"This Side" of "The Truth"...

Tonight Chris Matthews uttered this phrase on his editorial disguised at news program. "This side of the truth" once again proves that Matthews isn't interested in the reality of a situation - he wants to forward the liberal agenda any way he can.


Matthews also exposed himself as a liberal when he said to John McCain: "We have always considered you to be one of us, even though that gets you in trouble on the Right".


That is a clear admission that he is not on the Right, but on the Left - and this is another example of how Matthews is part of a group at BSDNC that wish to forward the liberal agenda at all costs.


Matthews is in line with Odorman with a liberally biased editorial program that pretends to be an objective news show. Last night on CNN we saw how Glenn Beck (an admitted conservative who doesn't claim to be a journalist) point out how Odorman compared Fox big wig Rupert Murdoch with the K.K.K.


Beck also brought up how Odorman misleads the public by the way he "only" labels the last segment of his "Countdown" show as being an opinion - giving the very obvious implication that everything else is "news". Beck called this very hypocritical of Odorman, considering how Keith is demonizing FNC for the exact behavior he himself put on the air everytime he airs his show.


Glenn Beck is a more reasonable conservative, unlike Bill O or Rush... and it's good to finally see someone other than myself point out the hypocricy of people like Odorman here at BSDNC. Beck was clear to mention that he isn't like those other conservatives that are just as guilty as Matthews & Odorman in misleading the public with their opinions being passed off as objective news-reporting.

A third example of Matthews adhering so blindly to his liberal propaganda was when he refused to accept credible information given to him from a commentator - just because the info opposed what Matthews believes to be the "truth". (his version of the "facts" as he spins them, that is)


BSDNC editorialists like Matthews & Odorman distort the "facts" to benefit their liberal puppetmasters, and it's ironic how they will demonize those on the Right, even when the "facts" show them to be wrong.

It's rhetoric for Odorman to count the days since "Mission Accomplished" was declared, even though the actual mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power WAS ACCOMPLISHED!!

Matthews called the conservative commentator "judge shopping" when he stated his source of a connection to 9-11 and Iraq... just because General Petreaus said something under oath. Nothing like not letting the facts get in the way of making your liberally biased propaganda argument on your show that gives you the final word to put your opinion in place of the opposing facts.

BSDNC has ZERO integrity for allowing people like Matthews & Odorman spew the same **** (only in the opposite political direction) as those offenders at FNC.


Here are some other ways BSDNC skews the news to "their side" of the truth:

Demonizing the Republicans (and the Bush Administration specifically) for timing the Petreaus hearings so close to 9-11... when it was the DEMOCRATS who run Congress that was in sharge of when the hearings were held.

Demonizing the current Administration for using 9-11 to promote their war in Iraq... while showing their footage from that tragic day for hours on end OVER & OVER!!!

For demonizing the President over not bringing the troops home, but failing to point out how EVERY Democrat in Congress is in line with keeping them in Iraq even if the Dems with the White House in '08.

For not pointing out that the Dems could END THE WAR NOW if they just had some backbone and defunded the war... but that won't happen and BSDNC knows the Dems would never do that, even though they keep telling us that the "People" gave a "clear mandate" to the Dems in the last election.

Selective reporting & liberally biased editorials passed off as objective journalism... BSDNC is exactly the same as FNC - so will Odorman admit that he is like the K.K.K. as he did when he compared Rupert Murdoch to that group of SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS from back in the day??? (I doubt you'll get that admission - or even a nod that the group Odorman compared his nemesis to was created by his beloved Dems)

The very un-Presidential (and cowardly) John Edwards

John Edwards proved beyond any doubt that he doesn't deserve to be our Next President by his actions/inactions over the past 48 hours.

The former Senator allowed his wife to pull a stunt that was designed to put Edwards in the news again while also serving as a means for him to pander money for his lagging campaign.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Edwards sunk to the level of total hypocrisy by doing the very things he was attacking others for doing.

Let's begin by how John Edwards cowardly let his wife do his dirty work for him when she called in to Chris Matthews on his opinion propaganda program, "Hardball" on the admittedly liberally-biased MSNBC.

Elizabeth Edwards called in to attack the very controversial Ann Coulter in a move that was obviously designed to put her husband back in the news while also getting money for his campaign at the expense of Coulter.

This is something that shows a new low for the even descending Edwards campaign. It's disgusting for John Edwards to use his wife in a way that would make Coulter look like a scumbag if she tried defending herself against the attacks of Elizabeth Edwards. It's pathetic for the Edwards campaign to use the fact that his wife is known to be a cancer sufferer - because it's a move that could only be a lose-lose for Coulter.

If Ann doesn't respond to the lies, distortions, or untruths being said by Elizabeth Edwards then the rhetoric & propaganda would be seen as the truth - even though it is not.

BUT... if Coulter responds to the comments (as the Edwards campaign knew she would) then she gets painted as someone who has no integrity or morals for going up against someone stricken with cancer.

Either way, the Edwards people try to claim a victory when they don't deserve any kind words for such offensive behavior.


Elizabeth Edwards accused Coulter of being a negative influence on the political process. But the fact is, Ann Coulter wasn't making any attacks on John Edwards while on "Hardball" - let alone make the specific attacks that Elizabeth Edwards mentioned. It is true that Ann Coulter has said some bad things about John Edwards, but that was in the past. Some of the things Elizabeth Edwards was referring to happened between 6 months to 3 years before Coulter appeared on "Hardball".

One of the specific comments that Elizabeth Edwards accused Coulter of saying, was never actually said by Ann Coulter. But that didn't prevent Chris Matthews to allow Mrs Edwards to twist what Coulter did say so that the Edwards campaign could claim they are under attack from Coulter with "hate mongering" speech.

The alleged comment was actually something that Coulter referenced another person saying. She made the comment to point out how liberals & Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to holding their own to the standards they want conservatives & Republicans to follow.

The comment in question was when Bill Maher said that he wished Vice President Cheney would die in a terrorist attack so that our troops wouldn't have to in places like Afghanistan.

When Maher said such an offensive comment NOBODY on the liberal left expressed outrage.

BUT... when Ann Coulter said that she shouldn't have joked about the sexuality of John Edwards because of how people on the liberal left demonized her for saying the offensive comment that she did - that she should have just said that she wanted Edwards to die from a terrorist attack because of how nobody reacted to maher's comments.

There's a subtle difference in what Coulter actually SAID from what Matthews & the Edwards campaign want you to BELIEVE Coulter said. For those of you infected by the liberal propaganda machine... I'll explain the difference.

Coulter never said that she wanted Edwards to die in a terrorist attack... she said that IF she would say that, then the same people who let Bill Maher get away with ACTUALLY saying that about the Vice President should also let her get away with saying the same thing, only about one of their own.

Coulter was being sarcastic, because she knows damn well that the same people who applauded Maher for his comment would be the same people who would call for her to be stoned at the city gates. It's sad that those she was talking about when she made that comment would be too dim to understand the point she was making.


But people like Matthews & the Edwards campaign can't use something that points out the hypocrisy that taints every facet of their being - they choose to distort the facts so that it benefits their agenda. All they need is enough people who will fall for their lies so that they can gain from their unprofessional (not to mention un-presidential) behavior.


That was just one aspect of how Matthews & Elizabeth Edwards attempted to gain from attacking Ann Coulter. There's much more to talk about.

Chris Matthews was trying to prevent Ann Coulter from responding to the accusations that Elizabeth Edwards hurled at Coulter. Then Matthews went on show after show (NBC/MSNBC show it should be noted) trying to spin what happened to the benefit of John Edwards. But what else would you expect from a guy who admits that he is ok with letting his political views effect how you get your news from him. He thinks it's as patriotic as such people as Thomas Paine when he offered editorial opinion as a way to spark the American Revolution. (note to Matthews, it's not the same - it's the exact opposite)


Another un-presidential tactic that John Edwards himself is guilty of is when he actually LIED about the phone call his wife made when Edwards appeared on "Hardball" the next day.

In case you missed his LIE, I'll bring you up to speed:

"Hardball" producer, Tammy Haddad, explained just minutes before John Edwards appeared on the show that Elizabeth Edwards called in prior to the start of the show asking to speak with Coulter. Tammy Haddad brought this idea to Coulter, and Ann agreed to having Elizabeth's call be part of Coulter's appearance on "Hardball". To repeat the main point, Mrs Edwards called in prior to the show starting, and it was known to all involved that she would be addressing Coulter.

BUT... minutes after Tammy Haddad tells the "Hardball" viewers about this aspect of the previous night's show - John Edwards offers a version that conflicts the facts. It's no surprise that John Edwards version makes his wife appear in a better light than what she deserves.


John Edwards wants us to believe that his wife called in AFTER seeing what Ann Coulter was saying about her husband in specific, and Democrats in general. It paints his wife as someone defending her husband after Coulter was out of line on that night's show.

Nice picture... it's just not even close to the truth.

The call was a planned move, and it was obviously designed to benefit John Edwards by getting him airtime as well as gaining him financially.


If John Edwards had any moral integrity, he wouldn't have IMMEDIATELY used the situation on his website, as well as in emails to people so that they could try to get millions in donations before the end of the next quarter. But (according to Edwards himself) it's ok for him & his wife to attack Coulter while exploiting the situation for monetary gain - you know how hypocrites follow the "do as I say, not as I do" policy.


It's very sad how the Edwards Campaign has to sink to spinning this incident way beyond belief on his website. If you go there (and I won't give him any publicity by giving the URL here) you see that they have video of Coulter with this (wishful thinking) caption:

"Ann Coulter Attacks! The right wing is running scared - watch Coulter's disturbing new attack."

I didn't see any fear coming from Coulter. In fact, I feel that she ended up looking better than Mrs Edwards did, even if Chris Matthews wants you to believe the opposite.

But I want to get back to more of John Edwards being totally un-presidential.


John Edwards blasted Coulter for having "no shame", not being anywhere near the "mainstream", being a "hate monger" who was part of the "crazies" who are hypocritical while lowering the standards of the political dialog. His wife also accused Coulter of misleading the young women & other people attending her interview on "Hardball".


This coming from people claiming that they are taking the moral high ground while their opponents resort to insults and other attacks on the poor Democrats.


If that doesn't show a clear picture of how John Edwards & his wife are hypocritical... here's what Chris Matthews allowed people to say about Ann Coulter after John Edwards finished attacking Coulter while prostituting himself.


Chris attempted to have a "debate" on the event being talked about. I say "attempted" because he didn't start by asking an objective question of his guests... he began by making a statement showing that a conclusion had already been made as far as Matthews was concerned.

The "debate" began with Matthews saying "Ann WAS wrong." - rather than "Was Ann Wrong?" or even "Who was wrong?"


Then Matthews allowed people to refer to Coulter as an "idiot", "sexist", "outrageous", "vile", and the "Anna Nicole Smith of politics" who hits "below the belt".

Chris Matthews referred to Coulter as being a "Gattling Gun" of debate because of the way she goes about her debating a topic.


These comments came from people who claim to be totally unlike the people on the other side, while doing the very things they accuse their opponents of doing.


That description of the "debate" sure seems to be exactly the type of offensive behavior that John Edwards & his wife say lowers the dialog to the point of preventing any progress.

Why is this behavior wrong when conservatives / Republicans do it... but acceptable when liberals / Democrats do it? (the answer is that it's NOT ok for anyone to do it)


Another example of why John Edwards should never be our President is when he said that people shouldn't buy Ann Coulter's books... BUT they SHOULD send him money, even though he's as guilty of the things he accuses people like Ann Coulter (and also Karl Rove, someone who had nothing to do with the even in question, but was attacked by Edwards anyway) of doing.


I challenge John Edwards & Chris Matthews to correct the flase statements they have made at the expense of Ann Coulter (and Karl Rove) by going on the air and devoting equal time to explain to everyone that Ann Coulter didn't say the things she was being accused of when she appeared on "Hardball" on 6/26/07. I'll let them mention that she DID say these things between 6 months & 3 years ago... but not recently.

I call on John Edwards to take down the Coulter video from his website, stop trying to get donations by using Coulter as a talking point, (especially when the "attack" in question was totally fabricated by the Edwards people for the sole purpose of using for their gain) and to return ALL money they received from using Ann Coulter.


That's a fair request when you consider that both John Edwards & his wife want Ann Coulter to give up her 1st Amendment right to free speech. If they want Coulter to stop talking about them, then the Edwards campaign must hold themselves to the same standard.


If John Edwards refuses to practice what he preaches for others... he should immediately drop out of the Presidential 08 race!!


If John Edwards can't (or won't) show that he will do what he expects of his opponents, he's a hypocrite in addition to a coward who let his sick wife do his dirty work for him while being the exact type of person he demonizes in his opponents!!


P.S. for John Edwards:

You can't claim to be a "man of the people" after earning your millions from hedge funds. The "people" could never afford to get involved with such rich elitist activities.

You also can't be one of us if you have a professional stylist come to you for a $400 haircut. If you really were one of us, you'd never participate in such a gross waste of that large sum of money. Do you even realize how many Americans don't even have $400 in their weekly paycheck... let alone having that amount around to waste on something that costs $15 at the local mall for the same haircut?

And finally...

To the "people" you claim to represent... the war isn't a "bumper sticker slogan" - it's a harsh reality!!!

You have proven that your sense of reality is way off the mark.