Narcissism. Blackmail. Distortion. All wrapped in his trademark smirk of pallor. Yes, it’s tired old liberal “comedian” Bill Maher trying to get Senate GOP primary candidate Christine O’Donnell to come on his show by baiting her with a brief video clip in which she mentions having “dabbled” in “witchcraft” and hung around people who practiced it.

The left-wing blogs (and a few short-sighted rightie ones) are having a field day. What they all seem to have missed is the context for the discussion. The AP says the “context of what led to the comment is not clear.”

But it is if you paid close attention to the clip:

At 1:03 in the video, one of the panelists on the show criticizes O’Donnell for criticizing Halloween — “Wait a minute, I love this, you’re a witch, you go ‘Halloween is bad,’ I’m not the witch, I mean wait a minute.” She responds by explaining that she opposes witchcraft because she has had first-hand experience with what they do.

So, she tried it. She rejected it. And she learned from it.

Somehow, this Maher-edited clip warrants a declaration from my friend John Hinderaker at Power Line that O’Donnell’s career is “RIP.”

Nonsense. She has nothing to be ashamed of — except, perhaps, for going on Maher’s show so many times. He promises to release 22 more clips until she sits down with him in front of the cameras and brags, in typical TV chauvinist fashion, that he “created her” and that she “owe[s]” him.

Ignore the Hollywood attention troll. Focus on the campaign, the voters of Delaware, and the bearded Marxist opponent who’s the real out-of-touch extremist in the race.

***

Update: Excellent comeback…

Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell responded to old clips that surfaced over the weekend where she said she had once “dabbled in witchcraft,” clarifying at a GOP picnic in Delaware Sunday, “I was in high school, how many of you didn’t hang out with questionable folks in high school? But no, There’s been no witchcraft since, if there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter.”

The Hot Air team spent the past three, jam-packed days and sleepless nights covering the Conservative Political Action Conference–meeting countless grass-roots activists, catching up with old friends, making new ones, recharging our ideological batteries, working and relaxing with our fellow bloggers, and scrutinizing the GOP presidential candidates. We’ll have video reports beginning later this morning and running throughout next week and you can check out the Hot Air CPAC photo album. We were also inspired at CPAC by many heroes in the conservative movement who will never make the pages of the New York Times. Like these:

Wounded Iraq war veterans honored at CPAC

Wounded Iraq war veteran Josh Sparling receives CPAC’s Defender of the Constitution Award presented by Col. Ollie North.

(L) Matt Sanchez, CPAC honoree, corporal in the Marine Corps Reserve, and a junior at Columbia University; (R) USAFR Major Eric Egland, author of The Troops Need You, America: Six Ways to Help Them Win From Your Living Room

*Update re Matt Sanchez: See here.*

CPAC’s Friday night banquet honored many of these troops, along with modern civil rights leader Ward Connerly (who gave THE best, most eloquent, rousing, passionate, stalwart, and courageous speech of the entire conference), and other conservative leaders. After the dinner, journalist/happy warrior Joel Mowbray quipped to me:

“At left-wing conferences, you leave hating America. At right-wing conferences, you leave loving America.”

That’s exactly how I felt at the end of the dinner after shaking the hands of the disabled vets who came by crutch and wheelchair from Walter Reed to spend a few hours at CPAC.

Enter Ann Coulter.

Her “faggot” joke was not just a distraction from all the good that was highlighted and represented at the conference. It was the equivalent of a rhetorical fragging–an intentionally-tossed verbal grenade that exploded in her own fellow ideological soldiers’ tent.

There are countless conservatives who bring their children to CPAC. It’s a family-friendly event. I brought mine last year and the year before. I met several parents with their kids there this year. We expect CPAC to be a place where conservative role models speak with clarity, passion, and integrity. There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity, and hatred on TV, at the movies, and in the public schools. We don’t expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation’s preeminent conservative gathering.

I was in the back of the ballroom and did not see any children in the audience during Coulter’s speech. But what if there had been?

Would you want your children hearing the word “faggot” spoken in such a casual and senseless manner? Would you like your first-grader or three-year-old running around the halls of CPAC singing “faggot, faggot, faggot?” Not me. Not anymore than I’d like my toddler singing “gook, gook, gook” or “sambo, sambo, sambo”–favored epithets hurled at conservative minorities by leftist haters groping around in their empty intellectual quivers. There were hundreds of young conservative college students in the ballroom. Would you be proud of your college-age daughter spewing such epithets in her campus debates with leftists?

With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees. At a reception for college students held by the Young America’s Foundation, I lambasted the substitution of stupid slurs for persuasion– be it “faggot” from a conservative or “gook” from a liberal–and urged the young people there to conduct themselves at all times with dignity in their ideological battles on and off campus.

I made something else explicitly clear: Not all of us treat the communication of conservative ideals and ideas as 24/7 performance art. You can and should use humor to convey your message. You can enlighten and entertain–without becoming a tired old schtick. You can joke without becoming the joke.

***

On Saturday, Sean Hannity spoke at CPAC. He told the massive crowd that “We have a very pivotal role to play in driving the direction of this country” and urged the attendees to remind the nation “what conservative principles are about.” I wholeheartedly agree. We should remind them that we are not on the same side as Bill Maher, the Huffington Post, and John Edwards’ ex-bloggers who pollute public discourse with shallow, sensational attacks and hide behind the “satire” card when called to account.

Among other things, I asked Sean for his reaction to Coulter’s comments. We’ve posted the video at Hot Air. Partial transcript:

MM: Ann Coulter was here yesterday. She gave a very, mostly funny, speech, and at the end of it, dropped a stinker where she used the term “faggot.” And I’m glad, I have to honestly say, I’m glad I didn’t bring my children here because that’s not the kind of language I would use. What was your reaction to that? Because, predictably, the left is in high dudgeon about it. Howard Dean wants every presidential candidate in the Republican Party to renounce it. Do you think that was a really bad move on her part and should be condemned?

SH: I didn’t hear it. I’d rather see it before I comment on it and whatever. You know, no other person is responsible for what a person says except that person. And so, if they have a problem with what Ann Coulter says, blame Ann Coulter. You can’t blame somebody else for what she said. So I didn’t see it.

MM: Except that we’re all role models here. And there are so many young people they inspire–

SM: –I don’t use that term, so that’s my answer to you if she used it.

GOP presidential candidates were unequivocal, and rightly so:

Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

***

I think all the fellow conservatives I met at CPAC will agree that keeping a Democrat out of the White House in 2008 is a goal we will unite behind.

It seems to me that those Democrats would like nothing better than for another Coulter Moment at the pivotal CPAC event in 2008. “Raghead” in 2006. “Faggot” in 2007. What diarrhea of the mouth at the premiere conservative gathering can we all look forward to in a crucial election year with so much at stake in a critical period of American history?

CPAC organizers and co-sponsors ought to think very carefully about the message they want to send next year–and the pivotal role they want to play in the 2008 campaign.

***

Updates:

Some defenders think there’s no difference between Coulter’s crude “faggot” remarks about Edwards and Laura Ingraham’s gentle mockery of Edwards’ vanity when she describes him as a “Silky Pony” on her radio show. The latter is witty. The former is witless. That’s the difference.

A reader at Hot Air, where debate is contentious, recommends re-reading George Washington’s Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Companyand Conversation.

Rule 110:

“Labour to keep alive in your Breast that Little Spark of Celestial fire Called Conscience.”

RightWingNews blogger John Hawkins, a longtime Coulter fan, writes:

What’s on tap for next year? Will she drop the N-bomb? Will she use the C-word to describe Hillary Clinton? Whatever her plans are, after being burned twice in a row, CPAC shouldn’t invite her back next year.

Some readers are accusing me of not having a sense of humor. Au contraire. I laughed quite heartily at commenters and e-mailers who think my criticism is motivated by “jealousy,” “left-wing tendencies,” or my “need for attention.” Triple-snort-worthy!

The New School gave the nation’s preeminent moonbat academic a rousing reception. He returned the favor by trashing the college’s president, former Senator and Vietnam War veteran Bob Kerrey as a “mass murder and serial killer.” Via the NYSun:

An ethnic studies professor from the University of Colorado, Ward Churchill, received a standing ovation last night from a crowd of more than 200 New School students after blaming the 2001 World Trade Center attacks on America’s support of Israel and its sanctions against Iraq in 1996.

In a two-hour speech at the New School titled “Sterilizing History: The Fabrication of Innocent Americans,” delivered without notes, Mr. Churchill traced what he called a pattern of mass murder as American foreign policy from the time of the country’s inception to the events of September 11, 2001, which he said the country was essentially asking for.

Fabrication? Churchill knows plenty about that.

More:

Mr. Churchill also called the president of the New School, Robert Kerrey, a former senator of Nebraska, a “mass murder and serial killer to boot” for having served in Thanh Phong, Vietnam. Mr. Churchill also served in Vietnam, an act for which he said he has spent the rest of his life apologizing.

Mr. Churchill received cheers from the audience for comparing Mr. Kerrey to the serial killer Charles Manson. “That’s who you’ve got moral equivalency in the president’s chair at this institution,” Mr. Churchill said. “How about a cage rather than a president’s suite?”

No one rushed the stage. No one threw pies. No one pulled fire alarms.

Conservative students don’t do those things. That’s the domain of Ward Churchill’s ilk. Which makes the picture above of Churchill and his “security contingent” all the more laughable.

By the way: There have still been no consequences for Churchill’s academic and research misconduct.

Pirate Ballerina continues to keep watch.

Reader Randy:

So let me get this straight, Churchill thinks Iraq had to do with 9/11, something we never say yet the left constantly screams that we did, and he is calling the liberal Democrat Robert Kerrey a murderer? Despite the love shown for Ward Churchill by the usual Kos Kid type suspects, somehow I doubt they’ll highlight this story.

Reader JN had the same reaction:

So Churchill says that the sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1996 were a partial cause for 9/11. But I thought Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Can these moonbats keep their talking points straight?

***
Previous:
The Ward Churchill report
The seditious Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill and MEChA: perfect together
Ward Churchill: bullying claim
Ward Churchill update
Press conference on Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape
One of Ward Churchill’s ex-wives speaks
Double standards at the University of Colorado
Liveblogging Ward Churchill and Bill Maher
The never-ending Ward Churchill sitcom
University of Colorado faculty members come to the defense of Ward Churchill
Another bizarre twist in the Ward Churchill saga (fake art)
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape advocating terrorism
Eason Jordan, meet Ward Churchill

1) Once again, I say good riddance to Lincoln Chafee:

Two days after losing a bid for a second term, Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he was unsure whether he would remain a Republican.

Chafee lost to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in a race seen as a referendum on
President Bush and the GOP. On Thursday, he was asked whether he would stick with the Republican Party or become an independent or Democrat.

“I haven’t made any decisions. I just haven’t even thought about where my place is,” Chafee said at a news conference. When pressed on whether his comments indicated he might leave the GOP, he replied: “That’s fair.”

He left a long time ago.

2) The despicable Bill Maher puts his liberal tolerance on display.

3) Ken Mehlman steps down as RNC chair. Making way for Michael Steele?

4) LGF is monitoring John “Okinawa” Murtha. More Murthasms from Jim Hoft.

Bill Maher as Steve Irwin.

Lots of people are e-mailing me John Kerry’s remarks on the Bill Maher show last Friday and suggesting he has a Bush assassination fantasy.

I don’t think so. He was lamely trying to riff off a metaphor. Not bloodthirsty. Just really, really dumb.

Judge for yourselves. Warning: It is extremely painful to behold.

I know unhinged assassination chic and crude assassination jokes when I see ‘em. This wasn’t it. Just faux clever banter fallen flat. Even the obsequious Maher (who fake-laughed at Kerry’s insipid ketchup joke) was silent.

Kerry fails again.

Pirate Ballerina, the blog that was central to pushing the story forward, has analysis and points to the bottom line of the report:

While we are unanimous in finding that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is serious and that we should express the degree of that seriousness through a recommendation about sanctions, our discussions have not led to unanimity about what particular sanctions are warranted. What follows, then, is the only portion of our report that presents multiple views.

* Two members of the Committee conclude and recommend that Professor Churchill should not be dismissed. They reach this conclusion because they do not think his conduct so serious as to satisfy the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal set forth in section 5.C.1 of the Law of the Regents, because they are troubled by the circumstances under which these allegations have been made, and because they believe that his dismissal would have an adverse effect on other scholars’ ability to conduct their research with due freedom. These two members agree and recommend that the most appropriate sanction, following any required additional procedures as specified by the University’s rules, is a suspension from University employment without pay for a term of two years.

* Three members of the Committee believe that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is so serious that it satisfies the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal specified in section 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents, and hence that revocation of tenure and dismissal, after completion of all appropriate procedures, is not an improper sanction. One of these members believes and recommends that dismissal is the most appropriate sanction; the other two believe and recommend that the most appropriate sanction is suspension from University employment without pay for a term of five years.

Finally, the Committee had the following comments about its report: The Committee notes that the Laws of the Regents of the University of Colorado define “academic freedom” as “the freedom to inquire, discover, publish and teach truth as the faculty member sees it, subject to no control or authority save the control and authority of the rational methods by which truth is established.”

We understand and were careful to distinguish “misconduct in research,” which is addressed by the University of Colorado’s Administrative Policy Statement on Misconduct in Research and Authorship, from the issue of “truth” addressed by the Regents’ Laws’ definition of academic freedom. The Committee observes also that the allegations we were asked to investigate were initiated in the wake of the public outcry concerning some highly controversial essays by Professor Churchill dealing with, among other things, the 9/11 tragedy. While not endorsing either the tone or the contents of those essays, the Committee reaffirms, as the University has already acknowledged, that Professor Churchill’s right to publish his views was protected by both the First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of free speech. Although those essays played no part in our deliberations, the Committee expresses its concern regarding the timing and perhaps the motives for the University’s decision to forward charges made in that context. We point out finally that when Professor Churchill was hired as an Associate Professor with tenure in 1991 and promoted to (full) Professor in 1997, the University knew that he did not have a Ph.D. or law degree, as commonly expected for faculty at this institution, and was aware that he was a controversial public intellectual.

Press conference scheduled for 230pm.
AP summary:

An investigation of a professor who likened some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi found serious cases of misconduct in his academic research, a University of Colorado spokesman said Tuesday.

One member of the five-person investigative committee recommended that ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill be fired, and four recommended he be suspended, university spokesman Barrie Hartman said.

Churchill has denied doing anything wrong. He said earlier Tuesday that he had yet to see the report.

University officials had earlier determined Churchill could not be fired for his comments about the terrorist attacks, but they launched an inquiry into allegations about his research, which included accusations of plagiarism and fabrication.

More from Jim Paine at Pirate Ballerina on a possible new fake art controversy involving Churchill.

***

Related: Churchill’s wife resigns post.

***

Previous:

The seditious Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill and MEChA: perfect together
Ward Churchill: bullying claim
Ward Churchill update
Press conference on Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape
One of Ward Churchill’s ex-wives speaks
Double standards at the University of Colorado
Liveblogging Ward Churchill and Bill Maher
The never-ending Ward Churchill sitcom
University of Colorado faculty members come to the defense of Ward Churchill
Another bizarre twist in the Ward Churchill saga (fake art)
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape advocating terrorism
Eason Jordan, meet Ward Churchill

Meantime, the moonbat manipulation of Amazon.com’s reviews deserves a lot more attention than it’s getting. Kathryn Lopez shed light last week on the organized campaign against Kate O’Beirne’s book (published by Penguin/Sentinel).

Daniel Coppens at Crown Forum writes today that one of its books is now being subjected to the same abuse:

Rebel in Chief, the new book by Fred Barnes, has also been subjected to the Liberal smear campaign. The attached photo has appeared on our books’ Amazon page after each time we make Amazon take it down.

