But that is not the point of this post, believe it or not. No, rather it is this: at the very same site, there is this article, “PROFESSOR: Sarah Palin Probably Staged A Gigantic Hoax About Being Trig’s Mother.”

I am not kidding, and it is not a tongue-in-cheek article, either. Oh, Andrew Sullivan must be SO happy that some professor at Northern Kentucky University is taking his assertion to heart. (And I am sure the parents who send their kids to school there are so happy to learn that one of the professors seems to be spending time “proving” that Sarah is not Trig’s real mother.) From what I can tell, the conclusion reached by Scharlotte was mere conjecture, but hey, that’s better than nothing, right? Ahem.

It does make me wonder one thing: just what is it this professor teaches exactly? I mean, with all this time on his hands to delve into such ground-breaking research, and all, it’s gotta be something important, no doubt. (That is snark, by the way.) Actually, he teaches journalism. Yes, journalism. Now you have a glimpse into why our media is in such bad shape, presuming this is representative of the professors in this field (he is also very upset that some “Palin Flack” is trying to squelch discussion on this critical issue facing us today. Again, not kidding.) Uh, yeah. THIS is what he is so concerned about the media not covering now, during this tumultuous time. Wow.

Oh, you’re probably wondering who IS Trig’s real mother according to Scharlotte (and Sullivan). Well, it’s Bristol, of course. C’mon, that’s as clear as the nose on your face, people!

What is really hilarious to me, though, are the comments at this article. The exact same people who demean, belittle, and attack those who would like to see Obama’s birth certificate act like this is a matter of National Security. You know, because Palin ran as the Vice Presidential candidate, so who her baby mama is matters a LOT. Hey, say what you will about Birthers, at least the desire to see an actual birth certificate is to fulfill a Constitutional requirement. And it is a requirement other presidential candidates have fulfilled, I might add.

But this has zero to do with the Constitution. This has to do with Palin Hatred veiled as outrage at a lackluster media, one that hasn’t done its job in reporting this “earth shattering” story:

[snip] He (Professor Scharlotte) concludes two things:

* First, that the “conspiracy theory” is likely true–Sarah Palin staged a huge hoax, and, second,

* The American media is pathetic for not pursuing the story more aggressively
[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes – where has the media been? You know, the one that aggressively pursued Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah Wright, or James Meeks, or his college/grad school records, or why there were ZERO paper recrods from the entire time Obama was in the IL Senate, or how he got everyone thrown off the ballot the first time he ran, or how he got the sealed divorce records of the two front-runner US Senate candidates unsealed right before the election, or any NUMBER of red flags about Barack Obama.

Oh, wait – they didn’t. But this man thinks what they SHOULD have been doing was going after Palin even more. Because the boatload of reporters who descended on Wasilla to turn over every rock they could, or the 11 reporters the AP assigned to check her book, is not the least bit aggressive in its efforts. Kinda makes you wonder how many they have assigned to “fact check” Obama’s books, huh? Yeah. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, either.

It is just comical the complete and utter hypocrisy contained within this one site on such a related issue. And the utter lack of recognition of the hypocrisy, too, is a bit comical.

Yes, by all means, let us spend lots of time and media resources on whether or not Trig is Sarah Palin’s son, because that is of the utmost importance. Never mind Obama’s real back-story – he’s only the President after all. Hey, we have to have our priorities with our media, right? Right. Budget crisis? What “budget crisis”? I need to know who is really the mother of that kid, don’t you?

If you’ll excuse me, I have to go read “People” magazine now to get the REAL news…

I agree that the debasing attacks on the former Governor are ridiculous. Hannity just conducted an interview with Palin which brought him huge ratings. He was respectful to her and I’m sure the principles she trumpets are similar to his own. That is fine. What is not fine is the nonsense he spewed with his panel as they all got fired up defending Sarah Palin. Hannity made the remark that you can bash a conservative woman all you want – but no one would touch a liberal woman. He basically said if you’re Hillary Clinton, you’re safe from this kind of treatment.

Well, Sean, if you’re reading this – here is a little refresher course on what the left did to Hillary in 2008. And by the way, you and your right wing cronies taught them well with the fifteen years of Hillary bashing she and we have had to put up with. Here are a few examples…

“A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario.” ( Keith Olbermann, MSNBC)

“The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC)

“When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. She’s castrating, overbearing and scary.” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC)

“Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way?” (David Shuster, MSNBC)

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s cunt.” (Bill Maher, HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher)

“If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out.” (Jonathan Alter, Newsweek)

“Some women deserve to be called bitches.” (Castellanos, CNN)

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” (Leon Wieseltier, literary editor, The New Republic)

“She’s an aging, resentful female.” “She’s a ludicrous embarrassment.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, MSNBC)

“Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.” (columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune)

“She’s the most secretive politician in America today.” (David Plouffe, Obama campaign)

“We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House….She’s got a testicle lockbox.” (Rush Limbaugh)

“Someone needs to go there and take her out behind the barn.” (Pete Snyder, FOX)

“It cries.” (Glenn Beck, FOX)

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future.” And when Hillary Clinton speaks men hear, “Take out the garbage.” She does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.” (Marc Rudov, FOX News)

“She is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex…” (Bob Ellis, ABC Unleashed)

“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” (Maureen Dowd, NY Times)

“…when I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry. I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.” (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews Show)

Readers, please feel free to add your own.

You see, Mr. Hannity, there are several big reasons why Sarah Palin said she would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a cup of coffee. Those two ladies have a lot to commiserate about. They were both trashed by the left.

The majority of the comments above came from the liberal media. This was but a mere fraction of the daily filth spewed by the likes of these arrogant cowards. Never mind the shameful General T. McPeak who said “Hillary is not fit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier,” or some of the horrid, betraying comments made by the backstabbing elite in her own party. Further, the daily commentary from the likes of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so many lefty blogs who bashed Hillary, the more qualified candidate, in favor of a brand name with no experience seems to have escaped Mr. Hannity’s attention as well.

I’m sure Sarah Palin has a great deal of admiration for Hillary – her toughness, her resilience and her body of knowledge. What a shame, Mr. Hannity, that you cannot see fit to extend the same courtesy to a woman clearly deserving of your respect – even if your political philosophies differ.

This is the big problem with punditry from either side. I appreciate that Mr. Hannity has been brave enough to cover topics others news stations will not. I also appreciate that FOX News is the only network daring to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on policy, rather than cheerleading. While I may not agree with the conservative bent of the network, I do at least get some news rather than pillow fluffing. Hannity’s show clearly is more opinion than anything else, but when he ignores the experience of Hillary Clinton and the insults her supporters had to put up with in the campaign last year – his credibility takes a nosedive.

It was interesting that just before he mentioned her name, he paused for a moment – he knew he was lying about her, saying liberals gave Hillary a pass – but he just couldn’t help himself. Integrity is not selective.

It is said that character is what you do when nobody’s looking. Perhaps Mr. Hannity thought no one would be paying attention. Well, I was looking and his character last night was found wanting.

It isn’t just the Gay Folks who are getting a bit testy, as the video below indicates, but those of us Gay people who DID buy that Obama was going to do something for us (I don’t know what came over them) sure had something to say in the March on Oct. 10th (H/T to Logistics Monster for the video):

I came across this article by B. Daniel Blatt recently that addresses the frustrations of the GLBT community with Barack Obama, Gay Community Increasingly at Odds with Democrats. Considering the constant pandering, all talk, and no action, it is easy to see why we would be inreasingly discontented with Obama (those who were content with him in the first place, that is).

Mr. Blatt comes from a different political position than I do, and I appreciate his take here:

Perhaps the easiest thing about being a gay conservative is that we expect less from our elected leaders than do our left-of-center counterparts. Republican politicians don’t promise us the moon and stars in their campaigns, so we’re not disappointed when they don’t bestow such lofty gifts on our community once elected.

Huh. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. Interesting. He continues:

For gay Democrats, however, it’s a different story. They are repeatedly disappointed when their politicians do not follow through on the campaign pledges they make to our community.

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but just a year later, he backpedaled on that promise. After he clumsily tried to act on that promise in the first few days of his administration, that Democrat realized he might suffer politically should he sign an executive order repealing the ban. At the time, the president’s signature was all that was required to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Facing a firestorm of opposition from the military and Congress, Clinton relented and signed a supposed compromise policy, the legislation which became known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). Gays could now serve, provided they didn’t self-identify as gay. Now the ban on open service is codified, requiring an act of Congress to be repealed.

This would not be the last time Clinton would sign legislation upsetting gay people who so enthusiastically backed him in 1992.

In the dead of night on September 20, 1996, after receiving the endorsement of the left-leaning gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing one state to bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed in a different state while defining marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. Although its then-leaders denounced the action, HRC did not rescind its endorsement of the then-Democratic incumbent.

Now, you know, I love me my Bill Clinton. Not as much as his wife, mind you, but still…It’s a different day now than it was even then:

Perhaps with that bit of history in mind, the current Democratic President Barack Obama thought that by currying favor with this bastion of the gay Washington, D.C., establishment, he could silence the growing chorus of criticism from erstwhile gay supporters upset by his failure to act on his campaign promises to repeal those two bills. This past Saturday, the president addressed HRC’s annual dinner in Washington where he reiterated his campaign pledges:

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. … We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. … And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

As a reminder, I severed my long-standing membership with the HRC after it endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, one a proven advocate for the GLBT community, and one who is not. Wanna guess which one is which? Yep – Hillary is, Obamais not. That doesn’t seem to have sunk in with the folks at the HRC dinner, but other people are getting it:

That may have earned him a standing ovation inside the auditorium, but it did not quiet the criticism outside. Indeed, if anything, the speech only served to increase its volume. Left-of-center lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding took umbrage at the president’s failure to offer a timeline for repeal:

The low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our president was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

Others found different reasons to call the speech “a fail.” Left-wing gay bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage said it sounded more like a campaign speech than a presidential address, with the latter offering, “Sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.” They were not alone. The New York Times reported that one reader of the Bilerico Project quipped in a comment to that gay blog, “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing.”

And you know how much I just LOVE Andrew Sullivan (that was major snark – he has attacked yours truly a number of times, tongue in cheek nominating me for the Michael Moore Award. I suppose I could do worse.). He was a major Obama sycophant, singing his praises left and right, downright bubbly in his support of The One. THat is al to say, I have little sympathy that he is now so disenchanted with Obama. Maybe he could have done a little more research – check that – maybe he could have done SOME research into Obama before throwing his weight behind him. Just a thought.

And he is not the only Obama supporter and GLBT community member who is now frustrated with Obama:

John Aravosis of Americablog was less restrained in his reaction to the speech:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. … It is criminal that any gay rights organization would invite an embattled president to their dinner, giving him political cover for repeated broken promises and slaps in the face to our community (like the DOMA incest brief), and then get absolutely nothing in return. HRC’s actions only feed the suspicions of critics who say that the organization is more interested in fundraisers than in advancing our rights.

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn’t do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen.

By this measure, the incumbent Democrat is a lot like the last Democrat to sit in the White House: both seek to avoid controversy, particularly on gay issues. And yet, in seeking to avoid controversy in the general population, Obama has further stirred the pot in the gay community. Even some of his most zealous defenders on the gay left have refused to cut him any slack for his failure to move forward on repealing DADT and DOMA.

Well, and they shouldn’t cut him any slack. Then again, IMHO, they should have pushed harder for a real advocate – Hillary – than the guy they thought was “cool,” or whatever the hell they were thinking – if indeed they were. Blatt continues:

And these outraged voices on the gay left have a greater opportunity today to make public their views than did their counterparts in the Clinton era. Many of them blog, some for heavily trafficked sites. These bloggers have prevented the voices of the establishment gay organizations from dominating the discourse (as they had in years past). When HRC’s president Joe Solmonese made excuses for the president’ s inaction, these bloggers were quick to take him to task.

Due in large part to the integrity of these gay left bloggers, a “schism,” as Spaulding puts it, has opened up between “Gay Inc. [and] the grassroots”. The blogosphere, in short, has changed everything. Gay Inc. (to use Spaulding’s epithet for the establishment gay organizations) no longer reigns supreme as the public voice of the gay community.

It has been supplemented by voices less submissive to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Blogs have given disgruntled Democrats a larger megaphone with which to express their disappointment with a party whose leaders have long assumed that gay voters would remain in their camp even if they didn’t act on their campaign promises.

And Americans have become increasingly aware that the gay community does not speak with one voice. Nor does it march it lockstep to the tune of the Democratic Party.

Sure, Obama made a small move recently and nominated Clifford Stanley, a 33 year Marine two star general (retired), to this position:

President Barack Obama intends to nominate Dr. Clifford L. Stanley as the undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness — the position within the Defense Department that oversees the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“He is likely to be the president’s key Pentagon player in the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate and will be critical for the president in getting military uniform buy-in,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Well, that’s just peachy keen. I don’t know how long it will take to get him confirmed, but it’s just another step. Honestly – HOW much longer are we going to have to debate this horrible legislation?? Did Obama not promise to abolish DADT shortly after he took office? He has a Super Majority, for pete’s sake, and at the very least, he could employ a stay on DADT, but no (as of Oct.17, 459 service members fired under DADT).

