If you want to see a perfect example of how the left-wing media plans to smear and destroy Mitt Romney should he win the GOP nomination, no better example can be found than the hoax over a photo that lefties every where are trying to sell as evidence of Romney’s “privileged” life. Lefties say the photo in question shows Romney “getting his shoes shined” before getting on a private jet during his campaign travel. That is not what the photo shows, of course, but let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good left-wing mudslinging, OK?

The meme began from a photo by Getty showing Romney sitting in a chair on the tarmac with his foot up and a red-jacketed worker attending to the candidate’s footwear. The left immediately assumed that Romney was getting his shoes shined before getting on a “corporate” jet. This story was made up out of whole cloth because in reality what the picture shows is Romney getting his shoes wanded by an explosive sniffing device wielded by a TSA agent before being allowed to board the plane.

The photo seems to have appeared early on the blog of the MSNBC smear show “The Ed Schultz Show” with the headline, “Romney Creates Another Job.” The caption set the tone for the left-wing onslaught to come saying, “Mitt Romney created another job with his presence alone… a job giving shoe shines on the tarmac in front of a corporate jet.”

From there Salon’s most virulent hater, Joan Walsh, picked up on the meme on her blog with one titled “Mr. 1 Percent is clueless about inequality,” where she used the photo as an illustration to “prove” that Romney was out of touch with the reg’lar folks.

Salon’s Steve Kornacki then went on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show and launched into his interpretation of the supposed shoe shining.

“There’s a picture that’s making the rounds today — the shoe shine on the tarmac,” Kornacki explained. “I don’t know if you saw this one. I don’t know where this came from… He’s sitting in front of an airplane. I think it might be a corporate jet, and he’s wearing a suit and he’s getting a shoe shine. He’s got a big smile on his face.”

…“He’s getting a shoe shine! We put this on Salon earlier today. I’m not sure where it originated. But it never looks good for a politician to be getting a shoe shine, you know, on a tarmac but it looks terrible when it’s Mitt Romney and this is your image and background. It looks worse when it’s the year 2012 and the economy is in such a bad place, and the Democrats are going to be going after your party for being the one that sort of favors the people who get shoe shines on tarmacs!” he added.

So, not only did Kornacki lie about the photo — he had no knowledge at all about what it really showed — but he then throw in the “I think it might be a corporate jet” on top of it — again without knowing if it really was or not — so that he could add more layers of lies to the story.

(more…)

Well, she’s certainly making a case for the title.

In a piece titled, “When white people lack “bourgeois values,” the Salon Editor at Large manages a race and class-baiting exacta, covering an alleged economic disdain shown by Republicans towards African-Americans, and charging the GOP with promoting policies which “shackle women to the home.”

In attacking a Rick Santorum speech on family values, in which he correctly stated, “When the family breaks down, the economy breaks down,” Walsh had this to say, my emphasis:

It’s a fascinating worldview that colors the entire GOP primary campaign, in which actual policies to help workers and families are rejected in favor of those that cut government and shackle women to the home, and it needs to be better understood.

It’s also another reminder that the prejudice and disdain Republicans once reserved for African-Americans has spread like a toxic mist to stigmatize a lot of other people, including a lot of white folks.

In citing proof of these allegations of prejudice towards white people, Walsh embarrassingly references the 46 million Americans on food stamps, the vast majority of whom are “white people.”

Embarrassing why?  Because it was just last May that Walsh used the ‘food stamp’ argument to prove that Newt Gingrich had used the phrase as “coded racism” against “black people.” That was corrected here.

Calling the use of the term ‘food stamp,’ racist towards blacks, when a majority of those on food stamps are white, can only make sense in the mind of a bigot projecting their own true brand of racism.

(more…)

Martin Bashir has situational concern for race. His remarks from his program the other evening:

“It also showed how political leaders could be responsible for either encouraging better race relations or making matters a whole lot worse by using cheap and nasty slurs Now listen to some of the things being said by these republican candidates.”

He mentions only Republican candidates using two instances: the deconstructed false flag of race on Gingrich’s remarks, and the CBS story of Santorum’s remark.

Where, pray tell, was Martin Bashir when Democrats said all this?

Harry Reid:

… Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately.