And check out the first page of bogus one-star reviews of Barnes’ book at Amazon.com. It’s a virtual Daily Kos/Democratic Underground playground:

28 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
Rebel in Chief? more like DRIBBLE in DISBELIEF, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: medaka (Nara, JP) – See all my reviews
American hero? Fearless leader? Naaaah. More like: Torturer. Liar. War Criminal. Dry Drunk. Immoral Christian. English-language Incompetent. Loser Businessman. Mediocre Human. Apocolypse Pox on American Politics. Bad book about a worse person. May both disappear from the face of the earth.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

31 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
A Book to Chuck, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: Ann – See all my reviews
Honestly, how dumb does the publishing company think we are? Do they seriously expect us to believe this wasn’t ghost written by Karl Rove, or somebody who can string a decent sounding sentence together? They must think we are ALL Bush supporters. What is sadder is people actually wasted their money on this pile of dead tree stumps to put “morals and values” back in the White House. Unfortunately, the right wing Pat Robertson definition of this really means “Jingoism and Idiocy”. I feel for anyone who wasted their money on this. They could have better used it to buy the high price healthcare and gasoline which have skyrocketed under this bimbo. God save America.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

29 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
They didn’t have a zero star rating., January 22, 2006
Reviewer: OGould – See all my reviews
I completely recommend this book if you like being underwhelmed, or if you want to be whipped into a catatonic stupor. If you must read it, get it from the library so you won’t feel like you did when you bought the Ding King from the TV commercial. (As for the writing style, I’m not sure our president can push a subject against a predicate, at gunpoint.) If this was written by a ghostwriter, he or she should be taken out and shot.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

24 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
Correction of Title, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: EricD – See all my reviews
There was an error made in the title of the book. It is supposed to read
George W. Bush: Resus Monkey-in-Chief

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

30 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
A Love Letter presented as a Biography, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: Margie – See all my reviews
Fred has quite an obsession with the president. It seems a tad abnormal and not based in reality.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

26 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
A very prolific author, November 3, 2005, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: ValerieH – See all my reviews
If you click the author’s name underneath the book title, you will be linked to about 130 articles written by him about Bush. Perhaps Mr. Barnes is in Love?

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

16 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
Delusional, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: TC – See all my reviews
This book doesn’t describe how a man so delusional can become so powerful. It doesn’t describe the nasty tactics that Republicans used to get him into office. It doesn’t tell you that many of his actions are close to the actions and thoughts of the “dry drunk.” It doesn’t tell you about his drug abuse. It doesn’t tell you about the various international acts he has violated in becoming a war criminal. It doesn’t tell you the specifics of the brain-washing he received to become evangelical. This is a man who claims divine right. (forget about the theocratic leanings) The separation of Church and State was put into the Constitution for a reason. Talking to God and having “him/her/it” speak back to you telling you to invade countries for no good reason is not quite the attribute of a leader (and is specifically illegal by the Constitution). The day that Iraqi’s tell of Bush being chosen by god will be the day that Bush vindicated.

Please. When telling the story of Bush Jr. please tell the whole unadulterated story, maybe then we can decide for ourselves if he is a leader.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

14 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
Only for the radical right, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: Willow K – See all my reviews
This is bound to be a book that right-wing Republican supporters will love and one that non-Bush supporters will find hard to take. Sound bites and emotional photographs fail to come to grips with the facts and fallacies of the radical right, whose visible leader is President Bush. Oh – (and my bias will show here) – Bush probably thought “Brazilian” was a number-substitute, similiar to gazillian.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

9 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
Good idea, but all filler, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: ESimon – See all my reviews
This book could be the memoirs George W. would have a crack team of political writers put together after his presidency. Not a critical or even neutral review of his first four years in the office, this book fails to make any impact on the reader at all. The author(s) try, and fail(s) to paint a portrait of a good old-fashioned, true-to-his-values president who stands up to the Enemy and fights the Righteous Cause. However, the totality of all these stories is fractured, like the man himself in times of stress. What I wanted from this book was a straight forward, upbeat and selective adoration of This Great Man. But after the last page, this book is just a bunch of cheap, cute filler.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

19 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
Portrait of TOTAL CATASTROPHIC FAILURE!, January 22, 2006
Reviewer: Gretchen – See all my reviews
Apparently, there are still many with delusions about the “greatness” of our current president. However, after the drowning of a GREAT US CITY , NEW ORLEANS, millions of former luke-warm Bush & Co. supporters finally recognize this as the most INCOMPETENT, INEPT, AND IGNORANT ADMINISTRAITON in US history! Still, the reactionary ideologues continue to priase this “leader” to the skies. What did the hurricane reveal once and for all? Bush & Co. trashed/gutted FEMA, a fact which no reactionary ideologue can deny if he bothers to read the facts! And the “No one thought the levies would break” mindset makes crystal clear this fact..Or as Rice said “No one thought an airplane would be used to crash into a skyscraper!” The same level of brainpower! And the wonderful “Shock and Awe” War of revenge by Bush and Dad’s retreads has been , according to many military experts the #1 Strategic disaster in US history..And even C. Powell has admitted his UN War monologue was a pack of lies! So, we have now 15,000 dead and maimed US soldiers, ten of thousands of incinerated Iraqis, $200,000,000,000 spent down a gutter, Lousiana Guardsman in Iraq, not able to protect their own nation/city/state, not to mention amphibious vehicles stuck in Iraq as well! And a huge recruiting ground for BinLaden types,another fact agreed by all intelligence experts, but denied by the fervid reactionaries! As for all the comments on “Bush-Bashing”. These same ugly reactionaries always conveniently forget the huge hate, character assasination campaign of the Clinton years, indeed the nastiest in US History! And this past week the Commander in Chief says “Wow-Brazil is a big place!”after checking a map! The list is endless, but no doubt there is a huge “Buyer’s Remorse” within millions of hesitant 2004 Bush voters!

That’s just the first page. It goes on and on and on.

I had similar experiences with all three of my past books. For obvious reasons, I actually welcomed the crazies’ comments on my last book–many of which Amazon.com did eventually get around to deleting (though not at my request, as the projecting paranoiacs suspected). But every author deserves a fair shake, and conservative authors aren’t getting it.

Amazon.com’s cozy, exclusive business arrangements with liberal celebrities such as Bill Maher and Al Franken only exacerbate concerns that the online book-seller is soft on left-wing online vandals.

Bottom line: The Amazon.com review section has become a joke and a cesspool, and if the company cares about its credibility with a large segment of its book-buying audience, it better fix the problem.

***

Fortunately, there are many other ways to buy books online. Here are three:

Conservative Book Club
NR Book Service
American Compass

***

Stunningly, one of the left blogosphere’s crudest, unhinged haters who spearheaded the sabotage of O’Beirne’s Amazon.com page has been invited by the Washington Post to participate tomorrow in a “live online roundtable conversation on the issue of what the rules are/should be for major media in accepting free form comments, or indeed whether there should be rules at all.” This blogger refers to O’Beirne–please pardon the vulgarity–as “sandpaper snatch” and threatened that “The bitch is dead meat.”

Is that the kind of constructive dialogue the Post endorses?

***

Ed Morrissey:

The Left doesn’t want people to hear what conservatives have to say, perhaps knowing that they have been intellectually outclassed and proven disastrously wrong by history and current events. Instead, they issue mindless attacks, childish insults, and do everything possible to keep people from having access to conservative thought.

That’s not the actions of people who have confidence in themselves. Those are the actions of a fearful, small-minded, vulgar group of Neanderthals who have suddenly seen Homo sapiens and realized that their days are numbered. These mouthbreathers cannot offer any new ideas, so instead of trying to compete with conservatives, they’re busy with the electronic equivalent of sticking their fingers into their ears and shouting, “LA-LA-LA-LA, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU!!” as loudly as possible.

In short, the Left consists of ill-educated, ill-mannered children. That they keep going to such lengths to prove it shows that they don’t have anything else to offer.

I think you will get a kick out of my latest, Unhinged-themed column: “Who are you calling angry?”

Intro:

Janeane Garofalo, left-wing actress-turned-Air America radio host, is a miserable woman. Last week before the holidays, she turned up on cable TV. No, not to count her blessings but to rant against conservative journalist Bob Novak, author Ann Coulter, and the Fox News Channel. She didn’t have anything better to do for Thanksgiving?

