…is a disgusting pig of a man who brings great disgrace upon his profession by repeatedly referring to members of the Tea Party protest movement as “tea-baggers”.

On his show, while on the air.

I totally get that Mr. Matthews is a radical, leftist with an extremely biased “news commentary” show on MSNBC.

I totally get that MSNBC has a very hard left slant, where it fields Matthews’ objectionable brand of “journalism” along with other such hyper-liberal “journalists” as Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

But Mr. Matthews: if you would sway those Americans in the “mushy middle”, you know, the 40% of Americans who are either Independents or otherwise unaffiliated with either party whose votes win presidencies and congressional seats…

…never mind even that, let’s just consider if you have the professionalism and the self-respect not to reduce your discourse of a group whose political opinions are not matched with your own by referring to a legitimate protest movement with a term that refers to as “tea-baggers”, a reference to a sexually deviant practice.

I shall re-iterate: you, sir… are a disgusting pig of a man who is undeserving of any respect or an audience for your outrageous and vile brand of speech.

…if Obama is a US presidential candidate, why is he campaigning in Jordan and Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan I could understand for the sake of the troops, but why should he be trying to curry favour with Iraqi politicians or other Middle Eastern governments?

Or is he already so sure of his victory landslide that he doesn’t even care to campaign amongst us bitterclingy gun-toting Bible thumpers anymore?

And finally, how will the MSM convince us that it is fair and unbalanced, now that it is so far in the tank for Obama’s campaign?

Methinkls that if Chris Matthews’ leg tingling gets any worse, they’ll have to amputate.

Not that Google ever made a particular claim to being unbiased (say, like Fox News being “fair and balanced”) but I went to set up my iGoogle page with a new tab for “Politics”.

So guess what the default RSS feeds/gadgets all linked to?

If you guessed “far-left web sites and blogs”, then you guessed right.

The default links included:

- Daily Kos
- Democracy Now!
- MSNBC
- Washington Post
- CNN

And when I went to adjust my iGoogle page to see if I could tweak it a bit more in line with what most people in this country tend to be (very slightly right of centre), Google “recommended” adding the following:

- FireDogLake
- CrooksAndLiars
- HuffPo
- Talking Points Memo

What gives, Google? Are you folks so far to the moonbat left that you “think” everyone on the internet is a stark raving liberal?

Why the bias in the default page?

I’m surprised that I was actually able to add some sites/blogs from the right to even the balance a bit. Most of them are standard neocon or New Right fare (RedState, LGF, TownHall, and the like).

The only thing I could find that was remotely paleo-conservative was an RSS feed from the Von Mises Institute, and a handful of feeds concerning Ron Paul’s now-concluded GOP primary bid.

I wouldn’t have objected to finding a feed or two from the John Birch Society or the New American, but given Google’s demographic targets, pigs may sooner fly.

h/t to Obambi.com for the original article

I’ve always thought that MSNBC was tilted pretty far to the left (I have to wonder how much MSNBC stock is owned by George Soros’s holding companies)… but this item where Bill O’Reilly gets pretty heated at the way Obama practically got a free pass from Tim Russert vs. the roasting he gave to Hillary is rather telling of how far to the left the MSNBC noise machine really is.

The argument is over whether or not Tim Russert of MSNBC will give Scott McClellan, the latest Bush turncoat to make liberals swoon for all the “truth he is speaking to power” via his recent book which supposedly exposes the Bush administration’s lies.

The way I see it is, McClellan is going to be out of a job in a few months regardless of how the election goes, so why not make a few hundred thousand dollars off of a controversial book?

So, it looks like the MSM will be happy, as we edge nearer to an Obama-McCain contest:

Both frontrunners have waylaid the Potomac River / Chesapeake Bay corridor states with Hillary and Huckabee being dealt crushing defeats.

I have to wonder how much of it can be attributed to our overzealous media combined with general sheep-like behaviour amongst the party faithful (of the GOP for McCain) or of genuine “Anybody but the Clintons” amongst the Democrats.

