He takes a closer look at some lower than low cheap shots being taken by the Kerry campaign. And I thought this was supposed to be a “positive campaign” by Kerry? Well, I guess it is. Positively rotten. Chris Hitchens explains more:

Allowance made for choreography, stagecraft, and all the rest of it, there need be no doubt that the Democrats in Boston sincerely wish to “project” the idea of compassion for the underdog, inclusiveness in general, and perhaps above all a degree of care and measure in foreign policy. The AIDS victim in South Africa, or the Bangladeshi woman hoping for a new well: These are sufferers and strugglers who would get genuine applause whether it was Barack Obama mentioning them or not. Of course we understand that our future is bound up with theirs.

But in the last few weeks I have been registering one of the sourest and nastiest and cheapest notes to have been struck for some time. In a recent article about anti-Bush volunteers going door-to-door in Pennsylvania, often made up of campaigners from the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU—one of the country’s largest labor unions—the New York Times cited a leaflet they were distributing, which said that the president was spending money in Iraq that could be better used at home. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, recently made the same point, proclaiming repeatedly that the Bay Area was being starved of funds that were being showered on Iraqis. (He obviously doesn’t remember the line of his city’s most famous columnist, the late Herb Caen, who referred to San Francisco as “Baghdad by the Bay.”) These are only two public instances of what’s become quite a general whispering campaign. And then on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between “opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.” Talk about a false alternative. To borrow the current sappy language of “making us safer”: Who would feel more secure if they knew that we weren’t spending any tax dollars on Iraqi firehouses?*snip*

Bush Speech in Springfield
Friday, July 30, 2004

BUSH: Thanks for coming. It’s great to be in the heartland of our country. And I want to thank you all for being here this morning to help kick off our “Heart and Soul of America” tour.

There’ll be big differences in this campaign. They’re going to raise your taxes; we’re not.
We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world.
They somehow believe the heart and soul of America can be found in Hollywood. The heart and soul of America is found right here in Springfield, Missouri.

Today, you’ll have some - hear some reasons why I think you need to put me back into office. But perhaps the most important reason of all is so that Laura will be first lady for four more years.*snip*

Please make sure to read the entire transcript!

I just had to share this with ya’ll. I was on my way home from work this evening listening to a radio program that is a combo of talk and music.  I almost pulled off to the side of the road when I heard one of the show’s hosts decry how freedom of speech in this country was being “decimated” by conservatives who didn’t like dissenting opinion.  She cited the recent booing of Linda Rondstadt while ranting. I tried to call in to the show but couldn’t get through. 

Where were/are all these cries of outrage when liberals organize(d) protests and boycotts, and start(ed) websites devoted to getting conservatives kicked off the air -  like Dr. Laura, Rush, and other conservative talk show hosts? Liberals have been extremely successful in getting sponsors pulled.  In the case of Dr. Laura, it can be argued that they were successful in getting her pulled off the air.

REGARDLESS of whether or not it’s actually true that liberals had her taken off the air, please remember this:  The militant liberals who wanted Dr. Laura off the air put together one of the most well organized and financed smear campaigns I have ever seen.  They even put FLIERS in the the mailboxes of Dr. Laura’s neighbors! Also, the FBI were brought in to investigate a bomb threat against Dr. Laura (source: Tammy Bruce “The New Thought Police”). Those who organized the “StopDrLaura” brag even to this day that they “had Dr Laura kicked off the air!”  Whether or not they did or not is immaterial, the fact is, you have these liberals who are gloating about taking away someone’s freedom of speech.  No doubt these same liberals wail about “censorship” when Michael Moore’s film can’t get a film company to pick it up or Linda Rondstadt gets booed or the Dixie Chicks CDs get pulled from certain radio stations or the latest - apparently Doonesbury’s cartoon strip has been pulled by a few papers. 

I’ve no doubt that there are moans and cries all around about this “loss of free speech rights” by “well organized conservatives.”  If this argument has come up in any of the debates you engage in whether it be online or face to face, please don’t hesitate to remind these people about the “well organized liberals” out there who take pride in trying to get sponsors to pull their ads so conservatives can’t air their viewpoints on the radio or TV.  And again, it doesn’t matter whether or not the liberals actually got Dr Laura off the air, the fact is that those same liberals gloated about it, took pride in it, in their belief that they took away someone’s right to air her viewpoints simply because they disagreed with her.  And believe you me, if they were successful at getting Rush pulled, about 95% of the liberals in this country would be ecstatic.  You and I both know it.

It’s as simple as that. 

Whoopi’s been bounced off the Slimfast ad campaign. Looks like her derogatory remarks got her in a wee bit of trouble with the diet giant.

This photo sort of says it all

The WSJ today continues the smackdown the conservative media is laying on Joe Wilson since the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report earlier this week.

Outside of the Washington Post, why hasn’t the mainstream media, who were tripping over themselves last year to get a piece of Joe Wilson, talking about this more?

Well, I think we know the answer to that one, don’t we? No Bush-bashing=non-story. End of story.

They pretty much mirror what many other conservatives say about him but I wanted to get them posted here (reposting my thoughts from a political forum):

What pisses me off about Moore (that should piss off EVERYONE) is the fact that we’re in a war here and he’s playing fast and loose with the facts as they pertain to that war. In fact, I’m not even sure Moore knows what a ‘fact’ is. He’s a man who is openly rooting for the enemy yet he’s being lionized and regarded highly by *some* on the left as some paragon of truth when he’s anything but! I think the only soldiers and families of soldiers he’s concerned with are the one’s who are against the war. That’s how I honestly feel. Think about it. He vehemently opposes this war. Do you think he cares what a pro-war soldier or family thinks? His whole purpose in making the film wasn’t to push any “peaceful” alternative solution to future conflicts but instead to make a mockery of what the US is doing in Iraq and to score political points against a president he despises with every fiber of his being.

Yes, this is the US and we’re guaranteed freedom of speech here. It’s a right men and women died for. But that doesn’t make what Moore’s done and doing right at all. Not one bit. As far as I’m concerned, what Michael Moore is doing is as unAmerican as one can get and anyone here who knows me well enough knows that I’m loathe to use that term on anyone but that’s how strongly I feel about what he’s done. We’ve got soldiers over there risking their lives daily, trying to help install some form of democracy in order to spur the Middle East on to possible future peace (or some form of it), and over here we’ve got a loud mouth fact twisting radical left jerk who, IMO, denigrates that mission every time he opens his mouth. If Michael Moore really cared about America, he’d bring up legitimate facts (God knows there are plenty out there) to use against the President and what we’re doing in Iraq, not trump things up and distort them in order to score political points at the expense of the troops. I wouldn’t even attempt to speak for any of the troops in Iraq, but I can tell you right now how I’d feel if I was one and heard someone say something like this:

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?” - Michael Moore 4/14/04

I’d be disgusted and angry.

That’s reprehensible. For all the attacks the likes of Coulter, etc, have made against decent Dems, unfairly questioning their patriotism, playing the Communism card, etc, I can’t of anything I’ve heard that’s worse than the above. Stupidly calling a liberal a Communist is disgusting but at least it doesn’t give aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. What this man is doing is actively rooting for the insurgency to win against US troops and he’s deliberately distorting the facts about a war we are still fighting. Why? Because he hates President Bush. It’s pathetic. It’s no wonder Dems like Tom Daschle want to distance themselves from the likes of this clown. I would, too.

In a fabulous piece here. It’s all about propaganda, folks, and Michael “The Iraqi’s will win!” Moore is a master of it. A few notes from the piece:

*Moore’s PC sainthood was cemented by his Oscar for best “documentary” for Bowling for Columbine, though the film includes many staged scenes and outright fabrications. A few examples: Moore declares that the United States government was funding the Taliban in 2000 and 2001; but the figures he cites turn out to be humanitarian aid donations made to the United Nations, earmarked for hunger relief in Afghanistan. Moore presents a scene in which he buys a large amount of ammunition at a Wal-Mart in Canada without showing identification. As the CBC reported, the transaction depicted is illegal in Canada, so either the scene is faked or it was a Wal-Mart error–not lack of Canadian law regulating ammunition, as Moore asserted. Moore claimed that a plaque on an old B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy “proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972.” How likely does it seem to you that a plaque at the Air Force Academy would say this? Here is a picture of the plaque and its actual wording, which makes no reference to killing Vietnamese or even dropping bombs but, rather, refers to the shooting down of a MiG fighter by the bomber on Christmas Eve 1972. (Loads of deceptions or factual errors in Bowling for Columbine are laid out here by the co-authors of a new anti-Moore book.)*

And this is the man many on the left hold up as some paragon of truth in the face of all the “administration liars”?

No, not critics of the TV show Thomas Sowell takes on the Bill Cosby-bashers this week in his latest column. A sneak peek:

*Reactions to Bill Cosby’s recent criticisms of some counterproductive ghetto behavior patterns have ranged from applause from some in the black audience that heard him to a cheap attack from white liberal Barbara Ehrenreich in the New York Times. “Billionaire bashes poor blacks” is the way Ms. Ehrenreich puts it.

This is just one of innumerable ways that the political left evades criticisms — whether of young thugs or schoolteachers or anyone else — by simply calling the criticism “bashing” and shifting the focus to the supposedly bad motives of those who criticize.*

Right on target, as per the norm.

Can you? Deroy Murduck rips the NAACP a new one in this piece (yet another good one) from NRO. Links provided within his piece. These guys are taking the work out of blogging

In any event, it explains for those who want to yell “fire” and exclaim W is “exclusionary” and “racist” because he doesn’t want to go talk to a bunch of people who hate him exactly why he decided not to join their bitch-fest.

Yes, the man the media fawned all over last year has proven to be a snake. Of course we knew this already but it took the media some time to catch up. That’s ok - finally, at least they did. I had some links laid out to post here but Clifford May in NRO pretty much takes care of that with his devastating piece on the credibility issue that now exists with Joe “I’m a victim” Wilson. Take a look here. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto is on the case here as well (scroll down a bit).

Now, one wonders if those who assert that the administration are bald face liars because of the rationale used for the Iraq war (which was believed by most of the intelligent free world long before W rode into town) will assert the same for their beloved Joe Wilson?

Don’t count on it.