Saturday, April 15, 2006

Moonbat update

WELCOME BOOK TV VIEWERS (click here for more)

Maybe they felt the need to balance out the Domenech debacle, but the Other Paper (OP) has a wonderful takeout on the moonbat brigades [with my comments]:

Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. [Gotcha. Remember the thing where Julianne Malveaux was so "polite" about Clarence Thomas?] But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack. [This is also Osama's excuse, I believe.] And with Republicans in control of Washington, they have much more to be angry about.
"Powerlessness" is O'Connor's explanation. "This is born of powerlessness."
[This reminds me of something Rush Limbaugh likes to say. Rush is going to have a feast on this come Monday.]
To what, effect, though? Do the hundreds of thousands of daily visitors to Daily Kos, who sign their comments with phrases such as "Anger is energy," accomplish anything other than talking among themselves? The founder of Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas, may have a wide enough reputation at this point to consult regularly with Democrats on Capitol Hill, [Dems: Moonbat alert! Listen at your peril!] but what about the heart and soul of Daily Kos, the other visitors, whose presence extends no further than what they read and write on the site? ...
Put another way, can one person sitting alone in a living room, typing her fingertips numb on a keyboard, make a difference?
"Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right" is the subtitle of O'Connor's Web site.
"If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is how she signs her comments, in the place other people might write "Sincerely."
"I was not like this before," she says. "I was riddled with empathy for everyone suffering in the world. Classic bleeding-heart liberal."
[Empathy? How about "pity"? And do you think your erstwhile pity was any more helpful or productive than your current rage? It's not about you. Here, Mary, try reading an excellent Thomas Sowell book. You need this. Trust me. I feel your pain.]

Go read the whole thing. Big hat tip to the always excellent Don Surber, who observes:
Finkel's article was good journalism. And that is what really bothers Glenn Greenwald. Gee, maybe there is something wrong with the left. Instead of cursing the mirror, maybe the left should change its face.
See? Such is Surber's excellence that he's persuaded me to acknowledge magnanimously that the OP is capable of "good journalism."

As mentioned here (and on C-SPAN2) the moonbats who have put the Democratic Party into the hands of such as Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel, and who are actively campaigning against Sen. Joe Lieberman, seem determined to sabotage the Democrats' best chance in years to recapture Congress. But again, as mentioned in Q&A during my Capitol Hill presentation about DONKEY CONS, the Democrats never listened to me when I was a Democrat, so I doubt they'll start listening now.

Anyway, Mary needs our prayers, just as does Cynthia McKinney. Don't make me do a Ned Flanders for Easter, OK?


UPDATE (v.4): I am grateful to my new Stanford University friend Eric for helping inspire the following dissertation on this weird moment in American history, which now has been slightly edited:


One of the remarkable things about post-9/11 politics is that many of my paleocon and libertarian friends have drifted toward a de facto alliance with the Chomskyites. Well, it's a free country, and people are entitled to their own opinions. Furthermore, people are entitled to change their opinions, or to ponder alternatives, something I have done many times over the years. (Remember, I was a yellow-dog Democrat until about 1995.)

As I said on Capitol Hill, one of my earliest journalistic heroes was Hunter S. Thompson, who coined the phrase, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." These are weird times, and the shifting of the tectonic plates of American politics is an interesting thing to watch. Just as some paleocons are drifting toward Chomskyland, for instance, it was shocking to find a feminist like Phyllis Chesler favorably citing Jean Raspail in her new book, The Death of Feminism.

Ms. Chesler was recently interviewed by The Guardian -- and published in The Washington Times. The going is truly getting weird, folks.

Labels are an obstacle to understanding. (OK, OK, I just realized that this is a post about "moonbats." I plead guilty to the sin of being human!) It was a Democrat -- indeed, Hillary Clinton's immediate predecessor in the Senate -- who observed that while we are entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

Let me conclude by quoting a Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom :

Almighty God hath created the mind free ....

[T]ruth is great and will prevail if left to herself ... she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

DONKEY CONS: Rave review
DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
DONKEY CONS: About the book
DONKEY CONS: Robert Stacy McCain
DONKEY CONS: Lynn Vincent

Greetings, C-SPAN2 viewers!

Being on BookTV was a really big honor, and I'm glad everyone is visiting!

Welcome moonbats! Welcome Democrats (I used to be a Democrat, too). And welcome conservatives!

I want to thank those who've taken time to e-mail me. (Lynn and her family have gone camping this weekend.) Some of the e-mails have come from Democrats who are angry at the very idea that there could be such a book as DONKEY CONS (buy TWO!) and, hey, I know where you're coming from. You have every right to be shocked and angered to discover that, when counting members of Congress convicted of serious crimes or disciplined for ethics violations over the past 30 years, there were 46 Democrats to 15 Republicans, a 3-to-1 ratio. (p. 36 of DONKEY CONS).

As I said on C-SPAN, this is a fact. It can be independently verified (try here and here, for starters). It is spin-proof -- and both Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay are among the 15 Republicans in that count.

If you're a Democrat, you probably never imagined that this could be true; nothing you've ever read suggested that this could be possible; and so when we tell you about it, you naturally imagine that we're playing some kind of partisan trick. I understand, especially when your party's congressional leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- both of whom received campaign contributions from "Indian Jack" Abramoff's casino tribal clients -- have claimed Democrats can win by campaigning against a Republican "culture of corruption."

As predicted in DONKEY CONS (pp. 14-15), if Reid & Pelosi try to make corruption the central issue of the 2006 campaign, they will lose -- and we'll sell a lot more books. The scandals of William Jefferson, John Conyers and Al Mollohan are just now beginning to get widespread scrutiny, and the Reid-Pelosi "culture of corruption" strategy will prompt even more attention to scandal-plagued Democrats. The head of the DCCC is Rep. Rahm "Hired Truck" Emanuel, a creation of the notoriously crooked Daley machine and a veteran of the corrupt Clinton administration.

