[img]1|left|Ari Noonan||no_popup[/img]Perhaps the most recognizable trait of the left is its rather earthy approach to criticism. They take a dab of dirt, a spot of water and rub them together until indistinguishable. Then, using their good hand, they smear all over the statement of a conservative.
Declaiming loudly enough to be heard across the street they thunder obnoxiously — think Wooly Whoopi and Joyless Joy — that you are wrong without exactly being precise or sure why.
The Los Angeles Titanic, which would be arrested for Candidate Abuse if we lived in a fairer society, continued its vicious daily assaults on Meg Whitman this morning. Predictably, they followed the long-established smear pattern that Dems have employed for decades — without ever being punished.
Lawdy, Duck, Here Comes Climate Change
More than demonizing itself, Dems and other liberals cradle in their mean-spirited arms a lifelong love affair with abstractions and vague vacuities, as described on Page 1 of the Dems’ “How to Villify Your Opponent” rulebook.
Climate change, curbing abortion among lighter-skinned Eskimos at the North Pole, raising the minimum wage for liberals and illegals who aren’t too ambitious, talking campaign finance reform and complaining about the lack of immigration reform are favorite playtoys of Dems. Makes ‘em feel cozy on a chilly day like this.
Having been born just two years after God sent a foreclosure notice to Evie and Adam in the Eden Garden, I have witnessed dozens of disturbing — and two or three wonderful — trends in mass journalism.
Do You Believe? I Do Believe
This election cycle is the first time I remember newspapers being brazen enough to allow reporters, on their own, to attack candidates’ statements as false. By the darnedest coincidence, all of the spitting done by the Titanic and The New York Times has landed on conservatives.
Since I read the Titanic over breakfast each morning, the meal keeps getting interrupted when my aching heart develops palpitations over another outrageous journalistic ethical sin committed by those fun-loving short pants boys at 2nd and Spring.
Occasionally, but not often, the Titanic clumsily will try to mute its tracks with another favorite trick, by raising a weeny-teeny accusation against Ms. Whitman’s opponent, the esteemed Bald Retread, in the same story. Usually, it is on the order of “Mr. Retread said he tied his shoes too tight last night,” and the Titanic says oh, no, he didn’t.
Back to Ms. Whitman. The reporters on the story were Smarmy Seema and Mikey the Mocker, who was standing in for Maeve the Mocker, who was down at the hardware story getting her fangs re-sharpened. (Actually, she was off whoring with Sen. Boobie Boxer Ears at the Hollywood Roosevelt.)
The no-kidding charge: Ms. Whitman has begun airing an ad asserting that the Bald Retread is soft on crime, opposes the death penalty, even for cop killers.
Every Californian who has been to school knows the Rretread family’s historic opposition to the death penalty — Bald repeats it at the beginning of each day, preceding his morning ablutions.
When it comes to reliability, this pedestrian, decades-old accusation is less risky than saying “my own mother gave birth to me.”
At this point in the Titanic talebearing, I expected Smarmy Seema or Mikey the Second-String Mocker to reveal to panting readers — at least I was panting — that, by thunder, last night they had witnessed Mr. Retread personally gunning down a cop killer because he said he had lost confidence in the death penalty system.
But no.
Remember the dirt-water-smear formula all liberals are obliged to use?
Do you want to gulp down a pitcher of water before Smarmy and the Second-String Mocker draw back the curtain and reveal their heartstopping evidence?
One of those two dufuses actually wrote the following two sentences:
“In reality, Brown (Mr. Retread) has long voiced personal opposition to the death penalty but has vociferously defended it as the state’s attorney general. Brown (Mr. Retread) has taken on at least 500 capital cases as the state’s top law-enforcement officer.”
“Taken on?” What does that mean? If a student gave that witless response, the teacher would throw an eraser at him.
Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee and I were born in the same century. Read what he said in his essay this morning about the Retread and the death penalty. (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/)
“Taken on?” Mr. Retread has not done anything with these cases. What “taken on”?