John Hawkins went touristing over in the fever swamps of Daily Kos, and has returned with reports of the toll George W. Bush has wreaked upon the private lives of its contributors.

Examples:

angrybird: I wrote a diary a short time ago about how the Bush administration helped ruin my marriage. It wasn’t because my husband was a Bush supporter or anything…it was because of all the stresses from job loses, living without health insurance and getting sick, to my husband being forced to take a job where he wasn’t home much that helped ruin my marriage. …

begone: Before my head began exploding a few years ago in response to Busharama, I’d exercise a lot… I mean, almost daily, joyous-type exericising. Now I come home with a slight frown on my face and come here to hear the news & be a mojo-mama even if too tired to comment, and hang for hours here and on other blogs, as if the light will shine again and I’ll be present to hear the BREAKING news about that. Bush, I blame you for my new-ish extra 20 pounds….

delphine: I haven’t had a relationship since he took office. But I can say that I’ve been trashed by potential online dating partners for stating I couldn’t date anyone who thinks bush is a good presznit….

meldroc: Bush has also damaged my mental health.

The Kos consensus is that the current president is so totally diabolical that, even from his Oval Office location many miles away, he can literally drive moonbats mad.

Of course, that is frequently a very short trip.

Read the whole pity party, and laugh.

They have to put up with their party’s insane base. As Michael Herszenhorn explains in the Times, Barney Frank is currently under fire from the nutroots for being insufficiently Gay.

James Bowman, in the New Atlantis:

Writing in the Washington Post about the dedication of the new Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, D.C., Philip Kennicott suggested that there is encoded in it the subtextual and “contentious” claim that “the left failed to adequately oppose communism.” As the memorial consists of a statue based on the replica of the Statue of Liberty carried by the students of Tiananmen Square in 1989, while the inscription on the plinth doesn’t mention “the left” at all but only says “to the more than one hundred million victims of communism and to those who love liberty,” you might almost think that somebody on the left had a sore conscience. It is hard to see, moreover, what would have been “contentious” about the claim—if it had been made—that, so far from opposing communism “adequately,” many on the American left hardly opposed it at all. Many others were unashamed apologists for the regimes that murdered the (estimated) 100 million people now being memorialized. Much of the left was —and remains— “anti-anti-communist.” This is what accounts for what Ferdinand Mount calls the “asymmetry of indulgence” afforded communistic and fascistic state-sponsored murders.

Robert Service, writing in The New Statesman, recently complained that merely because his book Comrades: A World History of Communism had noticed the toll taken on the lives and liberties of those unfortunate enough to have lived under Communist dictatorships, a reviewer in the British press had assigned to him the most despised epithet in the vocabulary of the contemporary British intellectual: “neocon.” Service noted ruefully that, though discredited wherever it has been instituted, “Communism, like nuclear fuel, has a long afterlife.” Indeed it does. But it didn’t occur to him to ask why. I think it is because Communism was a powerful example of the recurring strain of utopianism in the intellectual life of the West. Communism itself may have failed, but the utopian habit of thought on which it was based lingers on even among those who find Communism repugnant and hateful—even, perhaps, among the dreaded neocons themselves. And this survival, in turn, is a result of our culture’s having nowhere else to go in its long flight away from a heroic past it is determined to reject.

Hat tip to Karen L. Myers.

David Brock’s “progressive” spin factory got Don Imus, and it’s now gunning for Rush Limbaugh, reports Jonah Goldberg.

In the parable of the million monkeys banging on typewriters for a million years, the reward is supposed to be the complete works of Shakespeare. But have you heard the parable of the million interns? Here, the prize is Rush Limbaugh’s head, and Bill O’Reilly’s, and Brit Hume’s, and pretty much any other prominent conservative or non-leftist who doesn’t kowtow to the Democratic Party and its “netroots” army of Lilliputian cannibals. This, in a nutshell, is the vision behind a group most people have never heard of, at least not until this week, Media Matters for America.

sallykohn experiences some warm feelings about the Iranian strongman, and finds at least some convergence of her own politics with his. They agree on the really important issues, like hating the United States and George W. Bush.

