Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

If you want to make a list George W. Bush’s friend and allies in the media it likely doesn’t include Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson or Peter Beinart. Yet the three of them seeing their hero Barack Obama floundering over the Ground Zero Mosque and the democrats on the defensive over their support of it expect George W. Bush to save the day:

There’s a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama’s waffling on the issue, they’re calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America’s relationship with Islam.

President Obama has spent most of his term in office bashing George W Bush and blaming him for everything except the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. The democratic strategy for 2010 has been blame Bush, now they are waiting for him to save them.

President Bush has politely refrained from critique of the current administration, I can’t see him bailing out these people who will not show any gratitude for it, even if he was so inclined. Does that mean that they will blame Bush for any political problem caused by Obama’s statements? Well DUH!

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: Corrected some spelling mistakes

Update 2: I absolutely love Doug Powers headline at Michelle Malkin’s site

Ground Zero Mosque Supporters Beg Greedy, Lying, Human Rights Violating War Criminal to Join Their Crusade



Update 3:
I could copy and paste these headlines all day:

To save Obama, Left cries out for … George W. Bush?

It seems to have gone from: “The courageous stand of Barack Obama” to “What is the face saving compromise that will solve this problem?”

Apparently the old template is not doing the job anymore.

You know if we had just rebuilt the towers with AA guns on top 5 years ago I bet nobody in the country would care where the Mosque was.

…and the tea parties (which had nothing to do with her) while defending the NAACP that condemned her and shilling for cash for them:

But you and I have to make sure that people all across the country who wage a daily struggle against poverty and racism have support networks as well. And that’s why your personal involvement in sustaining the NAACP is so critical.

I’m sure whatever satisfaction the NAACP provided was more attractive than the discovery phase of a Breitbart lawsuit would be.

One comment: Am I the only one who found it ironic that her statement attacking Fox, defending the NAACP, and begging suckers liberals to sustain them came out after the 9th circuit defended the lie as protected speech?

Memeorandum thread here.

Dafydd al Hugh doesn’t just score he breaks the backboard:

The whole point of a citizens’ initiative is to allow the voters themselves to enact reforms or repeal tyrannical laws, even when elected officials are corrupt, out of touch, or unwilling to listen. But if the governor can overturn such an initiative merely by refusing to defend it in the inevitable lawsuit, allowing opponents of the initiative to win by default, then the entire point of a citizens’ initiative is thwarted. (George Will would be overjoyed.)

Read the whole thing