that it needed to be paste here. Courtesy of CQ :D
Sharpton, The Voice Of Democratic Reason?

How sad is it when Al Sharpton has the moral high ground (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_on_el_st_lo/brf_democrats_sharpton) among Democratic politicians?
Alabama Democrats should get rid of a candidate who denies the Holocaust and another who has advocated killing illegal immigrants, activist Al Sharpton said Monday. While state party officials say they are powerless to remove the pair from the ballot because the June 6 primary is so close, Sharpton said: "There's no room for these two men in our big tent."
Larry Darby, seeking the party's nomination for attorney general, denies the Holocaust occurred and recently spoke at a gathering of National Vanguard, which describes itself as a "pro-white" organization.
Harry Lyon, who wants to become the Democrats' gubernatorial candidate, has advocated killing illegal immigrants as a way to keep them out of Alabama.
Every party attracts its share of lunatics. It wasn't that long ago that Republicans had to disavow David Duke, and a decade before that California Democrats did the same with Tom Metzger. Rarely has one party managed to attract two of them in one primary campaign, however, and both of them rather virulent lunatics at that.
The Democrats find themselves in a tough spot. If either one wins the primary, they will likely have to endorse the GOP candidate in order to distance themselves from the damage. On the other hand, they appear reluctant to do much distancing so far, which is why Sharpton took them to task this evening. And when the man who exploited the Tawana Brawley hoax to launch his political career serves as the voice of reason in any group, one has to wonder just how lost they truly are.

that it needed to be paste here. Courtesy of CQ :D

Democrats problem is political schizophrenia, they hear way too many voices and don't remember who they are. They need a Kennedy to sober up long enough to lead them back.

Kennedy to sober up long enough to lead them back.
Hickup! I'll drink to that!

that it needed to be paste here. Courtesy of CQ :D


What point are you trying to make? Two nut jobs declare themselves democrats and run for office. Like you said same thing happened with David Duke. What does this have to do with the democrat party at large or liberalism?

Maybe this better explains it.
<table border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">New Agents of Intolerance</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> By Patrick Hynes (editor@spectator.org) </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> Published 5/23/2006 12:08:54 AM

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> <table border="0" bordercolor="red" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="1">
</td> <td align="left"> Students and faculty attending New York's New School commencement ceremony stood last weekend with their backs facing Senator John McCain and hissed and booed as the senator from Arizona encouraged a revival of civil discourse in our national affairs. These students and faculty embarrassed the historically liberal school by protesting Sen. McCain's speech, which encouraged them to be "respectful of the goodness in each other."

But who can blame them? They are enlightened college graduates from "a legendary, progressive university (http://www.newschool.edu/about.html)," after all. What do they have to learn from some old geezer who hung upside down but his elbows in a tiger cage for half a decade serving the United States? What does he know about the relative horrors and justness of war?

This sad story even has a built-in profile in courage. Ms. Jean Rohe (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/jean-sara-rohe-a-new-sc_b_21402.html) can now stand on the stage with Joe Wilson, Richard Clark, Cindy Sheehan, and Jack Murtha and collect her Moonbat Hero of the Week award. Hey, she's even got inconsistencies in her story her story (http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3612), a feature no left-wing hero should be without.

But of all the angles to this story, the most intriguing is the one that contrasts the attitudes of these putatively open-minded progressives with those of the close-minded bigots at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, to whom McCain delivered a commencement speech only a week prior.

One might expect that the unpleasantness between McCain and a group of students would have occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia. After all, Sen. McCain did refer to the Rev. Falwell as an "agent of intolerance" while campaigning for president in 2000. And the senator did imply that the Revs. Falwell and Pat Robertson were "evil" for taking offense to his signature campaign finance measure (perhaps these were the youthful indiscretions Sen. McCain expressed remorse about in his speeches). And yet here was the troglodytic minister after McCain delivered the exact same speech in Lynchburg that he did at the New School:"My intent was to say that John McCain and I are friends, that I respect him and that there are no problems with yesterday."Therein lies exhibit, oh I don't know, 4,972 of the bizarre upside-down-ness of our national politics. George W. Bush and the Republicans are said by their detractors to be dividers, not uniters. And yet it is the fringe left (also known as mainstream Democrats) who can't stop fighting with everyone.

Some more examples?

