Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43

Since I've been working a lot more and blogging less these past couple of months, I didn't have a chance to express my thoughts about Breitbart's death until now. I did have a chance to read Chez Pazienza's well written post although in my opinion he was way too diplomatic. My co-blogger Jennifer tweeted "I'm not going to act like Breitbart over Breitbart. But I don't think he's equivalent to Anthony Shadid so I'd be OK if coverage were less."

For the most part, I agree with them both. But here's the thing: why is it that I should have any compassion for a man whose very existence in public life was nothing but the height of vileness? He walked the earth with the sole purpose of pushing his political ideology not by extolling the virtues on his own party, but by vilifying the opposition though lies and deceit. Why should I "mourn the man and not his deeds"?

He was complicit in destroying ACORN by flat out lying about them. Should the thousands of people who lost their jobs because of his doctored videotape mourn his loss? He set fire to the career of Shirley Sherrod and slandered her name with accusations of racism, then tried to wash his hands of it because he claimed didn't know that the "evidence" against her was edited as well. And I'm supposed to feel some kind of sympathy?

If someone makes their living as a flamethrower then they can't gripe when its turned on them. Live by the cheap shot, die by the cheap shot. In fact, Breitbart himself showed no respect after the passing of Ted Kennedy:

Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist who oversees Breitbart.com and BigHollywood.com, tapped into the anti-Kennedy vein in the hours after the senator’s death was announced, posting a series of Twitter messages in which he called Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.”

"I'm more than willing to go off decorum to ensure THIS MAN is not beatified,” Breitbart wrote. “Sorry, he destroyed lives. And he knew it."

Sorry, Breitbart certainly destroyed lives. And he most certainly knew it.

Did I wish him dead? No. But neither am I saddened by his passing. There are still plenty of blowhards to fill the gaps. He won't be missed.

Michele's Bridge to Nowhere

POSTED BY JHW22

Republicans like to say Obama is three years into his Presidency, so using their math, Michele Bachmann is one year into the new Congress -- the Create Jobs Congress. And thus far, she has sponsored seven bills in one year. Yep, seven. And none are titled "Job Creating Bill". From the way she talks, you'd think she has worked tirelessly (like the Founding Fathers on slavery) to create jobs. Nope. Seven bills. None of them job creators. Well, unless you think cutting taxes is a job creator and if you do, well, you don't need to be reading this. Or unless you think building a bridge is a job creator. (In fact, it is a job creator which is why I support federal infrastructure funding. More on that later.)

To be fair to her work ethic, she has co-sponsored 92 bills this year. But that's not really leadership, is it? I mean when you sponsor 7 and co-sponsor 92, ya look like a follower. In fact, she has only sponsored 38 bills ever. Heck, Obama sponsored 121 in only two years -- he sponsored at least one bill for every four bills he co-sponsored when he was in the Senate. In two years.

Now, about that one bill of hers, her one of her many, many (seven) bills that is a job creator. Its goal is

To facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River, and for other purposes.

Sounds a little like earmarking to me. Hey, she did the proper thing by filing a bill and submitting it to committees. Heck, she even attached a Constitutional Authority Statement. But, still, when someone uses 1/7th of her bill-sponsoring time on a local district project, it's an earmark, because an earmark is an earmark is an earmark. Well, except when it's not. And this one is not.

This bill is not an earmark because there is no money attached to it. The bridge is estimated to cost between $334 and $373 million dollars. (Remember that other bridge that was going to cost the feds about that much?) But all THIS bill does it get permission to build it because it violates some environmental concerns. She's just asking for the green light from the federal government to be able to later ask for funding for it. So, because they can't build it, there's no need to ask for money and that means she can stick to her pledge to

not seek any earmarks this year [emphasis mine]

It seems rather easy to not seek earmarks when you're not really seeking much in general. I mean seven sponsored bills is an easy way to avoid asking for earmarks. Especially when the one you REALLY want earmarks for, isn't approved for funding yet.

Or IS it? I guess it depends on what your def... oops, sorry. Anyway, DID she avoid earmark requests for this bridge? Well, yes and no. She didn't ask for earmarks this year or even over the last two years. What she did do is send out letters requesting grant consideration for federal funding in 2009 in the ... wait for it ... stimulus!! Yes, the OBAMA stimulus. You know, the one she despises and said hasn't created jobs. She sent letters on behalf of her bridge to ask for funding from the very stimulus she spoke out against before, during and after the votes.

Is anyone really surprised? I mean the gal has a lot of "choots pa", after all.

Now, I was actually for the Bridge to Nowhere before I was still for it. It made sense to me considering the need. The problem was that it became a political football and people lost sight of the need. And, instead, they built a road to nowhere with the money. A bridge would have been the better use.

And I support more federal funding for bridges, light rail, broadband, alternate energy source conduits. I am a Democrat (although I was recently told I am not one because I don't agree with the Angry Left and I was told this by a woman threatening to vote third party so yep, I AM a Democrat). I love when the federal government employs people to make things people will use. I don't care where those things are as long as people work to make them and they make lives easier where they are.

So when a "Constitutional Conservative" who believes

that many of our problems result from the federal government's insatiable — and unconstitutional — grab for power and money

actually makes a money and power grab for a bridge in the middle of nowhere while condemning the very funding source she begs to be a part of, I think to myself, "How's that conservativey, hypocrisy thing workin for ya'?"

Oh, wrong Conservative hypocrite. It's hard to keep those two straight.

