Understanding Democrats

J Tea says he is getting dizzy trying to keep up with the Dems' positions:

1) Military service, and especially what one did or did not do during the Viet Nam war, is irrelevant when running for president. (1992, 1996)

2) What one did during the Viet Nam war is far more important than what one has done in the 30+ years since, when running for president. (2004)

3) Sexual relations between consenting people of legal age, regardless of their positions of authority, are strictly a private matter. (1983, 1998)

4) Sexual communications between consenting people of legal age, when one is or was in a position of authority over the other, is a grave offense. (2006)

5) Saddam Hussein really, really, really needed to be removed from power. (1993-2001, 1998 especially)

6)...but not by the United States. (2003-2006)

7) A politician who allegedly says "nigger" in his college days is an irredeemable racist. (2004)

8) A former leader of the Ku Klux Klan who is still using the word "nigger" is not only an acceptable Senator, but should be considered a champion and lion of the Senate. (2001)

9) An arrest at the age of 30 for drunken driving brands someone an irredeemable alcoholic. (2000)

10) Driving a car into the water and leaving a woman to drown while trying to construct an alibi is an "unfortunate accident." (1969)

11) A president who wears his religious faith on his sleeve is a good thing. (1976)

12) A president who openly professes his faith is a dangerous thing. (2000, 2004)

13) Religious leaders are moral exemplars and should be listened to on public policy matters. (Jackson, Sharpton)

14) Religious leaders who meddle in politics are violating the "separation of church and state" and the spirit of the 1st Amendment. (Robertson, Falwell)

It is all about the nuance -- you have to be for it before you were against it; and vice versa. All clear now?

Loathing the military

I had a post earlier this year in which I mentioned that some Democrats had stated that the only reason people joined the military is because they couldn't get a job in the terrible Bush economy. Some lefty commenter (anonymous of course) claimed I made it up. I just noticed this at Wizbang and I'm sure it must be all over the blogs:

You'll be shocked at what John Kerry said about our troops in Iraq while at a campaign stop. At the same time you won't be shocked because it's so condescending, so offensive that no one else but John Kerry could have said it. Except Murtha. And Sheehan. And Maher. Ok, it's so condescending and so offensive that there are several leftists who could have said it.

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Bill Clinton loathes the military. John Kerry obviously does, too. And since Kerry has proven incapable of generating an independent thought, I think we can safely assume that this comment reflects the kind of talk he hears when he is in his liberal cocoon of left-wing nutballs.

Update --

I should have mentioned that Kerry's comments not only show his loathing of the military and his incredible insensitivity to military families, but also shows how stupid he is. Not just stupid for saying it (which is certainly stupid enough), but because it is clearly and demonstrably false. Those in the military have far more education, on average, than the general population. Over 99% of enlisted people have a HS diploma and about 3/4 of them have some college course work. The officers are all well-educated with extraordinary percentages having graduate degrees.

John Kerry -- both an asshole AND a dumbass. Talk about versatility!

Peyton Manning

He makes it look easy. Of all the praise he's gotten today for yesterday's tremendous performance, I liked this best:

DENVER — The Broncos had a stadium full of rollicking fans, a 13-game home winning streak and a league-leading defense that had surrendered only two touchdowns this season.

The Indianapolis Colts had Peyton Manning.

Talk about a mismatch.

Dems promise to lead -- somewhere, anywhere, nowhere

Tom Maguire points out that the Dems have no idea what they plan to do in his post titled "We don't need no stinkin' plan".

The most complete argument vs. Same-sex marriage

I highly commend this discussion for your reading.

Grief can make one monstrously stupid

Dafydd has a good post on the response by GOP candidate Michael Steele to the despicable Michael J. Fox ad. His discussion of Mort Kondracke's response ought to be read.

Democrats drive blacks away from polls

Betsy has the story. And she's right, the irony is delicious.

Why Dems fight voter IDs

Kansas City officials say this is the most irresponsible and extensive voter registration abuse in Missouri in the twenty five years they have been on the job with the Kansas City Board of Elections.

That's saying a lot considering there were 16 convictions of election crimes since 2004 in the St. Louis area alone!

Gateway Pundit has the story.

No morally responsible person can condone a vote for the Democrats. Not as long as they work so hard to subvert democracy.

Unwilling to fight for freedom

The Anchoress, posting for the Captain has a really interesting piece which includes this admission from a Dutch lefty who realizes that the Muslim influx in his country has reached the stage where the battle is already lost:

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

He could have been speaking for all the lefties in America -- "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

Jane Pauley v. New York Times

Here is an account of one MSM'er calling the Times a liar:

Claiming that The New York Times duped her into granting an interview for what turned out to be a drug company-funded advertising supplement, Jane Pauley has sued the newspaper for fraud.

Hee, hee.

Getting the numbers right

Betsy has a post (for some reason the link won't work) about an article written by a principal who admits that blacks and whites were subjected to different standards of discipline in order to avoid charges of racism. In other words, the only way to avoid charges of racism was to discriminate against white kids.

In the end, can anyone doubt that black kids were hurt most? Learning that the rules don't apply if you use the race card isn't the best way to master the keys to a successful life.

The Krugman effect

You can make money off Paul Krugman's insane ranting in the NY Times. Since Krugman has an extraordinary record for always being wrong, he represents a great opportunity.

Did a Democrat Senator spy for the KGB?

AJ points to an interesting bit of research from the files of the KGB. Someone with close connections to a number of very high-ranking Democrats was a KGB spy. The evidence, according to one person, points to a US Senator.

Based on what we know of the activities of so many anti-war types during the sixties and how so many of them became significant players in the Democratic party, this should not be that big a surprise.

Nancy Pelosi -- dumber than I thought

Larry Kudlow's interview with Pelosi is on CNBC right now. I've always thought she was an incredibly stupid person. Wow. I can't believe how badly I over-estimated her. Even with the MSM covering up for her and enabling her at every turn, I can't imagine how she could rise to a position where the Democrats would choose her as a leader.

Maybe the Dems are even dumber than I thought.

Will the MSM "steal" this election?

I bumped into a liberal Democrat the other day. Big smile on his face, he asked if I was ready for a Democratic Congress. I told him that I didn't think it was going to happen. He took that as evidence that I was in denial, simply unwilling to face reality.

I don't know what is going to happen in November. I'm sure that the polls are suspect. There is simply too much evidence over the last 3 or 4 election cycles that the polls always over-sample Democrats. The polls always underestimate how well the GOP vote comes in on election day. So I think things are likely to be really close come election night.

What will happen if all the MSM predictions of a Democratic tsunami turn out to be as worthless as their news product? I guess we should expect that the left-wing netnuts will go bananas. How many ordinary Democrats will join them in concluding that the evil Bush-Rove machince stole the election? Given what the MSM has been telling them, I think there is a very real danger of it happening.

As I type this, CNBC's financial show is about to do a story on why the good economic news does not seem to be translating to GOP support in the coming elections. Is "it's the economy stupid" still applicable?, asks the news anchor. Easy answer -- it is only good "news" when the newspapers and news broadcasts choose to tell the people. If they don't publish it, it becomes what is known as a secret.

The extraordinary bias in news coverage has been well-documented. You can find the research on other blogs. For me, I am really curious to see if the MSM can finally win one for their chosen side. The one-sided coverage has been unprecedented. It has become such a joke that even lefties like Mickey Kaus and those at the ABC web site openly laugh about it. Regardless of which way the election goes, what will be the ramifications of this kind of relentless propaganda?

We can imagine the rage from the left, if the GOP squeaks out a win. Has anyone thought much about the anger from the right, if the Dems win both houses? Now we all know that Republicans have real jobs and businesses that require work. They aren't going to take to the streets. It's just not the GOP way. But seeing the MSM steal an election will not sit well.

In 1997, the national sports media decided to launch an unprecedented campaign to deny Peyton Manning the Heisman. They succeeded. Vol fans were outraged. And that was only football. In that case, we got to see a small taste of the helplessness, frustration and anger that builds up in people when they witness the MSM band together to shaft someone. Watching and listening to talking heads lie, distort, slander and propagandize without being able to do anything to stop it has an amazing effect on people. When the campaign against Peyton succeeded and the vote totals were announced, I saw and heard otherwise rational people give voice to emotions that were pretty surprising.

Do people care less about war and the economy than about whether their favorite college QB gets an award? No. No way. No matter how passionate they are about their Vols.

I get the same feeling watching the news these days as I did watching ABC and ESPN campaign against Manning in 1997. Part of me wants to believe that, in the end, sanity will prevail upon the voters. They'll see through the propaganda. In the booth, the facts will be stuborn enough. Reality will overcome.

Part of me knows better. Part of me knows that the Big Lie often works. Part of me wonders if the Big Lie is going to work this November. And that part wonders what the repercussions will be in the long run. I suspect that, either way, the campaign of Big Lie 2006 will set in motion a strong current of ugliness below the surface that will impact politics for a long time.

The aftermath of election 2000 served as an enormous wake up call to the GOP. All the angry words came from the left. Lots of hard work for 2002 and 2004 came from the right. If 2000 was a wake up call, what would a defeat at the hands of the MSM's Big Lie in 2006 mean for the right? I think that currents created would be stronger and deeper than many might imagine.

America's brownshirts

Reside on the left.

The hatred seeps out in the libel

Paul Campos writes a decent column about affirmative action -- until his liberal attitudes cause him to spout a little of the hatred that underlies Krauthammer's axiom. He writes:

In the end, both of us remain deeply conflicted on the issue. I suspect what bothers us most is the sheer dishonesty that marks every aspect of the matter. Consider a scale from one to five that represents the following positions: race should never be taken into account when distributing social goods; race should only be used as a tiebreaker between substantially identical candidates; race should give a black candidate (for example) a small advantage; race should give the candidate a big advantage; social goods should be handed out on the basis of racial quotas.

Many supporters of affirmative action claim to support the second position. In a candid moment, they might admit they sincerely believe they support the third position. In fact, they typically behave as if they support the fifth position.

As for affirmative action opponents, they all naturally claim to adhere to the first position, when in fact quite a few behave as if being black (for example) should be considered a negative factor when evaluating candidates.

Identifying liberal behavior in support of quotas is easy to do. We see it every day. However, who are these numerous affirmative action opponents he cites who discriminate against blacks because of their race? I don't see all this racial discrimination he claims is going on. What behavior is he referring to? Why did he write that?

Simple. It's just a little defamation tossed out at his political opponents to make sure his readers understand that his liberal friends are still morally superior, even in the midst of their dishonesty.

How Dems timed Foley scandal

The Prowler has the story. The Dems were going to drop the Foley bomb 10 days before the election. But polling turned toward the GOP and the Dem leaders felt that something needed to be done to turn the tide back right away.

So they activated their MSM friends to turn on the scandal.

What conservatives believe

Megan McArdle responds to the idiot law prof in the post immediately below with a list of conservative points. She also explains what I would have had I had the time and interest to fisk the idiot law prof. Enjoy her list:

1. Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for their actions.
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of result.
2. Conservatives do not want to punish people for the crime of being successful.
3. Conservatives believe in protecting the lives of the helpless, even when their lives inconvenience other people.
4. Conservatives believe that the government should treat everyone equally, regardless of their race or gender.
5. Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to express their faith, and their views on other controversial topics, even when those views make others uncomfortable.
6. Conservatives believe that each individual is unique and special, and cannot be treated simply as a member of a group. Individuals are only available individually.
7. Conservatives believe that well intentioned changes often have unintended consequences.
8. Conservatives believe that people respond to incentives.
9. Conservatives believe that America is a special nation, not perfect, but with a proud history. People who come to America should feel that that history is theirs, and celebrate their citizenship. They should not have loyalties to foreign powers.
10. Conservatives believe that victims of crime are more worthy of our concern than the criminals who prey on them.

Clueless on Pluto

Wow.

Really, wow. I know there are a lot of professors who have a screw loose. Even some law profs. But this column by a law professor entitled "What it means to be a liberal" almost took my breath away.

Is it really possible that a law professor could be this dense? This clueless? This out to lunch?

I was tempted to fisk every paragraph, but that would require me to treat it more seriously than it deserves.

Did Saddam shoot down TWA 800

Jack Cashill pulls together a lot of related facts.

The NY Times is even worse than you think

A liberal writer in New York gives a nice account of the pathetic performance of the Times in the Duke lacrosse case. The Times' coverage is committed to pushing the narrative of guilt no matter what the facts show. Pay special attention to the quotes from Times' journalists. When Brooks and Kristoff expressed doubts about the case:

“David Brooks is a conservative,” an editor at the paper told me, so his apostasy “didn’t count” for much in the newsroom. “But then they really paid attention when Kristof reversed.”

But they aren't biased or anything.

“I’ve never been a source for anyone on any story ever written about the Times,” one reporter at the paper told me. So why on this one? “I’ve never felt so ill over Times coverage.” That’s ill at a paper that published Jayson Blair’s fabrications and Judy Miller on WMD. “It’s institutional,” said one of the several editors to whom I spoke. “You see it again and again, the way the Times lumbers into trouble.”

Democrats mistake Canadian uniform for US?

Michelle raises the question. Not having served, I don't know. But I know beyond a doubt that if I wanted to find a picture of a US soldier, I could find one.

Bob Schieffer -- left-wing nut

CBS old-timer Bob Schieffer shows his colors.

Ford never passed the Bar

It sure is a good thing that Harold Ford, Jr. had the family business (presiding over the corrupt political empire of his dad as the Congressman from Memphis) to go into when he got out of school. According to this, he never passed the bar exam after finishing law school (although he has called himself a lawyer).

Wow, that's some resume he's got. No work experience. Went straight into politics after flunking the bar. Won office because of his family's political machine. And now he tells us that this qualifies him to be a US senator.

Count me among the underwhelmed.

"Can't anybody here play this game"

Older sports fans who read this may recognize that the title is a famous quote from Casey Stengel about his 1962 expansion NY Mets (they were on their way to a record for losses in a season). Watching everyone in DC (from politicians on both sides to the MSM and a host of bloggers) lose their minds in the fallout from the Foley IMs, one is tempted to repeat Casey's lament. A J has a good post on the three ring circus and the pathetic performances of the those in the rings.

What I find most interesting in all this is how the reactions of the Democrats and the MSM prove once again that they really, really do not understand conservatives. I don't find that surprising. I am surprised, however, with the Chicken Littles on the right who seem so fearful that the Dems and MSM might actually be right for once in their disdainful assessment of conservative voters.

More on this later.

If only terrorists were gay, Dems would support spying

Ann Coulter absolutely nails it:

the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
...
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaeda -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

The Foley "Scandal"

This turns out to be the worst October Surprise, EVER.

The are reminders, however, in this tempest in a teapot of the truths we should never forget:

1. Beware the Chicken Littles in the GOP. You can always count on them to panic when the Democrats and MSM instruct them that they should panic.

2. ABC News and the MSM in general are, once again, revealed to be incompetent, corrupt, propaganda organs for the left.

3. The sick, ugly, nastiness of the Democrats is never far from the surface.

Believing in nothing

Dr. Sanity explains how the left ended up as screwed up as it is.

Slander is the worst

In a post entitled "Bearing False Witness", Dafydd points out that bearing false witness is far more repugnant than simply lying and the Democrats and the MSM are being particularly egregious lately. The analysis he lays out about the AP is enough to turn your stomach.