The Republicans are said to be overtly partisan. And yet it is the other side who has made politics a way of life, even lusting over the financial ruin of stores (Wal-Mart) and restaurants (McDonald's) in pursuit of political purity.

The Republicans are said to be intolerant of dissent. And yet it is the so-called progressive movement that literally seeks to silence the opposition.

Iraq is said to be in complete disarray; an utter failure. And yet Iraqis have held three successful elections and set up a new government in three years.

We have an economy that is by almost every measure stronger and more vibrant than the economy of a decade ago, which pundits called the most prosperous time in human history. And yet a plurality of the people has been convinced by an administration-hostile media corps that we are on the edge of ruin.

We are living in "Bizarro America." On a bad day I might come to believe I've forgotten to take my crazy pills. But then three things hit me:

First, a liberal blogger friend of mine confessed to me recently that he used to like and respect John McCain but he no longer does because McCain doesn't still hate George Bush for the ugliness of the South Carolina primary in 2000.

Second, a liberal loved one insisted in my very kitchen that Howard Dean would have performed better against George Bush than did John Kerry had he won the Democrat nomination in 2004.

And third, an animated film called Ice Age II provides a more reasonable treatment of "global warming" than the film featuring a former Vice President of the United States giving lectures on the subject.

It is then that I conclude I am fine; perfectly sane. But the other side is howling mad. And the thought of them running this country after 2006 makes my bowels clench.

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Maybe this better explains it.
Oh well that sure set me straight. A cut and paste opinion piece. Yep that proves it.

yep, it's the Angry Left, the agents of intolerance.

since Steam is so fond of the cut and paste, let's reciprocate:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-wsj-and-instapundit-really-mean.html

What the WSJ and Instapundit really mean by "the Angry Left"

One could spend every day highlighting the contrast between the pious moral standards preached by many Bush supporters and the lowly character smears and political filth they peddle. But sometimes their hypocrisy is so severe that it makes one's head spin, and at least I have great difficulty ignoring it even when an argument can be made that it should be ignored.

This weekend, there was much petulant hand-wringing on the Right over the terrible breaches of etiquette and civility exhibited by the New School students against the great war hero John McCain. National Review's Rich Lowry, for instance, wrote multiple posts protesting the students' behavior, and decried their conduct as "amazing" and "incredible" because McCain is a "war hero."

Lowry sermonized against the student's conduct even though, as I pointed out in a post on Saturday, Lowry said nothing about the continuous mockery by the Bush campaign of war hero John Kerry's war wounds and military service, including the waiving of purple band-aids at the Republican National Convention, nor did Lowry condemn the ongoing attacks on the patriotism and courage of war hero Jack Murtha. And Lowry specifically defended the invocation of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in commercials against wounded combat veteran Max Cleland, dismissing complaints about such attacks on Cleland's commitment to the nation's defense as mere "whining."

Lowry responded today to my post by claiming that I "kind of misse[d] the point" of his post. The "point," Lowry claimed, is that heckling someone during a speech is just "rank incivility," and should be condemned any time it's done. Rather than missing the point, that was the point I made -- that it's a completely perverse "civility" standard which holds that it's fine to attack a war hero's patriotism, impugn their allegiance to the country, question their courage, and mock their war wounds -- as Bush supporters routinely do -- but that it is somehow intolerable to heckle them while giving a political speech.

That is the same twisted form-over-substance preaching which causes mainstream journalists to overlook constant Right-wing accusations that "liberals" are subversive, mentally ill traitors who belong in prison -- nothing angry or uncivil about any of that -- but they find a vulgar word in an e-mail to be proof that the Republic is about to collapse because of the death of civility and the "Angry Left."

Pumping this theme further, The Wall St. Journal today published an Editorial helpfully explaining to Democrats that their behavior towards John McCain was going to cause them to lose more elections:


But the ugliness of the New School crowd toward Mr. McCain reveals the peculiar rage that now animates so many on the political left. Dozens of faculty and students turned their back on the Senator, others booed and heckled, and a senior invited to speak threw out her prepared remarks and mocked their invited guest as he sat nearby.

So, that's the behavioral standard that Bush followers are advocating. The greatest sin against civility is to boo someone while they give a political speech, and those who do that show that they are deranged and "angry" and are therefore acting at their own peril.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Lacy Clay of Missouri delivered the Commencement Address at the University of Missouri. Unlike McCain, who spoke in favor of the war, Clay spoke against the war. He also criticized The Commander-in-Chief. According to Gateway Pundit -- who describes the event with giddy celebration -- this is what ensued:


Representative Lacy Clay Jr. gave such a hate-filled speech last Saturday morning at the University of Missouri St. Louis campus that he had to stop three times during his talk because the boos from the crowd had drowned him out! But unlike Murtha, Lacy Clay needed security to escort him from the building after he was through with his Bush-bash!

