty tinfoil hat stuff when even the NYT now concedes that there wasn't a coordinated outing from the White House of Valerie Plame, places Rep. Conyers outside the mainstream of sane and rational thought. Don't expect the rest of the book to reverse that trend.

But it's not just his thoughts at play here. The press release claims the book is based on "A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff". It isn't even that. This report started, as I said above, as a document titled "Constitution in Crisis", a 350 page document you can download here. Written by him and his staff? Maybe partially, but the real credit belongs to a bunch even more delusional and ill-informed than Rep. Conyers (Screen cap here):

Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful). I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, who have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was deceived into war.

Get it? Conyers goes past the the arguably nutty Kos and Arianna and shoots staight for their readers. Yup - when you really need info about classified documents and intelligence practices, no better source than the comment threads of Kos and HuffPo. And every single loony BDS theory is in there - from the venerable "BushLied" meme, to the notion that the terrorist surveilance program tapped "millions" of American's domestic calls. Each and every one has been thoroughly disproven countless times, so I won't rehash them here. Consider the source, folks. It was mostly researched not by a respected investigatory agency, but by the readers of the Daily Kos.

This basic document, with the addition of some scary sounding mischaracterizations of the terrorist surveilance program, forms the new book. I'd like to get some tips from Rep. Conyers - usually when I try to get the foil that tight, it rips.

Conyers believes this material forms the justification for his oft-stated desire to impeach President Bush. And if the Democrats get control of the House, he's made no secret of the fact that he intends to utilize his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee for that exact purpose.

All based on the fever-swamp conspiracy theories of the readers of Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

More later (maybe) when my lunch digests a little more...

...in today's Washington Post to decry Republican name-calling. In the process, he continues to show why Democrats like him don't deserve to be in power. His message is unmistakably clear - Iraq is hard, we might lose, so we should give up.

Had the forefathers of this country decided that the possibility of losing was enough not to try, we'd still be a colony today. How about WWII? Winning wasn't a given when we engaged in Europe - matter of fact, we went over there because our allies were losing. Murtha's head-in-the-sand brand of defeatism would have condemned Europe to defeat at the hands of Hitler all because it was too hard.

Is Iraq a mess? Yes. Do the Iraqi people deserve the even worse chaos and loss of life that would ensue if we simply pulled up stakes and abandoned them? No.

Murtha was quite the humanitarian when speaking out on the loss of Iraqi life when he claimed our troops were killing them in cold blood without the benefit of a complete investigation. If our continued presence while the Iraqis gradually take over saves lives that would otherwise be lost in the expanded sectarian violence that would surely erupt if we left now, why wouldn't Murtha support that? Cause it wouldn't further his political ambitions? Some humanitarian, eh?

Lots of things are hard, Jack. Lots are painful, too. Running away from things that are right because they might be hard and/or painful shouldn't be the trademark of a decorated veteran.

That's what it sounds like, anyway:

Clooney told reporters at a dinner honoring him on Friday night that he had no intention of entering the political arena. "I'm not running for office. I like my life," Clooney said.

The article suggests this may come as a relief to us on the right. Personally, I feel that he would be a wonderful source of blogging material should he change his mind and run one day.