Life in the reality-based community?

Reverend Amy takes on the Palin rumors and says:

A few days ago, I printed an email Move On sent out with a number of “dangerous” positions Gov. Palin allegedly holds or actions in which she engaged. A number of them were flat out wrong. It is exactly this kind of “Swiftboating” we all decried when it happened to Kerry. I am all for disagreeing with another’s political position, but it needs to be REALITY based, and not conjecture, rumor, or innuendo. Below are some of the main ones Move On mentioned, and the truth:

She then goes on to debunk some of the more “popular” rumors about Sarah Palin, quotes an article on what governing Alaska really entails, and then:

And here’s a good one. This just goes to show what strange bedfellows Politics makes. It turns out that the reports of Gov. Palin moving to ban a bunch of books is bogus – yet another rumor concocted to demean her. We cannot stoop to these kinds of Swiftboat levels. So, I am being FORCED to use sources like Michelle Malkin. What the hell is the world coming to?!? But, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Reverend Amy concludes:

There seems to be no care for the damage these falsehoods will do the organizations’ own reputation in their haste to discredit this woman. It is remarkable. And remarkably stupid. It makes people like me question how in the world I was ever even a MEMBER of Move On. It lowers the level of discourse to ducking mud slinging all around. We can do better than that. I’d like to think we are BETTER than that. So, come out with the facts – let’s take a look, form our opinions, and have some honest discussion, not this constant smearing with any crackpot rumor that comes down the pike. Just a thought.

Yep, while we are wasting our time on this stuff, the left just sounds “unhinged.” Really, like Amy, I, too, “would like to think we are BETTER than that.”

Worse, and I repeat myself, I know: The left ignores the appeal that Sarah Palin has at their peril. You want to win the White House? You want to win more seats in the House and the Senate? Answer the damn clue phone and quit acting like the idiots you decried the right of being.

Bill Maher on Ann Coulter and the Fox Debate

From his March 12 interview on Larry King Live:

MAHER: You have to think like a right-winger. First of all, it’s interesting to note that she made that comment in front of that right-wing convention. She was not booed. There was actually a moment of ooh and then they all burst into applause. It went over like a cross on fire.

They actually liked that comment. And to people, normal people, you know, people who think like human beings, it was just confusing.

It was like why is John Edwards gay?

He’s good looking.

OK, is that equivalent with gay?

No. And then she explained it and I kind of thought about it and I see what she’s saying, is that, no, she really meant to say — what she was trying to say, it’s code word for the Democrats are — I hope I can say this — you said faggot — pussies.

Can I say that?

KING: That’s code word for — I never read that. That never came through.

MAHER: No. No, but that’s what they mean, is that he’s a faggot because he thinks and speaks in complete sentences and reads whole books and doesn’t just go off to war without thinking about it twice. And he cares about poor people and the environment, you know, poof stuff, Larry.

KING: Do you still like Ann Coulter?

MAHER: I haven’t talked to her in so long. I don’t know if she still likes me.

KING: Really? She used to come on your show a lot.

MAHER: A lot. Yes.

KING: Would you have her back?

MAHER: Yes, I’d have — of course I’d have her back. I mean I like her — I like what she says less and less. I never agreed with her. But she never was like out there. But this was a joke, in her defense.

KING: Right.

MAHER: I mean she was making a joke.

KING: A bad joke.

MAHER: I don’t know. You know, for that crowd, it was apparently the right joke.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

MAHER: As a comedian, I know that’s the crowd it got a…

KING: The Democrats have pulled out of the Fox debate.

MAHER: Well, and this is why she has a point.

They’re pussies, OK?

Do you remember when Bill Clinton went on with Chris Wallace a few months ago?

KING: Yes.

MAHER: And he showed everybody in that Democratic Party how it should be done.

KING: Get mad.

MAHER: He took on Chris Wallace.

These guys were like oh, no, Fox News, un-nnh, no, I’m sorry, we can’t do that. We — we didn’t like the joke.

KING: Well, were they mad at a bad joke, right?

MAHER: They were made at a — who cares what they’re mad at? Instead of withdrawing, which says to everybody in the country oh, typical Democrats. They don’t call people out, they just walk away. They don’t raise the bet.

Go on there. It’s just Chris Wallace. If you can’t stand up to Chris Wallace, can you stand up to the terrorists, let alone the Republican Party?

KING: So, a mistake, in your opinion?

MAHER: Yes.

KING: OK.

MAHER: Take it to their house. Win an away game.

Yeah, remember when Bill Clinton took on Chris Wallace? The cheering heard in the blogosphere and elsewhere was deafening. Now those same people are not only saying that Democrats should not debate on Fox, but that they should freeze out Fox completely. These same people who have been screaming for our Democratic leaders to get a spine and stand up and articulate what we stand for are now telling those same Democratic leaders to “run Forrest, run!” What?!?

Do they not understand the sort of message this sends to the other 99.9% of the voting public who are NOT the political junkies we (bloggers) are?

Chuck Hagel for President?

Gag. Oh yeah, he’s coming out against the escalation. Great. But have you taken a look at his voting record? From a commenter over at The Huffington Post.

Chuck Hagel for President?

No way …

• Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada.
• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
• Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000
• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
• Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
• Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy.
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy.
• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

By: Nano on January 17, 2007 at 12:40pm

For more information on Chuck Hagel’s voting record, go here. Here’s a summary of where Senator Hagel stands on the issues.

And anyone that would vote to eliminate the federal minimum wage will never get my vote.