Wednesday Night Funny: America Weakly (Updated with link)

posted at 10:15 pm on September 6, 2006 by Ian

You keep hearing about what happens if the Democrats take back control of the House and Senate. Consider this GOP ad your fair warning:

Read the newspaper here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

lol, oh man.. those clips at the end are the best and say it all about the modern Democratic Party.

RightWinged on September 6, 2006 at 10:36 PM

It’s closer to the truth than you think.

Kini on September 6, 2006 at 10:57 PM

The scariest thing is that a I could see a Dem Prez having the UN at the Mexican border.

bbz123 on September 7, 2006 at 12:31 AM

If Dean contributed something for eternity it’s that unforgettable screaaaaaaaaaam! Hillarious to see/hear it again.

Entelechy on September 7, 2006 at 12:35 AM

I’m all for making fun of liberals, but shouldnt Republicans give me something to vote FOR instead of something to vote against? Mike DeWine anyone? He is the microcosm of the conservative conundrum.

Theworldisnotenough on September 7, 2006 at 1:49 AM

Listen to Newt

Theworldisnotenough on September 7, 2006 at 2:28 AM

Very well done.

I wish they’d featured Ted Kennedy’s most famous quote, though…

“We’ll drive off that bridge when we come to it.”

Corky on September 7, 2006 at 7:41 AM

…”Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment”….

rightside on September 7, 2006 at 7:48 AM

You should read this

rightside on September 7, 2006 at 8:02 AM

Fake but Accurate.

fogw on September 7, 2006 at 8:29 AM

Heh, funny. Of course the part of Murtha blocking “terrorist surveillance” is a load of crap. No one, not even civil libertarians like me opposes that. We just want it to be done legally.

Mark Jaquith on September 7, 2006 at 10:04 AM

Murtha blocking “terrorist surveillance” is a load of crap

right.

MikeG on September 7, 2006 at 10:15 AM

Go find one Democrat who thinks that we shouldn’t be able to listen in on terrorists.

It’s a straw man.

Mark Jaquith on September 7, 2006 at 10:26 AM

Actually, Mark, there are an awful lot of Democrats who don’t think the terror threat is real. A couple of them have won primaries this year. And Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid bragged about killing the Patriot Act. Ask the average Democrat who the bigger threat is, Bush or bin Laden, and listen to the answer.

So it’s not a straw man at all.

Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 10:37 AM

Hey Mark, it is being done legally. Terrorists don’t have civil rights protections. The President doesn’t need judicial oversight to conduct foreign policy. You may not be against terroist surveillance, but all your contrived hoops giving civil rights to non citizens have the same effect. As far as your straw man contention, the dems only contribution to the war on terror is griping about port security and more funds to first responders. They couldn’t wait to kill the Patriot act, as Bryan stated above. It’s the same thing with the dems over and over. They find some obscure facet of the debate (first responders) and pound on it while opposing everything else. It’s like Rush alwasy said: Symbolism over Substance. The appearance of doing something while doing nothing. It’s why they are dangerous. They’d rather dither and follow the UN than protect this country. Look at Clinton. Easily the most militant of the ‘new Democrats.’ What did he do when an ex-president was targeted for assassination? He bombed an empty building on a Saturday night. No, it’s not a straw man at all.

austinnelly on September 7, 2006 at 10:53 AM

Actually, Mark, there are an awful lot of Democrats who don’t think the terror threat is real.

Well, except they consider the Bush administration a “terror threat.”

bamapachyderm on September 7, 2006 at 11:10 AM

TheWorld is correct. The GOP have done very little of late that makes me want to work for them and I’ll only vote for them out of self-defense (literally). But donate and work? With the earmarks, the open borders, etc.? No way!

