2001 Article Shows Democrats Hoped for Bush to Fail

On 9/11, James Carville Said he Wanted Bush to Fail

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Fox News

2006 Poll Shows Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail

California Columnist 'Hopes for Civility' by Attacking Republicans

More hypocrisy.

Here are some choice cuts from something called Larry Magid, writing for the San Jose Mercury News:

1. Palin's "leadership" during this campaign served as a negative role model, implying that it's OK to spread rumors and call people names. While she never said that Obama was a terrorist, she did say he pals around with them [True]. She also called him a "socialist," [True] which gave ammunition to some on talk radio and in the blogosphere to imply that he's a "Marxist" [True] and "communist" [True] and therefore a likely dictator [Remains to be seen].

2. It wasn't just the presidential campaign that nauseated me. There was the comment by Rep. Michele Bachmann, [She is one awesome congresschick, by the way] R-Minn., to MSNBC's Chris Matthews [Obama's Bitch] implying that some members of Congress are un-American. [True. Hello!!!]

3. And who can forget defeated North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole's implication that her opponent (a Sunday school teacher) was "Godless." [True. I guess it is okay to be Godless, but it is not okay to point this out because it 'nauseates' this moron.]

This guy goes on to compare people who dare disagree with him to 'cyberbullies,' which is a real problem. I guess Mr. Magid thinks people who think independent of him should be gotten rid of, just like cyberbullies should be done away with.

Democrat Controlled LA Times Attacks 'Right-Wing Media'

Ooh...the hypocrisy. By the way, they must have REALLY cut back on the news room. I write better than this loon.

You have to give Rush Limbaugh a perverse kind of credit. At least when he is demonizing Barack Obama, fabricating Obama policies, blaming Obama for single-handedly causing the recession and the stock market crash, he doesn't pretend to be fair.

Opening his first post-election rant against the president-elect, Limbaugh launched in with a certain relish. "The game," he told his radio listeners, "has begun."

Sean Hannity, on the other hand, insisted on feigning a post-election detente, telling his Fox News television audience last week, "I want Barack Obama to succeed."

Didn't he think anyone would notice that, just a moment later, he was back parroting the failed campaign argument that Obama is a "mystery"?

"I fear [this] is the guy that has these radical associations 20 years ago," Hannity added, an odd way of demonstrating support for the new commander in chief.

A healthy skepticism is not only the media's right but its obligation. Indeed, commentators at many mainstream outlets -- including the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal -- have already argued that Obama's best bet to succeed will be if he hews to a centrist path. [No you have not.]

But many on the losing end of last week's election want to hold on to their anger. And there are those in the media -- led by the likes [Remember, this is supposed to be a journalist...] of Limbaugh and Hannity -- only too ready to feed that animus, along with their own ratings.

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."

Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.

But maybe that shouldn't be so surprising, because radio's Biggest Big Man [Remember, this is supposed to be a journalist...] also assures us that the Democrat welcomes "economic chaos" because it gives him "greater opportunity for expanded government." In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.

"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."

A slight problem with Limbaugh's report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing. [Lie. Remember, this is supposed to be a journalist...]

The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.

The president-elect has thus far shown as much interest in taking over your 401(k) as he has in moving the capital to Nairobi. (If you look hard, you might find that one somewhere out there in the blogosphere, too.)

To broadcast such a report -- so drained of context as to constitute a lie -- would be a shameless act at any time. But Limbaugh needlessly stirred the fears of the millions he holds in his thrall -- making the 401(k) thievery sound like nearly a done deal. Shameless.

Hannity and Limbaugh filleted Obama's selection as chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, in a way that exposed their partisan gamesmanship.

Mainstream newspapers have filed plenty of unflinching accounts of Emanuel's tough, occasionally ruthless tactics as a Democratic congressional leader and onetime operative in the Clinton White House. That assessment of bare-knuckle partisanship Hannity seized on. But it wouldn't do to report another aspect of Emanuel's record -- his Clintonesque bent for the political center.

So the Fox-man simply created a new persona for Emanuel as, you guessed it, [Remember, this is supposed to be a journalist...] "one of the hardest left-wing radicals on the left."