I know I’m a Jewish lesbian and he’d probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon…

Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all…

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding. …

Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I’ll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he’d probably have me killed, I’ll try to listen for some truth.

Alberto Fujimori saved Peru from a bloodthirsty communist terrorist movement, the Shining Path, of which the British editorialist Theodore Dalrymple wrote:

The worst brutality I ever saw was that committed by Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru, in the days when it seemed possible that it might come to power. If it had, I think its massacres would have dwarfed those of the Khmer Rouge. As a doctor, I am accustomed to unpleasant sights, but nothing prepared me for what I saw in Ayacucho, where Sendero first developed under the sway of a professor of philosophy, Abimael Guzman.”

So, naturally, we read in today’s New York Times that Alberto Fujimori is being extradited by the socialist government of Chile (a country which was itself saved from Marxist totalitarianism by the late General Augusto Pinochet, who was also internationally hounded by leftist attempts at judicial vengeance) to Peru to stand trial on “human rights and corruption” charges.

Save a country from Marxist totalitarianism’s reign of terror, and you’ll be indicted and internationally extradited to be tried as an enemy of “human rights.”

But, if you take US diplomats hostage, and become head of a major terrorist regime which stones people to death, wages covert war against the United States, and bends every effort at acquiring nuclear weapons, why! then, you get to give a speech at Columbia.

Daily Kos cites a poll of 1461 Iraqis taken by a “respected British marketing research firm” which proves the US is responsible for the violent deaths of more than a million Iraqis so far.

And Ray Drake, at Davids Medienkritik, cites German media reports of numbers of US anti-war demonstrators.

ARD Tagesschau, SZ and SPIEGEL ONLINE – “4,000 to 6,000” anti-war demonstrators
ZDF and Die Zeit – “About 10,000” anti-war demonstrators
TAZ – “Tens-of-thousands” of anti-war demonstrators
Die Welt – “50,000 anti-war demonstrators”
Die Presse (Austrian media site) – “Around 100,000 Americans marched against the war…”

Do I hear 200,000? 500,000? 1,000,000 anti-war demonstrators? Going once – going twice – sold!

Darlene Click had a bit of Photoshop fun over Jane Hamsher’s little lesson for Elizabeth Edwards about never ever (Just Don’t Do It!) criticizing the left.

Hat tip to Jeff Goldstein.

(used by Taylor Marsh to admonish Elizabeth Edwards)

As the DesMoines Register, Mrs. Candidate Edwards broke the party-line this week by criticizing MoveOn.org’s New York Times ad.

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us” in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.

So leading left-blogger Jane Hamsher takes Mrs Edwards out to the woodshed and lays down the law.

Here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It. …

When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. …

There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn. They’re out there on the left so you can look “moderate.” They’re saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn’t considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to. Understand that they have contributed a lot to the anti-war movement and that from a practical standpoint, the Edwards campaign needs the solid support of the base to get where he needs to go and everybody’s feeling a bit played this week because nobody other than MoveOn seems to want to take on the carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show that just bought us a few more Friedman Units of war. And we’re not very happy when the people we defend turn around and start kicking them for it.

We love you. We want to love you.

Knock it off.

James Lewis dissects the political description “Progressive,” a weasel-word commonly substituted for communist.

what kind of person has to label himself “Progressive?” Obviously somebody who believes he (or she) understands real progress better than the rest of us. Because if you are a Progressive it implies that everybody else, let’s face it, is a Regressive, or maybe just a Stagnant. It’s a smirky, self-flattering way of saying you’re a lot better than the rest.

So what kind of ego needs do you have to have to call yourself that? And what do you believe about others? In fact, Progressives must believe that other people are worse than they are; that only they can Save the Planet, or create Peace on Earth, or Solve Inequality, or whatever sin bedevils mankind.