Dear Democrats: Once again, as in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, your party leaders seem to be getting ready to lead you to a defeat, perhaps of historic proportions -- in a year when so many factors otherwise are working against the GOP. The miscalculations of Reid & Pelosi -- and Howard Dean -- could deprive Democrats of their best chance in years to take back Congress. You can take your anger out on us, but that won't solve your problems.

And if, on the morning of Nov. 8, 2006, you have cause to lament, dear Democrats, please remember: We tried to warn you.


DONKEY CONS: Rave review
DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
DONKEY CONS: About the book

Hardhats vs. Moonbats on illegal aliens

Charles Hurt of The Washington Times reports:

Labor unions, which are among the Democratic Party's most loyal supporters, are deeply at odds with the party's push for a guest-worker program, and many Capitol Hill aides say erosion of labor's support undermined the Senate immigration-reform bill last week.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says guest-worker programs supported by top Democrats such as Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein are a "bad idea and harm all workers." ...
While labor unions say they want immigration reform, there is division among unions who support guest workers, such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and those who fear current Senate proposals will flood the U.S. job market and further undercut American workers with cheap labor.
"This is the corporate strategy in this country now, and Congress seems to be embracing it," Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, told CNN's Lou Dobbs last week.
"The corporate strategy is export good American jobs and then import cheap labor," he said.
Go read the whole thing -- and then come back, because there are some interesting unexplored angles to this story.

As Mr. Hurt reports, there is a sharp division within the labor movement itself, between what you might call the old-line George Meany/Dick Gephardt "hardhat" type of unions and what might be described as the Andy Stern/ "moonbat" faction. It is with a certain filial pride that I note that my dad's old union, the Machinists (Bill McCain was a proud member of IAM Local 709 in Marietta, Ga.) are among the leaders of the anti-moonbat wing, as the New York Times reported after the 2004 election:

Andrew L. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s largest union, called yesterday in a letter for far-reaching changes in labor designed to increase its membership, proposing a $25-million-a-year campaign to unionize Wal-Mart and a near doubling in the amount spent annually on organizing. ....

Mr. Stern's call for broad restructuring has fueled fierce divisions, even causing one union, the International Association of Machinists, to warn that it might quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O. if Mr. Stern prevails in his push to remake the federation. ...

Richard Sloan, a spokesman for the machinists' union, criticized Mr. Stern's proposals, asserting that they were part of a power play in which Mr. Stern and his allies were seeking to take over the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
"It's not Andy Stern's role in life to say to 60 other international unions that you got to do it my way or the highway," Mr. Sloan said. "That's just dead wrong. There's an arrogance to that. He fails by misunderstanding the nature of the labor movement - this isn't a set of elites that dictates to us. This is a democratic movement."
At their convention in September, the machinists' delegates authorized the union's executive council to withdraw from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. if its political opponents won control of the federation.
See what I'm talking about? It's the IAM-led hard hats vs. the SEIU-led moonbats. After the 2004 election -- as previously noted here -- Machinists boss Tom Buffenbarger ripped Stern & his moonbat followers a new one, blaming them for Democrats' defeat in 2004:
Even before passage of McCain-Feingold, Steve Rosenthal and his beach house buddy Andy Stern were targeting states like New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Louisiana, Nevada, Maine, and Arizona.
Their lock-step troika of 527’s spent over $260 million in up to 20 states only to lose 16 of their targeted states.
Now along comes Andy Stern Dean-screaming that the sky is falling. And why? Because John Kerry lost Ohio by 119,000 votes!
Hells bells, the IAM knew Ohio was lost the moment the Kerry campaign decided our convention would be an “off the record” event for its vice-presidential candidate. ...
We knew that the Democrats and their 527’s were wasting millions of dollars trying to persuade the undecided voters in the smallest states of the union.
But Andy Stern wants to blame everyone else for that defeat.

Heh. Buffenbarger's "beach house buddy" remark is an allusion to the fact that Stern, an Ivy League-educated radical, has for 25 years shared a New Jersey beach house with his friend Steve Rosenthal. No, not like that. They're both family guys.
Buffenbarger, an up-through-the-ranks Machinist who started out as a shop steward in an Ohio GE plant, wasn't being a homophobe, he was playing the class-warfare card against Stern and Rosenthal, a former AFL-CIO operative who led the biggest moonbat 527, Americans Coming Together.
Buffenbarger was saying that Stern & Co. are a bunch of rich elite radicals, the kind of left-wing snobs who own beach houses and then claim to speak for "working families."
Now, what does this have to do with illegal aliens? Four things:
Sweeney's immediate successor at the SEIU's 70,000-member Local 32B-32J in New York City was a high-living fellow named Gus Bevona:
Bevona ... ruled the union with an iron fist for 18 years, and stepped down after union members sued him for improperly spending $2.4 million in union funds. ...
At one time the nation’s highest-paid union boss, Bevona got nearly half a million
dollars a year from several sources.

In addition to his $412,000 Local 32B-32J salary, he also was paid by the SEIU parent union, a regional council, and another affiliated local. When he “retired” in 1999 with a $1.5 million severance payment, Bevona left behind a $6 million marble office penthouse in Manhattan, paid for by member dues—about $500 a year from each of 55,000 members in the late 1990s. Several Bevona cronies made off with about $5.3 million in severance payments.
And the SEIU corruption hits just keep coming:

May 13, 2004: SEIU employee indicted for theft.
March 28, 2005: N.J. Dem accused in SEIU local bankruptcy.
Aug. 1, 2005: SEIU treasurer pleads guilty in N.J.
March 28, 2006: L.A. SEIU official will plead guilty.
April 10, 2006: Another L.A. SEIU official pleads not guilty.
April 10, 2006: Milwaukee SEIU ex-bosses indicted.

Hmmm. Radical elites. Illegal aliens. Thievish labor bosses. Tens of millions of dollars in workers' dues being spent for 527s to support Democratic campaigns that keep losing and losing. See a pattern here? Have Mr. Buffenbarger and his fellow hardhats in the labor movement demanded an independent audit of the ACT 2004 operation? Just asking ...