I mean, let us took a look at this (commented) screencap from CNN’s “election center” web site:

C’mon CNN… give us a small break, will ye? Calling an election at THREE percent of the polling districts in? It makes me wonder if y’all are really trying to orchestrate people’s minds to vote for McCain (who may prove not to be the paper tiger who is so easily swatted down - time will tell).

Of course, this is CNN - where they have the best election coverage in the nation. You know, the news network with stars like Anderson Cooper who refers to the Confederate Naval Ensign (one of the more common forms of the Confederate Flag seen) as the “Stars and Bars” (about 0:22 on the playhead)

Fox News fares not a stitch better with its continued fawning over the Republican “Kwisatz Haderach” John McCain… who lacks those nifty giant 300′ long worms to ride around into the Capitol to raise a ruction. in fact, I really see nothing that McCain offers aside from his putative interest in keeping the troops fielded and funded.

And then there is Obama - Another factor is Obama’s oratory, which according to Tom Sullivan could be compared to not entirely dissimilar style of oration used by a certain evil Austrian ex-corporal some 70 years ago.

For the record, it probably is politically incorrect (and certain violates Godwin’s Law) to compare Mr. Obama to the likes of a disgraced Austrian ex-corporal. I mean, it’s not like there are roving packs of jackbooted thugs beating up Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who don’t quite see Mr. Obama as the Second Coming.

I figure sticking to his connections to Islam will be sufficient fodder for the ad-hominem slander machinery (formerly known as the Rove-a-Matic) which will see loads of action as we gear up for the post-primary season.

Politico “reporter” Roger Simon (not to be confused with Pajamas Media blogger Roger L. Simon) seems to be a bit miffed that a Fred Thompson campaign staffer would not let Mr. Simon speak with Fred. While Dan Riehl and some others have done a good job of exposing this hack for his biased and bitter writing against Fred Thompson, it should be noted that Mr. Simon has a history of attempting to bludgeon Fred’s campaign.

After Fred’s first debate, Mr. Simon had credited Thompson’s win as a factor of him “not vomiting” or “drooling” on stage.

Come now, Mr. Simon. Did you really expect us to think that you did not have a bias against this man from the start?

And now the quote chopping - granted, the “silly hat” rule might not be taken as something which everyone knows or remembers - an allusion to Mike Dukakis’s infamous tank photo from the 1988 election, or more recently, the John Kerry in a bunny suit from the 2004 election.

But the “sour face”?

Mrs. Jeri Thompson “taking the hat from Fred” and saving the day by wearing it herself?

Or the now infamous quote itself:

“I’ve got a silly hat rule,” Thompson said.

…which you scripted to make it sound as if Fred was so callous as to brusquely refuse, and thereby insult the firechief?

Mark Twain, I believe, was once credited with warning the casual offender against fighting someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton.

But we should think to add the person who also buys electricity by the megawatt and camera gear by the hundredweight, as well:

Well gosh, Mr. Simon… whaddya got to say to that? It looks like Fred and Jeri Thompson were quite happy to spend time with those fine folks at the firehouse, and maybe I need to get my eyes checked, but kick me in the shins if most everybody there was smiling and laughing with the good humour of the moment.

Or could it be that you were just being a grumpy, fussy little crybaby that was sore because Fred’s staffers knew that you’d probably be up to no good anyway?

Short but sweet on this one:

Please try and tell me that Mr. Hardball isn’t a shill for Hillary at this point.

And I realize that trying to mesh GOP and Dem candidates together on the same metric is a rough patch by any stretch… but try to give us a small break. For one, No. 9 - Bill Richardson - shouldn’t have even passed muster. Richardson is a radical who might make the KosKidz happy, but is by virtue of his almost vitriolic stand for a rapid retreat from the Middle East - and why is Biden in the bottom slot…? I don’t care much for his politics either, but he hasn’t been a total slouch in fund raising either.

Surely that slot could have been used for candidates with more traction, such as Democrat Dennis Kucinich or Libertarian-turned-Republican Ron Paul. Between the UFOs and the “Truther” conspiracy theorism… there’s more than enough fringe entertainment to go around.

