McCain within 1 Point!!!!!! .... oooooor not so much...

In today's episode of "Fun with the Corner" we learn that depressed Republicans will believe anything.

Of course, we know that -- when it involves fake Michelle Obama interviews, tapes, communist party allegiances, Palin qualifications, etc.

But sometimes, even when fact checking requires merely visiting another right-wing website, they just can't help but FAIL!

From today's Cornerino:

Did You See This One?   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

IBD/TIPP Poll - Posted 26 Oct 08-(Obama 44.59%, McCain 43.66%)

I repeat: This presidential election is not over.

Now, regular readers of Fivethirtyeight, Kos and other sites offering polls discussions have noted that IBD/TIPP seems to be a McCain-leaning outlier. Especially since they seem to ridiculously overwiegh McCain-loving under-25-year-olds... to the tune of having that demographic leaning 74%-22% in favor of McCain a few days ago, and even 54%-36% in favor of McCain yesterday.

That flies in the face of everything every other poll has shown of this election, but hey. If you think the youth of America and their YouTube and cell phones are smitten with the message of change by John McCain to a 2-1 advantage, God be with you.

So yeah, IBD-TIPP gives good numbers to the GOP. But that's not the point here. The point is that K-Lo's Obama 44.59%, McCain 43.66%... is pure Fiction.


Today's IBD-TIPP poll, with it's young voters lining up for McCain, finds: 46.5% Obama, 43.3% McCain, 10.1% undecided.

K.Lo amends:

Update/Correction:Mea Culpa: An e-mail:

K-Lo: Careful with that IBD number you posted. IBD's tracking poll for today isn't out yet. My understanding is that someone re-weighted yesterday's IBD number with 2004 turnout percentages. That may be valid and may even be a better predictor than most of the other polls we're seeing but I don't believe it's accurate to suggest those are the actual IBD numbers.
My sloppy Blackberry-posting aside, it still isn't over.

Today's RCP avg: Obama+7.8
Electoral College, no Toss-ups: Obama:375 McCain: 163.

No, K.Lo. It's not over. But it's going to take more than posting randomly fake poll numbers from a poll that's already over-predicting Republican success.

There's more...

Extra Loony Cornerite Taxy Goodness

I've started reading "The Corner" lately. Not sure why. Found this today, and nearly sprayed milk from my nose, despite not actually drinking any milk.

Representation Without Taxation [Cliff May] OK, so we all know that taxation without representation is a form of tyranny. But as Kimberly Strassel and others have been pointing out, "40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes." What if, not implausibly, in the next administration that number rises to 51% or more? At that point, the majority of Americans not paying taxes would elect leaders who decide how much the minority must fork over to the government — to be redistributed to the majority through government programs and services. A majority of American would enjoy representation without taxation. This is probably not a form tyranny that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin et al. envisioned.
Which was followed with this brilliant reply:

Re: Representation Without Taxation   [Andy McCarthy]
Cliff, I actually think it's exactly the form of tyranny the Founders feared.  As an increasingly sizable majority pays no taxes, the minority's representation becomes ever more illusory.  The minority will be taxed, its property rights will be eroded, and it will have no meaningful say in the matter.  A tyrant is a tyrant, whether he's a king or a block-voting majority of dependents.  As Obama and his ACORN friends used to say when he was a community organizer signing up half of Chicago, "It's a power thing."

What a fascinating new way rich Republicans must feel victimized. ACORN, the Obama September Haul, Plumber <strikethrough>Joe</strikethrough> Sam really has them sweating bullets that the unwashed masses might be having undue influence this cycle! Yes, my pretties, they fear, FEAR, that the poor small-donation Dems are taking over the campaign, and by default, the country.

Let's think think this through.

Ridiculousness #1: No longer are the Democrats the "elites," but the party of the tyrannical poor. Do the moneyed elites who run the corner really consider themselves an oppressable minority? Have they finally ceded this point? Awesome!

