The Prophetic Words of Dick Morris

I remember right after the November election that Dick Morris pointed out how difficult it was going to be for the Democratic Congress to govern. The problem, as he saw it, was the many competing factions that make up the Democratic party: The Blue Dogs, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the group allied with Soros and the Nutroots. While all of these groups fall under the Democratic umbrella, they all have competing and varying agendas. As Morris predicted, the Democrats' problem all along has been getting all of them on the same page. This is the underlying story in their continued fumbling of the Iraq issue. The agenda of the Blue Dogs (called Bush Dogs by the Nutroots) is divergent from that of the Soros wing. Without everyone on the same page, the Democratic majority no longer functions like any sort of a majority.

Some if it has come to a head this week as Democrats are pointing fingers at each other for their lack of any coherent agenda.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop a cherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft of high-profile
legislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete.

The real problem from the beginning is that much of the Democratic victory came in Republican districts and with many of the Democrats in those districts moving to the right of their counter parts. Their leadership, on the other hand, is almost exclusively made up of traditional Northeast or West Coast liberals. From Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, to Ted Kennedy, those are the leaders of the party. Their liberal traditional agenda is not something that will get the likes of the Blue Dog Democrats re elected.

On Iraq, this problem is most pronounced. There is a group of almost seventy Congressional Democrats that make up the Out of Iraq Caucus. They are almost exclusively Soros types. Therir goal is the immediate withdrawal of troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. This group willing to cut off funds if necessary, and they are so extreme in their views vis a vis Iraq that many times they are unwilling to support bills with a timeline if it isn't quick enough in their estimation.

On the opposite end of the ideological spectrum for the Democrats lie the Blue Dogs. This is a group of forty plus moderates who's position tends to match that of the Republicans. Here is how their position is described.

With Democrats in charge again, the Blue Dogs have played a key role in halting an emerging plan to place strict conditions on war funding. Their revolt helped beat back that proposal, by Pelosi ally John Murtha, D-Pa. Leaders are now considering a watered-down version.

Without unity from all these groups the Democrat's majority becomes a minority.

The Democrats face the same sort of problems on budget and tax issues. Whether it was Charlie Rangel's so called mother of all tax hikes, or any number of budget proposals from David Obey, the leadership has had difficulty getting the Blue Dogs on board with much of their liberal agenda. Where they have been able to get the Blue Dogs on board, they have then faced the threat of a veto from the President.

The Democrats have given nothing more than a token effort to any social issue besides federal funding of stem cell research. That's because on social issues the leadership's position is no more tennable.

Their ideas about marriage, abortion, and, to an extent, the death penalty, and
Gun Control are sometimes more compatible with the Republican way of thinking. This viewpoint is supported by the Pew Research Center and their study "Beyond Red Vs. Blue"

The Republicans, on the other hand, have become nearly unanimously united. They have almost entirely coalesced behind the surge strategy and have never wavered in their demand for so called clean spending bills.

On the budget, they haven't been quite as united however the President suddenly realized what a tool the veto is. As such, the Democrats haven't been able to get much of any budgetary agenda through. In the most recent battle over the budget, the Democrats have become so frustrated that they are now resorting to threats.

Instead, Obey said, he would rip up the compromise bill and devise a new one using the strict spending ceiling set by Mr. Bush - but would reach it by whacking GOP priorities and stripping the measure of billions of dollars in pet projects for lawmakers in both parties.

Obey's remarks to The Associated Press came two days after White House budget director Jim Nussle promised Mr. Bush would veto Democrats' omnibus spending bill for exceeding Mr. Bush's budget by $18 billion.

Nussle had accused Democrats of "trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending," but Obey said the opposite is true - that the White House was willing to relent just slightly on domestic spending in order to obtain up to $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the Democrats threaten, I am reminded of the last time a President took on Congress on the budget.

These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed...

I suspect another President will also win this particular budget showdown. All in all, those words uttered by Dick Morris are quite prophetic.

The Ponzi Scheme Known as Social Security

This is Charles Ponzi and he is the inspiration for Social Security.



A hat tip needs to go to Michelle Malkin for pointing out this story. It seems that Barack Obama has made enemies with the nutroots recently. His crime is pointing out that social security has some problems. Social Security is the third rail for the base of the Democratic Party and much like someone's ugly wife, criticizing it brings an emotional response. He got hit by most of the usual suspects

All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It’s a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders.

...

Barack Obama, please realize that you are assisting the right’s efforts to get rid of Social Security. Their strategy is to make the public think that the program is in trouble and then sweep in with their “solution.” …IS your heart in the right place? Social Security is not in trouble. Stop saying it is.

Now, the right blogosphere is having fun with this little political civil war however they should also remember their own threats against most of the candidates for the Rep nomination because they dared not toe the company line on things like abortion, campaign finance reform, immigration, etc. We all have our third rails and Democrats have among them Social Security.





I don't much care about this little battle. I frankly believe that Obama is better off taking them on. He has nothing to lose at this point anyway and the nutroots turn off as many people as they turn on. I am glad he said what he said and frankly showed political courage that I wish more politicians would show.





That said, I am much more interested in the problems facing Social Security and their solutions. I pay about seven percent of each check to social security and I don't believe that I will get anything when I retire.





A Ponzi scheme works as such. I came to you and promise that if you give me $100 today I will give you say $200 in the future. The way I get your $200 is from other suckers that are made the same promise. This works until I find no more suckers.





Now, the way Social Security works is that today's workers pay for today's retirees under the promise that once they retire, that day's workers will pay for them. That is no different than any other Ponzi Scheme only two things: 1) the government doesn't even hide that it is a Ponzi Scheme and 2) since the government is doing it instead of being illegal it is Social Security.





Frankly, the politicians can raise the age limit or the limit on income or any other limit, and it won't change the fundamentals behind it. If one group is used to fund the investment of another group, that PYRAMID scheme will fail once you have an imbalance in the investors. Say for instance, one month my ponzi scheme had a huge number of new investors and the next month I slowed down. I wouldn't be able to fund the new investors from the first month. That is what is happening now. It wasn't a month but years of baby boomers being born, and now there aren't enough workers to fund their retirement.





Anyone that knows anything about Ponzi Schemes knows that at some point there will be suckers holding the bag. It maybe the baby boomers if we don't figure it out, or it might be my generation or maybe even the generation after us. It matters not. The system is flawed. Social Security is among the worst ideas our government has created. It is a state sponsored legal Ponzi Scheme. That is what we should focus on. Everything else is trivial.

S-CHIP:The S is for Socialized Medicine

I would like to introduce Fault Line USA for some guest commentary about the battle over SCHIP.

““You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the House can look at themselves in the mirror”

Daily Kos

“Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties ever looking into the
mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!”

– Faultline USA

Here’s an excerpt of ABC’s blather that passes for journalism these days.. . .

Gathering on the White House lawn and the steps of Congress, the throngs
were joined by children who pulled red wagons filled with over a million
petitions, urging Congress to expand health insurance coverage for children.Yet,
it appears that the effort may be in vain after Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday
that would have renewed and expanded SCHIP. . .Health policy experts now say low
and moderate income families like the Taylors will be hit the hardest if the
veto stands, and individuals fear the social and financial consequences.Congress
has already passed legislation which would reauthorize and expand the program by
adding $35 billion over five years, and covering an additional 4 million
children — a plan funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1
per pack. . .

Sweets & Light has a great response to ABC’s blatant pandering to the left on the SCHIP veto.Here’s an excerpt (but please go read all of it).. . .

Never mind that President Bush only vetoed a $35 billion dollar expansion of the
SCHIP program. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this suddenly
precious boondoggle (that most people had never even heard of before) will be
eliminated. . .. . .But just look at this exercise in objective journalism. See
if you can find any mention of any possible objections to the SCHIP program. .
.Did ABC News speak to anyone except those who were benefiting from the
taxpayers’ (unwitting) generosity? Did this reporter ask any hardworking
families what they thought about paying for other peoples’ kids health
insurance? . . .. . .Unfortunately, every day we are fed an endless stream of
execrable, agenda-driven articles like this one, masquerading as news. Articles
so blatant in their purpose they would have even made Hitler or Stalin’s minions
at their respective ministries of propaganda blush.But because our watchdog
media think they are serving such a noble purpose they are proud of their
efforts rather than ashamed.Of course that is exactly what they believed in
Hitler and Stalin’s ministries as well

.Politico writers Kady II and O’Connor believe that an override veto is unlikely. . .
Here’s an excerpt.It’s highly unlikely any House Republican will turn 180
degrees and vote to override President Bush’s veto, but nonetheless, Democrats
have decided to draw the issue out for two more weeks, until they hold the veto
override.Interviews with several of the targeted House Republicans — all of whom
are considered vulnerable in next year’s elections and are under pressure to
change their vote on State Children’s Health Insurance Program — give little
indication that any of them would flip-flop on such a high-profile issue.

If an override passes, the Daily Kos confirms our worst fears with typical
forked-tongue twisting. No I won’t hyperlink this far left nutcase blog. Here’s
the link.www(dot)dailykos(dot)com/storyonly/2007/10/4/81915/3035Here’s an
excerpt:Which uninsured children are the wrong people? And who is this program
intended to help?This report provides an overview of citizen and noncitizen
children in immigrant families in the United States and their access to SCHIP.
The section entitled "Immigrant
Children at Risk" describes the population, their rising numbers, and their
lack of health insurance. The next section reviews the effects of the 1996
welfare reform law on immigrants' eligibility for health care, and studies that
indicate enrollment is down even for eligible immigrant families. The report
then examines some of the factors affecting enrollment, such as fears of public
charge, verification of citizenship and immigrant status, and language and
cultural barriers. Finally, the paper outlines examples of state responses
through state-funded health care and improvements in outreach, application and
enrollment. Examples from California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida are given.
The appendices include definitions for common immigration terms and a
description of federal funds available for outreach and enrollment to the
immigrant population (SCHIP, Medicaid, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program.). . . While Boehner appeals to Fortress America, state
legislatures are trying to sign these eligible kids up, because we all pay for
their care in ERs when they don't get care in a medical home. That's why 45
governors support SCHIP, from Jodi Rell (R-CT) to Arnold Schwarzenegger
(R-CA).You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the
House can look at themselves in the mirror.

Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties looking into the mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!

Time to Mobilize Part III

I just finished posting about how Media Matters acts as the Dems attack dogs in silencing anyone they disagree with when I found this on the blog, Copious Dissent

Media Matters is now running a campaign to get Rush
Limbaugh taken off the air. This
is getting really scary since Hillary Clinton started Media Matters. If you
go to their website, and type in your State, they will display the phone number
of the President of your local radio station. Evidently, they want their
Stalinist supporters, who never listen to his show, to demand he be fired. So,
like we do with all Liberal grassroots campaigns on this blog, we let them do
the work for us. I'm sure some poor intern spent hours creating this database to
facilitate this garbage. Nevertheless, that makes our plan much better.

Now, it is time to act. As they point out, all you need to do is follow Media Matter's own links, and get to your local radio station that carries Rush. Call in or email and let them know that a small group of smear attack dogs can't be allowed to silence free speech just because they disagree with it. If you are going to email, here is a standard email courtesy of Copious

Dear President X:I staunchly support Rush Limbaugh and condemn the
fabricated attacks against him. I hope that you will defend MY 1st Amendment
right to hear his opinions. Please do not allow a small minority of people to
pressure you to censor him. We are in the majority, not Media Matters nor
Moveon.org.