But this is a bigger picture issue than DADT, or even DOMA, for that matter. It’s how an entire segment of the population is treated disparately that is the issue.

Along those lines, I think a number of people have started to realize that Democrats do a lot of talking, very little listening, and even less fulfilling of campaign promises made, GLBT people included. Perhaps we can learn that one has to look at more than the letter beside the name, and really look at the candidate. For instance, John McCain stood up for a friend who came out, extending his support to him. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned with, and consistently surrounded himself with, homophobes (McClurkin, Meeks, and Kmiec, to name just three). That is to say, maybe, and I include myself in this, we need to look beyond the letters beside the names, and really look at the people, their character, their words, and how they match up with their actions. Maybe then, these people who gave of their money, and their VOTE, wouldn’t be so disappointed, and frustrated, now. Just a thought.

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh – how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time – HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes – that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

In other words, Sarah Palin is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t. If she stays, and continues to deal with all of these ridiculous complaints, eating up time better spent dealing with issues facing Alaska and its citizens, she gets slammed for not doing the work of Alaskans, wasting taxpayers’ money, and on and on. If she doesn’t deal with it, then she is ethically challenged, has “abused her power,” is a poor representative of Alaska, and on and on. Her work environment has been made untenable by these ridiculous challenges, as each one has to be addressed. I can only imagine the mounting level of frustration for her. Oh, and many of those complaints have been dismissed already, further highlighting that they are being used solely to harass her.

And then’s there’s her family, and how they have been treated. Fellow NQ writer, LisaB, had an EXCELLENT article on this recently, “Andrew Sullivan’s Reckless Cruelty to “White Trash Concupiscence.” There is no need for me to re-state what LisaB already did so well, except to highlight this point regarding Palin’s daughter, Bristol, getting pregnant at 17: so did Obama’s mother. So EVERYTHING nasty you say about this young woman, you are saying about Stanley Ann Dunham.

Once again, while I do not agree with many of her policy positions, she has every right to HOLD those positions. This is a (more or less) free country, after all.

Okay, all of that being said, this is the portion of the article, Palin Links Resignation to ‘Higher Calling’, on which I want to focus. There is MUCH more in this article, so feel free to take a look. But THIS is what I wish Al Gore had done when he was being portrayed as a liar and as delusional by many Republicans (and Democrats who repeated the intentionally manipulated statements Gore did make on the internet, the Love Canal, and “Love Story”):

The abruptness of her announcement and the mystery surrounding her plans have fed widespread speculation. But Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

“To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as ‘fact’ that Governor Palin resigned because she is ‘under federal investigation’ for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation,” Van Flein said in a statement. “This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law.”

He also told the Anchorage Daily News that Palin wasn’t in any criminal legal jeopardy.

“I can say definitively I am aware of no criminal investigation whatsoever involving Sarah Palin. Zero,” he said.

The FBI reiterated that claim Saturday, telling the Los Angeles Times for a story Sunday that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not investigating Palin’s activities as governor, a former mayor or in any other capacity.

“There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we’re investigating her or getting ready to indict her,” Special Agent Eric Gonzalez, the bureau’s Alaska spokesman, said.

Oh, SNAP!!!! See, that’s how these people SHOULD be treated. Al Gore AND Hillary Clinton could have taken some pages from these people’s playbook, though it seemed when Clinton DID try to clarify the record, they just made fun of her for it (like the whole insurance flyer thing – remember that? Obama claimed her outrage was “tactical.” It couldn’t possibly be that she was well and truly pissed off because of how he was portraying her.). Same with Gore, come to think of it – it seemed whenever he tried to point out what he ACTUALLY said, they just made fun of him even more. I think both of these folks can understand the whole “damned if they do” mentality that surrounds Palin …

If journalists, whether for MSM outlets or blogs like this one, purposely print false statements about prominent people, they should be held to account. I hasten to add, if the statements were made in good faith, and were just wrong, the opportunity should be available to print retractions (though I think we all know what happens then – people never remember the retraction, just the initial accusation). But I say, GOOD ON PALIN’S ATTORNEY for making it crystal clear that no more of these false accusations that slander the governor will be tolerated. About damn time, too, I’d say. The character assassination on her (and too many others) went over the top long ago.

It is way past time for journalists to return to FACT CHECKING their statements before making them, to stop rumor mongering (or flat out making shit up), and REPORT events. We don’t want your OPINIONS of why Palin resigned, just the news THAT she resigned. Think you can do that? If not, meet Palin’s attorney. I’m sure you’ll get to know him well (and may be then YOU can experience what it is like to try and work while dealing with a lawsuit, only in YOUR case, it will be deserved). Bottom line, right on, Mr. Van Flein!

All the conjecture and today’s meeting reminded me of Truthteller’s excellent piece on March 22, “Chávez Calls Obama an ‘Ignoramus’,” which we’re reprinting for your amusement:

No Quarter is a loose but raucous chorus of discordant voices. Some of us are centrists, others are hawkish Democrats, some view themselves as reformers, a few are resolutely independent and others are unabashed Leftists. Consider me one of the latter. In this essay I will not criticize Chávez, and I will not repeat all the threadbare rhetorical bludgeons such as socialist, communist, totalitarian or dictatorial many use to dismiss Chávez and his democratically elected government. If that is what you are seeking, I recommend you take your dossier and go somewhere else.

But at least consider this before you rush for the exit: the candidate who claimed “negotiations without preconditions” would yield amicable and cooperative relations with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela has literally had his Ferragamo shoe shoved squarely in his programmed mouth by Hugo Chávez. I quote Reuters:

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

“He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Negotiations with Chávez and the Leftist Latin American coalition are now foreclosed as a result of Obama’s garrulity and glibness. How else would one expect a country to react if one claims its largest export is terrorism? Here is one effect:

Chavez said Obama’s comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.

Obama really is the Democratic incarnation of Bush: so much for change, and so much for meaningful negotiations. Not only are our relations with our neighbors Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador and Brazil strained; the Mexican government has raised tariffs on our exports, and we are the subject of much ridicule in the British press.

Venezuela, many of you may recall, is an ally of Iran, and Chávez will visit that and other countries in the Middle East in a few days for a summit of leaders from South American and Arab countries. Iran just rebuffed Obama’s recent attempt at negotiations with television and teleprompter, dismissing the staged spectacle as so many “slogans.” Democrats in the US may be duped by Obama’s empty rhetoric, media simulations and other mass ornaments, but true Leftists are always ones to lift the hood and investigate the true operations of the apparatus power utilizes against them. Unlike Andrew Sullivan, they are not mesmerized by brands and “faces;” they need a bit more than just images and surfaces. No wonder why Chávez calls Obama an “ignoramus.” I imagine he thinks that term also applies to all of Obama’s easily duped supporters.

What can one expect now that Obama has alienated Iran, Venezuela and all their allies in the Middle East and South and Central America? Oil prices will rise, trade agreements will become increasingly strained, tariffs on exports will probably increase, the price of imports will increase, and all the populist movements in countries wherein impoverished citizens are demanding something that resembles a suitable standard of living will be hostile instead of receptive to the United States’s particular version of democracy and global unity. With our economy spiraling into bankruptcy this can only engender more problems abroad, especially if our European allies feel we are exacerbating the distrust many countries have for what can broadly be defined as the West. Here is Russia admonishing the US in the wake of Obama’s failed attempt to engage Iran:

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was no proof that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and urged the West to respect and reach out to the Islamic republic.

While I opposed Obama during the primaries for his lack of an ideological compass and his lack of a bold domestic agenda that would expand social services and thereby provide more Americans with equal access to power and resources, I thought his foreign policy, however vaguely defined, however utterly naïve, however hopelessly optimistic, would enable the United States to marshall the energy generated by all the New Social Movements, populist upheavals and new articulations of ethnic identity occurring throughout the world and funnel it toward a global understanding wherein difference and empathy would be celebrated and cultivated. Instead, we have more of the strained relations that were aggravated under Bush. Chávez, who is the face of some Leftist and New Social Movements, views us as antagonists to be shunned, as colonizers to be ousted, as representatives of a late capitalist hegemony that for him and his followers is the latest iteration of enslavement to the West. Obama promised to change this perception with his “negotiations without preconditions,” but instead all he did was reinvigorate it.

That Obama and his staff are reproducing the errors of Bush does not surprise me. Hopefully Hillary will help Obama out of this latest problem he has created for us. After all, it takes a Clinton to clean the mess created by a Bush. And Obama, to be sure, is nothing more than the Democratic Party’s version of George W. Bush. Indeed, he is nothing more than an ignoramus.

March Madness turned into April Fools in the battle for the No Quarter Trophy. The Trophy is awarded annually to the person you decide is the Biggest Ass on The American Political Landscape. While exciting play and buzzer beaters are usually the norm this time of the year, the Elite Eight was blow-out city (which is also the name of one of Barney Frank’s favorite watering holes.) Not only were none of the national quarterfinal match-ups close, but the winners had these contests wrapped up moments after the opening tap. VOTE BELOW!.

It certainly seemed like the tournament selection committee knew their business as three number one seeds have made it to the semi-finals. The only non-number 1 to crash the party is the red hot Donna Brazile. The number four seed in the At Large Bracket humiliated the second seeded Oprah Winfrey 75-25. That was the closest of the Regional Finals.

Oprah’s size and weight advantage were just no match for the feisty Brazile who showed during the primary season that she knows how to play and win dirty. Donna now gets a crack at Keith Olbermann who had his way with Andrew Sullivan (and Andrew loved it) in the Media Bracket final. Olbermann was the leading vote getter in the entire round and racked up an 85-15 win. Keith was a huge favorite to make it into the championship game when this tournament started, but no one should be betting against Brazile at this point.

Over on the side of the brackets. Barack Obama easily disposed of the First Lady in the White House Regional Final. The Messiah was an 80-20 winner. It was a disappointing performance for Michelle, whose makeover as “Mom in Chief” seems to be softening the hard as nails image that propelled her through the election season to a number two seed. Barack showed his sharp elbows, when despite the fact he was winning this one going away, he bowed to a Saudi Prince just to run the score up and remind everyone why he was the overall top seed in the tournament. Barry has yet to be tested in this tournament, but may have his hands full with Nancy Pelosi. The number one seed in the Capitol Hill bracket destroyed number three seed Barney Frank 85-15. After the game, Frank immediately made himself eligible for federal bailout funds. Pelosi has faced the stiffest competition so far, already beating Christopher Dodd, Claire McCaskill and Barney. If anyone can take a piece out of the Community Organizer in Chief, it’s Madam Speaker.

So without, further ado. Lets get to the voting. Just pick the person you think is the Bigger Ass in each match.

NATIONAL SEMI FINAL NUMBER 1
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

NATIONAL SEMI FINAL NUMBER 2
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

The Polls are open until Tuesday Night at 8:00 PM EDT. Join us live on No Quarter Radio, Tuesday night at 9:00 PM for the Nocturnal Warrior Show. We will review the Final Four contests and handicap the National Championship game. Feel free to post your comments as to why you voted as you did below. Have fun!!!!!

Vote by midnight tonight! The Sweet 16 is in the books and we are down to just 8 contestants left vying for the No Quarter Trophy which is annually awarded to the person you decide is the Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape. March Madness is always full of surprises and this year is no different. The Number One Seed in the At Large Bracket, MSNBC Hard Ball host Chris Matthews turned out to a softball player. He was no match for the cajones of Donna Brazile. While she appeared to be fading as the tournament started, the DNC terror upped her game and sent Tweety packing 56-44. This sets up a dream matchup in the At Large Regional Final between Brazile and the Number Two Seed Oprah Winfrey. Oprah humiliated Bill “Judas” Richardson 66-34. This bracket final redefines At Large due to the girth of the contestants who can both claim to have the biggest asses in the field.

And what a battle in the Media Bracket. The claws came out and Andrew Sullivan held off a furious charge from Maureen Dowd. The final score 52-48 (just 14 votes). Sullivan now gets to go head-to-head with top seed Keith Olbermann.

For all the Elite Eight Matchups and your chance to vote. Read BELOW.

Just pick from the matchups below. You determine who you think is the Bigger Ass in each contest. It won’t be easy.

White House Regional Final. It doesn’t get any better than this!
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Capitol Hill Regional Final. This one re-defines tight man to man defense.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Media Bracket Regional Final. Who will be the one that comes out of the room at the end?
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

At Large Bracket Regional Final. This one is exactly what it says it is. AT LARGE! Big Asses battling to be the Biggest Ass.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Vote now. The polls close at midnight on Friday. On Saturday we will post the Final Four! And then join us on the Nocturnal Warrior show Tuesday night at 9:00 PM EDT when we do our National Championship Show and handicap the battle between our final two contestants. Feel free to post comments below as to how you arrived at your picks. Have fun with this.

The first round winners were determined by your votes and revealed last night on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio. You can listen to that here. We did a review of last night’s so-called press conference followed by the tournament results. The show includes the scores, a review of the next round matchups and all sorts of commentary that we just can’t fit here.

Remember, your votes determine the winners. We are asking you to look at each matchup and determine for yourself who is the bigger ass in each matchup (We are not asking who has the biggest ass, although that may have helped Oprah and Donna Brazile in round one). Without further ado here we go:

ROUND TWO

White House Bracket

6th Seed Rahm Emanuel vs. 3rd Seed Dick Cheney

Capitol Hill Bracket

Media Bracket

At-Large Bracket

There you have it. Just use the polls as set up at No Quarter to determine your votes. The Polls will be open until midnight Friday. This weekend, we will reveal the “Sweet Sixteen,” and open up the voting. The “Sweet Sixteen” winners will be announced on next Tuesday night’s Nocturnal Warrior Show where we will break down the Elite Eight.

Feel free to add your comments about the matchups below. The key is to have as much fun with this as possible!

It’s that time of year. If you are one of the lucky Americans still working in an office atmosphere, you probably have been inundated with bracket contests tied to the NCAA Tournament. I love the tournament and watch those games religiously, but here at No Quarter we deal with more serious fare and not everyone is a sports fan. So on Tuesday night’s edition of the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio, we created a tournament of our own. You can listen to the show here (I highly recommend it; it was one of our better efforts.)

We revealed a field of 64 participants vying for the No Quarter Trophy. Our National Champion will be the person you pick as the Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape.

We’ve broken the field in four brackets seeded 1 through 16 and have determined the matchups accordingly. All you have to do is tell us who you think is the winner of each matchup.

This will be a round by round affair. You can list your winners in the comment sections here or e-mail them to me at nocturnalwarriorshow@gmail.com. First-round winners will be announced on next Tuesday night’s Nocturnal Warrior Show. Feel free to submit all of your logic for making your picks.

So without further ado, here are the matchups.

White House Bracket
1st Seed Barack Obama vs. 16th Seed Bill Clinton
8th Seed Joe Biden vs. 9th Seed Robert Gibbs
5th Seed George W. Bush vs. 12th Seed Lawrence Summers
4th Seed Timothy Geithner vs. 13th Seed Susan Rice
6th Seed Rahm Emanuel vs. 11th Seed Jimmy Carter
3rd Seed Dick Cheney vs. 14th Seed Colin Powell
7th Seed David Axelrod vs. 10th Seed Eric Holder
2nd Seed Michelle Obama vs. 15th Seed Condoleeza Rice

Capitol Hill Bracket
1st Seed Nancy Pelosi vs. 16th Seed Christopher Dodd
8th Seed Charles Rangel vs. 9th Seed Mitch McConnel
5th Seed Chuck Schumer vs. 12th Seed Claire McCaskill
4th Seed John Boehner vs. 13th Seed Norm Coleman
6th Seed Edward Kennedy vs. 11th Seed Rolan Burris
3rd Seed Barney Frank vs. 14th Seed Eric Cantor
7th Seed Joe Lieberman vs. 10th Seed John Kerry
2nd Seed Harry Reid vs. 15th Seed Larry Craig

Media Bracket
1st Seed Keith Olbermann vs. 16th Seed Katie Couric
8th Seed William Kristol vs. 9th Seed Dick Morris
5th Seed Ann Coulter vs. 12th Laura Ingraham
4th Seed Rachael Maddow vs. 13th Seed Markos Moulitsos
6th Seed David Shuster vs. 11th Seed Ariana Huffington
3rd Seed Maureen Dowd vs. 14th Seed Rush Limbaugh
7th Seed Joe Klein vs. 10th Seed David Broder
2nd Seed Andrew Sullivan vs. 15th Jamal Simmons

At Large Bracket
1st Seed Chris Matthews vs. 16th Eliott Spitzer
8th Seed Rod Blagoevich vs. 9th Seed William Ayers
5th Seed Caroline Kennedy vs. 12th Seed John Edwards
4th Seed Donna Brazile vs. 13th Jeremiah Wright
6th Seed Bill Richardson vs. 11th Seed Michael Steele
3rd Seed Tom Daschle vs. 14th Seed Bobby Jindal
7th Seed Howard Dean vs. 10th Seed Alan Greenspan
2nd Seed Oprah Winfrey vs. 15th Seed Tim Kaine

There, you have it.. Just post up or e-mail us your first round picks and we will pare the field down. Have fun with this!!!

Oh well. Those speeches attacking lobbyists have their usefulness, as guru it’s-all-about-winning David Axelrod has no doubt taught him to adopt as part of his populist schtick. And we know, from our experiences trying to get the truth out on this Obama operation, that the typical Obot will never know, or comprehend, who’s really burning the midnight oil to get this legislation ready for the big Friday votes.

NEXT: As I said in my earlier story, the timing of Judd Gregg’s recusal of himself from consideration to be Secretary of Commerce — especially after his awkward vote of abstention in the first go-round — is fascinating. Besides not doing this in the typical late Friday afternoon fashion to avoid media attention, Gregg chose to remove himself the day BEFORE both the Senate and House vote on the final bill.

And now, with news that Sen. Teddy Kennedy cannot make it to the Senate to cast a vote, because he’s returned to Florida for cancer treatments — and the certainty that Judd Gregg will change his vote to Nay — Harry Reid is rushing around looking for votes from the GOP. C-Span junkies, I hope you’ll keep us apprised of the timing of these critical votes. Here’s the Thursday summary from C-Span:

Gregg’s recusal has given Harry plenty to worry about:

Reid is also concerned because the three GOP moderates who support the bill – Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – suggested they did not want provide the decisive 60th vote for passage. That would likely happen without Kennedy voting.

So far, there’s no indication Reid has won any more GOP votes for the measure. But an aide to one of the GOP moderates, who asked not to be identified, doubted any of the moderates would drop off.

“I can not imagine any of them would back away after all the painstaking negotiations,” the aide said. …

– “Reid Looking For GOP Votes,” CNN Political Ticker.

And now here’s the pathetic Andrew Sullivan sullying the pages of the once-esteemed The Atlantic magazine:

Here’s a common-sense question: Wouldn’t the Democrats also be fighting a President McCain and his stimulus bill with everything they’ve got?

A side note: Speaking of McCain, this man has historically been very much the bipartisan player, and the fact that McCain is vehemently opposed to this legislation is a “tell” that this is one bad, bad piece of legislation. That can be gleaned from McCain’s past record of possessing the “true grit” to side with a bill if he finds it worthy, regardless of what his GOP hardliner associates say. This tells me that McCain clearly thinks the bill is junk, and that it won’t help the economy.)

Writes the conservative, pro-Iraq-war, Obama dipsomaniac Sullivan:

This much is now clear. Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are. And the mountain of partisan vitriol Obama will have to climb every day of the next four or eight years.

Boo hoo, Andrew.

