The Next Time Liberals Tell You Conservatives Control the Media...

Just point them to the past week of coverage, when a lunatic kills six people and shoots a Congresswoman in the head, and Sarah Palin and talk radio are blamed immediately.

Words fail me to describe the unmittigated gaul of the leftwing fringe--hell, everyone to the left of Sean Hannity--to lecture the public on the ills of conservative opinion. WTF is wrong with these people?

Top 25 Ann Coulter Quotes

Here.

Conservatives Don't "Get" Racism...Except They Do

For those assuming conservatives are just closeted KKK members, Adam Serwer sets 'em straight:

What's clear, though, is that conservatives deploy racially tinged rhetoric against liberal policy priorities and Democratic politicians, and that Obama being president has a lot to do with these arguments being used. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be comparing him to gang members if he weren't black. With Clinton, Limbaugh's sexism, rather than his racism, would be amplified. So while it might be unfair to suggest people are conservatives because they're racists, it's entirely fair to ask why conservatives are comfortable with their most prominent ideological figure's casual use of racism as a political bludgeon.

There's another option here that guys like Serwer miss, which is that conservatives like Limbaugh use the attack that is most likely to enrage liberals. That's why he mocks environmentalists with chainsaw sound effects or feminists with the shrewish voices of their leaders (not to mention calling them "babes" constantly). The "casual use of racism" is simply a way of taunting liberals to explain why their fealty to a black president regardless of his abandonment of their treasured beliefs isn't racism itself.

Republicans know they'll be called racists no matter how carefully they construct their criticisms of Teh One. That's why comparing the POTUS to spraycan-wielding graffiti artists is both subtle and effective. And, in the comments, Tom Maguire completely destroys the author's argument that the word "gang" is only used against darker-skinned politicians.

If liberals spent less time being offended and searching for "dog whistles" from commentators, they might discover that their slide to obscurity is directly related to their policy proposals, not racist/sexism/otherism by the voters.

How to Balance the Budget

Barack Obama's bipartisan commission has released an outline of its recommendations to reduce the national debt.

The plan calls for deep cuts in domestic and military spending, a gradual 15-cents-a-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax, limiting or eliminating popular tax breaks in return for lower rates, and benefit cuts and an increased retirement age for Social Security.

Among the popular tax breaks to disappear is the home mortgage deduction, the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.

Liberals like Echidne are wringing their hands at the idea of the home mortgage deduction going away because--gosh--rich people don't care about home mortgage deductions.

Take the mortgage deductions for an example. They have always been a bit tricky to justify from an equality point of view, because they give a tax cut to those who can afford to buy rather than to rent and because the size of the price reduction they create is larger the more taxes you would otherwise pay.

But removing that deduction will also have odd equality effects: It's the middle classes who depend on that deduction to buy a house. The rich don't need it to be able to afford to buy.

Reducing or eliminating the mortgage deductions, combined with tax cuts of the types shown here, will do -- what? They must mean a move towards a larger relative tax burden for the middle classes, unless public spending is really really slashed.

Well that's not really what would happen. To start with, people shouldn't be buying houses for the mortgage deduction, and if you can't afford the house, that deduction isn't going to help. Secondly, anyone who thinks rich people don't care about tax deductions is either blind, stupid, or willfully ignorant. Rich people take all the deductions they can get, just like middle class people. Isn't that why liberals were so anxious to raise the tax rates?

Of course, the commission's proposals gore everyone's ox, whether you are a tax-and-spend liberal or a military-lovin' conservative. And there's no account here of how these severe changes in taxing and spending would affect the economy. It will be interesting to see the debate to come.

See more opinion here.

Why Liberals Are Full of CrapDon't Understand Conservatives

If you read this, you'll understand the demogoguery of liberal ideology.

Can't argue facts and philosophy with a conservative? Argue they support feudalism! Yes, you got that right: liberals are now arguing that conservatives want to return to the days of kings, squires, and vassals. Why? Because, apparently, conservatives believe everyone should work for as little money as possible.

•Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Well, that's not really why conservatives are against government taking money from some people to give to others. Conservatives appreciate the independence and self-esteem working gives people. As opposed to taking a government check, earning your living gives you freedom and choices.

