Category Archives: Lemmings and Tools

Appeasing the Restive Moonbats

What’s a Democratic House Speaker, eager to appease her lefty, BDS addled base to do when news stories come out that look like this –
Democrats Bow to Bush’s Demands in House Spending Bill
Dems cave on spending
Deal would give Bush victory on war funding

While at the same time some of the biggest mouths in reality based community are putting up posts like this:
Time For New Leadership in Congress
I’ll vote against my liberal Democratic Congressmen
“There is No Democratic Party in Congress”

Now keep in mind this is just over the last couple of days and doesn’t include all the waterboarding stuff from earlier.

Well, here’s one way to deal with it. Pelosi: Republicans `like’ Iraq War

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public’s priorities.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans’ ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

“We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. “But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”

That ought to keep them happy for a couple of hours anyway.



Filed under Lame Campaign Tactics, Lemmings and Tools, Moonbats

Moonbat “Scandals” Keep Unravelling

Don Surber has an excellent roundup of the moonbat scandals that seemed so promising over the weekend, but now seem to be imploding:

This scandal got off to a good start.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported: “C.I.A. Was Urged to Keep Interrogation Videotapes.”

ABC News: “Harriet Miers Knew of Destruction of Interrogation Tapes.”

But by Sunday, the story began to unravel. Hold the pitchforks and torches, everyone.

Washington Post: “Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say.”

On Monday, more bad news. The NYT: “C.I.A. Official in Inquiry Called a ‘Hero’.”

By Silvestre Reyes, the Democratic chairman of (dramatic pause) the House Intelligence Committee.

And finally, today, NYT threw in the towel: “Destruction of C.I.A. Tapes Cleared by Lawyers.”

Come on. There is no scandal. Again.

Follow the links to see how this has played out. I noted the other day that the Democrats are being hypocritical about the issue of waterboarding, but running in tandem with that story has been the destruction of those tapes. In my opinion no matter who knew what when, if those tapes had been requested in legal proceedings after being in a vault for a couple of years and were then gotten rid of, it looks like some obstruction of justice going on. However, the moonbats won’t be satisfied with that. They want it to be framed as the Bush Junta orchestrating the whole thing. As Steve Benen at Crooks and Liars says: Torture-tape Story Doesn’t Add Up. Well, of course it doesn’t add up for you, Steve. It’s not the scandal you hoped for.


Filed under human rights, Lemmings and Tools, Media Mendacity, Moonbats

Will Muhammad Ali Revert To Cassius Clay?

The other day I mentioned the plight of Gillian Gibbons, who is in a heap of trouble because her students named a teddy bear “Muhammed.” Today there’s this bit of news from London’s Sunday Times:

A BRITISH children’s author who named a mole Mohammed to promote multiculturalism has renamed it Morgan for fear of offending Muslims.

Kes Gray, a former advertising executive, first decided on his gesture of cross-cultural solidarity after meeting Muslims in Egypt.

The character, Mohammed the Mole, appeared in Who’s Poorly Too, an illustrated children’s book, which also included Dipak Dalmatian and Pedro Penguin, in an effort to be “inclusive”.

This weekend Gray said he had decided to postpone a reprint and rename the character Morgan the Mole even though there had been no complaints.

“I had no idea at all of the sensitivities of the name Mohammed until seeing this case in Sudan,” said Gray. “As soon as I saw the news I thought, oh gosh, I’ve got a mole called Mohammed � this is not good.

“I feel incredibly sorry for that teacher,” added Gray. “Luckily for me, I’m in a position where I can avoid this.” The book has sold 40,000 copies in Britain and abroad since 1999.

Gray said he tried “hard to embrace other cultures and I had no idea it would backfire like this. I was in Egypt this year and everyone was called Mohammed. I just thought it was a popular name”.

Is it any wonder those people in Sudan and elsewhere are so quick to engage in riots of outrage over such trivial matters when there are people who’ll take such extraordinary measures to appease them?

via memeorandum. Also see Mark Steyn at NRO and Robert at Dhimmi Watch.

Leave a comment

Filed under Lemmings and Tools

Leave Our Plants ALONE!! (Update: CNN runs with the lefty spin)

By now you’re probably aware of the latest CNN debate fracas. If not I’ll bring you up to speed. One of the submitted questions via You Tube was from a man named Keith Kerr. He’s a 74 year old retired Army colonel and California National Guard general. His question was about the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy regarding gays in the military. Mr. Kerr introduced himself as an openly gay man who only came out after he retired, so it was a rather poignant set up for the question.

So, what’s the problem? Kerr just happens to be on the LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. Okay, you might be thinking maybe CNN just missed that when they accepted his video question. That would be bad enough, but that’s not all there was to it. He was invited to come to the debate itself. He was in the audience and was allowed to ask follow-up questions and give a speech. Supposedly CNN had no idea he was with the Clinton campaign. Isn’t it interesting that righty bloggers were able to discover that fact within an hour after the debate was over?

Most of the focus has been on Mr. Kerr, obviously because he’s working directly with the Clinton campaign, but his wasn’t the only question selected that came from Democrats who openly support Democratic candidates. There was a young woman asking about abortion who, in other videos posted at her YouTube site, is shown wearing a t-shirt with John Edwards ’08 emblazoned across the front. A man who asked the candidates about Log Cabin Republicans was quickly identified as an Obama fan. The woman presented as a mother worried about lead in toys turns out to be a union activist from Pittsburgh with ties to John Edwards. Her video question, that was presented at the GOP debate, is even featured on United Steelworkers video site.

Let’s see. Who else do we have? Jason Coleman discovered that the guy who asked why the GOP doesn’t attract more blacks to their side who has a YouTube page featuring a satirical sketch about a “Blind Black Republican” as well as other videos fawning over John Edwards. Coleman also found that the young man who asked about corn subsidies interned with Jane Harman. There may be others that I haven’t covered here, but you get the picture.

Now, considering how upset the netroots were over the alleged piling on by Tim Russert during the debate in which Hillary melted down on the question about drivers licenses for illegals, you’d expect those folks to be equally outraged by something like this. Tim Russert is tough, but imagine their reaction if they’d discovered he was being fed the questions directly from the GOP! If you’re expecting them to jump in an condemn CNN for allowing this to happen you’ll be disappointed. Let me present some of their reactions to this faux pas. I’ll just pluck a few from memeorandum:

Cernig at The Newshoggers has this to say about it:

Just an observation from an outsider – but why are Republicans so upset that some people who are registered Democrats got to ask pointed questions in last night’s CNN/YouTube debate?Memeorandum today is full of their outrage – just about every conservo-blogger is there with bells on, and the Malkinites are doing their best Keystone Cops impressions.

Firstly, isn’t this meant to be a democracy?

There you have it. Since this is a Democracy nobody should care about Democratic campaign operatives doing the questioning at a GOP debate. Cernig continues:

Secondly, shouldn’t Republicans want to choose a candidate who has a proven ability to effectively field pointed questions from the opposition – or know about it if none of their candidates can?

Oh, sure – just like the Democrats should want to choose a candidate who can respond to questioning from Tim Russert without whining and crying about how unfair it is. Oops..nope, they don’t want that, do they? He finishes by noting that Hillary shills Media Matters has a list of questions from the Democratic YouTube debate in July they think are from possible Republican plants. No outrage here, just spinning and rationalizing.

Next we have Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report. He chooses to focus on the the questions Mr. Kerr asked and the audible booing he received from the audience when he began speechifying. I agree that the booing was pretty tacky, but what does Steve think about Mr. Kerr’s working with the Clinton campaign?

I’m not sure what the fuss is about. Kerr asked a legitimate question about a political issue. Candidates answered it. Kerr defended his position, and the conservative audience booed him. Who cares if he supports a Democratic presidential candidate? It wasn’t a partisan question.

Nothing to see here. Move along, folks. Benen goes on to spin and divert back to the booing, implying Mr. Kerr is being swiftboated:

Whatever. It seems to me the problem here is that Republican presidential candidates want to discriminate against able-bodied, patriotic Americans, who are prepared to put their lives on the line during a war for their country. Conservatives can’t explain why this policy makes any sense at all, so they’re attacking an honorable, 43-year military veteran for daring to raise the subject in the first place.

Of course. All the interest in Kerr being a Clinton operative is just an attack on him for speaking truth to power!

Next up is Melissa McEwan from Shakeville. Her posts has the obligatory snarky title ZOMG! PLANTS! PLAAAAAAANTS!!!

This was supposed to be a debate where the Republican candidates got asked questions by average people—not necessarily Republican average people. And just because a question exposes a profound ideological hypocrisy—e.g. “What punishment would you give to women who get abortions if abortion is criminalized?” or “Why don’t you support gays serving in the military?” (despite all the support-the-troops rhetoric)—doesn’t mean the question isn’t fair.What’s hilariously disingenuous about their outrage is that there are plenty of conservative voters who want answers to those questions. They have to ignore the reality of the GOP base in order to be pissed off about these questions—which is why they’re hiding behind indignation about the questioners instead.

Here we can see a talking point in the making: The only reason anybody is interested in what went on in this debate is because they’re attempting to attack the questioners instead of confronting the questions. And what’s that about average people? Is someone directly involved with the Clinton campaign average? What about activists for other campaigns? I wonder if McEwen would consider a Giuliani operative, who’s not presented as such, asking questions of Democrats to be just an average American.

Crooks and Liars follows the same pattern:

As it turns out, Gen. Kerr is co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans Group, an affiliation that is making the right wing blogs crazy–the nerve of a Democratic candidate supporter asking questions of Republicans! But Gen. Kerr’s question had neither anything to do with Clinton nor was it partisan in nature. But leave it to the wingnuts to ignore the substance because of the messenger.

I wonder what Crooks and Liars had to say about the alleged piling on Hillary that occurred in Philadelphia last month at the Democratic Debate there. Here’s the first post about it on November 2:

As I was watching the MSNBC debate with Jane Hamsher, (she stayed with me for a few days before her surgery yesterday and is recovering nicely.) I turned and said that I was wondering when Russert would ask her if she killed Vince Foster. The hostility directed at her was pretty ridiculous. Disagree with her all you want and I certainly do, but Russert had a plan in mind and carried it out. You will never see Republicans treated this way throughout a debate. Taylor Marsh thought so too.

Well, gee. Nothing there about how the Clinton camp is attacking the questioner to avoid dealing with the questions. Why, John Amato is almost accusing Tim Russert of being a Republican plant!

A few days later there was another post on C&L titled Take my Media, Please?:

What’s that Henny Youngman joke? Take my wife, please? Well, take our media and shove it. The Left Coaster exposes the lies that Russert used on Hillary about the Clinton archives during MSNBC’s debate last week.

Tim Russert asking tough questions – bad. Clinton operatives asking questions…*yawn*.

I could continue on with other examples, but suffice it to say the meme from the left concerning the debate debacle is that it’s no big deal which people were chosen to ask the questions. What really matters is the truthiness of the questions!

Update 7:30 Via Allahpundit at Hot Air:

political director admits they shouldn’t have used Kerr’s question
given his campaign affiliation with Hillary, then turns around and
undercuts the logic of that position:

The network looked into the backgrounds of people who submitted “very sensitive questions,” Feist said, but didn’t ask their party affiliation or whether they were associated with a campaign…

Feist asserted that conservative bloggers like Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, who has led the way in probing the backgrounds of questioners at the GOP debate, “are trying to distract from the issues.

“It’s interesting to see our critics really focusing on the questioners, but not really focusing on the questions. You haven’t heard them say that these were not useful questions.”

It appears Feist looked around on memeorandum to determine how to respond to this. You see, it’s irrelevant who the questioners were. We should be focusing on the questions!


Filed under Lemmings and Tools

The Politics of "Pile On"

Is this what passes for a unified message these days? While I can understand the importance for a political party to stand together pressing for specific goals, it’s become completely ridiculous lately in the reality based community. Here’s a hint: Having a united message doesn’t require everybody adopting the same talking points or even the very same words!

What I’m referring to in this instance is the pile on spin regarding the criticism of Hillary Clinton in Tuesday night’s debate. Her campaign put out a video Wednesday morning called “The Politics of Pile On” and suddenly the phrase was ubiquitous. I suppose that from now on any criticism of Ms. Clinton will be called piling on, just as a couple of weeks ago any questioning of the Families USA /Frost family ad campaign was called smearing Graeme Frost.

First of all, I did a cursory Google search and as far as I can tell the first reference to “pile on” in relation to Hillary was an AP article from October 22 about the GOP debate titled GOP Hopefuls Pile on Clinton. Perhaps that’s the inspiration for the phrase. But today, after the video and press release were put out, variations of it have popped up all over the place.

Let’s examine just what this pile up stuff is all about. Hillary flip flopped all over the place regarding whether or not she supports Eliot Spitzer’s effort to have illegal aliens obtain driver’s licenses in New York. She was called on it by the other Democrats in the debate because she wouldn’t give a straight answer. The video is here. It was so bad that today she finally had to clarify by saying yes, she agrees with what Spitzer is doing. So, to distract from the fact she screwed up, the lefty blogosphere is taking her campaign press release to heart and portraying the debate as a bunch of mean old men piling on the woman.

And who is to blame for encouraging this piling on? Well, early Wednesday morning a blurb appeared on Drudge Report:


Right on cue stories started appearing on memeorandum attacking Russert and blaming him for setting Hillary up. As usual these days, irony is lost on these people. “Politics of Pile On”, indeed.

1 Comment

Filed under Lemmings and Tools