DONKEY CONS: Rave review
DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
DONKEY CONS: About the book

Friday, April 14, 2006

Headline Update 4-14-06

DONKEY CONS Headline UpdateTM is usually brought to you by Tonto, Tarzan and Frankenstein, but Tonto's hanging with the Lone Ranger and Frankenstein's gone shopping for parts for his bride, so it's just Tarzan today:

McKINNEY: Gay Vote Trade? (h/t Americablog)
McKINNEY: Daddy Says Hush
SURBER: Fitzgerald Lied
SURBER: Beach Party
WAKIM: Bye, Bye, Beach Boy
WAKIM: War Veteran
DONKEY CONS: Immigration
SCHLUSSEL: Immigration
FLYNN: Immigration
COULTER: Immigration
COULTER: Top 25 Quotes
COULTER: 6/6/6 (h/t Human Events)
COULTER: Miller Time
COULTER: Moonbat Media
V. WORKER: Moonbat Alert I
V. WORKER: Moonbat Alert II
CLAYTON: Moonbat Alert?
FLYNN: Portland Moonbats
HOBBS: Moonbat Victim
DARNELL: Good Friday
QUINTON: Stolen Secrets
HOWLER: Buy Guns!
HIT&RUN: Sperm

DONKEY CONS: Boobs & Sex


DONKEY CONS: Rave review
DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
DONKEY CONS: About the book

A nation of boobs

OK, it's time for a cultural commentary, courtesy of Jeff Kuhner:

When future scholars seek to understand why Western civilization collapsed, they will point to one of the terminal diseases of our age: the loss of social standards.

The 1960s unleashed destructive, revolutionary forces — sexual liberation, pervasive moral relativism, a new age liberalism with its emphasis on pacifism, hedonism and therapeutic narcissism, and a puerile rebellion against authority leading to an erosion in good manners and high thought.

The result has been a coarsening of American culture. Our society has become obsessed with sex, body image, entertainment, fame and celebrity. We are a nation of tabloid readers, TV watchers, Internet porn junkies, sports
fanatics, and compulsive music and movie consumers
. All of these activities have one thing in common: they reflect our society’s over-riding emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure and entertainment.

In other words, we devote considerable amounts of our precious (and limited) energy and time on matters that are inconsequential, peripheral and ultimately, irrelevant.
We have become a nation of boobsignorant citizens, who spend much of their days doing vacuous and stupid activities, and preoccupied with the often sordid lives of vacuous and stupid celebrities.

This has led to a general dumbing down of American culture. Giants like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain and F. Scott Fitzgerald were once venerated as cultural heroes. Today, it is Oprah Winfrey, Mick Jagger, Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Lopez. Over 100 years ago, the average U.S. college student was taught to read the works of Thucydides, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in the original Greek and Latin. Today, he or she is taught remedial English.

Exactly so. Please go read the whole thing.

What Jeff says about our obsession with the trivial and degrading is exactly right. Consider the huge increase in Internet gambling, the TV fad of "Texas Hold 'Em" and the popularity of Las Vegas as a middle-class family vacation destination. Remember that it was "Indian Jack" Abramoff's casino connections that took down Tom DeLay, that damaged Ralph Reed's prospects, and that led to the death of Gus Boulis. (You knew I'd work a DONKEY CONS angle into this, right?)

The reason our puritan forebears condemned gambling and other vices was not merely that these activities were sinful per se. Rather, time spent in vice and idleness is time not spent in useful, productive ways that benefit society and nourish the soul. This is a CRUNCHY CONS sort of view -- and I've got my own criticisms of Rod Dreher's book -- but it is nonetheless worth considering soberly. In America, we are free to do many things, but just because we can fritter away our lives playing video poker (or reading People or watching ESPN) is not an argument that we should do those things.

So often, liberals (and some of my libertarian friends) will act as if criticism of vice were some sort of totalitarian repression. In other words, if you speak harshly about the gross sluttishness of Britney, Madonna, Paris Hilton, Christina Aguillera, etc., some liberals will accuse you of being a threat to sexual freedom or even accuse you -- incredibly -- of being "anti-sex."

This accusation of being "anti-sex" has bugged me ever since I had my go-round with Judith Levine (see also here, here and here) a few years ago. Levine is author of a book which suggests that Americans are too "uptight" about kids having sex, that we are "ignorant" and fearful, etc. If I'm so "anti-sex," and Judith Levine is so "pro-sex," then how come I'm the father of six children and Levine is childless? Hello?

No, what Judith Levine and others like her are in favor of is vice: sexual activity of the most selfish, unsatisfactory and unhealthy variety. Levine's sources in Harmful to Minors, as I conclusively demonstrated, included notorious defenders of, and advocates for, sex between adults and minors. What these people are in favor of is any kind of sex except the most normal, natural and pleasing kind, namely between a loving husband and wife. Sex as sport, sex as recreation, sex as commerce, sex as spectacle -- oh, that's all fine with Judith Levine & Co. But how about a husband and wife "forsaking all others" and making babies the old-fashioned way? Oh, we're a bunch of repressed puritans.

When her book came out in paperback, Levine included an afterword in which she accused myself and her other critics of "Sexual McCarthyism" and said that we had engaged in "guilt by association" because key points in her arguments for decriminalizing child-molestation (e.g., lowering the age of consent to 12) were sourced to infamous "boy lovers" and a NAMBLA lawyer who also had a business importing European nudist videos featuring minors.

