Digging a Deeper Hole with Your Mouth

Randi Rhodes shows remarkable resilience, an extraordinary capability and digging herself into a deeper hole, given she has so few teeth to dig with, anymore.

The Radio Equalizer asks a number of good questions, which I’ll answer, here.

• Why did she send an email to Air America staffers claiming to have been mugged if there was no indication one had occurred?

Ya know…I was taken to task by a few people who wondered how it was when Jon Elliot was the only one who was saying she was mugged on the air, that I could charge that Rhodes had made the claim. Simple logic, my dear Watson, where else would he have gotten that information from?  There had to have been communication to the network from Rhodes. it was the only logical choice . She was trying to cover her own issues.  To the Liberal mind, the best thing you can look like is a victim. “I’m a victim of right wing thugs” certainly looks better than “I got blasted out of my bloody mind and fell down.” It also attracts listener sympathy, and thereby listeners, period.   Works better than drawing laughter.  Get the picture?

• Why has host Jon Elliot been forced to apologize for simply relaying Randi’s note to network listeners? Is he the fall guy for her dishonesty?

More likely, the entire network has been dishonest all along.  In our view it’s the only way that you could come anywhere near where Err America is , politically speaking.  One simply cannot maintain the political positions that they do without being totally dishonest.  Why should this situation be any different?

Oh… and the idea of an overnight guy being the fall guy for the dishonesty of the network should not be a surprise to anyone. I worked in radio, for a lot of years.  Trust me on this one; He’s on the overnight shift for a reason, people.  As a result of both his position, and the reason for that position, he makes the easiest fall guy of anyone currently occupying that feted sewer called Err America.

• Since there was never any evidence to support an attack claim, why did she even suggest this possibility in a way she knew would reach the press?

Simple, it was easier than suggesting she’s a boozer, who had downed 14 Bloody Marys at the bar before attempting to stagger home. The truth doesn’t fit the narrative.  Thus, the lies.

• Why won’t she tell us how much she’d had to drink before she’d stepped out of the Irish pub?

Same reason.

• And perhaps most importantly, why doesn’t it bother her that the phony mugging story was quickly turned into a chance to beat up on conservatives, who were actually blamed for the incident?

Because that was always the plan.  Attacking conservatives in the center of the Liberal existence.  The faster you understand that one salient point, the better you will understand everything you need to know about liberalism in general and Err America in particular. And, more particularly yet, this little escapade.

Personally, I wouldn’t expect her to admit any of this, any more than I would expect the network to say anything of the like.  Honesty, as I’ve said, is beneath them.  But that’s becoming par for the course.  As such, if either one of them admits the truth of this matter, I’m going to be amazed.  As it is, they’re going to continue their lives, because it sells better than the truth.  Meantime, rather than being amazed, I will be mildly amused.

Other discussion:

Memeorandum Talking Radio, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Wake up America, protein wisdom,

The Wall Street Journal, today, reminds us of the massacre that wasn’t;

The incident at Haditha–or the massacre, as it is often called–is due for a wholesale rethinking. The allegations are that in 2005 U.S. Marines went on a killing spree and deliberately executed 24 Iraqi civilians. The casualties have drawn an extraordinary amount of political attention, becoming an emblem for everything critics say is wrong with the Iraq war–in the common telling, another My Lai.

Thus Congressman Jack Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, made accusations of war crimes and said the Marines had killed “in cold blood.” These are serious charges; and military justice continues to deal with them seriously, though thankfully at a slower pace than politics. Now the prosecutions have mostly unraveled. It seems Haditha, though tragic, was exploited politically, and the allegations were exaggerated, if not unfounded.

….

Most despicably, they created and stoked a political atmosphere that exposes American soldiers in the line of duty, risking and often losing their lives, to criminal liability for the chaos of war. This is the deepest shame of Haditha, and the one for which apologies ought to be made.

And I’ll tell you where it should start; Jack Murtha.

