Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Silky Pony loses a leftist voter

Based on his first two performances, he can ill afford to lose any other.  Here’s some scorching blue-on-blue action for you, from The Nation:

John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not “crying” as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies–his wife’s cancer, his son’s fatal accident — in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of “oprahfying’ the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women’s candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they’re too emotional to hold power. 

Whenever those of us on the right accuse Silky of exploiting his wife’s cancer or his son’s death, we’re called “heartless” and “cruel”, but when a fellow moonbat does it?  No big whoop from the ‘Bat Cave.

Anywho, here’s probably the juiciest of the quotes:

Ooh, right,we need a big strong manly finger on that nuclear button! Even if that finger has spent most it its life writing personal injury briefs in North Carolina, which, when you come to think of it, is not an obvious preparation for commander-in-chiefhood. 

Ouch!  That’s gonna leave a mark.

January 9, 2008 Posted by | John Edwards, moonbats | 4 Comments

UPDATE: Ron Paul: kook magnet for a reason

UPDATES AT BOTTOM.

I’ve been saying for quite some time that Dr. Doofus and his Merry Moonbat Legion are a cadre of conspiracy nuts, Aryans, anti-Semites, etc. Many of the literate and articulate Paul supporters (yes, they do exist) argued that he can’t be held responsible for the kooks that he attracts. I somewhat agree and disagree with that position (how Kerryesque of me, I know), but I’ve often wondered what is it about Crazy Ron that makes him appealing to these miscreants.

Perhaps now we know. From Pajamas Media:

A damning New Republic expose on Ron Paul shows the “libertarian” Republican candidate to be a racist, a homophobe and an anti-Semite. Will his diehard supporters continue to defend a man who called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile? Daniel Koffler, a former Paul sympathizer, has a compendium of the Texas congressman’s creepiest hits, pulled straight from his decades-old newsletter.

There’s more there, so please read it.

I want to emphasize that the original piece was written by The New Republic, who we know stood steadfastly by the slanderous anti-Iraq work of fiction written by fabulist (and since discredited) Scott Beauchamp. As such, feel free to take the original story with a huge shaker of salt. That said, LGF makes this point better than I ever could:

The Only Man Who Can Save America tries to save himself from The New Republic’s article: Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters.

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

The problem for Dr. Paul is that there was a lot of this stuff. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe he had absolutely no idea what was being published in his name for that long. Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

And the newsletter isn’t the only source of the odor. There are Dr. Paul’s numerous appearances on the whacked-out conspiracy radio show hosted by 9/11 Troofer Alex Jones—and there are all those Nazis and New World Order types hanging around, who somehow, somewhere got the impression that Ron Paul was their kind of candidate.

I’ve laid out the bait for the Paulbots. Let’s see if I can catch any with it.

UPDATE (1/08/2008 – 9:02 P.M. EST): If you can put up with a couple of F-bombs, go over to Ace and see him completely annihilate the apologists who try to argue that Dr. Nutso didn’t write this claptrap himself. Awesome!

January 9, 2008 Posted by | anti-Semitism, bigotry, moonbats, Ron Paul | 5 Comments

Brian Williams admits his colleague is less than objective over Obama

From Media Bistro:

Brian Williams took to his Daily Nightly blog to address the story sparked by FishbowlDC’s post yesterday about remarks made by NBC’s Lee Cowan, who said that it’s “hard to remain objective covering” Sen. Barack Obama.

Says Williams:

    I see from a tour of the web that we find ourselves in the position of having our own words and reporting turned back around on us, and I wanted to clarify something we posted yesterday.

    During my day with the Obama campaign, I took Lee Cowan aside for a brief interview. Lee covers Obama for us, and we’re lucky to have him on our roster… he is one of the very best in the business. In the interview, which you can see right here, Lee admits “…it’s almost hard to remain objective…” which as he implies is our goal in our work every day. He’s referring to what all of us who have covered campaigns have felt from time to time: it’s impossible to get the long view…the view from 40,000 feet…while operating at sea level, and inside the bubble.

    Lee was talking about the swirl of excitement that has hit the Obama campaign after Iowa — the crowds, the hoopla — all of it. Today we learned that rival political efforts were spinning this as some kind of “bias” on the part of either Lee, or me, or this News Division, and that’s just ridiculous. My response is as it always is in these situations: look at it again, listen to what’s being said, and judge us by the quality and fairness (or lack thereof – Ed.) of our journalism. 

I did look at it again, Williams.  And it reads the same way now as it did the first time I read it: your fellow reporter is not objective when it comes to Barry O.  Nope…no liberal media bias!

January 9, 2008 Posted by | media bias, Obama | Leave a Comment

Bubba not sold on “Obamania”

According to Hot Air, the Clenis called Obama’s current folk hero status “the biggest fairly tale I’ve ever seen”!  That’s odd, since I thought Barney Frank had the biggest fairy’s tail one had ever seen.

Hmm?  Oh, sorry…he said “fairy tale“, didn’t he?  My bad.

January 9, 2008 Posted by | Bill Clinton, Obama | 1 Comment

DUI driver is a Moron…literally!

Here’s your non-political post of the day.  From FNC:

Bryan Scott Moron, 20, of Burleson, Texas, was arrested Friday after he lost control of his truck and struck a mailbox, then a house, MyFOXDFW.com reports.

Living up to his surname, Moron failed sobriety tests, the station said. The arrest report showed his blood alcohol level to be more than twice the legal limit.

I occasionally get comments and e-mails from morons, but I’ve yet to receive a comment or e-mail from a Moron. :-D

January 9, 2008 Posted by | non-political | Leave a Comment

NH polling fiasco

Every poll out there had Obama defeating Shrillary in New Hampshire by double-digits.  Yet the Hildebeast eked out a 3% victory.  “Recount!  Recount!”  :-D

For those of you on the left who attribute the discrepancy between the 2004 election’s exit polls and the actual vote tallies to “vote fraud” and a “stolen election”, here’s a sobering tip for you: polls are actually wrong sometimes!  From ABC News:

There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.

But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened – about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen – a convenient foil for pollsters who’d rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities – such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.
…
On the other hand, the pre-election polls in the New Hampshire Republican race were accurate. The problem was isolated to the Democratic side – where, it should be noted, we have not just one groundbreaking candidate in Barack Obama, but also another, in Hillary Clinton.
…
In the end there may be no smoking gun. Those polls may have been accurate, but done in by a superior get-out-the-vote effort, or by very late deciders whose motivations may or may not ever be known. They may have been inaccurate because of bad modeling, compromised sampling, or simply an overabundance of enthusiasm for Obama on the heels of his Iowa victory that led his would-be supporters to overstate their propensity to turn out. (A function, perhaps, of youth.)  

So unless you lefties are prepared to argue that your side commits vote fraud (after all, how could the NH polls have been so wildly different from the actual results and only on the Democrats’ side?), how’s about you knock off the asshat conspiracy theories about 2000 and 2004, hmmmm?

January 9, 2008 Posted by | Hillary, moonbats, Obama, polls, vote fraud | 9 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers