First we surfed on over to the Daily Kos. The angry wing of the democratic party never ceases to prove just how angry they are by their constant use of expletives. They're like the Red Sox fanbase before winning the World Series--you know, smug, sarcastic, bitter/jaded, frequent use of four-letter words. The whole bit. We'd provide a link, but this is a family friendly blog, after all.
Looking for less emotion and more reason, we turned our sights to National Review. Lot's of interesting stuff, but two things stood out.
First, Jonah Goldberg on why the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Democratic party isn't just angry, but also loony:
I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here’s how the research firm put it: “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39 percent say he did not know and 26 percent are not sure.”Not that any of this really comes as a surprise. Though it has diminished, we still field emails from our friends who insist that two planes full of jet fuel couldn't have caused the WTC to come crashing down. And before you ask, yes, we've seen the conspiracy docudrama. And Fahrenheit 9/11, and An Inconvenient Truth. What does all of this prove? You know, besides the fact that the loony left has the corner on the "documentary" market?
So, one in three Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can’t quite make up their minds.The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it’s so stupid. It’s like trying to explain to a four-year-old why Superman isn’t real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn’t work that way. Or you can just say, “It’s make-believe.”
Similarly, why try to explain that it’s implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he’s such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.
And, if Bush — whom Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to green-light one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMDs?
What's really entertaining is the constant state of ticked-offedness of the loony left brought on by Fox News. The loony left just cannot stand Fox's "Fair and balanced," Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity (they probably don't like Neil Cavuto either). Consider this for a minute. Now that the shoe, apparently, is on the other foot. For years the Big Three of mainstream media, plus most newspapers, plus the supposedly "non-partisan" NPR have been echoing the liberal establishment line. Now, Fox News appears on the scene, with its appealing populist politics and absolutely obliterates all other news channels. "Jealousy and envy..." how does that 2Pac line go, Morgan?
But Fox News isn't conservative, that's just the way the world is.
Gosh, you have no idea how long we've wanted to repeat that oft-repeated liberal line about the liberal media.
Then there's this, from Jay Nordlinger:
The Democratic presidential candidates refused to participate in a debate sponsored by Fox News. (It was scheduled for Nevada, as you recall.) But the Republican presidential candidates had their first debate on MSNBC — moderated by Chris Matthews. (If a word that contains “moderate” can be used about Chris!) That tells us a lot about our political and media culture. We conservatives and Republicans can’t afford to have a pariah; but the Democrats certainly can — they write off one TV network, they got scads of others.Hey libs, how's Air America doing?
Of course, Democrats would say, “But Fox News is a partisan network, and MSNBC is nonpartisan, neutral, and objective.” Uh-huh.
The above matter reminded me of something: I was talking to a Muslim friend once. I said, “Saudi Arabia outlaws all churches. Yet there’s a mosque on every street corner in America. Saudi Arabia outlaws the Bible. The penalty for possessing it is expulsion from the country — if you’re a foreigner. If you’re a Saudi, the penalty is death by beheading. Yet, in America, Korans are as plentiful as comic books.
“Aren’t Saudis, particularly those in the United States — such as students — ever embarrassed by this imbalance, this disparity? Don’t they ever think, ‘Hmm, how odd: They let us do our thing, but we don’t let them do theirs’?”
And my friend answered, “No: They regard this situation as perfectly normal and proper.” I will never forget the definiteness of his answer.
As I said, I couldn’t help thinking about this, when pondering Fox News, MSNBC, and presidential debates: The Republicans are happy to go on liberal networks, knowing that this is life; the Democrats, as I have stated, can afford to have a pariah. Networks are simply supposed to be liberal, or at least liberal-leaning; everything else is a freakish, hateful blight.
*Update: The distinguished Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman, speaks on Iraq: Time for Choosing.
**Update: Fred Thompson calls out Michael Moore.
***Update: More from the Church of the Holy Environment: an ark. You can't make this stuff up.
****Update: Global warming "consensus" fractures like the Greenland ice shelf.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at email@example.com.