Via Newsbusters, Lawrence O’Donnell decided to rewrite history on the story of progressives, Newt Gingrich, and foodstamps:

There’s a tremendous amount of cynicism in Gingrich’s use of food stamps because of what he actually know that his Republican debate audiences do not know. His Republican audiences do not know that most people on food stamps are white.

Actually, it’s been progressives that didn’t know:
(more…)

From Drudge:

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned… MORE… Developing…

She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours. Her explosive revelations are set to rock the campaign. But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary …

… A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.

I don’t even know the content of this interview or what further revelations she could have on Gingrich, but unless it involves cross-dressing, drug trafficking, or other salacious details, I’m going to feel completely let down.

We all know that Newt Gingrich cheated on two of his three wives. He cheated on his wife Jackie, who had cancer, with Marianne Gingrich, the woman who gave an interview to ABC. If the details are simply that he was unkind to her or didn’t treat her right, well, surprise! You were the mistress! You helped break up a marriage and thus forfeited your right to be outraged when the next mistress usurped your spot as the new wife. I have no pity for the “other woman.” I guess that’s why I find Marianne Gingrich’s late-to-the-game interview so odd. Could there be any bigger bombshell than the story of their union?

That being said, ABC’s decision to drop this interview after the votes are counted in South Carolina has just been thwarted as the first shoe has been dropped. Everyone now expects the other one; they know that something is going to come out about Gingrich’s second marriage because of the Drudge headline. How will this affect voting? How will it affect fundraising? And will the details of the interview sufficiently match any loss of support that Gingrich may receive as a result?

(more…)

Take note, South Carolina. We know that Mitt Romney has been on all sides of basically every issue, but the broader concern here is:  are conservatives tired of stressing about and being duped by northeastern so-called Republicans and their mostly liberal voting records–leading to political survival in Democrat states.  But, seriously, is anyone else tired of this? And again, I ask,  why is a government-run healthcare lover a GOP frontrunner? Name recognition, gaining independent voters, and anyone but Obama, I get that, but come on already. Romney? I’m not buying the media hype over who can beat Obama.

From Jonah Goldberg:

Romney, the son of a politician, has been running for office, holding office or thinking about running for office for more than two decades. “Just level with the American people,” Gingrich growled. “You’ve been running … at least since the 1990s.”

For some reason, Romney can’t do that. Or at least it seems like he can’t. His authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away. And it’s sapping enthusiasm from the rank and file.

Goldberg is right, but the underlying theme that voters need to be reminded of is that during so many important debates from healthcare, jobs, Wall Street Reform, confirmations, recess appointments, to taxes the culprits to invoke cloture or side with the Democrats typically are the same:  Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe,  and Scott Brown–the trifecta of RINOs. All from the northeast, too.  See where I’m going with this?

Frankly, Romney, who the mainstream liberal media would like to see win the nomination, has yet to unite the GOP base.  His used car salesman pitch simply rubs people the wrong way.  We’ve seen this over and over again–even John McCain pointed this out and won in 2007’s primary–and now supports him–that should speak volumes to my point.  Romney has always been dogged by this and this is why we have such a large ‘Not Romney’ camp on the right side of the aisle.

The GOP is also paying the bitter price for not having anyone in line to succeed GW Bush.  The party’s internal tug of war will be an historical teachable moment and prepare the party for future elections.  The one saving grace is that, while the Democrats have Hillary, they have no one to succeed her at this point in time.  I say Hillary because she seems to be the only power broker left untarnished by Obama–even though she is an Alinsky kinda girl.

Additionally, the GOP presidential candidate will have a two-pronged mission as the nominee:  to beat the MSM and Obama.  However, enlightened voters now know for sure the media is mostly state-controlled, Obama was never vetted, and that his radical leftist ideology drives his policies, appointments, and regulations out of the mainstream.

Furthermore, the MSM needs Romney to offset Obama.  The formula is quite simple: RomneyCare is to ObamaCare as Obama’s rhetoric is to Romney’s rhetoric all of which cancel each other out according to how the media sees it.

(more…)

This morning on our CNN panel Will Cain and I discussed the “angry Newt narrative.” The question centered around Peggy Noonan’s latest column wherein she calls Gingrich an “angry little attack muffin“:

Right now Mr. Romney’s taking a beating. He’s everyone’s target, and in a way that speaks of something beyond the usual campaign ferocity. There’s something else going on, a taunting: “If you’re so inevitable how come I’m not afraid of you?” Newt Gingrich, angry little attack muffin, called Mr. Romney a liar.

This is why it has taken Republicans until New Hampshire to vet their leading candidate (and they didn’t vet him in 2008, either): criticize Mitt Romney and you’re called a meanie. Most of the people I’ve witnessed using this argument have been in politics longer than I’ve been alive, so unless the landscape has changed recently and I missed the memo, politics is still a bloodsport. No one is calling Romney an “angry little muffin” for doing exactly what Gingrich is doing; the difference is that Romney has a frillion groups and admirers doing it for him so he can keep his mitts clean and appear above the fray. If the tactic seems familiar, it’s because Barack Obama is famous for it. I’m not comparing Obama to Romney, just simply pointing out that they happen to share more in common besides health care.

The base is crying out for someone, anyone in this primary to stop pretending that Romney doesn’t have the gubernatorial record that he has. Those who pretend it doesn’t exist only kneecap themselves. They criticize ads from primary opponents which address Romney’s record. Instead of asking “Is this what the oppo will look like?” they howl over Gingrich quoting a NYT article.

Most media, and even the candidates themselves, coddle Romney at every debate and behave as though less offensive baggage from other candidates is somehow worse than socialized health care at the state level. I may have had my differences with Gingrich on different issues before, but this much I know: he’s not auditioning for a VP job in the event of a still uncertain Romney nomination.

Newt Gingrich is doing what the GOP would do, if they were smart, and testing the mettle of these candidates before the Obama machine does with good ol’ fashioned primary politics.

This was the most social issues-heavy debate of them all. In New Hampshire. It was no coincidence.

In an election cycle where the economy is more important to voters than it’s ever been, focusing on social issues not only lets Obama off the hook, but also paints Republican candidates as “extreme” due to the GOP’s backwards inability to effectively and attractively message values.

In one of the most bizarre debate moments of modern times, candidates were asked whether or not states should be allowed to ban contraceptives, based on the illogical presupposition of a Santorum stance, one which he was not given the courtesy of clarifying before moderators proceeded with their misdirected question. This discussion went on for nearly a half an hour.

Following this, the discussion of gay marriage, which both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry effectively shut down (and the moderators quickly changed subjects) when they pointed out the severe hypocrisy of talking equality in a country that discriminates against Christians, with the example of adoption and the Catholic Charities.

It took 3/4 of the way into the debate before candidates were asked about the economy. During a time when unemployment is, cosmetically, at plus-8% with hundreds of thousands giving up on the workforce entirely (before you celebrate the barely visible dip in the unemployment numbers by way of a shrunken workforce), quite frankly, no one gives a damn about gay marriage. People care even less about contraceptives, which no one believes states should or will ban.

(more…)

Top ten lists at year’s end are always subjective, to be sure, but some lists seem rather obviously out of whack at first glance. Politico’s “Top 10 political blunders of 2011” is one of those lists that is glaring for what isn’t present as opposed to what is. And what isn’t seems to bespeak that Politico wanted to avoid focusing on Democrat failures in a year when there are so many Democrat failures.

Politico bills this list as one of the “worst political strategic decisions” of 2011. Strangely enough, this list contains fully seven GOP “blunders” yet only three Democrat goofs. Some of the GOP blunders are also questionable for any top ten list considering what is missing from the thing.

First we need a rundown on what is on this list, and the order in which Politico places them.

• Obama pivots to deficits
• Republicans vote on the Ryan budget
• Tim Pawlenty bets it all on Ames
• Mitt Romney hides
• Rick Perry debates
• Jon Huntsman returns from China
• Mr. Daley goes to Washington
• Mitch and Haley stay home
• Dems pick Charlotte
• John Kasich pushes S.B. 5

Isn’t it fascinating that some of these “top blunders” did not actually result in a major reversal of great import of some type or another? Take the Jon Huntsman point, for instance. Jon Huntsman is not consequential and his decision to enter the GOP primary race instead of staying in China is not going to make much difference to anyone, anywhere. The Mitch Daniels point is also specious for such a list as Daniel’s decision to sit out 2012 did not necessarily end his career. Further the blunder of Democrats picking Charlotte, North Carolina, while certainly a messy proposition fraught with mistakes, is hardly any kind of end of the world goof, is it?

Now let’s talk about what is not on that list. Solyndra is not on that list. How can this be? This is a political blunder of epic proportions. Even the left-wing Washington Post is saying that the decision supposedly based on science and good economics was instead “infused with politics at every level.” Millions of tax dollars were thrown away during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression at a failing company just to suit Obama’s desire to tout his fantasy of “green jobs.”

If you don’t want to pick Solyndra, why you can reach for the debacle of Fast And Furious for inclusion on such a list. Here we have a program that was supposed to track guns used by Mexican narco-terrorists so that these evil cretins could be ferreted out deep in Mexico. Instead, thousands of American guns sold to these criminals right here in America were lost in the Mexican interior and then were turned to kill hundreds of Mexicans and perhaps two U.S. law enforcement officers. Then, making matters worse, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — an Obama appointee — has lied repeatedly about what he knew about the program and when he knew it. Now over 90 government officials are calling for Holder’s resignation. If this isn’t a major political blunder, what is? This has made Eric Holder an embattled Attorney General at the least, yet, it merits no spot on this top ten blunder list.

(more…)

Recently, the U.S Census Bureau released a report that creates a new designation of “low income” in order to “better reflect the distribution of poverty in the US.”  The Associated Press ran with a headline, “Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income,” and scores of other media outlets followed suit with equally dire ledes.  In NJ, one outlet reported, “Census: Nearly half of Americans live in poverty,” while Russia Today reported that “Half of America is officially poor“:

“While it’s no surprise that nearly 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, new statistics from the US Census show that almost 100 million others are counted as low-income citizens, making half of the population of America officially poor.”

But analysts at the U.S. Census Bureau district office in Los Angeles are reporting today that perhaps journalists misunderstood. and over 300 online news reports simply got the story wrong.

KNBC / NBC in Los Angeles reports:

(more…)

- Entertainment Weekly: Republicans and Democrats watch different things.

Republicans don’t watch MTV’s Jersey Shore. But they dig ABC’s Castle.

Democrats don’t like Discovery’sDeadliest Catch. But they swoon for NBC’s Parks and Recreation.

Those are a few of the findings from an annual research survey by Experian-Simmons that measures the consumer preferences of various political ideologies. In a report prepared exclusively for EW, the company calculated some of the favorite — and least favorite — TV shows of political partisans. (Specifically: the report measures which shows among the survey group were watched by the highest concentration of self-identified “Liberal Democrats” and “Conservative Republicans.”)

I will tell you right now, this is a load of crap. I’m a conservative who votes Republican and I like to watch “Jersey Shore.” I’m not proud of it and I cringe whenever Snooki says she’s a “Republican” because I think “Why. WHY do YOU have to be on my side?” but it’s entertaining. I always think “So this is how the other half lives.” The other half being drunk, skanky bros and bro-itas. I also watch “Aqua Teen Hunger Force,” so no, I won’t let Dems claim that.

I’m also completely not shocked that Democrats like to watch “The View.” Conservatives, for their part, like to watch things that require a brain for interest. Things like “Mythbusters.” Of course, they watch “Swamp People,” too. Hey, SO WOULD I and I’m going to now that I know there exists a show about people from the swamp.

- Lefty blogger at Washington Post: OWS is dead:

In nearby Freedom Plaza, there are fewer tents than there were earlier in fall — and itwasn’t exactly booming then. When Browne, the 63-year-old singer and activist, walked to the microphones, there were all of 125 people to listen to the performance, including a media pack of about 40.

“You are the 99 percent!” Browne, in leather jacket, blue jeans and Salomon athletic shoes, told the modest crowd. “This is what democracy looks like.”

But this is not what a mass movement looks like.

[...]

A German reporter asked Browne if he thought the Occupy movement needed its own song. “You don’t need a new song for the movement,” he said. “It’s got plenty of songs. It just needs people to show up and sing.”

He’s right. But where are they?

OWS was already dead but then this happened:

And then the music died. And then it came back! (At the time of this posting Miley’s video only had 517k views. You’d think a big celebrity like her would have more or that all of those mathematically-challenged progressives would gobble up the attention. Even hobos have some musical standards.)

And then some dude my hippie parents listened to showed up and bored the crowd to tears with songs he’d forget while playing.

(more…)

There have been a great number of debates this primary season. Some have been more interesting than others. Some have been soporific and a few have had some exciting moments. While there may be those who take issue with how some of these debates have been formatted, none of them have been truly ridiculous. That is, until now.

On December 27^th the ION Television network (formerly PAX) will be hosting a debate. It’s being billed as the last major debate before the Iowa Caucuses. The ION network claims to reach 99 Million viewers. I’m not sure how many will actually tune in when they realize what is involved.

The debate is being sponsored by everyone’s favorite birther Donald “The Donald” Trump, and Newsmax, considered to be one of the premiere Republican-leaning/conservative media outlets. The fact that Trump is involved should be a warning sign that things are not going to be as … well, straight as some of the other debates. That’s when things go absolutely wacky, for lack of a better turn of phrase.

As with all the other debates to date, it has been deemed necessary to have the Main Stream Media involved, even in this, which seems to be a prime opportunity for unleashing the power of the alternative media. This might have been okay if the organizers had gone for some personalities who have some credit in more conservative circles, perhaps Jake Tapper or Andrew Malcolm.

As mentioned, the folks in charge went in a completely different direction. The head of the debate staff is one Eason Jordan. Now, that name might be somewhat familiar to some readers. He has received 4 Emmys, 2 Peabodys and is the first living person to receive the Livingstone Award’s “Special Citation For Outstanding Achievement.”

He also admitted to covering up Saddam Hussein’s atrocities in Iraq for the privilege of access to the regime.

(more…)

Progressives, the vultures of tragedy, aren’t above exploiting it for a political purpose. (See the funeral of Paul Wellstone, Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, the Tucson shooting.) Cartoonist Pat Oliphant is no exception: his latest attention-seeking panel compares Republicans to child rapists.

Factually, the only two lawmakers have been making news with child abuse scandal headlines and they’re both Democrats: David Wu and Dale Kildee.

Remember this?

(more…)

The SEIU and Soros-funded Media Matters for America is sounding the alarm: Fox News, they gush, has given a lot of airtime to Republican primary contenders.

The Republican presidential primary race isn’t news?

A serious question: is Fox supposed to ignore it? Is MMfA positing that Fox is deliberately excluding coverage of a Democrat primary due to bias? Can MMfA point to me who the Democrat primary candidates are since they suggest that Fox is not giving equal time? Can MMfA provide any clips of the Democratic primary debates?

What? They can’t? Why not?

Because there currently isn’t a primary for Democrats? Because Democrats have an unchallenged incumbent? Democrats have not held any primary debates?

(more…)

As we’ve highlighted before, tax exempt Media Matters’ mission isn’t to correct misinformation in the conservative media. Their job is to promote narratives which will then be picked up by friendly outlets, like MSNBC, and seep out into the public consciousness. Their real purpose is to act as guardians at the gates of the Left’s ideological iron curtain and keep progressives from thinking for themselves. When you couple this narrative-shaping with the “mainstream” media’s ingrained left-leaning bias, you get, for example, polls showing the level of misinformation in the general public.

A recent NBC/WSJ poll (pdf) provides a classic example of how the left-leaning media takes a poll and uses it to shape and promote a narrative. Note first that this poll is a general opinion poll measuring public sentiment on a broad range of issues related to politics and the economy. Keep in mind that the Left has been in full damage control for the Occupy movement because a) Democrats have voiced support of it and b) the violence, vandalism, drug overdoses and reports of sexual assaults/rapes are beginning to get bad coverage – finally. The spin doctors are desperate for anything that can lend legitimacy to a solidly Leftist movement which is spiraling into chaos.

The Washington Post’s resident DNC talking point parrot (I know there are several), Greg Sargent, cites some findings of the new poll. The poll results are 27 pages long, but Sargent cherry-picks the stuff that can be spun into “positive” news for Occupy Wall Street.

