Monday, August 23, 2004
(Teri's Soapbox, Heard on the air on WLS, 8/23/04)
It's amazing to watch the mainstream media's renewed enthusiasm for investigative journalism, beginning with the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon-style article in the Liberal Death Star aka the New York Times (8/20/04), purporting to demonstrate the many sinister connections between Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SVFT) and President Bush's re-election campaign. A major contributor to SVFT from--where else?--GASP!---Texas!--knows none other than President Bush's evil puppet master Karl Rove! A publicist for SVFT once walked past the White House and actually helped President George H.W. Bush (41) prepare for his Vice Presidential debate. What was that--1988? What collusion! What shadowy underworld connections! Are you horrified yet?
Meanwhile, the Bloated, Bloviating Blowhole of BS, that endless font of lies and distortion, Michael Moore, attends the Democrat convention and shares a skybox with Mr. Malaise, the appeaser of anti-American dictators from Kim IL Sung to Castro to Hugo Chavez, the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter. Is it just me or was it more than a tad ironic that in her statement last week denouncing the SVFT ads, a Kerry campaign flak made reference to one of Michael Moore's many scurrilous lies?
If that's not enough of a connection between the Dems and the Kerry campaign for you, how about Zack Exley? Don't know who he is? He is the former internet director of a little group called Moveon.org, famous for its President-Bush-morphing-into-Hitler ads. I said "former" because now he is the internet director for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Jim Jordan, Kerry's former campaign manager, is now a spokesman for the Media Fund, the biggest democrat 527. There's more, but maybe I should wait for the New York Times article on these connections, complete with flowchart.
Speaking of the 4th Estate--or should I say the 5th column--what do you make of their failure to note the most significant aspect of the many changing versions of the incident that is "SEARED--SEARED" into Sen. Kerry's brain, the "Apocalypse Now"-inspired tale, "Christmas in Cambodia." It's not the obvious fact that this lie says something about the senator's character. What matters about this story is that Sen. Kerry invoked this lie on the Senate floor in 1986 to support his opposition to President Reagan's efforts to keep the Soviets from establishing another repressive satellite in our hemisphere. In other words, John Kerry lied in support of the communist enemies of America. And it wasn't the first time.
It's amazing to watch the mainstream media's renewed enthusiasm for investigative journalism, beginning with the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon-style article in the Liberal Death Star aka the New York Times (8/20/04), purporting to demonstrate the many sinister connections between Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SVFT) and President Bush's re-election campaign. A major contributor to SVFT from--where else?--GASP!---Texas!--knows none other than President Bush's evil puppet master Karl Rove! A publicist for SVFT once walked past the White House and actually helped President George H.W. Bush (41) prepare for his Vice Presidential debate. What was that--1988? What collusion! What shadowy underworld connections! Are you horrified yet?
Meanwhile, the Bloated, Bloviating Blowhole of BS, that endless font of lies and distortion, Michael Moore, attends the Democrat convention and shares a skybox with Mr. Malaise, the appeaser of anti-American dictators from Kim IL Sung to Castro to Hugo Chavez, the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter. Is it just me or was it more than a tad ironic that in her statement last week denouncing the SVFT ads, a Kerry campaign flak made reference to one of Michael Moore's many scurrilous lies?
If that's not enough of a connection between the Dems and the Kerry campaign for you, how about Zack Exley? Don't know who he is? He is the former internet director of a little group called Moveon.org, famous for its President-Bush-morphing-into-Hitler ads. I said "former" because now he is the internet director for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Jim Jordan, Kerry's former campaign manager, is now a spokesman for the Media Fund, the biggest democrat 527. There's more, but maybe I should wait for the New York Times article on these connections, complete with flowchart.
Speaking of the 4th Estate--or should I say the 5th column--what do you make of their failure to note the most significant aspect of the many changing versions of the incident that is "SEARED--SEARED" into Sen. Kerry's brain, the "Apocalypse Now"-inspired tale, "Christmas in Cambodia." It's not the obvious fact that this lie says something about the senator's character. What matters about this story is that Sen. Kerry invoked this lie on the Senate floor in 1986 to support his opposition to President Reagan's efforts to keep the Soviets from establishing another repressive satellite in our hemisphere. In other words, John Kerry lied in support of the communist enemies of America. And it wasn't the first time.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Teri's Soapbox, 8/6/04
(Tony Snow pronounced it a “great commentary”)
After telling the “John Kerry is a Vietnam war hero” story for at least 6 months, now the democrats are outraged over the ad produced and paid for by Swift Boat Vets for Truth, a devastating critique of the official story of the Kerry campaign. They have even resorted to one of the most frequently used gambits in their playbook, threats and intimidation delivered by lawyers. The mouthpieces for the Democrat National Committee and the Kerry campaigned whined in letters to various media outlets that the ads were “false and misleading,” and should not be aired. This from the outfit that embraces Michael Moore and moveon.org? They INVENTED “false and misleading!”
The moral authority of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is unassailable, and it’s difficult to understand the Kerry campaign’s personal attacks on them. If their assertions are false, why the need for the ad hominem arguments? Of course, it’s also difficult to understand how all those war criminals Kerry described back in 1971 who participated in that “illegal and immoral” war are suddenly the heroes that Kerry won’t leave home without, and how that very same shameful war experience is now Kerry’s number one credential as a leader and commander-in-chief.
The Swift Boat Vets for Truth had to purchase an ad to tell their side of the story. Show of hands—how many of you think that if this were a group of veterans who wanted to describe how President Bush was “AWOL,” that group would have to purchase an ad to get any publicity? Would their press conference has been on C-SPAN and only C-SPAN? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.
Further, if the story were embarrassing to President Bush, would the questions be “who’s behind this?” “who paid for this? “who leaked this?” as they are in this case, that of Sandy “the Stocking Stuffer” Berger and the Senate Judiciary Committee memos demonstrating that several democrat senators are toady’s for left-wing interest groups. No, if this story were an anti-Bush one, we would be discussing the merits, not the minutiae.
Some of you may be distressed that the White House has disavowed the ad, but I agree with that decision. I think by buying into the Kerry campaign’s assertion that what happened in Vietnam tells all we need to know about Senator Kerry’s ability to fight the war on terror. He claims to be able to make nice with the French, and even make them contribute troops to Iraq. In other words, he can control the Friench. If he is to be believed, he can’t even control Howard Dean!! The reality is that what we need to know is contained in his 20-year voting record and his embrace of the likes of that bloated, bloviating, treason-spewing, serial-lying pantload Michael Moore, which is why TEN OUT OF TEN TERRORISTS AGREE:ANYBODY BUT BUSH.
(Tony Snow pronounced it a “great commentary”)
After telling the “John Kerry is a Vietnam war hero” story for at least 6 months, now the democrats are outraged over the ad produced and paid for by Swift Boat Vets for Truth, a devastating critique of the official story of the Kerry campaign. They have even resorted to one of the most frequently used gambits in their playbook, threats and intimidation delivered by lawyers. The mouthpieces for the Democrat National Committee and the Kerry campaigned whined in letters to various media outlets that the ads were “false and misleading,” and should not be aired. This from the outfit that embraces Michael Moore and moveon.org? They INVENTED “false and misleading!”
The moral authority of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is unassailable, and it’s difficult to understand the Kerry campaign’s personal attacks on them. If their assertions are false, why the need for the ad hominem arguments? Of course, it’s also difficult to understand how all those war criminals Kerry described back in 1971 who participated in that “illegal and immoral” war are suddenly the heroes that Kerry won’t leave home without, and how that very same shameful war experience is now Kerry’s number one credential as a leader and commander-in-chief.
The Swift Boat Vets for Truth had to purchase an ad to tell their side of the story. Show of hands—how many of you think that if this were a group of veterans who wanted to describe how President Bush was “AWOL,” that group would have to purchase an ad to get any publicity? Would their press conference has been on C-SPAN and only C-SPAN? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.
Further, if the story were embarrassing to President Bush, would the questions be “who’s behind this?” “who paid for this? “who leaked this?” as they are in this case, that of Sandy “the Stocking Stuffer” Berger and the Senate Judiciary Committee memos demonstrating that several democrat senators are toady’s for left-wing interest groups. No, if this story were an anti-Bush one, we would be discussing the merits, not the minutiae.
