Aaron at the FreeWillBlog points out something I noticed, but hadn’t yet commented upon from Inauguration Day.
When I was watching the ANSWER protest I heard a line a couple of times from the protesters on stage about how the Bush supporters were wearing fur coats.
What is the point of this crap? Is it meant to imply that Bush supporters are heartless bastards, and if so why didn�t they splash the red paint on them? I�m sure they already think that the Bush supporters are heartless bastards (I�m kind of proud that they think that of me, in fact), so why didn�t they bring the paint?
Did they bother to go up to those wearing the coats and ask if it was real or fake fur or did they just assume it was real because of their preconceptions and prejudices?
I thought they were the �Open-Minded� crew?
I guess that they�re so open minded their brains fell out?
Anyway, I wouldn�t have even brought it up except that al-Reuters decided to make it part of their report for the day.
Oh, that liberal media!
************************
And another thing,
Why is it that I haven’t heard of any investigation of into which of the Congressional Dems gave their Inaugural tickets to the Code Pink protesters?
When and if we find out who it was, those members of Congress (reportedly from NY and CA should be immediately jailed for conspiracy to disturb the peace and anything else relating to crimes against Presidential security.
Sure, nothing happened, but what if these Code Pink losers had gotten a weapon through. Both you and I know that these dweebs hate GWB enough to kill him so as to �Save the World� from Bush.
An apology from the guilty Dem Congresscritters is not enough. They lose their seats and their respective Governors get to appoint replacements. What with Pataki and Schwartzeneggar both being Republicans, it should teach them not to fuck around with Presidential security again
Because you know the Dems would have made the same demands had it happened to Clinton or Kerry.
Found @ Blogs for Bush via 4 Right Wing Wackos
************************
Oh, and some folks the left are making an issue out of Krauthammer and VDH’s commenting on Bush speech and not mentioning that they helped mold it.
What’s the big deal here? Why is this even an issue other than the left needing something more to whine about.
I’ll make you a deal; when Al Franken admits publically that he is the writer of the line “Girly Men” that the left has been calling ‘sexist’ ever since Schwarzeneggar used it the first time after being elected Governor AND Franken delcares it ‘not sexist’ in any way shape, form or usage, I’ll think this is a medium-sized deal.
***********************
And the hits just keep coming,
Kos said twice (1 & 2) that there was right-wing media bias on Inauguration Day because of the number of conservatives on the TV shows.
Duh! It was the Inauguration of a conservative President! What planet does he live on?
Oh wait! Nevermind, he’s an idiot. Maybe he should have his friends at MediaMatters.Org go back and see who was on TV on the first Bush inauguration and the two Clinton Inaugurations.
Or maybe that would blow his whole point.
If they’re Congressmen (and not Senators), then the governors can’t appoint a replacement, a special election would have to be called. I agree with you on the principle of the thing, they did a bad, bad thing, that could have potentially been really bad. But because it wasn’t, I don’t see the issue getting all that much traction. Basically, I don’t see the Democrats thinking it’s worth giving in. (Imagine what a large portion their base would think about the lack of will or whatever: It starts with a “V” and ends with “ote Green.”)