You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (727)

PLAYS: (2258)

Bill O'Reilly opened The Factor talking about the new Rasmussen poll that says that people would vote for teabaggers over republicans. Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican. In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

This is really bad news for Republicans/conservatives. Bill Kristol loves right-wing populism just as long as they can be controlled, but now the problem is that the conservative elites can't control them.

The teabaggers must be driving Kristol's Straussian beliefs crazy. A good mob is a controlled mob that is led by conservative elites who are the only people truly qualified to lead society. Gingrich knows not to take his findings too far because teabaggers are already mad at him, so he immediately praises the teabagger Queen, Sarah Palin. BillO tries to say that Palin is as inexperienced as Obama. Sure, Bill, whatever you say. But back to Newt.

Gingrich:.. I think Going Rouge could in fact take Palin to a third party, the challenge is historically third parties are protests. They're not a path to power. And as you pointed out the first effect of a third party in 2012 would be the re-election of Obama and would be the survival of Pelosi as Speaker of the House, you now, maybe in perpetuity.

O'Reilly: I don't think so, I think Pelosi maybe booted out of there next November, that's how bad things are.

Gingrich: but she might, she wouldn't be if you had enough third party candidates (garbled) splitting the opposition.

O'Reilly: The earliest a third party could be viable is in 2012.

Newt is going to have a really tough time trying to convince the teabaggers to join up with the GOP establishment because they want to control it. When conservatives reached out to the black helicopter/militia crowd, they put their possible comeback in the hands of insane people. Take that, Bill Kristol!

Here's how Bill Kristol views the teabaggers, via pg 46 from the "Gang of Five."

Only elitist, brilliant men like Bill Kristol are allowed to lead people. Real Americans are but sheep to be herded and controlled to do what their elitist elders tell them to do. What a horrible and disgusting philosophy to live by, but that's Kristol and his crew for you.

You can pick up Nina Easton's book here: Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Ascendacy

Newt was the darling of the right just a few moments ago, it seemed, but now he's in a battle with the lunatic fringe of his own party.

Rush Limbaugh zeroed in on Newtie today and took out his rage against Gingrich and the "party bosses" because he supported a moderate conservative over the Palin-Beck-Limbaugh teabagger nominee named Doug Hoffman and Hoffman lost. Sarah Palin has as much egg on her face as the rest of them do. When a district like NY-23 comes up for election, a Republican always wins. Their purity test helped lose them a guaranteed seat. Pretty awesome.

LIMBAUGH: Here is -- these are my thoughts on New York-23. In the first place, I'll have to double check this, but I'm reasonably sure that this was the highest percentage of the vote ever won on the Conservative Party line by a House or Senate candidate. I think Hoffman had a higher percentage of the vote than even James Buckley, who won his U.S. Senate race on the -- against or against this Gooddell guy, Charles Gooddell, in the '70s. So, that's one thing.

But, the right message; we cannot forget how this whole thing happened in the first place. There was not a primary. The right message here would indict the way party bosses, Republican Party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt screwed the whole thing up from the get go.

The thing that's been completely left out of the Dick Cheney "how dare anyone dither when it comes to blowing up our enemies and rewarding our torturers" speech is the context in which that speech was given.

The Villagers don't like to talk about specifics when it comes to the beltway dinner circuit at which so many of them feed.

This dinner, minimum $500.00 a plate, was to given by the self-described, and I am not making this up, "non-partisan organization" The Center for Security Policy. Dick Cheney was speaking at their 20th anniversary dinner, at which he received the, hold back your breakfast now, "Keeper of the Flame" award. Cheney was introduced by, among others, Don Rumsfeld, a former awardee himself. You know who else has this prize sitting on a shelf in their well-appointed Georgetown dens?

Joe Lieberman
Duncan Hunter
James Inhofe
Paul Wolfowitz
Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan
Jon Kyl
Caspar Weinberger

Okay, then. So why would anyone not expect a bowl full of neocon crazy in his acceptance speech? He's among friends.