Like the preacher who is focused on nothing but sin, Progressives must emphasize the alleged flaws of other people. They need to pinpoint those flaws, to feel important. Because Progressives make it clear that the real obstacle to Progress is Other People. In fact, if you really ask a “Progressive” what other people are like, you’re likely to hear that much of humanity is either ignorant or evil.

The word Progressive first became popular in the late 19th century, but has now been adopted as a popular synonym for “socialism.” Americans tend not to like socialism, associating it with the Soviet Union and other bad characters. But “Progressivism” sounds fine. So it is a euphemism for something people fear; a cover-up label.

The odd thing, of course, is that real progress in the world is almost never achieved by self-proclaimed “Progressives.” They generally make things worse rather than better. …

All of Political Correctness, the dominant cultural theme of the Left, depends upon.. allegations and accusations. It is incredibly shallow and superficial – but it is also very effective as a power-play. If you can put the world at a disadvantage by implicitly accusing them of sin, you can also manipulate and oppress others, conscious of your own moral superiority. Evidence is not required. It is the pervasive McCarthyism of the Left.

Doug Patton thinks he’s identified one.

..the core, the heart, the base of the Democratic Party has become a loony gaggle of special interest groups on the fringes of American civilization.

They are driven by far-left ideology, and they are represented by the likes of paranoid billionaire George Soros and the organizations he supports. MoveOn.org, a web site originally founded to defend Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has morphed into a collection of political crazies, as has the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and a number of others.

These hateful organizations represent the views of the hardcore voters who participate in Democrat primaries, and many of them are not happy with today’s crop of Democrats. Hillary Clinton, who has spent the last forty years of her life devoted to a left-wing ideology, is not liberal enough for many of these people. Her realization that she cannot win a general election without offending them has given some in her campaign heartburn.

Barrack Obama is too militaristic for them after his threat to invade Pakistan. Recently, even the traditional idols of the left, the Kennedys, have run afoul of some in the blogosphere’s hate machine. It seems that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and his Uncle Ted are opposed to the construction of a wind farm on Nantucket Sound because it would be visible from the area where they sail their yachts.

So who can a leftist wacko really love these days? It has to be someone who, first and foremost, hates George Bush. That’s a given. Then there is the requirement that the United States surrender to al-Qaida and leave Iraq immediately.

Of course, this person has to view America as a blight on the rest of the world, especially on all the wonderful, peaceful people of the planet, from Native Americans to the North Vietnamese to the Iraqis. Blaming America first for virtually everything is an absolute requirement. Environmental extremism is an important part of the agenda, so this political savior would have to spout the PC line on global warming. And, of course, capitalism must be regarded as a bane that has brought misery to all who have ever suffered under it.

But what leader could possibly fill the bill for American lefties? Why, Osama bin Laden, of course. The world’s most famous terrorist has delivered a new message, via videotape, much of it to the American people.

Bin Laden rambles through his latest screed reciting the same kind of nonsense made famous by America haters across the Internet and even in public life. He blathers on about how Donald Rumsfeld was somehow responsible for killing two million people in Vietnam. He tells us how concerned he is about America’s sub-prime mortgage “crisis.” He blames the U.S. for global warming. He criticizes congressional Democrats for continuing the war in Iraq and warns that America will lose. He invites us all to embrace Islam. And most important, he excoriates the American people for electing George W. Bush to a second term, telling us that we are “not innocent.”

Osama bin Laden embodies everything liberal Democrats love in a leader. In fact, if he were standing on the stage at one of their presidential debates, spouting the same ideas he put forth in his latest video, he would be a bona fide hit among their base.

Gateway Pundit links a 5:48 video of John Gibson from Fox News comparing Osama’s recent speech to some statements by Keith Olbermann. “There’s an echo in the room.” Hilarious.