Those heartless bastards dare to question “The One.” Get used to it, pal.

Now, I imagine that for many that title conjures up the poem by Pastor Niemoller, “They Came First For the Communists…” And I imagine that is no accident by the author, Rod Dreher. The poem concludes, “Then They Came For Me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up.” Powerful piece, but a lesson not yet learned:

If you gave money to the successful Proposition 8* campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California, you’d better watch out. Anonymous gay-marriage activists have mashed up public data with Google mapping technology to create Eightmaps.com, an online map to your home. And it’s perfectly legal.

Alarmed Prop 8 backers recently filed a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state law forcing citizens who give $100 or more to campaigns to disclose their names and addresses. We had all better hope they prevail.

“I don’t get the fear,” gay-marriage campaigner Andrew Sullivan disingenuously wrote on his popular blog. “If Prop 8 supporters truly feel that barring equality for gay couples is vital for saving civilization, shouldn’t they be proud of their financial support?”

Andrew Sullivan. Please. He’s being made the voice of the GLBT community?

I certainly hope not, and not just because, as some of you may recall, he continues to nominate me for The Moore Award (not all bad, really – it is the Michael Moore award, and Moore has done some pretty good work in is day). Oh – I don’t know how it ended up – last I heard, I was beating out Gloria Steinem. But I digress. Andrew Sullivan is an HIV+ gay man who advertises for unprotected sex. That used to get you an attempted murder charge. Oh, and he’s an arrogant, pompous, condescending jerk. His quote above pretty much shows how disingenuous he is – he doesn’t get the fear? With gay bashing on the rise in the United States, he doesn’t get it? Right.

The article continues:

Oh, please. This is why people are frightened by Eightmaps:

•Margie Christofferson, a manager of a popular Hollywood restaurant, did not talk about her politics or her religion but quietly gave $100 to the Prop 8 campaign. Activists swarmed the restaurant, with a mob getting so out of hand that riot police had to be called.

•A man who wrote a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle supporting Prop 8 soon found that gay activists posted to the Web personal information about him and, as appalled Chronicle columnist John Diaz noted, urged “in ugly language, retribution against the author’s business and its identified clients.”

•In Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, someone sent mysterious white powder to Mormon temples, apparently to protest the Latter-day Saints Church’s role in passing Prop 8.

•In Fresno, police said the city’s mayor and a local pastor received death threats over their support for Prop 8. Vandals pelted the pastor’s church with eggs.

There’s more where this came from. Given what gay-rights fanatics have shown themselves capable of – did you see the YouTube footage of a furious gay mob chasing a group of Christians out of the Castro district? – who can blame traditional marriage supporters for being afraid?

This is the video referenced above:

The article continues, and oh, joy – another quote from Sullivan:

In online Eightmaps discussion, gays typically take the line that anyone who would vote to take away their marriage rights deserves what he gets (Sullivan: “Why should you be able to protect yourself from the consequences?”). Extremism in the defense of gay marriage, therefore, is no vice. Let this be a lesson about the tolerance those who do not support same-sex marriage will receive if it becomes legal.

Why should someone be able to protect themselves from the consequences of having their own opinion?? Oh, gee, I dunno – because the CONSTITUTION guarantees it?? We have Free Speech in this country, Andrew. The following clip from the wonderful movie, “The American President,” sums it up nicely:

So, that’s why. You don’t have to like what someone else has to say, but s/he has the right to say it without fear of threat or reprisal (unless what the person is saying is threatening). It is a Constitutional right. The article continues:

Eightmaps.commies are so caught up in their own revenge drama that they don’t understand how this technique can be used against homosexuals. It won’t be long before far-right radicals draw on publicly available data to create an online map to gay-rights supporters’ homes. How safe will gay folks in small towns feel if gay bashers are one click away from a map to their house?

For that matter, anyone who wants to give money to a candidate or cause will wonder if it’s worth taking the risk of being eightmapped by radicals. Would you give to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, La Raza or Planned Parenthood if you thought right-wing goons would eightmap you, as these left-wing goons have eightmapped social conservatives? Could you afford to put your family at risk?

And that’s the only conceivable point of Eightmaps: to intimidate ordinary people into political docility.

Eightmaps is a vicious cultural bellwether. It rips apart a common understanding that makes it possible for us to live together in a diverse democracy. Today, technology makes a great deal of personal information about each of us publicly available. We therefore depend more than ever on the restraining power of custom – such as the shared sense that people have the right to feel safe in their own home – to keep that information from misuse.

And that “political docility” seems to be the hallmark of this recent election cycle. I have never seen this level of thuggery, threat, and intimidation before, certainly not by Democrats. But now we have Black Panthers standing outside polling places, groups going into polling places disseminating political propaganda, groups wearing vulgar hate speech t-shirts, shouting down Congresswomen, destroying private property, and hunting people down for not supporting their candidate. Those of us who have the audacity to speak out against The One have had to guard our privacy jealously for fear of reprisal. Too many have been the recipients of damage done in one form or another, from character assassination to having to spend time and money to counter mischief made against us. All because we did not agree.

As the author says, it comes down to custom:

Recall this memorable exchange between William Roper and Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I’d cut down every law in England to do that.

More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? … I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.

Substitute the phrase “custom” for “law,” and you have captured the danger of what the Eightmaps people have done. They may believe Prop 8 backers are devils, but they ought to give the devils the benefit of custom for their own safety’s sake – especially given the vulnerability homosexuals have always had to gay-bashers.

When some techno-savvy barbarians turn this technique against them, remember Sullivan’s snide brush-off to Eightmaps’ potential victims: “Cry me a river.”

He’ll regret that one day. We all will.

Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is rdreher@dallasnews.com.

“Cry me a river.” Yes, typical compassionate Sullivan. What shocks and appalls me is that a community that has long been on the receiving end of this kind of treatment is now engaging in this kind of treatment. Given that gay bashing is already on the rise, what in the world would stop someone from using Eightmaps to target people who give to the Human Rights Campaign? PFLAG? GLAAD? Any number of gay-positive organizations? Or Women’s organizations?

And, why is it that these GLBT thugs seem to have isolated a select group of people for their ire? Why not the African American community, or the Hispanic community, both of which voted in large numbers for Obama, and FOR Proposition 8? Why don’t they hold Obama accountable for placing someone like Doug Kmiec, a Pro-Prop 8 supporter, head of his Faith Outreach Team? Oh, I am sure most of those people still bow and scrape before Obama, denying to their core his own stance against gay marriage, his numerous insiders against gay marriage (Rick Warren, Tim Kaine), but they’ll target a restaurant owner who gave $100 bucks? Seems to me they have their priorities a bit skewed.

