A panel discussion on the threat posed by "Islamic supremacism," Shariah and political correctness has been scheduled for this week's Conservative Political Action Conference, stirring complaints from some American Muslims that the exercise amounts to Muslim-bashing.
Conservatives? Bash Muslims? What a surprise:
"It's unfortunate that a conservative conference would be in any way associated with Muslim bashers and Islamophobes," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It's a free country. They're free to be anti-Muslim bigots if they like, but it's really up to the organizers of CPAC to determine if they're going to allow their conference to be associated with the hate-filled views of those who will be speaking."
One guess who's behind this:
[Pamela] Geller, publisher of the AtlasShrugs.com blog, is putting on the talk with Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer. Both are fierce critics of Islam.
This was Tucker's Big Chance for his Big Comeback from his Big 2004 Smackdown by Jon Stewart. Remember that (video here)?
Now it's five years later, and we have him debating the rousing Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart Face-Off with Stephanie Miller (who understated it as "kind of an ass-kicking") and Tee Vee critic David Zurawik. The bulk of the relevant conversation is in Part One:
Part One:
Part Two:
In these videos, as in most others that feature him, Tucker is so wrong on so many levels about so many things, it's hard to know where to start... but what the heck, I'll be happy to document his inanities:
--"I'm sure [Cramer's] wife was ashamed of his behavior, the butt-sniffing he gave Jon Stewart." Sothat's why she was ashamed of him? Really? Wrongy McScreamington's 2006 admissions and terrible advice were fine with her?
--"He went after Cramer the moment Cramer criticized Obama's budget. That's what kicked off this entire feud." Wrong. It was Santelli's little tirade (as Stephanie Miller pointed out later at about 4:00 of Part One) and little "bailout" of his own that set him off, plus his revelations about CNBC's overall coverage. Moving on.
--"Jon Stewart is a partisan hack." This was nothing but infantile payback. See approximately 3:50 of the 2004 video.
--"He's speaking on behalf of the Democratic party". If Tucker knew anything about Jon Stewart, he'd know he's an equal opportunity satirist, and a self-proclaimed independent.
--"It's just a matter of time before he becomes unfunny... It will happen. You watch." No, you watch, Tucker. According to you, if a comedian gets serious, they lose their sense of humor and all appeal as a comedian. Someone better tell half of the guests on Real Time with Bill Maher... and Bill Maher... and other comics too numerous to list. That quote is one of the stupidest conclusions I've ever heard. In fact, my feeling is that this episode will not only fuel more razor sharp wit from Stewart, but will also provide fodder for any comedian who thought Bush's exit would leave them with "nothin'".
--Stewart is "posing as if CNBC is single-handedly responsible for this recession, which it is not." Stewart never "posed" any such thing. However, I do recall his having the guts to call CNBC out for horrific reporting and misleading their viewers. All one has to do is review the videos, Tuck.
--"You will never see Jon Stewart criticize the economic policies of this administration." Nobody is spared on The Daily Show, Tuck, nobody. Do your homework. Good lord, but he's pathetic.
--"For him to call me a partisan hack is ludicrous. I'm the least partisan person I know." Jaw-dropping. Either he is a complete and utter amnesiac, or he doesn't know another partisan punditiot in the whole wide world.
Interestingly, Tucker didn't need Jon Stewart to disgrace him on CNN again. No, this time he Tucked himself over with no help at all.
Of course, I understand why viewers would tune in to see Stephanie Miller on CNN's Reliable Sources this Sunday. However, how anyone could bring themselves to hang around to watch "The Nation of Dick" Cheney be interviewed by John King is beyond me. What could he possibly have to say, and why would anyone listen?
That was today's Shallow Thought. Thank you for wading in.
For the past few days, Stephanie Miller has gotten all kinds of hate mail, including death threats (Google it to witness the negative spin), because of something she said on Larry King Live about Boss Limbaugh... as a joke.
Nobody on the panel was fazed because they realized it was said in jest, but apparently some conservative websites took it out of context and put the word out. The relevant snippet starts at about 1:15.
"He loves this attention, and if I could say something tonight that gets me that kind of attention, like maybe Rush Limbaugh should be executed for treason. How about that?"
"If I could say something.. that gets me that kind of attention, like..." Okay? Context. Good. Now check out this response to a question from a New York Times reporter to The Madam's Apple about her upcoming debate with Bill Maher:
In her response, which was written in all capital letters, [Ann] Coulter called the paper the “Treason Times” and said that the Times’ editors should have been “executed for treason” for revealingthe Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program:
Do you consider yourself as speaking for the conservative movement, or just someone who has attracted many conservative fans? Something else?
I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS WHO THINK NEWSPAPER EDITORS WHO PRINT THE DETAILS OF TOP-SECRET ANTI-TERRORIST INTELLIGENCE GATHERING PROGRAMS ON PAGE ONE IN WARTIME SHOULD BE EXECUTED FOR TREASON.
Isn't she hilarious? See how she did that? The Madam's Apple threw out a snarky little quip, just like Stephanie Miller's! The tones are absolutely identical. Who couldn't see that?
Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" as done by Jim Ward, with photoshopping by Dood Abides.
There's an updated version that Stephanie Miller played today, but I can't find it online yet. If anyone spots it, please let me know and I'll put it up.
Meanwhile, Jim Ward outdoes himself with the original version. Enjoy!
I'm watching Larry King Live. Jonah Goldberg... well, 'nuff said, plus Stephanie Miller (who I think I was in another life), Lanny Davis, and some other Republican radio guy.
Jonah says the Palin report is nothing. Of course he does.
Lanny is somewhere in the middle.
Steph is snickering (not literally, but if you know her at all, you know she's laughing hysterically inside and that tomorrow's show will be killer).
They spent all of 5 minutes on this. They're already on to the campaigns. Larry King said the Palin issue isn't all that relevant to the campaign (in so many words). On to other matters...
I'll update as information comes in.
UPDATE: A few of my own thoughts:
Whether Republicans think she's cleared or not, she is now riskier than ever. Certainly not trustworthy.
If she hasn't "broken any laws", fine. She's still on the ticket, and that's where we want her.
Gramm-pa's judgment is even worse than it was an hour ago, if that's even possible. And that continues to work against him.
Just heard on the Stephanie Miller show (paraphrased):
I got an email from Sharon in Seattle that says her friend is not voting for McCain any more because she can't stand the thought of hearing Sarah Palin's voice.
By GottaLaff Bits and pieces I'm picking up as we speak:
From MSNBC: Hillary is not conceding.
From the Stephanie Miller show: Hillary as veep choice? Signs point to yes. The whispers are turning to screams.
From Thom Hartmann: Will Hillary Clinton start to heal the party? That's what she should do, but will she? (And if so, when?) He thinks she will. She's "very smart, very personable, and is better at what's good for America than her husband was."
It appears that the Hillaryites continue to lose perspective in the nominating race. Despite losing more states, more pledged delegates and more superdelegates, they continue to obfuscate and ignore the rules by promoting the tactic that having more votes means Clinton should be crowned.
Imagine the reaction if the Yankees said that because they scored more runs (55-27) than the Pirates in the 1960 World Series, they should be declared the champions despite losing the seventh (and deciding) game.
.jpg)