Of course, who are we to critique Hartmann's grasp of genetics, medicine and child development (he's written on the subject before, check your local New Age bookstore)? It seems perfectly reasonable to believe Ritalin is part of some Big Pharma plot to create a rabid army of future conservatives:
THOM HARTMANN (Wednesday 29 Dec 2010 - hour one - 20:11): This dopamine receptor gene - the DR4 gene - they've identified as being the liberal gene. That's the gene that in my book The Edison Gene, I identified as being the Thomas Edison gene. And that neuroscientists who work on Attention Deficit Disorder identify as the ADD gene. Cause it affects levels of dopamine in the brain.
Low dopamine in the brain, you have creativity and you have ADD, and according to this most recent study you have liberalism, and they try to medicate that out of kids by goosing up their dopamine levels with a drug called Ritalin. Are we turning our children into conservatives by medicating them?
Hey Thom, got any more of these clever zingers? It's the perfect cure for our boredom.
Libtalker: No Threat Of Future Islamist 9-11 Attacks
'Progressive' Talker: Only Future Threat Comes From Right
Did you hear the news? When it comes to future Islamic terrorism in the US, the coast is officially clear! In fact, it's amazing those bumbling hijackers ever pulled off 9-11 in the first place.
Feeling better? Then be sure to thank "progressive" syndicated libtalker / author Thom Hartmann, who has taken the additional step of directing our attention to the far right, from where the next major attack will surely originate.
From Tuesday's program, enjoy Hartmann's reassuring words here:
THOM HARTMANN (31:32): Since there's been such universal condemnation of 9/11 in the Muslim world, that you can pretty much plan on not seeing that again, or if we do, again, it'll be like the Tim McVeigh thing, it'll be the lone crazies or a small group of crazies, and, really, what can you do about that? Not much.
Yes, that "universal condemnation" certainly put al-Qaeda out of business, didn't it?
Thanks, Thom, we'll sleep easier knowing external threats to America's safety have permanently been vanquished.
Food Fight Has Mike Huckabee Siding With Michelle Obama
HUCK YEAH Huckabee Sides With Obama Over Palin
Though he had no comment on the calorie-count of a fried-squirrel platter, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is readily taking sides in a nasty political food war.
Earlier today, Huckabee told New York radio host Curtis Sliwa that he's on board with Michelle Obama's national dietary scolding effort and against Sarah Palin's light-hearted criticism of the first lady's campaign.
Did Huck just fall off of a turnip truck? He really appears to believe the Obamas are content to campaign for social change in eating habits rather than a gradual move toward laws that prohibit foods they find objectionable.
Ever been to California, Mike? Just try to propose a steak house in a lefty-controlled city and watch the resulting firestorm.
Could someone this naive really be considered a major presidential contender?
Taking it a step further, libtalker Mike Malloy didn't wait for the facts before using the incident to smear Glenn Beck (who has NO connection whatsoever to this incident):
MIKE MALLOY (09:55): Another Beck listener went berzerk today, this time in Panama City, Florida - gunman shot himself to death at a Florida school board meeting...
MALLOY (10:41): So, another Glenn Beck killer on the loose today, this time in Panama City... how does it feel, Glenn, huh to know your rat bastards are out there doing exactly what you are telling them to do, eh? Those dirty school board members right with their atheistic science and history and all this other stuff that Beck and these vermin don't like! Just remember, when the lights go out, I get him!
No longer interested in facts, our "progressive" friends leave out incriminating details or simply make things up. What's next from this crowd?
Libtalker, Caller Thrilled With Anti-Royal Violence
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS
Lefty Host, Caller Giddy Over Riots
Once again, this site is compelled to consider whether a messenger's obscurity provides a valid reason to ignore violent rhetoric. As liberal talk hosts struggle to gain a following, it's a question that has come up repeatedly.
JEFF SANTOS (HOST): I know, I heard that, that was great! Big ears.
CALLER: It reminds me of France a couple hundred years ago.
SANTOS: That's right. Let 'em eat cake, right?
That last reference, of course, is to the beheading of Marie-Antoinette in 1793. Does this mean rioting thugs in London should be encouraged to carry out violence against anyone in their way, royal or otherwise?
More importantly, just how long is the left-wing hit list these days, anyway? Prince Charles is about as politically correct as they come, but somehow still deserves to be executed?
As to the obscurity issue, consider this: the exchange in question took place during a nationally-syndicated radio program (the host was filling in for Ed Schultz), also airing on satellite radio. Schultz often features him on his MSNBC program.
Over the years, the left's "watchdogs" have never failed to condemn the entire conservative movement over similar rhetoric coming from fringe characters relegated to the shortwave band, so this exchange is certainly worth documenting.
But leave it to the actress / alleged comedian to show us just how it's done. During yesterday's satellite-based Rosie Radio program, the libtalker claimed it was John Edwards who has suffered the most during Elizabeth's now-concluded cancer fight.
Talk about partisanship: when most of his longtime Democratic Party allies have run for the hills, Rosie's stubbornly looking out for a fellow "progressive".
Listen as O'Donnell sets a new standard for broadcast idiocy:
ROSIE O'DONNELL (28:07) (re John Edwards):
He's in his time of grief, and believe me, I think the person who probably has suffered the most through all of this is him, and there are people who would disagree with me and say, 'No, it was her, she was the one who was publicly humiliated,' and blah blah blah blah blah.
I just think he has to live with himself every day. Not only survivor's guilt, but you know? He, I'm sure, has guilt, right? Look, you know, she was in remission, this happened, she got sick again. I don't know, I'm sure that it's very hard for him to live with himself and to have to deal with the public condemnation...
Rosie, with all we know about John Edwards, do you REALLY believe he's dealing with "survivor's guilt"? There's a difference between giving a political ally the benefit of the doubt and providing cover for someone who clearly doesn't deserve it.
Much has been made of "progressive" anger toward Obama's cave-in on the Bush Tax Cuts, but one or two brave (?) souls have instead chosen remain stubbornly loyal to their Dear Leader.
So how exactly does such a defense sound? From yesterday's Stephanie Miller Show, take a listen:
STEPHANIE MILLER (3:43): I don’t know that we have ever dealt with this level, this kind of Republican and you know me I’m a happy clappy Liberal and I hate to say I hate, but I hate these Republicans. I really do, in Congress right now. Here’s the only thing I will say and I am not happy with this entire situation, but I will just say this was horrible on every level morally and otherwise.
They (Republicans) held poor people hostage to get tax cuts for the rich. The only thing I will say is how would you like to be the President, knowing as he said all of these people and by the way, the Republicans as we know not playing chicken with these unemployment benefits. Not playing chicken, they don’t care. They don’t give a bleep about anybody, but themselves, but their top two percent rich people.
MILLER (9:09): This is the problem I feel like the President has been saddled with not just an unprecedentedly obstructionist side, he doesn’t have the freaking Democratic votes Conserva-Dems. I’m just wondering what would you do. Cause all the people I heard bitching yesterday, what would you have done? And how would, you would have traded the unemployment benefits I guess and said okay let them all expire.
LAVOIE: That’s easy for us who have jobs to say.
MILLER: Yeah, well maybe for not much longer.
CHRIS LAVOIE: Ha ha ha ha. But you know, my concern is, would a more skilled politician have let himself get into this situation?
MILLER: Maybe? You know Alan Grayson our progressive hero was on TV last night. He made an interesting point. You know the interesting thing he said this is actually the first time the Republicans have ever come to the table on anything.
So Obama was simply too weak to defend himself against Republican thuggery? What does that say about the supposed omnipotence of their Messiah?
While lefties are in a tough place thanks to Obama's self-serving antics, rushing to his defense in this manner is a stretch even for our "progressive" pals.
To the point where her most recent syndicated radio program accidentally became interesting, Huffington Post Empress Arianna Huffington has emerged as one of the strongest defenders of Julian Assange. When Both Sides Now co-host Mary Matalin called Assange a "terrorist", Arianna threw a fit.
Arianna might have had a chance of scoring a few points here and there, but instead chose to jump the shark by accusing our government (Obama?!?!?!) of playing the real terrorism role, thanks to our presence in Afghanistan:
MARY MATALIN (6:37): [Assange is] a psychopath, a sociopath. He is a terrorist.
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: To call him a terrorist is really to again, to completely sort of underestimate what 'terrorist' means. I find it so objectionable when we throw these words around, when we call people terrorists who have not done anything that would conventionally be seen as a terrorist act.