Accessorized by a permanent scowl (hard to believe she was once considered a comedienne), Ms. Garofalo accused conservatives of having “an anger management problem. Without a trace of irony, the frowning Garofalo griped about “right-wing partisan hacks who are always on the verge of punching somebody or always behave as if they’ve just been cut off in traffic.”

This, dear readers, is a classic case of liberal projection. Like CNN executive Jonathan Klein, who derided Fox’s audience as full of “angry white men, and those men tend to be rabid,” and liberal comedian Bill Maher, who also railed that “Republicans need anger management” and are possessed with a “vein-popping, gut-churning rage that consumes the entire right wing,” Ms. Garafolo crossly blames the Right while denying the pathological wrath and fury that characterize the unhinged Left.

Who are you calling angry, Ms. Garofalo? You want political road rage? Let’s start with Al. Take your pick: Sharpton. Gore. Franken. Yearrghh!

Now, open your eyes:

It isn’t out-of-control conservatives tossing Molotov cocktails at police officers in San Francisco, burning American soldiers in effigy, and smearing blood and feces on the walls and windows of military recruitment centers across the country to protest on behalf of peace.

It isn’t rage-blinded conservative professors who embrace fragging (the murder of American soldiers by their fellow soldiers on the battlefield) as a legitimate anti-war tactic.

It isn’t vengeful conservatives torching SUVs, condo developments, and research facilities, and targeting biotech and pharmaceutical company employees and their families to protest on behalf of the environment.

It wasn’t mad conservatives sporting “F*** Bush” license plates, punching cardboard cutouts of the president, and vowing to secede after losing the 2004 presidential election…

Read the rest here.

Along similar lines, check out psychiatrist/blogger Dr. Sanity’s excellent post on the Dems’ Wonderful World of Denial and Lorie Byrd’s trenchant reality check.

***
Background:

Video of Garofalo projecting at The Political Teen.
Brian Maloney on “Garofollies.”
Newsbusters’ Brad Wilmouth has complete transcription.

But what Bill Maher did to exploit the smear story on Friday night sunk to a new low.

Watch the entire segment at the liberal site, Crooks and Liars, and look at the gag photo Maher holds up of the First Lady.

Pay close attention to the audience’s reaction. Surprisingly, even some of Maher’s fans were shocked and apparently dismayed at the cheap shot. The gasps from the crowd are notable, but the laughter quickly rebounded and rolled along.

There’s liberalism for you: So civil. So compassionate. Such sensitive champions of women and the weak.

Question for NOW and all you card-carrying feminists: Since when did you start tolerating mockery of domestic abuse victims (real or imagined)?

Do you think photos of women with black eyes are funny, too?

And Bill Maher says Republicans need anger management?

It seems I’ve gotten under the blithering professor’s skin. When the interview first appeared, Churchill was quoted accusing me of “blatant plagiarism” (screenshot via Shock and Blog) and lifting “a lot” of my most recent book, In Defense of Internment, “line for line” from another author, Lillian Baker. (Can you spell Freudian projection?) Yesterday I pointed out in e-mails to Counterpunch and Churchill that this allegation is completely false, as were other allegations attributed to Churchill. Whether the plagiarism allegation “is also defamatory may be for a jury to decide,” I noted.

Here’s where things get interesting. Neither Counterpunch nor Churchill issued a correction, retraction, or apology. However, my e-mail seems to have had some effect. If you look at the latest version of the interview you’ll see that the plagiarism claim has been altered. Instead of saying that I am guilty of “blatant plagiarism” and that I copied the bulk of my book line for line from author Lillian Baker, Churchill now is quoted saying falsely that the bulk of my book “derives” from Baker. There are no ellipses or brackets indicating that substantive edits have been made to the interview transcript.

Counterpunch’s editors have not acknowledged to its readers that they changed the remarks attributed to Churchill. Nor have they explained why they made these changes. They appended my e-mail to the bottom of their article, which I appreciate, but the point in my e-mail about Churchill’s plagiarism allegation appears to make no sense because it refers to comments that have been excised from Churchill’s remarks.

I’m writing the Counterpunch editors again to ask them to publish an explanation.

