This week's installment of Ann Coulter is a douche

Ann the rag's August 30th column is titled "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln." In this screed, Coulter rails against Republican US Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, who is involved in a tight primary battle with a more conservative challenger, Steve Laffey.

So, Abraham Lincoln was shot and Chaffee's first name is LINCOLN. Get it, get it? Huh? Huh? Ann's so CLEVER!

Remember when George W. Bush ran for President promising to "change the tone?" I'm still waiting.

Coulter's column consists of nasty, negative personal attacks on Chaffee, but they're kind of amusing in that Coulter condemns Chaffee for traits and circumstances she does not find fault with in Republicans other than Chaffee. Here are some samples:

After Chafee's family money got him into Andover and Brown, he made his living shoeing horses for seven years. In fact, I've often wondered if an errant kick to the head by one of his charges would account for Chafee's rudimentary cognitive abilities.

When the farrier business proved too taxing for Chafee's intellect, he went into the family business -- politics. His father died in office, and Lincoln was appointed by the governor to serve out the remainder of Pop's term in the U.S. Senate. (I know Rhode Island is small, but couldn't they find someone who reads books right side up to fill the seat?) In terms of qualifications for the job, Chafee makes Michael Brown look like Donald Rumsfeld.

Chafee is everything the Democrats like to claim Republicans are, which we are not and they are: silver-spoon morons who get ahead on the basis of family connections (for example, Ned the Red Lamont in Connecticut).

The only reason Chafee calls himself a Republican is that he believes that everyone above a certain income level is required by law to do so.

He learned this from reading "Doonesbury" and watching "The West Wing" while studiously ignoring blindingly obvious facts like: Sens. Teddy Kennedy (inherited millions), John Kerry (married millions -- twice, lucky guy), Sen. Herbert H. Kohl (inherited millions), John D. Rockefeller (inherited millions), Mark Dayton (inherited millions), Dianne Feinstein (married millions) and aspiring senator Ned the Red (inherited millions). All Democrats.

Now please note who Coulter does not condemn:

George W. Bush, Yale legacy, repeatedly failed businessman, a man who won the Governor's office in Texas on the strength of his father's name.

Jeb Bush, about whom you can say all the same stuff as you can about George W., except for the Yale legacy part.

I could go on, but you get the point.

I'm no fan of Chaffee's but Coulter's venomous diatribe is over the top. I said it before and I'll say it again: Ann Coulter has been, is, and will always be a douche.

Wolf Blitzer is a total tool

This is what passes for journalism in this day and age?

First, Blitzer mischaracterizes the support of Bill and Hillary Clinton for Ned Lamont, making it seem like they only recently started to support him. In fact, they both indicated before the Democratic primary for US Senator in Connecticut that they'd support whichever candidate won, Senator Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont.

Then notice the backhanded comment at the very end, making it seem like the support of the Clintons for Lamont is somehow halfhearted or pro forma without actually saying it directly.

Why can't we have well-prepared TV news personalities who present actual news?

From the August 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: -- and her husband campaigned for Joe Lieberman. So, why is Senator Hillary Clinton meeting with Ned Lamont today? The answer in today's "Political Radar."

[...]

BLITZER: Let's get a quick check of our "Political Radar" this Friday.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is offering additional support for Democrat Ned Lamont's campaign to defeat Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Clinton met with Lamont at her home in Chappaqua, New York. It was their first face-to-face since Lamont defeated Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary.

No reporters, no TV cameras were allowed in the meeting, but a Clinton spokeswoman tells CNN that -- spokesman, that is, tells CNN that the senator offered to host a fundraiser for Lamont down the road.

A Lieberman spokesman dismisses that as old partisan politics. Senator Clinton and her husband supported Lieberman over Lamont in the primary and former President Clinton even campaigned for Lieberman. But now, both oppose Lieberman's decision to run as an independent this fall and they're now backing Lamont.

We'll see how strongly they actually do back Lamont.

Liberal media bias is a myth

I'm back from having spent a week working out of state. From Media Matters, here's today's example of how the notion of liberal bias in the media is total B.S.:

From the August 21 Daniela Deane (that's her in the photo) Post article:

Asked if he wasn't frustrated by the seeming lack of progress there, Bush replied, "Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. War is not a time of joy. These are challenging times."

But when asked by NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell if he was indeed frustrated by the lack of progress in Iraq, Bush not only said that he is occasionally frustrated and "rarely surprised," he also claimed to "sometimes" be happy:

O'DONNELL: But are you frustrated, sir?

BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists.

When "journalists" bend over backwards to keep Bush from looking bad how can anyone seriously argue that the media is biased against him?

Anything to win

This is just shameful.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

For those of you who don't remember it was George W. Bush who claimed in 2000 that he wanted to be president so he could "change the tone" of politics. Clearly that was just election-year bullshit.

The illustration at the top is a corner of a page from the presidential daily briefing "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S."

The next time you read about or see video of a terrorist attack on Americans, remember which party thinks it's a good thing and WHY.

Just shameful.

Ann Coulter, your 15 minutes are up

What will it take for Ann Coulter to be consigned to obscurity?

She called the former president and vice president "a latent homosexual" and "a big fag." Nothing happened.

She lied in the footnotes and end notes of her books. Nothing.

She called Hillary Clinton a lesbian. Nothing.

She has more than once called for the staff of the New York Times to be killed. Nothing.

She advocated the murder of a US Supreme Court Justice. Nothing.

She it would be OK to frag a US Congressman who retired from the Marine Corps after 37 years of service and volunteered for Vietnam

From her latest column, we get this. By the way, Maxine Waters is an African-American:

Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat.

I'm convinced Ann Coulter can say "nigger," pick the wings off flies, or strangle babies and the people who run the allegedly liberal media still won't fire her.

I think it's high time that her fifteen minutes of fame expire.

Major networks head towards "fair and balanced"

According to this Media Matters item, all three major broadcast networks had Senator Joe Lieberman on their morning news shows the day after he lost his primary for the Democratic US Senate nomination. Guess how many hosted Ned Lamont, the guy who beat Lieberman? If you guessed "zero," congratulations.

Let's see -- Lamont is the liberal, Lieberman is the Bush supporter. Lieberman gets all the airtime, Lamont doesn't get invited on. Where's the liberal bias in that?

There is no liberal bias in the media.

Now this is why I like Wes Clark

As a retired Army General, Clark understands the values of clarity and conciseness in communicating:

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party. Indeed, Connecticut Democrats recognized all of this, and yesterday they chose Ned Lamont as their nominee for the U.S. Senate. Now, I hope you'll join me in supporting Ned as he heads into the general election this November. I couldn't have said this better.

I hope Democrats everywhere will heed and repeat General Clark's message.

And here's more stupid reporting

Another item from Media Matters on how "reporter" Dana Bash appeared on CNN to reapeat Republican talking points while calling them "news."

There is no liberal bias in the media.

Liberal media bias, my ass

Check out this Media Matters item on how Adam Nagourney of the New York Times has to contradict his own previous reporting in order to trash Democrats today.

How can anyone read stuff like this and believe there is a liberal bias in the media?

Damned stupid Constitution...

This story will leave you speechless. It's simply incredible to think that Duncan Bremer, a major party candidate for Congress can be this jaw-dropping stupid when it comes to his take on how to solve our problems in the Middle East:

"There's an aspect of it that people are not willing to talk about, and I am - its religious basis. ... Our best hope is that we actually convert them away from their religious fanatical basis," Bremer said.

He said that would best be accomplished by missionaries of various faiths.

"I'd prefer that they get converted to evangelical Christianity, but my point is that there is a religious battleground and our government is disabled from fighting on that battleground," Bremer said.

Is it possible Bremer has never heard of the separation of church and state and freedom of religion, or does he simply think it's OK to ignore the US Constitution when it suits him?

Oh, and he's the brother of the former Ambassador to Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III. Maybe there's something in the genes?

Welcome to Oceania

We're almost in Oceania. Just check out this proposal from the Bush administration:

You're guilty.

We don't have to tell you what you illegal act you committed, but we know you did it.

We don't have to tell you what the evidence against you is, but we have it.

We can hold you indefinitely. You don't get a lawyer. You don't get to notify anyone of your whereabouts. You don't get to be present for the tribunal at which we determine your fate. We can decide that virtually anything you do is against the law. In fact, we can even retroactively decide that what you did was illegal.

Geez, remember the Clinton administration, when the big government liberal activists wanted to have the bureaucrats intrude into every aspect of your life? Thank God the conservative limited government personal responsibility activists are in charge.

I suggest we all read articles I, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII for starters. To keep this administration from getting its way, we'll need to know them by heart.

Chris Matthews is a dumbass

I know that the Republican party's standard operating procedure is to blame Bill Clinton for everything. I also know that Chris Matthews is a dumbass. Even so, this is stupid even for Matthews. Blaming Bill Clinton for a terrorist attack that happened NINE MONTHS after he was out of office? And blaming Clinton after it was BUSH who ignored the warning of the presidential daily briefing "bin Laden determined to strike inside the US?" And blaming Clinton after it was BUSH who told that briefer "alll right, you've covered your ass now?" Come on !

Oh, and Mark Green is also a dumbass for not defending Clinton from Matthews' ridiculous blathering. If you live in New York vote for Andrew Cuomo in the attorney general primary and send Green packing.