Daily Kos

Rove versus Coulter

Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 10:29:57 AM PDT

We've all known for awhile that Ann Coulter is completely insane, but I don't think I realized until just now how completely gone she is. Believe it or not, she is actually going after Karl Rove. Quoting from her latest column:
Of course, we could have done it a lot earlier on election night but for "Boy Genius" Karl Rove. It's absurd that the election was as close as it was. The nation is at war, Bush is a magnificent wartime leader, and the night before the election we didn't know if a liberal tax-and-spend, Vietnam War-protesting senator from Massachusetts would beat him.

If Rove is "the architect" - as Bush called him in his acceptance speech - then he is the architect of high TV ratings, not a Republican victory. By keeping the race so tight, Rove ensured that a race that should have been a runaway Bush victory would not be over until the wee hours of the morning.

Anyone want to take bets on whether Ann wakes up with a horse's head tomorrow?

Lawyerly Distinctions

Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:55 AM PDT

I'm just watching CNN's latest discussion (polemic?) on the resignation of Ben Ginsberg, the lawyer for Bush who also worked for the SBVFT.  Blitzer, in his characteristically idiotic way, is asking the Democrat on the show about the connections between the Kerry campaign and 527s like MoveOn, ACT, etc. and asking if those relationships are appropriate.  


I have no problem with a lawyer representing both Bush and any conservative 527, just as lawyers working for both Kerry and liberal 527s do.  So here's the distinction between the Bush camp and the Kerry camp that the media needs to understand, in its own slow-witted fashion:

  1. Bush has explicitly come out against ALL 527s, while having at least one lawyer on his staff who represents 527s (in particular, this one.)  This is called "hypocrisy."  Kerry has done no such thing.
  2. And this is the really critical one- the SBVFT are liars.  MoveOn, ACT, etc. run ads that criticize Bush for things he has actually done, they don't just go around making shit up.  



Anyone willing to take odds on whether any major media outlet manages to make that distinction in the next week?

Bush: "We never stop thinking of ways to harm our country"

Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 07:07:06 AM PDT

Was anyone else watching CNN just now (10:04 EDT)?  I have a new favorite chimpy quote:


"The terrorists never stop thinking of ways to harm our country, and neither do we."


Ahh, that's Chimpy at his best- nothing better than when he (mis)speaks the truth.  My kingdom for a transcript!  

Rick Santorum, Child Lover

Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 06:16:29 AM PDT

I was just watching CNN's coverage of the hate amendment, and they had a clip of Rick Santorum saying something much like "You may call me a hater.  But I prefer to think of myself as a lover.  A lover of children and families."  

When I combine these comments with his "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage, I can't help wonder if Rick feels that a constitutional amendment is the only thing that will stop him from unleashing the monster within and joining NAMBLA.

Think about it- who would be a better spokesman for the hate amendment than a tortured, self-hating pedophile who announces publicly that the only thing preventing him from going after YOUR CHILDREN is his respect for the rule of law?    

Which Bush Career Contributor is Playing with Nukes? (with poll)

Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 05:09:49 PM PDT

It appears that there is at least one US-based company that is involved in the nuclear black market.

I'm curious as to which company kossacks think is the most likely culprit.  I tried to provide a good cross-section of companies headed by Rangers, Pioneers, and members of the government, but if you think of any others, please don't hesitate to put them in the comments.  

Poll

Most likely culprit?

6%1 votes
0%0 votes
46%7 votes
6%1 votes
33%5 votes
0%0 votes
6%1 votes

| 15 votes | Vote | Results

No More Rape Rooms

Fri Apr 30, 2004 at 09:44:56 AM PDT

Where the hell does W get the nerve to give this quote:
As a result [of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power], there are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms in Iraq."

In the light of the 60 Minutes II Iraq prison abuse story?

Could this guy be any more out of touch?

Kerry: "I'm not confiscatorial"

Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 09:49:57 AM PDT

Link to a story in AP about Kerry campaigning in Chicago.

This story is chock full of Kerry quotes that drive me up the wall:

"I'm tired of talking about valuing families and not valuing families."

or perhaps

"This is pretty simple. The workplace of the United States of America is as stressed as I don't think I've seen it stressed at any time. That's almost criminal. It's not criminal, but I want to underscore how unbelievable it is."

And of course, there's the quote that is the title of my diary, which was Kerry's reply when he was asked about being a tax-and-spend liberal. All of this leads me to ask: WHO TALKS LIKE THAT???

As a final happy note, the end of the article mentions that Howard Wolfson, who joined the campaign on Monday to deal with the response to Bush's attacks, left on Thursday after clashing with Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's spokeswoman. Do we need this right now? The Democrats don't have enough problems already, without battles within the campaign staff?

My advice to the Kerry campaign: stop bickering with each other and go hire Henry Higgins to teach Kerry to talk like a normal person.

Don Bushleone

Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 06:12:34 PM PDT

You just can't make this stuff up:
Americans would not be paying high prices for gasoline if the Congress had passed President Bush's proposed energy package three years ago, a White House spokesman said Tuesday. link

Essentially, the White House is saying that Congress screwed up by not paying off the oil industry when it had the chance, and now American consumers are paying a penalty in the form of higher gas prices.

Does this mean that Exxon Mobil will be leaving a horse's head in Tom Daschle's bed?

Does the right-wing spin machine go in reverse?

Fri Mar 19, 2004 at 06:28:30 PM PDT


AP, by way of Yahoo,
is reporting that the Bush administration is considering adding a UN-commanded force in Iraq, to accomodate the demands of the new Spanish government.  

It seems that the Bush administration is making a half-hearted, incompetent attempt to do what many of us on the left have been saying since the elections in Spain- including Krugman, the CAP report from yesterday, and even me.  

Interesting that they decided to release this on a Friday- maybe they are hoping that Perle and Wolfie don't read the Saturday newspaper?

Would anyone like to predict how the neocon columnists will react to this?  After calling the Spanish "appeasers" all week long, how will they spin this if they stay in Iraq under the UN flag?  

Spanish Disquisitions

Thu Mar 18, 2004 at 12:23:03 PM PDT

I don't know about you, but I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the neocons foaming at the mouth over the Spanish elections.  You have got to love some of these quotes:


The new Spanish government's decision to respond to the attack by Al Qaeda by going ahead with plans to pull its troops from Iraq constitutes the most dangerous moment we've faced since 9/11.  -- Thomas L. Friedman


This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.    -- David Brooks


It's a spectacular result for Islamist terrorism, and a chilling portent of Europe's future. -- Andrew Sullivan



Wow.  You can almost see these guys pausing to breathe into a paper bag as they write this stuff.  Let's see if we can help them calm down a bit.  

::