Ah, the satanic eucharist of the left in action. I guess that would make it a dyscharist.

It's understandable. After all, if you're starved for ideas, you have to consume someone.
Gagdad Bob | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 12:14 pm | #

Saturn Devouring one of His Own Children by Goya.

That painting gave me nightmares when I first saw it sometime in high school.

And a "club for petty and hypocritical demigods" becomes a lot less funny when they sieze power and start "cleansing". (Like 2008?)
Ken | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 12:33 pm | #

I wonder who will emerge as "Zeus"? Maybe Lieberman?
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 12:33 pm | #

In all seriousness, there was a time, not to long ago, remarks like, "now the club for petty and hypocritical demigods" used to describe the dems would have have been regarded as highly offensive.

It's a helluva thing when those words are not hyperbole, but rather, an accurate reflection of reality.
sigmund, carl and alfred | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 1:00 pm | #

What I see is a political party which could not, or would not, see that over some fifty year a small body of Socialists activated their way into the American body politic by using all the rhetoric normally associated with the cause of classical America Liberalism (right to privacy, human rights, civil rights) all the while imposing Marxists policy (collectivsm, indoctrination, equalization). Roe vs. Wade is the best example of how Marxists used the female as a target for achieving collective equalization. It was no coincidence that at that same time, our culture was also undergoing a sexual revolution inspired by the idea that the true path to finding self awareness was to sexually explore as many people as possible. This was necessary in order to disrupt the institution of family/marriage/religion since these things represent powers greater than the collective. Females were convinced that our sexuality must be equally as pleasurable as the male, nothing else would satisify. Males were allowed to absolve all responsibilty to the female. Of course, the risk in such behavior is the consequence of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was very big into equalizing sexuality. As once Liberal, I had to ask the question that if the definiton of liberalism is to "look out for the little guy, the defenseless, the voiceless" how does abortion support Liberalism? Further how can Liberalism ursurp Democratic process by legislating through the courts? Granted, both sides back then possessed blind faith regarding the question of life, but technology is clarifying this issue making it harder to defend 'clump of cells'.

Another example of Marxists influence is the anti-war movement today (and Vietnam) where all the signs are were manufactured by The Socialist Party Back in WWII they tried to move in but the Democrat Party was wise enough to purge them from power.

Thirty years ago the Democrat Party caved into their principles and let the rabid dogs come into their house all the while maintaining an appearance of Liberalism. Big mistake.
syn | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 1:09 pm | #

'Mother Jones' link hasn't been working all morning -- that;s what comes from being linked from 'Sanity' (and from 'Drudge')
JimO | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 1:25 pm | #

Thanks for covering. This one has hit me hard, partially because he's from around here (his house is probably 10-12 miles away as the crow flies), and because regardless of what I think of his positions and even his strong and documented disrespect for Bush, the guy is a husband, father of two, and is supposed to be able to function in the business community as a lawyer.

I just can't imagine what it would be like to go through a smear like this.
Tom Blumer | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 1:44 pm | #

I just can't imagine what it would be like to go through a smear like this.

Two Minutes Hate every two minutes, and you're Goldstein.
Ken | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 3:06 pm | #

Why, no - no tactic is off limits, at least to someone, somewhere. By way of example, the person(s) at www.pleasevote.com, during the 2004 US presidential campaign, put up an ad that seems particularly well-suited to this discussion, which you can find here:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs....og/? entry=11589
The ad is no longer there, but it used to be - I downloaded it from there in 2004. As a caveat, it should be noted that this ad was not, as far as I know, either paid for or endorsed by the DNC. Not that it matters much - if a Democrat, even one in a leadership position, makes an outrageous statement, the Democrats complain that they are being broadbrushed when they're called out on it. They want to have it both ways, by pandering to both sides of their divided party but owning up to none of it.
I think what this shows is that the lessons taught by the Democrat party to their constituency have been learned all too well. They've accused the Republicans of just about every imaginable crime, and making unproven and unprovable accusations has become so familiar that it's reflexive. Democrats accuse their opponents of things for which they have no proof, but their audience has become accustomed to that - all they expect is that it's plausible, or at the very least, not impossible. If the Democrats believe, as they have been told over and over, that "the GOP will stop at nothing, then any accusation seems probable until disproved, and even then it's not out of the question. Thus, when Hackett became an inconvenience, they a used situationally-tailored tactic from their Arsenal'O'Hate against him that they've used against the Republicans. Hackett was in the military, and the Democrats wanted to make him go away - thus, they spread a not-impossible rumor that he's guilty of war crimes.
The rumor-fueled conspiracy-mongering of the Liberal-Left has made this kind of tactic entirely predictable. I speculate that we can expect to see more of this in the future, as the hard-Left comes to see the Democrats as neither supporting their agenda to a sufficient degree, nor winning enough elections to enact their policies: they will turn on the Democrats with the same kind of low-down baseless accusations that they've previously reserved for the GOP.
lvc.iii | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 5:14 pm | #

I just can't imagine what it would be like to go through a smear like this.

Try being President Bush who has to cope with smears like this and worse on a daily basis.

The amount of hate in the Dems is simply unbelievable.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 02.17.06 - 5:24 pm | #

Whoodathunkit? Democrats eating their own young.... Gosh, couldn't see that one coming.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 02.18.06 - 2:02 am | #

> technology is clarifying this issue making it harder to defend 'clump of cells'.


Yeah, 'cause there's no question that coherent, human thought patterns eminate from one of those clumps of cells.

Oh, wait. There's nothing of the sort to be found. Ir really is nothing but a clump of cells with the possibility of becoming a human being.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 02.18.06 - 2:05 am | #

Yeah, the distinction between possibility and reality is about a twenty minute trip through the birth canal or, when She needs to sue someone for a lifetime of financial support.
syn | Email | Homepage | 02.18.06 - 6:20 am | #

No, anon at 5:24 PM, I can't imagine enduring what George W. Bush must endure either.
Tom Blumer | Email | Homepage | 02.18.06 - 1:21 pm | #