Seriously, these people on the Left should have continued their therapy sessions after the 2004 election. Of course, they probably seeked out psychiatrists that were Liberals, too. Case in point

What a bizarre (and tawdry) series-of-tubes headache for the McCain campaign.

How could it be that a Web site titled “VoteForTheMilf” redirects users to Republican nominee John McCain’s official campaign Website? True stuff. Or at least it was until someone mysteriously un-directed the redirection.

As of just moments ago, anyone who typed “www.voteforthemilf.com” into his or her Web browser and hit enter was immediately redirected to McCain’s site, www.johnmccain.com, where vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin greeted first-time users via video. (The .net and .org versions of voteforthemilf also redirected users to the mccain campaign site.)

The curious linkage was first discovered by GovGap. As you can see at Network Solutions, the “voteforthemilf” domain was created on Aug. 29, the same day that McCain announced Palin as his running mate.

Would it surprise you that the above comes from a Washington Post blog? Or that “The Sleuth gives a tip of the ‘ole hat to our colleague on Style, intrepid lampooner Libby Copeland, who happened upon an item on the dreaded URL snafu on the Washington City Paper’s blog.” It shouldn’t, considering the derangement syndrome for anything that they do not like they express.

It shouldn’t surprise you that the Washington City Paper go their info from a very hard left site, with the Washington Post following next. All three are making allegations they cannot back up with, you know, facts. I found it via Memeorandum from Crooks and Liars. The Post makes insinuations and accusations, all designed to make you think this is some sort of nefarious plot!

But, if we look it up at Network Solutions, we see: Web Site Title: VoteForTheMILF.com/.net/.org was a simple prank. | n00tz.net. Could it be BS? Sure. The info for my address is wrong, too.

BTW, I own mybarackobama.us. I’ve owned it for a few months, haven’t done a thing with it. I just set it up to redirect to thepiratescove.us, should take affect shortly.

The death of sanity and journalistic ethics occured in 2008.

You remember Peggy Noonan, right? She of the open mike idiocy about that Palin pick being “bullshit” gaffe. Then she tried to spin it around, but, she has been less then a supporter. That is her right, but, now, she is a bandwagon jumper

She killed. She had him at “Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?” She was the star. He was the second male lead, the good-natured best friend of the leading man. She was not petrified but peppy.

The whole debate was about Sarah Palin. She is not a person of thought but of action. Interviews are about thinking, about reflecting, marshaling data and integrating it into an answer. Debates are more active, more propelled—they are thrust and parry. They are for campaigners. She is a campaigner. Her syntax did not hold, but her magnetism did. At one point she literally winked at the nation.

As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic “talk over the heads of the media straight to the people,” and it is a long time since I’ve seen it done so well, though so transparently. There were moments when she seemed to be doing an infomercial pitch for charm in politics. But it was an effective infomercial.

There is more gushing from Peggy. How does that crow taste, Peggy?

And David Brooks? You remember the Keith Olbermann network gleefully writing “Palin: When you’ve lost David Brooks…” Now we get

Still, this debate was about Sarah Palin. She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative.

By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.

Ummmm, crow. Tastes good! Feels good! Real good! (to the tune sung during marching in Full Metal Jacket by R. Lee Ermey)

Next on the crow list will probably be Kathleen Parker. We’ll give her a few days to clean her Thanksgiving Day silverware.

I’m glad that someone in the Liberal media is finally taking on Barack Obama’s 20 years of attendence at a church founded on Black Liberation doctrine, mentored by Black Liberation docrine pastors such as Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, surrounded by people in the pews who believe in Black Liberation doctrine, and reading about Black Liberation doctrine in all those copies of Trinity Church’s newsletter that featured articles about Barack Obama.

Huh? No? I missread it? How about that? Palin treads carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago — about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct — the teacher said.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

Palin told him that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,” Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said “she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks,” recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

I do not hold those same beliefs, but, apparently, the Los Angeles Times is requiring a religious test for Palin. Her beliefs in what the Bible actually says are a cause for concern for the Times, though, apparently, it is OK for Barack H. Obama to sit in the pews of Trinity and listen to preachers talk about how Jesus was Black, and Whites are NOT practicing real Christianity.

Remember one thing, though: most of this is all hearsay. He said she said. Almost no direct quotes from Palin herself.

Palin has attended a number of prayer sessions with pastors and has quietly sought their guidance, but she is often mum on matters of faith in high-profile public forums.

Her aides say Palin’s caution at the intersection of religion and governance is a studied effort to share her beliefs without forcing them on Alaska.

In other words, the LA Times is digging for relevance, attempting to create an issue without direct, concrete evidence. Of course, Palin’s anti-abortion stance is good enough for the Times to label her a fundamentalist, and outside the mainstream.

Furthermore, they disengenuously misquote her, as so much of the media has, on Iraq

In one of her more controversial appearances in the Wasilla church, Palin told a group of ministry students in June to pray that sending troops to Iraq was part of “God’s plan.”

No no no.

But, you know, she wanted to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in schools, if they wanted to! How horrible to allow different viewpoints to be taught!

But, then, it has gotten so bad on the left that they are seeking counseling for their Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Can anyone point out a Credentialed Media article which discussed the negative implications of the pastors, both visiting and resident, at Trinity Church discussing how great Obama is, how evil his opponents were, and their other political talk? Jeremiah Wright? Who dat?

Defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of “severe moral schizophrenia.”

BTW, unless the pastor happens to be preaching Black Liberation doctrine, they must be evangelical. In MSM world, they are all “fundies” unless they ean Left.

The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee’s positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist “in direct opposition to God’s truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures.” Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates’ views but stopped short of endorsing Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.

Johnson and 32 other pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

The ministers contend they have a constitutional right to advise their worshipers how to vote. As Johnson put it during a break between sermons, “The point that the IRS says you can’t do it, I’m saying you’re wrong.”

The IRS was alerted to this by “opponents,” ie, far Left groups who despise religion, except when Obama is practicing it and Pflegar (I refuse to use his religious label, as anyone who acts like he does doesn’t deserve to be in that job) is using his time to flount IRS regulations.

This time, the church action is concerted. Yet while the ministers say the rules stifle religious expression, their opponents contend that the tax laws are essential to protect the separation of church and state. They say political speech should not be supported by a tax break for the churches or the worshipers who are contributing to a political cause.

Yes, that notion that does not appear in the Constitution. The real one, I mean, not that “Living Constitution” based on European laws one.

Anyhow, let me point out that when I go to church, I do not want to listen to political speeches. I have no problem with Church time being used at other times, but not during the worship time. But, if I was going to one where that was happening, I would switch in a minute, even if the preacher was showing support for my candidate.

I’m sure we’ll be seeing the story about the IRS investigating left side churches like Trinity United tomorrow, right? More then likely, we will see the ACLU demanding, well, something. They always demand something. It’s like they hate freedom or something.

It is getting rather repetetive writing that this liberal and that progressive, this blog and that news outlet, have lost it, as their journey down Unhinged Lane has ended and they are now traveling down Interstate 5150. Once again, here we go!

Naomi Wolf: The Battle Plan II: Sarah “Evita” Palin, the Muse of the Coming Police State

Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah “Evita” Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.

You have to understand how things work in a closing society in order to understand “Palin Power.” A gang or cabal seizes power, usually with an affable, weak figurehead at the fore. Then they will hold elections — but they will make sure that the election will be corrupted and that the next affable, weak figurehead is entirely in their control. Remember, Russia has Presidents; Russia holds elections. Dictators and gangs of thugs all over the world hold elections. It means nothing. When a cabal has seized power you can have elections and even presidents, but you have freedom.

I realized early on with horror what I was seeing in Governor Palin: the continuation of the Rove-Cheney cabal, but this time without restraints. I heard her echo Bush 2000 soundbites (”the heart of America is on display”) and realized Bush’s speechwriters were writing her — not McCain’s — speeches. I heard her tell George Bush’s lies — not McCain’s — to the American people, linking 9/11 to Iraq. I heard her make fun of Barack Obama for wanting to prevent the torture of prisoners — this is Rove-Cheney’s enthusiastic S and M, not McCain’s, who, though he shamefully colluded in the 2006 Military Tribunals Act, is also a former prisoner of war and wrote an eloquent Newsweek piece in 2005 opposing torture. I saw that she was even styled by the same skillful stylist (neutral lipstick, matte makeup, dark colors) who turned Katharine Harris from a mall rat into a stateswoman and who styles all the women in the Bush orbit –but who does not bother to style Cindy McCain.

