For whatever reason, the YouTube user who uploaded this CNN video isn't allowing embedding, so you'll have to watch it at YouTube.

Blitzer excerpts Soros's book, noting where he compares President Bush to Nazis. It didn't take a genius to make Soros look like an idiot over this comparison, so Wolf "So poor, and so black" Blitzer was up to the task. While Soros started out defending his iditotic comparison, he later admits to maybe going "too far". Which is a bad enough excuse when you "misspoke", but come on, this is a book you would certainly have thought about before you had it printed up. Then he later says maybe he should have kept it to himself. No, if that's what you think, by all means say it, but expect to be called an idiot... idiot.

Anyway, big deal, Soros compared Bush to Nazis... what Democrat hasn't, right? I agree, it's not that big of a deal. What I find interesting, is that he bases his conclusion on the old "politics of fear" talking point. You know "Bush is playing the politics of fear", meaning he's trying to make us feel unsafe so that we vote GOP because they traditionally get the national security vote. My question to you is this: Who's really playing the politics of fear?

I can't count the times, over the past few days, weeks, months and years that I've heard Democrats say "We are less safe" because of Iraq, or any number of the President's other policies. "We are less safe" is to 2006 what "Bush misled us" was to 2004. But saying "We are less safe" is the picture of politics of fear is it not? Please tell me where I'm going wrong if you think I am, though I have a feeling this is just par for the liberal hypocrisy course.

The best defense I can see someone offering is "but they are speaking the truth, because we are less safe". But the fact is, that is a matter of opinion. I would, and the president would, argue that what he's saying is true and necessary too. But regardless of basis in reality, saying "we are less safe" is about as political as you can get. Go ahead, check out this news search, I'm not exaggerating at how big of a DNC talking point this has become.

 

*UPDATE 9/17/06 10:45PM - AllahPundit reports that the Bush Assassination movie has won a prize for revealing a "larger truth". AP has also taken note of Hillary's repudiation of the movie.*

(h/t Drudge)

I may not like anything else about Hillary, but at least she had the sense to say this about the ridiculous Bush assassination movie.

"I think it's despicable," Clinton said of "Death of a President," a fictional film that features a staged assassination of the president in 2007. "I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."

I almost hesitate to criticize her because I'm glad to see those comments, but this wouldn't be RightWinged.com if I didn't. This isn't Hillary bashing by any means, but I wonder why we're only hearing this reply now. Certainly she's been asked about her opinion of the film before this? This was almost becoming old news already.

The only other criticism isn't directed at her, but at the rest of the Democrats in Washington. Shouldn't they have the balls to make a statement on this? Is that their job? No. But they sure want to run their mouths about plenty of other things that aren't their jobs either, and they are all about demanding apologies, etc. Hell, just last week they threatened ABC and ABC caved and edited their film. Did they belong in that arena either? No. The point is, if they are going to come out talking about that movie and other pop culture topics, and Harry Reid is going to quote Olberman, couldn't they at least condemn the Bush assassination film?

Anyway, the Hillary love fest is over. Good job here Hillary, but don't expect me to be complimenting you again any time soon. I mean, me, someone who votes for the Congressional "Plantation" owners needn't compliment you, part of the "slave" party. "And you know what I'm talkin' about".

 

***UPDATE - Fonda and Friends delusional, start their own network. Why do they think they have a shot?***

***UPDATE - Brian Maloney the blogosphere's anti-Air America guru has all the details.

***UPDATE - AAR Denies. Sounds to me like they are on the verge of having no other option but bankruptcy, if no one buys up their assests.

While Malkin doesn't have a post up on this yet, she has been following the failures of liberal radio network "Air America" since the beginning, so I'm sure she'll have something to say later. Anyway, hat tip to Malkin's associate AllahPundit for pointing me to this story/spin job by Think Progress. Bad boyz for life... can't stop, won't stop...

NRO mocks here:

Wanting to make sure that no one thinks a bankruptcy declaration by Air America would be bad news, ThinkProgress adds:

The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country’s most successful and widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts — Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance — aren’t even associated with Air America.

Radio giant Clear Channel is so committed to progressive talk radio that, this week, it will announce a partnership with the Center for American Progress, Jones Radio, and MSS Inc., to conduct a nationwide search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star.

Pathetic. I can some up my feeling on this with a monologue from Joe Dirt character "Robby", played by Kid Rock:

"Don't get smart with me, you motherless dirtbag. You've been here long enough. Nobody wants you in this town. Nobody wants you around, period! (Joe Dirts begins to run away) Aw, look at him, fellas.…You cryin', boy? You cryin', boy? Maybe you should go back down to McDonald's and get yourself a whine burger and some french cries. How 'bout a 'Whine-a-ken?' You little sissy boy. Def Leppard sucks!"

*UPDATE*
As was predicted, Malkin is all over it and includes a long link list of her previous coverage which I see as some deserved gloating. Malkin has hammered the NY Times' coverage of Air America since the beginning, and is still waiting for them to get with the program:

First question: Will the New York Times fiiiiinally get around to covering this story? Hmmm?

You might recall that the Times, obviously friendly with the views of Air America, wrote glowing pieces on them even though they've continued to tank almost since they day they launched. The Times has been noticably absent in reporting on AA's continued and worsening failures.

Others:
Wizbang, Sensible Mom, Texas Rainmaker, Appalachian Scribe, Considerettes, Macsmind, The World According to Carl, American Princess

 

Hopefully he'll rethink making a total ass out of himself.

Moscow -- U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, who surprised many with the patriotic flavour of his new film World Trade Center, hinted in Moscow yesterday that he is considering a more controversial follow-up investigating the "conspiracy" around 9/11.

"There is a great story in a movie, a conspiracy by a group of people in the American administration who have an agenda and who used 9/11 to further that agenda," he told journalists in Russia.

There could be a "fascinating project [on] what happened after Sept. 11," the director said at his packed press conference on the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Stone accused U.S. President George W. Bush of mishandling the fight against Osama bin Laden's militants and using the crisis to stoke fear and bolster his own power at home in a way that was "right out of George Orwell." AFP

Sounds like he may be willing to go with this, simply because it's an "interesting story". Yes, that would be a good story and movie, but not based around real events. These conspiracy theories are thoroughly debunked, and for Stone to make a movie around the real events would be disgraceful and I'm not sure he's prepared for the backlash.

In related news, HotAir has 4-part video of the debunkers at Popular Mechanics and authors of Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, debating the Loose Change children. While the Loose Change truthers come off like the assclowns that they are, I really don't think the PM guys did as good of a job as they could have done, but I think that has a lot to do with time constraints.

And just so none of you "Truthers" out there can claim ignorance because you couldn't find the abundance of debunking information, here's the goods (although there's plenty more where this came from)

First the "Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again Edition" Video runs through point by point each ridiculous claim made in Loose Change "Second Edition"
Then we have the viewer guide to watch LC Second Edition. And if that's not enough debunking for you, I highly recommend reading this thorough debunking specific to the Pentagon portion of the conspiracy theories.

 

By now you've seen the headlines: Senate: No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties. What the media isn't telling you is that THIS IS A LIE! Saddam DID have ties to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Yahoo! has been running a link to the story on their home page all day, and virtually all other news sites and television programs have been repeating this "new finding" all day in an attempt to continue the "Bush lied" claim. Aside from the fact that this story is, as Tony Snow and others have said "nothing new", the "conclusion" is A FLAT OUT LIE! This report that concludes no connection was specifically about Zarqawi, and his lack of ties to Saddam. Not about Al Qaeda in general. So virtually every headline you've seen is A LIE, because Saddam DID HAVE TIES to Al Qaeda, but I can't blame you for not knowing. The media has done a great job of ignoring the story.

Do you remember a few months ago, the push by a few GOP congressman to release some of the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured in Iraq? We got a slow trickle of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the documents, but even they revealed quite a bit, that was quickly burried by the media. While I still want to know when we'll get access to the rest of those documents, I'll set that aside for the moment, as this post is about Saddam's Al Qaeda ties.

Via ABC News March 23, 2006:

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

and

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I've left in ABC's "editor's notes". Regardless of their personal take and editor's notes, doesn't this information deserve mentioning in these LYING articles that claim to prove no connection, that are only based on no Zarqawi/Saddam connection? Of course that's not even getting in to any of this.

Bottom line? You've been lied to by the media...... AGAIN!

 

If you've actually been paying attention to the U.S. economy under the Bush administration, you're aware that it's been nothing short of great for most of the Bush administrations time in office, since troubles from the Clinton-Gore recession and 9/11. While all sectors of real estate were hitting record levels month after month for years under Bush, the necessary slow-down has begun and the media has been rushing to spell doom for the economy through alarmist headlines, and spun articles. They were even doing this during continual record growth over the past two and three years, insisting a "crash" was imminent, but as predicted by any realisting non-BDS suffering economist, we're experiencing a necessary and healthy slowdown, particularly as the fed raises interest rates to slow inflation.

But the housing sector doesn't even scratch the surface of the media lies that are leaving most people giving negative numbers on the economy, while giving positive numbers to their own situation. I love these numbers because they prove that people are being lied to or they wouldn't think that their own positive situation was a fluke, while knocking the economy as a whole. The major problem with all of this, is that a recent Fox News poll shows that the economy is the number 1 issue on voters' minds as the midterm elections approach. Let's take a closer look at the numbers and the lies.

The jobs numbers are out today, showing that another 128,000 jobs were created last month, which brings us to more than 5.5 million jobs created in the last 3 years! This also brought the unemployment rate back down to 4.7%, from the slight increase to 4.8% in the previous month. Even if the number had stayed at 4.8, it would have still been great and lower than the average of the 70s, 80s and 90s! Better still, wages grew faster than inflation.

I do have to say that this is probably the most fair AP story I've read on the economy in recent months, though you can still sense that they're looking for something negative to print, just not as hard as usual:

The tally of new jobs last month was slightly stronger than the 125,000 that economists were forecasting. The nation's unemployment rate dropped down a notch from a five-month high of 4.8 percent in July. Job gains for June and July also turned out to be better than previously estimated. In June, employers boosted payrolls by 134,000 positions and in July they added another 121,000.

See, what is the point of that "five-month high" line? An average reader sees "unemployment was at a high", they don't know that 4.8 is still a historically low unemployment rate and barely up from the previous months which obvioiusly were also historically low, especially in an economy after the recession, 9/11, expensive wars, the New Orleans situation (that I refuse to call "Katrina"). This leaves the impression that the drop to 4.7 was some sort of fluke, when in fact it's part of the low unemployment trend. But as I said, this AP article was much more fair than most, and this is a minor offense. I do have to give them credit for including this:

Workers' average hourly earnings edged up to $16.79 in August, a 0.1 percent increase from July. Economists were forecasting a bigger, 0.3 percent advance. While workers welcome strong wage growth, economists worry that a rapid and prolonged pickup in wages can ignite inflation fears.

Over the 12 months ending August, wages grew by a strong 3.9 percent. The last time this figure was higher was in June 2001.

Oddly "Consumer Confidence" dropped, but "Consumer Spending" rose. I'm not an economist, but those two numbers would seem to contradict eachother. More importantly, I've isolated a flat out AFP lie in the short article on consumer spending growth. The whole article follows:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US consumer spending has rallied strongly in July but incomes fell, according to the government.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that personal spending rose 0.8 percent last month, after going up 0.4 percent in June. It was the fastest pace of spending since January.

Personal incomes rose 0.5 percent, a slower pace than June's increase of 0.6 percent.

Both releases were in line with Wall Street forecasts.

I hope I don't need to spell that out for you, but on the assumption a liberal might be reading this... The very first sentence says that income FELL. But by the time you get to the third paragraph you learn that it simply GREW at a slightly slower rate, but didn't fall by any means. This is one of those situations where you libs can't spin this. That first line is a lie any way you slice it.

Still with me? I'm just laying the groundwork, because the poll responses are when the issue will really sink in, so hang in there. So far we know GDP and job growth continue to be strong, the unemployment rate remains historically low, wages are increasing, etc. etc. But as you're about to see, the public continues to be very down on the economy. Of course the liberal response is "the growth only helps the rich, and the economy is bad for the average person". Well, as I've done for months (see here, here, and here), I'm about to do a preemptive strike on those sort of responses, because the fact is that most people ARE happy with their own financial situation. (All numbers that follow via American Research Group, Inc.)

First I always like to start with the biggest proof that the public is being lied to about the economy: the recession question. Consistently only about half of the country knows that we are NOT in a recession, the other half either believes that we are or is undecided. For starters there shouldn't be "undecided" because recession is an absolute, either we are or we aren't, it's not an opinion.. And the fact is WE AREN'T. Here are the numbers:

How can only half of the country not know that we aren't in a recession? The only logical conclusion is that they are getting bad information, and where do they get their information? The news media! How can 28% be so stupid to think that we are in recession, and another 22% be unsure about something that isn't an opinion question!? How!?

Before I get to the public's view of their own financial situation, here's their opinion of the economy:

Ouch! 55% see the economy either bad, very bad, or terrible, while only 44% see it as good, very good, or excellent. As bad as that is, it's actually a sharp jump from July's numbers where 68% rated the economy in the negative columns, and only 31% positively, but it still doesn't jibe with the personal situation numbers:

Whoa! 68% of the public is happy with their own financial situation, while only 31% aren't!!! Again, how do you explain this discrepency, without concluding that the public has been lied to, leaving them with the impression that they are the lucky flukes in an economy in the crapper. It probably doesn't help that virtually everytime positive economic numbers are reported, it's always with words like "unexpected" or "surprising", again leaving people with the impression the growth is out of the ordinary, while the numbers show the economy has been booming, and only in recent months has it even begun the necessary slow down to maintanable levels that won't cause inflation to go out of control.

Like with all lying liberal media issues, the big problem is that their lies (obviously) affect public opinion, and public opinion dictates how the public votes. We've got an extremely important election coming up in which the public puts the economy above terror and Iraq on their "what is important to me" scale, an economy they have a negative opinion about, because they were lied to. This of course carries across all things from national security to wars to immigration, but this is the easiest example to lay out with irrefutable facts. Please, tell your liberal friends that any financial upturn they've had isn't luck and they aren't in the minority. Or you could just wait for speaker Pelosi to come in and waste our time and money with a series of pointless investigations.

Oh, and suck on this White House summary:

On August 4, 2006, The Government Released New Jobs Figures – 113,000 Jobs Created In July. The economy has created more than 1.7 million jobs over the past 12 months – and more than 5.5 million jobs since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.8 percent – below the average of each of the past three decades. In addition, wages grew 0.4 percent in July, the second consecutive month of strong wage growth and faster than inflation.

The Economy Remains Strong, And The Outlook Is Favorable

• Employment Increased In 47 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In June.
• Real GDP Grew A Strong 3.5 Percent Over The Past 4 Quarters.
• Productivity Has Grown At A Strong 3.5 Percent Annual Rate Since The First Quarter Of 2001. Productivity growth during the past five years has been at the fastest rate in nearly four decades.
• Real After-Tax Income Has Risen By 13.5 Percent Since January 2001.
• Industrial Production Increased 4.5 Percent Over The Past 12 Months.
• Manufacturing Production Has Risen 5.7 Percent Over The Past 12 Months. Manufacturing productivity has grown 4 percent over the past four quarters, faster than the 3.7 percent average growth in the 1990s.
• Strong Growth Is Helping Raise More Tax Revenues For The Federal And State Governments. In 2005, Federal tax revenues grew by $274 billion, the largest increase in 24 years, and State tax revenues are up substantially in 2006.

 

Conservative bloggers promoted the rally Christopher Hitchens held in support of Denmark over the Muhammad cartoons this past winter. This was obviously a good cause, and worth noting. But when this happened, and I saw video of the rally at some blogs, I couldn't help but think I recognized Hitchens. Both his face and name seemed familiar, but I was placing him as someone I remembered taking a whacked out liberal position on something on H&C or O'Reilly a year or so earlier. I didn't put a whole lot of thought in to it though, assuming I was just remembering incorrectly.

Well now I know it was the same Hitchens, because Mr. Hitchens just played a major role in bringing down the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. As a plaintiff in the case he's as guilty as the a-hole judge for putting us at greater risk. Yes I know, the program remains active at the moment and the ruling is being appealed, but that's not the point. The point is Hitchens actively fought against this program. One could argue that he's an independant thinker, which may be true, but that's not the point either. The point is that this man fought against what is quite possibly one of the most important tools we have in the war on terror.