McQ seems to agree: 

 The “template” or narrative drove the reaction. John Murtha had been claiming the military was ‘broken’ and under great stress. This incident fit that template perfectly, and Murtha (and others) wasted no time in assuming “facts” not in evidence and judging that the Marines were cold-blooded murderers because of the narrative he wanted believed.

There are some sins which are unforgivable, and Martha has committed at least one of them. These sins are particularly egregious for a Marine.  Martha should have known better.  As it is, he’s been successful in negating his own service by his treatment of those now in uniform, and his misrepresentation of the military and the people in it.  .   It’s time for Murtha to leave office.  The man should be on his knees in front of veterans organizations begging forgiveness.  After he gets removed from his office.  Not as a possible preventative for his being removed.

Others: Memeorandum, Bookworm Room, Fausta’s blog,  and Blue Crab Boulevard

Here we go again, with the Chinese donors, to the Clinton campaign.  The LA Times… Hardly a bastion of right wing philosophy, that…

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton’s success in gathering money from Chinatown’s least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.

Well, this seems to be putting the best possible face on the issue.  The fact of the matter is, that something stinks, here.

Many of Clinton’s Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

Maybe.  But where the hell is the money coming from?  These people aren’t earning enough money to be able to toss it away on campaign contributions , without help.  This is hardly a new charge:

Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions.

“We have hundreds of thousands of donors. We are proud to have support from across New York and the country from many different communities,” campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. “In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given. In cases where we couldn’t confirm that, the money was returned.”

Yes, well, about that, you may recall we mentioned here at the beginning of this week that not all of the money from Norman Hsu was returned yet… and he, too was working these poor Chinese areas… and there’s much question about where THAT money came from, as well. Indeed, the Right-O-Sphere is all over this one and to a man they’re all asking… “Where is the money coming from?”

The Times story then goes on to remark about “marginalized ethnic groups” and so on.  Nonsense. Considering the questions about Chinese connections in the past, it would hardly be idle speculation to suggest that there’s a good deal of illegality going on here.  Some others on the story:

Right Voices, Hot Air, Wake up America, NewsBusters.org, Patterico’s Pontifications, michellemalkin.com, Flopping Aces, , Blogs for Bush, Captain’s Quarters, Blue Crab Boulevard, Riehl World View, Spin Cycle, Wizbang, QandO, JammieWearingFool, Suitably Flip,

According to, Kathyrn Jean Lopzz, National Review, Dirty Harry Reid gave this speech on the Senate floor:

REID: MADAM PRESIDENT, EARLY THIS MONTH I CAME TO THE FLOOR TO DISCUSS SOME COMMENTS MADE BY RUSH LIMBAUGH. FOLLOWING MY REMARKS, MORE THAN 40 OF MY SENATE COLLEAGUES AND I CO-SIGNED A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF CLEAR CHANNEL, MARK MAY, TELLING HIM THAT WE WANTED HIM TO CONFER WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH REGARDING THE } STATEMENTS HE MADE. I’VE SINCE SPOKEN TO MARK MAY ABOUT THIS. MARK MAY, IN FACT, CALLED ME REGARDING THIS LETTER. THIS WEEK, RUSH LIMBAUGH PUT THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THAT LETTER UP FOR AUCTION ON E-BAY. MR. PRESIDENT, WE DIDN’T HAVE TIME, OR WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN EVERY SENATOR TO SIGN THAT LETTER. BUT HE PUT THE LETTER UP FOR AUCTION ON E-BAY AND I THINK VERY, VERY CONSTRUCTIVELY, LEFT THE PROCEEDS OF THAT IT GO TO THE MARINE CORPS LAW ENFORCEMENTS FOUNDATION. THAT PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIP ASSISTANCE TO MARINES AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHOSE PARENTS FALL IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

Yet the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel is not Mark May but rather Mark Mays.

If Dirty Harry Reid had actually in fact spoken to Mark Mays, you’d think that Dirty Harry would have at least have gotten Mays’ name right.

