Ben Smith fairly notes that it's difficult to call a Bush-hating Neocon-obssessing Truther a member of the "far right."

But note the assumption contained therein -- if we hadn't found out about this guy's political views, it would have been fine and dandy to so brand him.

The trouble with this is that the media never calls anti-globalism thugs and rioters members of the "far left." Nor do they deem animal rights extremists so. Nor gun-toting Black Panthers and black supremacists.

Nor, of course, the murderer of William Long.

Note that in all these cases where the malefactors would be categorized as somewhere on the left if we attempted to categorize them in a conventional system of politics at all.

But we don't so categorize them, or rather the media doesn't so categorize them.

Who burns car lots to the ground to protest industrialization and energy use? Members of the "far left" or "environmental extremists"? The latter, of course who, in the media's telling, are entirely unrelated to the conventional spectrum of politics.

Who throws stones through businesses' windows and attack cops whenever the G8 or G20 is in town? Members of the "far left" or "anti-globalism protesters"? Again, the latter, standing wholly apart from mainstream political movements.

And Al Qaeda...? Well, look: It's a third-world "empowerment" movement that hates "zionism" and US hegemony. And further, the far left has supported or made excuses for a lot of such terrorist movements. (They still do, of course. Even with Al Qaeda.)

If I'm going to categorize Al Qaeda on the spectrum of mainstream American politics, well, sure, the religious devotion puts them more on the right, but everything else? Left, baby, left.

And yet the media rushes to call white supremacists members of "the far right." The implication being the right believes what they believe... we're just a bit less extreme about it.

This is transparent and obvious bias and I'm sick of fit. Reporters are liberal, and so don't like to think of black-bandanaed anarchist rioters as merely more extreme version of themselves. And so they don't.

How about these liberal reporters extend to the right the same caution and sensitivity they extend to their own preferred politics and stop branding racists and other nutters the "far right," as if the rest of us are 75% on their side, just minus the shooting.

BTW: The whole antisemitism thing? The left really cannot get away with pinning this on the right any longer. Their savior sat in the pews of an anti-semitic hate-monger for 20 years and only "distanced himself" when asked about it, late into the presidential campaign.

Exit question:

20 years spent in the pews of Trinity and who knows how many private conversations had with Wright, and yet not once did Obama ever encounter this sort of rhetoric from the good reverend, huh? Who, mind you, canÂ’t even suppress it when speaking to reporters on the record. Remarkable.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

A big post from Instapundit with some hopeful signs the American public's Time of Madness is passing.

Including this from Rasumussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 40% would vote for their districtÂ’s Democratic congressional candidate while 40% would choose the Republican.

Support for Democrats is up two points from last week, while support for the GOP is up three points. Support for the GOP is just one point below its highest level found over the past year. Last weekÂ’s results for the Democrats tied the lowest level of support for the party during the same period.

Voters not affiliated with either party now favor Republicans by a 38% to 21% margin.

That last number seems huge -- and it is pretty big -- but it's less impressive when you consider many conservative-leaning voters became nominal independents when they got sick of the GOP. It is not a surprise then that many of these independents -- lost to the GOP as far as genuine party identification -- still lean our way.

But still a good sign: The predictions of a Permanent Democratic Majority were predicated upon those ex-GOPers staying ex-GOPers and becoming Democrats, or at least voting that way. (Well, the Permanent Democratic Majority is also predicated upon huge demographic shifts, the country becoming less white European and more Hispanic, but that is still a little bit away.)

This seems related: Rumors of Democratic Mutiny Over Waxman-Markey.

More and more Democrats are ready to vote against Speaker Nancy PelosiÂ’s climate change bill, according to a congressional committee chairman who opposes his leader.

The House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said Wednesday that heÂ’s at an impasse with the lead sponsor of a climate change bill strongly backed by Pelosi (D-Calif.), and that his list of Democratic members who would join him in voting against the measure is growing rather than shrinking. Â…

Peterson has warned that the bill put together by Waxman and Energy and Environment subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) will fail if agriculture-related provisions arenÂ’t altered, and heÂ’s said he has as many as 45 votes on his side. That number of Democratic defections would certainly doom the prospects of passing the bill in the House.

And while the Agriculture chairman said heÂ’s working to resolve those differences and not intentionally trying to torpedo the legislation, he noted that skepticism toward the bill is growing, not shrinking.

“I’m just estimating the number of votes that will be against this,” Peterson said. “I suspect that the list has grown as more members have gotten a chance to look at this. I mean, my list has grown.”

Bluffing? Maybe not. The Democratic Congress will be loathe to rebuke Obama and deal him a serious political loss, but when the livelihoods of voting constituents are on the line, all bets are off.

And that's just the agricultural bloc. Energy producing districts and states are going to have their own objections.

If climate-change legislation passes Congress in its current form, Lion Oil Co., an El Dorado refinery, will have to shutter operations within a year and lay off 1,200 workers, a company executive told a congressional panel Tuesday.

Passage of the bill “will make our survival impossible,” Steve Cousins, vice president of refining, testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.

I think much of the (declining) pubic support for "green" initiatives and carbon reduction is gestural. A gesture, something people feel good saying, something people think they're supposed to say. They "support" it, sort of, because, well, that's what Good Civic-Minded People Who Love Nature do, don't they?

But I don't believe their "support" is very deep or well-considered. And I don't think they're willing to suffer much economic pain (and by "much" economic pain, I mean "any" economic pain) in pursuit of this unicorn-friendly agenda.

The other thing I think is that the public doesn't mind supporting certain policies so long as the parties championing them treat them as mostly gestural in nature. I have written before that I think the a good chunk of the pro-life sentiment in the public is gestural rather than serious. If 50% now call themselves pro-life, I'd guess 10% of those folks would peel off if the Republican Party seemed intent on, and capable of, making dramatic changes in the law to outlaw abortion.

I think the same thing is true of this climate-change applesauce. The Democrats played a cynical but effective game in years past -- they postured as environmental champions and criticized the GOP relentlessly for killing the trees, but when push came to shove, they voted, for example, almost unanimously against serious carbon control in a test vote taken under President Clinton.

They profited politically by doing nothing but carp and posture. It worked for them. Which is why I'm surprised, and aghast, at the idea that they're not genuinely, seriously pushing real carbon control measures that will demolish the country.

I may be a conservative partisan but I can't imagine I'm very far away from the political center on this point. I have to think that anyone involved in real business (and therefore real reality itself) is a bit shocked to find the Democrats rushing headlong to actually fulfill their campaign promises to "skyrocket" the cost of electricity and "bankrupt" coal producers, previously thought to be safely insincere and innocuously cynical.

People are willing to go along with a joke only as long as it remains a joke.

The Difference Between Conservatives and the Squishy, Dopey Uninformed "Independents:" Most independents are independents due to lack of interest and lack of information. Some independents are a lot more engaged with the issues, and are independent because they don't fit comfortably into either party. Real libertarians, for example. (As opposed to fake-libertarian liberals.)

But independents-due-to-ignorance support pretty much everything. They want lower taxes and higher spending, and deficit reduction too. They want the greatest amount of national economic output and draconian limitations on energy production and usage.

They can be on both sides of every coin because, mostly, they're disengaged from politics and policy and simply haven't spent much time thinking about these issues.

On pretty much every issue, their support of liberal policies is overstated -- because when push comes to shove, when they're actually at long last forced to examine these policies (or suffer the consequences of them later), when they actually have skin in the game, they find out the liberal policies, which sound nice and good and the sort of thing a nice person should support, actually hurt them and their families.

I don't know if Waxman-Markey can be stopped. I know it won't persist. Because when these squishy, dopey independents-by-ignorance start noticing electricity prices have doubled and their employers are closing shop, then they start to think about policy.

A conservative, as they say, is just a liberal who's been mugged by reality. Dopey disengaged independents probably won't become conservatives, but they will run from liberal policies one they've been mugged by reality.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 1195 words, total size 8 kb.

Sure they are Jews but they are also conservatives. The narrative machine will be working overtime today.

In fairness, Ben Smith at Politico.com has the story and takes this element of the story head on.

The suggestion that the Standard may have been a target complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms. Von Brunn's white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a "right-wing extremist," but the substance of his views -- which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen -- are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.

Good for Smith.

My guess is though the lunatics at MSMNBC and other outlets won't be so honest.

Just curious but what page of the DHS report covers 'white supremacist, anti-Semitic, 9/11 Truther, conservative hating, WWII vets with journalism degrees"?

Or maybe this guy is simply a nut job piece of shit? It's just a theory.

BTW-I keep waiting for one of my liberal friends to use this guy to attack conservatives for hating Obama. My retort will be, then how to you explain this guy trying to attack the Federal Reserve during the Reagan administration?

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a racist whack job is just a racist whack job.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:33 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Ay de mi: I didn't realize that DrewM. had already posted on the transfer to Bermuda. Consider this an update to his post.

Original Post:
Back in 2005, the military reclassified several Chinese Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay as NOT enemy combatants, but hung on to them because there was nowhere else to send them aside from China (which will probably torture and execute them). President Obama has been looking around for other countries to accept them. This morning, four were moved to Bermuda, a dependency of the UK, but no one thought to ask the British.

The British Government responded with ill-disguised fury tonight to the news that four Chinese Uighurs freed from Guantanamo Bay had been flown for resettlement on the Atlantic tourist paradise of Bermuda.

The four arrived on Bermuda in the early hours, celebrating the end of seven years of detention after learning that they were to be accepted as guest workers.

But it appears that the Government of Bermuda failed to consult with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the decision to take in the Uighurs – whose return is demanded by Beijing – and it could now be forced to send them back to Cuba or risk a grave diplomatic crisis.

Alright. Part of this is that the Brits are in perma-grouch mode when it comes to President Obama. He's done more to sour the U.S. special relationship than Bush 43 ever did. On the other hand, the UK retains sovereignty over Bermuda on issues of security and foreign policy. They could demand that we take the prisoners back or shuffle them off to another country. Either way, they've now got China on their case, courtesy of Obama.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:54 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, one of our resident geniuses said that in the Letterman thread. But it's not alone in feeling that way. Late night comedy writers are at a loss as to what to do now that the living God is in the White House.

Well, we've been beating up on these guys a lot here lately so I thought in the spirit of goodwill, I'd help point them in the right direction and collect a few of Obama's greatest hits.

Obama invents a new language, gives a cheesy gift to the UK Prime Minister that doesn't even work and of course the gift that gave the I in iPod a whole new meaning.

I am also sure that if Bush had scared the hell of NY with an Air Force One flyby or went on a date night to NY, the various late night shows might have found something mildly amusing to work with.

Below the fold, are some video bloopers as well. Nope, nothing funny about the guy, nothing funny at all.

I'm sure there are more things he's done, fell free to add them in the comments.
more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:18 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 5 kb.

This really could be an update to the post I just put up, but it's too good not to have its own post. Democrats who question Dear Leader's healthcare overhaul? "Sellouts."

When Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) called the public plan a deal breaker, a progressive group co-founded by Joe Trippi launched a campaign in Nebraska accusing the senator of being a "sellout" for special interests.

After a strategy memo by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way cautioned Democrats on overreaching on a public plan, Daily Kos bloggers went on the attack, and Third Way now faces a coordinated effort to pressure Third Way donors.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is the next target. On Tuesday, she said she opposed the public plan. By Wednesday, the liberal Health Care for America Now was drawing up a plan to change her mind.

Delicious betrayal and accusation, though it's taking me away from an important point. Even if Democrats were correct about the bill and its "efficiency" there still isn't a way to pay for it. Obama knows he's running out of time because people are on to him. His PAYGO proposal this week is supposed to be cover to finish the healthcare and cap-and-tax laws before his support crumbles. In other words, there's a ticking clock. If we can hold him off for just a while, he'll slink back to the White House in defeat.

Hey, Republicans in Congress, how about a little backbone?

From DrewM., Speaker Pelosi rejects Dem splitters alternative to public option

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:47 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Democratic commentators today are hopping mad that the American Medical Association preempted the President's scheduled speech on healthcare by unequivocally stating that it opposes any healthcare reform that includes a public insurance option.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

Typically, Democrats responded to the AMA by, well, lying about their own healthcare plan. After accusing the AMA of having Stockholm Syndrome and "collective battered wife syndrome" Kevin Drum writes: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:38 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 655 words, total size 5 kb.

