Pat Buchanan: race baiter extraordinaire

I almost apologize for bringing this footage to you, but I felt it was important enough to comment on. [The relevant portion of this footage is from about the 5:00 mark to a little over 7 minutes if you don't wish to watch the whole thing.] Last week, following Obama's victory in West Virginia, and his getting John Edwards' endorsement a day later, the pundits were having a field day hyper-analyzing what all of it means. As usual, Pat Buchanan was worked into a foaming, growling froth over it all.

I deeply resent Buchanan's assertions in this commentary [at about the four minute mark in the footage above], specifically these lines:

What were the African-American community in Philadelphia that gave him 90% voting on if not the fact that Barack Obama was one of them. West Virginia, Hillary, was one of us. That's the same thing. But West Virginia gets trashed, and Philadelphia is wonderful.

I have to give Chris Matthews some credit for his response to Buchanan:

I want to respond to Pat's thought there [Buchanan laughs]. No, no, it's a thought that a lot of people share, and I don't deny that. But when you look at the history of this country - going all the way back over 400 years, in the beginnings of this country, before we had a Republic, white people get elected to all the major offices. We've had three African-American senators freely elected after Reconstruction, and a couple of governors, and that's about it. Doug Wilder and Deval Patrick [the two governors that Matthews mentions]. If you're African-American it seems to me rooting for someone for your community, and when they have a real chance to be president for the first time in history, I wouldn't read that as a negative sentiment. However, when you're white, and you've always called the shots, to say that you're voting against somebody who's had quite an impact in this campaign, I think it's a different way of looking at it. You can always say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Pat, the way you argue it, it's hard to argue. But there's a difference between negative voting and positive voting.

I find myself agreeing with Matthews a great deal lately, and that's sort of weird, because I normally don't - a shocking number of stupid things come out of his mouth for someone who works on a major network, but I do agree with him here.

Of course, Buchanan goes on to rant about network pundits calling the many West Virginians "racists" who appeared on TV last Tuesday. Nonsense. I didn't hear one network pundit call them racist. But, what I did hear were many West Virginians saying overtly on TV that race played a factor in their votes for Hillary.

For Buchanan to whine and cry about these poor people in West Virginia is the height of hypocrisy. Yes, they do sign up and die in the military in record numbers, no question, but Buchanan rants that "they haven't been running the country," and that's wrong. Since we're talking about race, the race that makes up an overwhelming majority of the state HAS been running this country since its founding, and that's a verifiable fact. Buchanan is simply trying to muddy the waters, and it's a joke.

The fact of the matter is, Obama lost in West Virginia because he's black. PERIOD. And he'll probably lose the state in November, too, which strikes me as tragic, because Obama would do more as president economically as president in one term than McCain would do in five terms.

And I don't buy into the notion that Barack Obama won in Pennsylvania because of the black vote in Philadelphia. That's a vast oversimplification. Sure, the black vote helped Obama in Philly - the numbers don't lie, but that's not the only reason he won in Pa., and to say as much is wrong. For instance, I live in Philadelphia, I'm white, and I voted for Obama because I feel he's the best candidate for the office he seeks.

So, take that, Buchanan.

By the way, I don't think the Edwards endorsement will amount to much for Obama. Frankly, I think that endorsements are overblown. When Hillary drops out and endorses Obama, that will have an impact, but when party leaders endorse a certain candidate, I think it carries very little weight these days.

Scalia: "Get over" 2000 election decision

The insipid Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears Sunday night on 60 Minutes, and Leslie Stahl asks him about Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that effectively stopped the Florida recount in 2000. His response: "Get over it," and he also gives a similar answer to a small group, and afterward, says, "So there."

What a clown. Scalia represents another of the disastrous legacies of President Reagan that we all should be so grateful for. It's too bad that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, because if they weren't, he probably would've been bounced from the bench a long time ago.

I'm amused by Scalia's disingenuous retort that "Gore brought it [the 2000 election] into the courts. What were we supposed to do?" I obviously haven't seen the whole interview yet, but I hope that Stahl pressed him on this point - the reason that Al Gore did just that is because he was getting royally screwed in Florida by faulty voting machines, and many, many voting irregularities.

It almost is too obvious to mention that if the Supreme Court case in 2000 involved Bush's supporters being disenfranchised, as Gore's supporters actually were, you can bet that recount would have happened.

Another side note about judges - it will never cease to amaze me how Dubya puts down lawyers and judges - especially judges. Any judge who renders a decision he doesn't like is an "activist judge," but when a judge rules in a way Bush approves of, his mouth is taped shut. I wish someone would have pointed out to Our National Embarrassment a long time ago that it was judges and lawyers who put him into office in the first place, so before he goes putting them down, he should consider that. (A great time to do this would have been in '04, when Bush mocked John Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, as a "trial lawyer" in just about every debate, especially during questions about tort and medical malpractice reform. Another missed opportunity by Kerry. Sadly, there were more than a few of those.)

Despite the smug Scalia's dismissive comments, we aren't getting over it, and the biggest reason, at least for me, is because I can't help but wonder what kind of a country we would be living in had Gore become president in 2000. Some things very well may have happened, including 9/11, but the War in Iraq almost certainly would not have, along with a laundry list of other unfortunate events these last 7+ years.

Anyway, I bring up issues like this, because if McSame is elected, we are going to have a Supreme Court with plenty of more judges like Scalia.

And that's one scary thought.

Elizabeth Edwards jabs insipid Coulter

This is a pretty good piece of footage, and it illustrates the character of both Ann Coulter and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards.

Really, the footage speaks for itself, and I can't add anything more pithy than what Edwards herself says, other to to reinforce what she said. We really do need to elevate the political discourse in this country, and people like Coulter do nothing to debase and defile the entire process by never missing an opportunity to personally savage anyone with a "D" after his or her name.

Coulter really is pathetic and sad. There's really not much else that can be said in a classy way, so I'll just stop there. I ceased being angry about her diatribes a long time ago, but I'll never stop pointing them out, because the last thing we need in the face of her silly slander is apathy.

Two more quick thoughts - I have absolutely no problem with Edwards making money off of her remarks, no matter who she is slandering, and she's beyond hypocritical to lamely try and call out John Edwards for doing so. Isn't Coulter making millions off of her own blarney? So, why shouldn't Democrats?

Anyone who believes that Republicans don't send out fundraising letters to their base when a Democrat says something ill-advised should be awarded a doctorate in naïveté. It's part of the political fundraising game, Ann. But, of course, she thinks that most of us are naïve enough to believe that only Democrats do it.

Honestly, the moron in Chris Matthews' audience who shouted, "Why isn't John Edwards making this call?!?" made me as angry as Coulter did. Ridiculous, but something I'd expect from a Coulter sycophant. That's overtly stating that the wife of a presidential candidate doesn't have the right to express her views, or that hers are unimportant.

I'm happy that Elizabeth Edwards did what she did. It's probably best to ignore people like Ann, but sometimes, enough is enough, and they need to be called out.

Edwards on global warming

Here's a video of John Edwards on global warming. Not bad - I say his proposals are merely a start, though. But, I have to give him kudos for even offering specifics; thus far, very few candidates have even done that, and most of the ones I hear are coming from Democratic candidates.

A great deal must be overcome to make real progress on global warming. What comes to mind first and foremost is overcoming fossil fuel industry campaign contributions. Between big oil and big coal, the loudest voices on Capitol Hill are the ones with the deepest pockets. It's no surprise that like many ills in our society, global warming and its causes and solutions all come back to money in politics. This is just another reason while we desperately need public financing for our elections.

Poignant Mem Day msg from John Edwards

I heard this message from John Edwards tonight, and it resonated with me on this Memorial Day Weekend. I really am going to have the troops on my mind this weekend. We are having a party, and, without being pushy about it, I'm going to talk to my friends about what we can do to end the war, and what their thoughts are about it. Normally I eschew political discussions among friends and family, but the more this war drags on, the more we have a responsibility to speak out and speak up, not shut up.

On Monday, I pledge to write President Bush and my elected Congressional representatives to let them know what I think about the latest war funding bill.

I'm also going to look into the Yellow Ribbon Fund that Edwards mentioned in his video. I just did a little poking around on the Website, and it looks like something very worthwhile, and I'm going to schedule some volunteer time. Click on the image below to go to Yellow Ribbon Fund's Website.

A good veto ad from the Edwards camp

From time-to-time during the '08 campaign, I will bring you ads I find poignant, and this is one of them. Well done! You can put yourself in this ad by going to John Edwards' Website.

I agree with the premise of this ad - Congress should keep sending this bill to Bush's desk, and let him veto it - over and over and over again.

The real Coulter mocks John Edwards

Bonus points if you can guess who the voice is.
(Oh, and lighten up - it's a joke!)

Some Sunday comics, a bit late

So, Toyota is now the global king. The only amazing thing is that it took so long. I sure hope GM can turn it around, but the company is hamstrung by the astronomical costs of its pension and medical care costs.

I'll discuss the Pat Tillman fiasco in a separate post, but in short, it's one of the most disgraceful chapters in U.S. military history. At this point, I can't say I'm surprised, though - nothing from this administration surprises me anymore. Aside from Tillman's death, the most tragic thing about the whole incident is that no one will be held responsible for it. I'm not even talking so much about the friendly fire, which is a tragedy, but the cover-up and the lying by the U.S. government to the Tillman family. However, like Abu Ghraib and Haditha, it's unlikely that anyone within the highest reaches of the Pentagon or the Bush administration will be held responsible.

The $400 John Edwards haircut is an embarrassment to him and his campaign, but the press coverage about this whole thing has been nothing short of amazing.

I'm not defending it - it's inexcusable. Anyone who was going to donate money to his campaign will probably be thinking twice. Had he paid for it himself, it would not have been disclosed. What was Edwards thinking? The answer is, he wasn't, because if he was, he would not have put this on the campaign books. You know what, though? Each and every campaign, and candidate, has these skeletons in his or her closet.

Anyone catch the stories about Rudy Giuliani and all of this rock-star like demands when he makes a campaign appearance? You probably didn't, because it got virtually no mainstream media coverage.

In addition to his $100,000 speaking fee, during his private speaking tours, he requires to be shuttled to and from speaking events in a Gulfstream IV private jet. You can read more about his demands Here and at the Smoking Gun, which obtained a copy of a Giuliani contract. Evidently, Oklahoma State released one of his contracts, sick of his unusually high demands.

Anyone want to argue that he's not using any campaign cash improperly? C'mon, they all are, without question. I have a hard time believing that a guy like Rudy, who's used to first-class treatment in every way, is all of a sudden going to be flying commercial.

During the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that then-candidate George W. Bush spent over $100 a minute.

Or, how about John McCain's all-expenses-paid trip to Iraq, so he could try and end his embarrassment stemming from his disastrous appearance on CNN just days before, where he blithely chided Wolf Blitzer for not knowing the facts on Iraq.

Again, I'm not saying that Edwards' behavior should be excused. It shouldn't. He won't get a dime out of me, even if he becomes the nominee. But, my point is all of the presidential candidates undoubtedly have lavish expenses. That doesn't make it right, either, but to single out Edwards is laughable.

You have to be able to read Spanish to know where this cartoon is coming from, and this one is right on. (It reads, "Why all the violence?")

I'm happy that finally, someone is actually going to take the time to examine all of this actions in a legal way. (Of course we know his work isn't always respectful, but that doesn't make it illegal. But, the likelihood that he did something illegal is all but certain, in my mind.)

Boris Yeltsin will be remembered as the first democratically elected president in Russian history. He probably was the right man at the right time. Like all leaders, he had his flaws, but, unlike Mikhail Gorbachev, who wanted to reform the communist party, Yeltsin wanted it abolished. Yeltsin took Russia toward democracy, and Vladimir Putin is taking Russia away from it.

Speaks for itself.

Speaks for itself, Part II.

How many people thought that Sheryl Crow was actually serious in suggesting we should all wipe with one sheet of toilet paper? Many in the mainstream media did. I don't know I'd want to shake her hand without a latex glove on, but I took it as the joke it was when it first starting making the rounds of the MSM.

Yep, this is about right. I find it absurd and preposterous that five Catholic men on the Supreme Court are imposing their beliefs on every woman in America. What's more, if my wife's life is in danger if she were to become pregnant, she can't have an abortion after a certain amount of time has elapsed. Or, if the baby is afflicted with a certain fatal birth defect or disorder, the pregnancy can't be ended. That's how I interpret it, and it sickens me.

Oh, and Partial-Birth Abortion is a euphemism coined by the Pro-Life movement - it's a non-medical term for Intact Dilation and Extraction.

The Supreme Court's decision sickens me and the pic at right illustrates exactly how I feel about the Supreme Court and its horrific decision. I can't think of a better reason to vote Democrat in 2008 - Roe v. Wade has never been more in jeopardy than it is right now, along with many other civil liberties and rights with the George W. Bush-stocked Supreme Court.

What's more, people should look into exactly what the procedure is, and more importantly, how often it is (was) used. According to the Guttenmacher Institute, the procedure has had a very low rate of usage, representing 0.17 percent (2,232 of 1,313,000 abortions) of all abortions performed in the U.S. in 2000.

Another unspeakable student massacre

It seems like every 5-10 years, Americans have to bear witness to another senseless, public mass murder. Unfortunately, I remember all too many of these, from the McDonald's mass murder in 1984 to Columbine High School to countless other, smaller but no less significant executions and murders, it makes me wonder if the senseless violence and madness will ever end in our society.

Today's Virginia Tech Massacre will live on in infamy, much like the 1999 Columbine High School shootings. The loss of life right now is at a ghastly 33 people.

Above (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Matt Gentry), Blacksburg police officers run from Norris Hall on Virginia Tech's campus. The shootings in Norris Hall, an engineering building, occurred two hours after a shooting at a student dorm.

S.W.A.T. members prepare to storm one of the VT buildings. (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Eric Brady)

Officers assemble outside Norris Hall on Virginia Tech's campus, preparing to take the building by storm. (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Eric Brady)

S.W.A.T. team members head to Norris Hall on Virginia Tech's campus. The shooting is being called the deadliest killing killing spree in U.S. history, said government officials earlier today. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Officers take up positions on Clay Street on Virginia Tech's campus. (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Alan Kim)

An injured student is carried out of Norris Hall by officers following the shooting. (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Alan Kim)

Another person is carried out of Norris Hall. (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Alan Kim)

Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital emergency workers unload a Virginia Tech shooting victim in downtown Roanoke, Va. (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Jared Soares)

An unidentified man is restrained during a manhunt on the Virginia Tech campus. One of the murderers is dead, but it's unclear whether he worked alone. (AP Photo/The Roanoke Times, Alan Kim)

The investigation will no doubt reveal some very disturbing things - not only about the killer(s), but about the school's response as well.

VT President Charles Steeger meets with the press following the massacre. Reportedly, the first incident took place two hours before the second incident, and the university's first response to students, faculty and staff was via e-mail. Yes, e-mail. If these reports are accurate, it would not surprise me at all if Steeger is looking for a job a few months from now.

As students grieve, there will be lots of questions about the safety of our institutions of higher learning, just like there was following the Columbine tragedy. And that's not be a bad thing. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

As the campus and the victims' families and friends take time to ask, "Why?" and mourn the massive loss of life, I hope this brings about renewed and much-needed debate on violence and guns in our society. (AP Photo Evan Vucci)

I also hope this tragedy brings about much needed change in security on college campuses across the country. I've taught at two universities, and security at both were slapdash at best.

It also won't take long to see the political consequences of this tragedy, either. Of course, the presidential candidates will weigh in on the tragedy in the coming days, and a few already have.

Waiting for me in my inbox when I got home tonight was a message from John and Elizabeth Edwards. It read:

We are simply heartbroken by the deaths and injuries suffered at Virginia Tech. We know what an unspeakable, life-changing moment this is for these families and how, in this moment, it is hard to feel anything but overwhelming grief, much less the love and support around you. But the love and support is there. We pray that these families, these students, and the entire Virginia Tech community know that they are being embraced by a nation. There is a Methodist hymn that gave us solace in such a moment as this, and we repeat its final verse here, in hopes it will help these families, as it helped us:

In our end is our beginning; in our time, infinity;
In our doubt there is believing, in our life, eternity,
In our death, a resurrection; at the last, a victory,
Unrevealed until its season, something God alone can see.

Our dearest wish is that this day could start again, with the promise of these young people alive. Knowing that cannot be, our prayer is for God’s grace and whatever measure of peace can be reached on this terrible day.

John and Elizabeth Edwards

Okay, I thought that was a nice thing, as much as a political message at times like these can be. Say what you will about the Edwardses, but they sure know about loss; the couple loss their son Wade a little over 10 years ago, and with Elizabeth's condition, they will tragically know loss again.

One other presidential candidate weighed in immediately after the tragedy - John McCain met with reporters at the Laredo International Airport in Laredo, Texas. McCain said the massacre at Virginia Tech doesn't change his views on the Second Amendment, "except to make sure that these kinds of weapons don't fall into the hands of bad people." (AP Photo/Laredo Morning Times, Andy Ellis)

Phew! Thank God McCain reaffirmed our right to bear arms at a time like this. I know that was my first thought when I heard about the tragedy.

Could McCain possibly be any more tone deaf? At best, it's a comment that could have at least waited a day.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and friends.

KO's worst people - spot on again

This episode of Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World, from yesterday's show, is notable for a number of reasons.

First - Matt Drudge. It really angers me that a person like Drudge, who has ethics and scruples much lower than the rest of the civilized world, will smear any enemy of the Republican Party, or even someone who has merely embarrassed the GOP.

Drudge's latest target - CNN Iraqi Correspondent Michael Ware, who has more than embarrassed Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain before and during his current visit to Baghdad. Really, McCain has embarrassed himself; Ware has merely succinctly pointed it out.

Yesterday, Drudge posted some inaccurate and disparaging information about Ware on his über-popular Website, The Drudge Report, as Olbermann states above, including that Ware heckled McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at a press conference along with the insinuation that Ware has a drinking problem.

As soon as Ware flatly denied the report, stating on CNN "check the videotape," video indeed appeared on the Web, backing up Ware's claim - not a speckle of heckle. Mysteriously, Drudge's entry on Ware disappeared from his Website. Surprise!

Drudge has a history of disparaging individuals on his site - Sidney Blumenthal comes to mind as one of the more noteworthy cases. Drudge posted libelous statements about Blumenthal, senior political adviser to President Clinton in his second term, (I won't rewrite them here) and Blumenthal sued him. Blumenthal later dropped the suit when it became clear that it wasn't worth the time or effort to go after Drudge. (Quick plug - Blumenthal's tome, The Clinton Wars, is arguably the best book on Clinton's presidency available anywhere. [aside from Clinton's autobiographical My Life] Sid's book is an awesome political read. )

It's not a stretch to say that Drudge has a "post it now, verify later, if at all" mentality, journalistic standards be damned. This right-wing shill dares people he's disparaged to come after him. It's also a well-known fact that Drudge is in regular contact with leaders of the Republican National Committee, who give him talking points.