So pro-Bush students heckled Rep. Clay's speech and were so disruptive that the Congressman actually needed security to escort him out of the building for fear that his physical safety would be endangered. Does that show that the Angry Right is deranged and is jeopardizing their chances to win elections? No, it shows the opposite. This incident also shows how deranged the Angry Left is.

According to Instapundit -- who cited the Gateway Pundit post and said that "a Hateful anti-war speech by Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) . . . provokes a near riot" -- this episode "[s]eems to illustrate the point made in this WSJ editorial about the Democrats' penchant for self-marginalization and self-destruction." The WSJ Editorial to which Instapundit cited condemned the heckling and booing by the New School students of McCain's speech. But to Instapundit, that same Editorial also shows that Democrats are acting stupidly and angrily when they give commencement speeches and are heckled by Republican students to the point where they need security to be escorted out.

Gateway Pundit also points out how hateful Jack Murtha is, because he, too, has been giving anti-war speeches -- including at Commencement ceremonies -- where he forces Republican students in the audience to heckle, walk out and act disruptively. How come Rich Lowry wasn't decrying the terribly uncivil conduct towards war hero Jack Murtha? At least according to Instapundit's rationale, it's because it is the anti-war speeches themselves that are hateful -- not the student's understandable reaction -- and so the speech and the speaker are to blame for provoking the disruptive behavior of those patriotic pro-war students.

So, to re-cap the rules: (1) When a pro-war politician gives a pro-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle and boo him, that shows how Deranged the Angry Left is -- because they heckled a pro-war speech. (2) When an anti-war politician gives an anti-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle, walk out and even riot, that also shows how Angry the Left is -- because they "provoked a near riot" by pro-war students.

One last point that can't go unnoticed: part of the WSJ Editorial that Instapundit quotes warns that Democrats are going to be in big trouble because they are "sneering at our war heroes." That is almost too much hypocrisy to stomach, even for Instapundit. Who has "sneered at war heroes" more viciously and continuously than Bush supporters -- from Jack Murtha to John Kerry to Max Cleland to the war critic Generals? Sneering at war heroes was one of the principal tactics of the Bush re-election campaign and has been a reliable tool to attack and smear any war hero who speaks out against this administration.

Virtually on the same day, Bush followers are arguing that the Left is deranged and angry because: (a) they boo Republican commencement speakers and because (b) they cause Republican students to boo them and riot at commencement ceremonies. When the likes of Instapundit and the Wall St. Journal Editorial Board rail against the "Angry Left," what they mean are "people who oppose the war in Iraq and criticize the Commander-in-Chief." As long as Democrats remember that that description includes the vast majority of Americans, they should have no difficulty ignoring this pious hypocrisy, which always deceitfully masquerades as an oh-so-earnest effort to help Democrats do better in the upcoming election ("if only you would be more like Joe Lieberman and stop criticizing the war and the President, you wouldn't be perceived as so angry and you'd have a much better chance to win").

The Dismalcrats are in need of a leader with a clear, concise message and the ability to shut up the far left as effectively as Resmuglicans leaders can shut up the far right.

The Dismalcrats are in need of a leader with a clear, concise message and the ability to shut up the far left as effectively as Resmuglicans leaders can shut up the far right.

I thought Mike Moore was our leader? At least that's what you fascists...ahem neocons say. :rolleyes:

Having trouble reading Steam? These guys have declared themselves candidates for the PRIMARY election. They are not running for office-- and the Democrats themselves want them off the ballot, but cannot do anything about it.

Rove probably put them up to it.

Jebus....

Having trouble reading Steam? These guys have declared themselves candidates for the PRIMARY election. They are not running for office-- and the Democrats themselves want them off the ballot, but cannot do anything about it.

Rove probably put them up to it.

Jebus....

The man is a damned evil genius. He could have taken on Batman and Superman at the same time and won.

Funny, but according to the libs, Rove is lame. I read that he is soon to be cleared of any involvement in the Plame game and Libby too. I mean my inside source tells me - Tick tock! :D