And their morals. While it may not be illegal to post online directions to people’s homes, it is immoral and unethical when the intent is to harass them, and that is clearly the intent of these thugs. How is it that they think this is going to help our cause? Do they honestly think that terrorizing these people is going to make them MORE willing to support LGBT marriage? Really? And do they not see how very much alike they are to gay bashers with these actions? They are targeting people with intent to intimidate (at the least), and possibly do harm just because they disagree with their stand, and they don’t see the irony?

Well, I do. And I am disturbed by it. No one wants gay marriage more than I do, but not by threats of violence and intimidation. This is wrong on so many levels, and I am sickened by their behavior. They do not represent our community well with their actions. They are acting rashly, and without a care to the long term consequences of their actions. They may get some short-term thrill or victory from it (in their minds), but they are causing long term harm to the community, and to our cause.

And they need to stop. Now. Just because other thugs on the Obama bandwagon got away with this kind of action does not make it right or acceptable. Violence begets violence, and if we start targeting people, they will just target us right back (more). Bottom line, it will do nothing but set back our cause, and will damage the entire community in the making. It is the wrong way for civilized people to conduct themselves, and it is the wrong way to get what we want – equality.

* Just out of curiosity, why does NO ONE ever mention Amendment 2 in Florida, which also passed this past election? It is always Prop 8 that gets the attention, even though Amendment 2 was pretty much the same. Doesn’t make sense to me…

AND HERE IS a simple list you can copy to send to friends:

1) http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
– Vote for No Quarter for “Best Political Coverage”

2) http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-new-blog/
– Vote for Uppity Woman for “Best New Blog”

3) http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-blog/
– Vote for Hot Air for “Best Blog”

4) http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-very-large-blog/
– Vote for The Washington Note for “Best Very Large Blog”

Susan’s Intro: As you know, we are in an increasingly uphill fight against the Wonkette, HuffyPoop, Kossack, and extreme leftist gestapo forces that are out to make sure that NoQuarter does not win an award for “Best Political Commentary,” which as we demonstrate here every day, we deserve more than the nice but “vanilla” site, 538, that solely posts polls and does a bit of analysis. Of polls. Only. Whereas NoQuarter analyzes every crisis around the globe, as well as international, national, and state U.S. politics, and the burning issues of our days. But the leftists hand-picked 538 to win solely because it is such a “vanilla” site.

Please vote daily for No Quarter. Please also vote daily for our NoQuarter contributor Uppity Woman’s blog for “Best New Blog.”

NOW, we have another problem that the leftist gestapo is onto: They’re trying to make Andrew Sullivans’ blog the “Best Blog.” About which our friend Curt, at Flopping Aces blog, writes:

Some of you may or may not know that the Weblog Awards are going on right now and I wanted to write a short note and beg, plead, conjole, the readers of Flopping Aces to vote for Hot Air for best blog. You may not believe they are the best blog around but it’s a two horse race between HA and Andrew Sullivan, and that nutcase should not win the thing.

Maybe next year we will get nominated for something. Best blog thong maybe?

At the least, Curt! At the least! And we hope you remind us next year to nominate your blog!

So, now we have FOUR DAILY VOTING JOBS:

1) vote daily for No Quarter for “Best Political Commentary”;

2) vote daily for our NoQuarter compadre — Uppity Woman — for “Best New Blog.”

3) vote for Hot Air for “Best Blog.” (Here’s Hot Air’s URL.

4) NEW! vote for Steve Clemons’ The Washington Note for “Best Very Large Blog.” Steve exceptional blog is The Washington Note.

Back to choice #3: Yes, Ed Morrissey’s blog is conservative, but he does a brilliant job of keeping us up on the latest news, with insightful commentary.

And Ed Morrissey would NEVER be caught dead posting the hot rumor that Sarah Palin pretended to give birth to her daughter’s baby, which Andrew Sullivan gleefully promulgated as near-fact for several days — and then found every excuse in the book to try to back out of. It was disgusting, abhorrent behavior that deserves punishment.

And let’s none of us forget how Andrew Sullivan went after our Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy. Here’s what Reverend Amy wrote in response to Sullivan’s attack on her, from her July article, ““Secrets and Lies” (Jonatha Brooke)”

Andrew Sullivan, of The Atlantic, nominated me for The Moore Award. As in Michael Moore. Sullivan’s definition of the award is, “is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric.”

And what PROMPTED this award? My post the other day, “Why Do They Hate Us?” You know, the one about the misogynistic treatment of women? The one about ow Hillary Clinton has been treated in this primary, especially, but the misogynistic/sexist/brutal treatment of women in general in this country, and many around the globe?

Specifically, he targeted this quote,

“Moore Award Nominee, June 30, 2008: “See, I have done a lot of work in the Domestic Violence movement. And I have seen this cycle before: the man abuses, attacks, and lashes out at the woman. The woman makes excuses for, and accepts blame from, the man for his attacks. Not unlike Senator Clinton saying now that they are friends, respect each other, and support each other. I know what respect looks and feels like – Senator Obama has shown NONE for Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has, but Obama? No. Seeing these photos of her with him now reminds me of battered women wearing sunglasses to hide the bruises, and saying, “Oh, he didn’t really mean it. It was my fault, really, I shouldn’t have made him mad. He really does love me, in his own way, really! Don’t be mad at him!”" – Revd Amy on Larry Johnson’s site.

Divisive? Bitter? Left-wing rhetoric? Um, no – realistic observation based on years of experience. But his award simply stands to prove the point I was making in the post, and Victoria Brownworth was making in Curve Magazine.

So, thanks for proving the point, Andrew – women and our experiences, women and sexism, women and the constant threats we face, women and domestic violence, are discounted and disregarded by many in this country, and many in the media. Just what we have been saying all along – the media, particularly men, have openly denigrated women during this campaign, Hillary Clinton specifically. And gotten away with it. Hmm, come to think of it, I AM bitter – bitter that they have gotten away with it, and angry that they continue to show no understanding or REMORSE.

Thanks for proving the point, Andrew! I might add, the ones who have been divisive around here have been Obama and his minions, not those of us who stand up to him and his “secrets and lies.”

There is a big difference – it is called having a principled stand. Operating from integrity. Having a moral compass. Pick one. And maybe get one. That’s how all of these “Secrets and Lies” will be exposed…

NOW are you ready to vote for Hot Air so that Andrew Sullivan won’t win “Best Blog”?

Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month.

Warren, one of the most influential religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as a reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses and the AIDS epidemic.

But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances — including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party’s most liberal wing.

At odds? How could the Democratic liberal wing have expected otherwise? Throughout the primary, P.E. Obama made all sorts of promises to try to get the edge over Hillary Clinton, then went about reneging on every one of them. Remember FISA? Once he secured the nod, he arrogantly said “I understand if it’s a deal-breaker, but where else you gonna go?”

That’s right. You are now a notch on his bedpost. He got what he wanted from you and since he knew most of you would NEVER vote Republican, he blithely went about pandering to the next group he required to get him where he wanted to go. As far as he was concerned, since Hillary was gone, you had no other choice but to vote for him.

And this comment really said it all:

“[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now,” Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.

Now Andrew Sullivan wants to complain???????????

I have finally found one thing I have in common with Obama’s supporters. My head is going to explode along with all of theirs. How could any of them have voted for this man? Or had half an eye open this entire year and pretended for a moment that Barack Obama was anything but allergic to GLBT rights? Or to women’s rights, for that matter – but we’ll get to that later.

As to Mr. Sullivan, you coulda had Hillary, my dear. You know, the one you trashed with every fiber of your being despite the fact that she is the one who actually stood up loud and proud for you and your man to have equal rights. Did you ever see Barack marching in the Gay Pride parade? You should check with Hillary as to Barack’s whereabouts, ’cause she’s always there.

Instead you chose to worship at the foot of Obama. Yes, Andrew, P.E. Obama is the one who campaigned down south repeatedly with the likes of Donnie “ex-gay man reformed through prayer” McClurkin, ‘cause Barack needed to court all those evangelicals and homophobes.

Dear Andrew, let me explain how politics works. You know what every nominee wants? To get elected. You know what every first term President wants? A second term. And as Rick Warren himself just said:

“For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion — not just Christianity — has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. “There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population.”

Ya’ get it now, Andrew? You are too small a percentage for Barack to sweat it.

Obama don’t care about you and yours because there are a helluva lot more evangelicals, religious conservatives and homophobes in this country than there are of you and your Gay brethren and sisteren. Got it? He figures he’s got you lined up anyway. He’s gonna go after the harder nut to crack that will give him a bigger reward at the polls for next time.

How does it feel to be under the bus? With the rest of us? Like I said before, plenty of room under here. We serve bitter burgers with arugula every day at 4 pm. Bring your own chips and pickles. And you might try eating a little crow while you are at it.

You could ask us women Hillary supporters how it feels under the bus. We were told very loudly this year that we did not matter, either.

To Andrew, and every other member of the GLBT community who fell for Obama and deserted Hillary – when she was the candidate who always stood up for you – how does it feel to keep chasing a club that doesn’t want you as a member?

That is exactly what Andrew Sullivan did in 2000. He enthusiastically jumped on the Bush bandwagon, even though Bush and the neo-cons would just as well have rather rounded up all the Gay folk in a football stadium and pretend they didn’t exist. Andrew was all for the Iraq war. Then in 2004, he changed his mind, did a big mea culpa and rejected Bush and his cronies.

Now if a man has the advantage of hindsight and the empirical evidence to know that his own judgment is suspect, wouldn’t you think that he wouldn’t rush off half-cocked and make the same mistake yet again? Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan is not blessed with the gift of self-awareness.

Mr. Mooney’s article goes on to report:

People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is “deeply disappointed” with the choice of Warren and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who has “consistent mainstream American values.”

“There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson,” Kolbert said. “The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical.”

Dobson, a social conservative leader, is founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.”

“The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues,” Douglass said. “But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”

I see, Linda. Common ground? Nice sound bite. Well I invite you all to go back and read Barack Obama’s interview with The Advocate if you want to see more of his “nuanced positions” and his “search for common ground” re abortion or GLBT rights. I defy you to discern where he stands on either. He also delivered a “nuanced position” on Prop 8 in California telling people to vote no, while simultaneously saying marriage is only between a man and a woman. No mixed message there.

Warren’s support of California’s Proposition 8, a measure that outlaws same sex marriage in the state, sparked the ire of many gay rights proponents earlier this fall.

Warren, … wrote in October that the issue of gay marriage is not a political issue, but instead “a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.”

Warren also stirred controversy earlier this week when he told Beliefnet.com his grounds for opposing same-sex marriage laid primarily on his right of free speech.

“There were all kinds of threats that if [Proposition 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech.”

You’re kidding me, right? I see, Rev. Warren. But not allowing the GLBT community to have equal rights – what do you call that?

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights campaign, said Wednesday he feels a “deep level of disrespect” over the choice of Warren and is calling on Obama to reconsider the move.

“By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table,” Solmonese said in an open letter to Obama that was released by his organization

Does anyone think Hillary would have chosen Rick Warren to deliver her inaugural invocation?

I think P.E. Obama has made his views quite clear. Actions speak louder than “words, just words.”

Furthermore in that interview with The Advocate where he discusses trying to see all sides, i.e., never answering where he truly stands on GLBT rights, Obama then insults women by saying

“…Many Democrats don’t understand that abortion is a wrenching moral issue.”

Oh? Do we not, Barack?

Which brings me to my next complaint. Ladies, for any of you who were seduced into voting for this affable young shape-shifter, you are a notch on his bedpost, too.

It was Hillary, not him, always fighting for the rights of women, and their rights of choice, their rights to have all available contraception and health care. She put groups like NARAL and NOW on the map only have them abandon her for Obama’s seductive smile – though he has never done anything for women’s or GLBT rights that I could see. Hillary also said she believed that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare. And to add further insult to injury:

In his recent interview with Beliefnet, Warren also sparked outrage among supporters of abortion rights for criticizing those who have said abortion would be “safe and rare.”

“Don’t tell me it should be rare,” he said in the interview. “That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that — I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

Warren is comparing a woman’s right to choose to the Holocaust? That is outrageous. Further, it is a horrible and highly irresponsible thing to say. A man who makes this kind of statement is invited to make the invocation at Obama’s inauguration? How can women stand for this?

How can the Democratic Party stand for this? We are supposed to be the progressive party that stands for women’s equality and the right of women to have dominion over their own bodies. To have true equality, we cannot have our private health choices legislated to us by religious leaders or a bunch of rich, old, white men in Congress. We are also supposed to be the party that stands for equal rights for the GLBT community. What happened there? What kind of doublespeak is this? Mooney’s article concludes with the following disturbing piece of information:

[Warren’s] book “The Purpose Driven Life” has sold more than 20 million copies since it was first published five years ago, and Time magazine named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in 2005.

“Many believe that Warren … is the successor to the [Rev. Billy Graham] for the role of America’s minister,” Time wrote in 2005.

If that is so, heaven help us. President-Elect Obama sends a very disturbing message with this choice and makes quite clear where his priorities lie. Surely, they do not rest with progressive men, women or the GLBT community. His latest action only bears out what we have been saying all along: he is not who he pretends to be.