Contrary to the strawman this author erected, conservatives don't want people to work for as little money as possible. In fact, they want people to make as much money as they can. The difference is that conservatives recognize that the way to make the most money you can is through your own work and initiative, and that's something the government can't give you.

•Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

No, the reason conservatives support free trade is that free trade provides more people the opportunity to earn their own money, start their own companies, and do what they want. Rather than languishing in poverty, free trade helps people escape poverty.

•Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

I guess if you don't think babies are people, you might consider them only as a burden to their mothers, rather than people.

•Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Conservatives recognize that unions force individuals to follow the union's directives. This means not doing anything the union won't allow the individual to do. That means less initiative and less promotion on one's own merits. Worse, unions inevitably strike because they aren't getting gigantic raises in economic downturns (such as now) regardless of how the strike affects ordinary citizens. See strikes for transportation and even healthcare workers as examples of what unions bring every place they go. Unions are designed to prevent workers from working hard or efficiently. They are designed to provide the least work out of workers for the most money they can command. That's bad for consumers because it drives up costs and it's bad for business because it makes it more expensive to hire people. The result? Fewer workers and more expensive goods.

The arguments get more ridiculous from here. Believe it or not, the author argues that conservatives don't like prosperity. No, really. Why? Because conservatives disliked every government program designed to redistribute wealth.

These pathetic attempts to argue that conservatives are greedy bastards show how little liberals have to show for their philosophy. Pathetic.

Disagreeing with Conservative Majority Opinions

It's been one of those weeks for me, where I've spent a lot of time disagreeing with folks I normally agree with and agreeing with folks I usually don't. Here's the list:

1. I don't like building a mosque at Ground Zero for all the dhimmitude reasons around, but I don't oppose it, since I happen to think freedom of religion (even when I disagree with it) is pretty important.

2. I'm pretty unhappy with the way anti-Prop 8 advocates (like liberals in general since the 1960s) are hellbent on cramming gay marriage down the collective gullet of an unwilling public through the court systems rather than going the Constitutional route. But having said that, the thread at this post on Volokh Conspiracy provided (for me) the best arguments I've heard for gay marriage, and it's got me thinking it may be time. Granted, a lot of it is still anecdotal, and we won't know for decades how this affects other family relationships, but still.

3. Calls to alter birthright citizenship is nuts. And a sure loser at the polls. Do Republicans just want permanent minority status?

Ok, flog me.

Shirley Sherrod Is Now the Club To Bludgeon Conservatives

Does anyone honestly think David Frum is a conservative? There's absolutely nothing about the conservative movement that Frum agrees with, and while he might not be Amanda Marcotte, he spends more time bashing conservatives than discussing his alternatives.

Take the Shirley Sherrod controversy. As I said in the comments of the previous post, I can't believe Andrew Breitbart deliberately edited the video and put it out on the net. It took less than 12 hours for the story to be refuted, and that makes it hardly worth the trashing of his own reputation, doesn't it? I can see that Breitbart snapped up the video like Rosie O'Donnell gobbles down chocolates, but being gullible isn't the same as intentionally harming this woman.

Of course, the leftwingers are all portraying this as the latest example of conservative racism, and it certainly knocked the Journolist story off the top spot on Memeorandum. But the best line comes from Legal Insurrection:

Media Matters and Think Progress, the ultimate out-of-context word and phrase manipulators, are hot on the case because Shirley Sherrod was taken out of context.

So how about some context for the handful (out of many millions) of people who have attended Tea Party rallies carrying racist signs?

How about considering that some of the people were not really Tea Party supporters but plants by the opposition designed to create controversy? Or that some of the photos were not even at Tea Party rallies? Or that some of the people were kicked out of the Tea Party movement? Or that some of the accusations of racist words being shouted are denied and the videos show otherwise? Or that numerous blacks who are active in the Tea Party movement deny that there is widespread racism? Or that the Tea Party philosophy of limited government and free enterprise is completely race neutral?

"Context for we, but not for thee," seems to be the philosophy.

Some Nice Blogosphere Navel Gazing

It's been a while since we've had some good spitting matches between journalists, blogers, conservatives and liberals, but for some reason, there's a couple of them today.

First, there's the David Frum's whining cuz he can't play with the big kids dust-up at Right Wing News. Apparently, Frum has his knickers in a twist because John Hawkins doesn't consider him a conservative and won't add him to the Blogads conservative hive. I can understand why Frum is upset; unless he's recognized as a conservative by conservatives, his credibility as such is shot. Of course, he did that to himself some time ago when he bashed Republicans for actually supporting Americans' right to not choke on Obamacare. Now, Frum has taken to complaining that it's only "the fringe" who dislike him. This is patent nonsense. I like to read Frum but only to find out what left-leaning Republicans think. As Hawkins points out, liberals love Frum, which is enough reason for any conservative to be skeptical.

The second dustup is between sock puppet Glenn Greenwald and conservative Jeffrey Goldberg. I'm less engaged on this one, mostly because I consider Mr. Sockpuppet to be too boring to read. His sycophants have invaded poor Joe Klein's space, so if you want to hear what the sockpuppet has to say, read the comments (have I used the word "sockpuppet" enough in one post?).

If Conservatism Is On The Rise...

Conservatives on the Rise

Gallup just released a new set of poll numbers showing adults are identifying themselves as conservatives in greater numbers. And these numbers are indeed informative.

42 percent of adults consider themselves conservative.
35 percent of adults consider themselves moderate.
20 percent of adults consider themselves liberal.

This is a change from 40/36/21 from the 2009 Gallup polling information and the 37/37/22 2008 Gallup polling. Far from being the fringe, conservatives have been in the plurality for the last two years, effectively doubling the liberal poll numbers, and shared the plurality with moderates in 2008 while liberals were still fewer than a quarter of the adult population.

Why do liberals spend so much time convincing us we're losing?

Laura Bush: Liberalism's Favorite Conservative...

As long as she's supporting issues with which they agree.

Oh what a difference a few years or a different topic makes. Of course, there are still jerks complaining that Laura Bush should have pulled a Hillary and tried to run domestic policy (or something), which would have gone over really well with liberals who thought she, too, was the spawn of Satan until this week.

It's so hard to take these hypocrites seriously. First, they complained that Laura Bush was a Stepford Wife, a murderer, an enabler (pick your favorite alcoholic allusion here) and more. Now, because she's come out in favor of their cause du jour, she's completely huggable!

Or maybe not. The latest I've read is complaints that she should have "done something" for abortion and homosexuals. And my question is what? Have a tea? Give a presser? We don't elect First Ladies. It's, at best, a figurehead position because since Eleanor Roosevelt, we've decided that the women presidents are attached to have to be involved in something or other to show how good and caring and informed they are (and, by extension, the men they are married to).

It's all nonsense and can be more harmful than good. We nearly had Hillarycare, for crying out loud, and "two for the price of one," which deeply disturbed anyone who cared about the Constitution and electoral process. We watched Roslynn Carter direct Jimmeh, we heard complaints about Nancy Reagan's psychics, we've noted Barbara Bush's grandmotherly charm but heard rumors of her coldness to her chirren. In this presidency, we've watched Michelle Obama go to help the poor in pricey footwear.

I guess the point I'm making is that First Ladies are just women married to the president. We don't get to know their political views because they haven't been elected to anything and their views are no more important than my next door neighbor's or the local gas station attendant. I don't really care if Laura Bush supports abortion--she has that right--but I'd be infuriated if I elected her pro-life husband only to have her change his mind about issues I care about. I understand that pro-abortion and gay marriage supporters wanted her to change his mind, but that's precisely why First Ladies aren't supposed to speak out about issues while their hubbies are in office. But it is fairly entertaining watching the same people who excoriated her for eight years now clapping wildly that she secretly supported something they like.

Behind Those High Divorce Rates and High Out-of-Wedlock Birth Rates

For years, liberals have crowed about the stable marriages and low out-of-wedlock birth rates of blue states, but as Ross Douthat notes, there's nothing for blue staters to be proud of in their low out-of-wedlock birth rate numbers. That's because their high abortion rates mask that number.

More important, Cahn and Carbone also acknowledge one of the more polarizing aspects of the “blue family” model. Conservative states may have more teen births and more divorces, but liberal states have many more abortions.

Liberals sometimes argue that their preferred approach to family life reduces the need for abortion. In reality, it may depend on abortion to succeed. The teen pregnancy rate in blue Connecticut, for instance, is roughly identical to the teen pregnancy rate in red Montana. But in Connecticut, those pregnancies are half as likely to be carried to term. Over all, the abortion rate is twice as high in New York as in Texas and three times as high in Massachusetts as in Utah.

So it isn’t just contraception that delays childbearing in liberal states, and it isn’t just a foolish devotion to abstinence education that leads to teen births and hasty marriages in conservative America. It’s also a matter of how plausible an option abortion seems, both morally and practically, depending on who and where you are.

If, as Douthat says, the red state model looks dysfunctional in a modern society, it's possibly because it values life above creature comfort and death. That's something blue staters won't want to talk about. Or maybe they will, since they don't typically consider abortion to be something shameful or to be avoided.

How Dare You Redneck, Religious Idiots Think You Can Run Things!

That's a paraphrase of Darleen Click's take on this liberal snobbery disguised as a thoughtful article on the rise of the Tea Party movement.

The President Bush who emerged after September 11 took his party and the country back to the divisive politics of earlier decades, giving us seven years of ideological recrimination. By the time of the last presidential campaign, millions were transfixed not by the wisdom or folly of Barack Obama’s policy agenda, but by absurd rumors about his birth certificate and his “socialism.” Now he has been elected president by a healthy majority and is grappling with a wounded economy and two foreign wars he inherited—and what are we talking about? A makeshift Tea Party movement whose activists rage against “government” and “the media,” while the hotheads of talk radio and cable news declare that the conservative counterrevolution has begun.

You can go read the whole thing if you really want to be looked down upon, but the gist is that those stupid Americans have the audacity not to accept the ideas and beliefs of the elites to run everything. No, they think they have the right to criticize the government and be skeptical of its methods and reasons for trying to control more and more. Moreover, these idiots actually think they are capable of educating their own children and changing society to reflect their views. That's a style reserved for liberals, you see.

The whole thing shows exactly why the elites don't get it. If it were possible, they'd disenfranchise the masses (well, except for the ones who vote as they like). It's too bad for them that the masses aren't willing to cede their independence so easily.

LOL of the Day

David Brooks discovers Barack Obama isn't a moderate.
Priceless.

More Regulation Is Good Regulation, Right?

I just finished reading Thomas Sowell's The Housing Boom and Bust, which explained how land use restrictions drove up the costs of housing, creating a supposed "national affordable housing crisis" that was "solved" through the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA required lenders to make a percentage of mortgages to "underserved communities." Banks which went along with the regulations were allowed to open more branches and ATM locations. As mortgage rates went up, homeowners defaulted, leaving banks with houses worth pennies on the dollars loaned, which caused banks to become insolvent.

Liberals often argue that more regulation is needed to solve our problems, and the housing boom and bust is just one example. On a state level, here's another.

State legislators voted to close drive-throughs yesterday in a late-night, pizza-fueled frenzy in which they passed 20 other bills in the last minutes before the end of the session.

They said the ban, part of legislation outlawing eating while driving, will save lives. They also described it as one more victory in the war against distracted driving, which studies show is a major cause of accidents. Other distractions on the hit list: GPS systems, smoking, applying makeup, radios, Hooters billboards — and passengers, who may be required to be silent in coming years.

Maryland thinks drivers are too stupid to drive safely, even though they have no evidence to show that such legislation works. How to solve the problem? Ban drive-thru windows.

I'm not the best driver in the world, and I've sat through a Saturday defensive driving course or two. Most of the time, people complain about people talking on cell phones as the primary way drivers are unsafe. Yet I've never seen anyone admit that their traffic violation was the result of talking on the phone. Granted, there's nothing scientific about my tale, but what it tells me is that there are plenty of other things that cause accidents. Maryland, apparently, thinks it can itemize them.

Thanks to Chuck Serio for the Maryland zaniness.

David Frum vs. Conservatives

Jonathan Rauch has an interesting profile of David Frum, liberals' favorite conservative.

Ever since Frum started bashing conservatives, he has become a darling of the left, even though he couldn't be called "liberal" in any sense of that word. I actually agree with much of what Frum has been touting: Republicans have to come up with new ideas to cope with modern problems rather than simply relying on conservative solutions from the past. Regardless of their efficacy, those solutions appear shopworn to a new generation after 30 years of Republican ideas.

Frum is on a mission to penetrate Fox World with a message from reality. In Fox World, he says, Obama is a radical ideologue determined to impose European-style socialism on the United States; in reality, he is a pragmatic consensus-seeker who gets his ideas from the Left but wants to win re-election with 60 percent of the vote. In Fox World, Americans in the millions are rising up to protest Obama's expansion of government; in reality, many Americans are distressed by the economy and will simmer down when prosperity returns.

In Fox World, liberals have wrecked the country; in reality, 21st-century America is better in almost every way than the America of 1975 or 1955. In Fox World, people such as Palin and the conservative talking heads Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck speak for the overlooked American middle; in reality, they speak for a fringe, one big enough to make them rich but not to elect anyone to national office.

In Fox World, all we need to do is just stop doing what we're doing right now; in reality, conservatives need a specific program for governing. In Fox World, health care reform is ripe for repeal; in reality, Republicans have gotten themselves stuck with it for years to come.

I don't disagree with much of this. When one becomes too insular, getting one's news and information from only one side, for example, it can lead to skewed thinking. And when Frum complains that too many conservatives would rather be right (from the outside) than govern from the center-right, he's on target. The rise of the intellectual right has done much of this, but Frum's general argument that Republicans in Congress should be working with President Obama--and thus giving him the cover of bipartisanship--is simply wrong. Democrats were smart to go hard to the left in 2006, giving voters a clear difference between the two parties. If GOPers compromise too much with Obama and Pelosi, there is little reason for voters to change directions and elect Republicans.

I think Republicans are right to talk about repealing what they can of Obamacare in the fall. But Republicans must also begin offering new alternatives to HopeNChange, or else their return to power will be short-lived.

Charles Johnson Explains Why He Parted Ways with Right Wing Nuts

Only to show what a nut he is.

His list includes broadbrush smears at virtually every possible conservative person, group, or political philosophy and jumbles any criticism of President Obama with witch doctor pictures. I'm not kidding. Just ask him.

Of course, he'd be pissed if you pointed out the same behaviors for eight years by the guys he's identifying with now. But that was then, I suppose.

Jules Crittenden explains why Johnson went batshit crazy.

William Jacobson puts it in a nutshell:

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs says he's parting ways with the right because people who disagree with him are fascist, racist, homophobic, white supremacists.

That about covers it.

Tom Maguire notes that Johnson used to be an Islamophobic hate site according to his new friends. But that was sooo 2004.

Robert Stacy McCain revels in being castigated by name, then explains the madness of King Charles.

Much more at Memeorandum.

Ever Wonder How Two People Can Read the Same Thing and Reach Completely Different Conclusions?

That's the feeling I had after reading David Brooks's column and the Firedoglake screed linked to it at Memeorandum.

Brooks's column, titled The Values Question, goes into a philosophic tale about what American was, is, and hopes to be.

During the first many decades of this nation’s existence, the United States was a wide-open, dynamic country with a rapidly expanding economy. It was also a country that tolerated a large amount of cruelty and pain — poor people living in misery, workers suffering from exploitation.

Over the years, Americans decided they wanted a little more safety and security. This is what happens as nations grow wealthier; they use money to buy civilization.

Occasionally, our ancestors found themselves in a sweet spot. They could pass legislation that brought security but without a cost to vitality. But adults know that this situation is rare. In the real world, there’s usually a trade-off. The unregulated market wants to direct capital to the productive and the young. Welfare policies usually direct resources to the vulnerable and the elderly. Most social welfare legislation, even successful legislation, siphons money from the former to the latter.

Brooks then goes on to compare these earlier attempts at creating the welfare state with Obamacare, and discovers that when promising additional goodies (especially after you've already maxxed out the credit card), you have to figure out how to pay for them. And Democrats don't really like having to figure out how to pay for these things because it's not terribly popular with the pitchfork set. Brooks concludes that how we decide to deal with the supposed health care crisis says more about our values than anything, and he implies that we're really shitty people if we don't swallow the Democrats' solutions.

