An aide for Hillary went off on a spokeswoman for Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid because she felt her boss was blindsided by a hastily arranged news conference on a demand for an increase in the minimum wage before a Congressional pay raise be approved.

According to a tip to Matt Drudge: "The Clinton aide, Laurie Rubiner, was overheard saying to Reid spokeswoman Rebecca Kirszner, “You suck” and “How could you do this?”.

Posted by: Gary at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Didn't it seem a little odd that the Dixie Chicks' latest album would hit number one in its debut week when their overall sales have hit the skids? I mean, they are (or were) a country music group and country music fans have pretty much left them behind since they not only insulted the President on foreign soil in a time of war but have completely dissed their old fan base at every opportunity. Something didn't add up in my mind.

Lorie Byrd writes this morning what I had suspected about this as well as some advice for Democrat politicians:

"The new Chicks CD sold well the first couple of weeks, topping the charts. It is hard to imagine with the cover of Time Magazine, a 60 Minutes feature and an avalanche of favorable media, that the CD would not be a top seller. I recently heard Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. say he went out and bought a copy the first week.

I suspect that many who never would have paid a dime to listen to the Dixie Chicks when they were a kitschy country band, went out and purchased a copy as a political statement.

Although sales the first week put the CD at the top of the charts, compared to the previous Dixie Chicks CD, sales were down considerably. Concert ticket sales in some venues have been so slow that some shows may even be cancelled.

The example of the Dixie ChicksÂ’ rejection by many country music fans is one that carries a lesson those marketing any product would do well to heed. It easily translates from musicians and fans to politicians and voters, too. When politicians treat voters as ignorant and backward for not accepting their position on an issue, the voters are likely to go elsewhere."

UPDATE: 11:15am
Then again, if Natalie Maines can't understand the NYC subway system, how can we expect this dim bulb to understand her fans?

h/t: HotAir.com

Posted by: Gary at 09:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Guess she can't read a subway map...nor can she ask directions. I rather doubt many New Yorkers would know her by sight, so she doesn't have to worry about being mobbed!

Posted by: Pam at June 23, 2006 08:56 PM (OdalM)

2 Odd? Not at all. Most people are only fooled once. After buying the Dixie Twits CD, they realized how awful the dixie twits sound musically...hence the slump in concert ticket sales. ----------------------------------- Didn't it seem a little odd that the Dixie Chicks' latest album would hit number one in its debut week when their overall sales have hit the skids?

Posted by: Skye at June 25, 2006 10:07 AM (bZ0mc)

3 Steve Johnson of Chicago Tribune said it's proof that far more people than you would think still can't handle the idea of a strong-minded woman. I say people can handle strong-minded women. It is the dumb ones who keep on talking people cannot handle.

Posted by: Tess at June 26, 2006 02:49 AM (ZSAtj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

No big surprise - the tally was 13-86.

Because the only word besides "fail" that's more appropriate to be read in the same sentence as the name John Kerry is "gigolo".

Posted by: Gary at 03:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Who is Diana Irey? She's running against Rep. John "Mad" Murtha for his Western PA Congressional seat - the 12th District. Here's her website.

Looks like Irey is not holding back:

"John Murtha – Wrong on National Defense. John Murtha actually voted to cut spending on our national security by $76 billion. Then, he voted in favor of instituting the draft! And, perhaps most stunning of all, John Murtha spoke out against the brave men and women who are defending our freedom by calling for an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq."

Anyone who saw Murtha's appearance on "Meet The Shills Press" yesterday can see the man has lost his mind.

Diana Ivey for Congress!!! Because Benedict Arnold served his country too.

Posted by: Gary at 04:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It's nice to see that there's a website run by a doctor who can diagnose people based on watching them on TV. I always figured doctors were too busy to keep up a blog. I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: Cyril @ LameWebsite.com at July 11, 2006 04:49 AM (AbnQr)

2 I'm not a doctor (but I play one on TV). Oh, and I deleted you lame-ass website link. Don't use my site for stupid self-promotion under the guise of leaving an even stupider comment.

