Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’
March 29th, 2010
…..Or that’s what the left used to say when George W. Bush was president. And, you know what? They were right. Dissent is still the highest form of patriotism. However, now that the Democrats are in power, they aren’t such big fans of dissent anymore—in fact, they’ve been doing everything in their power to quash dissent for the last year and a half. Furthermore, if you disagree with President Obama in any way, you are now officially a “RAAAAACIST!” (that’s spelled with five A’s). Want proof? Well, here goes….
I’m sure you all heard about the brouhaha that occurred during the past week. I’m, of course, talking about how a bunch of supposed evil, raaaaacist Tea Partiers attacked some members of the Congressional Black Caucus with racial slurs and how one was even spat upon. You couldn’t have missed it, because the media ran wild with this story, and there were op-eds galore—like this one from Colbert King comparing the Tea Party members to George Wallace, David Duke and the KKK, or this one from Derrick Jackson stating that the Tea Party uses hatred as a political strategy. Oh, and of course Frank Rich has a new column out where he states that all opposition to Obamacare is completely rooted in race hatred. Rich further states in his column that there was “nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank.” So, since the MSM seems so lathered up in self-righteous outrage over these supposed incidents, they must be true, right?
Well, Andrew Breitbart has written an excellent column where he calls all of these incidents into question. Below are some excerpts from Breitbart’s column and two videos of the actual event—-
As I have said over and over and over, the left has one trick that it will use again and again when its back is in the corner: shout ‘racist’ in a crowded country.
On Saturday, during the peaceful and patriotic tea party protest at the Capitol, the Democrats staged a series of symbolic acts meant to manipulate the media to do its bidding. The Congressional Black Caucus pulled the Selma card and chose to walk through the crowd in the hopes of creating a YouTube incident. This is what it looked like:
Saturday’s “never mind” moment will live in infamy as the Congressional Black Caucus claimed the N-word was hurled 15 times. YouTube video shows that at least two of the men in the procession were carrying video cameras and holding them above the crowd. They have not come forth with evidence to show that even one person hurled the vile racist epithet. The video also shows no head movement one way or another. Wouldn’t the N-word provoke a head turn or two? Is it really possible that in 2010, in a crowd of 30 or 40 thousand people — at the center of a once-in-a-lifetime media circus — not one person’s flipphone, Blackberry, video recorder or a network feed caught a single incident? And if not, then at least someone could have found an honest tea partier to act as an eyewitness — or the Congressional Black Caucus would have confronted the culprit(s). If that had happened, there would be an investigation to see if the perpetrator was a left-wing plant.
That’s how much the Democrats need a racist Tea Party moment. To stop it in its tracks. That’s why on Saturday they used the Congressional Black Caucus to try to manufacture the false appearance of one. And when they didn’t get it, they did what they always do: they lied.
[After watching that footage, I’m beginning to think that Frank Rich might need to be heavily medicated because he claimed that he “watched goons hurl venomous slurs at John Lewis and Barny Frank". I saw nothing of the sort in that footage, so Rich obviously suffers from frequent hallucinations, but I digress.]
Breitbart also reminds us how members of the MSM have willingly participated in similar hoaxes in the past—specifically MSNBC cutting off a Tea Party protester’s head in a shot, who was carrying a gun to a protest, in order to hide the fact that he was black.
But hey, none of those members of the CBC making those allegations have any past history of race-baiting. Oh, wait a minute. I forgot about John Lewis comparing John McCain to George Wallace. (You can watch John McCain’s impassioned response to John Lewis below.)
Oh, and I forgot about Jesse Jackson Jr. (one of the members of the CBC holding a camera while walking through the crowd) stating that Hillary Clinton “cried for her appearance, but not for Katrina victims”. (Wow, race-bating and sexism all rolled into one—you stay classy Mr. Jackson.)
And, who could forget James Clyburn making a huge deal out of Bill Clinton stating that it’s a “fairy tale” that Obama was ever going to pull the troops immediately out of Iraq, and insinuating that Clinton was speaking in some kind of racial code. (Last time I checked, we were still in Iraq, so I guess Mr. Clinton was right.) In fact, Clyburn even went to far as to tell President Clinton to “Chill”.
Well, Bill Clinton sure hasn’t forgotten about Clyburn’s accusations, because he basically admitted to Kate Snow that Clyburn played the race card on him (see embed below).
So, if these fine, upstanding gentlemen (my voice is dripping with sarcasm right now) would go so far as to play the race card on a president of their own party, compare a war hero to George Wallace, and imply that Hillary Clinton doesn’t care if black people in New Orleans drown, then do you really think that they’d have ANY compunction when it comes to lying about a bunch of nameless, faceless protesters?! I seriously doubt it.
Last summer during the town hall meetings, Jonah Goldberg observed the tendency for Obama supporters to be the boy who cried race in an excellent column that he wrote titled, “A Deck Stacked with Race Cards”. Here are some excerpts below—
No one should be surprised. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, liberal Democrats have to accuse their opponents of racism. Indeed, somewhat to their credit, fighting racism — alas, even where it doesn’t exist — is one of the reasons they became liberal Democrats in the first place.
From Day 1, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.
This was always the nasty side of Obama’s implied hope for unity. Obama gave oxygen to the idea that disagreement with him amounted to obstructing his mission to “transcend race.” During the campaign, that meant anyone who got in his way was wittingly or unwittingly abetting racism (just ask Bill Clinton).
Anyway, the reason why the recent circus involving the CBC is so important is because Obama’s supporters, the DNC and the MSM (I know—they’re all one in the same) have used the race card, name-calling and every other dirty trick in the book in order to suppress dissent. Want proof? Well, here goes….
Here is Maureen Dowd implying that anyone who vocally disagrees with Obama is a “RAAAAAACIST!”. (I guess Jonah Goldberg was right). Here is NYT’s columnist Charles Blow calling the town hall protesters a bunch of “hooligans” who are “hooting and hollering” and “terrorizing legislators”, and then stating that “the Republican Party is no party of Einsteins”. And, here is a recent column from WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy in which he writes the following about the Tea Party protesters (H/T KOTM—his diary is excellent)—
I know how the “tea party” people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama Plan White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.
Oh, and how could anyone forget about the infamous and embarrassing DNC video that refers to concerned citizens as “The Mob” ? (Even Camille Paglia derided them for this idiocy.)
Hey, where‘s the love? I thought that being a community organizer was cool. Oh, but silly me. I guess it‘s only cool to organize the community and protest if you are an ACORN member threatening banks. I guess if you are protesting against The One, you are no longer a “community organizer“–you are a “hooligan“ or a member of an “angry mob” and you must be stopped.
Oh, and who could forget Barbara “Ma’am” Boxer calling protesters at the town halls “astroturfers“, because they are “too well dressed“? Our own Lori Ziganto wrote an excellent diary detailing this (and it contains the embed of the video of Barbara Boxer), but I feel the need to paste one of the more hilarious quotes below–
Unlike Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink cohorts, normal citizens actually attempt to look nice when, you know, going out in public. Even worse, we Right-Wing nutty nut women gasp shave our legs .. while showering no less.. AND wear bras. Sometimes we even comb our hair and put on make-up to look purty. It’s our Stockholm Syndrome, of course. We can’t help objectifying ourselves, obviously.
However, no mocking and deriding of the town hall/Tea Party protesters would be complete without the MSM routinely referring to us as “Teabaggers”. (In case any of you are wondering, the term “Teabagging” is a vile oral sex term.) I have embedded two videos below. The first one shows Anderson Cooper making the disgusting pun, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging”. The second one shows Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox laughing for a good seven minutes about “teabaggers”.
OK–please allow me to quickly put this into perspective for you. Can you imagine, for a moment, if conservative commentators were routinely referring to anti-war protesters or pro-Obamacare advocates as “C**kgobblers” (sorry for the vulgarity, but I was trying to make a point)? (Thank you Office Space.) I bet that liberals would be rioting in the streets, but I digress.
And finally, any diary about liberal suppression of dissent would not be complete without the example of Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling people “astroturfers” who attend town halls, and implying that they are Nazis by claiming that “they wear Swastikas” (the video is below).
However, what’s really funny about all of this, is that back in 2006, a bunch anti-war protesters heckled Speaker Pelosi at one of her own town halls, and she told them that their “advocacy is very American” and that she was “a fan of disruptors” (instead of referring to them as a bunch of teabagging, raaaaacist, Nazi hooligans).
However, last August, Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote an op-ed for USA Today where they referred to the town hall protesters as “un-American disruptors!” Hypocrisy much, Madame Speaker?
So now, given the lack of respect—as well as the outright intense animosity—clearly shown towards the town hall/Tea Partiers by the DNC and the MSM, I completely agree with Andrew Breitbart when he writes the following—
It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.
And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media — those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation — must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don’t. If they did, you’d have seen it by now.
THOUSANDS OF TIMES.
In other words, if you believe that ANY footage verifying the CBC’s accusations actually exists, but for some reason the MSM isn’t running it, then I have a blind bird dog and some under-water real-estate to sell you.
Oh, and speaking of liberal suppression of dissent, today the WSJ reported that a bunch of Harry Reid supporters surrounded Andrew Breitbart and threw eggs at him, as well as the Tea Party Express bus. And yet, it’s those “violent teabaggers” that we are supposed to fear. Funny, huh?
Well, since I’ve clearly demonstrated how liberals love to suppress dissenting views, I would, now, like to show how “radical” liberals can get when they protest—and boy do they like to protest. Liberals are all for freedom of speech—as long as it’s their freedom of speech, of course.
Here is a video of Code Pink interrupting John McCain’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. I don’t remember any “teabaggers” interrupting Obama’s Speech, do you?
Oh, and here is a NYT’s column about a bunch of spoiled, bratty college kids at The New School turning their backs on john McCain and calling him a “war criminal” when he spoke at their graduation.
Furthermore, speaking of an “angry mob”, do any of you remember when Code Pink members, dressed up like transvestites at Mardi Gras (not that there’s anything wrong with that if you are a transvestite at Mardi Gras–there’s a time and a place for everything), and interrupted General David Petraeus’ confirmation hearing by screaming like banshees? These people could definitely teach the people attending health care town halls and tea parties a thing or two.
Oh, and while we’re on the subject of “hooligans”, what about the video below of members of The New Black Panther Party engaging in clear-cut voter intimidation? By the way, Obama’s Department of Justice dropped the charges against these hooligans after the DoJ had already won. Ed Morrisey of Hot Air has the story (even the US Commission on Civil Rights was furious).
Just a thought, but do any of you really think that Obama’s DoJ would have dropped the charges against two Bubbas in Mississippi dressed in overalls and carrying baseball bats outside of a voting precinct (instead of wearing jackboots and carrying nightsticks)? I highly doubt it (and rightfully so I might add).
Oh, and here is a video of some liberal hooligans throwing a pie at Ann Coulter. I guess, in their world, throwing pies and eggs at people is OK, but waving flags is dangerous.
And finally, there’s this recent video of SEIU union thugs attacking an African-American conservative for exercising his freedom of speech by passing out flags that said “Don’t Tread on Me” (which shows a rattlesnake that was a favorite motto of Benjamin Franklin). The video also shows these “hooligans” “hooting and hollering” and then slapping the woman holding the camera in the face (H/T Caleb Howe).
On a side note, what I find to be very strange, is that what upsets liberals is so very different than what upsets the rest of us. They are bothered more by people protesting at town halls than they are by men with nightsticks threatening voters. They are bothered more by people waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags than by thugs beating up a guy handing out those very flags. And finally, liberals are angered more by people hurling imaginary slurs at congressmen than by people throwing actual Oreo cookies at Michael Steele, or by people shooting up Eric Cantor’s office (please read Amy Miller’s excellent diary) and posting death threats to him on You Tube (the FBI arrested that man today).
OK—Now that my curiosity is peaked, I thought that I would actually take a look at that infamous Tea Party rally on March 20’th where Congressional Black Caucus members were supposedly smeared.
Oh my eyes!! My eyes!! It burns, it stings!!! That was absolutely terrifying! They were waving flags—and singing The Star Spangled Banner! How will I ever get those awful images out of my head?! It would have been so much more reassuring if they were waving nightsticks, throwing food and slapping people.
However, if you really want to scare a liberal, show up with a baby. Babies are like Kryptonite to them (just ask Sarah Palin whose baby and pregnant daughter were perpetually smeared by the Daily Kos and the MSM). Below is a video of CNN’s Susan Roesgen freaking out on a guy at a Tea Party with a baby and berating the other protesters there. Roesgen says to the man in an accusatory tone, “You are here with your two year old”—like the man had committed some kind of sin by bringing his baby with him.
However, Ms. Roesgen took a COMPLETELY different tone with some anti-war protesters that she interviewed earlier in the year. Bias much, CNN?
OK—altogether now, say it with me—
“Babies and flags and Franklin—Oh my!!”
“Babies and flags and Franklin—Oh my!!”
“Babies and flags and Franklin—Oh my!!”
So, in conclusion, I think that what the DNC, the liberal MSM and the Congressional Black Caucus have been doing is utterly contemptible—simply put, they have been suppressing dissent by making people afraid to speak up. How have they been scaring people you ask? Simple. People have seen other people being regularly mocked by the media, the Speaker of the House, the DNC and other people in power, and naturally they become afraid to protest or speak their minds for fear of being smeared as a “raaaaacist teabagger”—or even of possibly being physically assaulted or losing their job. Just ask the guys over at The Hillbuzz. As our own Finrod thoroughly documented, The Daily Kos and The Democratic Underground have outed Kevin DuJan as the owner of the blog and are smearing him with the false charge that that he is a racist. They are even urging their readers to destroy his career and attack him physically—simply because his blog supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and John McCain in the general election.
I, personally, am against Obamacare because I have a chronic illness (chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuopathy), and am worried about healthcare rationing, overall decreased quality of care, and access to medical tests. I have written extensively about my illness in this diary here. I am also against Obamacare, because I am worried about the national debt, because the WSJ has reported that retirees benefits are already being cut, and because of what a disaster socialized medicine has turned out to be in England (see embed below).
However, even with all of my completely logical reasons for being against Obamacare, I have still been loathe to speak up in certain circles for fear of being labeled a “teabagging, redneck raaaaacist”. Well, NO MORE!! I refuse to be intimidated any longer. Our Founding Fathers, literally, laid down their lives for our first amendment rights. They told the British, in the words of William Wallace, “You may take our lives, but you will never take our freedom!!” Dammit, it’s my right, and the right of every American, to peacefully assemble and protest without feeling threatened in any way—anything less is un-American.
PS—To all of our liberal lurkers out there, if I happen to run into any of you at a protest in the future—and you are advocating for Obamacare—feel free to say “Hi” to me. I will not throw food at you, slap you, wave batons at you, call you vulgar names, or yell at you and your baby. I will simply say “Hi” in return and wish you well. Why? Because our Founding also fought for your first amendment rights as well and so, therefore, it is only right that I treat you and your opinions with respect—even if I vehemently disagree with you. Always remember that dissent—nay—defending someone else’s right to dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.
December 4th, 2009
Richard Cohen seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to Barack Obama. Last week in a column, Mr. Cohen lamented that Barack Obama has lost much of the “moral clarity” that he had when he was running for president. To be specific, Mr. Cohen wrote the following—
“But to reread the speech is also to come face to face with an Obama of keen moral clarity. Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified. He could talk to America both as a black man and a white man — having lived in both worlds. He could — and he did — explain to America what it is like to have been a black man of Wright’s age and what it is like even now to be a black man of any age.”
Gee—I didn’t think that was a qualification to run for president (maybe a qualification to be a motivational speaker), but I digress.
Then, after admitting that he had been the one “In my set” to have some reservations about Barack Obama (even though he wrote nothing but glowing columns about Obama pre-election), Mr. Cohen wrote the following—
“Somehow, though, that moral clarity has been dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conference and appearances — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be saying, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.
The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in criminal court, as if this was a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. Where is the principle in that — what works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.”
Furthermore, Maureen Dowd also seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to vigorously supporting Barack Obama. In a recent column (where she actually has some nice things to say about Sarah Palin), Ms. Dowd writes the following—
“If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:
Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.”
Now, I find Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd’s change of heart towards President Obama to be a bit curious. I mean, anyone with a seventh grade education and a mouse could have found out that Obama would “dither” and “concede” when it came to Afghanistan and would go out of his way to project weakness to the rest of the world. I mean, Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, he openly bragged in debates about his willingness to meet with dictators and shut down Gitmo, and he never even held one hearing on Afghanistan as a Senator despite chairing a subcommittee on NATO, so I’m not sure what else these two could have expected.
However, I did a little digging into both Mr. Cohen’s and Ms. Dowd’s columns regarding President Obama, and what I found was quite interesting. In March of 2008, Richard Cohen wrote a column titled, “Taking the Call on Black Men” where he basically acknowledged that Hillary Clinton was more qualified to deal with national security issues, or the “3 AM call”, but that Barack Obama should be president instead, because he was more qualified “to take the call on black men in prison”. Why? Well, I’m not really sure. Mr. Cohen doesn’t say what Obama’s qualifications are in regard to dealing with disproportionately high levels of black men in prison, other than being black himself (which I don’t think is an actual qualification).
Furthermore, in November of 2008, right after Obama was elected president, Maureen Dowd wrote a column titled, “The Tracks of Our Tears” where she prattled on about how white people were finally talking to black people in Manhattan and about how she deigned to ask her “cute black mailman” what he thought about the election of Obama. (The Gawker mocked her boasting in that column that Gwen Ifil was her one black friend). Someone should inform Ms. Dowd that we bitter clingers in the south and middle America have been talking to black people long before Obama came along, but I digress.
So, now I’m going to be politically incorrect here and diagnose Richard Cohen and Maureen Dowd with a raging case of white liberal guilt. I mean, why else would someone so enthusiastically support a candidate that he or she has “reservations” about? Especially when said candidate’s campaign was, to quote liberal reporter John Heilemann, “a policy free zone”. It must be because of all of Barack Obama’s long years of legislative experience. Oh, wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama is an inexperienced neophyte with unsavory friends. Well, wait. Maybe it was the outstanding leadership on Afghanistan that Obama demonstrated when he was a US Senator. Oh wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama didn’t hold one hearing of his Senate subcommittee that he chaired on NATO forces in Afghanistan. Is it any wonder that he was “dithering” for so long about whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan? Moreover, given the fact that both Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd seem to have serious disagreements with many of Obama’s decisions, white liberal guilt seems to be the only logical reason for their past vociferous support of him (and trashing of everyone else who ran against him).
Now, to be fair to Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd, a plethora of reporters and pundits suffered from white liberal guilt when it came to covering Barack Obama. Recently, Chris Matthews made a flaming ass of himself when he suggested that racism is at the heart of Sarah Palin’s support. To be specific, Mr. Matthews said the following—
“Well, they look like a white crowd to me,” later claiming, “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people.”
“Oh nooos!! The white people are coming!! The white people are coming!! Everybody, flee, flee for your lives!!”
However, the biggest offender of white liberal guilt to date has to be John Judis of The New Republic. Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler chronicled some of the ridiculousness of Judis’ ramblings—
“Clinton’s second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama’s challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a “transformative politician”); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting “present” in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama’s connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).
John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other—and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain’s doing it to Romney—a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff.
My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton’s former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. “I was just a fighter,” Patterson had said, “but he was history.” Obama, too, was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history—the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and ’60s. And if some voters didn’t appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama’s candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did—and so did the members of the media and Obama’s fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him. “
Is it over? Can I look now? Man, that was an embarrassing gaffe (you know what they say—a gaffe is when you accidentally tell the truth), because it was unintentionally racist. Maybe I don’t understand white liberal guilt, because I didn’t grow up in a segregated era and both my husband and I have always had friends, and even family members, of all races and ethnicities. Furthermore, as a medical student, I had more minority attending physicians than white ones. Anyway, my point is that I think that most of my minority friends, family members, and attending physicians would probably find it to be offensive and patronizing if I were to blindly “throw my support to them” and not treat them like I treat everyone else because it would imply that they were too weak to stand on their own and be judged on their own merits, when they are in all ways my equals—and in some instances, my superiors.
Now, back during the 2008 election, Ron Rosenbaum of Slate magazine made the point that white liberal guilt was a good thing when he wrote the following—
“Since when has guilt become shameful? Since when is shame shameful when it’s shame about a four-centuries-long historical crime? Not one of us is a slave owner today, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and there are fewer overt racists than before, but if we want to praise America’s virtues, we have to concede—and feel guilty about—America’s sins, else we praise a false god, a golden calf, a whited sepulcher, a Potemkin village of virtue. (I’ve run out of metaphors, but you get the picture.)
Guilt is good, people! The only people who don’t suffer guilt are sociopaths and serial killers. Guilt means you have a conscience. You have self-awareness, you have—in the case of America’s history of racism—historical awareness. Just because things have gotten better in the present doesn’t mean we can erase racism from our past or ignore its enduring legacy.
Well, I can easily answer Mr. Rosenbaum’s question, but in order to do this, I first need to go off on a tangent and quote Glenn Reynolds in regard to many of Obama’s voters (particularly Maureen Dowd)—
“I think Obama’s “charisma” was based on voter narcissism — people excited not just about electing a black President, but about themselves, voting for a black President. Now that’s over, and they’re stuck just with him, and emptied of their own narcissism there’s not much there to fill out the suit. As Ann Althouse says, “I think what Obama seems to have become, he always was.”
On a side note, reading Mr. Reynold’s quote reminds me of the TV miniseries V, which is about a group of aliens that try to infiltrate humanity and take over the planet earth by “spreading hope”. Anna, the leader of the aliens, controls them using “bliss”—a meditation/mind control trick where she tells them to forget all of their troubles, cares and responsibilities and to just feel good for the moment (see embed below).
So, to finally answer Mr. Rosenbaum’s question, yes, we moderates and conservatives feel terrible about slavery and segregation and the high levels of black men in prison. However, we are not going to just abandon all reason and logic and vote for some inexperienced, far left candidate just so that we can have the momentary “bliss” of patting ourselves on the back. Furthermore, we also feel terrible about unemployment and poverty, but we are not going to support some reckless, trillion dollar, budget busting porkulus bill that will only line the pockets of the Democratic special interest groups and not help any of the poor or unemployed (the stimulus has failed and unemployment is now over 10%). And finally, we also feel terrible about soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at the same time, we don’t support rashly pulling all of the troops out of the Middle East so that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will be victorious and more innocent people will die from future terrorist attacks.