Ridiculousness #2: The founders believed only land-owners deserved the right to vote. So, in that way, yes, did feel that landowners and the rich deserved a say. Are the Cornerites saying that's the way the constitution (since amended to allow the poor, women and minorities the right to vote) should revert? If so, please explain! Show your work.

Ridiculousness #3: SALES TAX YOU MORONS.

And Joe Klein, weighing in on the McCain tax narrative (not on the ruminations of these bozos,) notes:

Payroll taxes have been increased no fewer than seven times since Reagan was President and, so far as I know, never been cut--but large capital gains and marginal rate cuts, and all sorts of corporate loopholes, have been built into the tax system during that same period--a massive redistribution of wealth toward the wealthy.
Which means that the rich ogliarchs are the ones typically paying less, not the scary hoary throngs of low-wage earners who avoid income tax and are about to take over our republic and force Rich Lowry to clean their bathrooms or something. And aren't these the people the GOP is usually sucking up to around now? Talk about being off message

There's more...

Hope versus Dow

Just a few thoughts looking at today's epic Dow Jones Industrial FAIL:

  • The market fell 500 points today
  • The market fell 375 points yesterday -- nearly 900 points in 2 days.
  • The market has fallen 1500 points in 4 days.
  • The market is down nearly 5,000 points in the last year
  • The market...

...wait, what? 5,000 points in one year?

That's 1/3 of the market's value... in one year?

Christ on a pogostick.

Now, it's impossible to overstate that the Market and the economy are two different things. And frankly, the market may be overperforming the economy still.

The current credit crisis means that in the next few months, we're going to see massive layoffs as payrolls can't be met, massive supply issues as vendors go unpaid. Very few businesses keep enough liquid capital to meet their expenditures during rough times.

Put it another way, if small and medium-sized businesses are the engine of capitalism, credit is the fuel injector.

So, combine these -- businesses unable to borrow. Business worth, as traded on the market, is down 1/3 across the board in a year.

I guess it hadn't really hit me what kind of free fall we were in until I spent some time gazing at the numbers now. But it's uglier than I imagined.

And, to tie this into the election -- I can't be alone in processing this. McCain is toast for a variety of reasons, I've never imagined he'd have lasted this long.

But alot of our faith and trust in the Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are going to be put to the test within minutes of his taking office. I don't know how something like this is turned around -- the banking system in the 1930s was Lincoln Logs compared to the twisted logic pretzels of today's global industry.

In crisis there's always opportunity... but there's little margin for error once Obama takes office. And even a perfect performance by him can be easily lost given the mess he'll be inhereting -- especially since there's only so much even a President and a filibuster-proof congress can do.

I want to believe, as they say. And I have had little doubt since the end of '06 that Obama was best suited to make the best of this bad situation.

But it's hard to have imagined in '06 that this situation was nearly this bad...

There's more...

My Bad Horrible Rovian Nightmare


The lies from the McCain camp would be comical were they not so disturbing. From energy policy to foriegn policy to their very biographies or crowd sizes -- they can't seem to tell the truth. For even Karl Rove, it's enough.


Karl Rove?

See, I'm of the mind that Karl Rove a) isn't nearly as clever as people think he is and b) isn't nearly as clever as he think he is and c) is a pathological liar.

So if Rove says, "this is too much" then I think "something else is going on."

And this is my nightmare. Just a thought. Blind speculation. But when Karl Rove takes a stand I have to wonder if the fix is in.

Imagine -- critical mass... the McCain camp keeps lying! Even though the lies are actually HELPING them whittle away at Obama's lead, gaining their own, even if the lies are DOING THEIR JOB ... sooner or later, there will be blowback. After all, the media, so in love with McCain the Honorable, are turning on him.

So what's the next play? There's 7 weeks left, lying isn't enough. How does McCain stay above the fray?

He has his cake and eats it too, of course.

I see McCain waiting a few days, then, midweek, once the Ike stories start to fade, his campaign announces a dramatic shake up.

Steve Schmidt is gone. Rick Davis, gone. All the lobbyists, gone. Brings Mike Murphy back. Gives a press conference:

"My campaign has acted dishonerably, and for that I apologize to Sen. Obama. I still disagree with him on etc. etc. etc., but from now on, no more negative advertising from my campaign."

Palin will do the same. "Yes, it's true, I said "thanks but no thanks" but before that I did campaign for the bridge. I didn't understand then the corruption of the earmark process and will not change, etc. etc."

Some of the lies will continue, and the central push of the campaign will remain the same... but now they will have the benefits of the lies -- plus the power of the "new kind of politician" of this dramatic refutation of their own campaign. Sure, some will see the cynicism -- but the press, already so eager to make McCain seem seperate from his campaign, will eat it up.

Frankly, it could go either way, but it would occupy the news the way the Palin selection did, it would make the Democrats seem to be saying "but but but..." or seem mean and unforgiving.

It's a gamble, but haven't we seen the McCain campaign seek the gamble time and time again lately?

Just specualation. But with Rove now getting into the "too many lies" game, I can't help but think something twisted is up...

This is just rank speculation, I'm sure.

There's more...

Palin and the FUTURE



Democrats, or "Demo-RATS" as I tend to hear us called by William Safire's legacy of vast roaming hordes of blog commentators, underestimate Sarah Palin.

We think her claims of rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- provably false -- make her a liar.

They don't. She did reject it -- and yet got it anyway. We apprecaite this skill when used by Jedis hiding the droids we may or may not be looking for, why not appreciate it from her?

We think claims of her Energy Knowledge are overstated. McCain after all called her the nation's foremost EXPERT on energy. No one in America "knows more about Energy" he said. And it's true! Because she lives in Alaska, where there is oil in the ground. By that measure, she is also an expert on the wily Arctic Fox. But I digress.

Most recently, us Dumb-o-crats have been focusing on the remarkable claim -- made by Cindy McCain and several McCain surrogates -- that Alaska's proximity to Russia makes Palin an EXPERT in foriegn policy.

MOCK NOT! As Palin herself noted to Charlie "Charlie" Gibson, you can even see Russia from Alaska! And in doing so, you don't just become an expert in foriegn policy, but also in Marine Biology, since you can't help but see the ocean inbetween.

But the Liberal Fact-o-nazis point out that, historically, proximity to a nation does not usually equal workable knowledge of that nation. And some are even pushing some kind of biological argument that the human eye is unable to peer past the 54 miles of Bering Strait seperate our 49th state and the world's largest nation is too far for the human eye. So her claim that you can see Russia from Alaska seems to be a somewhat ignorant comment.

But! LEST YOU FORGET -- there are two rocks in the middle of the Straight, straddling the International Dateline. Big Diomede Island and Little Diomede Island. AND THEY ARE THE MIGHTIEST ISLANDS IN THE WORLD!

Alaska -- and the US -- own Little Diomede Island. With less than 200 people living on the Island, Wikipedia says it boasts a school and a store. However Big Diomede Island, or Gvozdev Island, is empty.

Governor Palin did not say she'd visited the little outcropping that is Little Diomede, but she is right. You can see a Russian Island, Big Diomede Island -- which is uninhabited by any actual Russians -- from Alaskan soil.

However, in doing so, because of the International Dateline, you don't just COMMAND THE POWERS OF SPACE to peer across to another continent, or another nation -- but you peer across TIME ITSELF into the very FUTURE!!! Since the Islands are seperated by 23 HOURS!

It's like the Island on LOST only with fewer Polar Bears -- (thanks to Global Warming, which is NOT MAN MADE, DAMMIT, right? Right?)

So, Governor Palin -- you UNDERESTIMATED the very POWERS you wield as GOVERNOR!!!! You're not just an expert in foriegn policy because you can see an empty Russian rock from an Alaskan Island few have ever visited -- you are a TIME LORD, able to GAZE INTO THE VERY GAP BETWEEN ONE DAY AND THE NEXT. PALIN can SEE THE VERY FUTURE OF HUMANKIND!  