A new NBC/WSJ poll finds very broad support for Occupy Wall Street’s critique of inequality, with more than three quarters agreeing with this statement: “The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency. The government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich.” Eighty-four percent of working class whites agree with that statement, too.

To his credit, Sargent also notes that the poll finds a majority of the people are against raising taxes on anyone, but he questions the wording of that particular question. So he only gets half-credit because he didn’t question the wording of another finding that I’ll address in a bit. Actually make that 1/4 credit because he claims the critique in question is an “Occupy Wall Street” thing when this sentiment is shared by the Tea Party which has obviously been around longer. To sum it up, 53% either strongly agreed or mildly agreed with this statement:

The national debt must be cut significantly by reducing spending and the size of government, including eliminating some federal agencies and programs. Regulations on business by the federal government should be reduced and instead, the private sector and individuals should have greater control. The government should not raise taxes on anyone.

Sargent makes you go and look for this part of the poll. Chances are most people won’t. Let’s move on.

Greg Mitchell from the conservative bastion (that’s sarcasm), The Nation, picks up the cues from Sargent and tries to milk the poll to provide some much needed image nourishment to the Occupy Wall Street movement he’s been blogging – read cheerleading – about. Linking to Sargent, he writes:

7:00  Wash Post:  New NBC/WSJ poll–84% pf working-class whites say rich unfairly get breaks,  and also need more control of corporations… 71% say Obama did not go far enough in regulating banks….

Then, after scouring the poll results he does some more Occupy Wall Street cheerleading / tea party bashing:

7:20  More from new NBC/WSJ poll just out:  Occupy gets 32% positive number, 35% negative,  Tea Party 27% positive, 44% negative….  Occupy also “wins” in another question, with 25% saying it is a “good thing” for the country with 16% saying no, while Tea Party gets 31% good thing and 27% bad…. Finally 28% call themselves supporters of Occupy, with 25% backing Tea Party.  Also:  70% blame Bush and bankers for economic woes, only 21% name Obama…. 71% back total Iraq pullout…. and despite focus on jobs job jobs, concerns about health still nudge it as prime concern for most,  by 33% to 32%.

Notice how he doesn’t address the finding showing that a majority don’t think we should raise taxes on anyone – a core Occupy Wall Street demand. It doesn’t fit the narrative. The Occupy movement has “wins” he wants to highlight and The Nation readers are predisposed to Leftist “wins.” They won’t bother looking much further. The narrative is strengthened: “Hey! Did you hear about that poll showing OWS is winning?” So now, within the Leftist echo-chamber, the word is that recent polling is good for Occupy Wall Street and most have no idea that a central policy position isn’t “winning.”

(more…)

This was the battle-cry of the 2008 elections: Obama was the Great Uniter who would bring America together and save it from the horrible division that Evil Bush caused.

The activist old media (who constantly promise to protect us from everything that could possibly harm us) easily bought this line because it fit their template and they wanted to believe it. Today will any of them walk this back, even a little bit? Nope — instead they blame the GOP and try to convince us that their poor Dear Leader has become a victim of the Rancorous Republicans.

Here’s just one example of the story line from 2007 with this little bit from the Washington Post about Obama, “he has the capacity … to unify the country and move it out of what he called “ideological gridlock.” Wow, good thing we don’t have gridlock and we hired the guy for the job who could stop it with a beer summit or the wave of his magic cigarette.

I anchored local news during the 2008 Democrat Primary, I covered one of the debates back then, and I know what I read and you know what you heard. Obama was the “Great Uniter.” Of course, nobody with a brain bought it, but the media loved it and spread it like barnyard fuel.

(more…)

Day two of the CNN/Tea Party Express debate from muggy, sunny Tampa. I arrived on site early this morning for a 6am hit with “American Morning.” All was (mostly) quiet.

Romney and Perry front and center once again.

By the time I left to grab a sandwich, candidates were doing their final walk-throughs and staff was bustling about on golf carts ferrying people to the broadcast tent, loading in refreshments, or going over security. The grounds are absolutely enormous and it’s easy to get lost.

(more…)

They may hate the GOP (and Texas, apparently, if you caught how Brian Williams framed his questions to Perry) but they love ratings and they know that Republicans get them.

