Rove's Horrible Legacy (aka: no one really cares)

I'm reading through this Andrew Sullivan piece and I think, "Was Rove all that bad?":

His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president's eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul.

Really? Were any these the same "turned off" people that gave the Democrats a tenuous (at best) victory in the Congress last year? After years of mismanagement and idiocy in the White House, it seems there are only 2 possible reasons the Democrats didn't just dominate last year: 1) the Dem's own dumb-assery or 2) Rove is a genius. It was probably a mixture of both.

I'm no Rove apologist, mind you. He can rot in hell, with AIDS-infested monkeys feasting on his internal organs, for all I care. But he's managed to keep things together fairly well, in one of the stupidest Presidencies we've ever had. Even with a slate of total loser candidates for Republican Presidential Nomination, and "media darling" Democratic candidates, it's no small feat that the Dems aren't just annihilating the Repubs in the polls. But I guess when the most popular polling line-up is Hillary Clinton vs Rudy Giuliani, it's no so easy to choose a winner... and I'm sure "sharp stick jabbed in my eyeball" would probably have garnered a good 25-30% if that were an option. But I think Rove most definitely still has a hand in keeping the Republicans from withering away for good.

Oh Really? O'Reilly.

Should I feel ashamed for laughing at simple-minded people acting like total a**holes? No? Well then, I don't feel guilty watching Bill O'Reilly and Daily Kossians bitch-slap each other like anorexic supermodels in a catfight over the last bit of crank. It's almost funnier than the last Larry The Cable Guy movie... which was about as funny as cancer.

First, we see that Bill O'Reilly doesn't like the Daily Kos, and calls it a "hate site", and yada yada I'm bored just typing this:

Earlier this week, we confronted JetBlue CEO Dave Barger about his airline sponsoring a conference held by the hate-filled website the Daily Kos. That far-left concern routinely posts vile thoughts such as [White house press secretary] Tony Snow should die from cancer, the pope is a primate, and Israel deserves to be attacked.

The hate this website traffics in rivals the KKK and Nazi websites.

I think most people agree that O'Reilly is a blowhard. Also, he's either a straight-up liar (and obfuscates the truth intentionally) or just really, really stupid and misinformed. As far as I'm concerned that's where the discussion of O'Reilly ends. Of course, the 12-year-olds at the Daily Kos aren't able to let things be...

So Kos Front Pagers are going after Bill O'Reilley's web site (over, and over, and over) in a grand cyber-gesture of "nyah, nyah, nyah":

Shocking, but true. Bill O'Reilly advocates the violent overthrow of our government, believes that a former President of the United States is planning a murder, feels that a sitting Senator is unfit for any office because he is a fake Christian, and that millions of Americans are members of a party of death. It must be true, because after all, it was posted at his website.

Ok buddy, put down the Red Bull and whatever Noam Chomsky book you're pretending to read, and listen closely: O'Reilly NEVER said that Kos himself actually HOLDS the beliefs of the people on the website.

Plus, any sane person can look at the Daily Kos for 5 seconds and find some very unhinged Lefties. If O'Reilly were smart enough to make a point, I think it would be that the Daily Kos site attracts crazy pinkos in greater numbers than most websites. No, not EVERYONE on the site is a nut... but it's not too difficult to find them. Just look at the response to O'Reilly.

And now, this "grasping for 15 more minutes of fame" blogger takes a silly comment and wastes my tax dollars having the Secret Service investigate it:

Here is the comment on O'Reilly's blog that crossed the line:

If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list.


So, I did what a responsible person should do when they see something like this on a blog. I called the Secret Service to report it. This comment isn't about politics or defaming Senator Clinton. It outright states a threat to her life. It is unacceptable.

I think English must be this guy's second language, because he really doesn't know what "outright states" means. Using a fictional example, if I were to post "I want to kill Tony Soprano" that would be outright stating a threat to his life. However, if I post "I will respectfully follow all of Tony Sopranos orders, but if you could read my mind I'd be wearing cement shoes"... that's NOT an outright threat on his life.