Some of you may be distressed that the White House has disavowed the ad, but I agree with that decision. I think by buying into the Kerry campaign’s assertion that what happened in Vietnam tells all we need to know about Senator Kerry’s ability to fight the war on terror. He claims to be able to make nice with the French, and even make them contribute troops to Iraq. In other words, he can control the Friench. If he is to be believed, he can’t even control Howard Dean!! The reality is that what we need to know is contained in his 20-year voting record and his embrace of the likes of that bloated, bloviating, treason-spewing, serial-lying pantload Michael Moore, which is why TEN OUT OF TEN TERRORISTS AGREE:ANYBODY BUT BUSH.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Hubris Kills
Well, knock me over with a feather! The inept Illinois GOP has a candidate for U.S. Senate, and it’s not the Ice Cream Man, Jim Oberweis. Some voters, or perhaps I should say, some potential voters, have expressed unhappiness with that fact, the sort of “unhappiness” that British soccer fans express when their teams lose. I don’t share those sentiments, as those of you who have heard me talk about my disagreement with Mr. Oberweis over what I considered his demagoguery of the very serious issue of illegal immigration know. I think what ticked Mr. Oberweis off most was when I suggested that anytime a Republican appears on the front page of the New York Times (above the fold, no less!), that fact should prompt some serious self-examination and soul searching. I further suggested that in Mr. O’s case, the reason could be found not in his ready smile, his business experience or his thoughtful examination of the issues. No, the reason the editors of the Liberal Death Star suddenly found Mr. Oberweis so interesting can be found in the phrase “conservative critic of President Bush.” As Obama adviser David Axelrod has said “You could walk over to State and Madison, light yourself on fire and get attention.” So it is with criticizing the president and getting in the New York Times.
People supporting Mr. Oberweis tend to say two things: (1) “I agree with him about illegal immigration” and (2) “I give him credit for raising the issue.” To the first one I say who DOESN’T agree with him?! I find it tough to share the righteous indignation of those who pound the table and declare their undying commitment to obviously uncontroversial propositions. “No matter what anyone says, and even if I am the only person to say so, I will go to my grave refusing to say that it’s o.k. to break the law!” Well, duh. As for Mr. Oberweis getting credit for raising the issue, that’s like giving the carping democrats credit for raising the war on terror. The president raised the issue. Mr.Oberweis reacted. Like the war on terrorism, the serious issue of illegal immigration---and it is as serious as a heart attack—was on that George W. Bush inherited and has courageously tried to address. I say that whether you are a mullah or a politically-ambitious dairy dude, hubris kills.
Well, knock me over with a feather! The inept Illinois GOP has a candidate for U.S. Senate, and it’s not the Ice Cream Man, Jim Oberweis. Some voters, or perhaps I should say, some potential voters, have expressed unhappiness with that fact, the sort of “unhappiness” that British soccer fans express when their teams lose. I don’t share those sentiments, as those of you who have heard me talk about my disagreement with Mr. Oberweis over what I considered his demagoguery of the very serious issue of illegal immigration know. I think what ticked Mr. Oberweis off most was when I suggested that anytime a Republican appears on the front page of the New York Times (above the fold, no less!), that fact should prompt some serious self-examination and soul searching. I further suggested that in Mr. O’s case, the reason could be found not in his ready smile, his business experience or his thoughtful examination of the issues. No, the reason the editors of the Liberal Death Star suddenly found Mr. Oberweis so interesting can be found in the phrase “conservative critic of President Bush.” As Obama adviser David Axelrod has said “You could walk over to State and Madison, light yourself on fire and get attention.” So it is with criticizing the president and getting in the New York Times.
People supporting Mr. Oberweis tend to say two things: (1) “I agree with him about illegal immigration” and (2) “I give him credit for raising the issue.” To the first one I say who DOESN’T agree with him?! I find it tough to share the righteous indignation of those who pound the table and declare their undying commitment to obviously uncontroversial propositions. “No matter what anyone says, and even if I am the only person to say so, I will go to my grave refusing to say that it’s o.k. to break the law!” Well, duh. As for Mr. Oberweis getting credit for raising the issue, that’s like giving the carping democrats credit for raising the war on terror. The president raised the issue. Mr.Oberweis reacted. Like the war on terrorism, the serious issue of illegal immigration---and it is as serious as a heart attack—was on that George W. Bush inherited and has courageously tried to address. I say that whether you are a mullah or a politically-ambitious dairy dude, hubris kills.