DBOTW

posted by Armadillo Joe

I may be overstepping my bounds here, but I nominate Ross Douthat at Ye Olde NYTimes for the coveted Douchebag of the Week title.

Why? you may ask...

Well, because -- as a person who escaped the third-world cesspool and laboratory for unfettered implementation of conservative economic-theories called "Texas" for a place more, um, evolved -- I find the fact that Douthat thinks California's recent economic and social woes and Texas' apparent lack of them vindicates his pinched, ill-informed world view supremely unpalatable:

In the Bush years, liberal polemicists turned the president’s home state — pious, lightly regulated, stingy with public services and mad for sprawl — into a symbol of everything that was barbaric about Republican America. Meanwhile, California, always liberalism’s favorite laboratory, was passing global-warming legislation, pouring billions into stem-cell research, and seemed to be negotiating its way toward universal health care.

But flash forward to the current recession, and suddenly Texas looks like a model citizen. The Lone Star kept growing well after the country had dipped into recession. Its unemployment rate and foreclosure rate are both well below the national average. It’s one of only six states that didn’t run budget deficits in 2009.

Blue Texan at FireDogLake has this to say about that with her retort:

...Texas is exactly what Douthat's "liberal polemicists" charge.

Stingy? Check out these state rankings. Child poverty: 44th, senior poverty: 40th, per capital child welfare expenditures: 42nd, child vulnerability index: 46th, education expenditures per pupil: 40th.

Lightly regulated? Texas is the nation's 4th biggest polluter, and the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. Pious? Does having creationists running the school board count?

Finally, the only reason Texas isn't facing a budget deficit is because Obama's stimulus bill bailed us out.

I'd like to point out that four of the seven presidential elections since 1968 to have gone to the Republican candidate have gone to a guy from southern California -- Nixon twice and Reagan twice.

I would like to further point out that Douthat doesn't actually live in Texas or anywhere else in "red" America. He lives in Washington D.C., just like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity all live in New York City. Funny how none of these rightwing assholes actually choose to live in Omaha or Tulsa or Boisie or any other of these places where they think all the "real" Americans live.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why that might be, but in the meantime I think the rest of us should encourage all these toilet smears to move to the places they claim to think are so wonderful -- you know, put up or shut up -- so that, rather than us fending off every attempt by these dipshits to have their delusional mythologies about how the world works imposed on the rest of us, we can instead get about the business of actually running a prosperous, healthy country that benefits everyone and not just the top .01% (who also happen to all be 99.999% white, when corrected for Tiger Woods and Oprah).

Douthat should really be a DBOTW-emeritus, but for now I'll just nominate him for one of the weekly titles. Who's with me?

Aww... That's A Shame.

No radio show for Sarah?

... Clear Channel Broadcasting, the country’s biggest radio conglomerate, has already turned Palin down because of fears that she wouldn’t be able to "hold forth for three hours a day."

It's all for the best. She probably would have quit after the second hour anyway because she loves radio so much.

Why Does This Dipshit Still Have A Job?

Will someone tell me why anything Bill Kristol writes matters? Only a weatherman can be wrong so often and still be able to retain his job. And yet, here is Kristol in the New York Times again with this craptacular observation:

Sure, the election results had been bad — but they weren’t devastating. Obama wasn’t winning the popular vote by double-digit margins, as some polls had suggested he might. Republican losses in the Senate and House were substantial but not catastrophic.

...there was virtually no change in the voters’ ideological self-identification: in 2008, 22 percent called themselves liberal, up only marginally from 21 percent in 2004; 34 percent were conservative, unchanged from the last election; and 44 percent called themselves moderate, compared with 45 percent in 2004.

In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country.

Oh, Bill. Bill. You can try to talk yourself into your idiotic assessments until you're blue in the face, but the reality is that the country is not "center-right." In fact, it never has been. Here's a little something from Gallup brought to us by our good friend, Mr. Bob Cesca:

• Americans are pro-choice (67 percent)
• Americans support the Geneva Conventions with regards to torture (57 percent)
• Americans don't want the government snooping in their bank and internet records (67 percent)
• Americans want the USA Patriot Act changed or eliminated entirely (81 percent)
• Americans support protecting the environment at the expense of economic growth (55 percent)
• Americans believe that global warming is happening (86 percent)
• Americans believe that it's the government's responsibility to provide health care (69 percent)
• Americans support the decriminalization of marijuana (55 percent) and support the legalization of medical marijuana (78 percent)
• Americans are opposed to attacking Iran (68 percent, according to a CNN Poll)
• Americans support labor unions (60 percent)
• Americans want government funding of embryonic stem cell research (56 percent)
• Americans believe that free trade hurts American workers (65 percent)
• Americans believe rich people and corporations aren't paying enough taxes (66 and 71 percent respectively)
• And overall party affiliation? 54 percent of Americans are Democrats (with leaners) and 39 percent are Republicans (with leaners).

Bob also mentions this little tidbit of information:

Of the last 30 Congresses, since 1945, Republicans have controlled the House for a grand total of seven Congresses. Seven out of 30. The 80th Congress, and the 104th-109th. In the Senate, the numbers are slightly better. Ten out of 30.

We know you really, really, really want to think that the country is more conservative, but just because you say it doesn't make it true. Here's a handy, dandy little map brought to you by the newspaper of record that you happen to work for, The New York Times:

See all the blue there, Billy boy? Those are counties that shifted and voted more Democratic than in 2004. That's a lot of blue, isn't it? A bit too much blue to claim that the country is "center-right."

And yet, this moron still has a job, but hopefully not for long.