Bill Clinton on Obama:

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

Joe Biden:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Or this Biden classic:

“You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

(more…)

Joan Walsh says:

Gee willikers, former GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney denounced his latest rival, disgraced former House speaker Newt Gingrich, in his harshest language yet, calling him “zany” in an interview with the New York Times. Beltway folks think that shows Mitt’s fear and ferocity, I think it shows him, again, as an animatron politician devoid of passion who’s stuck in the 1950s. Zany? Gidget was zany. Gingrich is a dangerous huckster, who will apparently say anything to get elected.

Golly gee willikers, Joan Walsh! If you think Mitt Romney is “stuck in the 1950s” for saying the word “zany,” you must be “stuck on stupid.” It wasn’t actually his characterization. It was that of New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny. We can hardly wait for you to update and tell us how silly and out-of-date he is.

Unfortunately, one can’t simply blame Walsh, as the New York Times perpetuated the story – under Jeff Zeleny’s byline, when Zeleny is actually the one who called Newt Gingrich “zany.”
(more…)

I’d like to give Salon’s Joan Walsh great credit for the humanity that informs her commentary.

I’m a live-and-let-live kind of person, a divorced lapsed Catholic, a San Francisco liberal. Life is hard; marriage is harder. I try not to judge people who don’t live up to their vows. Republicans included, as long as they’re not hypocrites who preach about the “sanctity” of marriage while cheating on their spouses.

Unfortunately, I can’t actually do that. The above was written in 2007, while attacking Senator David Vitter. Saint Joan Walsh wanted us to know what a good and non-judgmental person she is.

This, below, is Saint Joan today, Neither Newt, Trump, nor Rudy would be characterized as of the “Family Values” wing of the GOP. Unfortunately, Saint Joan doesn’t let that stop her from bashing them as “nasty Republicans,” while also taking a swipe at the entire party for their being divorced.

Finally, I love the fact that Gingrich and Giuliani have six wives and two marriage annulments between them. Add in Donald Trump, who seems to be leaning toward Gingrich too, they can start a Three Wives Club. Way to go, family values party!

I’ll be talking about the latest on the GOP field with Ed Schultz and Ezra Klein on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” at 8 ET. (more…)

I’m not surprised; after all, this is the publication edited* by Joan Walsh who immediately thinks of black people when she hears the word “welfare” and who insinuated, sans apology, that Andrew Breitbart and I somehow fabricated Weinergate.

Alex Pareene wrote could barely contain his glee at the victory of big money over the little guy. I felt the need to examine Pareene’s piece graph by graph as a lesson in passing off uneducated propaganda as journalism.

Remember the story of Kenneth Gladney? You probably don’t, unless you’re a right-winger. He was a guy who got knocked over for a second during a contentious town hall meeting in St. Louis in 2009. He quickly became a folk hero to right-wing bloggers, because he was, if you squinted, a black conservative victim of Union Thug Violence.

Can Pareene explain to me how the video of the incident begins with Gladney on the ground as SEIU members stand over him? In fact, can any progressive explain this? They act as though a much-smaller Gladney attacked the SEIU members’ feet with his head.

Yes, he became a hero to conservatives and an “Uncle Tom” to progressives. Additionally, no one to this day has asked Gladney about his political ideology. Progressives assume and must vet those who ask for help, apparently, while conservatives simply saw a man being attacked and knew he deserved help regardless his politics. Thanks for illustrating that so perfectly, Alex!

He was also uninsured — yep! — and the hospital visit he had to make in order to demonstrate the severity of his “beating” also made him a right-wing charity case. He then began appearing at Tea Party rallies and on Fox News in a wheelchair, etc., etc. Liberals laughed bitterly at the “uninsured person protests government-funded healthcare” story and then forgot all about Gladney, forever. But the conservative bloggers never forget an exaggerated or wholly invented tale of victimhood.

Pareene here demonstrates a classic example of more zeal than knowledge. He wanted to write something nasty about this case more than he wanted to sound knowledgeable about it. Gladney was insured, in fact, through his wife’s employer. I’m sure Pareene didn’t bother checking Gladney’s medical records with the hospital either to see the extent of Gladney’s injuries, as other bloggers have done, since he couldn’t bother to verify whether or not Gladney was insured.

Even more disturbing, Pareene’s tone towards Gladney’s need betrays the progressive loathing of charity. Progressives will eagerly trot out the poor to use as electioneering devices but when it comes time to actually care for those in need, they kick them over to the government. They can’t be bothered. There are Appletinis to drink!

(Gladney wore a neck brace during the trial. The neck brace was unrelated to the two-year-old incident. You know that whole thing about frivolous lawsuits and tort reform and the culture of victimhood and ambulance-chasing trial lawyers? Yes, well, the conservative movement totally means all of that, until someone in an SEIU shirt briefly knocks someone over.)

Gladney wore a neck brace to the trial because he just had spinal surgery. Also, how is this a frivolous lawsuit again? Did Gladney ask for a frillion dollars in damages? Does Pareene understand what “tort reform” means?

This is where it gets really good: TBogg found BigJournalism.com’s explanation for how this travesty of justice was allowed to occur. Because of Media Matters! See, SEIU paid Media Matters some money, and then, mysteriously, Kenneth Gladney lost his case.

Actually, that wasn’t the point at all, but again, I don’t expect someone who doesn’t know he should verify information before he prints it to possess the reading comprehension required to understand the intent. Considering that Big Journalism focuses on journalism, the piece explored how Media Matters saw no conflict of interest in smearing Gladney and defending SEIU while being on the SEIU payroll. Pareene, of course, showcases the Myspace aesthetic of his blogging by refusing to further explore this aspect of the story.

Apparently SEIU and Media Matters for America and George Soros and the Tides Foundation and Eric Boehlert and the city of Montclair, N.J., acting on orders from the White House, all used their wizard powers to convince a jury in St. Louis that Kennedy Gladney was not actually assaulted. And that is how the vast left-wing conspiracy works.

The Gladney attack occurred right after HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius urged union members on a conference call to show up to town halls, right after the Obama admin told supporters to “punch back twice as hard“:

And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.

You’re telling me that the same publication that encouraged the public to blame Sarah Palin for the Tucson shooting refuses to acknowledge the relationship between the Obama administration encouraging union aggression and the Gladney attack?

They’re more disingenuous and partisan than I’d ever before realized.

*Walsh took the opportunity to point out that she has been demoted from Editor of Salon, despite describing herself as “Editor at Large” on Twitter. Noted – yet she still has not apologized or corrected her previous insinuations related to Weinergate.

Just a small glimpse into the past week’s “new tone” rhetoric from President Obama, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Joan Walsh, Tina Brown, and Josh Marshall.

As with Bill Clinton before him, Anthony Weiner has managed to spotlight the ironic discrepancy between what feminists say and the things for which they stand.

A NY head of NOW remarked to the New York Daily News that the group is “trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

The head of the Brooklyn/Queens chapter of the National Organization for Women said she could separate Weiner’s sexcapades from the liberal track record that earned the group’s support.

“I wasn’t happy to discover that my congressman is a 14-year-old boy,” said Julie Kirshner, president of the NOW chapter.

“But he happens to be one of the best politicians out there, so we’re in a bad position. We’re trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Feminist Amanda Marcotte, who previously carried water for John Edwards, called the reporting of a congressman’s lewd photo scandal “new standards” of which we should all fear. She was taken down eleventy notches by The Other McCain:

Note how Ms. Marcotte deploys “ideologue” as an epithet against Breitbart when she is herself an avowed adherent of the ideology of feminism. Indeed, if it weren’t for her idolatrous devotion to feminism, Ms. Marcotte would have nothing to write about. Her entire raison d’êtreas a writer is to filter the world through a feminist lens.

She is one of those writers who, despairing of achieving notoriety in the larger literary world, seeks a readership in some ghetto niche occupied almost entirely by third-rate talents, so that her occasional second-rate contributions appear conspicuously impressive by comparison. And in her feminist niche, the only standard by which anyone may be judged is according to their zealous devotion to The Sacred Cause:

Weiner has an outstanding record supporting sexual rights of others, with100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and has a strong record of support for gay rights.

See? He votes the right way. And isn’t that what really matters?

[...]

Amanda Marcotte is her own insoluble problem, and the appeal of politics to such an irreparably warped personality is that it appears to make sense of her alienation from society. All she needs to do is to re-frame her grievances in an ideological context — to say that “sexists” or the “right-wing smear machine” or some other such politicized bogeyman is to blame for her own unhappiness — and suddenly she is no longer a whining malcotent, but a heroic crusader for social justice.

Maybe she’s just waxing fangirl to score a spot on Weiner’s mayoral campaign? She asserts that investigation into or reporting on Weiner’s acts constitutes a “violation of sexual privacy.” Two tough lessons progressives have to learn here:

1. When you open the door of sexual investigation you can’t close it again. It was fine for the left to absurdly question the parentage of Trig Palin; it was fine to make hay out of the GOP perverts, so it’s newsworthy to report on Weiner. These are the standards the left themselves set.

2. There is no expectation of “sexual privacy” when there is a possibility that you Tweeted photos of your schlong from your congressional office or congressional gym.

(more…)

Joan Walsh appeared on Ed Schult’z show to express her dismay at how Congressman Anthony Weiner’s actions made her look.

“A lot of us gave him the benefit of the doubt … I look kinda stupid.”

(more…)

So, it’s the Day After Weiner and giddiness still abounds in conservative new media circles, which is not a bad thing. However, I’ve seen this kind of thing before over here on the right side of the political aisle and something worries me a little. Call me a buzzkill but, what the hell, somebody has to do it.

Obviously, the greatest thing to come out of Weinergate was some measure of vindication for Andrew Breitbart, who is one of the most decent, hard working people I’ve ever met, and maybe the nicest. The amount of vitriolic insanity heaped on him every day by the Left would have probably turned me into a raging sociopath a long time ago.

When I wrote “some measure” in the above paragraph I meant “the bare minimum and an amount that none of us should begin to be happy with if we’re serious about overhauling the pathetically biased dinosaur media.”

We conservatives, bless our hearts, know how to celebrate a victory. Sometimes too well. Over the years I’ve seen an extended round of back-slapping over an electoral or public relations victory that sometimes ended in ceding back some of the hard fought ground just won. I hope that isn’t going to happen here.

The one very real victory yesterday was that Andrew Breitbart was given a public apology, one of the hundreds, if not thousands, he, John Nolte, Dana Loesch, Mike Flynn and many others associated with the Bigs deserve.

(more…)

Before Congressman Anthony Weiner eliminated all competing conspiracy theories about his crotch shot with one flick of Occam’s Razor, many people, including Salon’s Joan Walsh, blamed me and Andrew Breitbart. Apparently, we had l33t h4×0r skills, able to simultaneously hijack three different social media accounts of a sitting congressman — or, somehow we Photoshopped a photo of a headless man’s briefs and arbitrarily claimed it was Anthony Weiner.

These theories seemed easier and minimized any liability the left would have to assume for violating principles over which they excoriated Republican harlots John Ensign and Chris Lee.

Joan Walsh spent last week speaking from both sides of her mouth which makes reconciling her Twitter stream and articles on the affair so confusing.

On May 29 Walsh said:

Walsh had a conversation with Ben Smith and Charles Blow wherein she pushed the idea that #Weinergate was a “right-wing smear machine” hitjob perpetrated by the “Breitbart empire.”

On May 31 Walsh promoted a column on her site by saying “this says everything there is to say.”

(more…)

“No it wasn’t deceptive, that’s what everybody’s saying about it. I saw the first version of it, and it told pretty much the whole story, of how that woman had gone through an epiphany of understanding how race works.”

Related:
Nolte: Who Got to Chris Matthews?: ‘Hardball’ Defense of Breitbart Memory-Holed (July 30, 2010)
Marlow: WaPo’s Kurtz “dishonestly suggests Matthews had gotten his facts wrong regarding Breitbart including footage of Shirley Sherrod’s redemption” (August 3, 2010)

As the Weinergate story leaves behind many unanswered questions, the Twitterverse is not likely to get many truthful answers – not as long as Joan Walsh has anything to do about it.  The Salon.com editor had some harsh words for reporters who tried to cover the story from an angle that didn’t suit her own anti-Breitbart bias.

Over Memorial Day weekend, the Weinergate story developed in the wee hours of the night on Friday evening and early Saturday morning, when a lewd photo purported to be from Congressman Weiner’s yfrog account surfaced on Twitter.  Given that the story was literally unfolding on Twitter, where thousands of other users were witnessing the now infamous tweet in real time, it wasn’t exactly a “sit and wait” situation.  In the age of social media, stories make themselves – good or bad, one tweet can erupt into a firestorm in the blink of instant.  This presents both a challenge and an opportunity.  On one hand, media can wait and verify every fact, but at Twitter speed, the story will move far more quickly than standard fact finding and requests for comments can possibly occur.  On the other hand, new media journalism can fill that void and get ahead of such a story before the firestorm gets out of hand.

And this is exactly what the Big sites did when Weinergate erupted.  BigGovernment.com ran with a post just before 12:30am on Saturday, headlined “Weinergate: Congressman Claims ‘Facebook Hacked’ as Lewd Photo Hits Twitter.”  Given that the story was in its infancy but was moving so quickly online, editors merely presented the facts as they were known at the time, indicating that it was a developing story.  They also decided to publish the tweet and photo, but took caution by redacting all of the personal information of the young woman for whom the tweet was supposedly intended. (more…)

Joan Walsh is nothing if not predictable and super tiring. Oh yeah, and totally racist. Her true racist colors showed once again in her latest article at Salon.

The article was meant to attack Newt Gingrich for a statement he made on “Meet The Press,” which further goes to show what an absolute oaf Walsh is. There are plenty of valid and honest reasons to question statements made by Newt. As Dana Loesch pointed out earlier, this is not one of them:

You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?

David Gregory questioned Newt about the “racial overtones” of that statement on Meet The Press, so I suppose we can blame him for getting the absurd ball rolling. But good old Joan leaped right into the mix:

Newt Gingrich and “the food stamp president”

He didn’t call Obama a “strapping young buck,” but his slur is coded racism (and not very Catholic) just the same

Newt Gingrich doubled down on his clever new slur against President Obama as “the food stamp president.” He tried the line in a Friday speech to the Georgia Republican convention, and he used it again on “Meet the Press Sunday.”

…..

But when host David Gregory suggested the term had racial overtones, Gingrich replied “That’s bizarre,” and added, “I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.” That’s not quite as extreme or silly as Donald Trump declaring “I am the least racist person there is,” but it’s up there. [my emphasis]

Get it? He said food stamps! That is some hidden “code” word for black people. Because everyone on food stamps is black, even though that is the complete opposite of true.

Gee, Joan, what do you call it when someone automatically assumes everyone on food stamps is black? Or, that anything – ever – said in response to the actions of President Obama must somehow be racist? See, I think that is, in fact, actually racist.

(more…)

My friend Tony Katz came up with the brilliant term “racer,” the definition of which is someone who dishonestly accuses someone else of racism for political advantage. If you watch the clip below of this Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” you’ll see David Gregory attempting to be a racer, but in the process he only ends up exposing his own bigotry:

What kind of person hears “food stamps” and automatically thinks “Black people”?

Well, that would be a bigot.

As we saw with the dishonest racer attacks on Donald Trump, Obama’s MSM Palace Guards intend to Alisnky any potential threat to their precious President with coordinated journ-o-list narratives designed to take these individual threats down one-by-one with phony charges of racism. This tactic is also designed to silence and chill criticism of the President through the use of racial McCarthyism. David Gregory knows that the record number of people on food stamps under this failed president is a devastating narrative and so, as one of Obama’s Chief Palace Guards, his job is to make sure that narrative doesn’t take hold. His problem, however, is that facts are facts, so all he can do is holler racism.

What happened, though, is that in the process of Alinskying Gingrich, David Gregory outsmarted himself and exposed his own bigotry. Worse still, on national television, he not only furthered a racist stereotype, he legitimized it. Tell me, what’s the difference between a redneck or the host of “Meet the Press” using as a political bludgeon a weapon falsely labeled “food stamps = Black people”?  There is none.

Newsflash David Gregory, Joan Walsh and Roger Ebert: Not everyone or even a majority of the record number of people currently on food stamps in this country are Black. This might also shock you, but Caucasians like yourselves are also on the dole. The three of you might want to get together and try some soul-searching.

Which brings me to Chris Matthews…

Like David Gregory, in the clip below, what Matthews wants to be here is a racer, but in the process (again, like Gregory) he only ends up exposing his own bigotry:

To Chris Matthews, Detroit equals a particular skin color; a failed city equals a skin color that’s not his own. Why?

