Archive for Loony Leftists

But She’s Got a Nice Personality

I must have a fascination for the grotesque, the macabre, the ghastly. I am fascinated by stories of plague (Ebola), raping and pillaging (ISIS and Boko Haram), mass psychosis (everything Palestinian Arab)…

…and Lena Dunham.

Untitled

Strangely, it’s only the last that makes my skin crawl:

Lena Dunham has taken over the internet – at least when it comes to some of her fellow celebrities.

The 28-year-old posted a topless photo of herself to Instagram on Thursday, tying in both her new book Not That Kind Of Girl and a campaign to get people to vote for women’s rights.

The Girls creator’s naked selfie followed a series of pictures posted by some of Hollywood’s biggest leading ladies, who all proudly wore a shirt advertising the dual campaign with the slogan ‘Lena Loves Planned Parenthood’ emblazoned across their chests.

She captioned the montage: ‘These dream women stand for equality and justice. And they encourage you to vote November 4th.’

What Lena really loves is abortion, which is the bulk of Planned Parenthood’s services (as we’ve addressed before).

This is America, and Lena can love any organization she wants. (I love the International Cheer Union, “the recognized world governing body of Cheerleading”, myself.) But what Lena loves even more than abortion is Lena herself, all of her. She claims to be “not that kind of girl”, but I am hard pressed—no, let me rephrase—at a loss to explain what kind of girl she is. Other than dumpy.

And no, that’s not just my quaint Bloodthirstan sexism; it’s Lena herself. She’s a dumpling, and she sells it better than anyone since Joyce Chen. Again, that’s American greatness in action. I just don’t remember male American tubbos using their bodies to promote favorite political causes. Fatty Arbuckle on women’s suffrage? No idea. Chris Farley on gays in the military? Not a clue.

Now that I think of it, however, fat chicks in entertainment can’t shut up about their politics: Roseanne Barr, Rosie O’Donnell, Oprah (at times), Lena. I’m tempted to say it’s because they have their gobs open all the time, but that would be my quaint Bloodthirstan sexism talking. I’ll just leave it as an observation.

And conclude by saying this election can’t come soon enough. The less I see of Lena Dunham, the better. (I don’t want to see anything at all.) God knows what she’ll be tweeting in 2016. [Shudder.]

PS: We now return to more palatable subjects, like genocide and enterovirus.

Comments

How Liberals Think

I use “think” generously—almost as generously as the Koch brothers’ charitable donations:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: [...] This is people admitting that we’re in the business of making sure minorities don’t vote. They’re saying it.

JONATHAN CAPEHART, WASHINGTON POST: [... A] pantheon of people talking about how what they’re doing is to keep basically Democrats from voting, African Americans from voting. What’s different here is they’re talking about it outloud.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

CAPEHART: It used to be wink and nod and little code words. But now, yeah, it’s about helping Mitt Romney. It’s about keeping “lazy blacks” from getting up off the couch and going to vote.

I can reliably report from behind the enemy lines of conservatism that I have never heard a single Republican say anything like this. Liberals say it all the time—so often, they must really believe it. Why do they feel blacks are lazier than non-blacks? They say it, over and over, but they never defend it. They just expect us to agree (like so much of their ignorant dogma). I don’t.

But I don’t even understand this:

CAPEHART: You know, Ronald Reagan is the saviour of the Republican party, but I remember Ronald Reagan as the guy who went to Philadelphia, Mississippi — his first event after getting the Republican nomination.

MATTHEWS: And that says what?

CAPEHART: Well, Philadelphia, Mississippi, that’s where the civil rights workers were killed.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

CAPEHART: In ’64. And so that sends a message to those white Dixiecrats that he’s one of us… and it says to African Americans and folks who fought really hard, not just African Americans, but folks who fought really hard for the right to vote, this guy and this party isn’t exactly for us, or thinking about us, or with us. And so now you’ve got people within the Republican party, a generation and a half, two generations later, who are actively trying to stop people from exercising the franchise.