All I really want to say is that any of those Republican voters who plan to protest weak immigration policy by not voting to "send a message" in November, need to look at this Hitchens. If you weren't familiar with him, as I was not, you might have some idea that he's a conservative like the rest of us if you simply heard about the Sammenhold rally. This isn't like a Lieberman situation where I am wanting to push him out because of one decision, because he was never "in". He's not at all a consrvative and as I think back I know I've seen him in numerous debates take extreme left positions and angrily defend them.

Last quick point about Hitchens. He's an arrogant prick. He was on Fox & Friends debating the NSA situation a couple mornings ago and when Brian Kilmeade asked him a question and addressed him as "Chris", he got all pissy and sternly corrected him "my name is Christopher!" Grow up guy. And please stop fighting against our country by taking away the most necessary tools we have to defend it.

 

*Note - I originally read the poll wrong and gave the Dems to much credit myself, only stating that 40% of them hated America. Thanks to eagle eyed Milblogger Cpl M of A Soldier's Perspective, who emailed to notify me of my obvious mistake I made while sleep blogging this. So to be clear Dems, this is an even worse number for you, not better. My mistake didn't assist my case, the correct number does

Do I have your attention? You're probably asking yourself, "how could Dems actually flat out admit such a thing?" Well, they basically did, just not in those exact words. In the most recent Fox News poll, question #10 was asked:

10. Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not? SCALE: 1. Yes, want him to succeed 2. No, do not want him to succeed 3. (Don’t know)

You would think that everyone, even people that hate him, would say "Of course we want him to succeed. He's the President of my country, and a failure for him is a failure for my country." Well, you're giving Democrats WAY to much credit:

If you didn't catch that, 51% of Democrats don't want the President to succeed! I don't know where those 7% of Republicans that gave the same idiotic response came from, and disecting "independents" would be a waste of time. The point is that more than half of all Democrats want President Bush to fail, meaning they want America to fail.

Preemptive Strike
Before libs get on here and say "We didn't say we hate America or want it to fail, we are saying we don't support his policies". Sorry, that's not going to fly because that's not what the poll question asked. It asked simply if they wanted him to succeed. Now even if I were to grant you your spin that this is about Bush's policies, it's still appalling that you would hope that they failed and my point still stands. Suppose you argue that you don't want him to succeed because he's at war in Iraq. So your argument is then that you want us to lose in Iraq? See, it's not any better.

Again, that's not the point. The point is the question wasn't about policy, it was about the president succeeding. Basically what the question means is when you look back 20 years or 100 year from now or whenever, whether you would like President Bush's presidency to have been a success or a failure (the way we look at Carter's now). Of course you'll accuse me of trying to spin what the question said, but I'm not. It's quite simple, do you want him to succeed, i.e. do you want his presidency to be a success. 51% of you Dems have said no, and it's that simple.

 

(h/t Drudge)

As if having Howard Dean as DNC chairman wasn't evidence enough of how far the Democratic Party has gone, the good doctor has scheduled a (for the people) $10,000/plate fund raiser at the estate of none other than extreme leftist George Soros:

This year's Hamptons political schedule is unusually hectic for a nonpresidential election year. Last weekend, Attorney General and gubernatorial front-runner Eliot Spitzer held a trio of fundraisers in the Hamptons. On Aug. 19, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean hosts a $10,000-per-guest fundraiser at the Southampton estate of financier George Soros.

At least they kept it at an affordable level. You know, because Democrats are all about the little guys, right? But Soros!?

All of us on the right and even some moderate Democrats have hammered the Democratic Party for going so far left in recent years, yet many elected Democrats insist that this is not the case. We often say that the party has been "hijacked" and that the party's control now belongs to the most extreme of liberals. Again, Democrats deny this. But WTF do you say when your extreme left party chairman hosts a $10,000 a plate dinner at Soros's?

I doubt we'll ever see any elected Democrats asked about this, but I suspect they'll respond the way the do everytime they're asked about insane rantings of Dean: "He doesn't speak for the party" (while ignoring that HE DOES SPEAK FOR THE PARTY, that's why he's the fricken chairman!)

Anyway, for all the Dems out there. This is what your party has become. A party of haters and obstructors who don't have a single plan for anything but to attack you if you don't hate George Bush with every bone in your body. You've certainly seen what happened to Joe Lieberman, simply because he has the balls to stand behind his previous statements and position on the war, and not change his mind with each opinion poll that comes out. By the way, the number of idiots in America has grown, and now a third of the country believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories. A few more points on these polls, and I predict we'll see many Democratic politicians jump on board.

 

Michael Moore is obviously one of the biggest pieces of trash the planet has ever seen, so this post isn't a debate about his idiotic politics. It's more of a "look what he said" mocking type of post, much like many of my Howard Dean posts. It's just to put the idiocy on display, because you probably missed it in the MSM.

Reuters reports that Michael Moore is claiming that he's getting more and more Republicans followers. He insists that GOPers are buying his crap, and essentially joining his team.

"If you were to hang out with me here it won't be five or 10 minutes before you see a Republican hug me. That is almost as entertaining as some of the films," Moore said in an interview.

"That's the shift that I'm seeing in the past year or so in the country, and as it relates to me," he said.

Hug you?! I think you're misunderstanding Mr. Moore. Those men are security. They're seaching you for weapons/bombs you idiot. You're probably on every terror watch list on the planet.

Now for the best part of the article:

"Look up the definition of liberal. We hug trees. We hug each other. We hug people of the same sex and want to marry each other," Moore said. "It's the other side that we need to get to hold their arms out a little bit and coochey-coo."

There you have it folks. MIchael Moore has come out of the closet. He said we, about himself and other liberals, want to marry people of the same sex. Perhaps you'll be one of Saddam's 72 virgins when you two reach the promised land. He certainly owes you a serious debt of gratitude for all the lying you've done on his behalf, and I think a little "coochey-coo" is probably a good start.

Quick throw-back... Did that remind anyone else of the time that Howard Dean accused President Bush of playing "hide the salami" with Harriet Miers?

 

Liberals searching for 'Bush lied people died t-shirts' are undoubtedly a little upset to find a post this blog, RIGHTWINGED.COM, as the number one search result! Suckas!

The post title, (heavy sarcasm on the "liberal compassion" part) is: Liberal Compassion: Selling "Bush Lied, They Died" T-Shirts With Soldier's Names

(Pretend to hear me doing an exaggerated evil laugh right here... Picture Dr. Evil in Austin Powers.)

 

This clown never ceases to amaze me:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart.

Dean called President Bush "the most divisive president probably in our history."

I'm sorry, but aren't you the same DNC chairman who just last week said that if Democrats were in power, the current Middle East crisis wouldn't be happening, shortly before your party's last presidential candidate, John Kerry, said it wouldn't have happened if he were president?

Are you not the same Howard Dean who has said the following:

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people,"

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote?" he asked.

"Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

To name a few... Read more Deanisms here, but even that is just a small sampling.

Anyway, such inclusive rhetoric, huh? Pay particularly close attention to that last one. He's not talking about politicians, he's talking about you and me. I don't even want to turn this in to a study of what political party most trust fund babies associate themselves with, so I'll just let you make what you will of that glimpse in to the brain of Mr. Uniter.

Dean decided to take his newfound uniting abilities further today:

"He's always talking about those people. It's always somebody else's fault. It's the gays' fault. It's the immigrants' fault. It's the liberals' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's Hollywood people," Dean said. "Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country."

First of all, come up with a plan and stop whining about the President, but more importantly, please explain what the hell you're talking about!? When does President Bush ever stand around blaming people? When has he said or even hinted that "It" (whatever that means) is the fault of "gays, immigrants, or Hollywood"? Of course Bush has criticized opponents for their stance and votes on particular things. Like if the Dems filibuster, then "it" is their fault. But I'm just stunned, once again, at what an idiot Dean is. Please give us one example of Bush blaming gays, immigrants, and Hollywood for something.. I'm begging you!

"For too long, we have allowed the Republican Party to give the message about what the Democratic Party is about to the voters," he said to thunderous applause. "That is over with."

How many times are you and other memberes of your party going to keep us on the edge of our seats waiting for you to define yourselves. Spill the beans already. The Democratic plans and positions on any issue are more illusive than Saddam's WMDs. At least we've found some of them.

He said party supporters would contract two million people across the country on Saturday to ask them for their votes.

"We're going door-to-door. We're going to picnics," Dean said. "Television ads are not enough. You need to knock on doors. You need to knock on every door. You need to personally deliver the message."

Look Doctor De.., can I call you Yogi? Look Yogi, we don't need you coming to our picnics we don't need you knocking on our doors, if you have something to say, virtually all of the media is in your pocket and waiting to give you free promotion.

I'm actually sad to see him still pushing this "knock on doors" campaign, because it is going to end his career as DNC chairman, and it's nice to have him around to hand elections to the GOP. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine dates George's childhood neighbor Lloyd Braun who happens to be an advisor to Mayor Dinkins (of NYC). Elaine says that she thinks everyone in the city should wear name tags to make it more friendly. Braun recommends this to Dinkins, they go public with the plan and it costs them the election. Braun was obviously fired and wound up in a mental hospital. I think we can agree that in reality Dean should probably take a shortcut to the looney bin right now, but as long as he's around it's only good news for the Republicans.

In keeping with his uniting and civility, Dean thought it would be a good idea to call Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "Anti-Semite" (more at Expose the Left and Texas Rainmaker). And just in case we still didn't realize what a rational and civil guy he was, Dean put the nail in the coffin by comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin. (Expose the Left has the audio)

You know, whenever I post on crazy Dean statements, I have to pause and wonder if it's a joke. Seriously, I really sit here sometimes just wondering - "Could he really have said that?" Well, I guess if somehow Air America survives, Dean will have a job when the DNC dumps him for his pathetic job as party chair. The irresponsibility and hatred that come out of his mouth are run of the mill over there, and I can't see him fitting in better anywhere else.

 

(h/t Drudge)

I suppose the positive side of this is that the Oklahoma legislator did the right thing here, but it doesn't really seem like it matters because this rectum lives in Arizona and says he's going to keep selling this garbage. I think he should add to the shirts, so that they read: Bush lied, people died, and I cashed in!"

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

Don't you love the "compassionate left"? Not to be overshadowed the ACLU decided to defend the indefensible (should be a DNC slogan) by taking up the side of the pyscho church that shows up at the funerals of our troops with signs and shouts about how they are dying because they are fighting for "gay" America. Don't get me wrong, you know I don't approve of "homosexuality" (or even using that word that seems to legitimize it as a real thing), but I don't "hate" them, but I do hate these pieces of trash that show up to dishonor these brave men and women at their funerals. And I really hate the ACLU who does everything they can to attack Christianity, then waits until some group of idiots claiming to be Christians comes out to dishonor fallen soldiers to take up their side. (h/t Expose the Left, who extends an h/t to Stop the ACLU)

*UPDATE*
I in my talk about the "left" above, as it pertains to the funeral protests, I was specifically talking about the ACLU, but as I learned from a commenter at Expose the Left and quickly confirmed with a seach, these nutjobs ARE DEMOCRATS TOO, have ties to Al Gore, and their leader has even made numerous failed attempts to run for Governor of Kansas..... AS A DEMOCRAT! So when busting your liberal buddies for all of the hate that comes out of their side and they try to throw the Westboro Baptist Church in your face as some extreme right organization... set them straight.

 

Partially cross-posted at Expose the Left

Only a week ago we were mocking Howard Dean for his claim that the current Middle East crisis wouldn't be taking place under Democratic leadership, but it seems the competition for idiot of the month isn't over yet. Former presidential candidate, and senator from Massachusetts John Kerry has named himself the Psychic of the Senate, and made the same odd and unverifiable hypothetical postdiction. I know that's a mouthful, but I can't think of another word, because to simply say "postdiction" would imply that he's pointing to vague claims he made in the past as a prediction of what we now see. So I'm sticking with "unverifiable hypothetical postdiction":

The Detroit News

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

It actually appears that Kerry's claim goes further than even Dean's. Dean essentially just told us that if the party in power had a "D" next to their name that it wouldn't have happened, but superhero Kerry claims that if HE were President, the crisis could have been averted. I think you're getting a little bit big for your botox here Senator.

In my Dean post I said that I wasn't that upset at how over the line it was or even at the media shrugging their shoulders, or even the hypocrisy and selective outrage of Democrats and the media. I was more shocked that anyone (now add Kerry to the list) could make such an idiotic statement. Like I said then:

Why don't you also tell everyone that if Democrats were in power we'd all be millionaires to you clown!?

That may sound like a much wilder claim, but it's not. They are both stupid, as well as totally unverifiable. There is no way to know how much truth there is to either. Maybe I should go on record as saying that due to the "butterfly effect", if the Democrats had won power, some unknown series of events would have led to a comet destroying the planet. Considering the fact that we don't have some sort of Tivo in the real world, we aren't living in one of those lame old books where you choose your own destiny (if you disagree, turn to page Kos), and this isn't a game show where we can "show him what he would have won!", Kerry's actual words and my hypotheticals all reach a level of idiocy most Democrats can only dream of achieving.

I would also briefly like to touch on the media hypocrisy issue again, as I did in the Dean post. Do you all recall when Vice President Cheney (supposedly) Predicted terrorist attacks if John Kerry were elected? Do you recall the outrage from the left, as if Cheney had gone way over some line? Do you recall the media coverage of the latest (at the time) Bush/Cheney "scandal"? If you were alive you certainly caught all of that, but if you were truly paying attention you'd realize that all the outrage was unjustified, when what Cheney did was criticize John Kerry's policies, saying that he would have handled terrorism as a law enforcement issue which could leave us more prone to an attack.

Dr. Dean may be surgical when it comes to putting his foot in his mouth, but Kerry had a decent day when beyond making unprovable "if only" predictions, as Expose the Left tells us, the Senator thought it appropriate to pick on Rush Limbaugh's weight:

Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut.

I suppose this type of discourse is to be expect from the left though, considering their base gets their news from the Daily Show. Some of you might recall that a spokesman for John Kerry actually used the same elementary school tactics when saying that Karl Rove looked like a pig:

"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat," said Kerry spokesman David Wade, "was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison. This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer."

I guess the source is the strangest part of these attacks on personal appearance. Isn't this the same John Kerry that bears a striking resemblence to Frankenstein? The same Kerry that so clearly used (uses?) Botox? The same Kerry that showed up to a Presidential debate so fake tanned out that he looked like a friggin' carrot? The same man who whenever I see his face I expect him to say "Hello Wilbur"? Why the long face Senator (I know played out, but still good). Oh wait, am I a hyporcite for mocking his appearance after deriding him for doing the same? Sorry, but I'm not a sitting United States Senator. There is a different type of behavior to be expected from these people, and they should be above this sort of thing. But I'm not.

*UPDATE*
Others now blogging:
Assorted Babble, Below the Beltway, Blogs for Bush, Captain's Quarters, Conservative Outpost, Cranial Cavity, Don Surber, Expose the Left, GOP Bloggers, HotAir, Moonage Political Webdream, Outside the Beltway, Power Line, Protein Wisdom, Right Wing News, Right Wing Nut House, ScrappleFace, Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Suitably Flip, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Wide Awake Café, Wizbang

... and more:
4 The Little Guy, Atlas Shrugs, Big Dog's Weblog, bRight and Early, California Conservative, Dangerous Dan, Hang Right Politics, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Pirate's Cove, Publius Hamilton, Pundit Guy, Scribal Terror, Stix Blog, Texas Rainmaker, The Nose On Your Face, Theodore's World

 

At the end of my earlier post on today's Israel/Hezbollah events, I mentioned that I'd blog about Howard Dean's latest outburst, so here goes...

You probably already know that as a native Vermonter (and one who just moved back), my favorite whipping boy on the left is Howard Dean. It would be a full time job to really blog on this nut, so I don't always get around to mocking him everytime I'd like to, but I feel today's story demands to be passed along.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, perhaps realizing he hadn't grabbed headlines with any overly idiotic remarks lately and angry at being overshadowed by the Middle Eas