Facts are the enemy of Liberalism. It's an undeniable truth of life. Moonbats scurry from fact like vampires scurry from sunlight.
Witness the recent statement by Jeff Frederick. He repeated an observation made by Limbaugh a few days back: that both have closely associated with men who have bombed the Pentagon and buildings in New York City. I noted the comparison here.
Frederick said it in front of a magazine reporter, as if it were news, or as if twenty million people hadn't heard Limbaugh say it five days ago.
So what do the moonbats do? Well, of course, they act as if it were news. Lowell, the lead moonbat at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine" ... er, "RK," questions Frederick's sanity --- a subject on which he is perhaps qualified to speak --- and declares flatly that Bill Ayers --- the Weather Underground terrorist in question --- is not The One's friend.
They call for Frederick's resignation, demonstrating beyond doubt that they fear most a Republican Party of Virginia Chairman who will respond in kind to their attacks. They scream "racism and hate," as though they don't engage in class warfare and promote hatred against the successful, and as though pointing out The One's questionable associations were not legitimate. Of course, they declare that all but embrace of The One and his candidacy is racism per se.
It's expected when the moonbats whine. That's like a dog peeing on a fire hydrant. It's rather disappointing when someone as normally sensible as Doug Mataconis thinks it's a big deal.
7 comments:
James- you are are striking a cord here that needs to struck time and time again regarding the radical left. Raising Kaine needs to be held accountable for it own divisive diaries and are the true medium of hate and race baiting.
Fact is the people there would eat their young if they thought they could score points for doing so.
They played the race crad against Clinton supporters in the Primary in the same way they are doing so now with the State GOP while they claim that Sarah Palin is the true evil cometh.
The truth is often a hard pill to swallow. Almost as hard to swallow is a three billion shortfall, but Jerry that s was Warners mess, I mean Gilmore's mess that they inherited. True. Just ask them. Zero accountability taken for eight years of State expansion and now shortfall. Zero. Whose to blame? Well its the Republicans in the House of Delegates according to RK.
Thats there idea of leadership; zero accountability and shift the blame on others. Tactically it will come back to haunt them as McDonnell will clean their clock in 2009 after the first the first ten months of the ONE adminstrations results in further economic blowback and Virginia once again reverts back to Republicans to lead us out of the haze.
I can't wait for all the excuses. They blame Bush for 9/11 coming on his watch a mere nine months into his first term so it will be interesting to watch them deflect everything Obama does back onto the Republicans.
But then who will know since by November 2009 Talk Radio, well conservative anyway, will have been closed down by then as they trample free speech for fair speech doctrine; just a mere step from government controlled media.
The answer to your question is simple.
Frederick's comments appeals to the worst in people and he needs to explain it.
Incidentally, it that woman who thinks we don't know where Obama was born -- an obvious untruth -- knocked on my front door, I'd slam it in her face.
I don't recall asking a question, Doug, but thanks for visiting. Jeff is obviously not responsible for what that woman said --- I don't necessarily agree with your response to her if she knocked on your door, but I would certainly explain to her that she was wrong.
I disagree that with your conclusion about Jeff's comment, or that he needs to explain it. The person who "needs to explain" is Barry. He needs to explain his association with the worst sort of domestic radicals/terrorists. The problem (and this is a question)? The so-called "mainstream media" doesn't want to ask the questions.
This guy wouldn't qualify for a security clearance. He certainly isn't qualified to serve in the highest office in the land, except in the strict, constitutional sense.
James,
As long as we're looking at Obama's associations, we should probably take a gander at Johnny Mac's too:
http://tinyurl.com/4xecmh
Makes me glad I don't plan on voting for either one of these bozos
Cute, Doug. Very cute. You're comparing G. Gordon Liddy, McCain's father-in-law, and televangelists --- people who may be described as having wacky ideas, though I would disagree as to Liddy --- to William Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon.
Tell me again, who is it who's making strained analogies?
McCain's no prize. But he's certainly better than any realistic alternative. And as I understand it, you intend to vote for Bob Barr. Well, I once worked for Bob Barr, and actually had him speak at a meeting of the chapter of the Federalist Society that I founded at Emory. Of course, that was before he got wacky, and started associating with the American [Some] Civil Liberties Union. You know, the one that won't defend the Second Amendment, treats "rights" (abortion; homosexual perversion) unmentioned in the Constitution are superior to those that are (the First Amendment), and for the first thirty years of its existence denied that employers had free speech rights under NLRA. And oh, by the way, only defends nihilistic exercises of the First Amendment, but won't stand up for the First Amendment rights of employees to refuse to subsidize union speech.
Yeah. You go with that.
This is the same John McCain who fathered legislation that trashed the First Amendment, right ?
Yea, I thought so.
Barr's not perfect, no politician is, but at least I can sleep well at night knowing I didn't vote for someone who defiled the Constitution.
If McCain loses, as I suspect he will, the aftermath will be a time for the GOP to examine just what it is that it stands for.
I for one hope they make the right choice, because they certainly haven't recently.
Like I said, Doug, McCain's no prize. But allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good is a dangerous political exercise. Is McCain a friend of the First Amendment? Obviously not. Is he as much of an enemy of the First Amendment as Barry Obama? I think equally obviously not.
And how well will you be sleeping at night if, by withholding your vote for someone who admittedly "defiled the Constitution," you have allowed to be elected someone who stands a very good chance of destroying it, to the extent that he even has any idea what it actually means? Having done what I do for nearly two decades, I have little trouble contemplating the depths to which the far Left will sink to perpetuate its political power.
I certainly agree with your predicted consequences of a McCain defeat. I would hope and expect that you are correct that it would silence the unprincipled milquetoasts who are in ascendance in the wake of his nomination. However, to get back to the point in chief, I hardly see how attacking someone who recognizes the nature and character of the opposition and is willing to speak the truth about it serves goals which we probably both share.
Nevertheless, experience teaches me to be quite apprehensive about the GOP's ability to survive the onslaught of people who are almost forthrightly totalitarian in their outlook, and certainly totalitarian in their methods.
Post a Comment