Ever open-minded, Hannity concluded, "I think they're going to overreach, and I think we're going to see the person that I think Barack Obama is. I think he is hard, hard left."

Then, I kid you not, [Remember, this is supposed to be a journalist... 'Then, I kid you not?'] Hannity ended with this pledge: "We'll see. We'll give him an opportunity."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham apparently didn't get the memo requiring Obama's opponents to sink immediately and mindlessly into rank partisanship.

The South Carolina senator, one of Sen. John McCain's closest allies in his bid for the presidency, praised Obama's selection of Emanuel as "a wise choice." He added that the new chief of staff could be a tough partisan, but was also "honest, direct and candid" and willing to "work to find common ground where it exists."

Perhaps Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of those intent on poisoning the soil [Guess that includes me] before bipartisanship can take root might recall words of wisdom from Brit Hume, a veteran newsman who is close to leaving the Fox anchor desk for semi-retirement. [Suddenly, Fox News is worthy of being quoted.]

The problem with the accusations of Obama being "dangerous" and "radical," Hume said on election night, "was that it just didn't fit with the man you saw before your eyes."

Rainey is a Times staff writer. [No F-ing kidding? You mean this crap wasn't written by James Joyce's ghost? You forgot to add: I'm Barack Obama and I approved this ad. You're supposed to do that at the end of a political advertisement, even if it is free.]

Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in Manhattan

While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”
Pajamas Media

Democrats Caught Not Paying Gas Tax in Denver

The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention has used the city's gas pumps to fill up and apparently avoided paying state and federal fuel taxes.

The practice, which began four months ago, may have ended hours after its disclosure. An aide to Mayor John Hickenlooper released a statement Tuesday evening saying that Denver 2008 Host Committee members would pay market prices for fuel and would also be liable for all applicable taxes.

—Rocky Mountain News

If Democrats Suddenly Consider John McCain So Bad, Why Did John Kerry Beg Him to be His Vice-President Less Than 4 Years Ago?

Just a thought.
A pretty damn good one...

The Insanity of Bush Hatred

Bush hatred is different. It's not that this time members of the intellectual class have been swept away by passion and become votaries of anger and loathing. Alas, intellectuals have always been prone to employ their learning and fine words to whip up resentment and demonize the competition. Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene.

This distinguishing feature of Bush hatred was brought home to me on a recent visit to Princeton University. I had been invited to appear on a panel to debate the ideas in Princeton professor and American Prospect editor Paul Starr's excellent new book, "Freedom's Power: The True Force of Liberalism." To put in context Prof. Starr's grounding of contemporary progressivism in the larger liberal tradition, I recounted to the Princeton audience an exchange at a dinner I hosted in Washington in June 2004 for several distinguished progressive scholars, journalists, and policy analysts.

To get the conversation rolling at that D.C. dinner--and perhaps mischievously--I wondered aloud whether Bush hatred had not made rational discussion of politics in Washington all but impossible. One guest responded in a loud, seething, in-your-face voice, "What's irrational about hating George W. Bush?" His vehemence caused his fellow progressives to gather around and lean in, like kids on a playground who see a fight brewing.

Source: Wall Street Journal Online

San Francisco Condemns Non-Leftist Free Speech

"This is a dry run against free speech in America by the Islamists and the illegal aliens who are now becoming one and the same," said Savage in August. "It's the same organizational structure. � I am the target of this dry run. They want to see how far they can get in silencing a voice of freedom in the United States of America. They want to see which, if any, governmental agencies will stop them."

"Guess what they learned so far?" he continued. "That not only will no governmental agency stop them in their attempts to kill free speech, they will aid them in their attempts to kill free speech. We have lost our freedoms already.

"Lady Liberty has been hog tied. She is being raped by the illegal aliens. She is being raped by the landlords who are using the illegal aliens. Lady Liberty is there in bindings screaming for us to release her," he said.

Fairer Election? California May End Winner-Take-All Electoral Plan

I looked at some websites talking about this and they were hysterical, calling it a Republican "power grab." However, the Democrats are trying to do the same thing in several Republican States, including Texas, Colorado, North Carolina and Florida. These websites don't mention that. So the GOP is basically defending itself by doing the same thing the Democrats want to do, but it's only bad when Republicans do it. Then it is a "scheme."