I guess if you can't stand behind your record, or your promises, or your convictions... you can at least smear someone who has nothing to do with anything relevant to your campaign!

Yeah. Pretty pathetic. Though, in all honesty, "pretty pathetic" would actually be a step up for Democrats this election season.

Come Wednesday

Feel no pity, no remorse. Moe Lane gives a few reasons why:
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate African-Americans.
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate Latinos.
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate gays.
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate women.
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate Jews.
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate Muslims.
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate the poor.
  • These people told their clients to say that you hate America.
Shall I continue?
  • These people told their clients to say that you were fascists.
  • These people told their clients to say that you were theocrats.
  • These people told their clients to say that you were stupid.
  • These people told their clients to say that you were uneducated.
  • These people told their clients to say that you were hatemongers.
  • These people told their clients to say that you were insane.
  • These people told their clients to say that you were violent extremists.
I can keep this going for quite a while, you know.
  • These people told their clients to call you unpatriotic.
  • These people told their clients to call you cowards.
  • These people told their clients to mock you at every opportunity.
  • These people told their clients to deliberately use a sexual slur when referring to you.
  • These people told their clients to trivialize and dismiss your concerns at every opportunity.
And now these professional Democrats are sad because they’re going to lose. Well, they deserve to lose. Because they’re bad people.

John Kerry's got a burr under his saddle

Kerry voices frustration with US political scene:

During his 45-minute speech, Kerry urged business leaders to support thoughtful candidates. And he urged voters to reject the ones who ignore facts.

Oh. we are, John. We are.

Take the time to read some of the comments on the article. Of course, you have to account for the source - these are from folks who live in a known hotbed of radical conservatism: Boston, MA.

"The electorate has a problem, its you, Senator Kerry."

"Talk about out of touch. According to Kerry, we citizens are too dumb to know how good these elitist politicians are for us."

"18 months after the Democrats took the reigns in both the Senate and House everything went into the toilet. "

"kerry has taken arrogance to a whole new level."

"I really wish Kerry was up for reelection this year."

Unintentional Bias

Though I haven't seen as much of it recently, the last election cycle had a lot of folks online pointing to PolitiFacts as an unbiased review of the claims and statements made by various politicians.

Frankly, I never liked the site very much - the few times I checked out some of their commentaries, I ran into obvious word-games and distortions. Nothing blatant, but they always seemed willing to give the benefit of the doubt to more liberal candidates, and more willing to hold conservative's feet to the fire. Much like the writers at do - if it's an article debuking Bigfoot's alien love affair, then I can be pretty sure I'm getting the straight scoop. Let politics enter the discussion, though, and you immediately have a 5-page deconstructionist analysis of why Hillary didn't really mean what she said.

So it comes as no surprise to see that bias again. What is interesting this time around is that it's been ferreted out and documented. For example:

In these latest examples the circumstances are virtually identical -- both candidates voted against a law they generally supported because the laws were overly broad and would have unintended consequences -- but the ratings applied are much more favorable to [the Democratic candidate].

Different editors, bad standards... or just an unintentional bias? Oh, well. I guess it's just another unrelated incident - completely coincidental, don't you know! Obviously the overwhelmingly right-wing media in the country are just trying too hard to overcompensate for their well-known favoritism of right-wing politicians.

Credit where credit is due...

For once, I can say that I absolutely agree with Nancy Pelosi:
Democrats haven't necessarily gotten the credit they're due for the work they've done the last two years, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.
Indeed, Madam Speaker.

Because if you did get the credit you're rightfully due, you and yours would have been thrown out of office by now. It's been some time coming, but we've got your "credit" wrapped and ready for delivery. Keep an eye out - it should be showing up November 2nd.

R.I.P, Freedom of Association

At least in Michigan.
A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that."
Words fail me. Oh, wait - no, they don't.


The 2010 Election Cycle, Cystallized

Via Red State - loved their commentary on this video.

Hammer, Meet Nail

William A. Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection hits the nail on the head. Mara Liasson is an NPR reporter, who, like Juan Williams, also appears on Fox. A blogger for Media Matters commented on this vile situation:
I'm just saying that if you look at NPR's code of ethics, there's simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox.
As Mr. Jacobson points out:
Notice something interesting.

No conservatives are trying to prevent people from appearing on NPR, but liberal interest groups and their media outlets are trying to prevent people from appearing on Fox News.
Yeah. Funny how that works out, eh?

Never ascribe to malice...

... that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

At least, until such point as you reach malicious stupidity.

Maybe there's a good reason why two-thirds of Americans no longer think they can believe what they hear from the media.

Nah. They must just be bitter clingers who don't understand the essential truthiness the media is conveying.

Let the purges begin!

Legal Insurrection on NPR's firing of Juan Williams.

Media Matters Comes Out of the Closet

Via Legal Insurrection:
Media Matters, the liberal activist group that wages a rhetorical war against Fox News Channel and others in the conservative press, will announce on Wednesday the receipt of a $1 million donation from the philanthropist George Soros.
Yeah. What was that recently about millions of dollars flooding into former and current political races from big business? Oh, well, Soros is different, I'm sure. Just like the SEUI is different. For any number of incredibly good (yet incredibly vague) reasons.

The American progressive left - elevating hypocrisy to an art form.

More Support For The Time Travel Theory of Modern Leftists

Oh, man. That Sarah Palin! Such an idiot!

Except, you know, when she's not.

Gotta hurt when the woman you ridicule as a know-nothing political hack has a better grasp of American history than you do.

Then again, given the learned ignorance of the "progressive" media, your average 5th grader is a stellar vision of political acumen in comparison.

A Proposal That Fits The Known Facts

Over at Dispatches From TJICistan is a clip of a government official talking about the expense of a $500 million light rail line in Detroit. At about 3:32, state representative Marie Donigan says:
“So we have a limited pool of money, is that what you’re saying? There’s only so much money ever? Well, obviously that’s not true!”
In the last month or so, there's been a marked increase in the number of... less than insightful statements like this one from Democratic leadership. In pondering this state of affairs, I can only come to one logical conclusion.

Obviously, the current crop of Democrats in local, state, and Federal government are sleeper agents.

No, not communist sleeper agents - that's so 1950's. Instead, I think that they are time traveling sleeper agents. They have come here from the future - a bright, happy, well-adjusted future where liberty and freedom are celebrated, where poverty and crime are aberrations instead of the norm. A future that was founded in the collapse of the still-born "statist revolution" in the US when the Democratic party imploded as a result of the 2010 midterm elections.

So they're here, at this pivotal time in history, to make sure that their future is preserved. How better to do that than by making sure that their operatives - now placed at every level of government - do what they've been trained and waiting to do all their lives?

Yes - in this election season; every unbelievable, upside-down statement from a Democrat that is seemingly willfully ignorant of the basic facts of life? That's a time-traveling libertarian from the future, opening their mouth and inserting their foot up to the knee. All for the cause of freedom.

Well, either that, or your average "progressive" Democrat is a drooling idiot barely capable of tying their own shoes.

Either one fits the facts, really.

The "Jews in the attic" test

Joe Huffman describes his test for laws that restrict freedom, asking: "Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?"

Ann always leaves the best for last

Via Ann Althouse, who has a lot of criticism for the President's answer to a question about DADT. What really caught my attention was a comment at the end of the post, though, where se quotes a comment made during the Q&A session:
"But I do have an obligation..."
Oh? And what, pray tell, Mr. President, is that obligation?
"... to make sure that I’m following some of the rules."
Note that.

Not "... to make sure that I'm following the rules." Apparently, there are rules that you don't have to follow. Well, no - I'm sure that you and I will have to follow them. Not following all of the rules is just something that the special people apparently get to do.


Bliss? Or Malice?

Via An NC Gun Blog : "Why ignorant people should never make law".

Though I have to disagree with the author. I don't believe that his opponent in this mini-debate was ignorant. I think that the vast-majority of "professional" gun control advocates are, in fact, well aware of the facts they mis-represent and mis-apply.

In other words, they know the truth - and they choose to lie.