And Drudge's stories make it into the mainstream media with stunning regularity. The Ware case is the latest example - I'll repost the CNN footage:



Notice how Soledad O'Brien brings the rumor up in this exchange with Ware. Two schools of thought here: 1. She brought up Drudge's b.s. to give Ware an opportunity to respond to the ridiculous allegations, or 2. O'Brien did what many other MSM anchors do these days - if it's on Drudge, it's news. History suggests the latter is more accurate - since Drudge "broke" the Monica Lewinsky Scandal on his site, he's shockingly become the darling of MSMs looking for news on the Web.

One recent example - when John Edwards announced a few weeks ago that he would have an announcement about his wife's health the following day, Drudge and The Politico leaped into action (these two Websites seem to be entangled in a passionate love affair as of late). The Politico, which has plenty of credibility problems of its own as of late, reported that Edwards would drop out of the race with a one-source story. Drudge pounced, reporting it on his site as fact, and from there, it went to all of the cable news networks, including CNN. The next morning, I was listening to Thom Hartman on my drive in to work, and he announced that Edwards was dropping out of the race, "according to CNN."

Twenty minutes later, Edwards was on television announcing he intends to stay in the race.

Whaaaaa Whaaaaa Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant.

Virtually every cable news network got the story wrong - because they relied on dopes like Matt Drudge to get their story, in lieu of getting a story the old fashioned way - by cultivating sources and doing some investigating. I guess that's too much work for journalists these days. Drudge is as credible as a jilted spouse who's been cheated on, looking for revenge in a divorce proceeding. Reliability police - pull over!

##

Anyway - Olbermann's other target in the clip above - Bill O'Reilly. It's beyond comedy the way O'Reilly treats people, especially military veterans who know more in their toenails about the military than O'Reilly could ever hope to learn in a lifetime.

Update: I found the video of Billy dressing down Col. Ann Wright, a 29-year military veteran. Check it out:



There you have it - Fox News - Fair and Balanced; Bill O'Reilly, fairly imbalanced.

CNN Obama piece a dog's breakfast

Wolf Blitzer and Bill Schneider are two of the very few left at CNN who I can stomach, but this piece is very misleading and selective.

First of all, as Media Matters has reported, this report leaves out that Obama acknowledged in the introduction of his book, Dreams of My Father, "that [Obama] created composite characters, presented dialogue that 'is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me,' and changed the names of most of the 'characters ... for the sake of their privacy.'"

This one minute drive-by shooting of Obama by Schneider, another one of the few CNN reporters I respect, sounds more like a Fox News strategy session, or for that matter, a RNC strategy video (Wait - those two are the same thing. Never mind.)

A few of my thoughts...

First off, I'm sick to death of hearing about the anti-Hillary Clinton Apple Computer ad. To me, this non-story story was all over the news for three or four days. Then, a week later, it was revealed that the ad had been created by an employee of a firm the Obama campaign hired to do some work. Immediately upon his being "outed," the guy was fired, a fact that Schneider neglects to mention in the disingenuous report above.

Secondly, as Media Matters so adeptly points out, Schneider takes the title right from The Politico, which seems sort of lame. There are no true ideas left in journalism, Bill, but you can't come up with your own title?

Just a quick thought about The Politico and The Drudge Report - it would be nice if the mainstream media did a little reporting of its own for once, instead of taking the word of GOP shill Matt Drudge, a journalistic hack who has admitted that a. "He's not a real journalist" and b. Never even attended college, from what I can tell. Not that college is a pre-requisite for being intelligent, but it always helps.

It's pretty funny how quickly the "news" networks will pick up just about anything on Drudge and report it as fact. The most shining example of this is the recent announcement by John and Elizabeth Edwards that her cancer has returned. A few hours before the announcement was made that Edwards would stay in the campaign, The Politico ran a one-source story that Edwards was withdrawing from the race. Of course, then Drudge ran with it, as did CNN, Thom Hartman on his radio show, etc. So, these two very popular Websites have a lot of sway over the mainstream media, and they shouldn't.

The only mistake in the Bill Schneider piece at the top of this page is that he's even reporting stuff like this in the first place. Even at this early stage of the campaign, this is broadcast filler and little else.

Katie BOORic out of line with Edwardses

I haven't been this angry about a 60 Minutes piece since Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi about a week before the 2006 election and focused on her clothes and appearance with superficial, irrelevant and insulting questions and comments. However, Couric trumped that disgrace ten-fold with her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday night.

One of the things that annoyed me most about this interview was Couric's use of the Fersatz News Channel's well known tactic of beginning questions with "some would say" and "many are saying." That's just euphemism for "I think you should be home, Elizabeth" or "Are you sure you want to continue the campaign?" or "Should you be doing this?"

I guess I sound like a paranoid, whining Republican, many of whom have made calling the media "liberal" a cliché.

Before I take off on a serious rant, I understand that Katie Couric has a fair amount of expertise and personal experience with cancer. I'm certainly not without sympathy or empathy for all that she's endured as a wife and mother after her husband Jay Monahan passed away from colon cancer in 1998. She also lost her sister, Emily, to pancreatic cancer in 2001. And, from all that I've seen and read, she's been a wonderful mom to her children, especially in light of them losing their father at such a tragically young age.

Couric also deserves unequivocal praise for her work on behalf of cancer. She's had a mammogram and also a colonoscopy on the air while hosting NBC's Today Show. She's brought a lot of visibility, attention and awareness to cancer.

Aside from all of that, though, I still don't see how that gave her the right to be a bulldog to John and Elizabeth Edwards like she did on Sunday night.

Couric falls just short of openly criticizing Elizabeth Edwards for not being at home with her kids. From what I've read, Couric didn't leave her job for any length of time at The Today Show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer. It's a wonder what nannies can do, huh Katie? Why should the Edwardses be held to a different standard, because they both committed to public service? They shouldn't.

I wonder how Couric would have felt if a reporter asked her similar questions when her husband was diagnosed with colon cancer. Picture reporters sticking microphones in her face, asking her all sorts of questions about why she wasn't home with her husband and children. She would have resented it, and rightfully so.

What's more, John and Elizabeth Edwards are certainly setting out to do more by serving their country as opposed to doing a morning show with Matt Lauer for 15 years. I see footage like this, and it's little wonder Couric's CBS Evening News is tanking.

What irked me most was how Couric openly questioned whether Edwards could run the country while distracted [with Elizabeth's illness]. Couric might want to pick up a history book.

Here are just a few off the top of my head...

If Elizabeth Edwards' health is such a concern, how about Dick Cheney's? He was recently hospitalized for blood clots in his leg, and he has a history of heart attacks and coronary problems. Let's not forget that Cheney is without a doubt the most powerful vice president in modern times, maybe ever. And he's one tragedy away from the presidency.

Where's Couric with a question about Cheney's health? Keeping up with all of the scandals that are plaguing Dick's administration has got to be taking a toll on his health, so maybe it should be a concern.

President Reagan had three major operations while in office, including an operation for colon cancer. Yes, there were stories in the press about it, but not the kind of media attention that Elizabeth Edwards is getting. Funny how the press didn't question whether he should remain as president or not.

President Nixon had a very serious phlebitis that could have killed him while he was president, but admittedly those health problems occurred late in his presidency, when the nation's attention was on Watergate.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson had a record of serious health problems before and during their presidencies, and none, save FDR, affected the presidency. In FDR's case, he was clearly dying even before the election of 1944, but the nation was reluctant to change leaders during World War II, and his health was hid from the nation during that election.

But, the cases above were pre-Watergate, after which just about anything has been fair game to report in the media.

Having said all of that, it's absurd and insulting to believe that John Edwards could not effectively function as a leader while dealing with his wife's illness if he were to win the 2008 election.

If anyone's health should be speculated on and raised as an issue in this campaign, it's John McCain's. He's been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002. What's more, he will turn 72 in 2009, the year he would take the oath of office if he wins the 2008 presidential election. I'm not saying McCain's health should be an issue in this campaign, but it most certainly should be more of an issue than Elizabeth Edwards'.

To his credit, since his interview with his wife on 60 Minutes, John Edwards has come out and publicly stated he didn't have a problem with the questions. But, keep in mind he's running for office, and he wants to demonstrate that he can handle the tough questions.

The Couric interview was inexcusable - CBS should have known better.

Not much time to write 'til tonight...

But in the meantime, a few hard hittin' cartoons to start your week. I found some good ones today.

I can think of 500 billion reasons why this 'toon hits painfully close to home.

Speaks for itself. "If you're losing the argument, change the argument." -- Somewhere on Karl Rove's desk, there's probaby a granite stone with those words chisled into it. He's turned changing the argument and coming up with effective distrations into an art form. Karl Rove - the modern-day Rasputin.

A homerun. And yes, Newt really did send his wife divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer. If there is a hell, the presidential suite there is named in his honor. I'll have more on Edwards' decision to stay in the race later tonight.

This is another cartoon that is painfully apropos. I've been reading and listening to a great deal of stories in the media lately about a possible economic collapse. There are lots of signs, and one of the biggest is the rate of foreclosures, which is skyrocketing. I was just telling Vandra last night that we need to get rid of our variable rate mortgage, immediately. We're looking into it. More on this later, too. I've got lots to write about tonight.

Limbaugh's addiction just for ratings

Sources have told CMB that right-wing political commentator Rush Limbaugh's confession of drug addiction to Oxycodone and subsequent rehab were just to get a spike in his increasingly poor ratings. I'm told that Limbaugh probably could have kept his addiction secret, but he felt that if he went public, it would give his sagging ratings a much needed kick in the pants, since his contract is up for renegotiation in less than 18 months.

Seem ridiculous? That's because it is - I just made it up. What I just did - completely fabricating a story, is the same thing that Limbaugh does every day before he takes to the airwaves to spread his lies, hatred and intolerance.



Anyway, this time Rush has truly outdone himself. Keith Olbermann in the clip above probably puts it best - this dirt bag couldn't even give it a day before attacking Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards and his wife?

What's more, to even suggest that a presidential candidate from any party would use his wife's cancer for a boost in poll numbers is so idiotic that it should almost qualify as a hate crime. But, we live in a country where even drug- and Twinkie-addicted, impotent slobs like Limbaugh get to spread their hate.

Someday, hopefully soon, people, even radical Repubes, will stop listening to him. That day can't get here quickly enough. First with Michael J. Fox, now with Elizabeth Edwards. Who's next? No word yet on whether he's planning on attacking Ann Coulter for her rumored bipolar disorder as a ploy to just sell books. Wait...

Is it a bad thing for me to wish an STD on Limbaugh? Nothing fatal, like HIV, but something incredibly uncomfortable, like genital warts. Herpes would be the best - he'd have to go on the air with a big red growth. He's a Republican, so he could accessorize with a red blister. I guess a big blue blister would be too much to ask for.

My point here, made in a mildly vulgar way, is that some day, Limbaugh will realize that all of the evil he spreads will come back to haunt him. I guess the same could be said of me for typing what I just typed about him, but hey, somebody's got to say it.

It angers me that he's so successful. And he's only as successful as he is because there are people out there who have bought into his ridiculous, hateful tripe.

For those of you who missed it, here's the Edwards' press conference announcing that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has returned...

Dems dump Fox debate for Ailes joke

So, the Democrats have finally wised up - there will be no Democratic debate on Faux News this August. I have no idea what the Democrats were thinking in the first place by agreeing to cosponsor a debate on Fox. Can anyone imagine the likes of Sean Hannity or Chris Wallace asking unbiased, relevant questions to Democratic candidates for president? I can't, either.

Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, made some jokes on Friday night about Barack Obama and the Democrats. One in particular caught the ire of Democrats nationwide, in particular the party's leadership.

The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner. The joke underscores a sophomoric dig that Republicans like to take at the popular Obama - making fun of his name by comparing it to terrorists.

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," said Ailes. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called [Pakastani President Pervez] Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?'"

No one ever accused me of being unable to take a joke, but Fox's digs about Obama's name are getting old, fast: Calling him "Osama" and never missing the opportunity to say his middle name, "Hussein", for example, has got to be getting on Obama's nerves, and hopefully voters as well.

Less than 24 hours later, the Democratic National Committee announced a pullout of the August debate on Fox News. I don't know what's more entertaining - Ailes trying to do stand-up comedy, or the networks's reaction following the announcement.

Ailes' jokes in the video above speak for themselves - this guy is about as funny as cancer. The hilarious Fox statement:

"News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not he Democratic Party," said Fox News Vice President David Rhodes.

I think Rhodes is off his meds.

John Edwards also played a part in the Democrats' pulling out of the Fox debate, announcing on Thursday that he would not participate in the debate, citing Fox's participation in the debate as part of the reason.

Who can blame Edwards? Ann Coulter slanders him, and Fox has her on immediately thereafter, treating her like some sort of folk hero.

Note to Fox execs - if you want to continue this charade of "fair and balanced," don't put a hate monger on your network less than 72 hours after she makes uncouth, hateful remarks about a Democratic candidate for president.

It appears that MoveOn.org played a pretty big role in the cancellation, too, and that doesn't sit too well with Republicans, or Ailes, who took a swipe at the political organization and Edwards during his speech Friday night, saying pressure groups were now urging candidates "to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage."

That doesn't quite capture it, Rog. MoveOn's campaign to get the debate cancelled is called free speech. Also, who can blame Edwards and Obama for dissing Fox after the treatment they've received from the network thus far in the campaign, even at this early stage? You don't have to go far to dig for examples, either: the phony madrassa story about Obama's childhood school, the network saying "Barack Osama" by "mistake" on more than one occasion, hosts deriding Democratic candidates at every turn, etc.

I'm for a free and open press, but when thinking about this, I put myself in the shoes of Edwards and Obama - why would I give Fox any attention when there are numerous other media outlets to use? That's just being smart.

Of course, this is all part of Fox's modus operandi - slam Democratic candidates, and when they fight back, hide behind a free press and cry wolf. I ain't buying it, and I can only hope moderate voters don't buy this crap, either.

Only time will tell - 308 days until the Iowa Caucus.

More Coulter with a side of Maher...

...then I'm taking it off the menu. I'm so tired of hearing about all of this. With all of the serious things we have happening in Washington right now, people are focusing on Ann Coulter and Bill Maher? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Hey, I'm guilty, too; I weighed in with my thoughts following Coulter's remarks, but the media, after a slow start in reporting on this story, has gone all Anna Nicole on this story.

For starters, I'm not against Coulter having the ability to be a bigot. Our Constitution makes provisions for hateful, lonely people like Ann. We may not like it, but we have to live with it.

But, Coulter's "faggot" comment about Democratic presidential candidate is only her greatest example of hate, intolerance and downright stupidity.

Following the September 11 attacks, Coulter wrote in a column for the National Review that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

A public outcry ensued, but Richard Lowry, her editor at National Review, stuck by her, but not for long. The following week, she pressed ahead with her attack, as outlined in a recent story in The Washington Monthly: "Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave...We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males."

Lowry refused to run her column, and Coulter responded as only Coulter knows how when confronted with calm reasoning: she called Lowry and his editorial staff "girly boys" for refusing to run her column. National Review gave her the gate.

What annoys me most about Coulter is that whenever she makes one of her well-publicized idiotic remarks, many Republicans run for cover, hiding behind the well-worn curtain of "She's not mainstream; not many people listen to her."

Funny then, how all of her books have made The New York Times Best Seller List. In short, she's become a millionaire author by people's appetite for her hatred, intolerance and slander. Hardly the makings of a marginalized radical.

Even more damning - she wins awards and is treated with fawning enthusiasm by Republican politicians and organizations. According to The Washington Monthly, last year, the Media Research Center bestowed Coulter with its "Conservative Journalist of the Year" award, and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute conferred upon her its Conservative Leadership Award "for her unfailing dedication to truth, freedom and conservative values and for being an exemplar, in word and deed, of what a true leader is."

Again, marginalized or out-of-the-mainstream she surely is not.

Coulter has a long history of making hateful, jingoistic remarks. Take a quick read of this list, compiled by The Washington Monthly:

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."--Rivera Live, 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God
said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"--Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"--syndicated column, 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."--MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."--Salon.com, 11/16/00

On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."--MSNBC, 9/12/97

That last comment bears closer scrutiny - at 45 years old, time's running out, sweetheart. While I have no problem with women remaining single until whatever age (life doesn't come with a script), it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think that maybe she has a problem attracting anyone with so much hate and bitterness. And as a single mother, Coulter has little ground to stand on to criticize Princess Diana. If there are any princes chasing you down, Ann, produce one of them.

On with the list...

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."--Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."--Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."--George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."--Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."--The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."--Politically Incorrect, 5/7/97

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."--TV Guide, 8/97

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."--Politically Incorrect, 7/21/97

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."--Rivera Live, 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."--Rivera Live, 12/8/98

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."--Washington Post, 8/1/00

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "--Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."--Washington Post, 10/16/98

Honestly, I don't really know why, but I've been doing a fair amount of writing on the Coulter dust up, and I don't think I can put it any better than a March 2 column by Jeff Greenwald from Salon.com:

The Conference attendees who will say that they do not approve of Coulter's "joke" will act as though they found her behavior unexpected or surprising -- just as they did last year and every other time she has made similar comments. But three weeks ago, Coulter was on Fox and made virtually identical remarks -- not about Edwards specifically, just the hilarious complaint that people who say the word "faggot" have to enter rehab.

No right-wing supporter (that I know of) complained when they learned that Coulter would be a featured speaker at this event. No prominent "conservative" (that I know of) refused to be a part of the event because Coulter was a featured speaker. Thus, any claims to find what she said so deeply offensive should be weighed against their much more meaningful actions in attending.

Andrew Sullivan [former editor of The New Republic] was (I believe) present at this event, and said this about Coulter's speech:

When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her....

Her endorsement of Romney today - "probably the best candidate" - is a big deal, it seems to me. McCain is a non-starter. He is as loathed as Clinton in these parts. Giuliani is, in her words, "very, very liberal." One of his sins? He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That's the new standard. She is the new Republicanism. The sooner people recognize this, the better.

She is the face of what the hard-core Republican Party has become, particularly during the Bush presidency. That is why she holds the position she holds in that movement. That's why Mitt Romney was giddy with glee when her name passed his lips. He knows that her endorsement is valuable precisely because she holds great sway within the party, and she holds great sway because the hard-core party faithful consider her a hero for expressing the thoughts which they themselves believe but which other, less courageous Republican figures are afraid to express.

This is not about a single comment or isolated remark. The more Ann Coulter says these things, the more popular she becomes in this movement. What this is about is that she reflects exactly what sort of political movement this is. She reflects its true impulses and core beliefs. If that were not the case, why would she continue to receive top billing at their most prestigious events, and why would she continue to be lavished with rock star-adoration by the party faithful?

Again, I can't put it better than that if I tried for days. Time and time again, Coulter makes these remarks, and the controversy blows over, and she's invited back to the next big GOP event, explicitly endorsed by the GOP faithful.

###

As with most political controversies, the right has an answer to Coulter's remarks. (Don't all of these things always happen in twos?) In this case, the answer is Bill Maher. Last Friday, on his HBO show, Maher had this to say about Dick Cheney's close call with terrorists in Afghanistan (I watched the show, and these are the words from the transcript on his Website):

But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. No, I’m just saying that if he did die—other people – more people would live. That’s a fact.

As I've written, it was a stupid, dumb thing to say, unequivocally.

Quite naturally, right wingers were quick to jump on Maher's comments, and more importantly, to wildly distort them.

Dr. Michael Alan Weiner, known to the world as Michael Savage, had this to say on his radio show about Maher's comments:

[Maher] called for Cheney's death, OK, and everyone knows that. Apparently it's OK to call for the death of the vice president, but it's not OK to say that you find lesbian marriage disgusting and nauseating and it makes you want to puke. This shows you why liberalism is a mental disorder.

Think Savage is some remote, ignored commentator? Wrong -- his radio show boasts an audience of about eight million listeners a week. (For those of you really curious, Click Here to listen to the audio of Savage's comments.) By the way, who elects to have himself called "Savage"?

And of course, Rush Limbaugh had to get in on the act, too. As Media Matters noted, Limbaugh weighed in on Maher's comments on his radio show (Click Here to listen to the audio):

Well, whatever it is, it is sick, and it resides exclusively on the left. And yet these people get away with this image of love and tolerance and compassion, humanitarianism, and all of this -- when they're just a bunch of sickies. When you read this, you're going to want to throw up. They're actually American citizens hoping for the assassination of the vice president of the United States.

When you go back to the '90s, I mean there was, on our side of the aisle, there was a tremendous amount of disgust with Bill Clinton over any number of things. I don't recall anybody actively wishing, and I don't recall any movies, nor do I recall any books devoted to the subject of assassinating Bill Clinton, or Hillary, or the Vice President Al Gore. It's a new phenomena, and it's not just related to the Florida 2000 imbroglio and the aftermath. There are some sick, sick people out there, and this is all happening, by the way, after they won the election.

Media Matters also notes, from Coulter's book High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he "did it," even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.

This is PR 101 from the Republican playbook - keep repeating a lie or distortion until it's generally accepted as the truth. Anyone remember Al Gore "Inventing the Internet"?

Eh, enough of Coulter, Maher and the rest. There are many more important things to weigh and consider.

CNN disses Coulter, or is it the opposite?

Yesterday, CNN booked Ann Coulter to appear on Paula Zahn's show at 8 p.m. (The only reason I could ever think of to watch Zahn's show.) The network promoted the appearance in the afternoon, and I decided to TiVo it to see what Coulter had to say.

Of course, Coulter failed to appear, which probably was wise on her part, and the part of CNN. I would love to find out the real story there - did she actually cancel, or did CNN tell her "thanks but no thanks."

I'm already tired of hearing of the coverage about this. Yes, I know - two days ago I was complaining about a lack of coverage on her comment, and today I'm complaining about the huge amount of coverage. But, I didn't think there would be endless debate about it, and there has been.

What I specifically meant by bemoaning the lack of coverage was that it seemed like news organizations were burying the story. The proof is in the pudding - many did. This is news for two reasons: 1. She called John Edwards a "faggot", and 2. Moments before, she was introduced by Mitt Romney. So yes, this is news more than some bigot on the street yelling at two men walking arm-in-arm down the street.

Of course I support Coulter's First Amendment right to be a bigot (the downside of our Constitution, but I'm not for censorship), but this is a woman that Republicans routinely get behind because she has a legion of sheep who follow her and believe her every word. Oh, and she sells lots of books. And she's better looking (arguably) than Rush Limbaugh. So, this is a person who rubs elbows with top Republicans. And that is why her comments are news.

I was happy to see several Republican presidential candidates condemn her remarks.

What annoys me is that the media plays right into her hands - she does this to sell books. And she's probably laughing all the way to the bank.

The best defense against Coulter's screeds are to ignore her. Nothing would devastate her more than irrelevance. As much as I despise her, she's relevant because when she says something, the morons with microphones run up to her and hang on her every word.

I wonder when she'll next be on the Today Show? We've got an election coming up - no way she's on the sidelines, unless she chooses to be. (Could we ever get that lucky?) Hey, there's always Faux News Channel, and there's always room for one more purveyor of hate on that staff.

Almost equally damning were Bill Maher's comments on his HBO show last Friday evening. Bill's a radical liberal who makes me look conservative. I listen to him, but I always take his comments at face value. He can be funny, witty and offensive all in one sentence.

Maher had this to say about Vice President Cheney's brush with terrorism in Afghanistan, when a suicide bomber unsuccessfully tried to drive a car bomb into the military base where he was staying. Cheney came away from the incident unharmed, to the relief of... most. Maher wasn't one of them.

On his show, this is what Maher said:

"I have no doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow." (The audience applauds this line). He then went on to say: "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live, That's a fact." [Emphasis Maher's]

Stupid and inexcusable, without equivocation.

I've said this many times, including to people who have sent me stupid e-mail forwards about the death of President Bush. NOT funny, under any circumstances. As much as I despise Bush and Cheney, jokes like this are not only inappropriate, they are outrageous and if someone is not careful when making them, they're illegal. (And they should be.)

It's high time that Maher and Coulter are treated like the people they are - far left and far right ideologues, respectively, who aren't worthy of our attention.

Although, I don't put Maher in the same category as Coulter, offensive as his remark about Cheney was.

If you look back on the history of what Coulter has said, her reputation is far worse. But, in the end, who cares? As if a scorecard of Maher vs. Coulter would accomplish anything. But, Coulter's comments about the 9-11 widows enshrines her in the Hate Hall of Fame, if there is one, somewhere. (Far, faaaarrrrr south, maybe?)

I will add one other thought, though. If I had come up with a reason as to why Coulter seems to be getting most of the negative press between the two, I'd say it's because she used an offensive term against a whole group of people; millions of people, in fact.

One more thought - is it obvious to anyone else that homosexuals are the last major group that it's socially acceptable (in some circles, that is, to the right of center) to discriminate against? The Republican Party has and is doing all it can to deny homosexuals the rights they deserve - civil unions my ass. They deserve the right to marry just as heterosexuals do. Period.

Can you imagine how much worse this outcry would have been had Coulter gotten up on stage and called Barack Obama a "nigger"? Um, she may not have gotten out of D.C. alive. Or, what if she called Joe Lieberman a "kike"? Both of those scenarios would have resulted in Coulter being much more ostracized than she is now. And rightfully so. (And can anyone honestly believe she wouldn't utter such remarks? Really, it's only a matter of time with this bigot. Okay, wait - Lieberman supports the War in Iraq - he's safe.)

But, she deserves much more scorn than she's getting for using a hate word toward someone she disagrees with politically. Censorship? No. Ridicule? I'll take two orders, with a side of laughter that people even pay attention to her at all.

How about we just all ignore her?

Fat chance.

A lil' more CPAC love

I wanted to bring you a little more Conservative Political Action Conference love before I move on to other stuff. Today's Washington Post carries a story about CPAC that has some interesting tidbits [with the Coulter quote buried nice and deep] about the Republicans spreading the love, and the diversity.

Read for yourself:

In the session preceding Romney, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) said of Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq: "She's an idiot." In the session after Romney, Ann Coulter used an anti-gay slur to describe John Edwards (the line drew applause) and asked: "Did Al Gore actually swallow Michael Moore?"

When a questioner asked Coulter why she praises marriage but broke off so many engagements, she responded by calling the questioner ugly.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) got the crowd cheering early in the day. "I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun," he announced. "And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."

Inhofe repeated his view that man-made global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," and he quarreled with a Bush administration proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species. "They're overpopulated," he declared. "Don't worry about it: The polar bear is fine." His staff handed out supporting documentation, including the claim that "MARS HAS GLOBAL WARMING DESPITE ABSENCE OF SUVs."

Someday, maybe long after he's gone, or at least when his career in the Senate is over, who would be surprised if it was revealed that Inhofe received large sums of money from Big Oil? In some ways, he's a dumbed down version of Ann Coulter. (Take that comment literally or figuratively - it works either way.)

Clownin' on Coulter; Ducks in a barrel next

I'm really through with going off about Ann Coulter.

Okay, if you believe that, you'll also believe that I'm running for president in 2008. Please send money.

Seriously though, she's so far beyond even being worthy of hatred. I'm now convinced there's something very mentally wrong with her. (Some of you might think I'm a little slow on the uptake.)

Maybe Coulter and Britney should be sentenced to go away for a long, long time. I've got an idea - send them both to the South Pole to watch the glaciers melt. What's the difference? They're both going to be very, very lonely people when they get older anyway. And if they're not, it'll just be because they have money, or at least enough money to hoodwink some unlucky soul to spend any time with either one of them.

At any rate, my outrage at Coulter has achieved a sort of numbness. I'm actually now grateful for her, because she serves as an effective benchmark for the normal, sane people walking the planet.

For example - if there's someone out there who's a conservative, and maybe even a fringe conservative, a barometer of the craziness could go something like this:

"Yes, I know Conservative So-and-So is a little out there, but is he/she Ann Coulter crazy?"

Coulter's latest publicity stunt to make headlines sounds like something out of MTV's The Real World. Yesterday, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot."

"I was going to comment on John Edwards," she told conference attendees, "but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot."

What's more, only moments before her comments, she was introduced by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Oops.

The only question now is, will she be marginalized by the right, and the candidates who have cozied up to her?

I seriously doubt it.

Her résumé of hate is long, sparkling and distinguished, if you're a fan of the hate mongering far right. Let's take a look at her checklist, shall we?

● Questioning the legitimacy of former Georgia Senator Max Cleland's war wounds while serving in Vietnam. (He lost three limbs)

● Accusing 9-11 widows of "enjoying their husband's deaths"

● Calling liberals "Godless" people "Who hate America"

● Questioning the legitimacy 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry's three purple hearts

● Accusing former President Bill Clinton of a whole host of crimes, for which he was never changed or convicted

● Stating that any country responsible for 9-11 should be bombed and their people converted to Christianity

● Saying this of the New York Times during an interview: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"

● Saying anyone who doesn't "support the troops" "hates America"

● Calling 2008 Presidential Candidate John Edwards a "faggot"

I wonder what could be next?

What's more, I wonder what she could possibly say to make her irrelevant and ignored? Fat chance of that happening.

As long as there are young, horny neoconservative men who will vote for a Republican at any cost, Coulter will always have a ready-made audience who will snap up her books and fawn over her every word.

The only way you can affect someone like Coulter is to put your money where your mouth is and not buy her books. As long as she has an audience, she will continue to pimp this made for headlines hate to sell books and make money.

I thank God that my country has free speech, but Coulter is the downside to that free speech. I guess we have to live with tolerating the intolerance, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As of 3 p.m. today, I haven't heard or read of any Republican presidential candidate condemning Coulter's remarks. We'll see how this one plays out.

UPDATE:
McCain, Romney and Giuliani have all condemned Coulter - I just read it in a story on the New York Times Website. However, nothing on AP's Website, and nothing from the New York Times in today's story about the CPAC conference. The Washington Post's story today about the CPAC conference buried any reference to Coulter's comment, putting it in paragraph seven, but the paper did not print the word "faggot." The Times only ran a story about Coulter's remark when McCain, Romney and Giuliani spoke out against her. By the way, the Post and Times are typically accused of being two of the most liberal papers in the country.

One final note ~ not one of the Republican candidates' Websites has any reference to Coulter whatsoever, so this is anything but a strong condemnation.

I read this on another blog this morning, and it about sums it up:

John Edwards and John Kerry stated the truth, that Mary Cheney is a lesbian (to
point out the GOP's
hypocrisy on gay marriage), and all hell breaks loose.

Coulter calls Edwards a
faggot...

[crickets]