But I think that this metric is a bit too broad - my eyes get screwed funny looking at this and trying to rationalize how *Edwards* is higher-ranked than Mitt Romney (who, while I dislike him as a candidate, is comparatively competing at a level a bit higher than Edwards, IMHO).

A better division would be to have the top five Dems and Republicans on one side and the other.

Maybe, something like this: (mind you, this won’t be as ‘purdy’ as the Hardball graphic above)

Intended as a jab against Google for its ongoing censorship of things to the left of the George Soros party line…

Enjoy!

http://www.goolag.com/search.tla?Google+Censorship

So there is much criticism in the MSM over Fred! these days. Every time one hears about Fred in the news, it is a scathing litany of commentary about how “unprepared” and “lazy” he is.

I have to wonder now… this raft of doom and gloom focusing on his apparent gaffes and “lackadaisical” mannerisms — much it polished to a glaring sheen by pundits controlled by the ultra-leftist, defeatist mainstream media (MSM) - wouldn’t it have already managed to have sunk Fred’s fledgling campaign back down to the ranks of a Brownback or a Huckabee?

Don’t get me wrong here - Mike Huckabee is nearly 99% on board with what I’d like to see in a Presidential candidate; but he has about a snowball’s chance in an a Death Valley’s July of making the nomination. And with a ponderous name like “Huckabee”, it simply lacks the thunderous weight of a “Thompson” or the monosyllabic down to earth simplicity of a “Fred!”. With Fred’s second/nearly tied place with cross-dressing dysfunctional family man Rudy Guliani, and Fred’s 85% convergence with my wishes for the next man to sit in the Oval Office, Fred! is the horse I’ll back.

Given all the MSM’s propagandizing against the Fred!… one would think that Fred would have fallen behind, left in the dust kicked up by all the other Republic contenders and (probable) no-names. Funny thing that, with the Rasmussen polls showing Fred tying with Rudy G., or even ahead of him by a percentage point (statistically insignificant, I know).

Other polls, such as the one on Real Clear Politics show him six or seven percentage points behind Rudy G. — again, not a great big difference. Rudy G. (or Fred) are neck and neck, and currently, there is no clear front-runner as Hitlary Hillary Clinton leads the pack of Dhimmicrats Democratic contenders.

Now as far as I am concerned, Fred is the best bet. Granted, he lacks as far as identifying with the “evangelicals” (which in my opinion, may actually be a good thing)… but I wouldn’t seeing him make some statement affirming some support of socially conservative positions. At least, as a matter of his personal opinion, even if he goes on to qualify that in light of his strict constructionist ideas of leaving certain decisions (such as abortion issues, observance of religious practices or ideas in public schools, and gay marriage) to be decided by the many states’ legislatures.

Although my personal views on those two issues are quite conservative - I can accept his ideas to leave such decisions to the states; I can agree that the Federal courts (including but not limited to the SCOTUS and the various district courts) should not have to adjudicate on issues not within the scope of the Federal Government.

By this measure, a mostly red state with a high concentration of Christians or “evangelicals” could more conveniently pass legislation barring gay marriage or legislation that requires parental consent for female minors seeking abortions, or limits upon when an abortion can be performed (such as first trimester only, or only by special exceptions such as rape and incest).

Accordingly, a coastal blue state with a surfeit of atheists and liberals would likely legislate gay marriages and strict gun ownership controls without less worry about a “reactionary judge” ruining their day.

But I really would like to see Fred study up on the relevant issues he will likely have to give an answer to in each of the states he tours through. Saying things like “Well, I really haven’t followed the Schiavo case enough to give a knowledgeable answer” (or words to that effect) during his time in Florida really did not score points, even when not using the leftist MSM yardstick.

I mean, if you are going to play both ends against the middle with touchy issues, Fred should have his speech writers come up with something that can give a much more graceful non-answer than that. And on some issues, you shouldn’t be afraid to veer to the right if the neutral answer is going to earn you scorn on both sides.

Let’s hope and pray that Fred (and even more so, his speech writers) can pick up the slack, lest Rudy G. (ugh!) pick up a lead from which he can’t hope to surpass.