In the Clinton case, how do you know that he's not thinking of sitting outside her window and watching her change clothes? I'm sure THAT would put him on the Secret Service watch list as well. Or maybe he's thinking of buying lots of pinapple-flavored snowcones and wants to throw them at her. I'm sure that TOO would get him on the list. So please, stop wasting my taxes on your petty bitchfest, and go back to Starbucks to discuss the latest Wilco CD.

Damn you Hillary for not running on your own merits!

Why do right-wingnuts have such a hard-on for the Clintons? Did Bill run over all their puppies when they were kids? Because, honestly, the insane hatred of these inept people sheds more light on the haters than the Clintons.

Case in point, Ann Althouse deconstructing Clinton's debate performance:

Did Hillary avoid mentioning Bill in last night's debate?
She sure tried! For example, in talking about sending Chelsea to private school, she said: "I was advised... if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone... So I had to make a very difficult decision." "I"? No "we"?

Excuse me for a second, I need to throw some acid in my eyes after reading this weak excuse for a blog post... ok, much better.

Seriously, is that REALLY her criticism of Clinton? Really? She's trying to talk about the issues from her own perspective, and you're pissed that she's not invoking President Bill? Because let's be honest, imagine if Clinton had talked more about Bill during the debate. Then Althouse would've written a piece about Clinton trying to ride his coattails, or some other pointless s**t.

You know, Hillary could rescue 10 orphaned babies from a house fire, and the right-wingnuts would find something to criticize her about. "There was another baby who died in a house fire just 2 miles away... why didn't Hillary save THAT one? It must be because she hates orphaned babies." And while I'm joking, I'm also not too far off from the truth either.

The YouTube/CNN Democratic debates weren't totally horrible.

The gimmicky YouTube/CNN Democratic debate last night could've been the S.O.S. (same ole' s**t) but with some Web 2.0 wrapping paper. Surprisingly, only about 50% of it was the S.O.S. The one thing I picked up on is that almost every question said something to the effect of "we need a change". To me, "change" means a new direction, not just veering a few degrees off the present course. And on that stage, only two people were representing true and honest change... and they were relegated to the far corners, and given very little screen time.

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are crazy if they think they actually have a chance of winning the nomination. They both offer NEW ideas and a brand new direction... but while the YouTubers may posture about wanting "real" change, they'll never vote for it. What almost all Americans really want is a slight modification to the current policies, but not so much that it becomes scary. The fact is, we're frightened of change. Clinton is ahead in the Democratic polls, and she's a typical obfuscating politician, just like all the other politicians... how is that change? Just because she has boobs? Maybe she won't suck as a much as President Bush, but has that become our standard for electing the next President?

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I may talk and act just like every other politician in the world, but at least I'm not as bad as Bush."

Don't get me wrong, though. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich or Gravel if they were the only two candidates and a man-eating lion would eat me unless I chose. If they did half the s**t they proposed, it would ruin the country. The same thing goes for the Republican side with Ron Paul. Though, if the choice were voting for Paul or getting eaten by a lion, I'd vote for Paul. How's that for a ringing endorsement?

I really wish people could just be honest. No one want "change", we want "tweaks". And there's nothing wrong with that.

Rascist Conservatives miss the point.

I imagine it's an intentional "point missing", which makes streiff from Red State even more idiotic. Responding to this comment from Hillary Clinton:

Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country

The stupid, stupid reply was this:

Among white women of that age HIV/AIDS is the #10 cause of death (111). The leading killer is accidents (2,607) followed by cancer (1,382) and suicide (762). I may have slept through it but I haven't heard of an "outraged, outcry" on any of those issues as they pertain to white females aged 25-34.

Surprise! There's no "War on Accidents"! Why does America hate white women so much? Seriously though, "cancer" gets a ton of federal funding, and a lot of attention from private researchers. And if AIDS/HIV deaths were the 4th largest killer of white women (as it is with black women), you can bet it would get tons more attention.

The difference I have with Clinton is that I'm not so sure it's racist. I think it has more to do with the fact that white women make up a much larger percentage of the voting population. While race is surely playing a part, I think politicians are more concerned with numbers, and specifically race.