Mike O on September 7, 2006 at 11:18 AM

Democrats win if they get enough people sick up and fed with all of the constant griping and complaining about President Bush/Republicans that the population no longer pays attention to what anyone is saying.
If someone tries to shout over the Dems, he’s “just as bad”. If someone attempts to lay out reasonable examples of successes in Iraq they get “Liebermanned”.
If a Conservative sheds light on Democratic lies, he’s a ‘partisan hack’ who must be dismissed, and is “not allowed to to comment when grown-ups are discussing politics”.
It’s no wonder that the Democrats have been trying to raise a hysterical lynch mob against President Bush for 6 years. He’s an honorable public servant who has served and defended our Country well. He’s the antithesis of Bill Clinton, and Dems know it, and it rankles them.
Lets not make it “Fitzmass” in November. Send Democrats down to defeat, not just because they are weak on national security, but because most Republicans are strong on the same at a time when we all need to be.

Doug on September 7, 2006 at 11:48 AM

Heh, funny. Of course the part of Murtha blocking “terrorist surveillance” is a load of crap. No one, not even civil libertarians like me opposes that. We just want it to be done legally.

Mark Jaquith

Was the Gorlick Wall a load of crap too? How about Sandy Berger shoving classified papers down his pants? Never underestimate the stupidity foolishness of any democrat.

DannoJyd on September 7, 2006 at 12:28 PM

I find it ironic that Mark thinks we buy into his “want it to be done legally” mantra. Since when do terrorists or their thugs here in this country have any rights, other than the rights they were given under the GC, which in my opinion is a crock of Sh*t! What about this program bothers you? Would you rather innocents be killed because we missed something by not tapping into their conversations, like we missed a lot with that Gorlick wall? Why that woman was on the 9/11 commission is beyond me but that is another story for another day. While I am very disturbed by the open borders that W seems to want and a few other things, I am proud that he has protected us for 5 years while Slick Willie was asleep or unzipped at the switch. My husband is again in Iraq & while I miss him terribly and worry for him every waking and sleeping minute, he said he’d rather be fighting them over there then having them over here. You may not like it, because if I remember from the other day you were worried about a draft, but that’s the way it is. BTW as I said, you need not worry, no one in the military wants draftees. They don’t think you’d do a good job.

Catie96706 on September 7, 2006 at 1:48 PM

Bravo, Catie96706. You said it so well.

God bless you, lady. Good luck to you and your husband. The true Americans in the country support you, your husband, and his position on all things in the war. Those who won’t fight it are too limited in intellect and attention span to realize they were ignoring the conflict for over 25 years now. Well we aren’t ignoring it now. And they are scared to death Real Men and Real Women might stand up for their lives and their kids and do something drastic about protecting America from an Islamic threat which has been present and actively attempting to fight the US for over 25 years.

Press on, ma’am.

Subsunk

Subsunk on September 7, 2006 at 2:50 PM

Actually, Mark, there are an awful lot of Democrats who don’t think the terror threat is real.

Names? Quotes? As far as I know, even crazy 9/11 conspiracy theorist Cynthia McKinney doesn’t claim that terrorists weren’t involved with the attacks.

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid bragged about killing the Patriot Act.

Indeed, but we’re talking about FISA here… the ability of the government to listen in to terrorists’ communications.

I’ve not heard any Democrats recommend that FISA be locked down to make it harder for the government to listen in. The video proposes that this is a goal of the Democrats. I still say it’s a straw man.

It’s a clever straw man, no doubt. People are stupid. People don’t know what FISA is or that the government can already listen in to terrorists phone calls legally. They hear that Democrats are opposed to Bush’s warrantless terrorist surveillance program and then some dishonest propaganda message claims that Democrats don’t want the government to be able to listen in to terrorists’ communications, and they fall for it. Nevermind that it’s utter bullshit. Nevermind that submitting to court review doesn’t restrict the government… it only makes them accountable.

Hey Mark, it is being done legally.

No it is not. Alberto Gonzales admitted that they were violating the law. He just said that it is the administration’s opinion that they should be allowed to violate the law, if it will make Americans safer.

Terrorists don’t have civil rights protections.

They do if they are American citizens. Obviously a terrorist in Pakistan doesn’t have them, but I didn’t claim that they did.

You may not be against terroist surveillance, but all your contrived hoops giving civil rights to non citizens have the same effect.