Now, it so happens that I know a thing or two about how liberals use guilt-by-association tactics. Was I guilty of doing the same thing with Levine's book? I report, you decide. But surely Levine knew that several sources she cited in support of her argument about the harmlessness of child sex were, perhaps not coincidentally, less than neutral and objective about having sex with children. Doesn't Levine have access to Google? Hello? Edward Brongersma?
It has occasionally been my job over the years to write about controversial subjects, among them sex. I've written about Kinsey. I've written about Jesse Dirkhising. I've interviewed the lovely and intelligent Wendy Shalit (she's an admirer of the Austrian economists, by the way). I will repeat that Wendy is quite lovely, but she also has the brains to see right through the arguments for sexual "liberation" via sex education:
The argument that sex education helps resolve unhealthy sexual “hang-ups” is flatly wrong, she contends.
“Every single study” shows that “low self-esteem is correlated with early intercourse for girls,” she said.“That’s very interesting, because we associate modesty with making women weak. That’s what we’re told — that modesty oppressed women. Then why is it the case that women ... who wait the longest are indeed the ones who have the most self-esteem?”
Miss Shalit answers her own question: “Well, it’s because they have a sense of self that is beyond how they view themselves as a sex object. And they want to wait for the right person. There’s nothing wrong with that. When you’re insecure, you feel like you have to sleep with ... every guy who asks, because otherwise you have ‘hang-ups.’ You don’t have enough self-confidence to say, ‘I don’t have a hang-up. You’re just a jerk.’ "
Exactly. And notice that Wendy doesn't advocate any government crackdown on guys trying to score by convincing girls that they need to liberate themselves from their sexual "hang-ups." Neither am I. This is not so much about government policy as it is about people having the guts to speak truth to the cultural power of liberalism.

One of the favorite conceits of the Left is that conservatives are all a bunch of uptight, humorless prudes -- that we are "anti-sex" or "anti-fun." This is not just wrong, it's 180-degrees opposite of the truth. Let me explain:

Liberals are always talking about "safe sex." Boring. If you're having sex that's "safe," you're not doing it right. Sex is supposed to be dangerous. It involves exposing one's most profound vulnerabilities, sharing one's most intimate self. Such a deep and meaningful thing cannot be experienced with a prostitute or some drunk bimbo you pick up in a bar. That kind of stuff is degrading and dehumanizing, both a cause and an effect of self-hatred. But sex within the bonds of a loving marriage is uplifting and spiritual -- it actually makes you feel good about yourself.

"Casual sex" is an oxymoron, because sex isn't casual any more than it is safe. Sex inherently involves risk -- risk of rejection, risk of failing to fulfill your partner's desires, risk that you might be just moments away (give or take 9 months and 17 years) from having to figure out how to pay for your child's college education. There's nothing "casual" about that kind of sex. That kind of sex isn't "safe," it's dangerous. And it's great!

The best kind of sex is dangerous sex: The kind that begins with "I do" and ends with "til death do us part."

Oh, no. I just had another Ned Flanders moment, didn't I? That's what you get for raising the subject of sex and culture with me. Once again demonstrating why the rarest sentence in the English language is, "Gee, Stacy, why don't you tell us how you really feel?"

Thanks, Jeff Kuhner, for calling my attention to this. And also, thanks for giving me the chance to use "Angelina Jolie," "boobs" and "sex" in the same blog post. I'll take the Google hits any way I can get them.


DONKEY CONS: Rave review
DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
DONKEY CONS: About the book

Compromise with Kennedy?

Notice how, in this AP article, the pattern of cooperation between Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) and Senate Republicans (deport them!) is portrayed as a magnanimous gesture on Kennedy's part:

If the Democratic Party were the military, Sen. Edward Kennedy would probably be drummed out for fraternizing with the enemy.
The Massachusetts Democrat may rank as the Senate's leading liberal, but he has teamed up with a slew of prominent Republicans over the years to pass major legislation on contentious issues ranging from health care to education to immigration. ...
"He understands that in order to get stuff done, you have to reach across the aisle," said David Carney, a Republican consultant who served as a White House political director for former President George H.W. Bush. "A stand-alone Kennedy bill isn't going anywhere." ...

Kennedy is at the center of the national debate over immigration, bucking his party's leaders by pushing a compromise plan with Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona to put millions of illegal immigrants on a new path to citizenship.

But who's reaching out to who? And to what end? Any "compromise" with Kennedy over immigration would be toothless in terms of border enforcement and would include a "guest worker" sellout (or, as I prefer to call it, The Amnesty That Dare Not Speak Its NameTM) that would only make the problem worse.

One of the greatest honors accorded to DONKEY CONS was the praise from Peter Brimelow, who called it "vividly-written and witty." Mr. Brimelow, whose own writing is notably vivid and witty, is author of ALIEN NATION, the 1995 best-seller that warned America about the very crisis that we're facing today. And in that book, Mr. Brimelow explained that the man most responsible for our current immigration woes is ... wait for it ... TED KENNEDY.

Ted, the most famous C student ever to attend Harvard, was the chief architect and advocate of the 1965 Immigration and Nationalities Act, which:
  • completely overturned the principles that had governed U.S. immigration policy for 40 years;
  • remains the basic framework of U.S. immigration law; and
  • directly caused the problems we see today.
During debate over the 1965 bill, Kennedy -- an infamous dimwit who needs a translator to pander to illegal aliens en Espanol -- pretended to engage the arguments made by critics who warned that the measure would radically change American society, flooding the nation with millions of people from Third World countries, ill-suited to assimilate to U.S. culture.

I say Ted "pretended" to argue, because "argument" for Ted Kennedy means (a) naysaying the opponents' arguments, without offering any contrary evidence, and (b) impugning the opponents' motives as hateful. This is from pp. 76-77 of Alien Nation, with my notes [in brackets]:

    Today, it is astonishing to read ... the categorical assurances given by the 1965 Immigration Act's supporters. "What the bill will not do," summarized its floor manager, Immigration Subcommittee chairman Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts):
    First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. [Actually, it's now over 1 million a year, counting both legal immigrants and illegal aliens.] Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. [Immigration prior to 1965 was averaging about 300,000 a year, so it has quadrupled since then.] ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. [You see why Kennedy was kicked out of Harvard for cheating.] ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate Americ with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa or Asia. [Wrong again, Ted.] ...
    The charges I have mentioned [i.e., from the bill's critics, who turned out to be prophetically right] are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage. ...
    See? There is truly nothing new under the sun. Liberals keep lying about immigration, and if you dare to speak the truth, they accuse you of hatred and bigotry. Ted Kennedy has spent more than 40 years mastering this vicious scam, has tutored two generations of liberals in such evil modes of demagoguery, and despite his notorious dishonesty -- the surprising truth of Chappaquiddick is chronicled in Chapter 2 of DONKEY CONS, I might add -- Republican Senators still want to "compromise" on immigration with the very man most responsible for today's crisis.