In the meantime, catch up on all the latest Churchill follies at Pirate Ballerina. Jim Paine shares his insights on the reasons for Churchill’s continued verbal diarrhea:

It’s increasingly clear that as long as Churchill can keep the argument (and outrage) centered on his words rather than his actions (without stepping into “incitement” territory), the outcome of the legal question of “Why is he losing his job?” will most certainly be “because he said outrageous and hurtful things.”

We pointed out here back in February that Churchill (and the Left) would work strenuously to recast the argument in First Amendment and academic freedom terms. We didn’t realize at the time, however, that Churchill would take such a proactive approach to that recasting, ensuring with each new “frag the officers” outrage that it would be more difficult for a judge to see the argument as anything but a freedom of speech issue.

And that means Churchill wins—he keeps his job or gets a huge settlement from CU, or both—and the CU system and the people of the State of Colorado lose. CU’s reputation and that of academia in general will, of course, be damaged—but not irreparably so. But that will not change the fact that Ward Churchill will have won.

Very clever.

***
Reader Andrea S. writes:

I especially like how they printed your tiny spelling error with (sic) but change their words without notice or explanation. Those jobs at the MinTruth seem to be working out for them well.

Yep.

***
Previous:

The seditious Ward Churchill, Pt II
The seditious Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill and MEChA: perfect together
Ward Churchill: bullying claim
Ward Churchill update
Press conference on Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape
One of Ward Churchill’s ex-wives speaks
Double standards at the University of Colorado
Liveblogging Ward Churchill and Bill Maher
The never-ending Ward Churchill sitcom
University of Colorado faculty members come to the defense of Ward Churchill
Another bizarre twist in the Ward Churchill saga (fake art)
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape advocating terrorism
Eason Jordan, meet Ward Churchill

The Denver Post (which properly credits PB; good for them) reports that Churchill is, naturally, defending his latest smear.

Controversial University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill says he does not advocate “fragging” U.S. military officers in spite of how recent comments he made have been portrayed.

Churchill, speaking at an anti- military forum in Portland, Ore., military remarks

“Conscientious objection removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray,” he said. “Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect.”

His remarks were posted Sunday on the Pirate Ballerina blog site, which carries mostly anti- Churchill content. On Wednesday, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly played a tape of the remarks.

Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate.

He said that his remarks were being taken out of context and sensationalized in an effort to drive him from his job as a CU professor.

“I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything,” Churchill said. “I asked them to think about where they stood on things.”

Be sure to check out the moonbat account of Churchill’s lecture here.

***
Previous:

The seditious Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill and MEChA: perfect together
Ward Churchill: bullying claim
Ward Churchill update
Press conference on Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape
One of Ward Churchill’s ex-wives speaks
Double standards at the University of Colorado
Liveblogging Ward Churchill and Bill Maher
The never-ending Ward Churchill sitcom
University of Colorado faculty members come to the defense of Ward Churchill
Another bizarre twist in the Ward Churchill saga (fake art)
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape advocating terrorism
Eason Jordan, meet Ward Churchill

PB has transcript excerpts and audio tape.

The moonbats at Portland Indymedia covered Churchill’s visit here.

***
Previous:

Ward Churchill and MEChA: perfect together
Ward Churchill: bullying claim
Ward Churchill update
Press conference on Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape
One of Ward Churchill’s ex-wives speaks
Double standards at the University of Colorado
Liveblogging Ward Churchill and Bill Maher
The never-ending Ward Churchill sitcom
University of Colorado faculty members come to the defense of Ward Churchill
Another bizarre twist in the Ward Churchill saga (fake art)
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape advocating terrorism
Eason Jordan, meet Ward Churchill

Shortell received 7 out of 12 faculty votes to secure his new position, despite (or perhaps because of) crackpot online rants comparing Karl Rove to Joseph Goebbels and attacking religious people as “moral retards.”

It says something that students are more outraged at Shortell’s election than the rest of the campus administration. One exception is Brooklyn College history prof K.C. Johnson, who speaks out here and here.

Bill Quick weighs in.

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker asks: “Just who are the moral retards?”

Scroll down here to see a sample of Shortell’s moonbat blogging.

Looks like he’s angling for an invitation to appear on religion-basher Bill Maher’s show next season.