Sincerely,

Name
Address
Phone
email

Just in case you haven't done it already, please go here to Stand With Rush and sign their petition as well.

Time to Mobilize Part II

As you should already know the bru ha ha over Rush Limbaugh's supposed anti military slur just will not go away. The Democrats tried to intimidate Clear Channel, but the brass stood by its talent. You can find a text of his boss' response to the Democrats here. That wasn't enough today the Dems are now pressing Armed Forces Radio to ban Rush. If you want to get involved go to the petition and sign here.

Also, Congressman Pence breaks it down for us here

Just wanted to stop by and weigh in on the attacks from the Left on Rush
Limbaugh. The enmity that exists right now between American talk radio and the
Democrat Congress came into high relief this Monday as leaders of the Senate
engaged in repeated and distorted personal attacks of a prominent American
commentator.

Now, while many see this as more politics as usual in Washington, D.C., I
see something more. I believe these attacks on talk radio are a precursor for
returning censorship to the airwaves of America in the form of the Fairness
Doctrine. I was actually on Fox & Friends this morning discussing this very
topic. Click
here to read the transcript.

This week, Congressman Greg Walden and I requested that Democrat leaders
bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor of this Congress immediately, and
take the power away from the FCC in this, or any future administration, to
regulate the airwaves of America. ..

The Origins of Media Matters

Hat Tip to Hot Air for this one. As Bryan Preston over there explains, this comes from audio from Rush's show. It seems that back when Hillary was at the Yearly Kos right here in Chicago, she was bragging about leading the way in creating Media Matters...

putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…”

Media Matters has denied this

On the July 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush
Limbaugh again falsely accused Media Matters for America of being part of a
network of "Hillary [Clinton] fundraising groups, or front groups." Limbaugh was
arguing that recent news reports regarding Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL)
fundraising success did not take into account "so many institutions -- Media
Matters for America and all these other little organizations -- that are just
extensions of the Clinton that don't count when you start raising money. But how
much are they worth when all this free publicity and attacks that they dole out
on any opponent of Hillary Clinton? So, yeah, if you just look at the money, in
one sense, you would conclude that Barack's, you know, doing very well and
Hillary isn't. But he doesn't have near the organization that she does." In
fact, as Media Matters has previously noted in response to
Limbaugh's claims, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political party or
candidate.

Of course, as Newsbusters notes this denial is not really much of a denial.

In yet another instance of Media Matters making false claims, the left-wing
group has issued several denials that it is tied to Hillary and Bill
Clinton.

But in true Clintonian fashion, these denials are hardly that at all. Here
is the phrase that the
group keeps falling back on:

"Media Matters for America is a 'progressive research and information
center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting
conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.' The Center for American Progress
identifies itself on its website as 'a progressive think-tank dedicated to
improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action.'"

Of course this means nothing whatsoever as far as Hillary Clinton goes. And
yet in typical disreputable MM fashion, the far left group has repeatedly referenced it in
subsequent articles as a denial of a Clinton connection.

Apparently Media Matters can't even quote itself in context!

We can't help but wonder how the group tries to spin and distort this
flat-out statement of involvement from Clinton.

What no one will deny is that Media Matters operates with a plethora of money that originates with George Soros, but first goes through at least three hands in the political version of laundering the money. John Gotti was successful when he stayed under the radar and the same is true of George Soros, but now, he has found the spotlight all too comfortable and the facade is about to pulled over him.

He is an Anti American radical who is looking to buy the next election and then control the Democrats through his power and money. If America doesn't figure out who he is and what he is up to, he may even succeed. Here, again, is O'Reilly's TPM tracing Soros, his money, and his agenda...

“The Factor” has been investigating far left billionaire George Soros, a man who wants
to impose a radical left agenda on America. And under the radar, he is making
great progress.
Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed
to do two things: buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people
with whom he disagrees.

Now here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help
him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with me on this. Most
of Soros' political money flows through his Open Society
Institute. You see it there on the left, which is almost unlimited
funding.

Since 2001, according to federal documents, the Open Society Institute has
given nearly $20 million to the Tides Foundation right
below that. An astounding amount.

Now Tides, in turn, funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men
who are all well paid. For example, Tides has donated millions to the vile
propaganda outfit Media Matters, which specializes in distorting comments made
by politicians, pundits, and media people. Media Matters is an Internet site, but
directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people including elements
at NBC News, columnist Frank Rich and Paul Krugman at The New York Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at PBS. — In fact,
as president of the Shoeman Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at least a
$500,000 transfer of money to Media Matters. — We'll have more on that
tomorrow.

Now George Soros is also pouring money into the Center for American
Progress, run by former Clinton aide John Podesta, and the Democracy Alliance
Group, both of which fund Media Matters as well. So you can see the enormous
amount of money this Media Matters has control of.

Finally, George Soros has given the radical left organization Move On many,
many millions of dollars. — This group actively supports liberal politicians
like Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting
left-wing causes.

So you can see how powerful this guy Soros has become. He can smear anyone
he wants in a variety of ways. His organizations can raise millions for
politicians, who will do his bidding. Thus, he can demand that politicians
running for office do what he tells them to do.

If the liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be
denied funding and brutally attacked. — Just ask Senator Joseph
Lieberman about what Move On and Media Matters did to him.

Now "Talking Points" has reason to believe John Edwards is taking orders
from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as
well.

The goal of George Soros, Peter Lewis, Suzy Thompkins Buell and other
radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. —By that I mean find and
fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.

In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is
the likes of George Soros — an extremist who wants open borders, a one world
foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia and on and on.

My book "Culture Warrior"
documents Soros' policy and his tax evading businesses located in Curacao and
Bermuda.

The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have
never even heard of George Soros. his is off the chart dangerous, but completely
legal under the McCain-Feingold Act.

