Sen. Schumer (D): We Have 3 Branches of Government: HOUSE, SENATE, & PRESIDENT!!!

This is just a fun video. I don’t really buy too much stock in occasional gaffes like this. I just get a bit of a chuckle out of them. Although, you have to wonder what if someone like Palin or Bachmann said something like this? Is Chris Mathews going to spend a week calling Schumer a “balloonhead”? I doubt it.



Of course, Schumer got it totally wrong. The three branches are legislative (Senate & House), executive (president), and judicial (Supreme Court).

Ed Morrissey brought up some good points about the rest of what Senator Schumer was saying:

But even apart from that, Schumer still doesn’t have a point. No one is saying that we shouldn’t pay the debt ceiling. There isn’t anyone rooting for default in either party. The question before Congress is whether we will raise the debt ceiling in order to allow the government to borrow even more money. If Congress doesn’t raise it, the US won’t be able to sell more debt, which means that it will have to stop paying on its obligations, although those decisions can be prioritized to put off defaulting on existing bonds, at least for a short period of time.

So, Schumer didn't know what he was talking about all the way around.

Mission Not Accomplished: 57% of Americans Don't Blame Political Rhetoric For Gifford's Shooting

Seconds after the Giffords' shooting, the left immediately proceeded to blame the right, Sarah Palin and the TEA Party most of all, for shooting by claiming that their rhetoric creates a violent aura in government. Despite all of the political mudslinging from the left, the majority of Americans aren't buying what the media is selling, according to a new CBS poll:

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn't connecting the shooting to politics.....

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.

I'm ecstatic to see that people are seeing this huffing and puffing by the left for exactly what it is: BS. All evidence shows that he couldn't have cared less about Palin or the TEA Party. He was apolitical. His rants just seemed to be just rants of a madman, who had held a grudge since Giffords became US Representative in 2007. That was way before the rise of Palin or the TEA Party.

Democrats were hoping to not to "waste this crisis" and villanize and bully the right into silence and obscurity, so they could further their anti-2nd amendment agenda and more, but they failed big time.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

CNN Reporter Appalled by Obama/Hitler Comparison, Flashback: Linking Bush/Hitler, Eh...Not So Much

"In (her segment) (Susan Roesgen) sought out another TEA Party participant who had a mocked-up sign in which President Barack Obama is melded with Adolf Hitler.  She immediately began arguing with this gentleman as well; amongst the things she angrily said were "Why be so hard on the President of the United States with such an offensive message?" and "Do you realize how offensive that is?"

While I agree with her that it is over the line to like Obama with Hitler, that isn't the point of this post. Newsbusters has dug up an old video of her covering a anti-Bush protest in New Orleans where someone made a float with W's head with devil horns and a Hitler mustache, and all she could say about it was this:

"City officials aren’t the only ones wondering when federal money will materialize. Catholic school girls marched on Jackson Square. They and their teachers say more money is needed to fix the levees, and they hoped the President would stop by after his meeting with business leaders. But while a look-alike showed up with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not."

This "look-alike" was the previously mentioned Bush head. Where was her outrage then? There was a stark difference in her demeanor between her confronting the "tea" protestor and her commenting on the Bush float.

Your honor, this is exhibit A in the investigation as to why CNN gets beat by Fox every single day and time slot for the past few years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/04/16/cnns-anti-government-tea-party-reporter-obama-hitler-offensive-bush-hi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Brokaw's Embarrassment" Grows, MSNBC Moves Further Left With Addition of Ed Shultz

Is MSNBC Set to Create Yet Another Left-Wing Propaganda Hour?
By Rich Noyes
March 26, 2009 - 10:53 ET

If you thought MSNBC could not possibly tilt any further to the left, you may — sadly — be wrong. According to the New York Observer, the cable network may be about to give liberal radio host Ed Schultz his own program. Schultz has already filled in three times this month as anchor of the 6pm ET 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the one-time venue of Meet the Press moderator David Gregory.

“Schultz, with his rustic delivery, blue-collar bona fides and copious hunting references, would presumably add some heartland credibility to MSNBC's wonky cosmopolitan lineup without disrupting the lefty story line,” The Observer’s Felix Gillette noted on Tuesday.

Schultz has been a favorite with the NBC/MSNBC crowd since his national radio show debuted in January 2004. NBC’s Today show quickly brought him on as a pundit during the Democratic primaries, and treated him to a gooey profile in March of that year. Katie Couric touted Schultz as a liberal version of radio mega-star Rush Limbaugh, though at the time Schultz’s affiliates consisted only of stations in North Dakota, Montana, and Needles, California.

“Who in the heck is Ed Schultz? We’re gonna profile the man being called the liberals’ answer to Rush Limbaugh," Couric chirped in setting up the segment. "There’s a different sound coming from your radio days these days. It’s a liberal talk show host. Some say it’s the left wing’s answer to Rush Limbaugh. And you might be surprised to hear that this liberal host originates from the conservative heartland. We’re gonna meet him in this half-hour.”

The report, by correspondent Jamie Gangel, revealed that Schultz was actually a stooge of Democratic activists. "It is no secret that you are on the air for the next two years because Democratic donors have put up $2 million to launch this. Can you really say what you think?" Gangel challenged. Schultz insisted: "I'm not beholden to anybody."

In 2008, NBC and MSNBC both pounded conservative radio host Bill Cunningham after he referred to “Barack Hussein Obama” prior to a McCain campaign event. A few weeks later, however, after the liberal Schultz blasted McCain as a “warmonger” at an Obama event (for which the Obama campaign rebuked Schultz), his friends at NBC and MSNBC helped shield him. MSNBC’s Countdown and Hardball — which feverishly went after Cunningham — were silent on Schultz, while David Gregory’s 6pm Race for the White House offered Schultz a friendly forum to explain himself.

Appearing on the April 7, 2008 show, Schultz stuck by his venomous attack: “He is a warmonger. His policies and his positions on Iraq certainly parallel that of a warmonger. And he fits the description.”

On his radio show, Schultz has polluted the airwaves with rhetoric far nastier than what liberals claim about talk radio conservatives. Last Friday, for example, Schultz called GOP Senator Jon Kyl a “spineless scumbag” for daring to criticize President Obama’s joke about bowling “like Special Olympics or something.” Other recent examples chronicled here on NewsBusters:

■ On March 2, Schultz compared Limbaugh to Adolf Hitler: “If you watch Limbaugh with the sound down...he looks like Adolf Hitler!...The parallel is so striking.”
■ On November 25, Schultz rued how, after years of bashing George W. Bush, the outgoing President never extended his hospitality to left-wing talkers: “We lefties with microphones, we were never invited to the White House. Never got a chance to even urinate on the yard.”
■ On November 17, Schultz blasted Republican Senator Richard Shelby as a “terrorist” for opposing a taxpayer bailout of the auto companies: “It is his mission to kill the Big Three.... Senator Shelby from Alabama is a terrorist on the American worker. He is a terrorist on wage workers.” Two weeks later, on December 3, Schultz attacked network news (presumably including NBC?) for not “cheerleading” a socialist bailout: “They should be cheerleading. They should. Forget all this journalist crap! I’m serious.”

Last August, retired NBC anchor Tom Brokaw refused to defend the one-sided left-wing rants that have replaced professional journalism on MSNBC, telling a forum on campaign reporting: “I think Keith has gone too far. I think Chris has gone too far.” If MSNBC adds Schultz to the line-up, Brokaw’s embarrassment will only grow.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/03/26/msnbc-set-create-yet-another-left-wing-propaganda-hour
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

MSNBC had already hit rock bottom. Now, they've took out a shovel and started to dig.

The MSM and the left pounded Limbaugh just for saying that he wants Obama's agenda to fail. Imagine what would have happened if he would've called Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid a “spineless scumbag” or said that Obama looked like Hitler while stumping on the campaign trail.

Rahmbo's Hand Caught In Freddie Mac's Cookie Jar

When will Rahm Emanuel give back the money?
posted at 1:32 pm on March 26, 2009
by Ed Morrissey

Capitol Hill exploded in outrage this month when AIG paid retention bonuses to the employees it brought on board to rescue the company from the shoals.  What about people in high government office who profited from unethical behavior during the period when the damage got done?  Congress could start demanding refunds from those people — like, say, Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:

"Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

"One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort. …

"The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

"On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass."

Nor was that the only scandal at the GSE for which Emanuel had a ringside seat.  The board approved a scheme to increase its political influence by using corporate resources for campaign fundraisers.  That violation netted Freddie Mac a hefty $3.8 million fine for the 2002 electoral cycle, although by that time, Emanuel — one of the recipients of the fundraising — had won a seat in Congress.  Emanuel was also around when Freddie Mac deliberately misstated earnings, creating a $5 billion write-off and almost $600 million in fines and settlements after OFHEO discovered the false figures in 2003.

Congress had plenty of venom to unleash on AIG execs this month over some contractually-obligated retention bonuses.  Why not go after some of the people really responsible for the collapse — the people who sat on boards while cooking the numbers, fooling investors, and evading auditors?  When will Congress pass a bill asking Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae board members during this period to return the ill-gotten gains they received from perpetrating a Ponzi scheme with government backing?

Well, that’s the answer right there.  Too many of the people in Congress who vented outrage over retention bonuses not only approved of the Ponzi schemes at the GSEs, they colluded in creating them.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al have little room to castigate Rahm Emanuel for merely enacting what they created.  And that, of course, is the root of the hypocrisy.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/when-will-rahm-emanuel-give-back-the-money/
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Cue the outrage! (Silence) Um, let me try again. Cue the outrage!

Well, I guess there will be once again no consequences for a Democrat's, in this case Rahmbo, role in the current financial crisis. The MSM will basically barely mention it if at all and pretend it never existed the next day. However, what ever role the GOP had in it is blown up and the offending Republican is figuratively put in front of a firing squad.

When will people realize this crisis is largely brought about by the Democrats' not the GOP?

Obama Threatened By "Tea Parties" Counters With Rallies, LA Times Shows Why Old Media Is Dying

L.A. Times refused to report 15k Fullterton anti-tax protest, but features A.N.S.W.E.R.’s anti-AIG/anti-war events before they happen

By Michelle Malkin  •  
March 16, 2009 02:07 PM

This is why Old Media is dying. The Los Angeles Times today recycles press releases from left-wing A.N.S.W.E.R. announcing a protest of AIG this afternoon and an anti-war rally next weekend. The paper has no problem serving as advance publicity team for radical Left groups.

Not a single body has shown up for these events yet. But it’s newsworthy to the LA Times.

On the other hand, if 15,000 people turn out to lambaste tax-and-spend politicians in both parties in Fullerton, CA, it’s not news.

It’s a “stunt.”

What media bias? Yeah, that media bias.

Ready for pushback? Eric Odom is organizing. You can also leave comments at the L.A.Times/A.N.S.W.E.R. publicity headquarters here.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/16/la-times-refused-to-report-15k-fullterton-anti-tax-protest-but-features-answers-anti-aiganti-war-events-before-they-happen/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Protesters to rally outside AIG in downtown L.A.
10:29 AM | March 16, 2009

Demonstrators plan to rally outside the AIG building today in downtown Los Angeles to protest the giant insurer's decision to pay $165 million in bonuses to key employees. American International Group Inc. recently received the first part of $180 billion in federal bailout funds.

"We're going to be down there with whoever we can get," said Ian Thompson of the Los Angeles chapter of the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.) coalition. "We're going to be expressing anger and outrage about the new bonuses that were announced, that will be given to the very same folks who helped cause the financial meltdown."

The protest is scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. near the intersection of 8th and Figueroa streets. The group also  will help lead an anti-war protest Saturday at noon to mark the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq. A march is set to start near Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street and continue to Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue.

-- Ari B. Bloomekatz

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/aig-protest.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Obama and his cohorts must be scared of these "tea parties" that just won't go away and keep on growing larger. He is trying to counter the massive displays of dissension of Obama's economic policies. He is going to have the advantage of the MSM reporting his every move and rally while ignoring the opposition's protests. The opposition must remain vigilant and make the MSM acknowledge our existence.

News Flash: Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail Too

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail

The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

By Bill Sammon
FOXNews.com Wednesday, March 11, 2009

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Understandably, the press had other things on their mind on 9/11/01, but what Carville said shows is that liberals are just as likely as conservatives to wish that their oppenents' policies would fail, not the country.

The real problem here is why does the liberal media fails to remember this comment and many others that wished Bush to fail not just in his overall policies but also in Iraq where American men and women were putting their lives endanger for this country. For example, Sen. Harry Reid declared the Iraq War lost before it was over. They didn't care if W's failure in Iraq meant many more deaths in the sands of the cradle of civilization. They just want Bush to fail in everything he did or wanted to do.

Ari Fleischer Exposes Liberal Media Hypocrisy

Ari Fleischer Zings MSNBC: Should Dems Denounce Keith Olbermann?

By Scott Whitlock March 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer appeared on the Thursday edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and stopped the program cold when he challenged the hosts as to whether they were "going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?" Co-anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who had been discussing the battle between the White House and Rush Limbaugh, were silent for a moment before Brzezinski admitted, "That was a good one. We're all thinking."

Fleischer pressed, "That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because, largely, the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush." The quip occurred after Brzezinski attempted to trap Fleischer into saying that he would be following the tactics of attacking the radio host, were he in the same situation as the Obama White House. After Fleischer's jibe, Scarborough started sipping from his coffee and attempted to toss the potential network hot potato over to the show's other guest, Mike Barnicle. Scarborough joked, "I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?" A few seconds later, however, the token MSNBC conservative did admit, "No, that was good."

A transcript of the March 5 segment, which aired at 8:04am, follows:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's bring in right now former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Ari, thank you so much for being with us.

ARI FLEISCHER: Good morning.

SCARBOROUGH: A lot of people don't realize Ari not only was the spokesman for the Bush White House, he also is running PR for Michael Steele, at least over the past two weeks.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Good. He can explain what's going on there.

SCARBOROUGH: You're doing a helluva job, Ari. What's going on there?

FLEISCHER: Good morning. It's great to be on your show where you make things up.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, we find it easier than reading newspapers. No, let's talk seriously about Michael Steele. What would you instruct the leader of the RNC to do at this point?

FLEISCHER: Frankly, I think the RNC, Michael Steele, should not have taken the bait on this whole issue. They fell into a silly political trap. But what I find most distressing though, Joe, is didn't President Obama say he wanted to change the way politics was done in Washington, be post-partisan. He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging in childish things and his Chief of Staff engages in one of the biggest childish things imaginable. This whole food fight over Rush Limbaugh is a distraction from the economy from health care and the things he should be working on. It just makes me think Barack Obama is like every other politician who just seeks political advantage.

SCARBOROUGH: While he was making that statement, you did have Carville and their teams doing polls on trying to find the most unpopular person –

BRZEZINSKI: Well --

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. They found Rush Limbaugh. They said, you should target him. If that's not political gamesmanship, if that's not politics the way Washington's run for the past generation, I don't know what is.

FLEISCHER: Joe, listen to this. Here's what Barack Obama said in his inaugural address. We've come to proclaim the end of petty grievances, the recriminations that have strangled our politics. He cited scripture, and then he said, the time has come to set aside childish things and then his staff engages in those very things that his inaugural address talked about. You know, Barack Obama has huge popularity, but I think he is planting the seeds which could hurt him down the road if he really is no different from anybody else. And that's what I think this episode shows.

SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, Mike Barnicle, that makes me sad, I'm like the Indian that has the tear coming out the corner of his eye.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, god.

SCARBOROUGH: I believed he would be different.

BRZEZINSKI: It was Ari. It was Ari.

MIKE BARNICLE: Ari, you can't seriously believe – do you seriously believe that Obama and his staff, including Rahm Emanuel, what do you figure they're spending, two, three, four minutes a day on Rush Limbaugh? I mean, come on.

FLEISCHER: You know, Mike, how it works, you plant the bomb and you see where it goes off. But isn't that what he said he would stop in Washington? 2004 he said there's not a red America, there's not a blue America, there's a United States of America. My point is, what he is doing and what people on the cable shows have all picked up on, is exactly what people get weary of Washington for. And it's what every politician does. He wanted to be different, and I think he's squandering that chance to truly be different, especially to Republicans who question his policies, but really thought he might be a different type of leader. That's the big problem I have with all of this. This is – this reminds me a lot of the lipstick on a pig issue during the campaign raised against Barack Obama. It's foolish, who needs to get into that?

BRZEZINSKI: Ari, if you were standing at that podium, would you have not taken the opportunity to do what they are doing with Rush Limbaugh?

SCARBOROUGH: Let's say Michael Moore.

FLEISCHER: You have to be careful when you stand at that podium, you don't realize until you're in that unique job how much weight your words have. When you previously as a Senator's press secretary or a party secretary, press secretary, could dismiss or take a slap at a political opponent, when you do it from the White House, you're bringing the weight of the government onto that private person. So, you really have to be careful about it and do it with some grace. Going after Rush Limbaugh, it's just -- to me it's the usual nonsense.

BRZEZINSKI: They're not going after him, they were just labeling him as the leader of the Republican Party and saying --

SCARBOROUGH: They targeted him, Mika.

FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship.

BRZEZINSKI: I'm saying you wouldn't have pointed that out?

FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?

BRZEZINSKI: That was a good one. We're all thinking.

FLEISCHER: That's my point. That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because largely the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?

BRZEZINSKI: Mike Barnicle?

BARNICLE: I have to ask you, Ari, because you were really good when you were standing at the podium.

SCARBOROUGH: No, that was good.

BARNICLE: But did you have to soak your face in cement this morning to come out and say all of this with a straight face. I mean, come on!

FLEISCHER: You are so part of how Washington's always worked and this is why people give up.

BARNICLE: [Laughing] Me? What?

BRZEZINSKI: Barnicle?

FLEISCHER: You guys love this story. You love what Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are doing because it gives the left an excuse – not you, Joe – to go after people like Rush and conservatives and like they did to Newt. But don't you realize, this is why so many people in America tune out Washington? Especially at a time when we got so many bigger issues. Yeah, Mike, it's two or three minutes a day, that's all it took for them to plant the seeds of destruction they wanted to plant.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/03/05/ari-fleischer-zings-msnbc-should-dems-denounce-keith-olbermann
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Ha! I love to see liberals squirm when their caught in their own hypocrisy.

If Republicans have to denounce Limbaugh as a far right extremist, then I fully expect the Democrats to do the same for not just Olbermann but also Michael Moore, Bill Maher, DL Hughley, or anyone in the MSM that wanted America to fail in the Iraq War.

I'll be here holding my breath. Someone call 911, if I start looking like a Smurf..

Their attack on Limbaugh is a thinly veiled diversionary tactic to distract people from the Democratic spending orgy, free fall in the market, and the administration's tax and cabinet scandals. So they bring up the Limbaugh boogieman that they used in the 90's.

It's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to chastise the Republicans to hold Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc against Obama as guilt by association. Then, they turn around and do the same to Republicans. They want to convict the GOP in court of public opinion of their guilt by association with Rush.