Can you imagine how this would help her leadership? She'd know a full DAY IN ADVANCE if Russia were to put weapons on an empty island in an attempt to threaten no fewer than 170 people -- who, frankly, would likely welcome the excitement.


There's more...

Convention Hurricane 2: It Begins

The GOP's politicizing of Gustav was as inevitable as it is tasteless.

From a Politico Story, the GOP is already counting the ways this helps McCain: 8/13025.html

Republican officials said the images from here will present a positive contrast with the celebratory Democratic convention last week in Denver. The storm could paralyze Democratic efforts to hit McCain on several fronts.

"The contrast between McCain's responsibility and the fanatical followers in the temple of the Lord Obama won't be lost on everyday husbands and wives trying to meet their own responsibilities," a Republican official said.

Yeah, why didn't Obama have a hurricane?

Drudge is also making hay out of a Michael Moore quote and a Dem official making jokes that the Hurricane is some sort of devine retrobution against Republicans. Now they can blame Democrats for politicizing it... thus absolving their own blatant attempts.

Seriously though, people who think this has any political benefit for the Democrats, I think, are deluding themselves. Instead McCain will get to avoid having to give a "big speech," something he can't do, and allow the GOP to criticize the Dems for doing one, even though "the big speech" would otherwise be a part of their own convention, Bush had his own Greek columns, and so on and so forth.

Given how the Bush administration let McCain lead on Georgia, I don't doubt that Bush would avoid the region entirely to give McCain credit for any success the admin has. And I can't imagine how the administration could fail on this one. The Bush admin's failing has always been a lack of imagination... they couldn't imagine Katrina happening -- but now that it's happened once, they know what to do... provided it hits the same city the same way -- even at the same time -- again.

The GOP apologists in the media are already setting the stage -- "redemption" for Katrina. (See AP and Politico.) Even before "redemption" happens. To avoid the Astrodome debacle, they're just not offering any public safe haven. Truly the Bush-era way to deal with a problem. The Levees may hold or not hold, it doesn't matter -- the main picture will be of McCain boldly helping somewhere, lifting some grain or something. Sarah will be hugging people. Cindy offering them a cup of joe.

All will be forgiven.

The GOP are expert at turning non-partisan tragedy into political gain. They rode 9/11 to two major victory cycles, and unless the Democrats get similarly craven and exploitive, I really fear for a third.

I don't want to be too reactionary or alarmist, but I think it was all said in the above-mentioned Politico quote:

"The contrast between McCain's responsibility and the fanatical followers in the temple of the Lord Obama won't be lost on everyday husbands and wives trying to meet their own responsibilities," a Republican official said."

That's what they're saying. What are we saying?

There's more...

Conventional Hurricane?

So, the GOP convention is in shambles. With Hurricane Gustav likely to hit the coast on the convention's first day, organizers are debating postponing or severely cutting down on the convention.

Given the GOP brand's damage, the fact there was so little interest in it, that so few big name GOPers were attending, and the open dislike for Monday's speakers -- Bush and Cheney -- this may actually be a good thing for the GOP.

Bush not appearing is clearly a gift.

The line is that it would be inappropriate to be "festive" during a time of great suffering may strike us Democratic Partisans as laughable. Especially given where Bush and McCain were during Katrina. (But, of course, the trad media hasn't been reminding people... I'm shocked.)

The idea of a convention shuttered -- in the veil of the GOP's shame of Katrina -- may further strike us Partisans as just desserts.

But I wonder if the optics of this may be exactly what the GOP needs.

Shelving the cravenness of looking at a could-be natural disaster through a political lens, (I'm sorry) there is opportunity for the GOP here. Big opportunities.

Reports have them  maybe making care packages on the convention floor. Maybe turn it into a telethon for victims. It costs them the chance to dig on Obama, but offers a chance to appear above the fray.

But really, conventions exist just to help the nominee get free air time. And in a case where the GOP has a truly un-telegenetic nominee -- this could be the best opportunity to save McCain the embarrassment of giving yet another boring speech.