    If Republicans trust Ted Kennedy on immigration, the GOP Senate will drown in November. And Ted? He'll just walk away. "Guilty as hell, free as a bird."
    -- McCAIN
    See McCain talk about
    this weekend on

    SAT. 4/15 - 1:45 pm
    SUN. 4/16 - 10:00 pm
    MON. 4/17 - 1:30 am

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    Donkey Cons media update

    A quick rundown of what we've been doing the past week:

    Vincent and McCain were on:

    • Jim Bohannon (National) April 5
    • G. Gordon Liddy (National) April 6
    • Craig Roberts (San Francisco, KFAX) April 6
    Vincent was on:

    • "Dayside" (Fox News) April 5
    • Michael Medved (National) April 5
    • Al Kresta (National) April 6
    • Kirby Wilbur (Seattle, KVI) April 7
    • Mark Larson (San Diego KOGO) April 10
    • Mancow (Chicago/National) April 11
    • Alan Colmes (Fox/National) April 11
    • David Allan (Jacksonville, Fla./WJGR) April 12
    McCain was on:

    • Trey Ware (San Antonio, KTSA) April 5
    • Carl Wigglesworth (San Antonio, KAHL) April 5
    • Charlie & Ernie (Vermont, WVMT) April 6
    • Allman & Crash (St. Louis, KFTK) April 6
    • Martha Zoller (Atlanta, WDUN) April 6
    • Tom Hartman (National), April 6
    • Paul Rodriguez ( April 6
    • Sean Casey (Baltimore, WCBM) April 7
    • Robert Mangino (Youngstown, Ohio, WKBN) April 7
    • Brad Davis (Hartford, Conn., WDRC) April 10
    • Rus Jeffries (Rochester NY, WACK) April 10
    • Bob Dutko (Detroit, WMUZ), April 10
    • Thomas & Kopp (Cincinnati, WKRC) April 12
    • Troy Neff (Toledo, WCWA) April 13
    • Marc Bernier (Daytona, Fla., WFHG) April 13
    • Jeff Courier (KVOL, LaFayette, La.), April 13


    McCain & Vincent attended the National Academic Freedom Conference April 6 in Washington, D.C.

    McCain spoke April 11 at a Capitol Hill event sponsored by Young America's Foundation, which will be shown on BookTV on C-SPAN2:

    • SAT. 4/15 - 1:45 pm
    • SUN. 4/16 - 10:00 pm
    • MON. 4/17 - 1:30 am


    Max Pulsinelli, Maximum Impact PR, 703-717-5015.


    We're available for e-mail interviews (Vincent, McCain).

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    Thursday, April 13, 2006

    Scandals: Dems vs. GOPs

    Y'know, it's easy to forget that Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) was once actually Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee:
    It was 1994. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski was indicted on corruption charges and stepped down as chairman of the prominent House Ways and Means Committee.
    The Illinois Democrat lost his congressional seat that November, when the Republican Revolution gained favor with voters who'd grown tired of a culture of
    corruption in Washington. ...

    But Democratic voters have no shame in supporting their disgraced scoundrels, whatever their sordid record of crime and scandal, and notoriously corrupt Dems are just lovable rogues to the media:
    Despite the fact that he spent 15 months in prison after pleading guilty to mail fraud charges, Rostenkowski, like many of his colleagues who have left Congress under an ethics cloud, is now doing just fine.
    "The people in my district didn't think I was guilty of anything," Rostenkowski said Friday, explaining that it was easy for him to make the transition back to Chicago power player. In a way, he'd never left. He said his supporters never left either. ...

    These days, Rostenkowski is an occasional columnist in the Chicago Sun-Times, one of the newspapers that aggressively investigated his congressional misdeeds. His congressional pension is worth more than $100,000 a year, despite his felony conviction. He's a frequent presence at Chicago steakhouse Gene & Georgetti's, where he's dined with Illinois Democratic powerbrokers such as Sen. Dick Durbin, Chicago Mayor Richard
    M. Daley
    and Rep. Rahm Emmanuel.
    A few years ago, Rostenkowski formed his own consulting company, DanRoss Associations. He's taught courses at Loyola University Chicago. He's paid more than $15,000 a speech.
    "You shouldn't feel sorry for them is the bottom line," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, of Congress' fallen members. "When you walk out that door, even if you can't walk right back in, it multiplies your pay significantly."
    That's the Austin American-Statesman and, no it's not a feature about DONKEY CONS, it's about ... Tom Delay. Heh. (Wonder if the Statesman will let The Hammer write occasional op-ed columns if he ends up convicted of a federal crime. Y'think?)
    I found this article while looking for information on Florida's most ethical Democrat, Rep. Alcee Hastings:
    Even if DeLay is convicted, that's not necessarily the end of the story, said Stan Brand, an ethics attorney with Brand & Frulla in Washington.
    "Alcee Hastings was a federal judge who was indicted and impeached, and is now a member of Congress," Frulla said of the Florida Democrat. As a judge, Hastings was impeached from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 1989 by Congress on charges of corruption and perjury.
    Carter said a conviction — which he thinks is unlikely — could alter DeLay's influence on the Hill.
    "It could be a problem at that point," Carter said.
    As explained here nearly three months ago, there is no GOP equivalent to an Alcee Hastings. And it's unlikely that DeLay will go on to anything like the fates of Hastings, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton: Democrats implicated in major scandals who not only survive, but prosper.

    -- McCAIN

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    Googling Conyers' babysitter?

    I have no idea what's happening out there, but there's a lot of interest in John Conyers' babysitter today. You've come to the right place! (Hit that link, folks!)