Time to Mobilize

The Rush Limbaugh fiasco is entering its sixth day and now the Legislature on the Democratic side has gotten into the act. Tom Harkin got onto the Senate Floor and said this,

Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don’t know
whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an
excuse.

Harry Reid said this

“Freedom of speech is one of our country’s most cherished values,” Reid told
the Senate. “Nothing sets us further apart than the countries and regimes we
oppose than our belief that everyone’s opinion matters, and everyone has the
right to express it.
“That is why, when we hear things on the radio that are
offensive, by and large, we tolerate them. But last week, Rush Limbaugh went way
over the line – and while we respect his right to say anything he likes, his
unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored.”

The truth is that Media Matters, wholly owned smear merchant subsidiar of anti American radical George Soros cooked up this supposed controversy to try and take the heat off the Betray Us ad and to try and marginalize a voice that they do not agree with.

Finally, while unfortunately, I will be tripling his own audience with this, Joe Scarborough did stand up for Rush this morning

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Now you've got Media Matters going after Rush Limbaugh. This
really does look like a phony story about a phony soldier.

WILLIE GEIST: Once again, Joe, as we did with O'Reilly [regarding his
"Sylvia's" comments] we went back and looked at the transcript. The comment
they're talking about is the, quote, "phony soldiers" comment that Rush Limbaugh
made when he was talking to a caller on his show last week. Well, he was talking
about a specific solder, this guy Jesse Macbeth, you might remember, who claimed
to have served in Iraq and came back and criticized the war. He never went to
Iraq, never served.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on one second, by definition, can I Google "phony
soldier"?

GEIST: I don't think you have to Google on this one. So, it's sort of hard to
argue that he was, that Limbaugh was [not] right on this one. Again, no context
ever given. They see the quote "phony soldiers," and that's all they hear. But
he was actually talking about a person who actually was a phony soldier.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, so it's been blown out of context.

GEIST: Of course.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sure Media Matters will make a lot of money for blowing it
out of context, cause people hate Rush Limbaugh, and you know, so who knows,
maybe George Soros will write them a big, fat million-dollar check.

So, if you have had enough, and you want your voice heard, there is something simple that you can do. First, email each of your Senators and your Congressperson (I have included a link to find all at the end of the post. Also, you can email or call Clear Channel and tell them to stand up for their talent and I will include their information at the end as well.

Here is a reprint of my email to my own Senator, Dick Durbin,

I understand that the House and the Senate is floating a resolution attempting to condemn Rush Limbaugh for supposed anti military comments he made on September 25th. Some people may in fact be fooled by this stunt. I know that you Democrats were embarrassed and put on the defensive when your allies at Moveon.org put out an advertisement that was vile and scurrilous. I know that you are hoping to get back on offense so to speak, but I for one know what is going on. This supposed controversy has its nexus at Media Matters, the smear merchant, wholly owned subsidiary of not only Hillary Clinton but George Soros. George Soros is a billionaire anti American far left radical and he is attempting to buy the next election. The fact that this has made it into the Senate shows how powerful he is and if you vote for it, even though you know full well the controversy is contrived, you will be exposed as being in his pocket. The country will not stand for a politician, any politician, to be bought and paid for, by an Anti American radical. I expect you to at least abstain from voting for this filth. If you don't I will do whatever I need to do to expose your connection to this anti American radical.

Finally, if you vote for this ludicrous resolution, I also expect you to bring these resolutions to the floor as well...

1- A resolution condemning Tom Harkin (D) for lying about his military service record
2- A resolution condemning Harry Reid (D) for saying the “war is lost”
3- A resolution condemning John Kerry (D) for implying those in the military are dumb and “terrorizing Iraqis
4- A resolution condemning John Murtha (D) for saying our troops committed “murder” and “war crimes” in Haditha
5- A resolution condemning Dick Durbin for comparing our troops to “Pol Pot” and “Nazi’s”
6- A resolution condemning Hillary Clinton (D) for ever so nicely saying General Petraeus was a liar and his testimony required the “willing suspension of disbelief”

Those without sin, Senator, should cast the first stone, and you once claimed that Gitmo was not much different than Soviet Gulags. My grandfather spent twenty years in a Soviet Gulag because his successful business was a threat to Stalin. You compared our soldiers to those that abused my grandfather, and that is offensive. Thus, if you have the nerve, given your own history, to vote for this resolution, you should be honorable enought to also bring to the floor a resolution condemning yourself.

To find your Senator go here and to find your Representative go here

Here is the information to contact Rush's employer, Clear Channel...

ClearChannel Contact Information:
Clear Channel200 East Basse RoadSan Antonio, TX 78209
Phone 1-210-822-2828
Communications / Media Relations:
Lisa Dollinger 1-210-822-2828
lisacdollinger@clearchannel.com
Radio Sanda Coyle
Phone: 1-210-822-2828
Email: sandacoyle@clearchannel.com

Dems Get Deeper into Bed with Soros

As I pointed out last week, the important part of the Betray Us ad story is who is fronting the money for the group, Moveon.org. That person is George Soros. Well, another of his attack dog groups, Media Matters, stirred another pot with another adversary, Rush Limbaugh, later in the week. Here is how it went

So, word is that the Democrats will introduce a House resolutionMonday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his remarks about phony soldiers. Brian Maloney points out that ABC News aired a report on phony soldiers and Operation Stolen Valor two days before Rush made his remarks. Asks Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”

Here is what this phony fiasco is really all about: It’s about the MoveOn.org Democrats trying to save face in the aftermath of the disastrous “General Betray Us” smear. They want their own moment of righteous (or rather, lefteous) indignation, their own empty proof that they really, really, really do support the troops. They want to shift attention away from MoveOn.org, its bully tactics, and its thug brethren at Media Matters. They are making a pathetic attempt to equate the “Betray Us” attack–which was deliberately timed for publication and maximum p.r. damage to our military command when the world was watching our top general in Iraq testifying in Congress–with a radio talk show host’s ruminations about anti-war
soldiers who have faked their military records/history.

Here is a transcript of the important portion

BREWER: Some leading Democrats are attacking radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh because he called soldiers who opposed the Iraq war "phony." Limbaugh was criticizing the anti-war movement generally and made the comment to a caller.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

BREWER: Democratic Senator John Kerry is demanding an apology from Limbaugh, whose comments he calls "disgusting and an embarrassment."

RUSH: That's really rich. John Kerry, whose own soldiers, his own personnel, fellow soldiers in those Swift Boats, at least many of them who said he was lying about his supposed heroics, this is the same John Kerry who went out and insulted the intelligence of the troops, thereby torpedoing his own 2008 presidential candidacy. His statement includes these words: "This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the chicken hawk wing of the far right is an insult to American troops." I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I'm going to play for you. It's Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had the transcript. But they selectively choose what they want to make their point. It runs about three minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're
proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice
and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

RUSH: It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the
minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.
Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers.
This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities
and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say
in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the
anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with
post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made
Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view,
off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the
abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians,
hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into
Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth
describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their
bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day
in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three
years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his
Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks,
briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't
an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the
Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to
have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you
haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in
the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't
look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the
anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's
lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves
their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find
any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words,
for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the
truth.

RUSH: That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one
phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose,
which is exactly the way the website, Media Matters, generated this story,
fiction, out of context, did so knowingly. What is amazing is that after all of
the examples of how this organization is simply a Democrat Party Hillary Clinton
front group; how they constantly do this; how they take things out of context
and embarrass themselves and get things wrong; they still have credible
so-called journalists and others, members of Congress, Democrat Party, who treat
what they say as gospel. Not one member of the media, not one congressman,
nobody has called our office to ask, "Did you really say this? And what did you
mean by it?" The reason this does not work, ladies and gentlemen, is that I have
a 19-and-a-half-year record on this program of being one of the most devoted
supporters of US military personnel in uniform that there is.

Now, Rush is referring to the plethora of supposed soldiers and even real soldiers that have doctored up incidents to put a negative spin on the war effort. These soldiers include, Jesse MacBeth, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Amorita Randall, and also Josh Lansdale just to name a few. Rush was not speaking of soldiers that then go on to protest the war. Maybe he wasn't clear, and maybe he was, however he made his intent very clear soon enough. Still, that wasn't enough and the Soros cohorts at MSNBC had a field day with this story. It turned into an absolute orgy

TAMRON HALL: Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh never served
in the armed forces, so when he made the following comments about Iraq War
veterans who return home to oppose the war, it set off a firestorm of outrage.
Take a listen.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not, and what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

HALL: MSNBC wanted to hear Mr. Limbaugh's side of the story, but he declined our invitation. Instead, he offered this on the show today. Here's a quote: "If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology. They owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology -- and are they owed massive defeat in 2008! They are irresponsible, they are dishonest, they are incompetent, and they pose a great threat to this country -- as evidenced by this small little episode."

HALL: To talk more about that episode, U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, who's an MSNBC military analyst, is here with us to talk about this. So, Colonel Jacobs, it's interesting, of course, MoveOn.Org, heavy criticism, even taken up issue on the Congress floor about their "General Betray Us" ad. Is it different when you criticize a general as MoveOn.Org did as when you compare to Rush Limbaugh's comments about soldiers?

Retired Colonel JACK JACOBS, MSNBC military analyst:

Well, stupid talk is stupid talk no matter who it comes from and who it's talking about. You know, when I was in Vietnam, we looked back at the states and saw all the turmoil in the streets, the yelling and screaming in Congress, complaints and moaning and groaning on television, and we didn't pay any attention to any of that stuff. We had lots more important things to do like taking care of each other and completing the mission. Whether you're for the war or against the war, it's really quite irrelevant.

HALL: So it does not affect the morale of troops because you often hear people say, oh, they can hear what's going on here, and it affects the way they feel out there.

JACOBS: Well, they do hear what's going on, you know. With technology being the way it is, with all the information that's going out to the battlefield and coming back from the battlefield, there's a huge, so they can hear, everybody out there can hear everything that goes on back in the United States, including stuff like this and MoveOn.Org and so on. But they're not paying any attention to it.

HALL: How are troops who come out and, lately have come out against the war, how are they treated and perceived by other personnel in the military?

JACOBS: Well, it's interesting. You know, it's a free country. You can say anything you want to anytime you want to. And that includes soldiers, as well, but it's an interesting thing about war. Emotions that are forged in the crucible of combat are extremely tough indeed. And most of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, they like to think about their comrades, about taking care of their comrades, and it's going to be very, very difficult to get them to say anything bad about their comrades and what they do. They can oppose the war and think that we've done a bad job, we didn't use enough resources, we should have gone in with more troops, should never have gone in in the first place. They can think and say all those things, but at the end of the day, they're going to keep faith with the troops who are back there fighting.

HALL: But without some of their insight, we would not be able to know the other side. Of course, my father was in the Army for 35 years. He follows the line, I know. He's master sergeant. But without insight from the troops, you have all of these people on the outside who have never served chiming in giving their opinion.

JACOBS: Well, you raise a very significant question. It's really a good thing that we, we ought to pay as much attention as we possibly can to people who have the experience, including the generals who have come out and said, look, we did this all wrong, and we the generals should have paid more attention to it and said more at the time, and pay no attention to people, for example, like Rush Limbaugh and the people at MoveOn.Org who have no military experience at all.

HALL: So from the people who have the military experience, are you thinking that they want MoveOn.Org, Rush Limbaugh, both sides just to shut up at some point?

JACOBS: Yeah, I think if you were to distill it down to its irreducible minimum, I think soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines would like people who don't know what they're talking about to just shut up.

HALL: All right, thank you very much, Colonel Jacobs. Always good to talk to you. Love that frank talk that you give me.

It continued on Countdown...

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I never said what you think I said

OLBERMANN: Not only did he, now he said something similar about the Congressman and Vietnam vet Jack Murtha.

OLBERMANN SOON CONTENDED: Limbaugh now trying to claim that his tirade
referred to just one phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq war. That re-write might have a better chance of passing the smell test had Mr. Limbaugh's original 'phony soldiers' comment -- still plural at that point -- not come nearly two minutes before he ever mentioned MacBeth on yesterday's radio show. Limbaugh making things worse for himself today by adding Congressman John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet, to his list of 'phony soldiers' -- now back to being plural.

AUDIO OF LIMBAUGH: How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?

I have already pointed out the sophisticated and complicated yet cozy relationship between the Democrats and George Soros. Now, the Democrats have joined the fun. Harry Reid is demanding an apology and Congressman Udall, also running for Senate, has even taken up a motion for a non binding resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh. Now, clearly, they are hoping to strike back at Conservatives and minimize the damage from the Betray Us ad, however this is going to back fire. What they have actually done is further brought out into the open their own cozy relationship with George Soros. Remember, everyone that Media Matters is the attack dog funded by Soros through his Tides foundation (which of course gets their money from OSI and yes it is supposed to be this complicated). Now that the Democrats of our legislature are treating the words of Media Matters as gospel, there is nowhere else to run. Their relationship with Soros and his attack dogs is there for everyone to see.

Moveon.org: Your Garden Variety Bully: UPDATED

One of my favorite movies is A Bug's Life. There is a scene that I will never forget. Two grasshoppers, Molt and Hopper, are discussing a previous meeting they had with the ants. Hopper had taken it easy on an ant. Molt was furious while the Hopper couldn't see what the big deal was. Molt throws a seed at Hopper and then a second seed and then a third, and finally, he pulls the lever and and all the seeds come flowing down upon Hopper until he is overwhelmed by the seeds.

Molt: You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back! Does anybody else wanna stay?[grasshoppers shocked - all the grasshoppers "rev up" their wings]

Molt: [motioning a fellow grasshopper] He's quite the motivational speaker, isn't he?Hopper: Let's ride!

That's the thing about bullies. They rule by fear. Their power is a facade that is taken away the minute someone stands up to them. In reality they are cowards. The sort of folks that can dish things out but have a big problem taking them. (for a perfect example of bully behavior only look at the way Rosie acted towards Liz Hasselback as soon as Liz stood up to her) We have reached that moment folks with regards to Moveon. Just like all of the ants we also have a chance to stand up all at once and pull away the facade that they have.

I give yet another hat tip to Michelle Malkin on this one. A group called Cafe Press decided to take capitalistic advantage over the bru ha ha caused by Moveon.org's Betray Us Ad in the New York Times. Capitalizing on the backlash, this group created some bumper stickers, tee shirts and other items that frankly presented their own views on the subject. Here are the items in question..

Now, Moveon can say what they want, but playing pop psychologist, it seems rather apparent that they frankly only like to attack and get defensive whenever they are actually attacked back. They cried trademark infringement, but as Michelle explains this a legal arguement that doesn't hold mustard...

Last week it demanded that the site remove eight items, arguing that they violated MoveOn’s merchandising trademarks.

Trademark law doesn’t confer monopoly rights over all uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however, and it wasn’t created simply to protect the trademark owner’s interests. Instead, it’s designed to protect consumers against being misled or confused about brands. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of parodies and critiques; that’s why www.famousbrandnamesucks.com doesn’t violate famousbrandname’s trademark. And most, if not all, of the items targeted by MoveOn were clearly designed to razz it, not to trick buyers into thinking they were the group’s products.

Beyond that, it’s amazing that MoveOn would try to squelch political speech.

So, let's review. Moveon.org viciously attacks a general in the field of battle with a scurrilous and unfair attack. They use the nations mostly widely read paper and they even get a discount to do it. Then, a small outfit uses their attack to create some bumper stickers which mock Moveon.org. What does Moveon.org do...they immediately cry foul and use their first opportunity to try and squelch another's freedom of speech. This is typical bully behavior. Whenever they are directly challenged, a la Rosie in her dust up with Liz Hasselback, they immediately stomp their feet and cry.

For more on this story, go here. Also, if you want one of the items go here and here. More importantly, if you see this bully behavior for what it is, put up the items in question on your own blog and blog about it yourself. Don't stop there, email Moveon.org here and let them know that if they are going to sue, there are going to be an awful lot of defendents. Just like the grasshoppers in A Bug's Life, we have a chance to send Moveon.org crawling back to their own hole with their own tales between their legs.

Here is a couple more of the items in question...

Michelle has an update.

Over the weekend, I blogged about the plight of t-shirt vendors at Cafe Press who were served
cease-and-desist letters by the lawyer thugs at MoveOn.org. With the exception of the LA
Times, I have seen no other MSM coverage of MoveOn.org’s bogus copyright infringement threats against the mom-and-pop retailers who have dared to satirize the thin-skinned left-wing mafia.
This story deserves more attention. And the targets of the intimidation campaign deserve your support. I mentioned that one of the targeted retailers, Parsing Poet at The Polistew Cafe, is selling shirts publicizing

MoveOn.org’s efforts to ban his work. He is donating all profits to the National Military Family Association, which sends kids whose parents are deployed to summer camp and helps spouses and children with issues of deployment & school transitions. Parsing Poet would like to send 1,000 kids to camp:

Feel free to put up any new pictures up on your site. Keep the pressure on and watch these bullies squirm.

Mahmoud: From the Left and Right

The blogosphere is ablaze regarding Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia. I wrote about it here on Friday. From the right, we havenear universal condemnation

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our
commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we
believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of
view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic
discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad
has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are
true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a
repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the
Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply
regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to
his views.

The view from the far left is a whole different

Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly.
Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks
like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s
not all…

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about
Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks,
denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear
power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I
can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the
Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy
preceding.
Recall that, back in May, Ahmadinejad sent a letter
to President Bush:

For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable
contradictions that exist… Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon
Him), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human
rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,

Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make "War on Terror" his slogan,

And finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international
community --- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one
day govern,
But at the same time,

Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people
destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a
village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set
ablaze.

It’s a great question, which I’ve wondered myself. He goes
on:

Because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is
occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and
industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity
of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50
years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of
one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and
women --- as occupation troops --- put in harms way, taken away from family and
loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning
home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments;
while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
Ahmadinejad, it would appear, cares more about American troops than
President Bush.

What is really obscene is that this last quote comes from a self described Jewish lesbian. She acknowledges many of his evil deeds though that doesn't seem to stop her from having a crush on him, despite him being evil, wanting to kill all Jews, and of course besides him being the wrong sex. Of course, Bush Derangement Syndrome takes on a new level when a lesbian finds a man attractive simply because that mean, a sociopathic and murderous tyrant, also hates Bush as much as she does.

As for condemnation of his very appearance at Columbia, we have yet to see that. Again, I note that the Daily Kos invited all of the Democratic Presidential candidates to a debate and all but Joseph Biden gladly accepted. I hope that is kept in mind when we are all choosing our Presidential candidate.

Kos sends out warnings

Just yesterday, I wrote about the political hubris of the far left. Well, they aren't just abundantly arrogant (or definition of hubris), but also mad and vindictive. Today, John Cornyn used a non binding resolution to back Democrats into a corner: support a decorated general or Moveon.org. Most Democrats surprisingly enough supported the general.

Well, this didn't sit well with some, mainly the Daily Kos...

The Democrats just passed a Republican resolution condemning the MoveOn ad that
called General Petraeus a biased figurehead 72-25.
Do the Democrats even know
who votes for them anymore? Don’t they understand that if they continue to piss
off the die-hard Democrats, the MoveOn Democrats, they are going to continue to
lose elections?

The problem for Dems is that these groups will only get louder. The more they get heard the more they are despised and the more everyone starts to realize that this is the Democratic Party. As it was said in 2004, "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.” ...and soon everyone will know it...

Of course, it should be noted that while the bill passed overwelmingly 75-23, Hillary Clinton voted against it and sided with Moveon.org. I wish her luck explaining that vote come general election time.

Will Moveon Hand Rudy Iowa

Their hubris of course knows no limits. Only hubris of an unbelievable scale could have made anyone at that group think the now famous Betray Us ad would work on the entire population. Now, they are taking on Rudy in full force. They have decided to expand their advertisements in Iowa against him. This from CNN

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org announced Tuesday it is expanding its Iowa
television ad attacking GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani to national
cable, a move that follows the former New York City mayor's release of a radio
ad blasting the group and calling himself its "worst nightmare."
The MoveOn
ad, which began airing in Iowa Monday, slams Giuliani for leaving the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group after two months. The ad argues that he “has always been a big
fan of George Bush’s war in Iraq. Yet when Giuliani had the chance to actually
do something about the war, he went AWOL."
Giuliani's radio ad released
Tuesday does not address MoveOn's claims..."

Now, as we all know, it was a tactical error for Rudy to wait so long to advertise in Iowa. As a result while he is the prohibitive front runner, in Iowa, Mitt Romney, fourth or lower nationally, leads. We all understand how important the first state is to the national race, and now, while in the lead on the one hand, Rudy trails where it will probably matter most.

Enter Moveon.org to pump Rudy up in Iowa. If we all think about it, Moveon.org placing anti Rudy ads in Iowa are not only more effective than his own ads but obviously much cheaper. Rudy now has priceless free advertising at a time when he desperately needs it.

Is their hubris really this ridiculous? What do the folks at Moveon.org think will happen everytime any Republican primary voter hears one of their ads attacking Rudy? Do they really think that their political opponents will be swayed in their direction? Obviously, we all know what will happen as a result of this full frontal assault on Rudy by Moveon.org.

Rudy loves to fight. I have mentioned it earlier. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if I found out that in school he got into lots of fist fights. Now, he gets into lots of poltical fights. Rudy will fight with Moveon.org as long as Moveon.org reciprocates, and if that means a confrontation all the way to the primary in Iowa in January so be it. Of course, if that happens he won't just win Iowa but win big.

So, if I am in the Rudy camp, I am grinning. I wouldn't want to smile too big or maybe just maybe, Moveon.org will realize what any high school level poly sci class student can figure out on their own.

As a Rudy supporter, bring it on Moveon.org, Rudy is behind in Iowa and he needs all the help he can get.

Who is John Mearsheimer?

John Mearsheimer is a faculty member of the Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago. He has been employed at the University since 1982. He is a proponent of the theory offensive realism. He summed it up as such,

Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and
tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is
to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by
another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to
become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power
to survive

Mearsheimer gained prominence (or maybe noteriety) when he published the paper, The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, along with partner, Stephen Walt. The thesis of the paper was,

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far
from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while
simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are
essentially identical".[2]
They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest
groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies.
What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According
to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has
"significant leverage over the Executive
branch," as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective
on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They
claim that AIPAC in
particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to its
"ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its
agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."

It went on to claim that the invasion of Iraq was influenced if not orchestrated by the same Israeli lobby. To say this was controversial is to make quite an understatement. Of course, the Israeli lobby is there among the boogeymen of the netroots along with such groups as PNAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to form the Neoconservative movement that the netroots blame for much of the evil of the world.

With this paper, Mearsheimer became a rock star in the circles of the netroots. His foreign policy beliefs go beyond simply blaming Israel for much of the evils of the world. For instance, he believes that the U.S. should play a more even handed role mediating between the Democratic state of Israel and the territory of Palestine currently government by Hamas, one of the State Department's terrorist groups. He thinks of course that we should withdraw from Iraq, and also from the Middle East entirely.

It is however some of his thoughts on Iran that this diarist found most interesting. Why don't I let Mr. Mearsheimer speak for himself though... hat tip to John Hinderaker at Power Line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFtGJRuz18g

To summarize, Iran is not at war with the United States. Iran is NOT responsible for most of the alphabet soup explosives currently killing U.S. soldiers. Whatever their responsibility in Iraq it is only done because they are concerned that if the U.S. succeeds Iran will be next. Iran reached out in 1990's to the U.S. If the U.S. had reached back well then relations would be better now. Ahmadinejad is did not say the Israel would be wiped off the face of the Earth, but rather that the only Democracy in the Middle East is doomed for failure.

Now, what is of course important is not merely the kooky ideas that Mearsheimer expouses but where he expoused them. He was recently invited to lead a foreign policy forum at the Yearly Kos Convention. That would be the same convention that each of the Democratic nominees for President also attended.

Now, their excuse for much of the nasty and incendiary commentary on the Daily Kos is that it was only a fringe part of the site. This man is not some fringe character. He was invited to lead the Foreign Policy forum. He expouses everything that the Kos Kids and much of the nutroots in general believe in the area of foreign policy, and by showing up at the same convention these same candidates gave his views at least tacit approval.

Nutroots Declares War on Everyone

Everyone that they have any disagreement with that is. Hey, as long as you tow the line they won't go after you: Bush is evil, we must not confront Iran, Israel is evil, warrantless wiretaps are evil, Gitmo is evil, the Patriot Act is evil, The ACLU will protect us all, have I missed anything. These are a lot of things to tow the line on.

Of course, their hatred for Bush is long and distinguished and needs to links or further exposition. Their first Democratic target was of Senator Joseph Lieberman. Their first television network was FoxNews, and their first foreign ally was Israel. Now, they have set their their sites on some segments of the Democratic that they don't see eye to eye with.

While for now, they have only given mild criticism of the Democratic leadership, I think that will change if in September the troop surge is ACTUALLY given more time. In the meantime, though we have some delicious political theater right now.

The wrath of the netroots right now is the Blue Dog Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Conference. Now, as much as I love watching political theater, this is even better because there is nothing like watching the other party in an all out civil war. Harold Ford Jr. did something sacreligious last night, at least according to the netroots. He showed up on FoxNews. To make it worse he criticized Daily Kos.

“I would have gone to DailyKos (mispronouncing the name and getting the
name of the YearlyKos conference wrong, too) and told them, ‘I think you’re
wrong the way you go about practicing your politics. If you’re serious about
winning the war and bringing the country together, get another message and
another set of tactics.”

To me this is frankly mild criticism, but maybe as the old saying goes, "you can dish it out but you can't take it"

On another front, the Daily Kos is now in all out hissy fit over the Blue Dogs supporting the warrantless wiretapping program. They are ready for an all out war come the primaries in 2008,

Some are already talking about primary challenges for Democrats whom they
consider enablers of Mr. Bush, like moderate Blue Dogs who formed the core of
Democratic support for the eavesdropping proposal in the House. On the Web site
Open Left, the blogger Matt Stoller accused the Blue Dogs of one of their
“standard betrayals.”

Right now, this is all just political theater in my estimation, however it will take on extra significance if the surge continues beyond September. I predict Kos et al to go into full out scorched Earth upon anyone that they consider to enable the surge. Let's remember that all but Joe Biden came to the Yearly Kos convention and no one went to the annual convention of the DLC. Thus, we know where the people running for President are in the fight.

Can the supposed disciplined, pragmatic, and intelligent, Hillary Clinton really be so politically blind. Yeah, it sure makes sense to kow tow to Daily Kos during the primary season but it is literal political suicide during the general election. Does Hillary really think that a group that hates Israel, hates the war on terror, hates any measure that protects us, hates everyone but themselves...does she really think that getting into bed with this group will win in the general election.

Bill O'Reilly has already declared war against Daily Kos et al, and in war he is, I am betting on him. Here is what he said recently

All the Democratic candidates failed to show up at a moderate Democratic
meeting in Tennessee, yet they kiss the feet of the hateful radicals.
Come
election time, independent voters will remember that if the far left ever comes
to power in this country, you can kiss the USA as you know it good bye.
Now
it's interesting to note that Congress just passed a law giving the National
Security Agency more latitude to monitor calls from the USA to suspected
terrorists overseas. Obviously, that's the major terror fighting tool.
But it
is vehemently opposed by the far left. Read the lead editorial in Tuesday's New
York Times if you want their point of view.
Senator Clinton voted against
that new law, as did Barack Obama -- another mistake. Again, come election time,
pandering to the far left will be a factor in how independent Americans
vote.
The reason the Democratic candidates are making these foolish decisions
is that they see the mainstream press actively rooting for the far left to
succeed in America. Talking Points could not find one media account of the Kos
convention that even criticized their vile postings, grossly insulting people
like Senator Joseph Lieberman. The bias is disgusting.
On CNN, Howard Kurtz,
again, loaded up his discussion of the convention with anti-O'Reilly guests. Not
one supported exposition of the hate site -- not one. Now Kurtz knows this is
unfair, but he continues to do it.
This entire thing is simply out of
control. Just because you run a Web site doesn't mean you can't defame and
injure people. Every Jewish person in the world should be marching against the
Kos for all the hate Israel stuff posted on it.
Senator Clinton and the
others may think that the far left approval will help them, but it will not. You
just wait and see.

I think he's right. We will see but I will take bets in the meantime.