With news today that McCain himself may not attend the Twin Cities convention, and instead give his acceptance speech from the disaster area -- assuming there is one -- will give McCain an out from trying to match Obama's grand night.

McCain couldn't come close to matching Obama's oratory -- or speech content. There is no way that McCain, which his halting, insincere delivery and awkward smile cues, to connect as Obama did. And given the unpopularity of many of his stances, the content would be unlikely to match up as well.

But by speaking in a subdued way, to a small number in a flood zone, McCain could hide these deficiencies and do that whole "looking Presidential" thing. He could be political while pretending to do the opposite -- and it would be hard to call him on it.

Really, McCain has an easy task. Any failure on the governmental level, he can take the opportunity to distance himself. Any success can be claimed by the GOP, since they control FEMA, the area governorships, etc.

And we can't count on the media to point out the ludicracy of such commentary.

I could even see GOP apologists in the media looking at Gustav as a GOP redemption for the crimes of Katrina.

This is just a muddled ramble, but something that worries me. I was disgusted how the GOP claimed 9/11 for themselves, and profited from it, and I'm wondering if they're not about to do the same here.

Turning national tragedy and times of goodwill into partisan gain is a GOP expertise.

There's more...

Please Pick PAWLENTY!!!

So, McCain is totally going to try and step on Obama's speech today by leaking the GOP VP pick tonight. I'm going to guess he does it during the speech -- something nice and classy.

There's been a lot of talk about who he could pick, and all have their faults.

Lieberman -- would enrage Rove and the GOP base, which is good. But he's pro-choice and makes McCain look charismatic. Nah-guh-happen.

Ridge -- Pro-choice, scummy business practices post DHS.

Graham -- File under "Loafers, Light in the."

Crist -- See Graham.

Hutchinson -- Pro Choice. Politico reported she wasn't vetted and doesn't want the job.

Huckabee -- Hates McCain. Is crazy. Busy planning for FOX News show and 2012.

Romney -- Religious nuts hate him. Too many houses owned.

Jindal -- THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELLS MCCAIN not to pick an exorcist running mate. Plus, if Nawlins gets flooded again, he's toast.

Giuliani -- The POW/9/11 ticket would be fun, but Giuli likes the ladies a bit too much. Can't dodge that baggage.

So that leaves only one person.

PAWLENTY!!! Now, my understanding of Pawlenty is that he's a middiling Governor with some support in his home state, little experience in hardball politics, and has exactly zero national exposure. He's okay on the GOP religious tests AND is likely not sleeping with teenage boys or anything. Which makes him an oddity.

I don't know how formidable he'd be. I've seen him advocate for McCain on news shows, but never face real questions.


The reason why I want -- nay DREAM -- that McCain picks Pawlenty is this:


Yes, if you look a bit closer you get this:


The dream of seeing this on cars throughout the country is just too great to be denied.


So please John Sidney -- please "trot" out Tim Pawlenty as your "number 2." Life is filled with so much sadness, please bring Team Diarrhea to life.

There's more...

I hope it's... Hillary?

A shorttremendously long diary to say that even though I'm fairly sure Obama won't choose Hillary as his running mate -- I kind of hope he would.

Caveats -- I was never a Hillary supporter. I've been intrigued by Obama since 2003, when a former collegue at the Tribune turned me on to Obama's senatorial asperations. I parroted the Kos line that the race was Obama's to lose since he announced, even though I figured the Clinton machine would find some way to squeak out a win.

I never understood why she wanted the Presidency. I felt -- and to some extent still feel -- that Hillary is better suited as a Senator than a chief executive. With Kennedy ill and aging, the Senate needs a Democratic lion. I thought that was a better role for her.

I have high regard for the Clinton presidency, and thought the White House Clintons got a raw deal by the media, that allowed the Right Wing to manipulate. I always wished Bill Clinton was more progressive, but admired the way he got things done while tweaking the GOP. I felt Al Gore lost entirely because he ran against both Bush and Bill. There would have been no Florida recount if Bill Clinton had been down there doing retail politics.

I hated the negativity of the primary, i thought she disqualified herself for speaking more highly of McCain than Obama. I never thought Hillary or Bill were racist, but felt they exploited racial politics once it became clear that Obama had taken the black support they were depending on. I think Hillary's campaign was run with a lot of heart, but was mismanaged from the get go by advisors who should have been shown the door ages earlier. Wolfson, Penn... excretable people who cost Hillary the nod just as sure as her Iraq War vote. I still can't figure out what was worse ultimately. I feel like they ran for the 2000 election at the start.

I loved their localized campaigns. Even while pandering I could appreciate the quality of it. The shamelessness of it. Obama can't do that, he's too new to get away with it. Looks awkward. McCain can. Hillary can. You likely have to to awin.  Again, felt it was racialized, I'll never understand the "hard working white people" line, but I understand what they were trying to do.

Those Penn memos show they could have been worse. I appreciate they weren't followed. Wish they weren't written. Wish they'd been burned rather than released.

But the release was what got me to thinking... I think they were put out with the express wishes of the Obama campaign.

I think they were poured out into the public to water down any attempts by McCain to later do the same. I think they were put out to water any future revelation of them... in case Hillary was the VP pick.

Because, since the campaign ended, we've seen discipline from the Clintons that we didn't see from their own campaign. It's been airtight. Even without the daily campaigning, there are enough of her former advisors on FOX News that real mischief could happen. And hasn't.

Then came the "cathartic" floor vote.

Then came the seemingly endless "clues" about Biden, Bayh, Kaine, Sebelius. Just enough for each to make each seem a certain pick.

And nothing about Hillary... and nothing FROM Hillary or her closest advisors complaining. Usually we'd hear if they were upset at their lunch options. But since the primary ended, nada.

It's been quiet... too quiet.

During the campaign, when Obama won the math in February, I thought Hillary's regional run (which would never have been enough) was to make his picking of her seem inevitable. Usually, a party that divided has to merge through a shotgun wedding.

But how do you make the shotgun wedding look like a love affair? Remove the shotgun.

Thinking over the last few days... the shotgun is gone. No one is calling for Hillary to be the veep. No one is pushing for her candidacy with any real ferver. Only the "Bower"y boys and girls whose craziness needs no attention.

So, picking Hillary back in June seemed dull and meaningless. Picking her now would be explosive.

And maybe not a bad explosive.

Obama can't attack well. It's ugly. It betrays his central message. Hillary can attack with zeal and it seems... natural. This isn't a dig -- she's just that much more battle hardened and... political. Maybe Obama is that political too, but it's discordant when he does it. Even his "houses" dig of Thursday, for all it's oomph and power seemed strained to me.

Hillary has baggage, but maybe there's just so much of it that balances out. She's been attacked so long that there is a natural ability to shake off the blows. I have a friend who doesn't eat donuts -- unless she's eating a dozen of them herself. Why? She thinks that you can only retain so much fat and sugar that if you're going to do bad, might as well do a lot and let only a little bit stick. I don't think medicinal science would agree, but it makes sense in the break room.

And lastly... I hate to admit this... but I think Hillary did earn it. If Obama wins, if the Democrats take major victories in the Senate and the House -- it'll be because of the every-state Primary that she and Obama waged. The organization each put into place will do wonders for the party up and down the ticket.

Hillary did a brilliant job applying her face to the idea of economic recovery. It doesn't hurt that there is a oft-mentioned track record of Clintons "cleaning up" after Bushes. But Obama is a process radical -- he talks about changing the system. The Clintons are policy "radicals." They talk about specific programs. That's a pairing that makes more sense than simply geography. Obama needs policies to really move the electorate. As they stand now it's hard to put your head around them.

I wish they'd both get behind single payer. But with Hillary on the ticket you know some kind of Health Care reform will happen. With Obama involved, you know they'll at least come up with a better name for "mandates."

Lastly -- simple politics. Kaine leaves behind a GOP Lt. Governor. Bayh, a GOP appointed Senator. Biden leaves behind, well, Biden is Biden. If you're going to go with a war-voting Democratic senator from a state not in contention -- why not go for Hillary instead?

So, that's what I'm thinking today. Never thought I would push this line of thought -- and it'll be meaningless in a couple hours when the real name is announced.

But at the moment on the Friday of the announcement... I hope the text message reads "Hillary."

There's more...

Who's to blame for the Ark. Shooting?

I'm somehow a mix of "livid" and "numb" regarding the shooting at the Arkansas Democratic Party Headquarters right now. We don't know the motive of the assailant yet -- we don't know if Gwatney was the target for reasons other than his role in the state party.

But didn't we just go through this last month a guy killed two people at Unitarian churchfor it being "too liberal?"

We don't know if this is the same thing. But it is far too easy to imagine the motive. Because for some reason, conservatives love the idea of Democrats being shot. Oh, not all do. And those that publically call for it claim to just make a "joke" of it. Like those "Liberal Hunting Permit" that Dave Neiwart cited recently in a post about conservative "eliminationism". Neiwart collected a disturbing, but media-ignored list of major conservative voices calling for the death of Americans they disagree with. Here are a few:

Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus -- living fossils -- so we will never forget what these people stood for."

Stop the ACLU [post since removed]:

Rope + Tree + ACLU Lawyer = Pinata

Ann Coulter: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. ... That's just a joke, for you in the media."

Melanie Morgan: "A great deal of good could be done by arresting Bill Keller having him lined up against the wall and shot."

Lee Rogers: "[T]he day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals and it's going to be very amusing to watch."

Bill O'Reilly: They ought to hang this Soros guy.

Whatever happened to the crime of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? I know there's a fundimental right of these blowhards calling for the death of their so-called enemies (re: us) but where do you draw the line? The recent NRA wallet-sized handout saying that Obama will take away everyone's guns,perhaps?

In it, they state "never in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate -- and hundreds of candidates running for other offices -- with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms." Surely that won't inflame people with guns, ironically since they must be confusing the gun-quiet Obama with another candidate.

But the most disgusting account I can imagine is an upcoming one. Pandagon links to a review of an upcoming "conservative comedy" called An American Carol about an irresponsible unamerican filmmaker modeled after Michael Moore who is visited by 3 ghosts who turn him conservative.

Amidst 9/11 jokes and various moralizations about what it means to be an America, comes this nugget:

In a scene that Sokoloff described, but didn't bring, Patton and his soldiers storm a courthouse that's about to remove the Ten Commandments and start opening fire on the people trying to stop them. "You can't shoot these people!" Malone says. "They're not people!" says Patton. "They're the ACLU!" At this point we see that the ACLU members are unkillable George Romero zombies.

It's always important to dehumanize your enemies, especially if you're looking to get them shot. (See: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", "Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" for other examples of how 'dem librals ain't like us.)

I'm sure an endorsement of violence is not what irresponsible filmaker David Zucker is endorsing by showing just that in his film about how unamerican and, apparently, inhuman Liberals are. Maybe he'll be visited by 3 ghosts and learn the error of having a fake mass shooting of liberals at a time in which people seem to be doing that on their own accord.

Sure, he's protected by the First Amendment. But during a crucial in the film, the Michael Moore charactor is faced with the carnage of 9/11 (hilarious!) and told that those deaths are on his hands because of "freedom of speech, which you abuse."

If fake Michael Moore's abusive use of freedom (as Atrios suggests, that's truly a conservative logistical stretch) makes him responsible 9/11 deaths, somehow -- is real David Zucker, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, et al. responsible for the deaths at the Unitarian Church and the shooting today in Arkansas?

Will they even notice?

UPDATE: I forgot one of the most egregious examples, House minority leader John Boehner's call for the American people to "hang" House Speaker Pelosi. He's yet to apoligize for that statement.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads