Harris Goes Beyond The Pale

We already knew that James Harris was a sexist, when he said he owned his daughter.

Harris' sexism and misogyny became more and more focused on Michelle Obama.

But when he refers to the First Lady as a prostitute, that goes beyond the pale.

He is obviously intimidated by beautiful, intelligent women, especially if they are African American.

The man really needs to go to therapy to deal with his own insecurity issues, instead of making a fool of himself like that.

The Chief has more.

What Does Michelle Have Against Michelle?

Eugene Kane, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, raises a good question:

Michelle Malkin was a featured speaker. She's pushing a new book that suggests President Obama is a corrupt politician bringing an atmosphere of corruption to politics in Washington D.C. She also seems to have an axe to grind against Michelle Obama, who she frequently singles out for criticism in her book and in her public comments.

It's pretty unusual for a political commentator to single out the First Lady of the United States for partisan attack, but it seems anything goes with this president. But it does beg the question:

What does Michelle have against Michelle?

I have two guesses.

One is envy of Michelle Obama's intellect, decorum, kindness and a good looking husband.

Michelle Malkin is just not a nice person, who would, let's say, spy on and belittle sick kids.

Conservative Women Show Real Class: Part II

Just a week ago, we saw how classy Laura Ingraham could be.

Tammy Bruce, guest hosting for Ingraham, isn't any better:

Discussing the first lady's visit to a Washington D.C. classroom last week, Bruce incredulously recalled Obama's story about wanting to get A's in school and called out her use of a "weird, fake accent."

"That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "...You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic...categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy..."

Cue the "But the libs did it to Bush" defense in 3...2...1....

Listen, Rush

From Pundit Kitchen:

James T. Harris: Girlie Man

James T. shows off his superficiality with this post pondering the physique of Barack Obama. I thought it was jealousy at first, until he gets later into his post with this:

Now... I'll say it... What the hell is going on with Michelle?
Could there be a correlation between the towel she's wearing and the chip she's eating? And before you all start tripping on me, remember, Hillary showed hers first!

Getting rather catty there, aren't you James. I think this goes beyond mere sexism. Given that he is snarky with both Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, I think he is just afraid of strong women. That can happen to men that aren't secure in their masculinity, you know.

The Stench Of Desperation

The right wing is in full desperation mode and it's only February. There's a saying about "don't let them see you sweat," but Sykes has such bad pit stains that he will have to buy a whole closetful of new shirts.

Sykes and others in the right wing echo chamber is trying to conflate some minor campaign speeches into something their not.

They try to act all indignant about a speech (actually two speeches) given my Michelle Obama. They accuse Obama of plagiarism. In fact, one right wing blogger stretches the limit of credibility by accusing Obama of lifting lines from a movie.

Let's look at these.

Thanks to Sir James the Wiggy One, we have a video contrasting the two speeches given by Micelle Obama. He also points out, accurately, it's no big deal. It's not. Even if one wanted to take her literally, lets look at the past twenty-five years. The most recent have been with Bush the younger who has led us into Iraq, the biggest deficit ever, alienated most of the world, and given all our money to his cronies in Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Whatever.

Before that we have eight years (up to 15 for those keeping count), we had Clinton and the stained dress. Eight years of political bickering and partisanship so fierce, one could only be glad that they outlawed dueling generations ago.

The four years before that was Bush the elder (19years), who's only real contribution was giving great soundbites for Dana Carvey skits on Saturday Night Live. But to give him (Bush, not Carvey) credit, at least he had enough sense not to invade Iraq.

And finally, before that we had the Gipper. At the risk of treading on the toes of the right's great icon, what did he do besides run up the deficit to record levels (until Bush II) and have great speech writers. The right like to give him credit for the fall of the USSR, but he only saw the end of something that took decades to accomplish, but he did not do it all by himself.

Sure there were some good events, but not the same kind of passion that we are seeing now.

As for the plagiarism, if you can even call it that, even some conservatives are pulling back on that stretch. And there are even legal questions if you can plagiarize a speech.

And for the movie business? A commenter on that blog points out that Obama's speech came before the movie was made. Obama must have had a time machine, went forward in time, not to bring back wealth, information that could help all mankind, or the cure for cancer. No, according to the right, he must have taken this secret time machine forward in time to get soundbites.

And what about Reagan? Sykes plays an intro on his show on a regular basis which is a soundbite of Reagan telling some tax increasers, to "Go ahead. Make my day." Funny, I don't recall hearing anyone complaining about that one.

But if Sykes and company want to have their accusations and allegations taken as anything more than a punchline for a bar joke, I will be glad to give them the gravitas that they crave.

Just as soon as they post seven years worth of Bushisms, admit Bush lied on so many things, like Iraq, the cost of Medicare Part D, Katrina, Rumsfeld's firing, and the so called benefits of the so called tax cuts. They will also need to post about Reagan stealing lines. About the truth of Reaganomics, and how it did nothing but widen the gap between the rich and the poor and drive up the deficit.

Then, and only then, will I give more than a grain of salt to their desperate attempts at relevancy.