Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

“Mothers Against Illegal Aliens” spokesman quits party she doesn’t belong to

Yet another loon (like Jessie Macbeth) trying to get credibility that she’s not due. From Hot Air:

No need for any “quote of the day” posts later. We already have our winner:
“It says right here,” Dallacroce said, reading three letters from what remained of the card. ” ‘P’ . . . ‘N’ . . . ‘D.’”

Look for me on CNN sometime this week where I’ll be protesting the left’s positions on the war, amnesty, health care, and pretty much everything else by theatrically cutting up my Democratic Party membership card. Which will actually turn out to be my library card.

The video footage is there, and you just hafta see it!

June 5, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, moonbats | Leave a Comment

Time to Tancredo: "Why do you hate Mexicans?"

Looks like Time is getting in on the Linda Chavez “if it walks like a duck” race-baiting act, too. From Newsbusters:

It’s been eight weeks since Time magazine redesigned itself, and part of that refurbishment is handing over the “Ten Questions” interview inquiries to the readers instead of Time’s reporters. In the June 11 edition, Time’s interviewee was Rep. Tom Tancredo, a presidential contender and one of the nation’s leading opponents of illegal immigration. Among the questions Time selected for Tancredo was a whopper from Ubaldo Padilla of Oroville, California: “Why do you hate Mexicans?” It wasn’t the only snotty question Time picked. There was also James Smith of Phoenix, who asked: “I recently found out my family came from Holland without permission in the 1600s. Should we be sent back?”

Since Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel introduced the new format in the March 26 edition, there haven’t been any Democrats interviewed. But in the March 12 edition, Time’s Massimo Calabresi had ten (mostly softball) questions for Ted Kennedy, one of the nation’s leading advocates of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. No one at Time asked him about immigration and why he supposedly hated Americans. Instead, Calabresi’s list of questions included these soft touches:

– Are you the only Senator to keep dogs in your offices?

– Democrats have the country with them against the war in Iraq but aren’t acting to end it. Why?

– Do you intend to endorse one of the Democrats running for President?

– It’s easy to pick up a newspaper and see some comparison between your brothers and Barack Obama. Is there any validity to that comparison?

– You know Mitt Romney pretty well.

– Your long-sought minimum-wage bill is stuck in conference, thanks to a debate on the size of small-business tax breaks. What’s going on?

– Some on the left wing of the Democratic Party would like to see No Child Left Behind done away with. Are you going to deliver reauthorization this year?

– You just celebrated your 75th birthday. Or rather the celebrations are ongoing.

– You had a costume party. Who did you go as? (Captain Nemo? Aquaman? Jacques Cousteau, perhaps> – Ed.)

Since the 2006 midterm elections, Time’s also offered Ten Questions to a pile of liberals: Al Gore, Rep. Charlie Rangel, newly elected Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and Gore Vidal. None of them were painted as bigots by Time’s selected staff interviewers.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

June 5, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, Kennedrunk, media bias | Leave a Comment

"KILL THIS BOOK: NYT REVIEW TRASHES HILLARY BIO — WRITTEN BY LEGENDARY NYT REPORTERS"

That’s the Drudge headline. Details:

Editors of the NEW YORK TIMES are set to publish a highly-critical review of a book written by famed NEW YORK TIMES reporters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In ‘HER WAY’, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. have written what will become mandatory reading for Clinton’s opponents.

“The book is almost uniformly negative and overly focused on what they consider the Clintons’ scandalous past and the darker aspects of Hillary Clinton’s personality… The evidence of such a pact — interviews that have already been challenged in the press — is less than convincing,” writes Robert Dallek in a review set for the paper.

“Carl Bernstein, the veteran journalist of Woodward-and-Bernstein Watergate fame, presents a more balanced and convincing picture of Clinton in his competing biography.”

Dallek slams: “Gerth and Van Natta seem to detect no angels in Clinton’s nature whatsoever, much less better ones, and the result is a one-sided figure who never quite springs to life or feels truly authentic.”

[Gerth worked at the NYT for over 25 years.]

Pardon me while I laugh my posterior off over the NYT’s feigned outrage at a lack of “balance”. Seriously, that’s darned funny.

The MSM, specifically the Old Gray Hag fishwrap, is going to abandon all pretense of objectivity (though apparently they’ll trash anyone else if they perceive them doing the same) and do its level best to get the Hildebeast elected. If they have to trash some of their own for seeing this woman as being the evil power-hungry heavy-handed ruthless bitch that she is, then they will do so without hesitation. But no…no liberal media bias!

June 5, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, media bias | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers