What Huckleberry seems to forget is that the primary system is already “manipulated.” The people who get out to vote in the primaries (and, even more so, the caucuses) are the “party faithful.” They’re NOT typically the moderates to whom the eventual nominee has to appeal; they’re the “purists” who expect their nominee to stand for the party’s “pure ideals.” This isn’t just the GOP primary, either; it applies to the Democrats, as well—both parties want a nominee who will appeal to the masses, especially those who make up that elusive “undecided” vote (it should be noted, of course, that the Dems have been more likely in the last several primary cycles to rally around the most centrist candidate fairly early on; neither Barack nor Hillary could genuinely have been described as “left-wing,” except, of course, to the FoxNoise pinheads and their reliable 25%ers).

This last election cycle, the GOP’s “faithful” found themselves stuck between having to choose between their “social conservative” wing and their “economic conservative” wing. Throughout the primaries, Mittens was roundly derided by the social conservatives (represented by Bachmann, Perry and Santorum) who claimed he wasn’t a “real” conservative. Meanwhile, there were economic conservatives who weren’t happy with Mittens, either but they saw him as far more preferable than the social conservative nutjobs.

Then, there was the resounding defeat of the Tea Party in Indiana in November. The Teabaggers managed to dump Lugar in the primary, but were soundly beaten in the general election (had the Teabaggers not gotten rid of Lugar, the GOP would’ve retained that Senate seat). Of course, Mourdock’s inane comments on rape didn’t really help but, considering he still got 44% of the statewide vote, they obviously didn’t hurt him too much.

When the “mad” troll is willing to be as supportive of life for the POST-fetus baby, then its argument about the fetus itself can be heard out. Unfortunately, like too many anti-choicers, it’s unwilling to give two cents (literally) to the living, breathing, baby once it’s emerged from the woman’s body.

Does FoxNoise do anything OTHER than distort? Well, I suppose they don’t need to distort the right-wing crap spewed by right-wing crap-spewers, but if it’s anything that doesn’t conform to FoxNoise’s agenda, it has to be distorted so that it does conform to FoxNoise’s agenda.

So, in Texas, it’s somehow bad when educators are given an option from more than 1600 lesson plans—that they can further tailor to their own needs—but it’s okay if the legislators pass laws that were actually written by the Koch Brothers-funded ALEC?

Sounds about right (no pun intended, there).

I love the right-wing’s double-standard. When a musician criticizes a right-wing President (think the Dixie Chicks or Kanye West vs George Bush), the right-wing’s reaction is “Shut up and sing.” But, when a right-wing musician (no matter how loose the term) bloviates all sorts of right-wing nonsense, he’s hailed as some sort of GOP savior.

And, while no one with half a functioning brain cell would deny that FoxNoise is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the GOP, it’s interesting that Bill “I’m an independent” O’Reilly would make such a slip and be such a GOP cheerleader. Just imagine how Bill would react if someone at CNN or MSNBC had commented that some (washed-up) rock star’s left-wing ranting was just “what the Democratic Party needs.” Why, we might get the opportunity to watch Bill re-enact a scene from “Scanners.” (For those who don’t get that comment, Google it or look on YouTube.)

Antoinette, how much you wanna bet that Morris has a very tight non-disclosure clause in his contract that would prevent just what you suggest?

He may have a lot of juicy stories, but I’d be willing to bet that he’ll have to wait at least 10 years before he can legally tell any of them (at least, none that he can tell without FoxNoise’s lawyers vetting any he wants to tell).

“Of course the fact that, since Newtown, 1578 gun deaths have occurred wasn’t mentioned.” And NONE of those deaths that happened at GUN SHOWS was mentioned either. (That would be a bit of, shall we say, an incovenient truth.)

Steve St John commented, “If Ann Coulter is a journalist, then Britney Spears is a musician.”

Hey! At least Britney understands the process of being a musician (she can actually play piano and while she doesn’t do it often, she does write songs). That’s a lot more than can be said for Coulter’s understanding of the process of journalism.

Joe Marsh wrote “The liberals are always protesting the policy. Me — since I’m anything but a knee-jerk liberal — thinks it’s a useful practice if done correctly. I especially think that when I see these roving bands of young thugs from the project (a few blocks from my home), most of them wearing hoodies. If the cops frisk 100 of these thugs and discover one handgun, then it’s worth it, in my opinion. Are most of these thugs black, with some Hispanic? Yes. Does that make me a racist? Definitely not! It’s a socio-economic issue, if anything.”

Sorry, buddy, but YOU ARE A RACIST. Plain and simple. For starters, you use the word “thugs” to describe people “from the project” and then you quickly add that they’re wearing hoodies. It may have escaped your notice but many people, of all ethnicities, wear hoodies (in fact, Geraldo Rivera himself was photographed wearing a hoodie—something that got a fair amount of attention when he decided to equate hoodies with criminals). Then you pull the “if they frisk 100 and find one handgun, it’s worth it” routine. Well, let me ask how YOU would feel if the police decided to just “randomly” stop-and-frisk 100 WHITE guys, who ostensibly were doing nothing else suggesting any sort of criminal activity, and found 1 handgun among them. Would THAT be “worth it” or would you be making plans to protest the police harassment of those “innocent white boys?” (Bear in mind, that in many states, the simple possession of a handgun is NOT evidence of a crime.)

So. Yes, you ARE a racist. And I don’t give two s***s what you think or how you try to weasel-word your way out of it. Trying to blame it on “a socio-economic issue” is, perhaps, the weaseliest of weasel-word behavior.

A couple of thoughts:

1) “Somebody call a whambulance!” Ellen, the proper spelling is “waahmbulance.” It emphasizes the whiney, crybaby aspect. The way you spelled it—well, it seems like an emergency response vehicle that plays “Careless Whisper” and “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” (with “Last Christmas”added during the holiday season).

2) “David Limbaugh – who seems even nastier and angrier than his brother . . . .” Is it any wonder? He’s got to do something to get out of Rushbo’s shadow. Many younger siblings resent having to play second fiddle. So, even as he used big bro’s connections on the road to success (such as it is), he still feels he’ll never be as good as big bro but he’ll do what he needs to in order for people to acknowledge his very existence.

AAP: The “un-readable mess” simply couldn’t be helped. When you start with an “un-listenable” and “un-watchable” mess, any transcription is bound to be “un-readable.”

Since I’m not willing to subject myself to the insanity that is Sean Hannity (perhaps that should be “Hannutty”?), I have to rely on the quoted material. Now, with that in mind, let’s take a couple of sentences from Hannutty’s tirade and see how they compare to each other:

“According to the Anointed One, the reason why he’s failed on the economy, failed to create jobs, failed to rein in radical extremism abroad is because some of us have dared to speak out against his agenda.” (Note especially, the bolded phrase.)

“What the president fails to understand is, he is the reason why, in large part, Washington’s divided. It’s his rhetoric that is responsible for polarizing the country.”

So, Seannie-poopoo, it’s the “rhetoric” of “the Anointed One” (your words, remember) that’s been polarizing but you have been the model of decorum? There’s only one reaction that comes to my mid:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

(I was about to add, “Who says that conservatives aren’t funny” when I realized that Seannie-poopoo wasn’t trying to be funny. A comic book company called Bongo Comics publishes several “Simpsons” titles. One of them is “Bart Simpson Comics”* and in the current issue, there’s a story where Lisa decides to become a prankster after winning an award at an April Fool’s “Prank Fair.” At one point, she’s studying how to be funny and she’s got one note that reads “Me + falling down = TRAGIC” and below that is “You + falling down = FUNNY.” I’d say that pretty much sums up Seannie-poopoo’s unintentional hilarity. If he realized the stupidity of his words, he’d realize what a tragic figure he is. Since he doesn’t, however, we’re all given permission to think of him as the Fourth Stooge.)

*Actually, the proper title is “Simpsons Comics Presents Bart Simpson” but “BSC” is so much easier.

Thx4 Fish, I don’t really think that journalism has suffered from the corporate entertainment complex. Where its suffering began was when Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine which allowed the far-right extremists to offer their “opinion and analysis” WITHOUT any sort of balance or opposing viewpoint. When the talk radio networks were no longer required to air shows that provided a “balanced diet” and could dump shows that had low ratings (most of which were liberal-oriented; liberals tended to get their news information from a variety of sources while cons tended to ignore any sources that didn’t validate their own views). And “success” begat more right-wing extremists to regurgitate what had been spewed by the “old timers.”

Of course, there’s also the fact that most of the talk radio brigade had NO journalism credentials. If they’d attended college, that was where most of them got their limited amount of “news experience” (usually by working at the college radio station as DJs where their work consisted of playing records and hosting events). BUT, they’d “worked in radio” so that was all they needed.

Brian offered the real money quote as to why FoxNoise is being so unfair and imbalanced about the bailout: “But according to the Car Czar, the bailout saved about 2 or 3 million jobs.”

That’s 2 or 3 million people who did NOT get added to the unemployment rolls and made it so much harder for FoxNoise and their GOP cohorts to make the unemployment rate a bigger part of the Romney campaign.

How appropriate. The news by folks with no brains for folks with no brains feature a group talking about how something is a “no brainer.”

Who’s in a better position to know?

For the days of responsible journalism……

I’d love to ask Mr Gohmert what his stance was on the SALE of these airplanes when the sale was being made—back when Egypt was under the control of Hosni Mubarak.

I’d be interested in a secondary poll question being offered. The first part being, “Did you serve/Are you in the military?” and the second part being, “If yes, did you serve in combat?”

For some reason, I think the yes/no ratio for the “Did you serve” question would be pretty close to the “Do you agree with the decision” poll question. Somehow I don’t see many of the FoxNoise.com “readers” having been in the real military. After all, so many of their “heroes” haven’t served a day on the frontlines.

Daniel, I believe that you haven’t got a clue about how liberals and progressives were treated under the Dubya regime. We were already called “traitors” by that administration, and I will guarantee you that, had the liberals and progressives behaved the way the right-wing nuts are acting and started “arming themselves,” the Dubya cabal would’ve rounded us up in a heartbeat. And DOYC knows that had American Muslims started packing heat to protect themselves from angry white men, anxious to “avenge” 9/11, they would’ve been rounded up even faster.

For crying out loud, have you considered how liberals and progressives behaved towards Dubya and compared that to how conservatives have behaved towards Obama? We were, by comparison, the absolute models of civility—even at our most “raucous.” And just imagine if we’d really had a liberal media during the Dubya years, one that had the real power that the morons like Palin and Limbaugh claim the mythical one does; Dubya would not have stayed in office after the 2004 election.

But keep fantasizing your little absurd fantasy. When the US gov’t decides that you’re an enemy of the state and comes after you, just keep believing that your little arsenal will keep you safe from them. And the rest of you “libertarians” keep on with that little delusion. Even Scalia says you don’t have the right to own tanks and nuclear weapons—items which the US military DOES possess. (Oh, by the by. Where were all the “libertarians” during the Dubya years? I don’t seem to recall ANY of them joining in the protests against Bush’s Wars or opposing Gitmo. REAL Libertarians would be the first to acknowledge that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to military-style weapons since we have a standing military. REAL Libertarians believe the Second Amendment starts with the phrase “A well-regulated militia” not at “the right to keep and bear arms.”)

I wonder. Does anyone know if you, with your concealed weapon permit, can carry a concealed weapon into the Texas Attorney General’s office or are you required to “check” it at the door? I’d think, given Texas’s typical GOP mindset, that hypocrisy rules—that the State has no problem with (in fact, encourages) folks carrying their concealed weapons in places like bars and schools and private workplaces but sort of frowns on those guns being carried into places where state officials are conducting the business of poking their noses into every last bit of your intimate lives. (Naturally, I’d guess the state officials would be carrying their own weapons for their “own safety” but wouldn’t want the regular peons—I mean, people—to have access to a loaded weapon while watching the officials carry out “business.”)

Patriot, may I ask a silly question? Why did you included unemployment figures for the two states? It’s not like those “job creators” fleeing California are going to suddenly “create jobs” in Nevada.

For a decade, the “job creators” have been paying all-time historic low tax rates (and even lower actual taxes) and yet, unemployment figures didn’t make any significant movement until the tail end of that time (and then, in an almost out-of-control upward surge) and even AFTER Obama allowed the continuation of those low rates, unemployment didn’t make much movement (albeit in a slower downward motion). And, incredibly, even after Obama decided that he wasn’t going to extend those low rates for millionaires, we haven’t seen a sudden spike in the unemployment rates.

IOW, there’s NO correlation between “taxes paid by job creators” and “actual job creation”—except in the putrid minds of GOPers and Teabaggers.

OTOH, considering how much money Sheldon Adelson wasted on the Newt’s vanity run for the GOPer nomination, you’d think Nevada would immediately enact a personal income tax on multi-millionaires. Obviously, if you can spend $20 million+ on a candidate’s vanity campaign (and another $30 million+ on another multi-miillionaire’s absurd “I’m a regular guy ’cause I shop at Costco” campaign), you shouldn’t have any problem paying a 1% personal income tax. Given that the $50 million+ Adelson spent on the campaigns was less than 1/4th of 1% of his $20 BILLION+ personal fortune, I don’t see why he’d have a problem with the State of Nevada getting $200 million of it. He made BILLIONS during Obama’s first term—and that was with a nearly bottomed-out economy. Considering that people making minimum wage in Nevada are still hit with a sales tax of nearly 7% on everything they buy (folks in the Vegas area pay just over 8% in sales taxes), they’re paying a far heftier chunk of their annual income than Adelson is (even if Adelson’s buying the most expensive cuts of meat and the freshest produce and the most luxurious toilet paper for his own use).