First, I had to fix the transcript to read “Philadelphia, Mississippi” and not “Philadelphia and Mississippi”. That was confusing enough, but if you watch the clip, it’s clear they’re talking about the “Mississippi Burning” murders of 1964 which took place in that town. (Two Jews and one black man were murdered by the Klan.)

It is true that Reagan gave a speech there in August, 1980—sixteen years later—in which he said these words:

I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in states’ rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.

Why, that racist! How dare he believe in “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Next, he’ll claim to believe in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Or even the Bill of Rights:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

President Obama appeared in Berlin, the capital of Communist East Germany in 2008—nineteen years after the wall fell—and declared himself a “citizen of the world”. Words practically lifted from the socialist anthem, “The Internationale”:

The Internationale
Will be the human race.

Does that make him a crypto-Communist? (Well, sort of. Maybe this doesn’t help my point.)

Two last points. One, Reagan’s speech was 34 years ago, and the Civil Rights Act was 50 years ago: what possible relevance does either event have to today?

Lastly, as I’ve shared with you at least a dozen times over the years, Republican supported the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts at a greater percentage than Democrats. Unlike the rest of the bilge above, it’s a fact. You can look it up.

Comments (1)

Broads Laud Flawed Squad

Face it, ladies. He’s just not that into you (or vice versa)

Female voters powered President Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney in 2012, as Democrats leaned heavily on social issues to rally single women and suburban moms to the polls.

But with two weeks until Election Day, the president’s diminished standing with women is quickly becoming one of the biggest liabilities facing Democrats as they struggle to hang onto the Senate majority.

In battleground states across the country, Obama is underwater with female voters — especially women unaffiliated with a political party — and it’s making it harder for Democrats to take advantage of the gender gap, according to public polling and Democratic strategists.

Obama “underwater” with women? Why does that sound familiar?

It’ll come to me, I’m sure.

Anyway, if I may offer my “chick-whisperer” insight, I would separate suburban moms from single women. When women turn from single and childless to married and maternal, their priorities change—they broaden, if you’ll pardon the pun. Single women have a single issue: abortion. Suburban moms begin to consider security and stability. They may still support abortion, and they may still vote Democrat, but if some of them, enough of them, see the world as the dangerous place it is, and how Obama and the Dems are doing far, far too little to protect we the people, they may just be willing to vote for a…Republican…just this once, if only in protest.

One side argues for border security, national defense, and self-reliance. The other side argues for… well, this:

I don’t usually feel my age, but nothing makes me feel older than the success (if that’s the word) of Lena Dunham. Unless she’s the female Chris Farley (betraying my age).

Comments (2)

Random Hatreds

While preparing my royal cup of coffee and preparing the Bloodthirsty Puppy’s breakfast of quail and squab, I heard a story on the local NPR station about Scott Brown’s race against Jeanne Shaheen. Women will be key to Shaheen’s reelection, we were told, something Brown has to work against if he is to win.

“He doesn’t have a uterus. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” one woman said. I stopped in mid kibble-scoop. Doesn’t that strike you as somewhat icky? If it doesn’t, what if I dismissed Shaheen as useless without a prostate?

What if I dismissed Jesse Jackson simply because he has black skin? That would be icky.

So why isn’t this?

In man-on-the-street interviews aired Monday night, not a single L.A. resident was able to say who Biden was. But they had some interesting ideas.

“A terrorist?” one man postulated, with another asking if he was “a movie star” and another claiming he’s a “Republican who’s going to be president soon, I’m assuming.”

Shown a picture of Biden, the African-American man was asked if he thought the vice president was a friend of Obama. “No,” he said. “He looks like he’d probably oppose things Obama’s doing.”

“How come?” the interviewer asked. ”I’m basically going off skin color right now, to be honest with you,” the man replied.

Biden doesn’t have a uterus, either. He’s a two-time loser. It’s okay, Joe, so am I.

The Shaheen supporter and the random black man were hardly embarrassed to spew their prejudices. Men, especially white men, are dismissed as irrelevant haters. But who’s doing the hating?

Comments (1)

Lena Whorrin’

On my worst day—and as Grand High Exalter Mystic Ruler of my own Grand Duchy, I don’t have many—but on my worst day, I can at least thank the Almighty that I am not Lena Dunham:

It’s officially fall which means pumpkins, scarves, sweater weather and of course, election season.

That’s precisely why Rock the Vote is gearing up—with the help of several famous faces—to encourage everyone to educate themselves and make their voices heard in the polls.

Lena Dunham, Glee’s Darren Criss, Sophia Bush, Fred Armisen, Orange Is the New Black’s Natasha Lyonne, celebrity trainer Tracy Anderson, Whoopi Goldberg, Devendra Banhart, Ionna Gika and Gabriel Valenciano all team up for a special rendition of Lil Jon’s hit, “Turn Down for What.”

The twist? The new track is called “Turn Out for What.”

Rock the Vote Spokesperson, Audrey Gelman, told Buzzfeed that the organization hopes to drum up attention surrounding the latest hot-button items like marriage equality, global warming, women’s rights and much, much more.

“We hope that the video will connect the dots between caring about an issue and turning out to make a difference,” Gelman explained.

“Even in a year where the president isn’t on the ballot.”

That narcissist still thinks he is!

Anyhow, if John Candy and Chris Farley can have careers playing lovable fatsos, why not Lena? (It worked out so well for them.) I need to fight any inner sexism that lingers not to cringe every time I see her, which I keep to a minimum, believe me. In fact, let’s skip the sexist comments altogether. It’s not her doughy body that’s a turn-off, it’s her exhibitionism. If she wants to support Obama and Democrats, fine, she’s got company in the entertainment (to employ the loosest possible definition of that word) world. But can she keep her bouncy chubby thighs to herself?

Comments

Absolute Moral Authority Watch

Regular readers know that Cindy Sheehan is our girl, and always has been. Not because we believe a word that comes out of her bat-[bleep] crazy mouth—oh no, not a syllable. But because she does. No one has posted her addled rantings more than we have; no one supported her run for governor of California more strongly.

So, you can understand our mixture of pride and jealousy to see others talking about Our Cindy:

Sheehan said the left anti war movement is being ignored by the democrats because they are “reverse racists” who are supporting Obama only because he is an African-American.

She said, “I think that there are some people on the so called left, who might say we have to circle our wagons around the first African American president, and to me that is racism in reverse because his policies are actually still the racist policies of empire.”

You know what another word for “reverse racists” is, don’t you? Racists.

Cindy Sheehan said in 2005 Nancy Pelosi and top Democrat leaders in the House and Senate said to her face that if she helped them get elected they would end the wars completely.

I don’t believe that. Not that Pelosi said it—of that I’m quite sure. But that even a moonbat like Cindy Sheehan believed Bela Pelosi? Not buying it.

Still, Cindy has believed many things in her time:

Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.

But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.

“We haven’t been happy with the way the war has been handled,” Cindy said. “The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached.”

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey’s sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn’t stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

“We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us,” Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

“I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”

That was Cindy ten years ago. This is Cindy today:

“We need to get over our thoughts here in the United States that there’s anything different between Democrats and Republicans,” Sheehan told Press TV in a phone interview on Friday.

And:

An American antiwar activist says Washington does not want “its evil torture practices to get out” by trying to close a court hearing on force-feeding of a prisoner at the Guantanamo prison that is “not the only place the US tortures people.”

I don’t know, maybe she isn’t so bat-[bleep] crazy.

Comments

Low-Hanging Fruitcake

Picking on Chris Matthews is like bullying a special needs student: reprehensible and condemnable.

Forgive me:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It was a great speech. I thought it was a case in which the president of the United States didn’t just speak at the U.N. but to the U.N. He was talking to the members of the U.N. Some was good politics making the connection with his grandmother coming from 100 miles away from Nairobi.

Is that the “white grandmother” or the other one? Anyway, Matthews loves every Obama speech, including “gimme a bacon cheeseburger with gravy fries.”

He went after Israel, too. There was a little punch in the nose of Netanyahu saying the status quo is not sustainable. Everybody knows Netanyahu’s game is to play for tie. Pushing off, coming up with excuses, demanding the Arabs declare Israel the Jewish state. Every technique to avoid a two-state solution. And he said there has to be a two-state solution.

Did he just blame Israel? After Hamass’s war crimes this summer, he just blamed Israel? The nerve of that Bibi demanding Arabs acknowledge Israel as the Jewish state. What a tool. (Matthews, not Netanyahu.)

We’re a better country than we were ten years ago. I wish more people would think about that.

We are? How? I can’t think of a single way. The debt’s massively bigger, the economy incomparably worse, race relations in the toilet, Islamofascism on the march, and Matthews own network, MSNBC, trailing every network but the Macrame Channel in the ratings.

You think about these guys sitting around all day planning revolution and killing people and cutting their heads off.

What are they doing for the world? I thought it was a pretty strong statement. I think most people in the world today really want to be educated.

Why do they want to be suicide bombers? What a hopeless career move. To be blunt about it. I’m going to kill myself.

You ask that now, Chris? Did you eat paint chips as a child? “Coming up next on Hardball, Pet Rocks: fad or forever?” What a complete nincompoop.

And he still wasn’t done:

MATTHEWS: Unfortunately, there’s a parallel with the african-american kid in north Philly situation. You grow up in a situation where there no more blue collar the only deal being offered to you is the drug dealer. We have our problems.

We do, Chris, but the African-American kids in North Philly (or Chicago, or Detroit, or LA, etc.) are homicide killers. And too often (as in almost always), they’re victims are other African-American kids. Another trait that makes us not better than we were ten years ago.

So, sorry for hazing the harebrained host of Hardball. I’ll do some community service to make up for it.

Comments (1)

We Get Results

Just the other day I asked where was Medea Benjamin and Code Pink now that we’re going to wa—, no, wait a minute…time-limited, scope-limited…no, that’s not it.

“A very significant counterterrorism operation”:

Before Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel could finish the first sentence of his opening statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, protesters from anti-war NGO Code Pink infiltrated the room and shouted down the Defense Secretary and committee chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.).

“No more war!” the protester shouted. “The American public does not want war! We do not want war! No military solution to this! No more war! No more war! No military solution!”

“You’re acting very warlike yourself,” Levin said.

After Hagel’s opening statement, two more protesters from Code Pink stood up in an attempt to interrupt the hearing and were promptly removed from the chamber, but not before shouting, “No more war! No military solution!” several more times.

That’s not all that happened:

Untitled

[T]hings took a turn for the creepy when another protester, another young woman took the floor, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) quipped, “I always enjoy attention from this group,” prompting another senator to shoot back, “I don’t think she’s old enough for you.”

What good is being an old man if you can’t be a dirty old man? Good for Code Pink—I’d rather see this hottie than Medea Benjamin or Cindy Sheehan, God forbid.

Comments (1)

All About the Benjamins

So now that ISIS and we are at w—…what is it again? A “very significant counter-terrorism operation [that's] going to go on for some period of time.” Yeah. Now that we’re doing that, how is the anti-w—…counter-terr—oh, eff it! How’s the antiwar crowd taking it?

Medea?

Medea, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you respond to President Obama’s speech and the fact that the vast majority of Americans polled support taking military action in Iraq and Syria?

MEDEA BENJAMIN: I think President Obama has been hounded by the media, by the war hawks in Congress, mostly from the Republican side but also from the Democrats, and is going into this insane not only bombing in Iraq, but also talking about going into Syria, at a time when just a couple of months ago the American people had made it very clear that we were very tired of war.

So, the most powerful man in the world, a man gifted with such intelligence, such articulateness, such cleanliness—and “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one”—has been “hounded” by the press and the Republicans into “insanity”.

That’s your story?

Oh, Medea, and we remember you when you had guts:

Literally.

Now, this is the best you can do:

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, the peace movement was really decimated when Obama came in, and has been trying to rebuild ever since. But I think now we have to think of all of us as the peace movement. Now is the time to say, if you’re an environmentalist, you better understand that war is the greatest environmental disaster and the U.S. military is the greatest polluter on the planet. If you care about having money for youth groups or for infrastructure or for green energy, you better understand that sucking money into the military—we’re now paying $7.5 million for just the bombing in Iraq.

Seven-and-a-half million to bomb Iraq? What a bargain! Screw the youth groups and “green” energy (algae?), hit the bid! At that price, it would be a waste of money not to bomb Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan, are you going sit idly by and take that?

Cindy Sheehan, peace activist
I believe the reason that the presidents of the US can continue to make such belligerent and jingoistic speeches and follow through with the continuation of endless wars is because the American people keep falling for the propaganda and the lie that either one of the two major political parties is better than the other when it comes to war for profit. I think last night’s speech by Obama was just a regurgitation of any speech by GWB and shame on anybody who is falling for this same tired, yet hostile, rhetoric. It would be funny if so many lives weren’t unnecessarily compromised because of US aggression.

Regular readers know that we check in on Cindy’s rantings from time to time. She may be mad as a hatter, but we share this: we’re consistent. She’s always against “time-limited, scope-limited military actions”; we’re usually for them. The only difference being we trusted George Bush and his people to get it right (eventually). We have no such faith in Obama.

But if bombing ISIS is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

Comments

Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach laments his dissolving friendship with Naomi Wolf:

This Thursday, September 11, Naomi Wolf and I will be debating the question, “Is Israel guilty of genocide in its war against Hamas?” at the Manhattan Jewish Experience on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Naomi is a friend of mine. We both have history at Oxford. She earned her degree as a Rhodes scholar and I served as rabbi to the students for 11 years. Naomi reached out to me for a book she was writing and having been a fan of her work I greatly enjoyed making her acquaintance. She subsequently attended Shabbat dinner with my family. Naomi’s books have raised important issues, particularly in the realm of women’s rights and social justice, which is why I was shocked when I learned that Naomi was involved in a blood libel against the State of Israel with false and shocking allegations of a Palestinian genocide.

I, in turn, responded that in all her condemnations of Israel Naomi manages to virtually omit all mention of the brutal attacks and true genocidal ambitions that Hamas has toward the Jewish state and the Jews. Naomi in an interview later said that she never meant by her words that the Jews didn’t need a Jewish state. I challenged her to a public debate and she graciously accepted.

We’re all free to choose our own friends, but let’s brief the good rabbi on the Rhodes Scholar with whom he broke bread.

Most recently, Ms. Wolf publicly sided with that pestilence known as Occupy Wall Street:

Oops! Wrong movement, wrong picture.

Could they be more smug? Wolf has speculated that the long overdue crackdown on the Occupy movement was a government conspiracy, and on this I think she’s right: a conspiracy of the government to do its job and uphold law and order. The Occupy camps were incubators of disease, crime, filth. Never mind their symbolism (empty and bogus to my way of thinking), their dismantling and sterilization was way, way, way past time.

Wolf also once described Al Gore as an alpha male, but I think this is a misunderstanding: he’d ballooned up to the size of Alpha Centauri was her point (as has she, it might be noted, as have many of us).

I’ll leave aside her feminist views. I am generally favorable toward feminism in the abstract, less so toward today’s feminists and its modern practice. Too often the only issue is abortion, which we have repeatedly shown is harmful to women and minorities.

No, if Rabbi Boteach is not familiar with Naomi Wolf’s politics, we’ll leave him one more example, which should clear up the matter:

In The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining 10 steps necessary for a fascist group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
Create secret prisons where torture takes place
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens
Set up an internal surveillance system
Harass citizens’ groups
Engage in arbitrary detention and release
Target key individuals
Control the press
Treat all political dissidents as traitors
Suspend the rule of law

The book details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application of all the 10 steps in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks.

Right practices, wrong presidential administration. Let’s take a look:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: The Tea Party.

Create secret prisons where torture takes place: Every day Gitmo stays open is a betrayal of his promise to close it.

Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens: The IRS.

Set up an internal surveillance system: The NSA.

Harass citizens’ groups: The IRS and the FEC.

Engage in arbitrary detention and release: The FBI’s treatment of James Rosen.

Target key individuals: See most of above.

Control the press: When not with the press’ own complicity, by stealth and by force.

Treat all political dissidents as traitors: See IRS above.

Suspend the rule of law: Making and amending law without Congress.

Hope this helps, Shmuley. Wolf’s adoption of Hamass is part of a pattern, not an aberration.

Comments

Hosanna Montana

Remember Todd Akin? Neither do we, but evidently he was a towering figure in the Republican Party. Every Republican in the country, from presidential hopeful to candidate for dog catcher, was obliged to answer for some ignorant comment he made about rape. He must have been really important.

Almost as important as Amanda Curtis:

Meet Democrat Amanda Curtis. She took over as the Democrat Senate candidate in Montana after Democrat John Walsh disgraced himself by cheating on his Army War College thesis (As an actual Army War College graduate, I’d like to say, “Thanks for that, Johnny – those of us who did the hard work to actually earn our masters degrees really appreciate you devaluing it.”) Now Democrat Amanda Curtis is running as a free-spirited progressive, unconstrained by things like class and dignity and the concerns of her constituents.

[U]nlike the goofy womyn’s studies majors we laughed at back in school, we can’t just ignore her. Nor, try as they might, can her fellow Democrat Senate candidates.

Democrat Mark Begich, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s attack on women’s right to be free of sexual assault? Do you consider women’s safety an appropriate topic of humor? Do you stand with the right of Alaskan women to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves from violent crime, or do you support a candidate from your Democrat Party who will vote with the rest of the liberals in your Democrat Party to deprive women of that right?

Democrat Mark Pryor of Arkansas, where have you been as Democrat candidate Amanda Curtis was insulting and rolling her eyes at the mere mention of Christianity?

Democrat Mark Pryor, do you support your Democrat Party’s candidate when she thinks the religion that most of your constituents hold dear is a punchline?

Democrat Allison Lundergan Grimes of Kentucky, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s anti-Christian hate speech? Do you stand with the people Kentucky or with the liberal Democrat establishment in Washington, D.C.? Your silence is your answer.

Democrat Kay Hagan of North Carolina, why do you think it is okay for your fellow Democrat to make fun of Christians, and then to roll her beady eyes at the mere mention of the idea of family? Is that what you believe? Why do you want this woman in the Senate?

Democrat Michelle Nunn of Georgia, why aren’t you raising your voice against this kind of mindless progressive bigotry? You made a big deal of refusing to promise to vote for Democrat Harry Reid as majority leader, but in your first test you’ve chosen to tolerate the anti-Christian, anti-family hate of Democrat Amanda Curtis just because she’s in your Democrat Party.

Democrat Bruce Braley, be like Republican Joni Ernst and emulate the example of courage that this Army lieutenant colonel has displayed by standing up to your Democrat Party for its nomination of an anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-woman extremist.

Democrat Amanda Curtis is truly the Todd Akin of this election cycle, yet in contrast to the Republicans, who immediately repudiated Todd Akin’s bizarre biological misconceptions, the Democrats, by their silence, tacitly admit that they either support their Democrat Party over the people of their states or that they agree with Democrat Amanda Curtis’s radical and extreme agenda.

Why do you choose the Democrat Party over your people? The time is now to repudiate the anti-family, anti-Christian and anti-woman views of Democrat Amanda Curtis.

Todd Akin was just as irrelevant (or relevant) to the Republican Party as Amanda Curtis is (or isn’t) to the Democrats. I just wouldn’t want to be accused of not affording her equal treatment.

PS: The last poll from about two weeks ago had Curtis down by 20 points—too close for my liking.

Comments

Antisemitism At The Washington Post

– Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »