|
|
Saturday, January 24th, 2009
| |
3:43 pm - Inauguration of two Presidents
|

mrsfruitcat
|
Headlines On January 20, 2005: "Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees" "Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times" "Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft" Headlines Today: "Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million" "Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party" "Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate" "Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
Nothing like fair & unbiased coverage of the news !!! Alas -- guess it is only the inflation that is too blame.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, October 17th, 2008
| |
3:39 am - 84% Say They'd Never Lie to a Pollster
|

garylee8604
|
October 15, 2008  With an African-American running for president this year, there has been a lot of chatter about the "Bradley effect," allowing the media to wail about institutional racism in America. Named after Tom Bradley, who lost his election for California governor in 1982 despite a substantial lead in the polls, the Bradley effect says that black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual election results. First of all, if true, this is the opposite of racism: It is fear of being accused of racism. For most Americans, there is nothing more terrifying than the prospect of being called a racist. It's scarier than flood or famine, terrorist attacks or flesh-eating bacteria. To some, it's even scarier than "food insecurity." Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather than be forced to explain why they're not voting for the African-American. This is how two typical voters might answer a pollster's question: "Whom do you support for president?" Average Obama voter: "Obama." (Name of average Obama voter: "Mickey Mouse.") Average McCain voter: "I'm voting for McCain, but I swear it's just about the issues. It's not because Obama's black. If Barack Obama were a little more moderate -- hey, I'd vote for Colin Powell. But my convictions force me to vote for the candidate who just happens to be white. Say, do you know where I can get Patti LaBelle tickets?" In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you're not a racist, apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you're not a Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to sound cool. Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points. In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August. Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose. In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent. In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points. In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.) A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points. Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans. In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent. So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points. In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent. In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent. In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, August 22nd, 2008
| |
6:04 am - Coulter Column (8/20)
|

garylee8604
|
August 20, 2008 This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline. The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate. Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren. After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider. Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
6:03 am - Coulter Column (8/13)
|

garylee8604
|
August 13, 2008
The good news: DNA testing has confirmed that John Edwards is not the father of Rielle Hunter's baby. The bad news: The father is Bill Clinton. Ha ha -- just kidding! It's almost impossible to get pregnant by having the type of sex Bill Clinton prefers. Also, by now, everyone has heard the news that Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test. I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC's Bob Woodruff: "I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one ... happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen." As Edwards knows, our paternity laws were written by Gloria Steinem, so if the mother doesn't want a paternity test, it can't happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, "I'm only one side of the test." With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards could boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress's decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman's right to her privacy! Because if there's one person who's gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it's John Edwards. Edwards is closely following the Kennedy model of responding to charges of misconduct. First, admit only as much as can be currently proved. Second, get the other party to block any further investigation. I guess he really is "Kennedy-esque"!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, May 13th, 2008
| |
9:01 pm - Gag on 2nd Amendment is City's Aim in Guns Suit
|

mrsfruitcat
|
What the f***?! You can’t just "forget" about an amendment! Gee, why am I not surprised...the second amendment is the one amendment that liberals and anti-gun people would like to see gone. Where the hell is the ACLU when you need them? Oh wait...they only support every other right, but the right to own a gun is always brushed aside, with people saying that it’s "old-fashioned" and "there’s no reason that people should have gun nowadays." I actually heard someone say that to me.
The next time that liberals have a protest or say something stupid (which is all the time) and go on trial, the jury should be told to forget the first amendment.
Ugh! This frusturates me so much! ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gag on 2nd Amendment Is City’s Aim in Guns Suit
Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity.
The rest: http://www.nysun.com/news/new-york/gag-2nd-amendment-city-s-aim-guns-suit
Barr Reacts To Bloomberg Gun Lawsuit Ruling
Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, along with Jasper, GA lawyer Ed Marger who represent Smyrna, GA firearms retailer Adventure Outdoors, today issued the following statement in reaction to yesterday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, in the lawsuit pending against Adventure Outdoors by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
“The ruling by the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, NY finding that the court in that city has jurisdiction over Adventure Outdoors, was not at all unexpected. In fact, Adventure Outdoors has contemplated all along that the court would decide to maintain jurisdiction over the lawsuit brought by New York City.
Adventure Outdoors intends to continue to aggressively defend itself against what it considers an outrageous effort by Mayor Bloomberg to dictate how a lawful business in Smyrna, GA should carry out the business of providing a constitutionally-guaranteed product to the citizens of Georgia. While Mayor Bloomberg obviously believes the citizens of New York City should be denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, he has no business telling the citizens of Georgia they should be denied those rights as well.
The rest: http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=875
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, May 8th, 2008
| |
4:39 pm - Code Pink Protestors Try Witchcraft at Anti-Marine Rallies
|

