Strange Toy

I saw this a while back and wondered if anybody remembers it. I suspect a bunch of lawsuits were generated by kids screwing up their necks with that contraption.

Mukasey For Attorney General

There has been much hyperventilation among the nutroots over Bush's nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. Supposedly they want him to be voted down in committee because he won't say "waterboarding" is torture. It doesn't matter that it's not legally defined as such, they want him on record as declaring it so that Bush, Cheney, and others can be charged with war crimes. Yes, they still have the fantasy of them being frogmarched before the World Court. Added to the mix are those who just don't want to let Bush get his way on anything.

Today Senator's Feinstein and Schumer have announced they'll vote for him, and with the nine Republicans on the committee, his nomination should easily move on to the Senate floor, where he's expected to confirmed with the backing of conservative and moderate Democrats, especially Joe Lieberman.

Already the wails are rising from the likely quarters. In their minds voting for Mukasey is a vote for torture. Poor things. You'd think they'd be happy with Feinstein voicing her support by saying he's not Alberto Gonzales, their previous bogey-man.

Arizona Nuclear Plant Locked Down - Explosive Device Found in Worker's Truck

From AP and Drudge Report:

Security officials at the nation's largest nuclear power plant detained
a contract worker with a small explosive device in the back of his
pickup truck Friday, authorities said.

The worker was stopped and detained at the entrance of the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, said U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
spokesman Victor Dricks. Security officials then put the nuclear
station on lockdown, prohibiting anyone from entering or leaving the
facility.

Authorities described the device as a small capped pipe that contained suspicious residue.

[...]

The incident was considered an "unusual event"—the lowest of four
emergencies the plant can declare, said Jim Melfi, an inspector with
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There aren't any more details right now. I'll update this later as more comes out. Malkin has more.

What Is Al-Jazeera Talking About?

According to an article in Jerusalem Post, Al-Jazeera is reporting the September raid on the suspected nuclear facility in Syria was carried out by the United States. That's a remarkable claim in itself, but there's much more:

The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed.

Wow. I suspect it's BS, but I'm interested in how they got this story.

Update: Apparently both Al-Jazeera and Jerusalem Post are guilty of sloppy reporting. This information originated at an Islamic message board.

h/t Confederate Yankee, Hot Air

Go Bush!

Yes, yes, yes! We need much more of this from Bush and his spokesmen. From the George Soros sponsored bureau of misinformation otherwise known as Think Progress:

Bush Grasps For Relevancy By Bashing 'Moveon.org bloggers' and "Code Pink Protesters'

In a politically-charged speech this afternoon at the Heritage Foundation, President Bush brazenly attacked congressional leaders for not immediately granting him all the funding he has requested for the Iraq war.

Lawmakers should stop listening to “Moveon.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters” and start listening to the “warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden,” Bush said to a rousing ovation:

When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.

It's about time more people take on these so-called think tanks and their mouthpieces online. It's perfect for this to coming from precisely the kinds of bloggers he's talking about. Karen Tumulty, are you listening?

Update: Here's the transcript of the speech from the Whitehouse.

Off With His Head!

Via Newsbusters this morning: U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism

Has the global warming alarmism movement hit its apex? Maybe so.

In recent weeks, we've seen a resurgence of hard scientists who have come out strongly against the warm-mongers, the latest of which is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member John R. Christy. In an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Christy tells the world that not only does he believe it's unproven that humans cause global warming, he's refusing his "share" of the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded because it was based on a misunderstanding of science.

Christy's op-ed is here. An excerpt that echoes what I've often argued against alarmists:

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

The hook for alarmism among the general population, that more than likely doesn't know one thing about climate history, is that any changes in climate are proof that said changes are caused by humans, simply because they don't know how it's changed dramatically in the past, long before there were humans driving SUVs.

The media, exploiting the sensationalism of the alarmist narrative, is quick to ascribe any unusual or destructive weather to "catastrophic global climate change.". Whether it's the fires out in California or floods in England, the stories include the obligatory "Scientists aren't certain these events are caused by global climate change, but they fit into the predictions." Isn't that convenient? The alarmist predictions call for bad weather, therefore any bad weather jibes with their predictions. In the mind of a gullible public that's just as good as proof.

Also, apparently the only solution to the problem they perceive is some form of government control, whether it involves the U.N. implementing crooked wealth redistribution schemes, punishing taxes on fossil fuels, or outright socialism. If you suggest that maybe one good way to reduce carbon emissions is to favor nuclear power they balk, partly because they're still stuck in the old paradigm in which nuclear power is evil and too dangerous.

We can expect a flurry of op-eds and blog posts attacking Christy by portraying him as a Bush tool or in the pay of evil oil companies.

The Politics of "Pile On"

Is this what passes for a unified message these days? While I can understand the importance for a political party to stand together pressing for specific goals, it's become completely ridiculous lately in the reality based community. Here's a hint: Having a united message doesn't require everybody adopting the same talking points or even the very same words!

What I'm referring to in this instance is the pile on spin regarding the criticism of Hillary Clinton in Tuesday night's debate. Her campaign put out a video Wednesday morning called "The Politics of Pile On" and suddenly the phrase was ubiquitous. I suppose that from now on any criticism of Ms. Clinton will be called piling on, just as a couple of weeks ago any questioning of the Families USA /Frost family ad campaign was called smearing Graeme Frost.

First of all, I did a cursory Google search and as far as I can tell the first reference to "pile on" in relation to Hillary was an AP article from October 22 about the GOP debate titled GOP Hopefuls Pile on Clinton. Perhaps that's the inspiration for the phrase. But today, after the video and press release were put out, variations of it have popped up all over the place.

Let's examine just what this pile up stuff is all about. Hillary flip flopped all over the place regarding whether or not she supports Eliot Spitzer's effort to have illegal aliens obtain driver's licenses in New York. She was called on it by the other Democrats in the debate because she wouldn't give a straight answer. The video is here. It was so bad that today she finally had to clarify by saying yes, she agrees with what Spitzer is doing. So, to distract from the fact she screwed up, the lefty blogosphere is taking her campaign press release to heart and portraying the debate as a bunch of mean old men piling on the woman.

And who is to blame for encouraging this piling on? Well, early Wednesday morning a blurb appeared on Drudge Report:

CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME 'UNFAIR' MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. 'HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,' TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. 'HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT'...

Right on cue stories started appearing on memeorandum attacking Russert and blaming him for setting Hillary up. As usual these days, irony is lost on these people. "Politics of Pile On", indeed.

"Bush Dog Democrat" Senator Jay Rockefeller

If you're wondering what a Bush Dog Democrat is, the term was coined by Matt Stoller at Open Left to describe Democrats who don't disagree with Bush or Republicans on every issue. What is likely to get Rockefeller labeled as such is his op-ed in the Washington Post today about the FISA bill, specifically as it relates to legal immunity for the telecom companies that provided information to the NSA shortly after 9/11.

In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush administration had a choice: Aggressively pursue potential terrorists using existing laws or devise new, secret intelligence programs in uncharted legal waters.

Unfortunately, President Bush often chose the latter, and the legitimacy and effectiveness of our efforts to fight terrorism were dramatically undermined.

The president's warrantless surveillance program and his decision to go it alone -- without input from Congress or the courts -- have had devastating consequences. One is that private companies, which would normally comply with legitimate national security requests, now have incentive to say no.

Okay, so far that doesn't look like anything pro-Bush. In fact, Rockefeller is slamming him. Here's some more:

Here's why. Within weeks of the 2001 attacks, communications companies received written requests and directives for assistance with intelligence activities authorized by the president. These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland.

Today there is significant debate about whether the underlying program -- the president's warrantless surveillance plan -- was legal or violated constitutional rights. That is an important debate, and those questions must be answered.

In the meantime, however, these companies are being sued, which is unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future.

That's pretty much common sense. The telecoms believed the requests for information to be legal and acted accordingly. If they have to wait until the legality is determined before acting then they'll simply not offer assistance. Rockefeller continues:

Let's be clear. First, there is no automatic amnesty. All Americans, including corporate citizens, must follow the law and be held accountable for their actions. The bill authorizes case-by-case review in the courts only when the attorney general certifies that a company's actions were based on assurances of legality, and the court is specifically required to determine whether the attorney general abused his discretion before immunity can be granted.

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the Whitehouse's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Third, immunity is the only procedural mechanism that works. We decided against "substitution" (putting the government in the shoes of the companies) and "indemnification" (making the government cover all costs) because both still mistakenly place the onus on the companies rather than on the government. And we recognized that this could expose too much about our intelligence capabilities, jeopardizing collection that targets foreign threats.

So the government can still be sued if it acted illegally. If actions were taken that threatened civil liberties unduly they won't go unpunished. Why isn't that enough? Why the clamor for the companies to be sued? Here, I'll show you why:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- BellSouth and AT&T were added to a class-action lawsuit against Verizon Communications that alleges the companies illegally participated in a National Security Agency domestic surveillance program.

The complaint, filed in Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion in fines to their 200 million subscribers.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran said that since the lawsuit was filed Friday they have been overwhelmed with calls from people wanting to join the suit.

Enough said.

Oh, Brother!

Bush Derangement Syndrome is on full display over at Daily Kos. It seems people are blaming everything under the sun on Bush, including their personal and family problems. One in particular makes me wonder if it's for real. It's just too much. Check it out:

meldroc: Bush has also damaged my mental health.

After I actually took the trouble to inform myself about politics a couple years ago, and learned the true extent of the damage Bush has done to this country, I have a constant boiling rage inside me. Absolutely constant. Never ceases, though sometimes I can get it down to a simmer so I can go out in public and hang out with friends without doing something stupid. On top of the anger is a generous dose of fear and anxiety, coming directly from the Bush administration's march to fascism.

Frequently, I'm so intensely angry that I hit things. I just broke my bookshelf today because I hit it. My knuckles have decent callouses on them from hitting things, and various pieces of my property show signs of my rage. Thankfully, I've never turned violent against people since I was in high school, though I was sorely tempted to deviate the septum of a wingnut who called me a traitor and f*ggot to my face at the anti-war march last Saturday.

Of course, it's unhealthy to harbor this much anger, especially if I'm stuffing it down all the time so people around me don't see me acting borderline psychotic. These emotions leak out, turn into other emotions, like depression, which I've fought with since college. I've also developed a venomous hatred of Bush and his cronies and the 23-percenters that support him. Hatred's never a good emotion to hold, but there it is. I literally hate those motherf*ckers who are destroying our country.

By all rights, I should be getting help, but I'm not going to. I was soured on the psychiatry business by my experience with anti-depressants - I ended up nearly emotionless, apathetic, and lost my motivation and creative drive, and as a result, I was unemployed for three years and had to move back in with my parents. I was your classic anti-depressant zombie. They didn't like the changes to my personality either, and stopped paying for the meds. After I tapered off the anti-depressants, I got my drive back, I was able to find work as a software engineer again, move into my own apartment, and now I'm supporting myself again. On top of that, if I told a counselor about my feelings, or that I'm so afraid of my government that I literally spent several hundred dollars on a shotgun, a deadly weapon, to defend myself against my government, I'm afraid I could get thrown into the psych ward. And I value my freedom enough that I will not allow that to happen under any circumstances. So, no shrinks.

I haven't talked to my best friend and ex-roommate in weeks because of a few personal issues between us, including politics - he's Republican, and though he's no fan of Bush, he constantly mocks and belittles my politics when I talk to him. So I don't."

That just seems fishy to me, reminiscent of the famous CheChe post from last year that was also featured at Daily Kos, and also worth a read because it's hilarious.

h/t Right Wing News

S-CHIP: Smoking for the Kids

via the corner at NRO

Ann Coulter Fails to Live Down to Moonbat Expectations

John Hawkins at Right Wing News comments today on a story I read the other day by Rick Jacobs at Huffington Post. Jacobs is all a twitter because he spotted Ann Coulter eating at a gay owned restaurant in West Hollywood. Naturally, he thought he had a scoop, so much so that he had to take a picture of her to put on his post.

Mr. Jacobs is apparently one of those who's convinced that Coulter hates gay people, ostensibly because she used the F word in regard to John Edwards. Hawkins points out that the normal reaction Jacobs should have had to seeing her in that restaurant would have been to wonder if he was wrong about her all along. But no. Instead he gleefully reports to his readers how he went over to her table and pestered her in between references comparing her to Hitler, etc. This is standard moonbat behavior. Oh, and he also flat out lies about her in this passage:

How many adolescents in mid-America have heard Ms. Coulter saying they are "faggots," subhumans who should die, just so she could eat dinner at a gay-owned establishment and pay with blood money? How many lives have ended so that Ms. Coulter can giggle and guzzle in West Hollywood?