Letterman's non-apology is as sincere as his jokes are fun...that is to say not at all.

"We were, as we often do, making jokes about people in the news and we made some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter, the 18-year-old girl, who is — her name is Bristol, that’s right, and so, then, now they’re upset with me," Letterman said. "These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl. I mean, look at my record. It has never happened. I don’t think it’s funny. I would never think it was funny. I wouldn’t put it in a joke…"

"… Gov. Palin, if you’re watching, I would like you to consider coming to New York City — even Todd — as my guests, or leave Todd at home. I’d love to have you on the show. It’d be exciting. All right, so there, I hope I’ve cleared part of this up. Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No."

I'm torn about this. I don't think Palin should go on simply because of the ratings boost she'd give him, but if Todd went on and proceeded to beat Letterman over the head with Paul Shaffer, I'd be up for that.

Just curious but where are all the Hispanic groups protesting this? Alex Rodriquez is so proud of his Dominican heritage he was going to play for the Dominican Republic during the recent World Baseball Classic. How come Letterman gets a pass on suggesting a Hispanic male is a child rapist? Seems Imus got his ass run off the air pretty quickly for insults that were far less serious than Letterman's sexual assault "humor".*

Dirty slut whore Contessa Brewer could not be reached for comment.

The article I linked to has been updated with the Palin's response...

"The Palins have no intention of providing a rating's boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show," the Alaska governor's rep said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

"Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman."

*Just to be clear, I don't really think this is a racial thing, I'm just pointing out the double standard involved. Letterman went after an approved group, so no harm, no foul.

UPDATE: Below is the video, if you can stomach it. As Jim Treacher says, "You really have to watch Letterman's "apology" to get the full flavor: angry, insincere, self-pitying, self-justifying."

Oh Boy...Kathleen Parker talking about Letterman's "slutty flight attendant" joke (not the kid sex one) says Palin played the flirt so she kind of had it coming.

I wonder if Kathleen Parker has ever been called a whore in public?

Below the fold: You really do have to watch the Letterman clip. He says it's just a joke. He's claiming the joke was about Bristol, the 18 year old (as if that's okay). The fact is however, she wasn't the one at the game. 14 year old Willow was. Facts are stubborn things you jackass. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:11 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

The Obama administration has created or saved 4 new residents of Bermuda.

Guantanamo detainees are taking a trip to paradise, as the U.S. government divvies up a group of 17 Chinese Muslims between two island nations better known as vacation getaways than safe havens.

Four of the Chinese Turkic Muslims in custody, ethnic Uighurs, have been sent to Bermuda, the administration announced Thursday.

Abdul Nasser, one of the four detainees who landed in Bermuda early Thursday morning, issued a statement through his lawyers, saying: "Growing up under communism we always dreamed of living in peace and working in free society like this one. Today you have let freedom ring."

The rest of the detainees are expected to be sent to the South Pacific island of Palau, temporarily, though the deal is not yet final.

The administration maintains the Uighurs aren't a danger to the US, despite their training in al Qaeda related camps in Afghanistan, but they won't be allowed into the US without prior approval.

There doesn't seem to be a bribe unrelated foreign aid package attached to this transfer as there is with Palau. Maybe Bermuda plans to use the Uighurs in their tourism campaign.

UPDATE: Bermuda's Premier explains decision to let the Uighurs in.

Here's part of the statement.

...the prisoners held there many are innocent men, held without trial or any form of due process; many are refugees from their own lands whose political views are contrary to the regimes in power there. They have committed no crime. They have laid no plans to harm innocent citizens of any nation, but have been caught in a web of reaction to tragic events which at the time of their happening were not well understood.

...The United States Government will bear the cost surrounding this relocation and the Government of Bermuda will facilitate documentation, residence and employment.

I don't like China's government or it's treatment of it's own people but that doesn't mean the Uighurs are innocent. People keep skipping by the fact they were at terrorists training camps in Afghanistan and the organization they belong to has proudly proclaimed its solidarity with al Qaeda. These weren't Boy Scouts on a camping trip when Bushitler swooped in and grabbed them.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:28 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:20 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.