Earlofhuntingdon at FDL must've read a different column than the one I did, because the spittle-flecked post about Brooks' writing didn't really seem to address what Brooks actually said, but rather, what EH wanted him to say to fit the cruel, heartless conservative stereotype:

The "moral choice" for Bobo is clear: future business vitality trumps individual vitality and family health. He gets there by neatly synthesizing Republican talking points and by reducing to passive abstraction millions of Americans denied medical treatment by our bizarre and unsustainable health insurance system. He then reassures Republicans that they will be "responsible stewards" of tomorrow when they say no to demands for greater "comfort" today. Because we just can’t afford it.

I searched in vain for the part of Brooks' column where he said that "future business vitality trumps individual vitality and family health." Quite the contrary, really:

Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

Exactly what part of that statement shows that Brooks thinks "future vitality trumps individual vitality and family health"? This quote was used in the FDL piece, yet it's obvious that EH either didn't read it (entirely possible) or completely misread it (most probable). If anything, Brooks' statement seems to lean in favor of Obamacare because taking care of the poor and weak is what civilized societies do. But, I guess, if you are looking for a reason to hate conservatives--any conservatives--you really do have to misread what they say to get to the point you want.

The Death of Conservatism...NOT

From Charles Krauthammer.

So Much for that "Death of Conservatism" Stuff

Conservatives maintain edge as top ideological group.

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Pandagon Watch: I Guess PETA Is a Rightwing Organization

Amanda Marcotte has to dig deep in this post to find those malevolent conservatives to be at fault for violence at a animal protest.

Members of an animal rights group were the victims of sniper fire during a protest here Saturday and are offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the shooter.

The Companion Animal Protection Society (CAPS) staged a protest in front of the Aquarium & Pet Center to protest the retailer's alleged sale of "puppy mill" dogs, or purebred pups that have been bred in inhumane conditions. That's when the shots rang out.

Three protesters were hit with what was later determined to be brass pellets fired from a high-powered air rifle. The protesters suffered minor injuries, said Sgt. Jay Trisler with the Santa Monica Police Department, which is asking for the public's help in identifying the shooter...

(West Coast director of CAPS Carole) Davis said the attack occurred at a time when there is a "highly charged atmosphere" when it comes to animal rights. The Santa Monica City Council recently voted in favor of banning cat declawing and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have put caps on the number of animals used in puppy mills, becoming the only governor in the six states where puppy mill legislation passed this year to override it with a veto. Jeffrey Prang, a City Councilman from West Hollywood, which has also banned cat declawing, is working on an ordinance to ban the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in that city.

Here's what Amanda had to say about the incident:

But all that is essentially unimportant, especially if this is what it seems, which a case where an independent operator with no ties to the pet store decided to take potshots at people whose larger point---that puppy mills are evil and people should not financially support them---is a sound one. If indeed this is a random act of right wing violence, then that tells you a lot about how bad things have gotten, that someone is willing to act violently in the name of a man’s god-given right to torture puppies.

Huh? How does anyone--even a nutjob like Amanda--come to the conclusion that this was "a random act of rightwing violence," versus either (a) a nut or (b) someone with a different beef with this group or (c) an animal rights organization like PETA or Animal Liberation Front? Why, because Amanda tells us so! In the comments, someone asks how she knows it is "rightwing violence" and Amanda answers it.

I don’t know for sure, nor did I say. I went out of my way, in fact, to say that it was likely but not certain.

But, of course, she did say. She speculated that it was "a random act of rightwing violence," then went on to juxtapose that story with one on high schools barring cross-dressers from appearing in the yearbook as cross-dressers. It's an odd (and difficult to make) analogy to be sure, but leave it to those intrepid bloggers at Pandagon to make it.

But even before bringing up the cross-dressers, Amanda tries to find a way that Republicans are responsible for shooting pellets at protesters in front of a pet store.

Indeed, this attack came after the Governator vetoed a bill that would have set a limit on the number of puppies you could cram into a puppy mill, which seems to be yet another example of a Republican standing up for cruelty on the grounds that American penises will fall off if we don’t engage in needless cruelty for cruelty’s sake.

It really is too bad Amanda couldn't get the gig as official White House blogger. I mean, aside from attacking Fox News and trying to get people to snitch on their friends, there's just not enough leftwing hysteria on display from the POTUS.