February 17, 2004 by s.z.

I Am More Powerful Than You Ever Dreamed From  Atrios, we learn that Larry Flynt is going forward with the "Bush abortion" story.  It will be included in his book, which is coming out this summer. "This story has got to come out," the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine honcho told the Daily News' Corky Siemaszko. "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the White House about this whole abortion issue." Flynt claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s. "I've talked to the woman's friends," Flynt said. "I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion," Flynt said. "I got the story nailed." So, media converage of Bush and his possible involvement in an illegal abortion!  I think we owe a big thank-you to Ed Gillespie, for making Flynt decide that the story needed to floated again (Ed, who was busy kicking himself, was unavailable for comment).  Oh, and a big round of applause for Matt Drudge, who has made floating salacious rumors popular again.  And kudos to me, for having thought of the whole thing a couple of days ago, and thereby made it happen. And while I'm in this self-congratulatory mode, I'd like to report what Peggy said to me today:  "I love the voice of the internet, and the straight shooting voices of Blogville. "  Aw, thanks, Peg!  Of course, she wasn't talking about  me, she was talking about James Lileks (whom she "loves" -- but don't tell young Gnat, she is too young for this kind of trauma).  However, Peggy was answering my query, posed to her at the Wash Post "Live Online" chat today.   TBOGG said to go ask Peggy questions, so I did (Tbogg commands,and I obey), and Peggy ended up using one of mine (even though I said that Lileks said that Bush was no Reagan, but we had to vote for him because he scared terrorists).  But sadly, Peg doesn't know what Ronnie would have done about today's illegal aliens (he liked the old ones, who were Irish and not on welfare), so I guess George is on his own on on that issue.   But I think my favorite response of the day was this one: Boston, Mass.: No matter what happens with Kerry or Iraq or anything else, Bush will rack up 55 to 60 percent in most of the deep south, plains, and moutain west. Just what is it, in your view, that makes Bush so attractive to the "heartland"? I am at a loss to understand the cultural attitudes of these voters. Peggy Noonan: Well, that's a big question. Try this as part of the answer. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block he'll run out and help. He'll direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?" He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush aint that guy. Republicans love the guy who aint that guy. Of course, if George was part of the volunteer fire department, he'd be mysteriously missing for months at a time, so he might not actually run out and help on one of those days. But if he was on duty that day, he MIGHT direct the rig to the right house, but then again, he might direct the rig to a house that just looked like it was on fire because there was steam rising from the furnace and a red light on porch.  And after the fireman had destroyed the house and found that there was no fire there, he would keep insisting that if we just kept looking, we'd find the fire.  But anyway, there were connections between that house and a house that burned down last week in another town, so we were justified in chopping it up and drenching it -- and anyway, there HAD been a fire there ten years ago and the owner was a jerk.  And then he'd blame the map company for giving him faulty intelligence.  But yes. he would ask where Sally was, and initiate a mandate to ensure that no Sally's were left behind.  But he wouldn't adquately fund it, and besides, your kid is named Susan. UPDATE: Although I may control reality as we know it, I have been informed, via the comments at Atrios (since the Wampum server is overloaded) that I didn't win a Koufax.  I wish to congratulate TBOGG on his very deserving win in the Humorous Blog category (it really couldn't have happened to a nicer guy), and all the winners in the other categories.  The fine folks at Wampum really put a lot of effort into this contest, and I found it a really good way to get acquainted with a lot of great blogs I hadn't encountered before. And I really want to thank those of you who voted for World O'Crap (and those of you who didn't, but still read this blog).  Like I said before, it was an honor just to get nominated, and I am really gratified by (and amazed at) your support.  So, thanks, guys and gals! But if anybody wants me, I'll be some sleazy bar, drowning my sorrows with rotgut and Pringles.  (I've actually never tried rotgut before, so this should be fun).  If any of my fellow losers want to join me, I'm buying. 3:07:33 PM

comment [] trackback []

Proof You Can't Fool All the People All the Time, Jonah Goldberg tips us off to what the wingnuts are talking about at Mom's place: INTERESTING: O'REILLY [Jonah Goldberg ] The reliably conservative crowd at Lucianne.com seems to think Bill O'Reilly's lost his way, judging from these posts.  Posted at 09:24 AM Yes, the reliably certifiable crowd is talking about Bill O'Reilly's latest column, and they don't like it (or him) very much.  It's the column where Bill complains that his acknowledgment that we never did find those WMDs has been a cause of joy to the left, and where he attempts to smooth things over with those who would try to kill him for dissing the prez (e.g., the reliably conservative crowd at Lucianne.com). A few days ago, I told Charles Gibson that my analysis of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction situation was wrong. Well, you would have thought I had endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for President, the left-wing press was so overjoyed.   Well, they reported the story, but there was no dancing in the streets, as far as I know.  (They're saving that for the announcement that Bill endorsed George W. Bush for President, causing him to lose by a landslide.) All I did was admit that my analysis was wrong and guys like U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter were right.  I placed the blame for the faulty intelligence right where it belongs: on CIA chief George Tenet. See, there's no reason for the right to consider Bill a traitor.  He never actually made good on his promise to never trust the Bush administration again, he just said that there were no WMDs and it's all George Tenet's fault for not manufacturing some.  And Bill HAD to say that, because, "My job is to look out for the folks and call 'em as I see 'em, not sink into the morass of partisan politics."  And the folks needed to know that George T. was leading George W. astray, and should be fired.  Bad DCI!  Bad! We are living in dangerous times when information is critical to the well-being of you and your family. Fanatics overseas want to kill us, and fanatics at home want to manipulate us. Every politician, journalist and, indeed, every person makes mistakes. Owning up to them is the mark of an honest individual. I made a mistake on my analysis of the WMD threat in Iraq. I acknowledged said mistake. But that's all there is to it. There is no need for joy in Mudville.   So, Bill admitted he made a mistake about the WMDs (months after everybody else had already realized it), cast the blame onto a scapegoat, and chastized the elite media for trying to make it sound like Bill had said something sensible.  You'd think the Lucianne readers would admire him for that.  But NO!  If you follow Jonah's link, you will find that the Loons (or whatever their clever nickname is) are actually brighter than I had realized, and most said they don't watch Bill's show anymore because they find him pompous, self-absorbed, abrasive, rude, and more interested in promoting himself and his books than in addressing what was of concern to them, the folks (a term which they all hated).  They also thought he was a big know-it-all who cuts off his guests, a faux populist, and a sleaze who focuses on tabloid-esque stories.  I find myself shaken, since I agree with all of the above!  Surely this is one of the signs of the apocalypse ("And lo, the Lucianne.com readers will see the truth about Bill O'Reilly, and will speak it in one of their threads.") Of course, some posters came up with complaints I never would have made about Bill.  Like that they would always hate him for trying to steal radio listeners away from the one true God, Rush Limbaugh.  Or that Bill's just not a good enough Christian to be allowed to appear on Fox News.  Or that he was a traitor to say that there were no WMDs, because we will  find them yet if we just have faith and look for them with pure hearts.  Or that Bill's sure no Britt Hume.  ("And Britt is so DREAMY!  I want to have a network devoted just to him!  He's so smart, and polite, and fair and balanced that I want to have his babies."  You'd be surprised how many people said stuff like that -- and not all of them were women!) While Bill did have some semi-supporters (who warned the others that dissing Bill was just what THEY wanted you to do), I'd estimate that there were 15 negative posts for every sorta postive one.  Poor Bill's days on at the top may be numbered.  We can only hope, and read some of the more memorable Lucianne.com posts: Reply 10 -  I believe that anyone who helps The Left undermine the Bush Administration in time of war is doing harm.  Besides the Islamafascists, The Left wants to destroy our way of life. They want to turn our capitalistic republic into a socialistic democracy. That is the road to communism. Just look at the trouble Canada, Britain, France, Germany, etc. are in with their economies, sorry health care, lack of military, being swamped with Muslim immigrants, etc. Reply 11 - First David Kay then O'Reilly. GW needs some bolstering. Why can't they find these WMD in Syria already? I guess they want to create 'doubt' in the voters' minds and bring in a crazy Liberal  Reply 27 - O'Reilly's numbers will decline if he continues to lend aid and comfort to the left. Reply 47 - I'm with #22. His 'looking out for the folks' comments are very irritating. What condescending nonsense. I don't need this guy 'looking out for me'. I think he'd better start looking out for himself.   Reply 48 - O'Reilly seems to quickly take a descent into filth. I turned on my local talk station a few days ago while shaving; in which the "Radio Factor" was in mid sentence. Billy was challenging his co-host, whats-her-name (Lisa?), to bare her breast (the Janet Jackson stunt was the theme of that segment) and he went after that line toward ~Lisa~. She sounded aghast and embarrassed at the continued pressure. Five minutes is all I could stomach of that arrogant jerk. The off switch is a good thing. Reply 49 - To put my 2 cents worth in--his pandering to the queers is over the edge for me--the press in general has watered down the numbers from 90% against homosex to 60% thinking we will buy it-I am watching less of FOX now with their attention to this fiasco.  Reply 89 - O'Reilly has a far out attitude on many subjects, but he still airs stories that no one else in the liberal media will touch. Keep carping about him, reduce his ratings, and you are playing into the hands of the mainstream media who want him off the air and that should tell you something. I think Bill probably wrote that last one.   Anyway, an interesting subject, and an example to the rest of rightwing punditry that "the folks" might not be as stupid as they think.  At least, not all of the time. 6:59:30 AM

comment [] trackback []

A Proud Day Today little Gnat wrote the first word of her future best-seller, Daddy Dearest: Gnat wrote her first word today. She has decided that she’s going to be a writer; she got a notebook, a pen, and announced that she had to do homework. “I’m going to write a pome,” she said. “No, a direy. I need to write a story in my direy.” And as we all know, keeping a direy is essential if you plan to someday write a tell-all book about your exploitive, over-protective, weirdly obsessive father.  We look forward to reading Gnat's future ouevre. And today was a proud day for Lileks for another reason: his syndicated column got picked up by WorldNetDaily!  Yes, right there on WorldNetDaily Commentary Page is a link to Lileks' latest piece, Guess Which Candidate Our Enemies Want to Lose in 2004?  (Hint: per Lileks, it's the candidate in the flightsuit who manipulated intelligence, alienated us from the rest of the world, and wasn't afraid to tie up our military and resources on an invasion of a country which posed no threat to us.)  In his piece, Lileks warns that you HAVE to vote for Bush, even if he is no Ronald Reagan, (and can't even dream of being a Nancy Reagan), or al Queda will strike again, probably by putting anthrax in the drinking fountain at YOUR children's elementary school, and it will all be your fault.  And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want. That is, if we even HAVE a country after a Democrat takes office.  Can you take that risk? Guess Which Candidate Our Enemies Want to Lose in 2004? truly was worthy of being included on the WorldNetDaily Opinion Page, and we hope Lileks is proud to be sharing a forum with such luminaries as Mark Steyn (whose column we've already discussed), Rebecca Hagelin, headliner C.J. Cheetham, and The Babe in the Bunker.  Let's look at their columns, so you can see just what an honor it was for Lileks to be chosen to join this illustrous company. First, here's "The Babe in the Bunker" warning us of Muslim Danger! We're in a real war that involves religion. It's arguably the first such war this country has faced and I'm afraid we haven't the guts or the heart to handle it properly for fear of offending someone. Personally, I find treason more offensive. And so our only option is to throw out the Bill of Rights.  Sure, some may find that offensive, but they're bleeding heart liberals who just don't have the balls to do something about those millions of cases of Muslims committing treason! Well, four cases, including that Sean Anderson flake.  Sure, none of those four was actually charged with treason (or even espionage), but that's beside the point!  If only we weren't so damned PC these days, all four of them would face the firing squad. And those four are just the tip of the iceberg, maybe.  For, as the Babe asks, (and answers): How do we know Muslims in the military are loyal to the uniform and the country?  We don't.  Which brings to mind THIS question (and answer): How do we know Christians, Jews, and Wiccans in the military are loyal?  We don't.  And since members of those religions (except the Wiccans) have actually been convicted of espionage, we should be up-in-arms over the fact that they are allowed to serve, and even die, in Iraq.  Clearly, our best (and only) defense against treason is to institute an all-Wiccan military. WorldNetDaily also gives us C.J. Cheetham, a former M.P. who proudly served in Desert Storm (which clearly qualifies him to write about politics).  He's here to educate us on the similarities and differences between Benedict Arnold & John Kerry.  Which are: they both served in the military, but Arnold won more Purple Hearts and Kerry is a bigger traitor. John Kerry couldn't hold a candle to Benedict Arnold in terms of service.  Arnold served longer, with greater distinction, and in more dangerous environs. Kerry has outdone Arnold in only one respect – Kerry's treason was more insidious, more immoral and more harmful to America than Arnold could muster. And some fools continue to call Kerry a war hero, just because he got wounded in battle, was awarded a bunch of medals, and risked his life to save one of his comrades! But C.J. knows better, and gives us examples of the kinds of treasonous acts Kerry has committed while still being called (by some) a hero: Kerry who cavorted with Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and the radical left at a time we still had brave soldiers on the field of battle is a hero.  The fools, the stupid fools, to think that anybody who'd cavort, let alone with Fonda and Hayden, could be a hero.  Kerry really IS worse than Benedict Arnold, who only cavorted in the privacy of his own tent. After all, the argument goes: "That was 30 years ago!" And yet, Benedict Arnold (rightfully) is still considered a traitor 224 years later. To recap: Benedict Arnold, the guy who commanded West Point and "schemed to hand it over to the British," is considered a traitor.  But John Kerry, "who threw his medals at the White House in the 1970s" is called a war hero -- even though those thrown medals ended up hitting and killing the Archduke Ferdinand, thus precipitating WW III.  Like C.J. says, "We have indeed lost much of our moral compass in two short centuries." And here's Rebecca Hagelin, with a piece called Help for Your Marriage.   That help is Dr. Laura's new book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.  Rebecca says that it's vital that you help your marriage NOW, because otherwise, the gays will win. Proponents of same-sex marriage often cleverly point to the millions of failed heterosexual marriages in modern culture as support for their argument that homosexual marriages could be more successful than the failed model. If ever there was a time to provide a resource to husbands and wives to help them strengthen their existing marriages, it is now. While marriage is a God-sanctified, government-approved contract between a man and a woman, Dr. Laura's book is just addressed to wives.  That's because men are too simple, and also too busy with important stuff, to get involved in strengthening it. Men are simple creatures. They want a wife who not only loves but also appreciates them. They want to be the hero, to rescue the damsel in distress and keep her and their children safe and secure and happy. And if you aren't in distress and don't need rescuing, then, per Rebecca and Dr. Laura, you are a shrewish, selfish feminist, and it's your fault your husband is sleeping with his secretary.  Every husband deserves a hot meal on the table when he walks in the door, hot sex whenever he wants it, and a frail, empty-headed woman whom he can rescue from spiders, doing the finances, and having to face the scary outside world.  And if you don't provide these things, then your husband may choose to become gay.  But if you DO follow Dr. Laura's advice, your marriage will be strong because your man will be happy, and he will reward you with jewelry and other shiny objects, and so YOU'LL be happy too. Ladies, if you're married, you must read this book. If you ever plan to marry, you must read this book. If you know someone who is married or who plans to wed, buy the book for them. And if you know someone who doesn't want to read this book, report her to the FBI or your local police. And that concludes our look at the WorldNetDaily Opinion page for today.  Once again, we wish to congratulate James Lileks for his inclusion in this august assembly.  Maybe this will be the start of bigger things, and soon we'll see James' work at TownHall, the National Review Online, and The Official Re-election Site for President George W. Bush.   And we expect even better things of Gnat. 5:40:21 AM

comment [] trackback []

Kerry Scandal Update: All Over Except for the Whining Well, Alex has denied that she was ever in a relationship with (or an intern for) John Kerry.  Kerry has already flatly denied an affair.  No proof of anything has ever been offered by Drudge or any of the tabloids who picked up his ball.  Does that mean the "scandal" is over? Well, Andrew Sullivan bade it a fond farewell, but we still have Glenn Reynolds (who previously reminded us that Monica ALSO denied an affair, and look how that turned out) writing stuff like: UPDATE: I"m having trouble with the story here, though. There's this quote: The father denied they had an affair, but called the senator a "sleazeball" without explanation to the Sun. "He's not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter," the London paper quoted the father as saying. Okay, it's The Sun, though I haven't seen anyone suggest the quote is inaccurate. And then they did, just to make Glenn look bad: [LATER: Here's a report that they're now denying the Sun quote: "The statement did not address purported quotes by Polier's parents in the British tabloid The Sun that were harshly critical of Kerry. But in a later statement e-mailed to the AP in New York, Terry Polier said he was misquoted by the Sun and that his wife never talked to the Sun reporter."]. So then there's this, from the BBC: All we have at the moment is that the woman's parents, who are republicans, don't like Senator Kerry. Okay, but then what about this? A statement by Terry and Donna Polier, the parents of Alexandra Polier: "We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated. We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family. We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States." Wow, that's an amazing 180-degree turnabout in a very short time. If he wins over America's voters this way, he'll be sure to win in November! But can this approach be expanded to cover millions? Kaus has an amusing take on this sudden shift. And Kaus gives you a link to The Manchurian Candidate.  What a wag, that Kaus!  So, per Glenn and Kaus, if Alex's parents now approve of Kerry because of the gentlemanly way he handled being accused of having an affair with their daughter, that must mean that something sinister is going on (the Lucianne.com posters advanced all kinds of conspiracy theories, from bribes, to death threats, to the British Parliament somehow facilitating the affair in the first place). Back to Glenn:  MORE: And Tom Oliphant is blaming Wesley Clark for the whole thing: Clark's rumor-mongering with his press corps about Kerry was the visible tip of an iceberg of rumor-mongering that had gone on for weeks, stirred not only by some of his fund-raisers but also among the press by aides and consultants that "something" was coming. This is how spin doctors feed gossip mills without actually providing gossip. And yet some people keep blaming Karl Rove. posted at 04:10 PM by Glenn Reynolds  Was there anything in Oliphant's scenario that excludes Rove?  Sure, per Drudge, Clark quipped that Kerry would implode because of an "intern," but it sounds like somebody way more connected than Clark or his people was the spin doctor who was "feeding the gossip mills."  In any case, it certainly was convenient for BushCo that a Kerry "scandal" errupted at the height of AWOL Days.  (BTW, have you all heard the rumor about a young George Bush allegedly getting a girlfriend pregnant and then arranging for her to get an illegal abortion?  Ed Gillespie says people have been claiming that in chat rooms and stuff -- and where there's smoke, there's fire!)   Glen is back today, repeating this same scenario from Oliphant and using it to show why Clark is unfit to be anybody's VP (even a sleazeball like Kerry): Sounds like a poor choice to me. And why would Kerry want to pick a guy who (1) spread rumors about him that exploded into a national scandal; and (2) did so so ham-handedly that it didn't help his campaign, and (3) got caught at it to boot? The most charitable thing you can say about Clark is that he's inept, and Oliphant offers more examples of ham-handedness on Clark's part. But to me he looks like a guy who's willing to do or say anything to advance his career, but who isn't very good at figuring out what to do or say. I'm not sure why Kerry would be looking for those qualities in a running mate -- or why Bill Clinton would be pushing the candidacy of someone possessing those qualities. posted at 08:37 AM by Glenn Reynolds  So, even though the rumor didn't work to blow Kerry out of the water, it can be made to torpedo Clark (and hopefully Kerry by association, if he does choose Clark as a running mate -- oh, and the Clintons, who supposedly control Clark).  But poor Matt Drudge was just an innocent victim here, and we should all offer him our support during this trying time.  And Karl Rove?  He was in Austria during the war.     Another punditette (tastes like a right-wing pundit, but 40% less filling) who isn't willing to let the scandal go yet is James Lileks, whose Bleat for today is not just about Gnat writing the first word of her future expose' about Life With Father, but also deals with his research for an upcoming column about George Bush paying for a girlfriend to get an abortion.     Ha ha, just a little Kaus-like joke.  No, actually Lileks, like some of the Corner Gang, thinks that it's JUST NOT FAIR that the liberal mainstream press didn't cover the Kerry "scandal," when, over a decade ago, they did mention the purported affair between Bush Sr. and a young journalist.  Frankly, I had forgotten all about it, but I guess they all wrote it on their calendars or something.  Maybe that's why Gnat started keeping a "direy" today: so she can record juicy rumors for use in her future career as the new Kitty Kelly (that tell-all tome about her childhood will just be her entree into the world of letters).   Anyway: scandal over, but not yet forgotten.  Because George still hasn't explained away his failure to take that physical. 2:49:45 AM

comment [] trackback []

Buy These Books Or Your Children Will Grow Up to Be Rich, Successful, Powerful Decorated War Heroes From the NRO's Corner: IF ONLY A YOUNG JOHN KERRY HAD BEEN GIVEN THESE BOOKS [Jack Fowler] Well, truth be told, these books weren't around back then. But if they had been, and had someone been thoughtful enough to have given them to Mr. Heinz II, well, imagine all the trouble that would have been saved! Yes if only there had been National Review compilations of "super stories" by Kipling, Alcott, Twain, etc., back in 1945 or so, and somebody had given them to a young John, he would have matured into a "solid citizen" who never would have become the victim of a false charge of hanky-panky by the slimey Matt Drudge  "Hurrah!" Make sure that special young one you know doesn't grow up to be an liberal extremist senator from Massachusetts, or any state for that matter. Get him one or all of National Review's critically acclaimed children's books. They're available here. Posted at 10:46 AM However, if you're afraid of "that special young one you know" growing up to be a stupid twit like Kathryn,  Rich, Derb, Rod, etc., then KEEP THEM THE HELL AWAY FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEW!   (I don't think the dead authors whose works were ransacked to make the "wholesome" and didactic NR children's books are in any way responsible for  the moral failings of the NRO staff, but I sure wouldn't let Lucianne Goldberg babysit after seeing how Jonah turned out.) 2:20:22 AM