More: Allah Pundit, Hot Air. Also, Memeorandum

Err America personality, Randi Rhodes, victim of an unfortunate accident, opened her program with her so-called explanation, video.

It is not an explanation unless, Rhodes explains how much she drank.  The explanation is inadequate unless she reveals how much time she spent in the Irish bar and how many drinks she consumed.   Does Rhodes not know what happened because she was too drunk to recall?  It is certainly a relevant question, and one whch Rhodes ducked.

Hat tip:   Brian Maloney,  Radio Equalizer.

Boortz, yesterday:

Got an email from Matt today. Probably not his real name. He would have good reason to keep his name off my show … since he got kicked out of school for reading Nealz Nuze.

Matt tells me that he had finished his schoolwork and then logged on to Boortz.com. The teacher saw what he was reading and went ballistic. She called the Nuze “hate speech” and sent him to the principal’s office. The school assistant principal then grilled Matt just what it is that he likes about my website .. and then promptly suspended him.

This whole “hate speech” thing is so transparent, childish and tiring. You do know what’s going on here, don’t you? When a liberal finds themselves in a position where they simply can’t mount a rational argument against a position taken by a conservative or libertarian, they simply put their fingers in their ears and start screaming “hate speech!”

Bottom line … just remember that when you hear some liberal squalling about “hate speech,” you’re listening to a liberal who lacks the intellect to deal with the subject at hand. There seems to be quite of those around lately.

It seems to me that there are several points need to be raised from this.  First, the dire need in this country to remove the government hacks from the education process.  Of more immediate impact, and arguably of greater impact, is the concept of the regulation of “hate speech”.  This is a topic that we’ve run across here before.  For example, when wacko extraordinaire Ted Rall insisted that we should ban the Republican party using hate crimes laws as a premise.

When we label opinions as “hate” simply because they disagree with us, particularly with the force of government behind it, we violate one of our most sacred principles.  What about “shall not be infringed” do we not understand?

Thomas Lifson, American Thinker, makes clear the intent of Dirty Harry Reid’s letter to the CBO of Clear Channel:

The letter is, in fact, an important historical document, representing an attempt to silence the single most prominent private citizen critic of the Democratic Party, written on official stationery of the Majority Leader of the United States Senate and bearing the signatures of the vast majority of his caucus, including the front-runner and other candidates for the Party’s presidential nomination. Should the purchaser be so-minded, it may someday be donated to the Smithsonian Institution, National Archives or some other nonprofit library or archive.

Rather than silencing Rush, he has used Dirty Harry’s letter to proverbially skewer Reid in partcular and the ‘rats in general   Rush on H&C.

Hat tip:  Allah Pundit, Hot Air.

I honestly don’t understand why I’m spending any amount of time on this story at all, except for the fact that Andrew Sullivan gets himself Bitch-slapped by Mike Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard:

Does Andrew Sullivan read stories before he comments on them? In this case, I suspect he didn’t, otherwise he’s engaging in pure military-related fantasy. In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among “donors identified as affiliated with the military,” Sullivan headlines a post “Whom the Troops Support,” with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion (actually this is the whole post):

Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who’s first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don’t they?

Except this isn’t about campaign donations from “active service military members,” whatever they might be, but “donors affiliated with the military,” which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first “active service military member” and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth.

Of course, Sullivan isn’t the only one who leaps before he actually reads.   But you have to wonder how many of the left, of which Sullivan is unquestionably one, come to their conclusions similarly under informed. My take is the majority…

Goldfarb by the way, is becoming a regular read, around here.

Another example of our reading leftie blogs so you don’t have to.

Look what we found this monring, with the help of Memeorandum, at Firedog Lake

Tim Starks of Congressional Quarterly reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to bring the Senate’s surveillance bill up for floor debate in mid-November. That’s despite the hold that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) plans to place on the measure — something first reported by Election Central’s Greg Sargent.

I’m a bit confused here. This just doesn’t happen. So I chatted with someone I know with extensive Hill experience, who said:

“I can’t think of one time when Harry Reid went around his own. It’s just not normal for a leader to do that to his own side. Sometimes you’ll go around Republicans, sometimes they’ll use holds to be “spoilers,” but that happens to the other guy. You just don’t do it to one of your own.”

The comments, round the bend as the commentaries are, make it clear that there is a good deal of anger on the left of their own leadership.  This situation goes a long way toward vindicating my statements about the oncoming split in the Democrat party. A sample:

…

I think Reid’s behavior makes clear he or his loved ones are victims of NSA eavesdropping, in the hands of the West Wing. Come clean, Harry Reid. Tell what you know, and what they know about you and yours.

…

Reid is a traitor if he lets this one through!

…

can we get him kicked out as majority leader?

…

…how do we replace Reid? He’s got to go.

…

Two words: Primary challenges.

…

Somebody needs to ask Clinton, Obama, and Biden what they think of this. The Dem presidential candidates in the Senate need to publicly support Dodd or Reid on this. This is a dealbreaker for me if you want my primary or general election vote.

…

That last one is particularly important.  Does anybody really consider that all the hell being raised by the wacko left is actually gaining them anything?  The fact is, it’s losing them support, and thereby losing them power.  The words of David Obey’s “Idiot liberal” tirade last March roar to mind. Obey, whatever his faults, at least understands that the left is losing, bigtime… and the frustrated kiddies are making that loss even worse for them.

Do you begin to understand the depth of the split we’re talking about here?  The cracks in the Democrat party facade are now well-developed cracks in their foundation. with this kind of split, they fortunately stand no chance whatsoever of getting past the general election, no matter who the party nominates.
The twisted part of all of this, is that there is a large number of the far left who would like to see Dingy Harry brought down on some misdeed or other.  But, were the Republicans to do that, I suspect they’d be defending him as loudly as they are denouncing him here.

It’s all good, though... it’s good for America when the lefties lose.

In the thirty eight years since Woodstock, Free Love has morphed into government hand-outs, or such was Mrs. Clinton’s intent.   Robert Novak, Washington Post:

Will the Democratic-controlled Senate approve a $1 million earmark to celebrate Woodstock-era baby boomers, carved out of a bill funding health care and education? It will, because it is sponsored by New York‘s influential Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. It will, because they are promoting the pet project of a big-time Democratic campaign contributor.

Nevertheless, as the Senate began consideration of the Labor/Health and Human Services/Education appropriations bill yesterday, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma proposed an amendment to eliminate the earmark. The $1 million would go to the performing arts center of the Bethel Museum in Liberty, N.Y., at the site of the original 1969 Woodstock festival. Coburn argues that a “taxpayer-funded Woodstock flashback” would cut into the government’s Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program grants

Well good news Bob.  There are ‘rats brave enough to stand-up to Mrs. Clinton.   Michelle Malkin posts the honor roll.    A big well done to the five brave ‘rats.

Hat  tip:  Memorandum.

Mike Potenra, at The Corner:

Anti-Iraq War blogger Mark Shea is trying to drive a wedge between U.S. evangelicals and Israel, by posting a video on his website that he hopes will shock us into realizing that Israel is just another “secular nation-state.” The video contains a TV commercial for Israel tourism in which a couple of guys on a beach see a beautiful woman in a bikini, and one of them says, “Holy Mother of God.” The end caption says, “ISRAEL No wonder they call it The Holy Land.”

Now, to the untrained eye this looks like what we in the business call a “joke”—and a rather cute one at that; one to which only the proverbial maiden aunt would object (and hey, she has a right to—this is America). Not to Mark Shea, though: He realizes that this is really a “Golden Calf appeal to Money Sex and Power” that is “perfectly representative of typically debased postmodern secular culture.”

