Religious right using Mary Cheney’s name for anti-gay fundraising

Somehow I doubt we’ll see Dick, Lynne, or Mary Cheney making any public statements rebuking the nasty fundraising tactics used by their party’s base:

Religious right using Mary Cheney’s name for anti-gay fundraising

Will Mary Cheney stand up to the religious right (just as she did to John Kerry and John Edwards) and defend her longtime partner Heather Poe? Will Vice President Dick Cheney, the president of the Senate, defend his daughter and tell the religious right to stop trying to make money by taking pot shots at his family? Or will Mary and Dick do what they usually do – sell out their family members for political gain?

The Hypocrisy of Heckling

Glenn Greenwald does a great job pointing out the hypocrisy of the right-wing when it comes to political speech:
Unclaimed Territory – by Glenn Greenwald: What the WSJ and Instapundit really mean by “the Angry Left”

So, to re-cap the rules: (1) When a pro-war politician gives a pro-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle and boo him, that shows how Deranged the Angry Left is — because they heckled a pro-war speech. (2) When an anti-war politician gives an anti-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle, walk out and even riot, that also shows how Angry the Left is — because they “provoked a near riot” by pro-war students.

WWDJ

WWJD?

Bush also was asked to tell a sixteen year old girl how to make America a better place.

Bush: To Jasmine, listen carefully to that universal admonition,” Love a neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself..

His supporters should take his advice. Do you remember what happened to Ava Lowery, a fifteen year old girl that spoke out against the war?

Daily Kos: It seems that a young woman by the name of Ava Lowery, a 15-year-old from Alabama has been getting death threats for a powerful video she produced called “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do), a powerful animation that features a soundtrack of a child singing “Jesus loves me, this I know” while one picture after another of a wounded, bloody, or screaming Iraqi child fills the screen…read on

Here’s the video.

US Privatizing Spying

Majikthise explains that the Bush regime has figured out a way to avoid spying on Americans in some cases. They simply outsource the spying to private companies. Nice loophole.
Majikthise : Outsourcing domestic spying with ChoicePoint

Of course, the FBI isn’t allowed to collect information on individual citizens without due process, but apparently it can just buy it from private companies. The NSA pen-register phone number database tried to exploit a similar loophole–the government can’t put an individual pen register device on your phone without a warrant, but at least according to its toadies, it can get the equivalent data from every customer at your phone company.

Powerline Blog Stupider Than Ever on Privacy Issues

The Powerline Blog Bush apologists don’t have the common sense needed to see the problems with Bush spying on Americans.

One more thing: since Qwest shares its customers’ records with companies with which it has a “business relationship,” but not with the NSA to prevent terrorist attacks, there is no way I’m doing business with Qwest.

Hey Powerdoofuses. Imagine someone in power having a grudge against you. Let’s say they did up your phone calls and notice that you’ve made a few interesting phone calls while on the road for work. Imagine how someone in government could blackmail the crap out of you and basically make your life miserable based on a bad mistake you made at a particularily vulnerable time in your life.

Worse yet, imagine that you’re national political party is run by gay bashing homosexuals. What if someone got ahold of phone records that could be released proving how hypocritical the leadership of your political party really is? Is that what you’d like to see happen?

Seriously, Stanley Renshon?

Apparently, Stanley Renshon thinks it’s more important to avoid controversy than confront the president about his – to repurpose Renshon’s words – “egregiouly harsh, partisan, and tasteless” wars.

Political Psychology: Being Rude to the President and his Wife is no Joke Instead, the Bush material was egregiously harsh, partisan, and tasteless.

How dare someone take stabs at the disaster that is this president’s leadership! How dare someone call the press out for being wimps, and beyond that, too cowardly to laugh at jokes about the president in front on him!

The only thing more pathetic than Stenley Renshon’s analysis of this event is Powerline Blog’s coverage of Renshon’s analysis. How devoted to truthiness can these people be?

Bruce Springsteen on New Orleans

Bruce on our President Bystander’s reaction to New Orleans. Remember, it took a furious mayor’s rants from a city without power to get President George W Bush to come off vacation during this crisis:

Newsvine – Springsteen Expresses New Orleans’ Pain Perhaps the most pointed moment came as he prepared to sing an old song that he had rewritten lyrics to for New Orleans. Noting that he visited the city’s ninth ward, perhaps the most devastated area in the city, Springsteen said: “I saw sights I never thought I’d see in an American city,” and added: “The criminal ineptitude makes you furious.”

With that, he launched into a song titled “How Can A Poor Man Stand Such Times and Live?” and dedicated the song to “President Bystander.” Its lyrics included the lines: “There’s bodies floatin’ on Canal and the levees gone to hell … them who’s got out of town, and them who ain’t got left to drown, tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?

How Many Lives Per Gallon, Mr Hinderaker?

John Hinderaker criticizes a war protestor’s sign reading, “HOW MANY LIVES PER GALLON?” with the following response:

Power Line: Rogues’ Gallery
Can anyone explain what that sign is supposed to mean? It’s an article of faith among these ignoramus lefties that the Iraq war must have something to do with oil. But what, exactly? Have these people failed to notice that we haven’t exactly seized the Iraqi oilfields? And that, whatever the war’s rationale was, it pretty obviously wasn’t bringing down the price of gasoline?

Notice that Hinderaker doesn’t explain what the war’s rationale was? Wouldn’t that make for a stronger argument than the one he made? Of course, as a Bush apologist, it would be risky to try to make a definitive statement about what the rationale for the war was at a time like this since it’s evolved so many times.

Was it WMDs we never found?

Removing a dictator that we used to like?

Dealing with someone who gassed his own citizens before Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand?

Dealing with terrorism in Iraq before we caugh Osama bin Laden. With no ties to the terrorists who acutally attacked us?

Seriously, only a complete idiot or Bush apoligist would be able to believe that the war in Iraq wasn’t tied to oil. Have you looked at who’s running this country? It’s ALL about oil.

John Hinderaker is No Comedy Analyst

But he won’t let that stop him. Heck, he’s reviewed movies he hasn’t seen, so what’s going to stop him from reviewing comedy he didn’t watch, right?

In typical Hinderaker fashion, he relies solely on the opinions of right-wing pundits to decide what he should regurgitate. This shows that he’s too lazy to come up with an opinion of his own, or he doesn’t trust his own judgement enough to go first? Hard to say. Regardless, the one thing you can surely count on is Hinderaker regurgitating talking points without bothering to a tad bit of research before posting:

Power Line: Comedy CriticismThe big news story was that the featured comedian, someone named Steve Colbert, apparently bombed. He did a virulently anti-Bush routine that got few laughs. Hot Air has good footage of both routines; you can judge for yourself who was funnier.

Why is Hinderaker reporting on the reporting when transcripts and video coverage of both performances are readily available online? What a putz. Especially considering that he likely watched the Hot Air coverage of the event before writing his post. Why, after watching at least some of the performances, would he report on the reporting rather than forming an opinion of his own? Lack of confidence in his own analytical skills?

My guess is Hinderaker, being a smart guy, was simply trying to avoid analyzing Colbert’s humor based on brutal honesty, calling the administration out on lying about the war, outing a covert CIA operative, using race baiting tactics to defeat John McCain in the 2000 primary, etc. etc. etc. It’s hard for a Bush apologist like John Hinderaker to laugh at the brutal honesty contained in Colbert’s sharply worded humor.