Detroit’s problems have nothing to do with race and everything to do with failed government.

Matthews equating a failed city to a particular skin color is not only perpetuating the very worst kind of racist stereotype, it’s factually wrong. Anytime Chris or Joan want to come out to Los Angeles, I’d be happy to take them on a tour of Ladera Heights (drinks and dinner on me — bring Ebert!). Maybe a good hard look at the “Black Beverly Hills” will convince these “progressives” that “failed city” doesn’t equal “Black city.”

Nothing reveals more about someone’s character more than how they behave in a desperate situation, and in their desperation to protect Obama, we are learning a lot about the likes of David Gregory, Joan Walsh, and Chris Matthews.

And when you watch the rest of the MSM continue to intentionally ignore Herman Cain, you will learn a whole lot more. Because that’s the other part of the MSM’s sinister agenda. Gregory and Matthews and Politico’s Ben Smith and all the rest of Obama’s operatives know that nothing takes the oxygen out of the room like hurling the charge of racism. So what better way to deep-six our ideas and criticisms of Obama than by sucking all the air out of the room? They know that no matter how foolish the racial charge or how well our side responds, that this is the moment that becomes the story. Newt can be brilliant for every other second he sits with Gregory, but by dropping the race-bomb Gregory knows no one will remember or talk about how brilliant Newt was. All they’ll remember is the racial nonsense and this effectively kills any chance someone on our side has to get their message out there.

It’s all part of the plan.

These are bad people not dumb people.

In a conversation about race, when one immediately thinks of black Americans when one hears food stamps, is not that a clear indicator of prejudice and stereotyping?

If you said yes, then check out the latest column from Salon’s Joan Walsh. Apparently, Joan Walsh believes food stamps are something inherent to black Americans only. When she could have nabbed Gingrich on his remarks yesterday morning about the individual mandate (insane) or his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s goal of reforming entitlements (off-base) she went straw man.

This was Gingrich’s quote to which Walsh took exception:

You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?

He was asked about it by David Gregory, who also apparently thinks only black Americans can be on food stamps.

(more…)

When she’s not busy name-calling on Twitter, Salon’s Joan Walsh says that “campaigning and governing might be the same thing right now.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If Joan Walsh obsessed over the facts of the Tucson shooting case as she does over every word which falls from Sarah Palin’s mouth, one might be able to take her as a credible contributor to general political discourse. As it is, she’s just a rude lady who believes that calling people names (as she has me, my favorite is “moron”) suffices as critical thinking.

If that passes as critical thinking we are truly on our way to a real life “Idiocracy.”

I haven’t had enough alcohol to read Walsh’s entire Trapper Keeper diatribe, but a few points did jump out at me and I would be remiss to ignore them.

Incredibly deep quotes after the jump.

(more…)

Liberal online political magazine Salon.com published a letter to the editor Friday that called for the murder of 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The letter was written in response to a mocking article at Salon titled, Good Morning America’s painfully friendly interview with Sarah Palin by Alex Pareene.

Pareene snarkily sums up the GMA interview:

“The interview was basically split into a couple of distinct sections: How awesome is your family, how bad is Barack Obama, how awful are people who criticize you, and how awesome is America?”

The first letter published in response to the article calls for Palin to be electrocuted by a cattle prod by convicted dog abuser Michael Vick:  “Vick gets a pet to torture and we get rid of Palin. A win-win for everyone!”

Michael Vick, the starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, is a convicted felon who spent time in prison for dog fighting and animal cruelty.

Screengrab credit: Gateway Pundit.rightnetwork.com

That letter has apparently sat in the pole position under the article in the Letters to the Editor section since it was posted “Friday, December 17, 2010 12:33 PM ET.”

(more…)

Move over Laura!

I’m really proud of Joan Walsh. She once proclaimed me to be a “total moron” despite never having met me. Her description of George W. Bush’s “moral compass” is a step up; it’s very difficult to detect a trace of bitterness, brought on by an uncomfortable awareness of irrelevancy, that usually peppers her speech. Kudos!

She and Chris Matthews were schooled on all manner of compasses and Iraq by former Bush aide and non-existent black Republican Ron Christie:

The transcript:

(more…)