Perhaps that’s because Mark Shea, like most liberals, wouldn’t know a sense of humor if they tripped over it.  Says Mike:

 I support the people of Israel, believers and non-believers alike, who are just trying to live normal lives in the face of enemies who want to (first) put their women in burkas and (second) exterminate them. I can’t, of course speak for all evangelicals; but from what I know, many of us have a sense of humor and will not let the Sex Police of the Blogosphere turn us against a brave ally fighting a just war.

As do I, Mike, as do I.  And why would somebody like Shea be arguing against the only democracy in the Middle East, anyway? The answer would seem to be, but he is an antiwar absolutist.  Apparently, he’s forgotten that even Christ himself got violent at need. There are, after all, something’s worth fighting for.  Or would you rather we allow Iran and Syria to push his real into the Red sea?

72-YEAR-OLD CONCERNED CITIZEN TAKES DOWN SUICIDE BOMBER

Posted: 18 Oct 2007 05:51 AM CDT

72-YEAR-OLD CONCERNED CITIZEN TAKES DOWN SUICIDE BOMBER

Just tuned up on 840/WHAS in Louisville KY, which is reporting funnel clouds in the downtown area. Apparently, the AM operation was knocked off the air by a direct lighting strike, but their TV systems are still on the air… and they appear to be feeding the AM station with the TV audio… the whole place seems in scramble mode.

While I am getting them right from the AM station, they have streaming available

Update: We’re now getting reports of a tornado touch down in C resent Hill, the Brownsville Road area.

Update: Warnings are up for Southeastern Clark County, St Matthews, Linden, Anchorage, etc.

Update: Crescent Hill reporting half-dollar size hail. I’m looking at the radar time lapse, and it basicly lit up on top of them.  Owensboro is being hit now. Huge cell there.

Update: Breckenridge and Perry County now under warning.  One on the ground headed at you

Update: Heavy reports of power outages.

Update: That Owensboro storm is now gaining size, and seems to be headed along toward Louisville Metro

Evidently Mrs. Pelosi is planning on impeaching a president, but which one?  Mrs. Pelosi has a plan t0 impeach a president, after Mrs. Clinton is elected.

Jeff, Protein Wisdom, has a copy of message giving an account of Representative Diane Watson (D-CA) revealing Mrs.  Pelosi’s plan to make herself the next president.  Moe Lane Red State. has video of Representative Watson’s remarks.

Mind you, Watson is speaking to an audience two beef patties short of a Big Mac.  The numbers Watson uses, and which her audience accepts, are simply not based on the Constitution of the United States.

Heh.

WASHINGTON-(AP)- The Democratic-controlled House failed on Thursday to override President Bush‘s veto of a politically popular children’s health bill, and the White House instantly called for compromise talks on a replacement.

“As long as the bottom line is that 10 million children are covered. That’s non-negotiable,” responded Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She pledged that new legislation would be ready within two weeks, and within hours, key lawmakers met to consider changes in the vetoed measure.

What we have here is a democratic party that is totally incapable of getting anything done. And the frustration is starting to show. Observe, if you will, Pete Stark Raving Mad.

Michelle Malkin is livebloging this, so is the Captain. Michelle points out how much Democrats have changed:

Update 10:51am Eastern. Newly-elected Democrat Rep. Niki Tsongas has just been sworn in and she’s exulting in being there to cast her override vote on the S-CHIP expansion. Her husband, you may have forgotten, was one of the most outspoken critics of the entitlement crisis and gave out “Pander Bears” to politicians who refused to be honest about the looming fiscal disaster of the expanding social welfare state.

Those were the days.

Exactly. And the question I have… as the late Mr. Tsongas did, by the way, is why we’re accepting as a given the Government needs to be involved in ANY of this. Why are we taking an unconstitutional approach , and then instead of arguing that basic, we spend all our time arguing on the best approach to getting the expansion of government completed.

And yes, it is unconstitutional.  Explain to me where in the constitution direct payments to individuals to pay for doctor visits and so on. is.