Not too long in the past, people would be put in a straight jacket and given a medical hold for going around the bend like this. Now, they get writing gigs at the Huffington Post.

He has already joined the ranks of the Media Who Have Lost It, so, now he goes a little farther with his “OMG, Barry could actually lose!” whining

Can Barack Obama actually blow this thing? Can he actually lose in November?

Yes. Check the polls, Roger.

We have a deeply troubled economy,

It has some issues, and Democrats running around, including Barack Obama, saying we are closing in on the next Great Depression sure doesn’t build confidence by the American people

an unpopular war,

Which barely gets a mention in the media anymore, is barely on people’s radar, and, is actually almost over, thanks to The Surge that Barry opposed, and continued to say was not working

a very unpopular president

Congress is even more unpopular, Roger, and, BDS aside, Bush is not running

and a historic reluctance on the part of the American people to elect the same party to the White House three terms in a row.

Check the polls, Roger.

“Dear (insert name of news source here”

At what point should you be forced to give up your press credentials because of massive bias which leads to journalistic malpractice and a complete lapse of journalistic ethics? How are you different from the Blogosphere, which tends to add opinion to news stories?”

Since the Barry camp is under fire for ignoring outside advice, since Barry is losing to Palin on experience, since panic is setting in for Democrats, since battlegrounds are breaking for McCain, since Barry supporters are reduced to calling Palin a child predator, since the biggest kook fringers want Barry’s message to be purely person, and false, smears against Palin, since Excitable Andy has become even more excitable lately (no point in a link, 99% of his site is frantic. The other 1% is nice photos,) and Congress is now up for grabs.

Since the hysterical “the GOP is going to steal the 2008 election!!!!” yap has really been ramping up lately, since the NY Times has been regularly losing it’s Collective Hive mind over the Palin pick, since a Governor who supports Barry went off message and said that Palin has more experience for the office of president then Barry, since Palin is driving supposed feminist wildly bonkers, since the Credentialed Media is attempting to do everything they can to portray McCain as the one in trouble, and since Kiddie-camp B.O. is reduced to smearing disable veterans and the elderly (while smearing Barry’s own VP choice, who has been in Congress 14 years longer then McCain, in trying to make McCain look like a long time Washington insider) and calling the McCain campaign the sleaziest in history (waaaah-mbulance time), I have a gift for all the Barry supporters, from the Nutroots to the should-have-their-credentials-pulled MSM to Barry himself below the fold

The wheels are coming off the vast liberal media. It doesn’t get much worse for them, particularly NBC and pMSNBC when the Grey Lady has a story about their implosion: MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregorywould anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

The phrase of the day is bat-sh*t crazy (It got stuck in my head by Ace), and that’s where MSNBC’s bold experiment went: bat-sh*t crazy. When you have some of the most rancorous and openly partisan people on the news channels covering the conventions and pretending they are having their typical Manhattan liberal only cocktail parties, like they do on their pundit shows, there are going to be problems. Like, massively partisan bat-sh*t crazy pundits like Keith Olbermann losing any hint of bias like a news anchor should and losing it on camera. NBC/MSNBC wanted anchors like Dan Rather, and got Cindy Sheehan instead.

But, let’s step back a sec: here is the leader of the American news media exposing the bat-sh*t craziness going on at the Peacock Network. I first caught the story on the front page of the pda version. It is on the front page of the Interwebz version. And a tiny blurb at the bottom of the Time’s paper version front page. But, still front page. That has got to pluck a few feathers in the offices of NBC.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

What is missing is that the provocative commentary tends to not be one side. More often then not, when a Conservative is on Fox, a liberal is on at the same time, and vice versa. Which drives liberals bat-sh*t crazy, because Conservatives are not supposed to have a voice in their world.

Anyhow, I’m not sure if the Times is exposing the idiocy and massively partisan opinions at MSNBC, or just taking them to task for showing the open secret that the media is heavily left and doesn’t even want people to remember 9/11.

PS: If you dare, enter the world of the DUmmies, who are going, yup, you guessed it! Bat-sh*t crazy over the story, though, really, that is their normal mode.

Yesterday I asked if there was anything that could be said about Barry that would not be considered racist (calling him Barry is probably racist, ya know.) Even Barry helped yesterday with his own playing of the racist card.

We have also seen the disintigration and”yup, I’m going insane!” of writers at many news sources and magazines since the pick of Sarah Palin (damn, she really does scare the living hell out of liberals/progressives/elitist surrender monkeys, eh?) Now, witness John Aloysius Farrall (elitist name) at US News and World Report - which has its own circulation and layoff of reporters issues- use the term redneck in a derogatory manner

The Republicans Think We’re Redneck Dolts

Well, I’ve listened to three days of speeches from St. Paul, and I’ve never heard such condescending rhetoric.

The Republicans must think we are redneck dolts.

“Redneck dolts.” Rather uncivil language, eh? Matter of fact, this is more like some sort racial epithat. Sure, we use the term down her in the South, and, we do not mind it being used for fun. Quite frankly, the Rednecks keep the elitists in their San Fran mansions fed. But, to use it in this manner is like calling an African America and n*gger.

So, as I asked in the comments, and emailed to the editor of rag, why is it OK to use redneck in such a derogatory manner, one completely equivalent to the use of the N word? Heck, it wasn’t even OK to refer to some college ladies as water buffalo’s. I still haven’t heard back from Useless News and World Report yet, and John doesn’t have the cajones to answer my comment. No surprise there.

Definitely read the rest, as it competely encapsulates the true feelings of the Left, who say they aren’t elitists, but are. For the left, the meaning of elitist is not that they truly are, but that they feel they are better then everyone else, especially those Rubes and hicks in flyover country.

Of course, any response from John would probably come in1 of 3 flavors: I’m gay, I must be a Bible thumper, or I must be a neocon.

PS: For the liberal media, and the Barry Camp, who keep saying that Palin’s speech was negative, and Barry’s wasn’t (hint to the cluebats in the media: Barry is running for Pres, Palin for VP), Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy breaks down The One’s Speech.

Joe Klein at Time magazine is proving once again that the media really is ensconsed in their own Arugula laced fish tank. He has a screed up, which comes pretty darned close to mirroring the talking points emails I receive from the Barry campaign. About the only difference is Joe doesn’t ask me to donate or sign up to receive Time magazine.

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign’s war against the press. This has been building for some time. Those of us who have criticized the candidate–and especially those of us who enjoyed good relations with McCain in the past–have been subject to off-the-record browbeating and attempted bullying all year.

Well, gee, Joe, could it have something to do with the fawning coverage of Barry Obama, portraying him as the modern day Messiah, with few hard questions asked, little hard research asked, and few hard core political journalism stories written, as opposed to all sorts of negative personal stories about McCain, such as when y’all were just wondering if he had an affair, whether he is actually a US citizen, whether his cancer could come back, etc and so on.

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is “a task from God.” The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

In other words, Joe hopes that the Credentialed Media continues their personal, massive, one side smear attacks on Sarah Palin, because that is what the article is about. Notice there is no context or depth on any of those allegations, they are simply the same as the TPs the DNC and Barry put out.

Early in the Joe’s short screed, he talks about “McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God’s sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before..” Is it the commission of journalism for supposed hard news journalists to go after Palin personally and her family personally? To repeat Nutroots stories that baby Trig might actually be her daughters, that she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, etc. You have heard them all, I am sure. What does her husbands DUI from over 20 years ago have to do with anything? Woopee. I know quite a few good people who have had one, and we know quite a few people who have done much worse. They sure do not like to mention Ted Kennedy leaving Mary Jo to drown, Bob Byrd’s time as a KKK recruiter, or, how about Barry’s admitted drug use 20 plus years ago. Where is the actual journalism, Joe?

Anyhow, this is also a stealth attack on us, the conservative blogosphere. But, if anyone actually reads Time anymore besides some of us in the blogosphere, they will see right thru the whine of Joe Klein, and realize that he is just making excuses for acting like celebrity rag filth mongers.

Take for example what a journalist such as Joe tells us: that Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Did Journalist Joe happen to mention that she was for it when the costs were low, but thought that $400 million dollars was out of control? Or, how about that Barack Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere on multiple occasions? I missed that. Joe Klein might as well be writing Andrew Sullivan’s milky load posts, such as the one where he live blogged it (no, no links for Excitable Andy.)

And, I don’t think that we even have to get in to the massive sexism that the Journalists have delved in to, do I?