    Two curious things happened this afternoon:

    1. We started getting a lot of Google/MSN search hits from people looking for news about Rep. John Conyers' use of taxpayer-funded staffers to babysit his kids.

    2. Sales boomed, going up from about 3,000 to about 700 in the space of a few short hours.

    I've done Google News searches, and haven't turned up anything recent. So I'm scratching my head. Folks, is there some talk-radio host who slammed Conyers today? Was there a mention of Conyers' babysitting on Rush or Sean or Liddy? Please, e-mail me and tell me why you're searching for this Conyers thing, and I'll try to dig up some more information on the topic.

    3. Just remember who's the real "party of the rich."

    -- McCAIN

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    Down home in Georgia

    As a native Georgian, I have to say that I just really get a kick out of Peach State. The Republican-leaning multi-member blog is always giving glimpses to the inside stuff in Georgia politics, like the most recent "Campaigns & Elections" evaluation of the state's Democratic Party, which has just fallen apart in the past couple of election cycles:

    In Georgia, for example, the Democrats are still recovering from the nightmarish 2002 elections that saw them lose not only the governorship (for the first time in 130 years), but also a U.S. Senate seat, the state House speaker, state Senate majority leader and – the final insult – control of the state Senate when four members switched parties. In 2004, the party could mount little opposition for an open U.S. Senate seat, and lost control of the state Senate.

    Current Chairman Bobby Kahn is former chief of staff to ex-Gov. Roy Barnes, who went down in ’02. Known for an attacking style, he took over in 2004 and has received high marks while trying to swim up-stream.

    “Bobby Kahn is an incredibly capable guy, really smart, but he’s tried to survive as chair in an environment where they’ve had a couple of really bad election cycles – and I don’t blame him at all,” said one D.C.-based Democratic strategist who spoke on condition of anonymity (Campaigns & Elections, April 2006)

    Sad, sad. I was a super-loyal yellow-dog Democrat for the first 35 years of my life, and even more than 10 years after I walked away (the "Great Gun Grab of 1994" having a lot to do with that), it's still a bit sad to see that once proud party in disarray and disrepute. Long after Georgia's neighbors -- Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama and South Carolina -- went GOP, the Georgia Democrats by their fidelity to the state motto of "wisdom, justice and moderation" managed to keep winning. And now it's all gone.

    It's kind of like the collapse of the California and NY GOP machines in the 1990s. Most young folks don't remember the days of the early 1960s, when Southern California was absolutely ground zero for the infant conservative movement, or the the GOP golden years of the '80s when Reagan's enormous popularity made California a lead-pipe cinch for Republican presidential candidates in three consecutive elections (1980, '84, '88). There was similar situation in New York, where Jack Kemp had the Buffalo area and the super-powerful Long Island GOP kept the state in the Republican column.

    Gone! And so, too, is the once unbeatable Democratic Party of Georgia, the party of powerful senators like Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge and Sam Nunn. Gone, gone, the mighty Georgia Democratic reign of governors that stretched back decades: Eugene Talmadge, Ellis Arnall, Lester Maddox, Jimmy Carter, Joe Frank Harris, Zell Miller. And, my goodness: Tom Murphy! If memory serves, Tom Murphy was the longest-serving speaker of any state legislator in the nation. I well remember when it was thought that old Tom would die in the well of the General Assembly and take that gavel to his grave.

    Gone! All gone! All it took was a few key political miscalculations by Roy Barnes and Max Cleland to destroy the once-great party that dominated Georgia for over 100 years.

    Some folks may be sitting pretty now, and think their power is a permanent fact of politics. But whatever your own political allegiance or ideology, if you care about politics, don't ever take anything for granted. Behold the doom of the Georgia Democrats and know this:
    Sic transit gloria mundi ...

    -- McCAIN

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    Yet another rave review

    A refreshing book, low in rhetoric and high in historical fact (with over 600 footnotes), Donkey Cons chronicles crime after crime committed by the Left and how its representatives are seemingly immune to judgment, never held accountable, and actually rewarded for their crimes by moving to some of the most powerful positions in the party. ...

    One of the best political thrillers I have ever read, it’s scary that Donkey Cons is a piece of non-fiction. This book takes liberals to task for their con-artist ways, while holding conservatives responsible for their indiscretions, as well. Although, as Donkey Cons argues, there is a fundamental difference between the two parties: when a Democrat is involved in a scandal, he becomes a national figure for the party, but when a Republican is involved in a scandal it always ends with him resigning in disgrace.
    But, hey, go read the whole thing. Heh.

    -- McCAIN

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    Wednesday, April 12, 2006

    Colmes, Hillary, and the Panthers

    Hello, Alan: "Saying nasty, hateful things" about Democrats? My goodness. Good thing no Democrat ever says "nasty, hateful things" about President Bush, or his daughters, or Michelle Malkin, or ....

    Here are the notes for Chapter One's brief account (pp. 8-12) of Hillary Clinton's involvement in the defense of the Black Panthers (aka, the "New Haven Nine"), from pp. 232-233 of DONKEY CONS:

    18. “Wellesley College, 1969 Student Commencement Speech, Hillary D. Rodham, May 31, 1969."
    19. David Brock, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham (New York: The Free Press, 1996), pp. 22-23; Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), p. 42.
    20. Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation, pp. 29-43; David Horowitz, Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (New York: Touchstone, 1997), pp. 240-46, 264-68;William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 1974), pp. 1471-76.
    21. Edward Jay Epstein, “The Black Panthers and the police: A pattern of genocide?”
    New Yorker, February 13, 1971.
    22. Ibid.; Alan Bisport, “The night of the Panthers,” Hartford Advocate, November 30, 2003. The extent of surveillance of the New Haven Panthers was discovered in May 1977 (Facts on File Yearbook 1977 [New York: Facts on File, 1978], pp. 422-33).

    23. Facts on File Yearbook 1969 (New York: Facts on File, 1970), pp. 345, 544. The shifting number of defendants seems to have made them somewhat difficult to sloganize. The Rackley murder defendants have been variously called the “New Haven Nine” ( Joyce Milton, The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton [New York: William Morrow and Company, 1999], p. 38), the “New Haven Seven” ( Julius Lester, quoted in Horowitz, Radical Son, p. 377), and the “Connecticut Eight” (Bisport, “The Night of the Panthers”).
    24. Facts on File Yearbook 1969, pp. 544, 795; Facts on File Yearbook 1970 (New York: Facts on File, 1971), p. 39.
    25. Ibid., p. 166; Gail Sheehy, Hillary’s Choice (New York: Random House, 1999), pp. 77-80; Donna Radcliffe, Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time (New York: Warner Books, 1993) p. 8; Brock, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, pp. 31-32; Milton, The First Partner:Hillary Rodham Clinton, pp. 37- 40; Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1999), pp. 54-56.
    26. Facts on File Yearbook 1970, pp. 266, 287.
    27. Ibid., p. 308.
    28. Ibid., pp. 630, 683; Facts on File Yearbook 1971 (New York: Facts on File, 1972), p. 388; Milton, The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 37.
    29. Facts on File Yearbook 1971, p. 388, 495, 616; Unbylined, “Former Black Panthers Who Have Turned to Higher Education,” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, October 1998; Dan Hall, untitled article, Associated Press, October 13, 1977.
    30. Richard Poe, “Hillary and the Panthers: The Real Story,”, August 19, 2003.
    31. Mary Owen, “Sister of Texas dragging death victim attacks Bush,” Detroit Free Press, October 23, 2000;T. J. Milling, Kathy Walt, and Ronnie Crocker, “Jasper suspect wrote of links to racist group,” Houston Chronicle, June 11, 1998.

    32. Biographers who describe Hillary’s role in defending the Panthers include Radcliffe (Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time); Brock (The Seduction of Hillary Rodham); Milton (The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton); and Olson (Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton ). Sheehy’s Hillary’s Choice omits young Ms. Rodham’s role in the New Haven trial, but includes extensive material about Hillary’s involvement with the Panthers during her internship with Treuhaft (pp. 80-82). Hillary, of course, doesn’t mention her Panther involvement in Living History. A Google search on December 31, 2005, produced more than 800 hits for the combination of terms “urban legend,” “Hillary,” and “Panthers.” See for example,



    By my count, Alan, that's NINE diffferent books for five pages of text, including every major biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton we could find. I suppose you could say whatever you'd like about the late Barbara Olson, since she's no longer here to defend herself. But Joyce Milton, Donna Radcliffe and Gail Sheehy? Are they all a bunch of right-wing hacks?

    If you want to call David Brock a congenital liar, well ... we report, you decide.

    What really carries the narrative in the Hillary/Panthers section, of course, is the "as it happened" chronological sequence of the crime, the arrests, the guilty pleas, the extraditions, the protests, and the trial. In most cases, these details come from Facts on File, an annual hardbound reference work. They are backstopped with an important 1971 magazine article (Epstein in The New Yorker, definitely not a disreputable right-wing rag) and a long feature from the Hartford Advocate (ditto), as well as relevant books, newspaper articles and exactly one (one!) article from, written by Richard Poe.

    Now, Alan, you are welcome to check those sources. If you have any better sources that say something else, please send them along. (I plan to check the sources for your book's account of the Hillary/Panthers saga, Alan. We'll compare notes, and see if you've got anything in there that we missed.) According to our sources, however:

    1. The Panthers tortured and murdered of one of their members, Alex Rackley, a 24-year-old black man whom they falsely accused of being an informant.
    2. George Sams Jr. directed the torture and murder of Rackley; Warren Kimbro and Lonnie McLucas carried out the execution.
    3. Sams said this crime was committed under the direct orders of Bobby Seale. Another top Panther, Ericka Huggins, was accused of being an active participant in Rackley's torture.
    4. The police had New Haven headquarters under close surveillance.
    5. Hillary Rodham was actively involved in the successful defense of Seale and Huggins.
    6. Because of that successful defense, two things happened:
    a. Seale and Huggins walked free.
    b. Hillary got an internship in the law offices of Robert Truehaft, a lawyer closely allied with the Communist Party, USA. Her work with Truehaft also involved the Panthers, according to Sheehy.

    Has anyone who ever interviewed Hillary on national television thought to ask her: "Do you regret that? Would you do it again? Did you sincerely believe that Seale and Huggins were innocent? Do you think that all of their accusers -- all of whom were also members of the Black Panther Party -- were lying under oath?"

    Also: Mrs. Clinton got paid a huge sum to write Living History, and thus had a perfect opportunity to correct any errors her previous biographers had made in their writing about this episode. Instead, she ignored it altogether.

    But I must say this: Any left-winger who thinks Alan is a weak pushover on TV is deceived. Radio is obviously his natural medium. It was obvious that Alan was really riled up by DONKEY CONS. I certainly must say, Sean Hannity's TV partner is one hard-nosed antagonist who is not afraid of a fight.

    Alan, thank you very much for having us on. God bless you.

    -- McCAIN

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
    DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    Blogger for Congress?

    Small, small world, with only two degrees of separation from the Kevin Bacon of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:

    Robert Stacy McCain ...

    Stephanie Ramage ...

    Will Hinton for U.S. Congress
    I am tired of my representative being the butt of jokes throughout the nation. I, along with many people in the 4th District of Georgia, am fed up with having ineffective representation in Congress. I also wrote that I would be willing to challenge McKinney unless a better candidate ran against her. Well, this was not a joke either. ...

    I have had an outpouring of support and encouragement to run against McKinney. Over 15,000 people visited my blog last week and within the first 48 hours I had emails from numerous people committing thousands of dollars for me to run. I was pleased to see that a majority of the emails pledging support were from voters in the 4th District. And this support seems to know no political boundaries. Support has come from liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. ...
    If you would like to volunteer to help me defeat Cynthia McKinney, please email me at ...
    OK, as announced here Monday, I have recently stopped hatin' on McKinney. But McKinney and I go way back, and if she's going to get beat, why not Will Hinton? As Bluto might say, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

    My chief problem with Will is, he's been hatin' on Ann Coulter, too. But I'll turn the other cheek and let bygones be bygones. I'm officially neutral, but bookmark Donkey Cons for the latest, since I been hatin' on Cynthia before you guys ever heard of her.

    Donkey Cons previously on
    Cynthia McKinney:

    4/10: Hatin' on Cynthia
    4/5: Democrats' poster child
    4/2: McKinney video, fisked
    3/31: Who Cynthia McKinney is
    3/31: "Jihad Cindy" does it again
    2/27: Who predicted it first?

    -- McCAIN

    P.S.: I can't wait until Billy McKinney finds out about Will's campaign: "I blame the Jews! The Jews put that boy up to it!"

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    UPDATE: Richard Pearcey is also on this story.


    Dang it, y'all! Just as soon as I decide to go all Ned Flanders on Cynthia, the hatin' starts to get good. Dear Brothers, I won't be throwing any stones at Sister Cynthia, but if y'all want to get all judgmental ... well, ain't no sin to enjoy the show, I guess. Just remember: I was first to hate on her, and first to stop the hate. (Forgive me, for I have blogged.)

    Now, on with the hatin' ...

    HUMAN EVENTS: Inside the hatin'
    DECATUR GUY: It ain't Vernon

    You see the moral of this story, brothers and sisters? Here I am, a world famous hater, the Georgia boy who practically invented hatin' on Cynthia, I predicted her meltdown 6 weeks before it happened, and now that everybody's joined the Hate Cynthia Club ... I ain't gettin' no links, no interviews, no love.

    Prayer answered

    Remember: We were praying for angels.

    Ethics? Democrats? Hello?

    When Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) was exposed for his Abramoff ties, Republican leaders made him step down as chairman of the House Ethics Committee. But Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) is being investigated for over 250 violations of House ethics rules -- and he's still the top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee:

    U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) has committed over 250 violations of House ethics rules, according to a conservative legal watchdog group.
    The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed a complaint with the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia on Feb. 28, alleging that Mollohan failed to disclose and grossly underreported his assets, loans and interests in certain companies. ...
    All members of Congress are required to file the disclosure forms as part of the Ethics in Government Act.
    Ken Boehm, chairman of the NLPC, said every report Mollohan filed from 1996 to 2004 had "major errors."
    "The real issue here is not whether Mollohan systematically was hiding financial and real estate assets, and grossly misrepresenting their value. He was. The real issue is why he was hiding those assets," Boehm said. ...
    "No one in the House has more familiarity with the disclosure laws than he does. Any kind of excuse that he did not know how to fill out his financial disclosure reports -- for a nine-year period -- does not pass the straight face test," Boehm added.
    But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday defended Mollohan and argued that Democrats have a history of ethics reform. For months Democrats have been attacking what they call the "Republican culture of corruption" in Congress and at the White House.
    "The Speaker (Illinois Republican Dennis Hastert) should join me in directing the Ethics Committee to get to work, and not cast aspersions on the independent and distinguished Ranking Member," said Pelosi.
    Go read the whole thing. Also here, here, here, here, here and here.

    "Democratic ethics"? It is to laugh. We just wrote the history of the Democratic Party's own notorious "culture of corruption" -- that's 288 pages, with 667 end notes, carefully documented -- which is as old as Aaron Burr and as fresh as today's headlines.

    The Mollohan meltdown shows why we were so confident in our prediction that the "culture of corruption" campaign theme was going to be suicidal for Democrats. As we wrote on pp. 14-15 of DONKEY CONS (and this was in late December):
    Maybe Democrats think Americans are stupid. (They may be half right; 48 percent of voters apparently thought John Kerry would make a good president.) But just how stupid do they think we are? At this writing, Nancy Pelosi and her friends are talking about how Democrats will win control of Congress in 2006 by campaigning against a Republican “culture of corruption.” ...
    If Democrats try to make “corruption” the central issue of their campaign, they’ll surely lose—and we’ll probably sell a lot more books.
    Hey, Nancy: You go, girl!
    Kind of prophetic, wouldn't you say?

    Oh, and did we mention, we're available for interviews with any talk-radio host, reporter, columnist or blogger who wants to discuss Democratic Party corruption? (Bloggers: Send e-mails CC'd to Lynn and me, and include your blog's URL.)

    Lynn has already been on Fox News' "Dayside," Michael Medved, Kirby Wilbur, Mark Larson and "Mancow in the Morning." Together, we've been on G. Gordon Liddy, Jim Bohannon and Craig Roberts. I've been doing a daily schedule of local talk-radio from Seattle to Baltimore to San Antonio to Vermont. And if you guys want to talk about immigration ... heh. There's a DONKEY CONS angle to that, too.

    -- McCAIN

    DONKEY CONS: Buy it
    DONKEY CONS: Rave review
    DONKEY CONS: About the book

    UPDATE, 11:30 a.m EDT: Pelosi is a San Francisco Democrat whose support from the party's left wing made her the natural choice for House Minority Leader back when the Deaniacs and the LoseOn crowd were triumphantly celebrating their newfound power. But now the moonbats are turning their knives on Nancy:
    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has taken some beatings recently in the liberal blogosphere.
    An online poll at the leading blog Daily Kos put her approval rating at 19 percent. By comparison, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean garnered 84 percent.
    When she posted to the blog last Wednesday, describing her resolution calling for ethics investigations, readers offered excoriating reviews: “She is out of touch and
    dragging down the party,” wrote one. “Pelosi has zero credibility with me,” averred another. ...

    “The whole Democratic ‘leadership’ has failed us and must be voted out to make way for progressives,” wrote one commenter on DailyKos.

    Pelosi is a born-rich/married-richer airhead, just like John Kerry. Pelosi's elitism, political tone deafness and complete lack of strategic vision is perfectly suited to making sure she will continue to be the House Minority Leader. Go read the whole thing. Heh. And then buy DONKEY CONS.