My “hoop” is not contrived. It’s the bloody law. It doesn’t give civil rights to non-citizens. It doesn’t prevent, slow down or in any way interfere with the ability of the government to intercept terrorist communications. They don’t even have to tell the court ahead of time… they can listen in, and then tell the court after the fact. How does that restrict them? It’s not about restriction, it’s about accountability. The Bush administration wants to listen in to the calls of anyone at any time for any reason without having to ever tell anyone that it even happened.

Your comments about how Democrats are doves are well taken. Yeah, Clinton was useless, militarily. Regardless, it is a straw man to say that Democrats want to change FISA so that the government cannot listen in to terrorists’ communications. That was my only point. I think the Democrats’ foreign policy generally sucks. I voted for Bush in 2004 because I didn’t want Kerry in charge of the armed forces. I’m with you on that. What I’m talking about is a domestic issue… interception of phone calls without a warrant and without ever telling the courts, as the Bush administration admits is required by law.

What about this program bothers you?

That it is against the law. That it gives absolute power to one branch of the government to do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want without telling anyone or being accountable to anyone, ever. To any right-wing supporters of this program… would you have been comfortable if Clinton had assumed this power? Would you sleep well at night knowing that his administration was tapping phones without accountability, or even a record that it had happened?

Here’s how it currently works.

1. NSA taps a phone
2. NSA promises (internally, not to any external party) that there was a terrorist on one end of the call
3. America says “yeah, it’s cool, we trust you and all of the thousands of people who work for you to never ever use this power for a nefarious purpose”

Part of me almost wants a Democrat to be elected in 2008, just to watch the look on your faces when you realize that all the absolute power you silently let the Bush administration accumulate is now in the hands of an atheistic peace-nik.

Mark Jaquith on September 7, 2006 at 5:03 PM

I don’t know why I am bothering, you obviously can’t be reasoned with about this, but…

That it is against the law. That it gives absolute power to one branch of the government to do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want without telling anyone or being accountable to anyone, ever.

The Senate Intelligence committee was kept completely up to date on everything, didn’t you read Rockefellers letter that it wasn’t his fault he was too stupid to understand what was happening?

To any right-wing supporters of this program… would you have been comfortable if Clinton had assumed this power? Would you sleep well at night knowing that his administration was tapping phones without accountability, or even a record that it had happened?

How do you know he didn’t? By all indications he did the same thing, but his political enemies weren’t as insane as Bushitlers. These are secret operations to develop intelligence, not evidence. The rules of evidence are completely irrelevant, nobody is interested in prosecuting these people in a court of law. God knows how long they have been going on, just secretly until now, when defeating the Republicans has become more important than defending the country.

B Moe on September 7, 2006 at 10:03 PM

typical liberal b.s. from Mark Jaquith on his latest post. we know that you liberals support terrorists rights to call anyone they want, no matter who it is. the NSA HAS PROTECTED US from any terrorist attack since 9/11, but it is obvious that you liberals are against ANY anti-terror laws that protect us. remember that liberals hate this country & rather would side with those who hate this country as well (i.e. Hugo Chavez / Castro / most of Europe) dont forget these as well –

Liberals & what they are & stand for :

1)Anti-American
2)terrorist appeasers
3)Gay Marriage
3)Anti-Holiday (especially Christmas)
4)Cut & Run
5)Open Borders
6)Pro illegal aliens

Starblazer on September 7, 2006 at 11:55 PM

for #6 it should be “Amnesty”

Starblazer on September 7, 2006 at 11:57 PM

Catie, well said! I thank God for people like you and your husband. If not for people like your husband, we’d be in a (bigger) world of hurt. Thank you.

StephC on September 8, 2006 at 10:51 AM

What about this program bothers you? Would you rather innocents be killed because we missed something by not tapping into their conversations, like we missed a lot with that Gorlick wall?

You know the irony is that the Gorelick wall is exactly the type of thing that Mark J. would vocally support and defend, and yet it was a key obstacle that prevented us from getting the 9/11 hijackers in the first place.

Were you born this obtuse, or did it require years of practice?

thirteen28 on September 8, 2006 at 11:06 AM