Blog: Calling All Wingnuts

I just encountered this great blog: Calling All Wingnuts. Mike Start, the operator, has made an artform of calling, and getting on, right-wing talk radio. Each day he posts several new clips of him sparring on air - while some miss base, many are hits.

What is particularly interesting to me is the extremes to which one has to go to get a point in on these moderated, tightly controlled soapboxes that O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, have at their disposal. Jeremy Glick on The O'Reilly Factor is hard not to think of.

LGF: Publishing Abu Ghraib Photos Is Un-American

Speaking of Salon.com's decision to print a few of the new Abu Ghraib images:

No word on how this oh-so-courageous defense of the “world’s right to know” fits with their craven refusal to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

Is the media the enemy because they published the photos, or because they aren't publishing the phophet cartoons "enough"?

This little rhetorical argument is is pretty weak, and clearly the implication is that Salon is publishing these for partisan reasons. Well, guess what? Maybe they are. But who cares: what was done in our name in Abu Ghraib is despicable, and you are implicitly defending it. Way to go.

Conservative = Bush Apologist?

Jonah Goldberg at the NRO:

It used to be that abortion, affirmative action etc defined who liberals would celebrate. Now, all it takes is going after Bush.

On the contrary, it used to be that corruption in the halls of the U.S. Capitol and White House was unacceptable across the political spectrum. Today, the blind allegiance conservatives hold toward Bush force them to make the bogus assumption that every action of "their man" Bush represents their conservative values.

On the surface this is much worse that just turning a blind eye to warrantless wiretaps, the detention of uncharged "enemy combatants," the torture of detainees in Iraq, the leaking of classified information for political purposes, etc; irregardless of the corruption, Bush is perhaps the most unconservative president in modern times. Since when are record deficits - increased spending plus large tax cuts - conservative? Unprovoked wars of choice? The claim of unchecked executive power?

Cheney Shooting Coverage Delay

NEW YORK The more than 18-hour delay in news emerging that the Vice President of the United States had shot a man, sending him to an intensive care unit with his wounds, grew even more curious late Sunday. E&P has learned that the official confirmation of the shooting came about only after a local reporter in Corpus Christi, Texas, received a tip from the owner of the property where the shooting occured and called Vice President Cheney's office for confirmation.

Did Fox News Forget To Screen GOP Guest?

Courtesy of Fox News this morning:

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said a full investigation is necessary [into the Cheney/Libby classified leak scandal]. "I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information, period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in some bureaucracy," said Allen, who appeared with Reed on "Fox News Sunday."

The President and I

American sentiment ridiculed

Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, we have this choice post. Without refuting Gore's comments in anyway, we see the insinuation that questioning our dear leader, in the midst of (gasp) Arabs, is the height of treason.

The new FISA spin

The spin of supposed previous wiretapping continues with an example of surveillance during the Carter administration in 1977. The fact that FISA wasn't signed into law until 1978 apparently is irrelevant.

When the President does it...

Senator Roberts via Think Progress:

In other words, the Constitution gives President Bush absolute power as long as he’s extra careful.

Cheney Hunting Accident

"The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."

The Post's Deborah Howell

Washington Post editor Jim Brady, in today's (Sunday) paper, is continuing to repeat the Republican wet dream: Abramoff "directed" his tribal clients to give money to Democratic candidates.

Why this storyline is being parrotted by a supposively respectable newspaper, I would like to know. Democratic candidates received less money from the tribal interests represented by Abramoff after he started lobbying him than before. At the same time, Republican candidates and "charities" more than doubled their share.

But if the indirect evidence isn't enough, it's on the Times' (and other media outlets) to prove that 1) Abramoff directed money to Democrats, and 2) There was some how a tit for tat involved. Otherwise, these insinuations, clearly intended to help Republicans save face, are worthless.

Too many blogs

How many worthless blogs exist? Supposively 75,000 new ones a day. Here's mine.

Writing (and communing with satan) in beautiful Madison, WI, I'll post comments and interesting tidbits now and then. Or not.