MSNBC racked up viewers — but only during the debate. The network was presented with a golden opportunity to build on the new eyeballs but its far left shallow analysis ran them off the moment the debate ended.

Check the full numbers after the jump.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Michael Watson:

In a news analysis article, Reuters looked at Republican efforts to stymie the activism of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has increased its regulatory efforts under President Obama. Reuters, in keeping with the post-Giffords “new civility,” characterizes the Republican efforts as an “assault of similar vigor” to that which accompanied the debt ceiling increase.

Reuters’ second paragraph asserts that Republican opposition is “backed by wealthy conservative lobbyists.” The report asserts that the EPA is the “last bastion of hope for [President Obama’s] environmental policy” after his “push for a climate bill in Congress collapsed last year.”

It collapsed in a Democrat-controlled Congress for good political reason, too. Popular opposition to cap-and-trade in the U.S. led to the loss of two long-held Democratic House seats in 2010 as well: Morgan Griffith (R-VA) defeated the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Rick Boucher, who co-authored the cap-and-trade proposal in a Virginia coal-country seat that Boucher had held since 1983. In Minnesota’s Iron Belt, retired Northwest Airlines pilot Chip Cravaack defeated Jim Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who had served since 1975 and supported President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as well as an extension of the Clean Water Act opposed by his constituents. Elsewhere, in Australia, a similar effort by the Australian Labor Party to institute a tax on carbon dioxide has seen that party fall to devastating lows in opinion polls.

Reuters notes that Richard Nixon’s administration established the EPA, calling it “ironic” that Republicans now oppose its expanded authority. Of course, Nixon was no Goldwater-Reagan conservative. He once said that “I am now a Keynesian in economics” and instituted wage and price controls.

(more…)

When the Anthony Weiner story broke progressives tried to deflect by claiming that all the attention given to Weiner was taking the attention off … of … jobs! Biden’s favorite three-letter word! It marked the first time since Clinton that Democrats cared about the economy enough to use it to draw the nation’s attention away from what their party darling was doing when his wife wasn’t around.

Now that the story is out of the way, progressives have returned to their third-favorite pastime, the pastime that comes after firming up political segregation and avoiding the economy until the 11th hour: talking about Republicans and seckshul activities. Daily Kos — whom I normally ignore on this site because the only thing that separates Daily Kos from public restroom graffiti is that I’m certain someone takes a Clorox wipe to the restroom stalls at least once a day — went nuts over the latest photos from Iowa involving corn dogs in what I call the Awkward Dog Series.

Heavens, Michele Bachmann eating a corn dog! Oh look, Rick Perry, eating a corn dog! Maybe he’s gay! Requisite “Perry is gay” rumor-mongering! Oh my, Marcus Bachmann with a corn dog! Gay! Look, Mitt Romney is walking down the street with a corn dog! In Markos Moulitsas’s mind, corn dog = gay, apparently. Just for future reference.

(more…)

The Democrat talking points are out. There is one that seems to have been circulated to all the usual suspects amongst the liberal illuminati and they are repeating it over and over ad nauseum. The talking point in question? The Tea Party is a bunch of terrorists. Last week, Thomas Friedman compared them to Hezbollah. Joe Biden piled on as well, saying that they “acted like terrorists.” The Grey Lady’s Joe Nocera carries on the meme as well, while kicking it up a notch. Not only are they terrorists, but they’ve been waging a jihad on the American people.

It really isn’t the point of this article to mention the fact that the New York Times refuses to call, you know, actual terrorists “terrorists.” They’re just militants. Even the term Jihad, according to unindicted co-conspirators CAIR, “includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, etc. etc.” It’s clear that this definition only holds true when discussing misunderstood Muslims who really only want to be loved and hugged, especially when they’re flying jet liners into buildings and blowing up subways.

Nocera rails against the terror tactics of the Tea party that have kept the American people dumbstruck with horror. They scorned compromise, unlike the President and Senate Majority leader who, at every opportunity, said that any bill that included cuts would be Dead on Arrival. The fact that the Tea Party was unwilling to budge on what President Obama recently referred to as “Job Killing Tax Increases” is irrefutable proof that they hate Americans and worked with “gleeful willingness” to destroy American faith and credit. (more…)