mrsfruitcat
|
This is beyond stupid...casting spells while protesting? What will they do next?
Code Pink Protesters Try Witchcraft at Anti-Marine Rallies
Code Pink is now resorting to witchcraft to beef up the number of its supporters protesting Berkeley's controversial Marine Corps Recruiting Center.
The women's anti-war group has told ralliers to come equipped with spells and pointy hats Friday for "Witches, clowns and sirens day," the last of the group's weeklong homage to Mother's Day.
"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.
Read the rest here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354400,00.html
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, February 27th, 2008
| |
4:55 am - How To Keep Reagan Out of Office
|

garylee8604
|
Inasmuch as the current presidential election has come down to a choice among hemlock, self-immolation or the traditional gun in the mouth, now is the time for patriotic Americans to review what went wrong and to start planning for 2012.
How did we end up with the mainstream media picking the Republican candidate for president?
It isn't the early primaries, it isn't that we allow Democrats to vote in many of our primaries, and it isn't that the voters are stupid. All of that was true or partially true in 1980 -- and we still got Ronald Reagan.
We didn't get Ronald Reagan this year not just because there's never going to be another Reagan. We will never again get another Reagan because Reagan wouldn't run for office under the current campaign-finance regime.
Three months ago, I was sitting with a half-dozen smart, successful conservatives whose names you know, all griping about this year's cast of presidential candidates. I asked them, one by one: Why don't you run for office?
Of course, none of them would. They are happy, well-adjusted individuals.
Reagan, too, had a happy life and, having had no trouble getting girls in high school, had no burning desire for power. So when the great California businessman Holmes Tuttle and two other principled conservatives approached Reagan about running for office, Reagan said no.
But Tuttle kept after Reagan, asking him not to reject the idea out of hand. He formed "Friends of Reagan" to raise money in case Reagan changed his mind.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, February 13th, 2008
| |
9:39 pm - First post!
|

operaticingenue
|
Hi everyone. I'm Rachel, an ultra-conservative junior in a CALIFORNIAN high school (yes, I know. I feel sorry for me too), and this is my first post here. (God, I have a huge rant about how the public schools are basically indoctrinating all the students and basically brainwashing them into thinking that liberals=good and conservatives=the most unedumakated red necks in the whole freakin' country... but I'll save that for another post.)
I was just watching this video:
I honestly don’t understand why people say Ann Coulter is an “Anti-Semitic”. She’s not advocating the wiping out of millions of Jews, she simply spoke on behalf of her religion. I must agree that it was a pretty radical and extreme statement but–come on! Ann = Hitler? Don’t they think they’re taking it a bit too far? I also understand that "Anti-Semitic" doesn't always mean "KILL ALL THEM JEWS" but, that's how the public is going to interpret this man's comment.
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, February 1st, 2008
| |
5:42 pm - Coulter: Hillary over McCain
|
|
| Thursday, January 31st, 2008
| |
12:36 am - New Column
|

garylee8604
|
by Ann Coulter January 30, 2008
The Democrats are trying to give away an election they should win in a walk by nominating someone with real problems -- like, for example, a first-term senator with a 100 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and whose middle name is "Hussein."
But we won't let them.
The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.
Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats.
Recently, McCain responded to Mitt Romney's statement that he understood the economy based on his many years in the private sector by claiming Romney had said a military career is not a "real job."
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, January 9th, 2008
| |
12:02 am - The mother of all polls
|
|
| Monday, December 24th, 2007
| |
2:24 pm - Baby Killers!
|

mrsfruitcat
|
Yeah...here's another story of those evil American baby-killers over in Iraq. How dare this man bring a disabled Iraqi boy here for fantastic medical care and then adopt him?! Ugh - those terrible American troops. They make me sick. (/end sarcasm)
GI Saves Iraqi Boy in Long-Shot Adoption
Capt. Scott Southworth knew he'd face violence, political strife and blistering heat when he was deployed to one of Baghdad's most dangerous areas. But he didn't expect Ala'a Eddeen.
Ala'a was 9 years old, strong of will but weak of body - he suffered from cerebral palsy and weighed just 55 pounds. He lived among about 20 kids with physical or mental disabilities at the Mother Teresa orphanage, under the care of nuns who preserved this small oasis in a dangerous place.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071223/D8TNAC4G0.html
x-posted
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, December 18th, 2007
| |
6:43 pm - Why Mommy & Daddy are close-minded morons...er...Democrats...
|
|
| Thursday, October 25th, 2007
| |
11:42 pm
|

ruthlilycat
|
From the NY Post... ANN COULTER'S IMPERFECT MOMENT October 25, 2007 -- ANN Coulter - who might be more despised than Dick Cheney in some neighborhoods - riled up some enemies even more with her recent remarks on "The Big Idea With Donny Deutsch" over how Jews could "perfect" themselves by becoming Christians. While the leggy blonde was dining with Andrew Stein at Centolire on Madison Avenue the other night, a wild-eyed man came up to their table and shouted at Coulter for her right-wing views and at Stein for dating her. Stein told the heckler, "Listen pal, get lost and learn some manners!" The lifelong Democrat, who was City Council president before he quit politics, told Page Six, "On the issue of her supposedly anti-Semitic remarks, I'm a Jew, and Joe Lieberman is her favorite Democrat. While I disagree with her on a lot of issues, she is a strong supporter of Israel and doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in her body."
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, October 5th, 2007
| |
5:03 pm - Mean ol ANN! This time she's gone TOO FAR! T_T
|
|
| Monday, September 10th, 2007
| |
1:28 pm
|

ruthlilycat
|
RJC Action Alert! | Unite For Victory! September 10, 2007 Dear Friends, As we speak, Gen. David Petraeus is addressing the U.S. Congress with a long-anticipated report about the progress of our mission in Iraq. The news is encouraging: the surge is working, the Iraqis are beginning to take back their country and our troops are defeating al-Qaeda! Unfortunately, the pro-defeat groups - MoveOn.org and their allies in Congress - have decided that any good news regarding Iraq is bad news for them politically. MoveOn.org is viciously attacking the character and integrity of Gen. Petraeus with a full-page advertisement in today's New York Times calling him "General Betray Us!" Let's be clear: the anti-war crowd is calling our top commander in Iraq a traitor! Who do you trust to fight the war in Iraq: Gen. Petraeus or Congress? I think the answer is clear, but we need YOU to act today! Please, call 1-877-222-8001 today. An operator will connect you to your Member of Congress. Tell them what the anti-war crowd is saying about our brave American commander and our soldiers! Tell them victory is America's only option in Iraq. Read more about veterans' response to Moveon.org's attack on Gen. Petraeus at the Weekly Standard. Without your voice, our message will go unheard, so please call today! Sincerely, Matthew Brooks | Republican Jewish Coalition 50 F Street, NW Washington, District of Columbia 20001 202-638-6688
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, August 13th, 2007
| |
11:15 pm - When Frank sez "Nuke the Moon," he means it.
|

spookshow1313
|
Ganked from over at IMAO (which I have as an RSS feed):
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/imao/NTM/~3/143795932/008419.html In a terribly off-topic comment to a John Edwards post, anonymous commenter with no contact information Yak asks:
Exactly why is the U.S. deployed in Iraq, according to you?
Fine.
Let's stop mincing words.
We're in Iraq because Muslims have stated over and over and over that their only goal is to kill all non-Muslims.
After 9/11, we started taking them at their word, and since we didn't want to be killed, our only choice was to start killing Muslims before they killed us.
Iraq had Muslims in it, so it was as good a place to start as any. In fact, better than most, because it was in the heart of Muslim country, and having troops there gives us a credible force-projection threat throughout the entire putrid, corrupt, murderous Muslim region. It's easier to kill Muslims in other countries from Iraq than it is from Kuwait.
And now Muslims have two choices:
They can reform their vicious, degenerate religion so that it allows for peaceful co-existence with other religions and - after embracing this enlightened, live-and-let-live philosophy whole-heartedly - they can become productive members of the civilized world, much like post-WWII Germany and Japan.
OR
They can be exterminated like vermin.
All the rest of this crap about WMD's, and mass graves, and liberation, and oil fields, and insurgents is just so much political window-dressing. America is fighting for its life against an insidious, deadly ideology. The people who cling to that sick, 7th-century belief system must either change their minds or be killed.
I wish with all my heart that we had enough manpower to conquer every damn last Muslim nation on earth and root this virus out once and for all, but we don't. So we'll start in Iraq, dragging these barbarians kicking and screaming into the 21st century. After that, hopefully the rest of the Muslim world will get the point. If not, there will be further examples, nation by nation, until they do.
Then, when the Muslim world is either civilized or dead, the war will be over.
I hope that answers your question.
I think you have to be incredibly brave to voice that non-PC view when CAIR is running rampant and the John Doe amendment just went down in flames.
Not that I necessarily agree with that summary wholeheartedly, but I admire the ability to put it in such succinct terms that a LOGICAL person would find it hard to argue with.
Powered by ScribeFire.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, June 28th, 2007
| |
11:38 pm
|

ruthlilycat
|
pre-order GODLESS: THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM (Paperback) | QUOTATIONS FROM CHAIRMAN ANN | | June 28, 2007, 10:56 PM | The Fantastic Column That Elizabeth Edwards Considers Indecent -
The Party of Ideas
Though She Just Adores References to "the Lord" filling Mary with "his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"
| | June 28, 2007, 6:59 PM | | COULTER ON O'REILLY TONIGHT! - | | June 25, 2007, 10:01 AM | | GODLESS IN PAPERBACK! OUT THIS WEEK - ALL NEW AFTERWARD! | | Item Archives | 
| 
| | June 28, 2007 The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me. I doubled the ratings of the lowest-rated cable news show on Tuesday by agreeing to go on for a full hour to promote my new paperback version of "Godless" — a mistake I won't make again. As I was walking to the set, minutes before airtime, it was casually mentioned to me that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, might call in. For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me for being mean to her husband. (This delicate flower is very sensitive to rough words, having hired the Edwards' campaign staffer who wrote this: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"?) Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits? I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue, but it mostly consisted of utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my "Good Morning America" interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can't rush Edwards' "rapid response team"!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks on the Edwards' dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband. These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media knows they are lies. Yet they were repeated ad nauseam on Wednesday by The Associated Press, the AOL pop-up window, CNN, NBC and — stunningly — the host of the lowest-rated cable show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth. So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly. Here is my full sentence on "Good Morning America," which the media deceptively truncated, referring to a joke I told about Edwards six months ago that made liberals cry: "But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack — so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance on "Good Morning America" immediately after I appeared Monday morning. But it didn't occur to any of them to simply lie about what I had said. No, it took them nearly 36 hours to concoct a version of that quote that included the Edwards part, but not the Maher part, or what English language speakers call: "the point." By tomorrow it will be: "Ann Coulter tried to kill John Edwards on 'Good Morning America'!" Judging by his fundraising efforts so far, I gather most of you don't know who John Edwards is — unless you're an overpriced hair dresser. He's the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped fetus in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors. According to The New York Times, Edwards told one jury: "She speaks to you through me ... And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." Let me also quote from campaign consultant Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses": "(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else — that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again." Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with "I've never told anyone this before," everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him. As a commentator, I bring facts like these to the attention of the American people in a lively way. Thus, for example, in a column about the Democratic candidates for president written in 2003, I pointed out that the Democrats refused to discuss the economy or the war, but had recently "discovered a surprise campaign issue: It turns out that several of them have had a death in the family." (The full column is available at www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter11 2003.asp, www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2428&k eywords=the+party+of+ideas and www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2 003/11/20/the_party_of_ideas.) Among several examples of Democrats talking about a death in the family on the campaign trail was this one: John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.
Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."
If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. Manifestly, I was not making fun of their son's death; I was making fun of John Edwards' incredibly creepy habit of invoking his son's tragic death to advance his political career — a practice so repellant, it even made John Kerry queasy. I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, June 27th, 2007
| |
7:04 pm - Edwards Raising More Money on Coulter!
|

garylee8604
|
Coulter Exchange Lends Itself to New Fundraising Drive By Elizabeth EdwardsWednesday, June 27, 2007
RALEIGH, N.C. — Elizabeth Edwards launched a new fundraising effort Wednesday, one day after pleading with conservative commentator Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks" on Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. "John's campaign is about the issues — but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise. Help us fight back — please give what you can today," Elizabeth Edwards wrote in an e-mail letter that also appears on the campaign's Web site. Edwards and Coulter got into it on Tuesday evening when Coulter was appearing as a guest on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews." Edwards called into the show to scold Coulter for the best-selling author's saying that she wished John Edwards had been killed by terrorists, a take on a comment by comedian Bill Maher about Vice President Cheney. "The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it," Edwards said in the phone call exchange. ( Read more... )
current mood: frustrated
|
|
(6 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, May 3rd, 2007
| |
7:28 pm - No Wonder They're Afraid of Brit Hume
|

garylee8604
|
by Ann Coulter May 2, 2007 I just woke up from watching the Democrats' debate last Thursday, and I am rested and ready to report! Someone needs to tell the Democrats to stop talking about their families. I know they're trying to demonstrate their "family values," but using actual, live human beings to illustrate the freakish ideas of the Democratic base just makes normal people uncomfortable. When Chris Dodd was asked about gay marriage, he said he always thinks of his little daughters — aged 2 and 5 — and imagines them turning out to be lesbians, saying he would want them treated equally. To prove his bona fides to the environmentalist nuts, Obama said: "We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha." So we finally have an answer to the question: What do Democrats teach their daughters? Is it: (a) integrity (b) character (c) the importance of always telling the truth No! The answer is: (d) They teach their daughters to use low-energy lightbulbs. This is so important that it apparently bears mentioning during a debate under high-intensity TV studio lights. (How many kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb? In the Barack household, evidently, it takes two.) "Best in Show" for cringe-inducing mentions of family members went to John Edwards. In the single most appalling moment of the debate, John Edwards reminisced about the time his father, who was sitting in the audience, totally humiliated him as a child. "I can remember vividly my dad after church once Sunday, when I was about 10 years old, taking us — it's our whole family — into a restaurant. I was dressed up. I was very proud to be there, and we sat, got our menus, looked at the menus, and the waitress came over and my father said, 'I'm sorry. We have to leave.' I didn't understand. 'Why? Why do we have to leave?' And I was embarrassed. I found out when we got outside the reason we had to leave is he couldn't pay the prices that were on the menu." Thanks for the memories, Pop! The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume. In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys — let's grow a pair." Obama was asked to name "America's three most important allies around the world" — a question rejected as "too easy" on Fox's new game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Any politically savvy 11-year-old could have named Britain, Australia and Israel. B. Hussein Obama answered: "the European Union." Which is (a) not a country, and (b) not an ally. What was his next guess? Epcot Center? In addition to not being a country, the "European Union" happens to be composed of people who hate our guts. It is the continent where Moveon.org-style lunatics are the friendly, pro-American types and the rest are crazy Muslims. Obama did eventually mention Japan as an ally — along with China and Afghanistan — which would have been a better answer to the question: "Who are America's four or five most important allies?" But at least he named a country that could conceivably be called "an ally." Of course, it took Obama less time to remember an American ally than it took John Edwards to remember Jesus. Edwards was asked who his "moral leader" was — and he was stuck for an answer. I had time to shout "Jesus" at the TV 20 times, exhaust myself, and have a sandwich before Edwards finally coughed up "mah lowrd." Even then it appeared that Edwards was not actually naming the Savior but exclaiming, "Mah lowrd, that's a tough question!" Edwards then put "mah lowrd" (assuming that was his answer) on a par with other moral leaders such as his father — who had embarrassed him so as a child — and his wife. (When he mentioned his spouse as a "moral leader," Hillary visibly tensed for fear that she might be asked the same question.) In fairness to Edwards, asking a trial lawyer to name his favorite moral leader is like asking the president of Iran to name his favorite Jew. (Answer: George Soros.) If you're keeping score, that's two major religions the Democrats lack a working knowledge of — Christianity and Islam. COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
current mood: giddy current music: Fox News
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|