It seems that the only way Jimmy Carter can make the news these days is to lie, plagiarize and condemn. Under the theory than any publicity is good, he seems happy to oblige.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

The revolting bigotry and self-righteousness of Jimmy Carter is hard enough to take, but his lack of dignity is so embarrassing it makes one want to turn away. Carter created the genocide in Cambodia, was the mid-wife to al Qaeda and the Taliban and lost Iran to the Mullahs. If you are in your late fifties, you probably remember the Carter economy, the wicked interest rates, the gas lines, the "malaise".

Bush doesn't even get within shouting distance of a record so dismal.

Carter will die soon, unlamented and damned with faint praise in the eulogies that will struggle to find something good to say. No amount of denigration of his successors is going to change that.

The winner and still champion of the "worst president" sweepstakes in modern history.

I just about spewed my Coke Zero when I read this:

"It may be easier to fix it from the outside," he said. "Again, I haven't ruled out for all time thinking about politics again. It's just that the way it works now, I don't think that the skills I have are the ones that are most likely to be rewarded within this system. It's like a washing machine that is permanently set on the spin cycle. It doesn't stop spinning. That creates real problems for a politics based on reason."

Al Gore's liberties with the facts in "An Inconvenient Truth" are enough to put him in the hall of fame, but his new tack--reason in politics, is undoubtedly the biggest piece of spin yet, and the most ironic.

If Al Gore could be said to have a skill, its identifying social trends that potentially culminate in the creation of new political constituencies--after all Al invented the Internet. Well of course he didn't and he paid a heavy price for his intemperate remarks, but what he did do was identify the Internet as a potentially useful political issue--Gore saw what was going on and coined a term--the "Information Superhighway" Unfortunately, the Internet wasn't a crisis or a have-have-not issue. No one was getting elected for supporting the Internet, and so Gore cast about for another social trend he could exploit--ah! the Environment. Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance", clearly seeking to be the David Koresh of the environmental movement. His claims were met with ridicule, but he got respect from the faithful, which set him up for a leadership role in the Global Warming inquisition.

While I wouldn't say Gore has abandoned climate change as a vehicle to higher office the way he apparently abandoned the Internet, he is at least hedging his bets or perhaps padding his guru resume and that's where I find the irony--the spinmeister has realized that political spin-vertigo is the new hot political issue.

Pretty ballsy thing to do, wouldn't you think, but its pretty much standard Democrat practice--look at Hillary--for the war absolutely and all the way. Now? Not so much.

One simply has to take one's own worse sins, and lay it on the Republicans.

Instapundit pointed me to the Palmetto Scoop which is discussing a comment Joe Scarborough made about Fred Thompson's wife.

This comment caught my eye:

Where is the conservative outrage? Where is it? Where is Mitt Romney condemning Joe Scarborough? Where is Rudy Giuliani condemning Joe Scarborough? Where is John McCain condemning Joe Scarborough? Where is Hugh Hewitt condemning Joe Scarborough? And what of Craig Crawford diminishing the reputation of Congressional Quarterly with on air fantasties and perversions about Republican candidates’ wives?

I think the problem is that a tree fell in the forest and it didn't really make a sound. Seriously--who watches Joe Scarborough? I understand he's on MSNBC and he's a conservative, a recipe for chirping crickets as your audience.

So what did he say that is creating such a furor?

JOE SCARBOROUGH, host, "Morning Joe": Have you seen, um, have you seen Fred Thompson's wife?

CRAIG CRAWFORD, Congressional Quarterly: Oh, yeah!

SCARBOROUGH: You think she works the pole?

CRAWFORD: That's what Hollywood careers will do for you, I guess.

SCARBOROUGH: [Laughs] What do you mean?

CRAWFORD: You get wives like that.

SCARBOROUGH: I mean, look at that guy. God bless him, I love his voice, but I mean, you know, he ain't Robert Redford in 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.'

Frankly, I'm not at all certain what Scarborough is saying here. It sure sounds like he's wondering whether she's a stripper, which in an incredibly stupid thing to wonder. At very least, he owes Mrs. Thompson an apology. Fred should get one too.

I think Joe is spending to much time with misogynist Keith Olbermann.

Joe Klein is the epitome of everything that is wrong with elite journalism.

He's clearly an intelligent man, and a fine writer but like so many people who have jobs that allow them to avoid the unpleasant realities of life, he never questions his own conclusions.

What do I mean? Well, certain forms of employment simply have no accountability, and where there is no accountability, you can never be wrong or mistaken, and if you are wrong or mistaken, its simply a matter of process, not actual flaws in reasoning or a false conclusion. That's why academics in the arts, journalists, teachers, union members and bureaucrats remain liberal way past their college years--perpetual adolescence.

Unfortunately, the party is coming to an end, at least for journalists. Thousands of idealistic young people intent on changing the world have found that the world has indeed changed, albeit not in the way they had anticipated and not at their hands. World changing has been the province of the hard science and engineering dweebs. D'oh!

As a result, guys like Joe are finding themselves at loose ends in what should arguably be the sweet spot of their careers. Joe shouldn't have to care what anybody thinks, but life is cruel that way. Young people with a small fraction of his experience and none of his resume are ruling the information roost. Nobody is reading Time magazine anymore and more and more people are reading the Daily Kos. Joe has started blogging (Swampland), trying desperately to ingratiate himself with the masters of the new world, and its been a rough go.

The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.

Its all so unfair, isn't it Joe?

In his day, Joe was "in the club." A liberal journalist among other liberal journalists, each reinforcing their essential righteousness and the "correct" world view. Unfortunately, liberal doesn't do it anymore. The new paradigm is far left and anything outside of far left is right wing.

Joe and his ilk have been snearing at conservatives for years, and now he's one of us!

Welcome Joe, you are a conservative, the nigger of the 21st century. Your choice now is to do what a lot of Democrat politicians are doing these days, simply abandoning any pretense at principles (like your friend Jane Harman) and "going along to get along". Ultimately, that is what the far left is about--a dystopian world of thoughtcrime and newspeak. Or, you can be a man, and quit your whining (whining is so unconservative man...)

Of course after reading this little gem...

Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered.

...it appears that Joe might be suffering from ED.

Blaming Rush Limbaugh for the lunatic antics of the far left ignores the obvious--this is nothing new for the left. Its the same set of tactics, the same tone, the same everything the left has used since there was a left-wing. Hillary Clinton's Wellesley thesis was not in fact an analysis of Rush Limbaugh's "tactics", but of revered lefty Saul Alinsky. Remember this nugget?

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it."

You used to be somebody Joe, now you are just pathetic. The left wants a bitch, not a "journalist" so you're going to have to decide which you want to be.

All manner of lefty bloggers have denied, with varying degrees of emphasis, that Harry Reid had called Gen Peter Pace and Gen. David Petraeus "incompetent".

Unfortunately, at least one of there number who was actually on the infamous call, acknowledged that Reid did indeed say it:

Here's exactly what Reid said:

"I guess the president, uh, he's gotten rid of Pace because he could not get him confirmed here in the Senate… Pace is also a yes-man for the president and I told him to his face, I laid it out to him last time he came to see me, I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was."

So, did Reid utter the word "incompetent" in the same sentence with General Pace's name on the conference call? Yes, he did.

What is remarkable, but not particularly surprising, is that the lefty bloggers independently either lied or had sudden bouts of extremely poor recall (with the exception of Geiger). The Sinestrosphere once again demonstrates its Orwellian capacity for newsspeak.

Fitzgerald:
Didn’t prosecute the Plame leak; but managed to convict Libby.
Didn’t get Scooter to prison; but managed to jail Miller.

Gonzalez:
Fired eight prosecutors; should’ve fired nine.

Senator Pete Domenici acts like he is in one of those seats Harry Reid gloated about gaining by politicizing the war in Iraq. Panicking, Domenici has donned the burkha of a “New U.S. Military Strategy” for Iraq and is attempting to sneak out the back door. When I took a peak behind his burkha, however, it turns out his “new” military strategy looks a lot like the old. From Domenici’s press release:

I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.

Compare this with the goals of those troops, as articulated by Michael Yon, an independent writer currently embedded with the troops in Iraq:

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

The Senator’s strategy pretty much matches the current plan – except the part where Yon states “we want them [Iraqis] to succeed without us.” Yon’s use of the word “we” notes the sentiment of the American troops, putting their life on the line, not self-serving U.S. Senators trying to save their Senate hides.

The ratings are in, at least for Britain and the much ballyhooed Live Earth concert drew an average audience of less than a million. Previous mega concerts have drawn 10 times the audience.

The concert is justifying its jetting around and small mountains of trash with the use of carbon credits.

Its that like a child molester giving a dollar to the Boy Scouts to atone for his activities?

UPDATE: Rasmussen throws a few more shovefuls of dirt on the "private jets for climate change" series of concerts.

The Live Earth concert promoted by former Vice President Al Gore received plenty of media coverage and hype, but most Americans tuned out. Just 22% said they followed news stories about the concert Somewhat or Very Closely. Seventy-five percent (75%) did not follow coverage of the event.

By comparison, 80% of the American public followed the immigration debate. climate change ranks low among the issues Americans are most concerned with--well behind war, immigration and the economy.

Live Earth itself left a sour taste in people's mouths:

Skepticism about the participants may have been a factor in creating this low level of interest. Most Americans (52%) believe the performers take part in such events because it is good for their image. Only 24% say the celebrities really believe in the cause while another 24% are not sure. One rock star who apparently shared that view is Matt Bellamy of the band Muse. Earlier in the week, he jokingly referred to Live Earth as "private jets for climate change."

Only 34% believe that events like Live Earth actually help the cause they are intended to serve. Forty-one percent (41%) disagree. Those figures include 10% who believe the events are Very Helpful and 20% who say they are Not at All Helfpul. Adding to the skepticism, an earlier survey found that just 24% of Americans consider Al Gore an expert on Global Warming.

That many?

UPDATE II: Al Gore's presidential campaign hopes are dashed--only 2.7 million viewers for NBC, which was dead last among the networks. It was 18% below reruns of such television heavyweights as reruns of "America's Got Talent" and "Medium".

I can't vouch for this, but having seen so much similar behavior, I tend to believe it.

At first, everyone had assumed that the Primary A/C, the Secondary A/C, and the Tertiary A/C had all managed to fail at once. But after cycling the power, the A/Cs all fired up and brought the room back to a cool 64°. At the time, the “why” wasn’t so important: the network administrators had to figure out how to bring online the four Exchange Services, six Domain Controllers, a few Sun servers, and the entire State Tax Commission’s server farm. Out of all of the downed servers, those were the only ones that did not come back to life upon a restart.

They worked day and night to order new equipment, build new servers, and restore everything from back-up. Countless overtime hours and nearly two hundred thousand dollars in equipment costs later, they managed to bring everything back online. When the Exchange servers were finally restored, the following email finally made its way to everyone's inbox, conveniently answering the “why”

From: ----- -----------
To: IT Department
Re: A/C constantly running.

To whom it may concern,

I came in today (Monday) to finish up a project I was working
on before our big meeting with the State ----- Commission tomorrow,
and I noticed that there were three or four large air conditioners
running the entire time I was here. Since it's a three day weekend,
no one is around, why do we need to have the A/C running 24/7?

With all the power that all those big computers in that room use, I
doubt it is really eco-friendly to run those big units at the same
time. And all computers have cooling fans anyway, so why put the A/C
for the building in that room?

I got a keycard from [the facility manager’s] desk and shut off the
A/C units. I'm sure you guys can deal with it being warm for an hour
or two when you come in tomorrow morning.

In the future, let's try to be a little more conscientious of our
energy usage!

Thanks,
-----

As for the employee who sent it, he decided to take an early retirement.

A hallmark of Democrat rhetoric is the removal of all context. The Prius is a "green car" if you remove the context. When you consider the dust-to-dust analysis, the Prius is three times more energy intensive than a Ford F-150 truck in spite of the fact that it uses less gas to go a mile.

Bush "lied us into war" until you examine the larger context and realize that Clinton administration officials had been saying the same things for years.

Social security, medical care, on and on... Anything can be made to look good or bad if you place it in a narrow enough context.

...to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.

Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn? Moby Dick? No, Elizabeth Edwards...

John Edwards, lagging seriously behind both Hillary Clinton and Barry Obama in the national polls and now in Iowa as well, is desperate to stay competitive and that means slagging the rivals. On the theory that his wife is immune from criticism because she's dying, she gets the Ahab duty.

"The problem for me with the other candidates is I don't know what it is that drives them," she explained, "I should think the president has to be somebody who has that kind of vision outside themselves."

The problem with questioning your rival's motives is that your own are automatically subject to scrutiny. Why is John Edwards running? Does he bring unique skill or experience to the table in dealing with the country's current issues? Edwards has characterized himself as a poverty-fighter, but not surprisingly, its a ticket-punch resume. His poverty institute was little more than an off-the-books travel expenses dodge for his presidential campaigning.

From all appearances, Edward's motivation to be president is simply a matter of it being the next rung on the ladder. Obama and Clinton aren't particularly enamored with the "vision thing" either, but Hillary at least brings a perception of competence to her campaign.

Tommy Thompson simply realized he couldn't win and while undoubtedly disappointed, the presidency wasn't going to be his white whale. John Edwards might give some thought to that, before his wife gives what precious moments are left in her life to his preening conceit .

Idaho's senior Senator, Larry Craig, has been accused of homosexuality as far back as 1982, then again last year.

He has denied the charges each time.

Small wonder--Idaho is not San Francisco.

This time though, there is no wiggle room---Craig was caught in a police sting attempting to engage in "lewd behavior" in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. That's code for the archaic homosexual practice of seeking sexual encounters in public restrooms.

Craig, long masquerading as someone representing the conservative values of Idaho, apparently still availed himself of the practice--obviously unable to solicit sexual encounters in the more modern style.

Obviously this is a problem for Craig's political career, which is why he has been posing as a straight-guy and family man for over a quarter of a century--people want to elect political "representatives"--representative being the key word.

Unfortunately, we've long had a class of professional politicians who've got themselves elected on the basis of the mirage they create for the electorate. A friend of mine related his experience with a local Democrat candidate for one of the Congressional seats in Utah. The young, single Jewish man was running for the seat held by Chris Cannon and part of the campaign strategy was a series of small hosted chats with the neighbors. Aside from the blip the gaydar sent him, what struck him was the fact that the man had a concealed weapons permit--or at least claimed to.

How convenient.

The Utah Democrats have long opposed the state's shall-issue law and have sought to exclude concealed carry from schools, churches and hospitals. This was clearly a very calculated "reach-out" move. The candidate got trounced for the usual reasons--i.e. this is a very conservative state, but I suspect the lesson he took from his loss was that he didn't go far enough--what he should have done was get married and join the Mormon church--yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!

We are perhaps naive in expecting "normalcy" from the political class--these people are not normal, and if they are normal going in, they either adapt to the ethical dynamic of Congress, or they go home to spend more time with the family.

The left of course, doesn't get it. Americablog reports the story and then Craig's voting record:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) * Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) * Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) * Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996) * Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Pam Spaulding clearly doesn't grasp the fact that Craig would never have been elected to anything in Idaho is he was known to be a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have been able to vote the way she thinks he should have on these bills. I know the left understands that Senators represent their constituencies, because their entire campaign to defeat Joe Lieberman was based on the assertion that his support for the war was at odds with the wishes of the citizens of Connecticut. The gland people have no use for intellectual consistency.

Glenn Greenwald is another lefty pundit who doesn't get it--why break a perfect record?

The reaction to the Larry Craig story provides one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the right-wing movement works. Last October, just weeks before the midterm election, gay activist Mike Rogers reported that the married, GOP "family values" Senator repeatedly had sex with anonymous men in public bathrooms. His report was based on "extensive research," including interviews with several men whom Craig solicited for bathroom sex.

As Rogers argued at the time, the story was relevant -- just as the Vitter prostitute story was -- in light of Craig's frequent political exploitation of issues of sexual morality and his opposition to virtually every gay rights bill. Rogers' story, as a factual matter, seemed relatively credible, both because of his history of accurate outings and because there is no discernible reason why, if he were intent on fabricating, he would single out someone as obscure as Larry Craig, who was not even up for re-election.

What Greenwald either doesn't understand, or does understand but hopes his readers won't, is everybody except the most egregiously partisan left-wing bobos knows the difference between a guy who gets caught by the cops soliciting sex in a public restroom, and a partisan hack selling the equivalent of Jackie Kennedy Onassis sunbathing in the nude on a yacht.

Greenwald may defend Larry Flynt journalism, but most of us know it by its smell.

As it stands, Larry Craig should and probably will resign from the Senate. He has already resigned as co-chair of the Romney campaign.

Rightwing Nuthouse:

The point really isn’t whether he’s guilty or innocent. The point is that this sort of thing becomes a huge issue because of the way the party talks about gays and the way many GOP stalwarts like Reverend Robertson and James Dobson talk about sex. The perception that Republicans are a bunch of bigoted blue noses stuck in the 19th century with Victorian sensibilities about the bedroom turns off a lot of voters – especially the young.

I usually expect more insight from the RWNH. Ask yourself the question--are conservatives the hypocrites, or is Larry Craig a hypocrite for pretending to be straight? He's right that the Republican party has a crisis, but its a crisis of leadership, not of values.

Talking Points Memo is an unlikely source of sympathy.

Sure, he's a hypocrite, sure he's probably gay or bi or whatever, and sure, I despise his politics. The problem is, I'm torn between the schadenfreude of watching another one of the Family Values crowd being shown up, and feeling really bad for the guy, because he didn't do anything.

Look at the police report. Did he directly ask a cop for sex? No. Did he expose himself lewdly (as opposed to exposing himself to use the facilities)? No. Did he do anything that was unambiguously sexual? No.

All he did was tap his foot, reach down (possibly to pick up a piece of TP), wiggle his fingers, and put his bag in front of him when he sat down. Oh, and he waited in front of an occupied stall. Even if he did everything the cop said he did, where was the lewd conduct? No actual sex happened. No actual sex was discussed. And if it wasn't for the sheer embarrassment of the situation, you'd be writing about the overzealous cop who arrested a sitting US Senator for no apparent reason.

If Craig was looking for sex, I hope that he can look into his heart and realize that it's 2007, and gay people are allowed to be out, and even get involved in meaningful relationships that don't begin and end in a squalid men's room. I'd hope that he'd recognize that there are even gay Republicans out there (look at former Rep. Kolbe, for one), and that a lot of the stigma and fear that still exists about homosexuality in this society has to do with the behavior of people who are in the closet.

But that, to me, is another issue entirely. The issue here is, why is the Minneapolis Airport PD arresting people for such flimsy reasons? Why do judges and prosecutors still accept these cases? Why, in 2007, 43 years after LBJ's chief of staff, Walter Jenkins, got busted in the men's room YMCA in DC, have we apparently moved no further in our analysis of these situations?

That's a pretty good argument for not sending him to jail, but remember, this is a political issue. Larry Craig misrepresented himself to the Idaho electorate as a conservative straight guy. If this had been the first instance of such accusations, he might have been able to get the benefit of the doubt, but its not.

Ann Coulter puts Alberto Gonzalez tenure as attorney general in perspective.

He didn't kill anyone, much less eighty people. He didn't railroad innocents. He didn't let murders go unpunished.

Democrats yearn for Janet Reno again.

Chuck Hagel has announced that he will not seek election (as President) or reelection (as Senator).

Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named.

Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.

According to one person interviewed, Hagel told Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday morning that he had decided to retire. Hagel's staff learned of his decision that afternoon.

The North Platte native earned national recognition as perhaps the most vocal, at times angry, GOP critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

His outspokenness on Iraq and other key issues, including Social Security and foreign policy, fueled national interest in Hagel as he flirted with a possible presidential bid.

His national profile reached its zenith in March, when he headed to Omaha to hold a press conference on his political future.

But amid wide speculation that he was leaning toward a White House run, Hagel announced that he would disclose his plans later in the year.

As usual, the liberal press can't admit what really went wrong here--Hagel miscalculated badly and is now a political paperweight. There was never any interest in Hagel except by far-left Democrats willing to use him for their purposes. His willingness to oblige neglected hard political realities--the Democrats were glad to use him, but there would be no payout for his assistance. Republicans, especially ambitious Nebraska Republicans, saw it as an opportunity--to take his Senate seat away from him.

Rather than create a new political coalition, Hagel simply dug his own grave.

I'm hoping we can get rid of a few more incompetents before the elections.

Lincoln Chafee has dropped his Republican party affiliation with what original when Reagan said it, but has now become a tired cliche used by hack politicians to explain their latest flip-flop.

Chafee said he disaffiliated with the party he had helped lead, and his father had led before him, because the national Republican Party has gone too far away from his stance on too many critical issues, from war to economics to the environment.

Which of course begs the question--when was the Republican party anywhere near Lincoln Chafee's positions on anything?

Years ago, a company I was working at had a number of successful successive years, hiring people at a pretty brisk clip. One day the president calls a general meeting to explain that he had fired a whole lot of people. Too many bums had gotten hired in the rush to keep up the demand. It was time to clean house and make a fresh start. He didn't actually say that in so many words, but its what he meant. Someone then asked if this would happen again, to which he answered--yeah, probably.

The Republican tide carried lots of driftwood with it and its not a bad thing that we are getting rid of it.

The interesting thing about Chafee's action is that the only reason to do it is if he still has political ambitions--as a Democrat.

An opportunist to the last.

H/T Flopping Aces

I'm not sure why washed-up singers from the 1970s seem to want to alienate the few people left that might want to buy a greatest hits album on CD. Perhaps the cocoon they live in prevents them from realizing that its been over for a very long time.

In an exclusive statement to TMZ, Barry says, "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her." Barry, taking a stand!

Manilow is currently on a press tour promoting the release of his new album, "Greatest Songs of the Seventies."

The last seventies star to insult half the country was Linda Ronstadt, who is playing San Jose State University later this month and some state fair last month.

I guess this is why all the fourth of July celebrations feature country music stars...

Valerie Plame characterizes her efforts to stay in the media eye as a noble effort to hold the administration to account.

"They would like nothing more for us to than be silent and go away. We are not going to give them the satisfaction," said Plame.

Hmmm. Would the million dollar advance on her book or the undisclosed but almost certainly stratospheric speaking fees have anything to do with wanting to remain relevant?

I suppose it only makes sense to ride out the diminishing intensity of the anti-war movement and extract all the cash possible. How much money will it take to assuage their guilty consciences?

Ever see a kid play "opposite day" and tease others by calling them beautiful?

Chris Matthews hasn't grown up.

Either that or he left his audio copy of 1984 running in a continuous loop while he slept.

Matthews is in a panic over the improving Iraq situation. Things look so good he is going through machinations to redefine victory; in his parallel universe World War II is now a loss and and Vietnam a victory. It's the only way he can ensure Iraq is tallied a loss.

In Matthews dictionary "a defeat is you can‘t leave."

Iraq is in good company:

New Orleans (War of 1812)
California (Mexican War - though it is still a toss-up)
South Carolina (Civil War)
Philippines/Puerto Rico (Spanish American War)
Germany (WWII)
Korea (do I have to spell it out?)

War's where we left:

Vietnam

Grenada... This must be the one Matthews remembered!

Does Lawrence O'Donnell have an assault weapon?

Watch the video here.

This was the worst political speech of my lifetime. Because this man stood there and said to you "this is the faith of my fathers." And you, and none of these commentators who liked this speech realized that the faith of his fathers is a racist faith. As of 1978 it was an officially racist faith, and for political convenience in 1978 it switched. And it said "OK, black people can be in this church." He believes, if he believes the faith of his fathers, that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God, in this demented, Scientology-like notion of what was going on in heaven before the creation of the earth.

...

Romney comes from a religion that was founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and A RAPIST!

Its frankly shocking to see such unbridled hatred (and distortion) being expressed on national television (the McLaughlin Group). Can you imagine this kind of thing being said about Islam under similar circumstances?

By O'Donnell's intellectual standards, if you're a Democrat, you're a racist.

The thing about this is that O'Donnell undoubtedly expresses a common sentiment among the left-wing. Just read the comments on this HuffPo piece.

Let's compare and contrast. Imus makes an insulting remark about blacks on a show that is provocative by its very nature and he is fired. O'Donnell spews unvarnished hatred on a political show and nothing happens? Imus was disdainful, O'Donnell was looking to incite hatred and possibly violence.

Wizbang: Does the left have a monopoly on bigotry?

Newsbusters:

[In full rant mode] He's got to answer, when he was 30 years old and he firmly believed in the faith of his father that black people are inferior. When did he change his mind? Did the religion have to tell him to change his mind? And when he talks about the faith of his father, how about the faith of his great-grandfather, who had five wives?

His religion is based on the work of a lying, fraudulent, criminal named Joseph Smith who was a racist, who was pro-slavery, whose religion was completely pro-slavery.

He was given an opportunity to distance himself from the evils of his religion, and he didn't.

Joseph Smith was a slavery champion, the inventor of this ridiculous religion.

His religion is full of crazy beliefs. Everyone on this panel thinks his religion is full of crazy beliefs. Everyone of us does. You won't believe it. Do you think the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

Huffpo

Millennial Star: LDS perspective

Ambition has two sources.

It can come from an awareness that one has the talent and capabilities to achieve more, or it can come from a desperate insecurity and the delusion that more money, more status and more honors can make you finally feel like you measure up, that you are worth something.

Conrad Black should have been the former, but was actually the latter. So intent was he on obtaining a British peerage, that he renounced his Canadian citizenship to finally obtain it.

Lord Black. Lord Conrad Black. Feel better now? I didn't think so.

Conrad Black, the former media magnate who once controlled an empire stretching from Vancouver to Jerusalem, was on Monday sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison for his role in the multimillion-dollar fraud at Hollinger International, the newspaper group he created and controlled.

The 63-year-old Canadian-born peer was grim-faced as Judge Amy St Eve told him he had abused the trust of shareholders. “I cannot understand how somebody of your stature could engage in the conduct you engaged in and put everything at risk,” she said. “In this country, no one is above the law.”

She ordered Lord Black to surrender in 12 weeks and recommended that he serve his term in a low-security prison in Florida. Along with the other prisoners, the peer – who furnished his Park Avenue apartment in New York with marble elephants at a cost of $17,800 (£8,700) – will be assigned a job for which he will be paid less than $1 a day.

The entire episode is one that makes me think--what makes a successful life? What do you have to accomplish in life to feel good about yourself? Black demonstrated his considerable talents as a businessman and historian (he wrote a comprehensive and excellent biography of FDR, and previously what is considered to be the definitie biographical work on controversial Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis...). He achieved power and wealth and yet he still found himself competing in the most ridiculous contest of them all--the extravagance sweepstakes.

What a waste.

Blessed is the man (or woman) who find themselves contented.

Check out this bigot-code from Lawrence O'Donnell's own mouth.

I don't hate Mormons. Some of my best friends are Mormons. Well, okay, one of my best friends is Mormon.

Don't knock your pointy hat on the door frame on your way out...

Currently bigoted Lawrence O'Donnell spends the rest of his rather long posting bemoaning the 30 year-old institutional racism of the Mormon church, ignoring the centuries-long racism of the Democrat party, which used the KKK to suppress black votes by the strategic disposal of murdered bodies and burning crosses.

It all begs a simple question--is Lawrence O'Donnell a closet racist?

Bigotry is a symptom of intellectual and emotional dysfunction that prevents the affected from seeing people as individuals and accepting differences. It is ultimately anti-liberal (in the classical sense of the word). If you can't see Mormons as individuals and accept that they all experience their Mormonism in unique ways, then how can you claim that you see black people as individuals, or Muslims, or women?

You can't.

If you're a bigot, and Lawrence O'Donnell is a major, angry bigot, then bigotry pervades your life. It is the way one thinks about the world and those around them. If you're a bigot, you're inevitably a racist as well.

Nice to see the quality of people NBC is hiring, isn't it? Do the sponsors of the McLaughlin group know that it exploits explosively angry bigots for ratings?

If someone out there loves Lawrence O'Donnell--get him some help--quickly.

ADDENDUM: Its rather interesting to note that the normal pattern for going negative on a candidate is to destroy their personal credibility with supporters by revealing some shocking aspect of their personal behavior--i.e. Barry Obama took drugs and fathered two black children...

Judging by the Democrats portion of press releases on Republican candidates, they've already decided that Mitt Romney presents the biggest problem. The irony is that the negative attacks have taken the form of an attack on an entire religious faith! The implication is clear--on a personal level, Romney just doesn't present much of a target (as oppose to say, Rudy...)

Jay R. Grodner is a Chicago lawyer who likes to key the cars of defense department personel--most recently Marine Sgt Mike McNulty, was charged with misdemeanor criminal damages (and not crushed into powder by the highly-disciplined but very dangerous Marine Sgt) and arrogantly dismissed an offer of probation negotiated by the Illinois States attorney--no doubt figuring that professional courtesy would smooth his way.

Blackfive's attention to this issue and the subsequent mass effort at blogging this indignity has resulted in the court's enthusiastic prosecution of the case, and Grodner's absence in court resulted in a bench warrant for his arrest. Somebody tipped him off, because he whimpered into court and begged forgiveness, spouting lame excuses about traffic and getting lost.

The screenshot?

Oh, someone--I have no idea who, posted this screenshot of Grodner's dating profile. Click to enlarge. Like all the moonbats I know, the delusions aren't confined to politics. Obese, balding and diminutive, Grodner thinks this will get chicks:

I love sex. I'm wild about so many ways that sex makes life worth living. I joined this site because the women I'm seeing are both beautiful and adventurous. I have plenty of work a free time to talk. somtimes one needs to act.

Apparently the literary skills of PhD's aren't what they used to be...

Jay R. Grodner, the moonbat lawyer from Chicago who expressed his displeasure with the military and the Bush administra