In conclusion, white liberal guilt is a symptom of the irresponsibility and impulsiveness of liberalism. If it feels good for the moment, do it—consequences be damned. Hope, change, yada yada. Well, you know what? Mature adults understand that there are no easy solutions to real problems such as racism, poverty and unemployment, and that people who disagree with you politically are not automatically “Raaacists!!”. We also understand that everything you do in life has a consequence—that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There are no short-cuts. There are no easy outs in life.
Dammit, there is no bliss!
There is only reality, and it’s high time that we all start living in the real world.
This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.
September 19th, 2009
(H/T Aaron Gardner)
Last night, I was watching the following exchange on The O’Reilly Factor with Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, when Chris Wallace blasted the Obama Administration so hard that it made my jaw hit the floor. The reason why this surprised me so, is because Chris Wallace runs a very “fair and balanced” show and he usually keeps his personal opinions to himself—i.e., he is no partisan hack. Below is a list of criticisms that Wallace hurls toward the Obama administration:
—Both Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace call out Barack Obama for going on all of the other Sunday talk shows this weekend EXCEPT Fox News Sunday, which has the highest ratings. Wallace further points out that he has always been fair to the Obama Administration, that they “refuse to take yes for an answer”, and that “there is a certain childishness or pettiness” about their behavior.
—Chris Wallace also calls out David Axelrod for going on Face the Nation and denigrating the 9/12 tea party demonstrators by stating that, “They are not representative.” Wallace then adds, “This from the President who said that he wanted to reach out to all Americans?”
—Chris Wallace even hilariously points out that Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN, will go on Fox News Sunday, but Barack Obama won’t.
—However, Wallace really burns the Obama Administration when he offers up the following zinger—
“These guys…everything is personal…everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.” (See embed below).
Ouch!! That’s gonna leave a mark.
However, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the arrogant Obama Administration, and their pompous supporters, won’t use Chris Wallace’s honest critiques as an opportunity for some self-reflection (see Media Matters as exhibit A). No, they will probably continue to preach to the choir by having President Obama perpetually appear on networks whose ratings are in the toilet. Furthermore, the Obama Administration will probably continue on its quest to alienate swing voters by allowing Democratic leaders and their surrogates in the MSM to childishly attack Fox News and refer to its viewers, as well as regular Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, as “Raaacists!”, “The Mob”, “evil-mongers”, “Nazis”, “hooligans” and “teabaggers”. Heckuva job Obama Administration!
This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.
September 1st, 2009
Last night, Michelle Bernard, who is the CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992, decided to write a diary for Redstate.com endorsing the DC voucher program. Well, Ms. Bernard’s diary was actually quite good—she made a rational and eloquent argument for school choice. However, my problem is with Ms. Bernard herself, not what she stated in her diary. You see, during the 2008 election cycle, Ms. Bernard was a relentless shill for Barack Obama, and was a regular guest (actually still is) on propagandistic programs on MSBNC such as Hardball, Keith Olberman’s show and Rachel Maddow’s show. Therefore, I couldn’t believe that she had the unmitigated gall to come on Redstate and lecture us about school choice, when she had been unapologetically shilling for Obama throughout the entire presidential election, and it was President Obama and the Democrats that killed the DC voucher program! (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air—watch the informative video below.) Furthermore, is she not aware that elections have consequences—or does she think that they are all about unicorn farts, pixie dust, and who gives you a “thrill up your leg”?
Anyway, because of my outrage towards Ms. Bernard’s obvious hypocrisy, I decided to write a comment on her blog (you can read it in the link—it is the first one in the comments section). Well, several regular Redstate readers then suggested that I turn my comment in Ms. Bernard’s blog into a diary (specifically Cold Warrior, Civil Truth and SoFiMil). I have decided to take their advice, and so I pasted my original comment to Ms. Bernard below—and I threw in a few things that I forgot to mention in the original comment as well. Now, here it is—
Dear Ms. Bernard,
So, do you think that we don’t know how to use the interwebs around here?
…Because anyone with a mouse or a TV could figure out that you are one great big Obama shill–even worse than Chris-”thrill up my leg”-Matthews. (See exhibit A, B, and C below).
Oh, and at 5:20 in this video, we can all watch you trash Cindy McCain and imply that her “claws are coming out”. I think that must be a common Obama campaign talking point in regard to women who are opposing him in some way, but I digress.
By the way, I think that it’s great that you are for school choice, but then if that is so, you were certainly shilling for the wrong candidate, because Obama and the Democrats squelched the DC voucher program. (I guess they thought that funding the the study of pig odor in the stimulus bill was more important.) Aren’t you at all aware that elections have consequences? Furthermore, I don’t care what conservative women’s forum that you claim to be the head of, even The Daily Howler mocked your supposed “conservatism” and noticed how much you gushed over Obama. (See excerpt below).–
“Who is Michelle Bernard?
On the surface, the question is easily answered. At present, Bernard is CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992. (According to Wikipedia, the IWF grew out of an ad hoc group created to support Clarence Thomas.) The groups directors emeritae include such conservative stars as Lynn Cheney, Wendy Gramm, Midge Decter and Kate O’Beirne. To peruse the group’s web site, just click here.
The IWF, like many such groups, is founded as a non-partisan 501(c)(3) group. As such, the group does not endorse candidates. But it does promote a range of conservative causes.
All that is well and good—and Michelle Bernard is the group’s CEO. Which leads us to a puzzling question: As a major conservative, why is Bernard appearing on Hardball so often—to gush about Obama?
Bernard’s remarkable Hardball run began on Thursday, January 24. Since then, she has become a frequent guest on the propagandistic program. Here is the list of dates on which she has appeared:
Thursday, January 24 Friday, January 25 Monday, January 28 Tuesday, January 29 Wednesday, January 30 (regular program) Wednesday, January 30 (special post-debate program)
Tuesday, February 5 Tuesday, February 12 Wednesday, February 13 Thursday, February 14 Tuesday, February 19 Tuesday, February 26
Tuesday, March 4 Wednesday, March 5 Tuesday, March 11 (regular program) Tuesday, March 11 (special post-primary program) Wednesday, March 12 Friday, March 14 Tuesday, March 18
According to Nexis, Bernard has appeared nineteen times since January 24, an eight-week period. During that time:
- She has almost never been identified as a conservative.
- She has repeatedly and effusively praised Obama.
- She has never been asked why she, as a leading conservative, is promoting the Democratic Party’s most likely presidential nominee.”
Oh, and how could I leave this little gem out. The Daily Howler also quoted you as having said the following with regard to Barack Obama’s famous speech on race after his twenty year stint in Reverend Wright’s church became public knowledge.—-
I think that this is probably the most important speech that I have heard in my lifetime. I would say this is probably the best speech and most important speech on race that we have, that we have heard as a nation since Martin Luther King`s “I have a dream” speech. Every single word was riveting.
Really??! I mean, I hate to sound like Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler, but really???! The best speech since Martin Luther King? Are we talking about that same speech on race where Barack Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by implying that she was a closet racist and where he compared Geraldine Ferraro to Jeremiah Wright? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t remember Martin Luther King taking potshots at people (especially not the woman who raised him) during his “I Have a Dream” speech, but I digress.
FYI–All of your buddies at MSNBC and NBC post on the Daily Kos and Huffington Post. I think that you took a wrong turn and turned right when you should have turned left. Hopefully, If you decide to visit us here again, you will be capable of offering us a reasonable explanation with regard to how you could shamelessly shill for a candidate whose policies you seem to disagree with.
Oh, and one more thing. Welcome to Redstate.
PS—I think it’s extremely telling that you never responded to me or to anyone else who posted a comment on your blog.
PPS–Please tell Lawrence O’Donnell that we all think he’s a nutter. Thankies.
Update: Well, well, well. Below is an embed of a video of Hardball where Michelle Bernard literally ADMITS to voting for Barack Obama (at 53 seconds exactly). And, she had the audacity to write a post here attempting to enlighten us on school choice. Unbelievable. Maybe we should send her emails about candidate choice.
This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.
June 24th, 2009
I’m not sure if anyone else has noticed this recent phenomenon or not, but for the past year or so, liberals have progressively become more and more flagrant with regard to making sexist, racist, or bigoted comments about anyone who ran against or voted against Barack Obama. At first, liberal sexism and bigotry started out as a distant rumble–now it has become a thunderous roar. And, if you will be kind enough to bear with me, I will demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, that I am right.
First, I will begin with liberal sexism, which ironically began when Hillary Clinton ran for president (yes, I know that she is also a Democrat, but you can’t forget that she was opposing “The One” ; therefore, she became “the enemy”). For example, you had New York Magazine Columnist, Kurt Andersen, write in a column that Hillary had a “Wal-Mart shopper’s bad hair and big bum”. (Andersen also admitted in this column that the media was rooting for Obama and called Hillary’s voters “uneducated losers and Yokels from the C and D counties” Hey Andersen–elitist much?!) Now, I wonder what Andersen would have to say if someone referred to Michelle Obama as having “Wal-Mart shopper’s bad hair and big bum”? I bet that he would think that it was a tad sexist if those same words were used on his candidate, huh? Oh, and who could forget David Shuster saying that the Clinton’s were “pimping Chelsea out”? Gee, I wonder what his reaction would have been if someone had said that about the Obamas when they brought their daughters on Access Hollywood? I bet that Shuster would have been outraged. And, Chris Matthews
managed to outrage just about every woman I know by calling Hillary Clinton “witchy”, “Nurse Ratched”, “Madame Defarge”, and by saying that here voice was “like fingernails on a chalkboard”. Once again, I wonder what Matthews’ reaction would have been if a conservative pundit had said the exact same things about Michelle Obama? And, if Matthews remarks weren’t bad enough, Keith Olbermann turned up the misogyny to full throttle when he said, in regard to Hillary, that “Someone should take her into a room and only he comes out” (translation–beat the crap out of her). Gee, I wonder what old Olbie’s response would have been if some conservative pundit had said the same thing about Michelle Obama? I bet he would have a very long winded Special Comment prepared especially for him (as well as labeling him “The Worst Person in the World”) don’t you think? And finally, Maureen Dowd managed to anger many of The New York Times’ regular readers (Clark Hoyt, the New York Times public editor, admitted as much in an op-ed; however, he later allowed Dowd to transfer her sexist venom to Sarah Palin) by writing a plethora of sexist columns about Mrs. Clinton, such as this column titled, “Can Hillary Cry her Way Back to the Whitehouse?”, this one titled, “There Will be Blood” (where she stated that Hillary “got agitated and was flapping her arms”), and this one titled, “Seeing Red over Hillary” (where she compared Hillary Clinton to Scarlet O’Hara), just to name a few. Oh, I almost forgot. Jake Tapper was the only reporter who had the stones to call out The One for using sexist code words against Hillary Clinton (like “claws coming out” and “periodically, when she’s feeling down”) and for calling a reporter “Sweetie” (and he also called out US Congressman Steve Cohen, an ardent Obama supporter, for referring to Senator Clinton as “Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction”). Come to think of it, Obama, himself, wasn’t exactly setting the most politically correct tone, was he?
[On a side note, Huffington Post blogger Jeff Norman defended former Air America radio host Randi Rhodes' right to refer to Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro as "big f**king wh*res", by stating that it was a free speech issue and by writing that Ferraro was "whining on Fox News" about the comment being sexist. Now, suppose a conservative radio host had referred to Michelle Obama as a "big f**king wh*re"? I wonder if Norman would still think that it was just "semantic quibbling about free speech"? I highly doubt it.]
Now, Hillary Clinton was just the appetizer for liberals’ sexism–Sarah Palin was the main course. When Governor Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, most of the liberal elites let their inner misogynist come out to play. For example, you had the usual suspects like Chris Matthews start immediately attacking her–in fact he went so overboard that Pat Buchanan called Matthews a misogynist to his face (and Pat Buchanan is hardly a staunch feminist so when he tells you that “you have a problem with strong women”, then you need serious help). Then, of course, Maureen Dowd started right where she left off with Hillary, and started writing sexist and degrading columns about Sarah Palin such as this one titled, “A Vice in Go-Go Boots” (which was loaded with sexist stereotypes such as calling Governor Palin “An underqualified babe”), or this one titled, “Mud Pies for That One” (where she called Palin “John McCain’s Mean Girl” and falsely accuses the McCain campaign of racism), or this column titled, “Sarah’s PomPom Palaver” (where she compared Palin to Alicia Silverstone in “Clueless”). Just a thought, but I wonder what Maureen Dowd would have said if a conservative pundit was writing columns about Michelle Obama that were loaded with sexist stereotypes? Take that back–I know exactly what she would way. In this column, Dowd claims that conservatives were trying to paint Michelle Obama as a “harridan”, but of course she offers absolutely no examples of how conservatives were attempting this feat. However, I find this charge incredibly hypocritical on Dowd’s part, because pretty much all she does in her b*tchy columns is paint other women as harridans, but I digress.
[Oh, if anyone is curious, I wrote a diary a while ago that went into great detail about Maureen Dowd's pathetic behavior towards other women that she's threatened by and her snobbery towards her fellow Americans.]
Now, it should be noted, that Governor Palin didn’t just make the MSM bring out it’s inner misogynist, she made some of them bring out their inner lunatic/conspiracy theorist. For instance, Andrew Sullivan wrote a blog asking Governor Palin to release her medical records to prove that her baby with Down’s Syndrome is really hers. And below, I have embedded a video of Bill Maher telling CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin that he doesn’t think that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin’s baby.
[My husband pointed out to me that we weren't even allowed to ask if Barack Obama was born in the US, even though his father, step father, and sister were all born outside of the US (I personally think that he was born in the US, but that's not the point.) However, members of the MSM and bloggers on Daily Kos were allowed to perpetually float their tinfoil hat theories about Sarah Palin's baby, and no one really batted an eye. (But then again, when Daily Kos bloggers routinely traffic in anti-Jewish sentiment, Markos Moulitisas simply refers to it as "democracy", so therefore, I guess that no one should really be surprised by any of the filth that appears on Daily Kos.)]
Now, if the first video wasn’t grotesque enough for you, here is another video of Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin’s daughter a “Hillbilly Heroine”, calling Sarah Palin a “MILF”, then he proceeds to make fun of her children’s names, and then he tops it off by stating that Americans are racist and aren’t very bright. Don’t believe me? Watch the embed and see for yourself.
Furthermore, liberals have continued to attack Sarah Palin with sexist bile to this day–more than six months after Barack Obama has been elected president! If that’s not sick, then I don’t know what is. For instance, everyone’s heard about David Letterman recently making a total ass out of himself by saying that Sarah Palin looks like a “slutty flight attendant” and then making a disgusting joke about her fourteen year old daughter getting knocked up by Alex Rodrgiuez (H/T Caleb Howe). However, what’s even more pathetic than Letterman’s obvious sexism and rape jokes about a fourteen year old girl, are liberals who actually defend him. For example, as Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out, Contessa Brewer of MSNBC ( the official Obama network) seems visibly angered by conservative pundit John Ziegler’s criticisms of David Letterman and even goes so far as cutting his mike and stating that she would have no problem with being called a “slutty flight attendant” (which I find extremely hard to believe). Furthermore, as HotAirPundit points out, “Imagine if it was Michelle Obama Letterman was talking about, and he took a shot at Obama’s daughters”–I bet that Contessa Brewer would go bats**t if that happened, but I digress.
And finally, now liberals have graduated from making sexist attacks against women who run against Obama to making sexist attacks against conservative women in general. Exhibit A would be Perez Hilton calling Carrie Prejean a “stupid btch” because she disagrees with him on gay marriage, even though, as Michelle Malkin points out, she has the same position on gay marriage as Barack Obama. Exhibit B would be the column in Playboy Magazine, written by liberal blogger Guy Cimbalo, about the top ten conservative women that he would most like to “hate f*k” (translation–rape). Playboy wound up having to pull down the article because it was so offensive, but our own Caleb Howe was smart enough to save the offensive article here. However, what’s even more egregious than that misogynistic hatefest of an article, was the fact that AOL fired liberal blogger Tommy Christopher for daring to criticize the dreadful article. Tommy Christopher was one of the few liberals in the blogosphere or the MSM that had the decency to report on this outrage and not turn a blind eye to it, and he had a spot inside the White House press corps, but I guess that liberals like to protect their own–that and Playboy and AOL are both owned by Time Warner.
So, in conclusion, to take a page from Jeff Foxworthy’s playbook, if you think that it’s OK to call female candidates “witchy”, talk about their “bad hair and big bum”, imply that you’d like to beat them, call them a “mean girl”, compare them to Alicia Silverstone or Scarlett O’Hara, call them “slutty flight attendants” or “big f**king wh*res”, and make tasteless remarks and rape jokes about their female children–then you might be a sexist. Either that, or you’re a liberal who doesn’t believe in taking personal responsibility for your own actions. Oh, and if you think that it’s OK to call a woman a “stupid btch” or “hate f*k her simply because you disagree with her politics, then you’re not only a sexist, but you’re a full-blown misogynist as well.
Now, on to liberal racism and bigotry. First I’ll start with the most obvious example–Lawrence O’Donnell’s famous anti-Mormon rant in which he states that “Mitt Romney comes from a religion that was founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and a rapist” (see embed below where Pat Buchanan makes a fool out of O’Donnell).
Well, first of all, as Newsbusters and Jake Tapper point out, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, was actually anti-slavery. However, what really cracks me up about O’Donnell’s nutty rant, is that he implied that Romney needed to”answer” for what Joseph Smith said or thought in 1844. However, when Barack Obama gave his famous race speech–which was in response to Reverend Wright’s rants going public–Lawrence O’Donnell was one of the loudest voices on MSNBC praising Obama’s speech. So, let me get this straight. According to Lawrence O’Donnell, Mitt Romney needs to “answer” for what Joseph Smith said back in 1844; however, Barack Obama doesn’t have to answer for his pastor’s very recent racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic rants (see embed below)?! Man, that’s really rich.
Furthermore, as Allahpundit of HotAir points out, Reverend Wright told reporters several days ago that “them Jews aren’t going to let me talk to Obama”. To quote Allahpundit, “Exit question: 20 years spent in the pews of Trinity and who knows how many private conversations had with Wright, and yet not once did Obama ever encounter this sort of rhetoric from the good reverend, huh? Who, mind you, can’t even suppress it when speaking to reporters on the record. Remarkable.” Allahpundit further points out that “at least we now know how Hamas propaganda wound up in the church bulletins“.
Oh, but silly me. It’s Mitt Romney who needs to answer for what Joseph Smith said in 1844–not Barack Obama who needs to answer for what his pastor/mentor of twenty years (who married him and baptized his kids) said in 2004-2009, because, according to Joe Klein, I’m just “spreading the poison” by even bringing this up.
Oh, and speaking of liberal bigotry, here is our old pal Bill Maher again. This time, instead of spewing sexist venom, he’s spewing anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Mormon and anti-Christian venom in his documentary “Religulous” (see the embed below). Hey Bill, there’s a word for people who make documentaries that call Muslims, Jews, Mormons and Evangelical Christians “crazy” and mocks their cultures and beliefs–hint: it starts with the letter B and ends with “igot”. Oh, and one more thing. Could any of you imagine what liberals’ reactions would be if a fiery Evangelical minister made a documentary making fun of Muslims, Jews and Mormons and implied that they were “crazy”? Just a thought.
And guess what other famous liberal is not only a sexist, but also a racist–you guessed it Maureen Dowd. During the general election, Ms. Dowd wrote a column called “Mr. Darcy Comes Courting” where she poses the question “Can America get over it’s prejudice and elect the first black president?” Well, I find it quite humorous that Ms. Dowd is so quick to toss out accusations of racism against her fellow Americans when, according to the Gawker, Maureen Dowd thinks that all black people look alike. Not to mention, Ms. Dowd even admitted in a column that she asked her “cute black mailman” (her words, not mine) how he felt about Obama’s win. Furthermore, the Gawker also pointed out that, in the same column where she brags about talking to her “cute black mailman” (and black people in general for the first time), Maureen Dowd also seems to brag about having one black friend, Gwen Ifil. (Hey Maureen–project much?!) I mean, can any of you imagine the reaction that a conservative columnist would have gotten if she wrote a column bragging about talking to black people for the first time and about having a black friend?
Oh, and here’s another example of bigotry brought to you courtesy of Maureen Dowd. Now, in the column “Barbies for War!” (which is probably the snobbiest thing that I’ve ever read in my entire life), Ms. Dowd writes about her trip to Wasilla, AK. In the column, she writes about AK as if she is literally visiting a foreign country and observing the local people’s customs (Dowd also spends half of the column making fun of Sarah Palin‘s church). In “Barbies for War!”, she mentions meeting Betty Necas. In her column, Ms. Dowd mentions that Ms. Necas was a teenage mom, and describes her as a “Wal-mart mom” who “wears sweatpants and has tattoos on her wrists”. OK, let’s play a game. Suppose that a conservative columnist from say The Wall Street Journal or National Review wrote a column about visiting inner city Harlem as if it were a foreign country, mocked the churches there, and described Obama supporters that he came in contact with as wearing tattoos and sweatpants, being overweight, and liking mac and cheese (which is how she described Hillary’s supporters in “Mr. Darcy Comes Courting”)? I’m not a betting woman, but I would bet everything that I own that he would be out of a job the very next day–and rightfully so I might add.
[On a side note, poor Maureen can't seem to catch a break. Not only is she a bigot, but she's also a rather unimaginative plagiarist, so you kinda have to feel sorry for her, but I digress.]
Now, more recent examples of lefty bigotry would be Sonya Sotomayor saying in multiple speeches that being “a wise Latina” gives her “better judgment than a white male” (in the link that I provided, Stuart Taylor hits it out of the park when he states that, “Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.”) and Andrew Sullivan writing in a blog that the Jooooos control The Washington Post and want Obama to fail in Iran so that Isreal can attack Iran (H/T Moe Lane). Seriously Andrew, between your wild conspiracies about Sarah Palin’s baby and your wild conspiracy theories about the Jewish lobby, you are starting to sound like some of the patients that I saw on my Psyche rotation during my third year of medical school. Dude, lose the tinfoil hat and get on some medication ASAP, but I digress.
However, the best example of liberal racism and bigotry that I can think of is Janeane Garofalo. First, she goes on Keith Olbermann’s show and calls all of the Tea Party protesters “a bunch of teabagging, racist redncecks” even though, during the Bush Years, she said that dissent was patriotic and that she was “in favor of any citizen talking if they wanted to” (see embed below).
However, in another segment on Olbermann’s show, Garofalo states that “Black Repulicans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome” (particularly, Michael Steele) and then compares female Republicans to “Eva Braun” (Olbermann laughs along as she spews her bigotry). Yes ladies and gentlemen, you heard her correctly–Ms. Garofalo thinks that all black people should think alike, and if they don’t, then they are mentally ill. There’s a word for that–it starts with the letter R and ends with “acist”. Below is a hilarious video from the Fox News Show Red Eye which calls Garafalo out on her obvious bigotry.
Moreover, Barack Obama, himself, was hardly Mr. Tolerance on the campaign trail. We all remember when he referred to rural Pennsylvanians as “Bitter, gun-clinging, xenophobes” and when he referred to his grandmother as a “typical white person”. Suppose a white southern, conservative male, like say Fred Thompson, referred to someone as a “typical black person” on a radio show–I bet the left would crucify him, but I digress. Oh, and as far as Obama attending reverend Wright’s church for twenty years, I think that Charles Krauthammer in his column “Questions of Character” said it best when he wrote that, ““He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond”. I also thought that Krauthammer hit it out of the park when he wrote the following–
“Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.”
So, in conclusion, I think that the liberal philosophy on racism and sexism can be summed up by the following phrase–
Bigotry for me, but not for thee.
Actually, that would be the short version. The long version would be, “I’m a liberal and I voted for Obama….I can never be a racist or a sexist. Therefore, I get to say all of the bigoted crap that I want”. There are several examples of this philosophy put into action. The first one would be when The LA Times published an op-ed titled, “Obama the Magic Negro” and Rush Limbaugh wrote a song mocking the column, and all the liberals called him a racist (I, personally, don’t think the term “magic negro” is very tasteful or politically correct, but I also think that it’s total hypocrisy to say that The LA Times can publish the column, but that Rush Limbaugh is a racist for mocking the column–and for the record, I don’t regularly listen to Rush). Another example of this philosphy is Perez Hilton calling Carrie Prejean a “stupid b*tch” for disagreeing with him on gay marriage (and for the record, I have no problem with gay marriage), but then thinking that he can turn around and call will i am a “f**got” (and having the nerve to be surprised when he got punched out for it). And finally, the George Allen “Macaca” incident comes to mind. Don’t get me wrong, I do not approve of calling anyone “Macaca”–it is rude and boorish and Senator Allen was right to apologize. However, when I first heard the term, I wasn’t quite sure what it meant, but I knew that it sounded familiar. Well, when I looked it up in my old zoology textbook (I took vertebrate zoology in undergrad in order to get my biology degree and I never traded in that textbook, because I thought that it was cool), I remembered that it was the Genus for for the Maques monkey (in Senator Allen’s defense, I doubt that he knew what it meant, because he doesn’t strike me as someone who moonlights as a closet zoologist–no offense to him).
However, If someone said that I had “a Wal-Mart shopper’s bad hair and big bum”, called me “Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction”, said that I “looked like a slutty flight attendant”, made rape jokes about my daughter, or said that they wanted to “hate-f**k” me, I know for a fact that I wouldn’t have to look any of those things up in a textbook–I’d know exactly what that person meant. Furthermore, when I heard Janeane Garofalo say that “All black Republicans have Stockholm Syndrome”, and when I heard Maureen Down brag about deigning to talk to her “cute black mailman”, or when I heard Lawrence O’Donnell’s anti-Mormon rant, I didn’t have to look any of that up in some textbook–I knew exactly what they were getting at. And finally, when I heard Reverend Wright’s sermons/rants, I knew exactly what he meant (and I’m pretty sure that Obama did too)–yet Senator Allen loses his VA Senate seat for calling some guy “Macaca”, but Barack Obama gets to president after sitting in a racist, anti-Semitic church for twenty years. Go figure.
[Oh, and none of you lefty lurkers better bring up Jerome Corsi. I wrote a diary where I went out of my way to condemn his "secret Muslim theory" about Obama and I told people not to buy his book. Furthermore, Redstate and The Minority Report banned anyone who even mentioned that Obama was a Muslim or the Antichrist. Unlike liberals, we police our own here and call out bad behavior. And besides, NOBODY mainstream in the Republican party was promoting that.]
So, In conclusion, why do liberals feel entitled to have the philosphy “Bigotry for me, but not for thee?” There are basically three reasons. The first reason is that some of them have become so “personally and ideologically invested in Barack Obama” (to quote Pat Buchanan), that they have literally become Machiavellian and will use any weapon in their arsenal to destroy people who they perceive as Obama’s enemies–and will even resort to sexism and blatant bigotry if they feel that it’s necessary (Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivan and Jeaneane Garofalo fall into this category). The second group are people who have kind of a medieval mentality. They think that by voting for Obama for president (and by being liberals themselves) that they have bought indulgences in The Church of the Obamamessiah, and so therefore, they can get away with saying any offensive crap that they want, and that because they support St. Barack of Hope, they will automatically get absolution for their sins (this is similar to people who travel in big private jets but buy carbon credits–Maureend Dowd, Bill Maher, and Lawrence O’Donnell fit into this group). Now, the third group simply consists of people who are aware of the MSM’s liberal bias; therefore, they know that they can say whatever they want and they won’t be held to the same standard that a conservative would (Sonya Sotomayor, Perez Hilton, and Guy Cimbalo (the guy who wrote the Hatef**k article) fit into this category).
OK, right now, some liberals who are reading this might be saying to themselves, “You know, Susannah makes some good points. Maybe we should take the plank out of our own eye and start calling out bad behavior on our side when we see it”–however, trust me, these people are in the minority. Most of the trolls that will read and comment on this diary will A.) Personally attack me and Redstate (instead of refuting any of the points that I made) B.) Bring up how “evil” they think Bush and Cheney are C.) Carry on about how they don’t believe in American exceptionalism and how we should be more like Sweden–that’s the whiny, liberal troll trifecta boys and girls. (Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that all liberals are whiny. My mother’s a liberal and she’s certainly not whiny; however, the trolls that we get here sure the hell are).
So, come on all of you trolls out there–channel you’re inner Joy Behar or Keith Olbermann and give me your best shot. Just please try not to be too shrill–we don’t want to hurt any dog’s ears in the nearby vicinity do we? OK–all together now–
“I’m a liberal and I voted for Obama…..I can’t be a sexist or a racist. Therefore, I get a pass to say all of the offensive crap that I want. And besides, Bush is evil and Cheney is Darth Vader, and America sucks and we should bow to and backslap more dictators so other countries will like us more” (pouts and stomps foot).
Oh, and if any of you forgot how to whine and moan, see exhibit A below.
Damn, it’s good to be back–even if just for a little while.
This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.
May 19th, 2009
As most of my regular readers are aware, I wrote a diary last week titled, “Nancy Pelosi Needs to Step Down”. In this diary, I chronicled all of Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous behavior over the past two years (since she became the Speaker of the House), such as attempting to appoint unqualified corrupt cronies to positions of power over more qualified people, appointing a man to chair the House intelligence committee who doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim, requesting regular military flights for herself, her staff and her lackeys, giving a highly partisan speech that helped to tank the TARP/Bailout bill, and putting all kinds of earmarks and waste in the stimulus/porkulus bill (like giving a 5.2 billion dollar bailout to ACORN), just to name a few. Speaker Pelosi’s absurd behavior seemed to culminate last week with her denials that she knew anything about waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques, despite leaked CIA memos that said that she had been briefed about waterboarding in 2002 (H/T Moe Lane of Redstate).
In fact, even Jon Stewart mocked her obvious fabrications last week in the video below (H/T bk of Redstate)–and Stewart RARELY mocks Democrats.
Now, considering the humiliation sandwich that Nancy Pelosi was being force fed last week when I wrote my previous diary (“Nancy Pelosi Needs to Step Down”), I thought surely she had hit rock-bottom and couldn’t possibly sink any lower–however, I was oh so very wrong. A few days after I wrote the above diary, Speaker Pelosi gave her infamous press conference where, throughout the first half, she was utterly incoherent–
Then, in the second half of her press conference, Speaker Pelosi ACTUALLY ACCUSED THE CIA OF LYING TO CONGRESS!
Now, at the risk of our own Caleb Howe (formerly known as absentee) calling me a cliche’, I must say that I, literally, felt embarrassed for her. I mean, I could feel myself squirming in my seat and my cheeks getting warm as I watched that train wreck of a press conference. Furthermore, after watching Speaker Pelosi prevaricate in the above videos, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for this woman to hit rock-bottom, because she appears to have no sense of shame, but I digress.
And to make matters worse, if she wasn’t already humiliated enough after her infamous press conference, Leon Panetta, the current head of the CIA for the Obama Administration and Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, totally discredited/smacked-down Nancy Pelosi, according to The Washington Post, when he said the following–
“It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress,” Panetta said in a message meant to shore up employees of his agency, which is at the center of a relentless political firestorm over Bush policies and the Iraq war. “Our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [terrorism suspect] Abu Zubaida, describing the ‘enhanced techniques that had been employed.”
I think that John Dickerson made a really good point in his excellent column (be sure to Digg it) when he stated that, “The reason this new attack on the CIA is such a bold and perhaps very bad idea is that the CIA is very good at these battles”. Furthermore, I think that Dickerson really hit it out of the park in regard to why Pelosi put herself, as well as the Obama Administration, in such a pickle by taking on the CIA in such a ham-fisted fashion when he wrote the following–
The escalating mess is exactly why President Obama didn’t want a thorough look into the question of torture. Fights like these distract from his effort to get politicians to focus on other matters, and the arguments potentially weaken his party by either undermining its high-road position on torture or making leading Democrats look unsteady, as Pelosi looked during her halting and jittery press conference. As one former senior Bush official put it, “Their real political problem [with investigating torture] is when they look back, they will find many of their own there. This sh*t storm will leave everyone stinky. Or might just leave their side in deeper doo-doo for the worst political sin: hypocrisy.”
At some point the president may be asked what his view of the Pelosi matter is. It’s a tricky spot. He doesn’t want to get in the middle of a he said/she said debate. If he defends Pelosi, he alienates the CIA. That relationship is already tender because Obama released Bush-era torture memos against the wishes of the CIA, whose agents participated in the torture. On the other hand, if Obama defends the CIA, he undermines his leader in the House and angers her liberal supporters.
On a side note, Mark Steyn has recently written a fantastic column in which he explains with perfect clarity exactly why Nancy Pelosi is so contemptible with her prevarications about what she did and didn’t know in regard to enhanced interrogation techniques. Steyn points out, in so many words, that Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi pretty much have the same views on waterboarding, but that Vice President Cheney has the cojones to man-up and tell people what he really thinks. Furthermore, Dick Cheney has the courage to stick to his convictions–unlike Nancy Pelosi who calls the brave men and women of the CIA “liars”. Mark Steyn further elaborates on these points in two excerpts from his column that I have pasted below. First, Steyn writes the following–
Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding?
He’s in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he’s in favor of it now. He doesn’t think it’s torture, and he supports having it on the books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent.
Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding?
No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in the deepest recesses of her (if she’ll forgive my naïveté) soul. Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly believe about waterboarding?
Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back when, over six years ago.
Then, Mark Steyn further states the following about the Pelosi drama–
Alarmed by her erratic public performance, the Speaker’s fellow San Francisco Democrat Dianne Feinstein attempted to put an end to Nancy’s self-torture session. “I don’t want to make an apology for anybody,” said Senator Feinstein, “but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, ’07, ’08 or ’09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.”
Indeed. In effect, the senator is saying waterboarding was acceptable in 2002, but not by 2009. The waterboarding didn’t change, but the country did. It was no longer America’s war but Bush’s war. And it was no longer a bipartisan interrogation technique that enjoyed the explicit approval of both parties’ leaderships, but a grubby Bush-Cheney-Rummy war crime.
Dianne Feinstein has provided the least worst explanation for her colleague’s behavior. The alternative – that Speaker Pelosi is a contemptible opportunist hack playing the cheapest but most destructive kind of politics with key elements of national security – is, of course, unthinkable. Senator Feinstein says airily that no reasonable person would hold dear Nancy to account for what she supported all those years ago. But it’s OK to hold Cheney or some no-name Justice Department backroom boy to account?
Well, sure. It’s the Miss USA standard of political integrity: Carrie Prejean and Barack Obama have the same publicly stated views on gay marriage. But the politically correct enforcers know that Barack doesn’t mean it, so that’s okay, whereas Carrie does, so that’s a hate crime. In the torture debate, Pelosi is Obama and Dick Cheney is Carrie Prejean. Dick means it, because to him this is an issue of national security. Nancy doesn’t, because to her it’s about the shifting breezes of political viability.
[By the way, if any of you are interested, Jennifer Rubin has recently written an awesome blog where she points out how the Obama Administration and their lackeys in the MSM never saw Dick Cheney coming when he was touring the Sunday talk show circuit a couple of weeks ago. They were so obsessed with Cheney's unpopularity and President Obama's charisma, that they forgot one very important point--that Cheney had the truth on his side. Here is an excerpt from Rubin's blog that really says it all--
In this obsession over Cheney’s unpopularity the mainstream media and the Obama administration share a common and debilitating fault: an preoccupation with personality and polling data. It makes not one wit of difference that someone not running for office has a current popularity rating of 20% — if what he is saying is deadly accurate and central to a key policy debate. The media and the administration somehow believed Cheney was irrelevant because they, not he, are hung up on irrelevant data points and are largely immune to arguments on the merits.
The media is obsessed with who the “leader” of the minority party is and who the “frontrunner for 2012? is. How bizarrely out of touch are they? Well, no more so than the Obama team which spent weeks tying the GOP to Rush Limbaugh while they created a disastrous stimulus package and frittered away a trillion dollars.
The administration and the media jointly overlooked the power of Cheney’s message which was based on a set of facts over which he has complete mastery (and which they were either indifferent to or ignorant of). So they now sit slack-jawed while Cheney has largely pinned the Obama team to the mat.]
So, in conclusion, not only is Nancy Pelosi officially a laughing stock (even in Democratic circles), but she’s also an untrustworthy prevaricator (and that’s putting it nicely–”liar” would be more accurate) who refuses to take responsibility for her mistakes–instead she pathetically and desperately tries to pass the buck to our brave men and women in the CIA. I almost feel sorry for her. (ALMOST being the operative word. Anyway, my Dad always says that it’s hard to take pleasure in watching people self-destruct or get what they deserve.) However, not only is Nancy Pelosi an untrustworthy hypocrite, she’s also a loose cannon who should not be in a position that gives her such power and influence over our national security–especially since the CIA doesn’t have any confidence in her.
In closing, I will leave you with a poem by Mike Huckabee that says all that needs to be said about why Nancy Pelosi needs to resign as Speaker of the House–it is funny, it is concise and it echoes my sentiments exactly. I hope that for the good of our national security, Nancy Pelosi will heed his advice. Take it away Governor!
Update: Steve Foley of The Minority Report has just put up an excellent column with a video in it of Nancy Pelosi’s latest press conference. In her press conference, Speaker Pelosi not only refuses to recant her statement about the CIA lying (or apologize to the CIA), but she also refuses to even take any more questions regarding the matter. Unbelievable.
This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.
May 9th, 2009
Surprise, surprise. Nancy Pelosi was for enhanced interrogation techniques before she was against them. This damning coverage by Fox News (hat tip to Redstate’s Moe Lane who wrote about this in an excellent column) reports that the CIA claims that Pelosi was briefed in 2002 about waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques, which directly contradicts her previous story where she claims that she was not told about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists.
I think that Charles Krauthammer hit it out of the park, in regard to Pelosi’s behavior, in his recent column titled, “Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible”, when he stated the following–
Today Pelosi protests “we were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.
On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what’s done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA’s rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do “in the future.”
But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying “Don’t do it.”
On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, “on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.”
More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now “on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009″ (the words are Blair’s) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.
Now, the funny thing is that I could actually forgive Nancy Pelosi this one factual inaccuracy (OK–outright lie) if this was her first brush with idiotic and untrustworthy behavior–but, unfortunately for the country, it’s not.
Remember during the whole TARP/Bailout bill fiasco when Pelosi gave that God-awful partisan speech–which gave cover to both Republicans and Democrats (who were already skeptical of the bill) to vote against it? (The embed is below). In this ridiculous turkey of a speech, Mrs. Pelosi actually has the unmitigated gall to make a fuss over seven hundred billion dollars (even though Obama’s porkulus/stimulus bill, that Pelosi subsequently helped write, will eventually cost the taxpayers over a trillion dollars). Furthermore, Nancy Pelosi also states, in the first two minutes of the video, that “the golden parachute and the government bailing you out–those days are over”. Well, again, Mrs. Pelosi was being disingenuous to say the least (OK–again, she was lying), because in the recent stimulus/porkulus bill, ACORN was given a 5.2 billion dollar bailout. Yeah, that ACORN who is under investigation by the FBI for voter fraud in thirteen different states. Oh, and who could forget about the recent AIG bonus debacle as covered by Dan Spencer or Obama’s recent bailout of the auto industries that even some Democrats opposed, but I digress. (I guess the days of government bailouts aren’t over yet, are they?)
Now, whether you were for or against the TARP/Bailout bill is neither here nor there. My point is that in another speech (which went viral under the title, “Nancy Pelosi: Dumber than Soap”–the embeded is below), Pelosi claimed that if we didn’t pass President Obama’s stimulus/porkulus bill IMMEDIATELY, that “five hundred million Americans would lose their jobs” (where she got that figure from, I don’t know–I don’t think that anyone knows). Anyway, my point is that Nancy Pelosi thought that it was urgent to pass the Obama stimulus package immediately in order to prevent millions of Americans from losing their jobs, and yet, she was willing to play partisan politics with the TARP bill which, to paraphrase Daniel Henninger of the WSJ, caused “the terrified stock market” to crater “wiping out individual voter wealth” when it fell apart? To quote Charles Krauthammer, that is “utterly contemptible”.
Now, I bet you are asking yourselves right now, “Can Nancy Pelosi’s tom-foolery, hypocrisy, disingenuousness, and out-right idiocy get any worse?” Well, I’m here to answer your question ladies and gentlemen–yes it can. Back in 2006 when Pelosi first became Speaker of the House she requested “regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation.” Now, it should be noted that the Bush Administration’s Department of Defense offered Pelosi the same plane to fly in that Dennis Hastert used when he was Speaker of the House, but Pelosi declined to use it because “She found it was not big enough for staff, supporters and other members.” However, in August in 2008, when asked why she was against offshore oil drilling, even though gas prices were going through the roof at the time, Pelosi replied by stating that, “I’m trying to save the planet”. OK–let me get this straight. Nancy Pelosi is “trying save the planet” by regularly flying herself and her posse across the country (creating a carbon foot-print the size of a Sasquatch’s), but we poor plebiscites are supposed to suck it up and pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, because she has a problem with offshore drilling. Man, that’s really rich. It kind of reminds me of President Obama telling us to turn down our thermostats while he cranks his up, but I digress.
However, if anyone was really interested in getting a clear view into both Nancy Pelosi’s character and competency, one only needed to look at who she initially tried to appoint to be the House Majority Leader, as well as who she eventually appointed to be be the head of the House Intelligence Committee, back in 2006 when she first became the Speaker of the House. In 2006 when the Democrats first took back the House and the Senate, the very liberal LA Times wrote a scathing op-ed about Nancy Pelosi titled, “Don’t Snub Harman”. Below is an excerpt from the column–
NEWLY MINTED House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is off to a rocky start. On the same day she was formally elected to lead the new Democratic majority, party colleagues refused to endorse her bizarre choice of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who was investigated but not charged in the Abscam scandal more than two decades ago, as her second-in-command.
That embarrassing experience should induce Pelosi (D-San Francisco) — who appeared chastened before reporters Thursday — to reconsider another ill-advised promotion: Her apparent intention to bestow the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee not on the panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), but on Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.).
Hastings, like Murtha, seems an unlikely choice for a leadership role in what Pelosi has been advertising as “the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.” Hastings was impeached as a federal judge and removed from office in the late 1980s (although he was acquitted of bribery in a criminal trial in 1983).
A litany of explanations have been adduced to explain why Pelosi would bypass Harman, an expert on intelligence matters who has won the respect of both parties while criticizing some of the Bush administration’s excesses in the war on terror. None of them is persuasive. Harman has earned this chairmanship.
But, what this op-ed doesn’t mention is WHO exactly Nancy Pelosi wound up picking to head the House Intelligence committee. After Pelosi found herself the butt of much ridicule due to her “bizarre” and ethically challenged choices after hammering Republicans for having a “culture of corruption”, she settled on Sylvester Reyes (D-TX) to head the House Intelligence Committee–a man who did not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim. Furthermore, when Reyes was pressed to answer if he knew anything at all about Hezbollah (the Shia Iranian terrorist group), Reyes responded by using the Sammy Sosa Defense (i.e., the “No habla Ingles”/”I speak no English” defense). I’m not kidding. This is the man that Nancy Pelosi put in charge of the House Intelligence Committee–think about that for a second. It clearly demonstrates just how seriously she takes our national security.
Now, I realize that Harman is embroiled in a semi-scandal of her own having to do with the Israeli Public Affairs Committee (although, the LA Times has an interesting column saying that the Harman scandal is really just some members of the Obama Administration’s Justice Department engaging in CYA–you can be the judge); however, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Jane Harman knows the difference between a Sunni and a Shia, and that she wouldn’t use the “Sammy Sosa Defense” if she didn’t know the answer to a question.
But, what I find the most troubling is something that I read from a liberal blog called The Reaction. In their column, they basically admit that (and I’m paraphrasing) “Harman was backed by the Blue Dog Coalition”….”she is respected by her colleagues on both sides of the isle”….”Pelosi didn’t consider Harman partisan enough and thought that she has not been a tough enough critic of the Bush Administration”…..they quote and cite Robert Novak as saying that “Pelosi’s judgment might be distorted by personal considerations”…..and finally that “Pelosi needs to look beyond herself to the good of the country”. If this is true, then to me it is “utterly contemptible” that Nancy Pelosi would jeopardize our national security–by appointing a man to head the House Intelligence Committee who doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia–simply because she’s involved in some kind of p*ssing contest with Jane Harman. Not to mention, it’s also pathetic, immature, catty and embarrassing, but I digress.
So, in conclusion, I feel that it’s time to bring the Nancy Pelosi circus to an end. Yes, she had an amusing run there for a time, all the while providing great fodder for pundits and bloggers everywhere, but enough is enough. The national security of the country is at stake and this woman is at best a half-wit and a hypocrite, and at worst, she’s a slightly unbalanced liar. By the way, this is not an easy diary for me to write. I never agreed with Nancy Pelosi’s politics, but I was proud when the first woman was made Speaker of the House and I didn’t want her to turn out to be a laughing stock. (I’m sorry, but that’s how I felt–write it down, take a picture, sue me, whatever. Oh, and for any of you lefty lurkers out there who don’t believe that Pelosi’s a laughing stock, check out the SNL video that I embedded below mocking her–and SNL is a predominantly liberal organization). However, my country comes first and I can no longer trust this woman–who has by all means proven herself to be “utterly contemptible”–with our national security for another second. It is time for the circus to hit the road. Nancy Pelosi needs to go–now!
Update: Today, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has written an excellent column (citing The Washington Post) which provides further evidence that Nancy Pelosi lied about her knowledge of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques that were being used on high level Al Qaeda terrorists.
This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.
March 23rd, 2009
OK–maybe I’m a bit paranoid, but I definitely believe that there has been a vast left wing conspiracy afoot in the mainstream media for some time now. Now, if you all will bear with me, I believe that I can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right.
A few of nights ago, I was watching the O’Reilly Factor when Greta Van Susteren came on and stated that many journalist that she knew personally “were reveling with glee” at the news that Bristol Palin (the pregnant eighteen year old daughter of Sarah Palin) and her fiancé, Levi Johnston, were splitting up. At first, that sounded a little extreme to me, until I watched the following video (see embed below) from ABC News that ran on The O’Reilly Factor the following night after Van Susteren appeared. Bernard Goldberg hit the nail on the head perfectly when he called it embarrassing.
First of all, after watching that video, I noticed that the female anchor characterized it as an “exclusive interview” where they “found” Levi Johnston, and that he was “speaking out” for the first time. Well, actually, it looked to me like Good Morning America was stalking Levi Johnston and that they ambushed him in his pick-up truck, in the snow, when he was on his way to go work out at the gym.
Second of all, is this really the most important thing that Good Morning America could find to report on? Think about it for a second. They sent a reporter and a camera crew all the way to Wasilla, AK (which probably wasn’t at all cheap) to talk to Levi Johnston, during the biggest recession since the great depression (as the Obama administration is so fond of saying). Don’t any of you think that’s a little strange? Not to mention, it just reeked of pure meanness. It reminds me of that hilarious Saturday Night Live skit, with James Franco, where they made fun of the New York Times for obsessing over the Palin family and ignoring the mortgage crisis (they didn’t post the video on SNL, but I have the transcript). I mean, aren’t there more important people to sandbag right now than Levi Johnston? Couldn’t GMA have tied to embarrass Barney Frank or Chris Dodd who helped cause this recession, or Charlie Rangel who is in all kinds of hot water for tax fraud? On second thought, Neal Karlinsky (from GMA) probably would be afraid to confront Charlie Rangel, because Congressman Rangel would have told him to go mind his “own God-d**n business” (see embed below)–which, by the way, is exactly what Levi Johnston should have done, when Neal Karlinsky rudely stuck his head into Levi Johnston’s truck and asked him, in a very condescending tone, “What does he mean to you?” (referring to Johnston’s son), and then accusingly asked Johnston if he had a picture of his son with him in his truck.
And finally, at the end of this video, Neal Karlinsky starts to hypothesize about Levi Johnston’s future. Well, I think that Neal Karlinsky should be much more worried about his own future. I mean, when you’re stalking nineteen year old boys in the frigid Alaskan wilderness, you’ve pretty much hit rock-bottom and are in dire need of a support group in my opinion. (Hi I’m Neal, and I’m a douchebag who stalks teenage boys in the Alaskan wilderness. Then the group responds, “Hi Neal. Welcome to Douchebags Anonymous”–but I digress.)
Now, GMA stalking Levi Johnston over his and Bristol Palin’s child has reminded me of another “sex story” that took place last summer–the John Edwards sex scandal. However, if you all recall, the media covered the John Edward’s sex scandal quite differently than they covered the “Palin sex scandal”. For instance, The New York Times ran three front page cover stories in one day about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, but Clark Hoyt , the public editor, admitted that “the Times never made a serious effort to investigate the (Edwards) story“. Of course, Hoyt gave a bunch of lame excuses as to why the Times ignored the Edwards story such as, “Edwards-Hunter was never a Times like story” (oh, but three front page stories about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is a “Times like story”?), and that “by the time The Enquirer reported on its hotel stakeout, Edwards was no longer a presidential candidate (oh, but Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston were such big political power players). However, Hoyt admits that, “The Times was energetically going after the McCain story. It should have pursued the other story as well”. So, let me get this straight. The Times was willing to risk getting sued over the phony McCain sex scandal story, and was willing to run three front page stories about the pregnant teenage daughter of Sarah Palin in one day, but thought that the John Edwards story wasn’t a “Times like story”? Interesting. One more thing–the Times must have thought that the Bristol Palin/ Levi Johnston breakup was a “Times like story” because they reported on it here (like they were Bennifer or Brangelina ).
Oh, and not to be out-done by The New York Times, as far as squashing the Edwards story goes, The LA Times actually banned it’s bloggers from reporting on the Edwards scandal . Now did The LA Times ban its bloggers from reporting on the Palin/Johnston breakup? No they did not . Not to mention, who could forget the cover of US Weekly covering the Bristol Palin pregnancy titled “Babies, Lies and Scandal” (by the way, Wenner Media ,who publishes US Weekly, has given $5300 to the Obama campaign since 2007 , but I digress). OK, so did US Weekly run a similar cover story about the John Edwards sex scandal? Of course not. However, Michelle Malkin did write a hilarious blog titled, ”The US Weekly Cover You Didn’t See” .
On a side note, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter actually went on “Morning Joe” and tried to defend, with a straight face, the media going after Bristol Palin like vultures, but ignoring John Edwards–a twice presidential candidate and possible VP pick, or a possible Attorney General pick, for Barack Obama (News Busters has the transcript of Scarborough eviscerating Alter). Now, Alter’s pathetic excuse was that Edwards was no longer a presidential candidate when the story broke. Well, I guess Alter must have forgotten that the Edwards affair began in 2006, according to his own admission, just before Edwards announced his candidacy for President. Furthermore, a large part of the scandal was that John Edwards was making monthly payments to Rielle Hunter (when she lived in both NC and CA), as Byron York points out. Not to mention, The National Enquirer initially broke the story in October of 2007, and there was absolutely no follow-up by the MSM.
So, now the question has evolved from “Was the media biased in its 2008 election coverage?” to “Why was the media so biased in its 2008 election coverage?” Well, I have developed two theories in order to try to explain the glaring MSM bias that was so prevalent in the 2008 election coverage–and is still going on today.
My first theory is the JournoList theory. I’m sure that we’ve all heard about Michael Calderone’s (of The Politico) big story this week about the “JournoList”–which consists of several hundred left-wing bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, and policy wonks who have “talked stories and compared notes in an on-line meeting space” for the last two years. Calderone reports that the JournoList, or the JList for short, includes many staffers and writers from a plethora of MSM news outlets such as Newsweek, The Politico (Mike Allen, Ben Smith, and Lisa Lerer to name a few), The New Republic (including it’s senior editor John Judis and its associate editor Eve Faibanks), The New Yorker, The Nation (a very liberal magazine), and a bunch of left-wing bloggers from The Huffington Post, as well as far-left bloggers Ezra Klein (who is actually the founder of the Jlist) and Matthew Yglesias. Furthermore, the JList even counts as members several famous pundits, such as CNN’s Jeffery Toobin (who also writes for The New Yorker), Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (Frank Rich is also rumored to be on the JList, but it hasn’t been confirmed yet).
Now, how would this seemingly innocuous JList help to distort the 2008 election coverage? Well, I will give you some verbatim quotes from several JListers that I took straight out of the Politico article, and then I will read between the lines and translate them each and explain to you what these pundits and bloggers were really saying. For starters, John Judis, senior editor of The New Republic, described the JList as “a virtual coffeehouse where participants get a chance to talk and argue”. Well, I don’t know exactly how much real “arguing” actually goes on amongst JListers, because Judis admitted in another statement that, “There is a general agreement on the stupidity of today’s GOP”. Don’t get me wrong. I think that a JournoList of people from say The Nation, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, that also possibly included writers and bloggers from National Review, Redstate, The Minority Report–and even some pro-Hillary blogs like The Hillbuzz–might have been” a virtual coffeehouse where participants got the chance to talk and argue”–instead they wound up with a far-left cyberspace circlej**k.
Furthermore, New Republic associate editor, Eve Fairbanks, said of the JList that, “It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and toss them around and back and forth, and determine if they have any value and get people’s input before you put them on a blog”. And, by “determine if they (the ideas) have any value” and “get people’s input”, I think that what Fairbanks was really saying is that the people on the JList need to get each others APPROVAL (instead of “input”) before they write a column or a blog covering a news story. I’m sorry, but I can just hear their previous conversations now….”The John Edwards story is not a dignified or a “Times like” news story. It’s from The National Enquirer for God’s sake. Tell your people not to cover it.”…..”The Palins are white trash and are right wing, religious freaks. We must unmask them and their pregnant seventeen year old daughter–and we must get to the bottom of the story of their baby with Down‘s Syndrome.”…..”Anyone who discusses the Reverend Wright story is spreading the poison and is a racist”. Need a specific example? OK, here goes. Right after the Reverend Wright story initially broke, Joe Klein (a confirmed member of the JList) went on Anderson Cooper’s show, 360, and told Lanny Davis (the former Special Counsel to President Clinton) that he was “spreading the poison”, and that “an honorable person would stay away from this stuff” when Davis stated that the Reverend Wright story was something to legitimately be concerned about. (I guess, according to Joe Klein, an “honorable person“ would have stayed away from the John Edwards story as well, huh?) Now, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Klein had spent the afternoon conversing with his fellow JListers who agreed with him that discussing the Reverend Wright story was “spreading the poison” and should not be covered. Then, Klein goes on 360 and spouts his JList talking points that anyone who dares mention Reverend Wright is “spreading the poison” and is not “honorable“, and then Anderson Cooper turns around and AGREES with Klein (he probably assumed that Klein was spouting the decided upon “conventional wisdom“) by asking the rhetorical questions, “Is this really important?… Should we really be talking about this?” (Yeah, like if Hillary Clinton or John McCain had attended a racist, anti-Semitic, Anti-American church for twenty years, the media wouldn’t be “talking about it”?)
Oh, and what’s more, Jeffery Toobin even admitted that one of his pieces in The New Yorker got it’s start via a JList conversation. Not to mention, The Nation’s Eric Alterman stated that he’s “seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond”. Well, perhaps he’s talking about Jeffery Toobin’s embarrassing performance on CNN, after the news about Obama’s infamous bitter comments broke, that was chronicled on Newsbusters. Jeffrey Toobin was sitting on a panel with Gloria Borger and Jack Cafferty, on Wolf Blitzer’s “The Situation Room“, when he was asked to comment on Obama’s infamous statements about rural Pennsylvanians. Toobin responded by stating that, ”What Obama said is factually accurate” and that “this is so ridiculous“. I’m not kidding–Toobin went on national television and stated that Obama was “factually accurate” in that rural Pennsylvanians are bitter, gun-clinging, Bible clinging, xenophobic racists. However, I will give Toobin the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably wouldn’t have gone on national television and said something so outrageously stupid, had everyone in his online Obama brainwashing cult not been previously regurgitating similar talking points. But, what’s even more outrageous is that Jeffery Toobin got everyone on Wolf Blitzer’s panel to AGREE with him (I guess the old adage is true after all–if people hear something enough, they think that it’s true). Jack Cafferty (who I happen to think is a few fries short of a Happy Meal) even went so far as say that, “They call it the Rust Belt for a reason….The people are frustrated. The people have no economic opportunity. What happens to folks like that in the Middle East, you ask? Well, take a look. They go to places like Al Qaeda training camps.” So, I guess Jack Cafferty thinks that the next 9/11 will be planned by unemployed PA steel workers, but I digress.
And finally, The Nation’s Eric Alterman was quoted as saying that, “I’m pretty lazy when I’m not getting paid”, and said of the JList that, “For me, it’s enormously useful because I don’t like to spend my time reading blogs and reading up to the minute political minutia. This allows me to make sure I’m not missing anything important”. OK, please allow me to translate Mr. Alterman’s statement for you all–”I’ve already admitted that I’m very lazy and doing actual research for my columns would take valuable time away from my playing Guitar Hero. In other words, the JList keeps me in the loop; therefore, I really can’t afford to piss off Ezra Klein and the other JListers (and possibly get kicked off of this list) by digging up dirt and doing some real reporting on St. Barack of Hope“.
[By the way, here is an interesting tidbit. After the PA debate during the Democratic primary--you know the one where they finally, for the first time, asked Obama some real questions (after he pretty much had the nomination sown up) that any twelve year old could have predicted that he would have gotten asked (the questions were about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and his bitter comments)--over 40 journalists and bloggers wrote a signed letter to ABC complaining about that debate. Well, Michael Calderone reports in his column about the JList (see previous link) that of the journalists who signed the letter, “many were JList members”. So you see, these JList members were even trying to influence what questions could and could not be asked of Barack Obama during the presidential debates.]
Oh, and on a side note, in January of 2008 (over a year ago at the beginning of the Democratic primary), Jonah Goldberg wrote a column where he quoted Ezra Klein, the founder of the JList, as saying about Obama that, “Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They do not even inspire. They elevate. He is not the word made flesh, but the triumph over flesh, over color, over despair”. Whoa. Alright, now who on the JList wants to be the skunk at the garden party? I mean, who in January 2008 wanted to bust Ezra Klein’s bubble by telling him any inconvenient truths about Barack Obama–like say that he had attended a racist, anti-American church for twenty years? That would be like telling your five year old nephew Ralphie that there was no such thing as Santa Clause. Who wants to be THAT guy? Not me. Therefore, I could see why people on the JList might be intimidated to have any real “arguments” concerning Barack Obama when the founder of the list refers to Obama as “the word made flesh”.
Here is one more thing. Goldberg also quoted The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat (who is rumored to be replacing Bill Kristol at The New York Times as the token conservative) as hilariously saying about Ezra Klein that, “He’s got a fever, and the only cure is more Obama” (see this Christopher Walken SNL video if you didn’t get the joke).
OK, so now it is an accepted truth that the media (including reporters who were and who were not on the JList) was in the tank for Barack Obama even before the Iowa caucuses. Jonah Goldberg noticed it (when he cited Ezra Klein’s “word made flesh” comment in the column that I just linked to) back in January of 2008. Not to mention, Chris Matthews made the phrase “tingle up my leg” famous back during the Democratic primary, and Saturday Night Live even performed a classic skit mocking the media love for Obama (see embeds of both videos below). Furthermore, The Washington Post even admitted that they had been biased in favor of Obama over McCain throughout the 2008 general election.
However, what has been under-reported about the 2008 election, is the high threshold for hatred and out-right nastiness that both Obama’s far-left supporters and his acolytes in the MSM exhibited towards all of Obama’s opponents–even their children. Don’t believe me? Well, here goes. Here is Keith Olberman yelling at the top of his lungs that Hillary Clinton wanted Obama assassinated, here is David Shuster saying that the Clintons were “pimping Chealsea out”, here is The NYT’s Bob Herbert falsely accusing both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns of running a “southern strategy“, here is Maureen Dowd trafficking in sexist stereotypes against both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, here is Andrew Sullivan stating that Sarah Palin should release her medical records in order to prove to everyone that her infant with Down’s Syndrome, Trig, is really her baby and not her daughter Bristol’s, here is Bill Maher also spouting the nonsense to Jeffery Toobin (yeah, him again) that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin’s baby (it’s the third video on the blog), and finally, here is Frank Rich, in his column last Sunday (who never shies away from being an awful person), comparing Bristol Palin to a sexual predator, to a guy who allegedly used to have sex with prostitutes, and to a guy who allegedly likes to have sex in public bathrooms. I’m not kidding. In Rich’s column, in the tenth paragraph, Rich writes that the Republican party “has been rebranded by Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, and the irrepressible Palins”–and if you click on the word “Palins”, you will see that it is a link to a picture of a pregnant Bristol Palin. Classy, huh?
Oh, and I almost forgot. Below is an embed of Bill Maher saying that he’s starting a “Free Levi Movement” where he is encouraging Levi Johnston to abandon his baby and let “the Paling women folk take care of it” and then adding that they will just give it “some F***ked-up redneck name” anyway. You stay classy, Bill (language warning for this video). Now, when you watch this video, take a look at the panel. You see who is on it? It’s fellow Trig Palin “truther” Andrew Sullivan. What is this anyway? The annual meeting of the tin foil hat club? But, I digress.
[On a side note John Kass wrote an excellent column last September, titled, “Politics Don’t Get Dirtier than Smearing a Pregnant Girl”. It is truly excellent. I highly recommend it. In the column, Kass discusses the Daily Kos bloggers that started the whole “Bristol is the mother of Trig” rumor (that the MSM ran with as fact) by stating that, “Reading it (the Daily Kos), you could almost hear the saliva dripping from their teeth as they typed anonymously”. Kass then further states that, “I don’t know if a Komodo dragon can type, but their mouths are so full of bacteria that if they bite your leg, you’ll likely die. This anonymous komodo was probably typing in mommy’s basement, perhaps with a bowl of Chex mix and a Diet Coke nearby”.]
So, now I think that the next obvious question to ask is why was the far-left and the MSM (redundant, I know) so nasty to anyone who had the audacity to run against Obama? Well, I think that Jonah Goldberg touched on it in a column that he wrote last summer called “A Messiah in Our Midst?” where Goldberg specifically writes that, “Lots of people have pondered the possibility that Barack Obama is our divine redeemer”. In order to back up his point, Goldberg specifically quotes Oprah Winfrey as calling Barack Obama “the One”, and as saying that, “We need politicians who know how to be the truth” and that, “Obama will help us evolve to a higher plane” (Goldberg also points out that Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the light”). Goldberg even mentions a website called “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” in his column. Well, I took the liberty of checking out this website and of writing down some of the quotes that they document famous pundits, newspapers, and celebrities to have said about Barack Obama. Commentator@Chicago Sun Times said about Obama that he is, “not just an individual, but indeed an advanced soul”. Daily Kos said, “Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, the utter improbability of it all”. Dinesh Sharma said, “Many even see in Obama a Messiah like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama”. The Chicago Sun Times said, “We just like to say his name. We are considering it as a mantra”. Jesse Jackson Jr. said that, “What Obama has accomplished is so significant that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance”. And finally, Chris Matthews said about Obama that, “This is bigger than Kenndy. This is the New Testament”. There are many more juicy quotes listed on the website (like the Ezra Klein “word made flesh” quote, and Oprah’s “unvarnished truth” quote), but I can’t possibly list them all here.
Anyway, reading all of this rhetoric deifying Obama has reminded me of this awesome video (embed is below), that Redstate’s Erick Erickson put on Redstate last summer. The video titled, “Building a Religion” consists of scenes of Obama and his campaign rallies set to a song titled “Comfort Eagle”, that was written and recorded in 2001 by the alternative rock band Cake.
Anyway, the reason why all of this Messiah stuff is so funny, is that, like most good satire, there is an element of truth to it–and it brings me to my second theory of what went so horribly wrong with the 2008 election coverage (and what is still wrong with the media coverage of Obama)–the Messiah theory. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that people in the media literally worshipped Barack Obama (except for Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, and Andrew Sullivan). However, I don’t think that it’s too much to say that a lot of liberals in the MSM might have unconsciously put their faith in Barack Obama, so to speak, and viewed him as a source of salvation or redemption for some of America’s past sins, which could explain why many of the members of the MSM and many celebrities were so incredibly nasty to Obama‘s opponents–and even to their children and to a baby with Down‘s Syndrome. Think about it. If you criticize a politician that someone supports, well, they will probably just say, “Let‘s agree to disagree“. However, if you criticize a person that someone is “emotionally or ideologically invested in” (to quote Pat Buchana‘s description of how many members of the MSM felt about Barack Obam during the 2008 election), or that is viewed as a redeemer of some sorts, then you will more than likely elicit a much more nasty response from that person then if you just criticized a politician that they happen to support. And in a nutshell, that is what was wrong with the 2008 election coverage–many in the MSM media didn‘t view Barack Obama as an ordinary politician that they had to cover and investigate, but as a source of salvation that they had to promote and defend.
By the way, I might add, that it is always dangerous to put your faith (or look for “the Truth”) in another human being, because they will always eventually disappoint you. For example, if you wanted to put your faith in me, I would strongly advise against it and would warn that it would end quite badly for you. Not that I don’t try to be a good person–I do, but I am also a fallible human being with many flaws who constantly makes mistakes (just ask Steve Foley, George Claghorn, Caleb Howe, and Mike DeVine who I perpetually annoy to help me embed cornball videos on to my blogs for my own amusement)–oh, and by the way, so is Obama. In fact, he is already in the process of disappointing his followers by destroying business confidence (as our own Francis Cianfrocca (Blackhead) points out in his excellent column), by screwing up the stimulus bill, and by simply appearing to be in over his head (as Michael Wolff points out in his excellent column). In fact, just today, The Politico’s Jonathan Martin wrote a column titled, “Friendly Fire: NYT Hits Obama”, about how it is “unprecedented for him to get hit on the same day by columnists Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd–and the paper’s lead editorial”. Martin further added that, “These are friendly voices that have been sympathetic, and even at times, gushing toward Obama during the campaign and in his administration’s early days”. But, what was most damning, was when Martin wrote that, “The sentiment, coming just two months after the President was sworn in, reflects elite opinion in the Washington-New York corridor that Obama is increasingly overwhelmed, and not fully appreciative of the building tsunami of populist outrage”.
So, in conclusion, the far-left and the MSM can only make excuses for Obama for so long. Eventually, they will run out of columns to write about Levi Johnston (the last time that I checked, he is not responsible for the economy), Rush Limbaugh, and bonuses going to “greedy AIG executives“ (that have been planned for months), and they will have to start covering the Obama administration for real–and they will probably be disappointed (he can’t possibly live up to the expectations that were set for him), and will turn on him. In fact Frank Rich, who last week wrote a column comparing Bristol Palin to a sexual deviant, wrote a column today about the Obama administration titled, “Has a Katrina Moment Arrived?”. However, I think that for the MSM to blame Barack Obama for their unethical journalism is a cop-out. In my opinion, they should blame themselves (which they probably won’t do) for thinking that by projecting all of their hopes on to, and by putting their faith into, an inexperienced Chicago politician, that they could somehow fill the void in their pathetically empty lives.
This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.
March 20th, 2009