If you click the link you'll see that it goes to some gossip page talking about her using "faggot". The rest of that comes right out of Mr. Jacobs' imagination. As I've pointed out before, moonbats put up a link and then lie about what it leads to, knowing most of their fellow travelers won't bother clicking it.

For some strange reason he also calls her a hypocrite. Apparently in moonbat English the word is defined as someone who doesn't live down to your expectations. If you can stomach the comment section you'll notice a lot of them include they hypocrisy claim as well, though most of them can't spell it.

Paul Krugman's Moonbat Extravaganza

In his opinion piece in the NYT today, Krugman hits on many of the moonbat talking points regarding Iran and Islamofascism in general. Let's do this in a checklist format:

Moonbat talking point #1: Scary "neocons" are threatening to take over US foreign policy. Here's Krugman:

Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”

Talking point #2: Islamofascism doesn't exist and is a term made up by scary neocons who want to use it for justification to go to war against Iran just as it was with Iraq. Krugman:

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t.

#3 Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and has in fact been helpful in the fight against Al Qaeda. This is similar to the claims that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda because his was a secular regime and therefore hated by Bin Laden. Here's Krugman again:

And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Not only is that a mindless recycling of a talking point, but as pointed out here, it contradicts the 9/11 Commission report.

#4 Related to talking point #2 is the idea that Al Qaeda is an isolated group without ties to a larger phenomena. Here's Krugman responding to an ad put out by Mitt Romney:

He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.

#5 is the ever popular "Republicans just don't like brown people!"

Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.

Essentially Krugman is parroting the words of numerous other moonbats who believe that neocons want to go to war with Iraq/Iran for nefarious reasons and are using the fear of brown people as the pretext. If Mr. Krugman really doesn't know about Islamofascism he can consult this handy synopsis. That is if he's ready to examine the issue instead of establishing his moonbat cred.

h/t Tom McGuire and memeorandum

Laura Bush States the Obvious

From The Hill this morning: Laura Bush accuses Dems of demagoguery on SCHIP. Accuses? It's more like she's pointing out something that's blatantly obvious.

“It’s really easy to blame people for so-called voting against children,” Bush said in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

Yep, that's how they play the game. If you watch that video of Reagan's speech from 1964 that I posted earlier you'll see they've been doing it for a long time. If you don't agree with their solutions to problems, which usually involve empowering bureaucrats, you don't care about the problems. It's old and tiresome.

via memeorandum

Reagan - A Time for Choosing

Most people have probably seen this speech by Reagan before, but upon watching the video again I'm struck by how familiar the issues are that he talks about. It's a shame that so few approach them this way lately.

Exposing A Toothless Watchdog

This is pretty hilarious. IAEA head honcho Mohamed ElBaradei is pissed because Israel took out that Syrian site suspected of being a secret nuclear facility. Get a load of the pompous, arrogant, windbaggery:

"That, to me, is very distressful because we have a system; if countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear-related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate," he said.

"But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community."

So let's get this straight. This worthless bureaucrat didn't even know about the site and still says there was no evidence of it existing, even though we've all seen the pictures. Given that, this guy is upset with Israel for not consulting with him before acting. Because, you know, he's the decider. He's got the title and a Nobel Prize, too! Never mind that he nor his organization have ever stopped any other country from getting nuclear weapons, and don't even think about the fact he's apparently a stooge for Iran or any other middle eastern country that wants to obtain them. How anybody can believe the IAEA and the UN in general are anything other than useless, bureaucratic crony pits is beyond me.

More at Little Green Footballs and Israel Matzav.

Return of S-CHIP - Question the Timing

Here we go again. The House has passed what is being called a scaled back version of the S-CHIP bill. The vote was 265-142, still short of veto proof. How was it scaled back? According to the Washington Post:

The new version will underscore that illegal immigrants will not have access to the expanded program. It will ease adults off the program in one year, rather than the two in the vetoed version. And it establishes a firmer eligibility cap at 300 percent of the federal poverty line, just more than $60,000 for a family of four.

Those are valid concerns, but if you'll recall my post from a few days ago examining the details of the bill, the biggest problems I have with it are that it's to be funded with an increase in tobacco taxes, which is unlikely to pay for more than the outreach and enrollment provisions. I tend to agree with Rep. Joe Barton who compares this attempt with putting lipstick on a pig:

"It may a be a good pig. It may be a nice pig. It might be intended to be the right kind of pig," said Barton, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "But it's still a pig."

Some Republicans are complaining that the fires in California kept many of those who would have voted no from attending the vote. Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters has even more timing shenanigans from the Democrats:

So what happened today? The debate on HR 3963 will occur under a "closed rule" -- which means Republicans can't offer amendments. The GOP Whip claims that this is the 40th time that rule has been invoked by the majority. Also, the bill got filed last night at 11:25 pm, almost a midnight run, and the House started debating it at 11:20 this morning, just shy of 12 hours after publicizing the text. Most of the people debating this bill havenh't even read it yet.

Yeah, it does look like they're trying to sneak it in while everybody was distracted by other events. However, Bush has said he'll veto it again because it still has the stupid tobacco tax and outreach provisions. He's offered to bump up spending on the program to $20 million if those are taken out, but apparently those are the most important on the pro side.

The usual suspects are once again starting up with the robo-calls to Republicans and Democrats to get them to override, but something tells me they won't have any more luck than the last time because they're trying to sell it with lies.

I'll be on the lookout to see if those Families USA ads start popping up again. Which reminds me; Michelle Malkin has information on that WellCare raid in Florida that sent the stock for the company tumbling. Guess who was the initial investor?

Senate, House Democrats Continue to Operate in the Real World - Nutroots Out for Blood

As I posted yesterday, the netroots wing of the Democratic party is becoming increasingly disenchanted with the real world Democrats in the House and Senate. Today there's more of the same with the confirmation in the Senate of Leslie Southwick of Mississippi as U.S. Circuit Judge for the fifth circuit. Prominent members of the reality based community are peeved at the Democrats who voted to confirm. Check out the tirade from someone blogging at a place called DownWithTyranny!:

I felt sick this morning when I saw the Republican minority invoke cloture on the attempt by progressives to deny Bush's latest KKK judicial nominee confirmation. Yesterday I warned that Judas goat Ben Nelson was working with Trent Lott in rounding up the votes to thwart the progressive strategy. Thanks to Diane Feinstein (D-CA), he succeeded.
<...>
The win today is being cheered by reactionaries, homophobes, Republican partisans, corporate interests, and racists as a huge victory. After the Republicans passed cloture to shut down debate 62-35, Southwick sailed to victory 59-38. So who were the Democrats who screwed us, Democrats who every progressive should do all they can to defeat?

Well, of course, first and foremost is the horrific and utterly corrupt and contemptible Dianne Feinstein, without whose connivance, Southwick would still be bottled up in committee hearings. And then of course, there's Bush's point man inside the Democratic caucus, Ben Nelson. The full list of Democrats who officially joined the GOP for the day:

The poster then goes on to list the names of the supposed Senate turncoats. The roll call vote is here. Feinstein and Ben Nelson are taking the most heat from the lefties because they equate compromise with capitulation. They actually believe the politicians in the House and Senate are supposed to take marching orders from them. Oh, did I mention Joe Lieberman also voted against the moonbats? How long will it be before he makes another appearance in blackface?

Jeralyn Merritt from Talk Left chimes in with her post Who's in Charge? "Dream Act" Fails, Southwick Wins:

With votes like these, it's difficult to believe the Democrats are the majority party in Congress.

The Dream Act she's referring to is yet another setback today for the left and other illegal immigration amnesty advocates. It was shot down in the Senate today, which is a good thing as far as Fred Thompson is concerned. His article from his campaign website: Democrats' DREAM Act is a Nightmare.

Stark Apologizes for Tirade - Left Circles Wagons Around Dodd

Facing a censure vote in the House for his moonbat outburst last week, Pete Stark apologized today, saying he hopes he can now be as insignificant as he should be. The highlighted part is important, not so much for how it pertains to Stark, but to his message. He's learned that it doesn't pay to stand up in Congress and spew talking points culled from left-wing bloggers. Perhaps it's their message that should now be considered insignificant.

The reality based community isn't taking this brush with reality very well. They're calling Minority Leader John Boehner a cry baby for introducing the censure resolution, which is ironic considering it was their man Stark who broke down and sobbed for five minutes after his apology. They're also highly upset with the Democrats who didn't toe the line. From Booman Tribune:

Just so you know who the cowards are, here are the losers that voted against Rep. Stark.

Jason Altmire (PA), Chris Carney (PA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Heath Shuler (NC)

And here are the cretins that voted 'present':

Dan Boren (OK), Lincoln Davis (TN), Baron Hill (IN), Tim Mahoney (FL), Charlie Melancon (LA), Dennis Moore (KS)

And, just so you know, these fools hurt Rep. Stark's feelings.

Cry baby, indeed.

Not to be discouraged by the setback with their Stark gambit, word comes now that pressure from the netroots is going to be put on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to stand by Christopher Dodd, their moonbat representative in the Senate. From Greg Sargent:

In a move that will up the pressure on Hillary and Barack Obama to stand firm against the Senate telecom immunity FISA bill, MoveOn and a dozen top progressive blogs will launch an all-out campaign tomorrow to pressure the two Senators into publicly declaring their support for Chris Dodd's threat to place a hold on and filibuster the bill, Election Central has learned.

MoveOn spokesman Adam Green tells me that the group will send out an email to "thousands" of its members tomorrow morning, and thousands more throughout the day, asking them to call the offices of Hillary and Obama and demand that they publicly affirm their support for Dodd.
<...>
In another move that points to the significant degree of coordination among the top liberal blogs on the FISA issue, Green says that the following bloggers will also be directing their readers to call Hillary and Obama's offices and press them on this:

DailyKos, Atrios, OpenLeft, Firedoglake, MyDD, Glenn Greenwald, Crooksandliars, AmericaBlog, Digby, Taylor Marsh

Oh, good. At least it will give them something else to do instead of constantly attempting to drum up outrage by taking out of context comments made by Rush Limbaugh and others.

Update: Greg Sargent now reports that a spokesman from the Obama camp has voiced support for filibustering the FISA bill, but with no direct reference to Dodd. Clinton gave a wishy washy answer, but several lefty blogs are reporting she's with Dodd.

Sister Souljah in Slo Mo?

There's trouble brewing in the netroots. As the Democratic Party continues to operate as if they exist in the real world instead of the make-believe reality based community, left-wing hostility toward their hitherto progressive allies is mounting.

John Hawkins from Right Wing News has reaction from Democratic Underground and Daily Kos to how Democrats in the House and Senate are dealing with their Moonbat wing.

Participants at DU are invited to vote in a poll in which 77% of respondents so far have rated Nancy Pelosi a disappointment or a nightmare. The Kossacks are upset with Pelosi and also Harry Reid in the Senate. Pelosi is in trouble for not standing by Pete Stark's comments in the House the other day and Reid for not rallying around Christopher Dodd, who, since he knows he has no chance of getting the Democratic presidential nomination, has decided to parrot of the left-wing online community talking points concerning that FISA bill he's attempting to hold up.

Against that backdrop, it's rather interesting that the New York Times has a page one story titled Clinton Finds Way to Play Along With Drudge. Here are the first few paragraphs:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — As Senator Barack Obama prepared to give a major speech on Iraq one morning a few weeks ago, a flashing red-siren alert went up on the Drudge Report Web site. It read, “Queen of the Quarter: Hillary Crushes Obama in Surprise Fund-Raising Surge,” and, “$27 Million, Sources Tell Drudge Report.”

Within minutes, the Drudge site had injected Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raising success into the day’s political news on the Internet and cable television. It did not halt coverage of Mr. Obama’s speech or his criticism of her vote to authorize the war in 2002, but along the front lines of the campaign — the hourly, intensely fought effort to capture the news cycle or deny ownership of it to the other side — it was a telling assault.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Mrs. Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.

That man, Matt Drudge, came to national prominence a decade ago as a nemesis of the Clintons who used the Web to peddle, gleefully, the latest news and rumor generated by the Monica Lewisnsky scandal.

How interesting. Is Hillary really feeding info to Drudge to help undercut Obama? If that's what's happening then what's the purpose of this investigative piece? Is it to help her create an image as being Drudge friendly in order to appeal to moderates or is it to help Obama, or anybody else who wants to challenge her from the left, by portraying her as a traitor to their cause? At least one lefty blogger accuses her of "sucking up to wingnuts".

Don Surber also analyzes the story but focuses on the portrayal of Drudge in the piece, which is pretty bad, but to be expected from the NYT. But if it is a hit on Drudge then it's also a slam of Hillary by association.

Taken together all this information leads me to believe that what's happening is the inevitable break between serious Democratic politicians and their fund-raising arm, which happens to be far left. The difference between this and the original Sister Souljah moment is that this one is gradually playing out over time instead of being signified by a defining act or statement.

About "Faux Outrage"

Pete Stark's Moonbat Minstrel Show

I honestly can't say I'm outraged or even shocked by Stark's comments here. He reads from notes enough to convince me he just went around to lefty blogs and collected their talking points. A few times he tries to dramatize them, but not very convincingly, because he keeps having to go back to the list. None of it was original or surprising, to me at least. Perhaps it's of concern that he's using his bully pulpit in Congress to give wider voice to such strange political views, but it cuts both ways. It's not always good to get a message out.

Some interests expressing concern about the consequences of Stark's tirade are, ironically enough, those lefty snarkpits from which he undoubtedly seeks inspiration. Just to refresh your memory, here's the part of his speech that's generated the controversy:

"They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

Again, that's just standard, boilerplate Moonbat rhetoric. But here's the catch: It's not shocking to me because I'm someone who regularly reads political/activist blogs and politics in general. People outside this demographic will react differently upon hearing him.

One left-wing site, Crooks and Liars (in liar mode?), commented on the controversy by putting up a post called Right Wing goes bonkers over Rep. Pete Stark’s comments: Take the C&L Poll. Here's how Stark is quoted:

“I’m just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal War in Iraq."

”President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the War in Iraq. The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

Hmmm...which part is left out? What John Amato (C&L) quoted was indeed said by Stark in the video above, but it's not the part at issue. Amato apparently agrees with me that he really crossed a line. Why else would he pretend it wasn't said? Here's Amato's take on the matter:

After Rep. Pete Stark made his harsh statements against the Republicans and Bush over the SCHIP veto, the right wingers are trying to change the subject again by feigning outrage against him.

After giving a few examples of how Republicans are supposedly feigning outrage, he puts up the poll. At some later time, it's not clear when, the transcript for the entire speech was added to the bottom of the post. Apparently a software glitch caused the delay, but there's still nothing noting just which statements made by Stark are controversial.

Around the same time as that posting, another popular left-wing blogger, digby from Hullabaloo, put up some commentary as well. Battered Spouses repeats the talking point used in the Amato piece, that Republicans are feigning outrage, but doesn't take the further step of trying to hide what he actually said. Instead it's presented as if the writer just can't understand why anybody would be offended by it:

Are these macho tough guys really offended that some congressman made these comments in a debate? Are their feelings hurt on behalf of the president? Does CNN really believe that's what's going on? Does anyone think that what Pete Stark said on the floor yesterday truly upset the Republicans?

As I said before, what political operatives and others accustomed to such heated rhetoric think isn't the issue. His comments weren't posted on a blog likely to be seen only by those familiar with memeorandum. People not familiar with Moonbat sites don't know what actually goes on in them, and they'd probably be appalled if they were ever to find out. To their ears, what Stark said sounds very different from how it's perceived by digby.

Since we're on the subject of faux outrage, let's take a look at what these two blogs had to say about last week's smear campaign in the run up to the vote to override Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill.

C&L: "The wingnuts have been in full force attack against the family of Graeme Frost, the twelve year old boy that gave the Democratic radio address a couple of weeks ago. In their typical ignorance of the facts, Malkin and the rest on the right side of the blogosphere are trying to paint this family as phonies. Think Progress has noted the important facts the attack monsters are forgetting."

digby:

"This is sick. The right is going after the 12 year old who gave the Saturday Democratic address supporting the SCHIP program. Remember him?
<...>
Think Progress reports that the pathological rightwing freakshow has accused this family of being "rich" because Graham earns a scholarship to go to private school, and his sister goes to a special school paid for by the state because she was handicapped by the accident. Oh, and they have a house they bought years ago for 55,000 when the neighborhood was dicey. Apparently, they should be living in their car and the handicapped daughter should be selling pencils on the street corner. That's the world these empty souls want to live in.

I believe they'll find that attempting to dismiss controversy over legitimately outrageous statements, going so far as pretending they weren't said, is even more difficult than their previous gambit trying to gin up faux outrage of their own.

More discussion from Gateway Pundit and Darleen Click.