Posted by: Gary at July 11, 2006 07:51 AM (PLHs9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At least that's the plan. And if that doesn't work, there's always plan B: go independent. Allahpundit lays out a fun scenario:

"The primaryÂ’s August 8th. The deadline for submitting the requisite 7,500 signatures for an independent run is 4 p.m. on August 9th. If heÂ’s going to play chicken with Lamont in the primary, he needs to raise the stakes and promise that he wonÂ’t start collecting signatures until the primaryÂ’s over. WouldnÂ’t it be awesome on August 9th to watch the army of Joementum canvassers see if they can beat the clock? You know the nutroots retards would send out teams of anti-canvassers to harass them, too. Imagine someone opening their door in Danbury to find two kids with a clipboard in Lieberman t-shirts and two idiots behind them in black bloc gear trying to shout them down with blood-for-oil slogans. Please, god, make it happen.

The next six to seven weeks should be fun.

Posted by: Gary at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

The good old days for them, that is. I was just a little tike at the time but I was old enough to recall that 1974 was a horrible time for the nation. America had not yet reached rock-bottom (that was still to come in the form of the disasterous Carter Administration), but things were generally sucky.

For Democrats in Washington, however, these were the salad days of the party. You had Vietnam, Watergate, and a coming gathering of Congressional strength in the wake of these events. Michael Barone writes this morning about how Dems see 2006 through the prism of 1974. For them, Iraq is Vietnam, Fitzmas is Watergate and they are predicting a major shift in power come November.

Unfortunately for them, it's not quite turning out that way. The CA-50 special election was not a harbinger of a Dem takeover in the works, Iraq is a mission that is succeeding more every day (especially now that the Z-man has been terminated) and Fitzmas just flopped worse than they could ever imagine. All in all, a pretty lousy week for the Donks.

Barone observes:

"Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office."

Naahh.

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

What's the best way to embarrass Senate Democrats on the war and get them in hot water with their base? Have them vote on a "cut and run" proposal. We've been down this road before and a lot of Dems will call it a cheap stunt, but frankly they're asking for it.

Sen. John F. Kerry (who, BTW, served in Vietnam - just in case you hadn't heard) has been kicking around a proposal to call for complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year, a proposal similiar to the one Rep. John Murtha has made in the house. Kerry, who is obviously playing to the moonbats, would have the U.S. leave the new Iraqi government in the lurch just as they're getting on their feet and telegraph to our enemies, our allies and the rest of the world that our word is meaningless and we're quick to abandon our friends when the pressure from a vocal minority becomes too much to handle. Did I mention that Kerry served in Vietnam? Right before he betrayed his band of brothers on national television by pushing lies about our troops. And Senate Democrats are happy to let Kerry make his anti-war noise. That is, as long as they don't have to put their money where their mouth is.

"Oh shit! They're calling for our votes!"

So once again, the GOP called their bluff. Sen. Mitch McConnell introduced the measure for a vote and it crashed and burned 93 to 6. Democrats did what they do best. The retreated. Six Senate Dems (a who's-who of Lefty stalwarts that included Russ Feingold, Teddy Kennedy and Tom Harkin) stood firm, only to be left behind in the stampede by their 38 other colleagues.

Mark Coffey has the money quote this morning about this sham:

"A lack of guts, pure and simple; if you believe it, vote it, don’t weasel out by accusing the Republicans of calling you ‘unpatriotic’.."

UPDATE: 11:30am
The House just passed it's own resolution affirming the U.S. should not pull out.

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

The "strategery" of the Kos-sack crowd is becoming clearer with regard to this year's challenge to CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. Normally, when you have a race for political office, you're goal is to win. For the Left, who are fighting to assert their control and influence in the upper echelons of the party apparatus, their goal is twofold: drive Sen. Lieberman from the party (as an example to those that they deem "off the reservation") and force the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to commit its support to Ned Lamont should he win the party's nomination in the August 8th primary.

With Lamont's increased poll numbers, Lieberman has a decision to make as to whether or not he should officially bolt the party and put his name on the ballot as an "independent". Lieberman would have to submit a petition signed by registered voters on August 9th (the day after the primary) to qualify as an independent candidate for November. Clearly, he couldn't wait until then, so he'd have to make that decision over the next seven weeks (preferably sooner rather than later). The Left is already pressuring Lieberman to make his move and if he chooses the independent route, he will likely alienate a number of Democrats who feel he is "bolting" his party.

The truth, however, is that he is being forced in this direction. Were Lieberman to run as an independent, the Democrats would certainly lose a Senate seat. Lieberman is so popular among CT voters overall that he is projected to win easily against Lamont and Alan Schlesinger, the Republican. And as an independent, he would no longer have any reason to associate with his former party. Surely, he could wield more power and influence by allying himself with the GOP.

So where is the logic in this course of action?

Ah, there is the rub. This puts the DSCC in an awkward position. Sen. Chuckie Schumer, the Committee's Chairman, has already publicly backed Lieberman in the race. But they back him as a Democrat. What if he becomes an independent?

"In order to financially support an indie Lieberman, does the DSCC need to have the CT Dem Party officially endorse Lieberman's indie run? Can the state party do that if Ned Lamont wins the Dem primary? Of course, the DSCC could simply sit out, something they regularly do in senate races where they don't believe party outcome is in jeopardy."

Either way, the GOP benefits from a weakened, divided Democrat party. So the Left is willing to pull a "D" out of the Senate count just to make a point. They go after a guy who reliably votes with his party 90% of the time but supports the GWOT - not for political gain, but because he genuinely supports it on principle. Now, they'll essentially push him into an alliance with the opposition.

Hey, whatever floats their boat.

Posted by: Gary at 10:40 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

Michael Barone writes this morning about the appalling comments from Reps. Pete Stark, "Baghdad" Jim McDermott and others about the news of al-Zarqawi's elimination and how it's directly related to why Democrats keep losing.

"Nevertheless the Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified, often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com and myDD.com left-wing Websites, tells us something disturbing about the Democratic Party -- and provides a clue why Democrats were unable to eke out a win in last week's special congressional election in the 50th congressional district of California.

It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored."

But don't you dare question their patriotism.

Posted by: Gary at 11:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

1 But.But.But.....the left supports the troops, right????? They disgust me more everyday.

Posted by: Jenn at June 12, 2006 01:58 PM (QD9ey)

2 As the Republican candidate opposing McDermott in the November elections, I offer my contrasting view on the death of Al-Zarqawi. - Steve Beren BEREN ON DEATH OF ZARQAWI Beren for Congress www.berenforcongress.com Statement by Steve Beren, candidate for U.S. Congress (Washington-7th CD), June 8, 2006: The death of Al-Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is good news. It is a severe setback for the terrorists, who seek to destroy the emerging Iraqi democracy. It is testimony to the capabilities of our military, and to the determination of our fighting troops. And it is a source of rejoicing for the Iraq people, who have suffered greatly at the hands of Al-Zarqawi. In October 2002, there was bipartisan agreement on spreading democracy and regime change. The congressional resolution authorizing military action stated: "it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Saddam is captured and on trial, and his regime is gone. And today, along with the death of Al-Zarqawi, comes the news that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has completed formation of his cabinet, filling the positions of interior minister, defense minister, and head of national security. Those who say "we can't win militarily in Iraq" are wrong. We and our allies, the Iraqi people, will win. Democracy will succeed in Iraq. We should remain firm in the war against terrorism, spreading democracy in the Middle East and striking terrorism at its roots.

Posted by: Steve Beren at June 12, 2006 05:57 PM (fcr5m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment