Obama, the "silent accomplice" of the radical left

There are two reasons Obama hasn't talked much about the opinion offered by Phil Gramm about the whiny Democrats in Congress & their liberally biased minions in the media...

1. What Gramm said was his opinion, and he is just as correct in believing it as the flood of pundits & "journalists" on the DNC payroll do in believing the exact opposite. Bottom line is that Gramm has more education & experience on the topic than all the blowhards demonizing him (also McCain and the President by extension) do. It's a subjective thing... I know several people that are "newly made Americans" that see many native born Americans as Gramm does... IF Gram was calling us the whiners rather than the Democrats in Congress and their blind followers. To many immigrants and "regular" Americans, this is still a good time to be an American...

No matter what the dem pundits, liberally biased media, & dem politicos want us to believe.


2. But the main reason Obama can do "nothing" is because the radical left has been doing that job for him - The number of people who use propaganda, rhetoric & outright lies to smear McCain is only outnumbered by the number of liberally biased outlets available and the even more numerous times allowed for these partisan attacks to be broadcast into the public consciousness.


Obama has an army doing his dirty work for him as he hypocritically clings to the "change" mantra of his campaign. Too many so willing to make mountains out of molehills so that the only "news" we hear is the schemes of the liberal left...

If enough of them keep saying the same smear attacks & lies often enough on every media outlet in bed with the Dems that means almost all we get as "news" is badmouthing of the Republicans that hides the many many stories exposing Obama's minions for what they are, that should be getting reported, but never do.


Obama's silence allows the partisan thugs to drown the truth in their sea of propaganda, rhetoric, & lies!!!


Obama is not a new beginning if he continues to let the radical left continue to sink the democratic portion of this election ever deeper into the gutter... he will be just another version of the type of politician that put us in the bad situation they tell us we are in.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This silent Obama is as unpresidential as that criminal, the impeached "Slick Willy" Bill Clinton... or like the Republican version of the same - we don't need another Nixon or Clinton.


Obama needs to prove he is what he claims to be & put an end to the radical left's "swiftboat-like" smear agenda... if not, then he isn't even worth considering as we all should vote for McCain!!

The perfect job for Hillary Clinton that benefits Americans perfectly

People need to forget about the "dream" ticket (more like a nightmare ticket for the Dems & an easy win for McCain) - Hillary could better serve the people who she faught so hard to win the nomination for by becomming the next Senate Majority Leader!!

Let's face it, Dems will increase their majority in both houses of Congress this November, and this means that Hillary as Senate Majority Leader would hold alot of power in setting the agenda on several important areas.

She would be in control of if/when/how potential Federal appointees & Judicial nominees get approved, not to mention having control over what legislation gets to be voted on/not voted on that will allow her to set the agenda of what new bills possibly get signed into law.

It wasn't her husband, but the Congress (controlled by Repubs) that made the Clinton Presidency what the Clintons say was such a wonderful time to be an American... and the same will be true of the next Administration, regardless of which party is in the White House.

Hillary can become Senate Leader whether Obama wins in November or not, and she can then take credit for whatever legislation her Senate gets signed into law. That means she wins even if Obama loses this fall, and that sets her up looking very pretty for 2112 should she choose to run for President again.

But think of it... how much could a Senate run by Hillary (& a House run by Nancy Pelosi) accomplish if the President is Obama? The Health Care plan she wants for us all should have no trouble getting to Obama's pen... along with many of the other policy plans that the two Dem candidates had that were so alike that they are basically the same policies...

If Hillary plays it smart, she can take the job that she can do the most good at, while helping her party prove their ways are better for us than the past two terms under Bush II... and she can get the due credit while padding her resume for whatever she wants to do later on!!!

What could be more perfect???

I just hope that she can see the wisdom in this choice, and that her husband/campaign staff & consultants/supporters can get past their egos and not derail such a perfect plan for America's future!!!

MSNBC & their usual "selective bias" in reporting the "facts"

Today Contessa Brewer had someone on commentating about strategy for the November election that made an interesting comment that caught my attention.

I wasn't watching the tv at the moment, I was facing my laptop when the commentator made his comment... but since I am only about 5 feet from my tv I heard him clearly. I wish I had been paying closer attention to the tv because I would really like to know who he was & what his affiliations are - so that I can possibly put his commentary into perspective and explain to myself why someone would do what he did.

Usually commentators are introduced as to being a republican strategist, democrat strategist, or affiliated with a particular party or candidate... but I have no clue who this guy was (I think his name was "Frank" something or other, but I'm not sure) offering his opinions to Contessa - so I won't say for certain what I think his affiliation is... but based on what he said I can sure guess, and I'll bet I am right.

Anyway... on to what got me posting here today.

When discussing how both Senators Obama & McCain will be trying to get votes in states not usually expected to go for their party this man expressed that he doesn't see either candidate being able to pull off a "50 state" campaign - and then gave his reasons why neither Obama nor McCain will change the way certain states vote, regardless of what they do before election day.

I don't have exact quotes from him for his examples, but it was the usual stuff pundits always say - like how New York & California will go Democrat no matter what, and how places like Utah, Texas, etc will go Republican... but that isn't my point.


I did hear how this commentator described the 1984 election, and how he selectively forgot how many states Ronald Reagan actually won that year.

He said something about Reagan "winning many of the states", but not all of them - and used this to prove that even in that lopsided win a candidate couldn't pull off an actual "50 state" campain strategy successfully.

Problem is that Reagan didn't just get "most" of the states that election... he won 49 of them, while Mondale ONLY managed to win ONE state (Minnesota, his home state) and D.C. Reagan won 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13.

That's effectively pulling off the 50 state strategy because Mondale only won Minnesota by 3800 votes.

But before Reagan successfully pulled off a campaign strategy that Contessa's guest said can't be done it was successfully done my Nixon when he defeated McGovern by winning 49 states to McGovern's 1 (a close Massachusetts & D.C.) in his 520 - 17 electorial vote tally. (1 went to another candidate besides Nixon or McGovern)


My point is that I believe that Obama could pull off victories in states people think he can't win, and that he'll retain states that people like Hillary claim he can't win since he didn't get them in the primary votes.

I also feel that votes can be lost to McCain if Obama picks someone divisive or from the "old-school" of politics (Like Hillary or Ed Rendell) that he campaigned against in his message of "change we can believe in".

I just don't like how Contessa's guest selectively recalled elections of the past (probably out of political bias) in a way that proves the point he is making, even though the actual facts of the event he used as proof doesn't support his conclusion - because this is misleading to the viewers, if not outright false statements to forward an agenda.

What that guest did is just like how Hillary routinely misrepresented things to forward her agenda as she got away with tricking people to vote for her. (like how she got votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, & West Virginia based on how she "fights for working people to keep their jobs while the truth is that she helped her husband force NAFTA upon us and that caused many thousands, if not millions, to be unemployed & struggling to get by on next to nothing... this also applies to her health care plan when those newly unemployed lost their coverage)

It's time for people to be held to a higher standard, the truth should not be allowed to be subjective. Hillary & her kind have the right to their opinions, but not their own set of facts. People like Obama are here to hold them accountable to the truth of their crooked politics that got us all in the mess we are in today as a country.

Why Ed Rendell knows he's not right for Obama's V.P.

Ed Rendell knows that he won't be Obama's choice for V.P. because he would never pass the vetting process very well. Rendell knows that his type of politics works for him as Pennsylvania Governor, but he is far to dirty of a politician to be acceptable for Obama's campaign of change. Rendell is exactly the kind of corrupt politician that has made D.C. as broken as it is today, and Obama would make a big mistake by asking Rendell to be on the ticket with him.

Rendell has a history of having an unhealthy relationship with a certain consulting firm - it's so close that you can hardly tell where his staff ends and the firm's employees begin. Many former employees of the firm now work for Rendell on his staff... and former Rendell staff members now work for the consulting firm.

This consulting firm gets so many government contracts that a local Pa newspaper reported that a huge portion of the yearly budget goes to this company... think of it as being Pennsylvania's version of how Halliburton is connected to Bush's Administration - with the same amount (if not more) of improper activity connected to how this firm gets so much work from the Commonwealth.

Rendell has been linked to many conflicts of interest while he has been our Governor, such as his connection to slot-machine revenue & rumored kickbacks... or how he & his henchman T.J. Rooney railroaded a property tax measure in law that is also connected to slot-machine revenues.

It wouldn't take much for Republicans to sink Rendell's ship should Obama choose him as V.P. - Rendell would be a weight that pulls Obama & the Dems under in November... and it would be an easy win for McCain because of Rendell's way of doing business here in Pa. It's a crooked system that works for him as Governor, but he can't get enough of the right people in his pocket for it to help Obama.

If you are curious, look up Pa Special Session House Bill 39 and research how it began as a bill that let school districts decide if they wanted property taxes linked to slot-machine revenues... and how Rendell's people didn't accept defeat when more than enough districts voted against the bill by coming back with the same crappy bill, without the option for school districts being able to decide what they can do by making it mandatory - and then look to see how Rendell, Rooney and other fat-cats like them get something for passing this into law & you'll see how Obama can't consider Rendell any more than he can the fatally corrupt & inept Hillary Clinton.

Obama needs to choose someone better than Clintons, Rendell, etc because the American People deserve better!!!

Dan Abrams (and friends), the "pot" and Fox News, the "kettle"

Dan, you have some brass ones to say what you did about Fox News - especially when you consider how blatantly biased you (and MSNBC/NBC/Universal as a whole) are to the Democrats in general & Hillary Clinton specifically .

There is more than a mountain of incidents I could use as proof of this obvious fact, but I will try to keep it brief so that you can get back to forwarding the liberal/democrat agenda.

1. Awhile back Joe Scarborough admitted on air how Olbermann & his production staff overtly make fun at conservatives/republicans/the Bush Administration/Fox News/Bill O'Reilly as they go out of their way to "find" ways to mention these groups in every segment of his "news" show. Joe also told the viewing public how the big wigs at MSNBC gave Olbermann a huge bonus for his unprofessional behavior, even though he hasn't managed to put a dent in the enormous lead O'Reilly has in ratings over Olbermann's show.

2. Around that same time Chris Matthews responded on air (possibly because of the many emails I sent to MSNBC on this topic??) that he never said his show was "news", and that he is ok with having his show be an op ed program that takes his opinions/political beliefs as the foundation for the comments he makes and the questions he asks. (or should I say how he changes tactics depending upon whether his guests are democrat or republican) Matthews freely admitted that not only his program, but all of the NBC/Universal family of media outlets (television, radio, & print) didn't try to be unbiased, objective, or follow what is supposed to be professional journalistic integrity as you broadcast a biased viewpoint aimed at making your viewers follow whatever agenda you choose to promote.


3. As the Indiana Primary was about to reach the time when some of the polls were going to close, MSNBC on air personalities openly & freely admitted that you had an agreement "with Congress" to NOT make any early announcements regarding who might have won that state's election. Considering that the republican party has chosen their nominee & that Congress is under democrat control... the end result of that admission is a clear "smoking gun" proving that your network is working in consort with the democrats and their agenda.


4. My final point is a recounting of how you, yourself, are almost the worst offender of biased behavior as you go out of your way to demonize/attack the republicans (even if there is no just cause for the attacks) while also taking every opportunity to praise the democrats.



You & the NBC/Universal family are equally as bad as Fox News, and possibly worse than them because even with such overt evidence of your bias, you all try to deny the biased behavior while trying to deflect attention from this fact by claiming Fox is guilty of what you are doing.


Fox is wrong for being biased to the right... but you are even more wrong for being more biased to the left while trying to b.s. us all that you aren't.

Fox is a wolf in sheep's clothing for sure, and that is bad for journalism... but I have pointed out how you are even worse than this.


What is worse than a wolf in sheep's clothing, you might wonder... I'll tell you.

You are a wolf pretending to be a friendly wolf, as if we can drop our guard around you even though you are a wolf in our midst. It's like the fable (pardon the pun) of the fox & the goat. It goes like this.

The Fox and the Goat

A FOX one day fell into a deep well and could find no means of escape. A Goat, overcome with thirst, came to the same well, and seeing the Fox, inquired if the water was good. Concealing his sad plight under a merry guise, the Fox indulged in a lavish praise of the water, saying it was excellent beyond measure, and encouraging him to descend. The Goat, mindful only of his thirst, thoughtlessly jumped down, but just as he drank, the Fox informed him of the difficulty they were both in and suggested a scheme for their common escape. "If," said he, "you will place your forefeet upon the wall and bend your head, I will run up your back and escape, and will help you out afterwards." The Goat readily assented and the Fox leaped upon his back. Steadying himself with the Goat's horns, he safely reached the mouth of the well and made off as fast as he could. When the Goat upbraided him for breaking his promise, he turned around and cried out, "You foolish old fellow! If you had as many brains in your head as you have hairs in your beard, you would never have gone down before you had inspected the way up, nor have exposed yourself to dangers from which you had no means of escape." Look before you leap.

I challenge you at MSNBC to admit your bias, and that Fox is kettle... but you are pot calling Fox "black".

How was this allowed to happen???

How is it legal for a candidate to "loan" their campaign money?

I can understand if someone like Mitt Romney wants to use his multi-millions in wealth to fund his campaign, but how did the concept of putting your personal money into your campaign with the ability to get that money back if/when enough donations come in to "re-pay" that "loan" to the candidate in question get by the people in charge of making the rules in the first place?

My problem with this practice is I feel certain that this could (and most likely IS in the case of Hillary Clinton) be an easy way for a candidate to bypass the rules by getting a huge sum of money from a "special interest" and passed off as a legitimate practice.

I have zero trust in the Clintons that this 11.4 million (give or take) actually came from Hillary Clinton - because she has shown time & time again that she has no respect for rules, or what is the "right thing to do" as she has said/done anything in her quest to win the nomination by any means necessary. (by hook or by crook)

The Clintons have a long history of shady dealings & will play by whatever rules fit the situation at any given moment - so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if she got that money from other corrupt cronies of the Clintons (like Ed Rendell, Eliot Spitzer, Jon Corzine, Michael Nutter, & TJ Rooney) if they get something of equal value should she become the next President.


This is a practice that needs to be removed from the process a.s.a.p. before someone gets elected to the highest office in the country because they got a paycheck from special interest(s) that get rewarded later for what should be considered totally improper for the election process, if not criminal!

Time for Bill & Hill to quit crying & claiming to be a "victim"

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said that politics is basically a contact sport, and if someone wants to run for office they better expect some hard hits, and if that seems too harsh then that person has no business running for office?

Why does he & his wife constantly cry & complain (most of the time wrongly) when yet another dirty trick they attempt to use against Obama blows up in their faces & hurts them not their opponent? Why is it ok for them to do what they say is wrong for others to do?

They have changed the message of Hillary's campaign so many times (depending on the state, or the issue du jour, or the weather, or what color tie Tim Russert is wearing, etc) it has ended up that her campaign is both for and against the major issues - sometimes both positions on any given issue happen at the same time period, or until enough people notice & they are forced to make excuses while coming up with another position - for the moment anyway.

If Hillary can't remember what she did or didn't do while he tarnished the reputation of the White House, then she has no business running for his old job, let alone anything beyond what a 6 year old can do. If Hillary gets tired & can't remember things correctly, what will happen if that infamous "3am call" ever happens with her to answer.

If Chelsea refuses to respond to tough questions like whether or not the way her parents handled themselves durring the "Monica" scandal - then she has no business stumping for her mom... at least that's what her daddy said about how the rules of campaign politics are played.

Oh, BTW, it was a no-brainer for her to say that her mom would be a better President than her father was... all Hillary has to do is avoid sexually abusing her interns; not sell the country's soul to countries like China, Dubai, Columbia, etc; maybe actually get a piece of legislation of her doing become law - and not take credit for the accomplishments of the opposing party that causes what people call "prosperity"; not pardon so many of her party hacks, friends, family as her husband did on his last day in office; etc.

Hell, all Hillary has to do to be better than Bill is for her to do even one positive act while trying hard to not totally screw things up even worse than Bill or George "Jr" did. I know of many 5 year olds that have at least a 50-50 chance of doing that much... but somehow I doubt Hillary would deserve half of that much of a chance to succeed.

I say better off letting the "new guy" who doesn't have a track record of corruption, failure, scandal, and the total partisan devotion that the Clintons have exhibited for over 30 years. Time for a fresh start tha Barack Obama offers this country... we are long overdue for someone like Obama to run the show in D.C. that has our best interests at heart, not his own.

When will people realize the truth?

Bill Clinton hasn't lost his old charm like people are saying so often after yet another news-making debacle as he campaigns for Hillary.

I knew all along that this behavior wasn't a fluke, but what makes up Bill Clinton (and Hillary by proxy) at the very core of his being.

The recent incident of attacking the media for the Bosnia thing where he gets so many aspects wrong it makes swiss cheese seem like a concrete wall is just a continuation of how he looked directly into the camera and lied to our faces about Monica.

The dirty tactics, persecution paranoia, accusing others of the wrongs you yourself are doing, say anything/do anything if it gets the job done is what defines Bill & Hillary, and it's exactly what the people have had to deal with for far too many years from crooked politicians who say one thing but never mean it.

Hillary promised jobs to NY State in her 1st campaign... but after more than 250,000 were lost on her watch all she had were excuses and partisan b.s. to offer - while proceeding to scam us into believing she will somehow get it right this time - if we give her a chance. (as in hillarycare 2.0 or this pitch for new jobs)

Why do we seem surprised that Bill gets paid off (oops, I mean paid) from Columbia for a free trade deal under Hillary while she claims to oppose the deal? That's just a re-run of Bill getting paid huge sums from the Dubai people while Hillary tried to say she opposed that group running our seaports. Or how Hillary claimed to oppose NAFTA when it's on record that she spoke at a rally for the deal her hubby basically strong-armed us to accept like a mafia kingpin.

The Clintons have always been what people are just now seeing them to be. They are everything that's wrong with the system - all you need to prove it is look at all the corrupt, fat-cat, partisan bums who support her no matter what the facts say about how wrong they are on talking points. But if you need a hint, here's three:

1. Ed Rendell, the worst & most corrupt governor Pennsylvania has ever known.

2. John Murtha, the guy who barely escaped the ABSCAM ordeal because the "bribe" offered to him wasn't enough for his greedy corrupted ass.

3. Michael Nutter (Philly's corrupt mayor - and I don't mean Rendell when he was there) who knows what it takes to win Pennsylvania... making dirty deals & promising kickbacks to the Philly elite, because Pa. can be won if you win the 6 counties that make up the Philly metro area and do well in Pittsburgh. That's how Rendell became Mayor & then Governor & he's sold his soul to Hillary just like Nutter did in the hopes of a kickback should she win in November.

Three strikes... the Clinton's should be out this time. Maybe, if enough of you who usually fall for the Clinton lie machine wake up and see that the Clinton's aren't golden - they are just fool's gold. I hope enough of you see the true Clintons in time to stop the tragedy we would face if Hillary is our Democratic nominee for President.

"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.

Playing Politics

Democrats are being hypocritical, as usual, by playing politics in the most recent of their never-ending "scandals" they claim the Bush Administration has being perpetrating.

I'm not sure I believe that all 8 of the Federal prosecutors were fired for "just cause" due to performance... but for Democrats (and their liberally biased bretheren, the media) to portray the "Bushies" as being the only ones to have fired prosecutors for "political" reasons.

First off, let's define politics so that we may understand what is, and isn't "political".

pol·i·tics [ póll i tiks ] noun
Definition: activities associated with government: the theory and practice of government, especially the activities associated with governing, with obtaining legislative or executive power, or with forming and running organizations connected with government.


So, by the very definition... ANY reason for firing the prosecutors would qualify as "political".

Now that we have that out of the way...

Some idiots (ie: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, & the Carpetbagger Report - just to name a few) Want to either "spin" or flat out dent the FACT that Impeached President Bill Clinton did a very similar move when he was in the Oval Office. Slick Willy disguised his move by firing all 93 of the Federal Prosecutors to cover up the fact that he was replacing a Republican with one of his cronies in the very important jurisdiction of Little Rock, Arkansas.

Why was the an "important" jurisdiction & the move so improper?

It's because there was the little matter of the Whitewater scandal that was being investigated by this jurisdiction. By replacing the prosecutor with someone who was not only friendly to Clinton - but his friend - it guaranteed that no charges would ever be put against Bill or Hillary Clinton for their wrongdoing in the Whitewater fraud scam.

That was FAR WORSE than any of the firings that have recently happened!

The Impeached President put a cronie in the exact position that would keep him & his wife from being held accountable for their crimes.

While firing the prosecutor who successfully prosecuted "Duke" Cunningham smells of retribution for doing her job... it isn't as bad as abusing the Office of the President to assure that you don't get held accountable for commiting crimes.

One of the firings seems to be justifiable, from what I have seen of the facts so far.

If a prosecutor is told about potential voter fraud being perpetrated by a candidate (regardless of political party) and that prosecutor chooses NOT to investigate the alleged crimes as soon as he learns of the potential criminal behavior... that prosecutor is willfully avoiding performing the duties he was hired to do - and he should be fired immediately. It's not proper to wait until after the election to investigate (let alone decide whether to prosecute) and anyone who fails to do their duty of the office they hold deserves to be removed from that position.



Democrats are posturing by handing down subpoenas to certain White House staff members. They know that NOTHING criminal happened in the firing of these 8 prosecutors. What these Democrats hope to achieve by getting people under oath & on the record is to "Scooter Libby" Karl Rove. They hope to get him in a position where he is caught lying under oath so that he can be prosecuted for perjury. If they can get this to happen, then it can be a way to finally get Karl Rove removed from his position of influence & power within the Bush Administratation.

Democrats fear Karl Rove because he is far more intelligent than anyone they have on their side. Karl Rove gets results & they want to negate this advantage the Republicans have over them.

That's it, plain & simple.

The bottom line is that the Democrats want Karl Rove gone so that they can have an advantage in the next election cycle.

And THAT is playing politics... but the hypocritical Democrats won't ever admit the ulterior motive behind this cowardly move of the subpoena.