MATALIN: You don't think that putting innocent lives, not to mention the lives of our soldiers, in jeopardy is an act of terrorism?
HUFFINGTON: I think that our government is putting the lives of our soldiers in jeopardy in Afghanistan for no clear national-security reason. Don't they have any responsibility for sending our soldiers to war to protect and prop up a corrupt regime without any national security...
MATALIN: I get your passion about this--
HUFFINGTON: I don't really care if you get my passion. I want you to get my truth. Because I find it so upsetting when we're equating acts of terrorism with the release of information that is actually exposing a disastrous American foreign policy.
Though Huffington would like to be viewed as mainstream and even independent, this kind of extreme viewpoint places her much more comfortably in a Eugene or Madison coffee house than the center of American politics.
Libtalkers Obsessed With Rush & Sean's Salaries, Use As Weapon In Tax Battle
TAX MY ENEMIES
Dems Use Talk Salaries In Fight For Tax Hikes
Is this really the best Democrats can do?
In their quest to demonize Republican opponents ahead of January's GOP-dominated House of Representatives, our "progressive" friends really appear to be struggling. Though their smear machine was reasonably effective after 1994's Dem rout, this time, liberals sound absolutely desperate.
We've seen ineffective attempts at painting incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) as a crybaby wino and the new playbook looks just as shaky: a lefty push for income tax hikes using talk host salaries as a weapon.
From Friday's radio program, listen as Randi Rhodes smears Rush Limbaugh:
RANDI RHODES (HOUR ONE - 38:00): Tell Sean Hannity that the only reason that Sean Hannity is advocating for holding out for 98% of the American people and holding you hostage is because Sean Hannity makes $22 million a year, that's why!
Sean Hannity makes $22 million a year. If Sean Hannity doesn't get his tax cut, Sean Hannity is going to pay about $900,000 more a year. Rush Limbaugh makes $58 million a year reportedly.
He's going to get a tax - if - if the the tax on the top two percent is allowed to sunset, he's going to pay an extra $2.7 million a year. That's his tax bill, not his salary! That's his tax bill on almost $60 million dollars. But without it, you know, if they hold us hostage, then Rush will get an extra $2.7 million next year at a time when people are literally standing in line for heating assistance and he's mocking them and making racist comments about their inability to find a job or their lack of desire to find a job, I think it was.
RHODES (41:12): Mega dittos, mega money! Yeah, $58.7 million a year. So Rush Limbaugh stands to gain $2.7 million per year if they hold the middle class - 98.7% of us hostage to Bush's, uh, to Rush's whims. Now, $2.7 million is a lot of money. You can, you could buy enough Oxy to make a herd of elephants go deaf, really, you could buy, in fact, you could sell - you could send Wilma Klein, his housekeeper, the one, you could send her to the Denny's on Belvedere Road in West Palm Beach in a stretch limo to pick up the Oxy for that kind of cash!
That is a lot of, not that I think he'll spend all the $2.7 million on drugs, he'll spend some on donuts, too.
RHODES (42:00): Now, Glenn Beck makes $33 million dollars a year, can you believe, who knew there was this much money in lying?
But has anyone complained that MSNBC hosts are somehow underpaid, particularly given their tiny ratings? They seem to be living comfortably in Manhattan.
MSNBC Libtalker Smear: John Boehner Likes Cheap Hobo Wine
Lefties Road-Test Smears Ahead Of New Congress
While the holiday season has public attention focused elsewhere, our "progressive" friends are busy road-testing smears to be used against the new Republican House in January. As incoming speaker, Rep John Boehner (R-OH) is of course the key target, with a clear effort underway to define him before he can define himself.
Always happy to be of assistance in any character assassination campaign, MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz used yesterday's radio program to claim Boehner's a cheap drunk who favors hobo wines such as Ripple and other notorious brands found in back alleys (think Thunderbird, Night Train, etc).
ED SCHULTZ (13:29): Yeah, why waste a dinner on John Boehner when he's probably only going to bring a bottle of Ripple anyway? Ah, he's a cheap wine guy. Lot of stuff doesn't get reported, but he's a cheap wine guy. I don't know if you knew that or not.
The big question is whether conservatives are ready for the smear campaign or already lulled into a post-election sense of complacency. Is it safe to bet on the latter?