Hilarious

From the woman who also believes that the New Deal was a bad idea and that Joe McCarthy was a great American hero:

"I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible [For the record: Ms. Coulter is talking about President Bush] for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents."

Here is a survey of hundreds of professional historians (as opposed to professional bloviators, like Ms. Coulter) who disagree:

"Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations."

You probably don't want to go there...

A video/audio recording of Sen. Obama has been making the rounds (not surprisingly - at all - Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity ran with this non-story on the same day) recently purporting to reveal many 'gaffes' on the campaign trail, supposed to demonstrate something negative about the Senator, though I'm not sure what. He stutters a couple of times, incorrectly identifies a handful of cities, accidentally refers to an asthma inhaler a breathylizer, and loses his train of thought discussing the cost of a program.

The Senator is, of course, talking a great deal lately. And, as any human being would when asked to speak extemporaneously for several hours a day, he has missed a beat or two. Conservatives may not want to get into a discussion of silly-sounding politicians. Nor silly-sounding candidates.

All of these are non-issues. Obama knows what an inhaler is; Sen. McCain knows who Vladimir Putin is. Speech, unlike blogging, has no backspace button. Those hyping these events are trying to score lazy cheap shots.

This just in...

Sen. McCain has crazy supporters (via Americablog, through Instaputz). So does Sen. Obama (via Powerline).

Does any of this have any bearing on anything? Are Powerline, Little Green Footballs and Instapundit* trying to score cheap political points with their already skittish readership?**

No. And yes.

* Instaputz is of course not scoring cheap political points, since TS mentions the insanity of both candidates' supporters, via a link to Instapundit.

**They must be counting on their readers to spread the word, since nobody who had any intention whatsoever of voting for Sen. Obama would ever read any of those blogs for information.

Comparison of Financial Transparency

According to www.opensecrets.org, Sen. Obama has disclosed 94 percent of his funding sources, while Sen. McCain has disclosed 87 percent.

Who ought to be lecturing who about funding sources?

In the immortal words of Hobbes the Tiger...

...Adjectives fail me.

----------------------

Thousands of Americans are pledging to fire up their charcoal barbecue grills, bask in the infinite glow of numerous incandescent light bulbs, shun recycling of any kind and take spontaneous road trips in gas-guzzling vehicles to increase their personal carbon output – all in protest of the Senate debate over a bill calling for a "cap-and-trade" system.

Grassfire, one of the nation's fastest-growing grassroots organizations, has declared June 12 Carbon Belch Day and is enlisting citizens to expel more than 100 million pounds of CO2 to combat climate alarmist propaganda and to take a stand against a "$1.2 trillion carbon tax."

"We wanted to point out the absurdity of the climate alarmism of Al Gore and others who want to make us feel bad for just about everything we do and rally people for the battle over the carbon tax which is now under way in the Senate," Grassfire president Steve Elliott told WND. "We really plan to engage lots of citizens who have been under carbon-footprint guilt for far too long and give citizens an opportunity to make a statement that we reject climate alarmism. We're not going to stand for this carbon tax."

People are reading this stuff.

And, what's more, they are taking it seriously --

------------

"WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE Finally revealed: The secret life of Barack Obama
Is he America's political messiah – or a Manchurian candidate?

In a few short months, the young and relatively unknown politician Barack Hussein Obama may very well be elevated to the presidency of the United States and command the mightiest military in world history.

Would the eloquent and charismatic Obama unite, inspire and renew a troubled nation, as tens of millions of voters passionately believe? Or is it possible he's a Manchurian candidate – harboring an ominous secret agenda few understand, a man destined to wreak havoc on America should he become president?

That's the question that is explored definitively in the April issue of WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA."

[snip]

Examination of his U.S. Senate voting record reveals him to be a hard leftist. A little-reported letter from the candidate to the "LGBT community" declares Obama's enthusiastic solidarity with the radical homosexual-rights agenda. His long-time spiritual mentor and pastor turns out to be a rabid, racist, America-hater who claims the U.S. invented AIDS to wipe out black people. Bloggers are even piecing together an intriguing case that Obama, a Muslim in his youth, may still be a closet Muslim.

-----------

We will all look back in a few years and feel very, very ashamed.

It'd be one thing if this were the tin-foil hat crowd frothing in the corner, but reasonably mainstream 'journalists' on Fox and the radio quote or at least praise World Net Daily somewhat regularly.

Where the money goes

To subsidize struggling farmers David Letterman and the owners of the Utah Jazz, of course -

--------------

"Consider their latest masterpiece, the 2007 farm bill that Congress this week delivered, several months late, to George Bush. Congress and the farmers have conspired to make an already unjust agricultural policy—a system that has subsidised the “farming” activities of such paupers as David Letterman and David Rockefeller—even worse. Through a complicated and overlapping system of government-sponsored insurance, counter-cyclical assistance, disaster aid and legacy payments tied to nothing, the five-year, $307 billion bill lavishes cash on wealthy farm households, the main restriction on collecting it being a means test that applies to couples making more than $1.5m a year. And even that can be avoided by employing a reasonably competent accountant.

Shockingly, the bill's authors tied some future subsidy payments to today's record commodity prices, therefore guaranteeing already well-off farmers high incomes. Commercial farm households, which get most of the largesse, will have an average income of $229,920 in 2008, says the Agriculture Department. And it means, as the department points out, that the government could owe billions in subsidy payments to these big farmers if and when prices dip again."

-----------

Sen. Obama voted for this piece of junk. Sen. McCain, to his credit, did not. Also to President Bush's credit, he exercised a little fiscal prudence for once and vetoed the bill, though it was overridden.

"The 'New Media' at work," or "you just can't make this stuff up"

Sean Hannity just cited gossip websites 'The Drudge Report' and 'TMZ.com' in the space of five minutes, while reporting on one of his favorite topics (perhaps his alltime favorite), the private life of Bill Clinton.

This may come as a surprise...

Michael Savage on his show yesterday claimed that left-wingers are trying to bring about something in this country that he described as 'fascism, socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it.'

For the benefit of Mr. Savage, (who would no doubt be aghast if he realized he'd made such an egregious factual error) via the Wiktionary --

"1) Noun
fascism
A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.

2) Noun
Singular communism
Plural communisms
communism (plural communisms)
Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.
Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy.
The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist.

3) Noun
Singular socialism
Plural socialism
Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.
The socialist political philosophies as a group, including Marxism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy.
(Leninism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism. This is a strategy whereby the State has control of all key resource-producing industries and manages most aspects of the market, in contrast to laissez faire capitalism.
(Classical Marxism) The international communist society where classes and the state no longer exist. "

Mr. Savage's current usage appears to signify ' Something Very Bad^10 that I can use to smear liberals.'

Shabby logic

A caller into Bill O'Reilly's radio show today argued that anyone criticizing The United States (or, more specifically, policies of the government of The United States) ought not do so because, essentially, life was worse in other countries than this one. He said something to the effect of (if I may paraphrase) - 'Anyone who wants to in this country can decide to go get a job and a plate of food' while in other countries 'they have to walk ten miles to get a bucket of water from a mudhole.'

O'Reilly, of course, vociferously agreed. True, life is much better in the United States for the worst-off Americans than the median human in much of the rest of the world. However I don't see how it follows logically that Americans can't try to improve their own country because it's already better than some others. A metaphoric dialogue occurred to me as I listened to O'Reilly extrapolate on how we each 'owed' America something more than tax revenue -

Me: I drive an old Isuzu Rodeo with a broken air conditioner and a barely working radio. Someday soon, though, I'd like to get a hybrid with working AC and CD player-

O'Reilly: Why do you hate Rodeos?

Me: Pardon?

O'Reilly: Your Rodeo gets you to work everyday. It's given you so much. Why wouldn't you just appreciate it? Some people don't even have cars. I know the media is filling your head with anti-Rodeo propaganda everyday and all, but you can see through that, can't you?

Me: I don't hate Rodeos, per se, I just thought it'd be nice to have a car that runs a little smoother and is easier on the environment and my wallet-

O'Reilly: Nobody's fooled by your far-left hate-filled agenda, herr Goebbels.

Speaking to the enemy, or sleazy political gamesmanship

The Economist, on whether Sen. Obama intends to 'appease' the Iranians:

"In January 1991 in Geneva, for example, America's secretary of state talked face-to-face to Tariq Aziz, a nasty piece of work who was Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and is currently on trial for murder. But nobody has ever been silly enough to accuse James Baker or the president who sent him (one George H. W. Bush) of appeasement. And that is because instead of letting Iraq keep Kuwait, which it had just invaded and annexed, Mr Baker told Mr Aziz that America would throw Iraq out by force if it did not leave. Hardly appeasement."

Later, in the same piece:

"Strange, then, that the very Mr Bush who admonished the appeasers from Israel's parliament has allowed Americans to negotiate with the North for years. If these talks ever make Kim Jong-Il give up his nukes, nobody in his right mind will hold Mr Bush's decision to talk against him. And if it's fine to speak to North Korea, why rule out talking, as Mr Obama says he would, to Iran?"

The cynic in me keeps screaming that cheap political points scored at the expense of skittish American voters may be somehow involved. I can't quite put my finger on how...

McClellan

It seems to me that books written by administration insiders critical of that administration are hailed as a Great Work of Truth by liberals/Democrats if written by conservatives/Republicans, and hailed by conservatives/Republicans as a Great Work of Truth if written by liberals/Democrats.

An insider book critical of a Republican administration will be met with widespread derision in all conservative media, whether the work has any merit or not, and the former loyal soldier will be vilified by the O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Hume axis that used to sing his praises, or at least accord him the respect due to a loyal soldier. I imagine this holds true for Democratic administration insiders as well (Although the Olbermann-Colmes-Franken axis just doesn't seem to have quite the same oomph), though it's been a while since we've had one so it'd be hard to say for sure.

Many (most) of the blowhards passing judgment will not have read the book, and will cheerfully openly admit this fact.

Nuance

Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler. Not even close.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close.

Dopey comments regarding the holocaust do not equal the holocaust.

Anti-Iraq war does not equal pro-Saddam. Pro-Iraq war does not equal war-monger.

Talking to dictators we don't like (that is to say, those who are not already allied to the United States) 'without preconditions' does not equal appeasement. Anyone who speaks out against a war is not Neville Chamberlain.

Moreover, we only use the word 'dictator' when it's a dictator we don't like. One never hears the words 'Saudi Arabian dictator King Abdullah,' nor 'Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf.'

Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are not dictators. Both men were democratically elected, and both are subject to checks on their powers - Chavez by the legislature and Ahmedinejad by the Mullahs.

A plague of locusts will not terrorize the land if one's preferred presidential candidate is not elected, Republican or Democrat.

The 'War on Terror' is not World War II redux. Sept. 11 was not Pearl Harbor redux. The Iraq War is not Vietnam redux. Each of these events is more dissimilar than alike, although it's debatable how much more similar one set is than the other.

20th century American foreign policy in the middle east was shameful. In light of this, it's obvious that the terrorists do not hate us directly because they are evil or hate our freedoms, or, as President Bush put it, because we have a democratically elected government. However, in part, they do hate some of what a liberalised society allows that they find sinful. Essentially they are the extreme religious right-wing of the Muslim world - getting back to the basics of the faith because they believe that the mainstream of Islam has strayed from the faith of Muhammed.