Ted Kennedy's Hospitalization Prompts Laughter In Right-Wing Blogosphere

"At least he got a stroke in, which is more than the girl he drowned could manage. He should be rotting in jail, not making law. Disgusting."
----Geoff, a commenter at RightWingNews.com

For normal, sane Americans, the news that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was hospitalized on Saturday after suffering a seizure was a cause for prayers and concern.

But if you browsed many of the right-wing blogs on Saturday, you'd find that they were full of jokes, insults and sarcastic remarks about Kennedy's hospitalization. (This, despite the fact that many of the big right-wing blogs had warnings against posting offensive comments about Kennedy).

Despite such warnings, the comments on right-wing blogs were full of vile posts that featured sick humor.

For example, an anonymous poster at the right-wing blog Gateway Pundit wrote, "One Liberal down! Looks like he (TED) may have to answer for his drunk driving accident in the 60's. Maybe the SUBJECTS of MA will get there (sic) SECOND Ammendment (sic) rights BACK."

The sentiments were similar, over at RightWingNews.com. There, "guest blogger" Kathy Shaidle (of the blog "Five Feet of Fury") expressed annoyance over the media's "eulogies" for Kennedy. In a post under the headline, "Oh pu-leeeeeeze," she wrote, "In the midst of this embarrassing, wrongheaded preemptive media eulogizing of Edward Kennedy, at least spare a thought for the woman he killed."

Meanwhile, Geoff, a commenter on RightWingNews.com wrote, "At least he got a stroke in, which is more than the girl he drowned could manage. He should be rotting in jail, not making law. Disgusting."

Another RightWingNews.com commenter named Lord Locksley chimed in with the remark, "They don't call him 'Nazi Joe's last big mistake' for nothing."

The hatefest continued over at the right-wing Sister Toldjah blog. There, commenter Severian wrote a hate-filled post that seemed to take issue with another poster's remark that he didn't "wish a fellow human being any ill."

Severian responded:
"Just a philosophical question here, at what point is it justifiable to wish a fellow human being ill? What you say is a nice platitude, but it also reeks of more than a touch of holier than though attitude. Would it have been OK to wish Hitler ill? Yes, no? How about Ted Bundy? Saddam Hussein? Osama Bin Laden? How many reprehensible traits and acts does one have to commit before it is OK to wish them ill? Ted Kennedy, while said to be a charmer and nice guy in person, has been personally responsible for creating some of the most toxic political environments on Capitol Hill, lynching Bork among others, and is responsible for much of the ill will and problems we see coming out of the liberal Dem side of the aisle. While perhaps not rising to the level of actively wishing him ill or trying to harm him, I’ll be honest enough to admit that when his day comes, as Mark Twain said, his will be an obituary I’ll read with approval."

Actually, none of the above hate-mongering should be surprising in the least, as anyone who has ever listened to the filth spewed out daily by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the Right-Wing Noise Machine.

Nor should we be surprised by the glee the right-wing expresses when Democrats have misfortunes. We've seen this happen again and again.

Recall the hostage crisis episode in November, when a distraught man wearing what appeared to be a bomb walked into the campaign office of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Then, as now, the right-wing blogosphere was full of laughter and sick jokes about the incident.

I have to admit, I never really understood the right-wing sense of humor.

Like when Ronald Reagan joked in 1964 about the 17 million people who then went to bed hungry every night in America, saying that "they were all on a diet."

Or when Rush Limbaugh called 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton a "dog."

Or when George W. Bush yucked it up over the issue of the non-existent WMDs in Iraq during a "comedy" skit in the Oval Office.

There's more: "Ted Kennedy's Hospitalization Prompts Laughter In Right-Wing Blogosphere" >>

"What Would Reagan Do?" Campaign Continues GOP's Creepy Deification Of The Gipper

By Marc McDonald
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com

Remember the "What would Jesus do?" campaign that was popular back in the 1990s? It was a slogan used by many Christians as a reminder to follow Jesus in their daily lives.

These days, Republicans have borrowed the phrase as part of their creepy, ongoing deification of their hero, Ronald Reagan.

Recently, right-wing hacks Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have been touting the Heritage Foundation's "What would Reagan do?" campaign.

The "What would Reagan do?" slogan (often abbreviated as "WWRD") recently took off like wildfire across the right-wing Web. Wingnut bloggers pontificate on the subject and online merchants peddle WWRD T-shirts and other products.

The Republicans can't seem to get enough of Reagan these days. If you listen to a GOP presidential debate, the participants endlessly sing Reagan's praises and proclaim themselves to be the most worthy candidate to carry the Gipper's legacy.

Personally, I find all this Reagan worship rather creepy and disturbing. But what disturbs me the most is that none of it is based on reality. Indeed, the GOP's view of Reagan is based on myth and fantasy.

Take for example, a recent article by Heritage Foundation official Rebecca Hagelin.

Hagelin writes:
"Because Reagan did more than simply take strong, effective positions -- he took positions based on the U.S. Constitution -- principles which never change. Principles as relevant to today’s issues as they were when penned by our nation’s founders. He proved that timeless values are just that ... timeless."

Wow, that's quite heady praise for a flip-flopping, opportunistic politician who started out his career as a Democrat. Take a closer look, though, and you'll see that Hagelin's praise is the sort of cult-like, Kool-Aid-drinking devotion that is totally disconnected from reality.

First of all, there's this Heritage Foundation fantasy that Reagan "took positions based on the U.S. Constitution."

The reality is that Reagan (like George W. Bush) subverted the Constitution and used it like a piece of toilet paper.

Take the Iran-Contra affair, in which the White House ignored the Constitution and secretly sold weapons to terrorists in Iran and then illegally used the money to fund the Contras, the thugs who were trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicaragua.

Although Reagan praised the Contras as "Freedom Fighters," they were in fact nothing more than terrorists who routinely slaughtered civilian men, women and children.

After the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa exposed the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan lied through his teeth and denied the whole story. (So much for the GOP's portrayal of Reagan as a man of honesty and integrity).

Of course, we'll never know the full story of Iran-Contra. The White House team shredded thousands of papers that documented the affair. But what we do know is that Reagan had utter contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.

In a 1987 special, journalist Bill Moyers documented the whole sordid affair, in "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis," which you can view here. Watching it, I felt ashamed to be an American.

If the wingnuts insist on worshipping their hero Reagan, that's their business. But to try to portray Reagan as a paragon of honesty and integrity (and as a president who respected the Constitution) is a nauseating lie.

There's more: ""What Would Reagan Do?" Campaign Continues GOP's Creepy Deification Of The Gipper" >>

How does Trent like being in the minority?

Apparently, not a Lott...

Minority Whip Trent Lott, (WATB-MS) is resigning, just a year after cruising to reelection in the 2006 mid-term election. His resignation is the greatest blow to a GOP that is hemorrhaging incumbents and experienced leadership, creating an atmosphere that the Republicans will remain in the minority in both the House and Senate for the foreseeable future.

Faced with the possibility that the voters, sick of the obstruction of the GOP, will send a fillibuster-proof Democratic majority to the Senate, Lott is packing it in. In that scenario, obstructionism would not work for the petulant party of perpetual war, borrow-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility, and fascistic domestic policies.

While many of the quitters on the GOP side of the aisle have held key committee and subcommittee posts, Lott is the first member of the leadership in either chamber to pack it in.

There's more: "How does Trent like being in the minority?" >>

The Creepy Similarities Between George W. Bush and Vlad the Impaler

They were both bloodthirsty. They were both out-of-control, power-mad leaders. As youngsters, they both enjoyed torturing small animals. Both spent their ruling years engaged in horrific wars against Islamic nations. And despite their cruel and savage ways, both have fanatical supporters who defend their actions to this day.

Who am I talking about?

George W. Bush and Vlad The Impaler.

Vlad, who is believed to have served as the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula novel was, in real life, a 15th century prince of the East European state of Wallachia (now part of Romania).

Like Bush, Vlad was born into a background of wealth, power and privilege. Like Bush's dad, Vlad's father, Vlad II Dracul, was a head of state, as well. Both father and son spent their reigns engaged in bloody wars against Muslim nations (the Ottoman Empire, in the case of Vlad).

Even as youngsters, George W. Bush and Vlad The Impaler had creepy similarities in their lives. Both shared an enthusiasm for torturing small animals.

The 1990 book, Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times points out the Vlad once did a short bid in jail and spent his time there amusing himself by torturing and mutilating small animals:

"...he could not cure himself of the evil habit of catching mice and having birds bought at the marketplace, so that he could punish them by impalement."

As The New York Times reported, in a May 21, 2000 article, George W. Bush also enjoyed torturing small animals as a youngster. "We were terrible to animals," Bush childhood friend Terry Throckmorton was quoted as saying. Throckmorton described how Bush and his friends treated frogs they found on the Bush family estate.

"Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them," Throckmorton said. "Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up."

The life stories of George W. Bush and Vlad The Impaler share other similarities. Taking a look at their time in power, one can't help but notice the eerie similarities in both rulers' bloody, savage wars against Muslim nations.

The atrocities that occurred in Vlad The Impaler's military campaigns against the Muslim nations are well documented. Reading about these atrocities, one can't help but be reminded of the various horrors of Bush's war in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse case, as well as the use of flesh-melting white phosphorous chemical weapons against the population of Fallujah.

Both Bush and Vlad, of course, were advocates of torture during their time in power. Bush enthusiastically embraced waterboarding. And Vlad, of course, was a big fan of the torture technique that gave him his nickname ("The Impaler").

Another similarity is that Bush and Vlad were both famous as tough, law-and-order rulers (as long as those accused of breaking the law weren't billionaire buddies and cronies). In Vlad's time, the peasants were so frightened of breaking the law, that it is said that one could leave a bag of gold on the street and return to find it untouched the next day.

Of course, "law and order" has long been one of Bush's favorite campaign themes, dating back to his time as Texas governor. In Bush's five years as governor, Texas executed 152 prisoners, by far the highest total for any state and more than any other governor in modern American history.

One final notable similarity between George W. Bush and Vlad The Impaler is how both men have fanatical followers who continue to passionately defend their legacies to this day.

While Vlad is recognized in the West as a bloodthirsty monster and tyrant, many people in Romania regard Vlad as a national hero to this day. As Dracula, Prince of Many Faces points out, oral Romanian folklore made Dracula "a national hero, a kind of George Washington of Romanian history."

Compare that to today's worship of Bush by the nutcase right-wing fringe. From Fox News to hatewing radio to the right-wing blogosphere, Bush has a fanatical following that throws a temper tantrum any time someone dares to criticize their beloved hero.

By Marc McDonald of the progressive blog, BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com

There's more: "The Creepy Similarities Between George W. Bush and Vlad the Impaler" >>

What Else?

Other than incompetence, bloodlust and fear, what does the Republican party stand for at this point?

There's more: "What Else?" >>

Tommy Thompson Drops Out of Presidential Race

CNN and Local TV are reporting that Tommy Thompson is dropping out of the race for the Republican nomination. It was predicted here first.

From the CNN site:

Thompson, who also served in the Bush Cabinet, did not meet the expectations he
set for himself in the Ames Republican straw poll held Saturday.

"I want to thank the people of Iowa who were welcoming and supportive as well as my volunteers and contributors from around the country," Thompson said in a written statement.

Thompson, former secretary of Health and Human Services, had hoped to place second in the poll. Instead, he finished sixth.

Speaking to reporters Sunday, he smiled and said he simply needed to accept that he "lost."

"There's no sense in looking back," he said.

In his statement, Thompson said he had "no regrets about running."

"I felt my record as governor of Wisconsin and Secretary of Health and Human Services gave me the experience I needed to serve as president," he said.

"But I respect the decision of the voters. I am leaving the campaign trail today, but I will not leave the challenges of improving health care and welfare in America."

Thompson had raised just over $890,000 dollars for his campaign as of June 30, according to the Federal Election Commission. That total was ninth among GOP candidates.

Update: I published before I added my thoughts about Romney's win. I've participated with others in calling his win a hollow victory. But I'm reconsidering. His win didn't occur on Saturday--it happened in early June when Giuliani and McCain recognized that they couldn't compete. Romney has been advertising heavily in Iowa for months and months. No other GOP candidates have advertised on television at all, to my knowledge.

The figure of $5 million has been named as the amount Romney spent on the Straw Poll--but it really is the amount he has spent to be the clear leader in Iowa. He forced Giuliani and McCain to abandon the Straw Poll; he may well force them to abandon Iowa altogether, or simply put in token effort. If the other leaders--Fred Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain--effectively pull out of Iowa, conceding the state to Romney, they will also allow a space for Huckabee to finish prominently in the first caucus.

If he were to finish a robust fifth place it would be no big deal. A second place finish could give him a big boost. But I think he has a shot at first, or a least a close second. He is an attractive candidate who typically appears thoughtful and comfortable in his skin. Romney comes across wooden and programmed. Maybe Iowa GOP voters will have a surprise in them come January. (Or December.)

There's more: "Tommy Thompson Drops Out of Presidential Race" >>

Straw Poll Results

The local ABC affiliate just broke in to Charlie's Angels (movie!) to report the Iowa GOP Straw Poll Results. Only 14,302 votes were cast--far fewer than expected and, I think, about 9,000 fewer than 8 years ago. (This is good news if the Iowa GOP raises less money than anticipated.)

Mitt Romney 4,516 (32%)
Mike Huckabee 2,587 (18%)
Sam Brownback 2,192 (15%)
Tom Tancredo 1,961 (14%)
Ron Paul 1,305 (9%)
Tommy Thompson 1,039 (7.3%)
Fred Thompson 203 (1.4%)
Rudy Giuliani 183 (1.3%)
Duncan Hunter 174 (1.2%)
John McCain 101 (0.7%)
Cameron Diaz 100 (0.7%)
John Cox 41 (0.3%)
Tiger Woods -7

Romney didn't do quite as well as expected. He poured a huge amount of money into this race. There were probably quite a number of people who rode his buses but didn't cast their votes for him. Huckabee is clearly a big winner here. This should aid his fundraising. Brownback didn't do so horribly that it should cause him to pull out. Paul and Tancredo both did a little better than I expected.

The only ones I could see pulling out after this are Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter. But if Brownback's numbers cause his fundraising to dry up then he could be gone as well.

Incidently, the announcement of the results was delayed by over an hour because of some problems with one of the voting machines. They had to count 1,500 votes by hand. There was a last-minute lawsuit this week by a group that was trying to force the leadership to use paper ballots and to count the votes in public. The lawsuit doesn't look so silly now.

Update: Don't know why this post disappeared for a half hour, but I'm putting it back up with a new time stamp.

There's more: "Straw Poll Results" >>

The GOP Front Runner's Latest Campaign Video

This was one of our nominated videos of the day. It is a campaign ad for the current GOP front runner. It is well produced. Apparently, as the polls demonstrate this candidate has real strength among the GOP faithful.



Tonight's funny was posted to the YouTube by Manasia on July 28, 2007.

There's more: "The GOP Front Runner's Latest Campaign Video" >>