Why can't the press be honest? And how, at this point in history, has that become a completely rhetorical question?

crossposted from Blue Gal

Project On Government Oversight: Retaliation: Whistleblower allegedly forced out after helping to expose the guard scandal at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul

TPMMuckraker: While lunatics debate whether a president should be permitted to address the nation's youth, there's an education story bubbling up in Texas that could have considerably more far-reaching consequences.

The Washington Independent: Glenn Beck's next target: Cass Sunstein

Whiskey Fire: A world-besotted wingnut attempts to imitate Swift, and ends up not so much lacerating his breast as serving human stupidity.

Let's Try Democracy: There Are So Many Days That Have Not Yet Broken

Newsifact: Right-wing mob attacks Roger Federer during doctor's visit

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1671)

PLAYS: (5516)

David Frum spoke out this weekend about the reckless direction America's right-wing talk-show hosts are taking our national discourse -- embodied by the nuts bringing guns to events featuring President Obama:

Nobody has been hurt so far. We can all hope that nobody will be. But firearms and politics never mix well. They mix especially badly with a third ingredient: the increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters.

The Nazi comparisons from Rush Limbaugh; broadcaster Mark Levin asserting that President Obama is "literally at war with the American people"; former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claiming that the president was planning "death panels" to extirpate the aged and disabled; the charges that the president is a fascist, a socialist, a Marxist, an illegitimate Kenyan fraud, that he "harbors a deep resentment of America," that he feels a "deep-seated hatred of white people," that his government is preparing concentration camps, that it is operating snitch lines, that it is planning to wipe away American liberties": All this hysterical and provocative talk invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence.

And indeed some conservative broadcasters are lovingly anticipating just such an outcome.

Frum notes that conservatives were quick to attack a Homeland Security bulletin warning law-enforcement officers of a looming threat from right-wing extremists -- only to have those warnings come all too true:

Newt Gingrich tweeted: "The person who drafted the outrageous homeland security memo smearing veterans and conservatives should be fired."

I don't think the former speaker could tweet such a thing today in good conscience. The person who drafted that homeland security memo has gained very good reason to be worried. The guns are coming out. The risks are real.

It's not enough for conservatives to repudiate violence, as some are belatedly beginning to do. We have to tone down the militant and accusatory rhetoric. If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic—if he were those things, somebody should shoot him.

Frum was on CNN's Reliable Sources this Sunday and talked about it with Howard Kurtz:

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Um, just before I came out here, David Frum, I read a column that you wrote for The Week magazine about people who bring guns to these town meetings or Obama events. And you really took on some on the right, on your side, so to speak -- Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity -- you talked about hysterical talk about violence, you said that we have to tone it down, we have to tone down, excuse me, "the militant and accusatory rhetoric."

DAVID FRUM: Ah, we do. We do. Because --

KURTZ: Is it fair to blame the broadcasters for this atmosphere?

FRUM: Uh, yeah, it's very -- coping with a downward trend in advertising revenues for talk radio, the broadcasters have ramped up what they are saying. When you have broadcasters saying the president is, quote, literally at war with the American people, um -- literally at war is a very serious thing, Al Qaeda is literally at war with the American people.

KURTZ: And has a deep-seated hatred for white people.

FRUM: And has a deep-seated hatred -- so it's inflammatory. And the thing that is so enraging about all this, is obviously people are getting more excited about that, than they do about the details of health insurance.

Interestingly, Kurtz a little later discusses Fox's flaming hypocrisy in backing anti-Obama protesters when previously it had dismissed anti-war protesters as "loons", something they were called out for by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show:

KURTZ: [H]asn't Fox, in fact, flipped -- some Fox hosts, I should say -- from slamming liberal protesters to defending these anti-Obama protesters?

That, in fact, is part of the bigger picture: The teabaggers are being inflamed and openly encouraged to act irrationally and disruptively by Fox News and its right-wing radio cohorts, specifically because they know that no matter how crazy they act -- even bringing guns to events featuring the president -- they will be actively defended for it, instead of exposed for the thugs they are.

Transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (720)

PLAYS: (2541)

(h/t David for helping with this post))

Newt Gingrich debated Howard Dean on ABC's THIS WEEK over health care reform. Gingrich helped destroy it in 1994 and is an expert teabagger from way back. He quickly jumped in and supported Sarah Palin's disgusting Face Book comments when she says that her son with Down Syndrome would be put up in front of Obama's death panel and be killed if health care is reformed are just like two peas in a pod. Stephanopolous argued that the euthanasia talking point is completely made up and is not even in the bill, but Newt, the "Marrying Man" doesn't care what's actually in the bill because he'd never do that, he just attacked the evil government as the boogie man.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Those phrases appear nowhere in the bill. The only thing...

GINGRICH: But...

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... but let me just explain what's in the bill and then get you to respond to that. The only thing in the bill is they would allow Medicare to pay for what they say is voluntary counseling on end-of-life issues.

GINGRICH: I think people are very concerned, when you start talking about cost controls, that a bureaucracy -- we don't -- you're asking us to trust the government. Now, I'm not talking about the Obama administration. I'm talking about the government. You're asking us to decide that we believe that the government is to be trusted.

We know people who have said routinely, well, you're going to have to make decisions. You're going to have to decide. Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not in the bill.

GINGRICH: But the bill's -- the bill's 1,000 pages of setting up mechanisms. It sets up 45 different agencies. It has all sorts of panels. You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in -- in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.

When were Americans against the government trying to help controlling the costs of health insurance? That's more Beckerwocky coming from the teabagger King.

Transcript of ABC's THIS WEEK below the fold:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (805)

PLAYS: (3117)

Much has been made today in the blogs of the first few moments of Michael Steele illustrating once again his death wish for his career and his party.

Steele's new motto for the GOP is apparently "Y'all Come," and when an audience member offered to "bring the [undecipherable picnic item]", Steele rejoined with "I'll bring the fried chicken and potato salad."

Just how tone deaf on issues of race does one have to be to be both African American and GOP Chairman? At least that much. Wow.

But there's more. The topic his questioner posed, a generic query regarding "inclusion," Steele read to mean primarily racial inclusion. The blogger asking did not announce himself as a GLBT blogger, but clearly inclusion can mean all kinds of folks, and Steele in his answer included "orientation" as part of the GOP big tent, and cited Reagan (don't they all) as a model of inclusivity in the "Y'all Come" Republican mentality. Really.

Somehow The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other front-liners in the fight against AIDS don't see Reagan's inclusive legacy the way Steele does.

And perhaps we should ask the other chairmen of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and Newt "gay and secular fascism" Gingrich how they feel about "Y'all come." Ahem.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1031)

PLAYS: (2686)

The Villagers were up in arms Sunday morning over on the set of ABC's This Week about the possibility that Eric Holder might appoint a special someone to look into the Bush/Cheney torture practices. Watch in awe and see how the Villagers feel about trying to get accountability from the Bush years.

Why, an investigation would just trash the place. Oh, the bitterness in D.C. would be too much to handle, all because those other people (that is, non-Villagers) would like to get to the truth.

Bob Woodward, who's trying to be the next David Broder by living off his long-degraded rep as the man who uncovered Watergate, wonders how we will ever be able to keep secrets again if there is some inspection. Um, isn't that what the Bob Woodwardses are supposed to do? Uncover stuff? Nope, not anymore. He's appalled that there might be a frakking investigation.

And he was all a-giggle with the thought that the CIA could actually lie. What a joke. I didn't hear him open his mouth when Newt Gingrich went all whiggy on Nancy Pelosi.

Cokie goes "Cokie" on us for a while and then after much trepidation comes down on the rule of law. Good for her, but she better take some R&R if it happens.

ROBERTS: I must say, I have very mixed minds about this. Because on the one hand, the whole idea of a prosecution gets Washington into that kind of horrible slog where everybody hates each other and the poison just gets very thick.

DONALDSON: Unlike at the moment, right?

ROBERTS: Well, no, it hasn’t been as bad lately as it was in the last 16 years.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And it seems like they’re trying to avoid at least in the design of this, criminalizing of policy.

ROBERTS: And just the whole atmosphere of getting that way again. On the other hand, the rule of law is terribly important. And we have to have it -- you know, we cannot operate in this country without the rule of law.

DONALDSON: So which hand do you come down on?

ROBERTS: I’d probably come down on the rule of law.

Digby writes much more:

Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.

The Village roundtable all gasped in horror anyway because who knows where such an investigation might lead and as Cokie complained, it would mean that the whole town would be mad at each other again and nobody wants that! "Everybody hates each other and the poison gets very thick." She did finally come down on the side of following the rule of law even though it would make her uncomfortable at cocktail parties, but it was a close thing.

Bob Woodward was very upset at the idea that the government can't keep secrets because "we need them!" Besides, Holder shouldn't be like Janet Reno and just initiate investigations willy nilly. (He seems to think that Reno authorizing independent counsels to investigate her own president for trivial political reasons is the same thing as investigating whether the previous administration tortured prisoners.) They all chuckled at the notion that Holder was really independent and if he is, that means he's a rogue interrogator himself.

George Will thought it was all just a bunch of balderdash because nothing bad ever happened during the Bush administration. Sam Donaldson said that reporters should probably pursue stories and Donna Brazile added that these things were coming out anyway so they might as well be investigated.

They all snorted and giggled and laughed throughout the whole segment about how silly it was to be upset that the CIA lied because well, that's what it does. And they all thought it was a ripping good joke that Cheney kept everything secret because well, everyone knows that's what he does. Hahahahaha.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1431)

PLAYS: (9036)

If it wasn't already obvious that the right-wingers who organized the Tax Day Tea Parties vastly overstated their actual significance -- except as a harbinger of the slide towards right-wing populism -- then this past weekend should lay any doubts to rest.

Even before the holiday weekend, it was clear that the planned 2nd edition of the Tea Tantrums Parties was going to be somewhat less than energetic. David Weigel at the Washington Independent observed that a lot of this had to do with mainstream support peeling away:

But the collaboration between the official Republican establishment and the Tea Parties has not lasted into June. The RNC has no plans to get involved with any Tea Parties. A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who jaunted around northern California to attend several Tea Parties, said that his holiday plans were private but would probably not include Tea Parties. Gingrich will not attend any of the Tea Parties, although he recorded video messages for events in Birmingham and Nashville “at the request of the respective organizers,” according to spokesman Dan Kotman.

Media coverage has also gotten a little bit more scarce. Coverage on Fox News has largely been limited to interviews with Tea Party organizers on the network’s morning shows. While sources at Fox would not discuss their plans for covering the weekend events, they confirmed that no anchors would be attending and that the attendance and news value of the events looked to be lower than that of the April rallies. Tea Party organizers are counting, instead, on local news coverage and on distributed reporting such as the conservative news site PajamasTV, which hosts an “American Tea Party” show and has asked readers to submit their own videos from their rallies.

Part of the dynamic of right-wing populism is that, as whatever mainstream backing it gathers initially peels away, its more radical elements rise to the fore. And indeed, the Anti-Defamation League warned beforehand that extremists were likely to be making their presence felt at these gatherings:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1033)

PLAYS: (2095)

Is Liz Cheney drawing a check from the RNC? I know she's Newt Gingrich's VP and all, but this is ridiculous. She's learned well from Daddy Dearest.

Greg Sargent:

That’s not really an exaggeration! On an appearance on MSNBC, Liz Cheney appeared to say that Obama’s speech in Cairo today showed that he wants to deal with terrorists by “hand-holding.” Check out what she said starting around 30 seconds in.
Here’s a transcript:

“I think that if we lived in a world where terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East could be met, could be defeated, could be dealt with by sort of hand-holding going forward, then we’d be in a much simpler environment. But these are very, very tough issues. And I was troubled by the extent to which I heard moral relativism.”

That’s some highly suggestive language coming from Ms. Cheney, isn’t it?

In reality, in his speech today, Obama strongly denounced 9/11-denial to an Arab audience, said American troops are in Afghanistan out of “necessity,” because terrorists are “determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can,” and said America’s commitment to destroying terror networks “will not waver.”

She's just in line with the usual conservative nutty attacks. Remember when Rove said this about liberals in 2005:

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (472)

PLAYS: (997)

(The C&L video archives rule again!)

Rove last night also criticized Democrats for responding weakly to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said

Rove should have been fired for this, but the media never minds when conservatives call liberals traitors. Froomkin wrote an excellent piece on this. Nothing has changed much from 2005, has it?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1046)

PLAYS: (1198)

[H/t Scarce]

Sean Hannity interviewed Rush Limbaugh again on his show last night, and as you might expect, it featured the usual endless stream of insane right-wing crap. Now there's a big surprise.

Limbaugh repeated the point he made yesterday on the radio -- that perhaps Sonia Sotomayor, being Catholic and all, might secretly be anti-abortion. In which case, he'd probably be fine with her nomination to the Supreme Court:

Limbaugh: If -- now I'm speaking for me personally -- If I've learned, if I can be assured, that she is actually a pro-life person, and does think that Roe vs. Wade is bad constitutional law, and if she would rule on the right side of the life issue, I might look past this racism -- we can deal with that. But that's something very, very important to me, and she could be stealth in that regard. And I know that -- well, there's no record. Normally most liberals, they love to tell you how pro-choice they are on abortion -- she doesn't have any of that.

Now remember: The entire reason all of these right-wingers say they have been opposed to Sotomayor is that (given the way they've managed to deliberately distort her "wise Latina" remarks) she might be predisposed to favor identity politics with a feminist and Latino bias. Or as Newt the Phony put it, "Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

That means pretending that a judge's experiences and backgrounds and predispositions are never supposed to come into play when they make rulings, as though the law is some kind of abstract entity whose purity must be defended. It's an outgrowth of the "strict constructionist" philosophy, which likes to pretend that there can only be one perfectly literal interpretation of the law.

But that of course goes flying out the window when these same right-wingers contemplate the possibility that Sotomayor might harbor a secret bias about abortion that actually skews in their favor. Then they're all good with it -- supposedly.

Limbaugh doesn't mean a word of it, of course. We get the real reason that Limbaugh is saying this: He just wants liberals to start fretting and stewing and raising questions about Sotomayor's positions, driving a wedge into the heart of her support. Pretty clever ruse, Rushie boy. Too bad most of us long ago learned how to see right through your crooked lies.

Just like when you claim that "no one has denied" that Sotomayor is a racist. Um, yeah, right.

Duncan Black nails this one and it's so frustrating on so many levels.

Hey, Someone Noticed: EJ Dionne discovers the power of President Gingrich and Chief of Staff Limbaugh.

A media environment that tilts to the right is obscuring what President Obama stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion.

Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don't. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.

...

Her point has broader application. For all the talk of a media love affair with Obama, there is a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media's discussion of policy. The range of acceptable opinion runs from the moderate left to the far right and cuts off more vigorous progressive perspectives.

We witnessed a complete bias towards the losing party in the last election by the media when studies showed that cable news was putting on more than two Republicans for every Democrat during the stimulus debate.

To fill out Newt's cabinet, I'd say Dick Cheney is the Secretary of Defense and Liz Cheney is the Vice President with Pat Buchanan as the head of the Dept. of Homeland Security and Tom Tancredo is his Deputy.

And when do you ever see good progressive or liberal Reps on TV?

While the right wing's rants get wall-to-wall airtime, you almost never hear from the sort of progressive members of Congress who were on an America's Future panel on Tuesday. Reps. Jared Polis of Colorado, Donna Edwards of Maryland and Raul Grijalva of Arizona all said warm things about the president -- they are Democrats, after all -- but also took issue with some of his policies.

Please list all the liberal/progressive Reps and leaders you'd like to see on TV and know you never will. I was talking to Howie Klein about this and we came up with a few names we'd like to see much more of on the networks.

Alan Grayson (FL), Jan Schakwsky (IL), Linda Sanchez, who's a CA congresswomen, Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Jerry Nadler are also quite good.

Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeff Merkley (OR) Bernie Sanders (VT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) are very good from the Senate side. The only time you ever see Alan Grayson on TV is when FOX is trying to destroy one of his good positions that help the American workers. Things like paid vacations, you know, stuff like that.

[embed]

[/embed]

Just yesterday Chris Matthews had on Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Illinois, and Chris tried to turn him into Abe Lincoln -- that is, until he started to open his mouth. (And President Obama was not the most liberal member of Congress. That's another lie told repeatedly by conservatives.)

SCHOCK: And, Chris, let‘s look at who the Democrats used to—to come back to the majority. They nominated the most liberal guy in the United States Senate, not Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama. And he‘s ultimately the one that led them to victory.

MATTHEWS: Yes, OK. I guess that was a shot at him, right?

SCHOCK: Well, no, it's just the point that, just because you—you elect someone or nominate someone who is ideologically to the right or the left doesn't mean that they can't carry the day in the general election. A lot of it comes down to personality and ability to carry the message forward. Obviously, George W. Bush did a better job than Al Gore did in the 2000 elections. And, obviously, John...(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Why do you say that? He got fewer votes.

KING: But he won the election. (LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: But he got fewer votes.

SCHOCK: OK.

I've been writing since Obama was elected that the Democratic Party has terrible spokesmen to go on and represent. Maybe one of the reason it appears this way is because we are only allowed to view the same tired old Beltway pols like Chuck Schumer. Will the media treat America to our new young guns? Please let us know who you'd like to hear more of...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1168)

PLAYS: (1219)

Earlier today, Rush Limbaugh said that he wasn't backtracking on calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist like Gingrich did, but now he's saying that he might possibly support her because he likes Catholics and she may like "life" or some nonsense. Now all the rats are running for cover from their racist rants against Sonia.
I imagine some GOP internal polls came out saying that Gingrich and Buchanan and Limbaugh were going too far in their attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a "racist" and they are all pulling back.

Limbaugh:You know she would be the sixth Catholic on the Supreme Court and there are a lot of people worried about that, that does not bother me at all. I know a lot of Catholics and I love Catholics, but Sotomayor is a Catholic and she doesn't have a clear record on abortion and I'm, youuuu....overturning Roe vs Wade, that would be huge. I don't know if it will ever happen. I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I could be convinced if she does have a sensibility towards life.

Hahahaha, what a joke.

William K. Wolfrum: We white men are now an infintesimally oppressed, slightly less powerful majority

Sisyphus Shrugged: Speaking of temperament...

POGO: Taxpayers are victims of continued government charge card abuse

World-O-Crap: The Last Temptation of Limbaugh

Booman Tribune: Cruising with nutjobs...

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Anatomy of a Column, Agnus Douthat...The Cheney Channel, the family that lives on TV...along with "Speaker" Gingrich...Who's killing newspapers...NYT helping BUSHCO again...Independent Media...Help Philly Inquirer find that REAL liberal columnist...Heresy on the Right...Still lovin' their old flame...The dinner that went mad...A really terrible cover...World watches America...WTF is this guy talking about?... The Weekly Standard looks forward ...

Cheney/Gingrich 2012 via the Rachel Maddow Show