The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 313

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-05-07 12:49 AM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 313

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 313

November 5, 2007
The Gland Illusion Edition

This week, Rudy Giuliani (1) tells fibs, Norman Podhoretz (2) is desperate for more war, and Karen Hughes (3) quits while she's, er, ahead. Enjoy, and don't forget the key!

Rudy Giuliani

I don't know if you've noticed this - I mean, it's not like the press have been covering it extensively - but Rudy Giuliani is a liar. In fact, he's one hell of a liar. The guy practically never stops lying. His teeth are falling out because he can't stop lying through them, and his butt is on the ground because he lied it all the way off. Yes - Rudy Giuliani is a liar.

Rudy continued his parade of lies last week in a radio ad:

GIULIANI: My chance of surviving prostate cancer - and thank God I was cured of it - in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.

Wow, if that's true, it's shocking. Shame it's a complete lie. According to the Washington Post:

Experts from the National Cancer Institute and the Departments of Urology at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Kansas agreed that Giuliani's figures were way out of date, if they were ever accurate at all. The latest official figures for five-year "survivability" rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England.

(snip)

In the United States, there has been a big emphasis since the early 1990s on early screening through PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing. Five-year survivability rates have increased simply because men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer at a very preliminary stage of a slow-developing disease. If you are diagnosed early on, your chances of surviving for another five years are close to 100 percent. Britain is several years behind the United States in the widespread use of PSA testing.

(snip)

Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.

(snip)

Rudy Giuliani is simply wrong when he claims that his chances of surviving prostate cancer are almost twice as high in the United States as in England, under a "socialized" medical system. The mayor seems to be making a habit of making sweeping statements with little or no factual support. See our recent posts on his claims about Mikhail Gorbachev and the end of the Soviet Union, the cost of health care premiums, and his own record as mayor of New York.

So there you have it - the death rate from prostate cancer among men is almost identical in both the U.S. and the U.K. Ha! I bet those Brits and their stupid "socialized medicine" feel pretty dumb spending just 41 percent of what we spend on healthcare in the U.S., right?!

Norman Podhoretz

Still, while Rudy might be a pathological liar, at least he's got sane, sensible people like Norman Podhoretz backing him up. Podhoretz - who happens to be one of Giuliani's foreign policy advisers - appeared on PBS last week and announced that not wanting to bomb Iran is like appeasing Hitler. According to Think Progress:

PODHORETZ: First, I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early '30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough. (...)

Let me respond to that. You know, similar arguments were made about Hitler in the early '30s, and it appalls me that this kind of attitude can still prevail after what we should have learned from the words of despots.

Okay, stop right there. You had me at "it appalls me that this kind of attitude can still prevail after what we should have learned..." You mean, like the invasion of Iraq, for example?

Don't worry though, because George W. Sane And Sensible Bush is in charge. And here's what he had to say about the situation in the Middle East last week...

Warning that the passage of time may have tempted some to think that the threats that became apparent on Sept. 11, 2001, "have grown distant as well," he said emphatically: "They have not. The terrorists who struck America that September morning intend to strike us again."

Bush said that in the early 1900s, the world ignored Lenin as he presented his plans for communist revolution, and in the 1920s it ignored Hitler.

"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is: Will we listen?" Bush said.

So let me get this straight. Iran is like Nazi Germany and if we don't go bomb them right this minute then the terrorists will win, and Osama bin Laden is like Hitler and if we don't bomb Iran then...

Wait a minute. This all sounds strangely familiar.

Karen Hughes

Farewell Karen Hughes - George W. Bush's undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs quit last week after succeeding in her mission to improve America's image on the world stage, and thanks to her leadership U.S. relations with Muslim countries have simply never been better. As CNN reported last week:

"She's made it possible for every ambassador around the world to feel comfortable going out and talking about America's message, pressing the public diplomacy case," (Condoleezza) Rice said when announcing Hughes' departure.

Rice praised Hughes' accomplishments in polishing the U.S. image abroad, especially in the Muslim world, and thanked her for her "wisdom and advice."

So let's take a look at what a great job Karen has done:

JUNE 2005

The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that China, which is ruled by a communist dictatorship, is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many countries, an international poll found. The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months... -- MSNBC

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252">JUNE 2006

America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace. -- Pew Polling

JANUARY 2007

The view of the US's role in the world has deteriorated both internationally and domestically, a BBC poll suggests. The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington had dealt with Iraq. -- BBC

JUNE 2007

Global distrust of American leadership is reflected in increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy. Not only is there worldwide support for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there also is considerable opposition to U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan. -- Pew Polling

Heck of a job, Hughesie!

Dick Cheney

Vice President Crashcart has been out hunting again, and you know what that means - trouble! This time Cheney didn't manage to shoot any of his companions in the face, but he did cause a stir by making his second visit to the Hudson Valley gun club, where, according to CNN, "well-heeled enthusiasts shoot ducks and peasants." Um... I mean, "pheasants."

So what's the problem with the Hudson Valley gun club? Here's a picture - see if you can spot the deliberate mistake.

Oops. Still, if you think that's bad, you should see what goes on on the other side of the door...

John Tanner

Last week a prominent Republican called John Tanner was forced to apologize after making dubious remarks about elderly minority voters. According to ABC News:

At a meeting of the National Latino Congress on Oct. 5, 2007, Tanner remarked that photo identification requirements may cause voting problems for the elderly, but would not disenfranchise minority voters because "our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first."

Ouch. This turned out to be somewhat embarrassing for Tanner - especially since data shows that during the 2004 election "turnout for elderly minority voters was higher than elderly white voters."

Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot to mention what John Tanner does for a living. He's chief of voting rights in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

Pat Buchanan

Seems that these days you can't turn on MSNBC without seeing Pat Buchanan's ugly mug. I mean, seriously, he's on there like 20 hours a day. (He needs the other four hours to recharge his outrage batteries.)

Yes, Pat has certainly rehabilitated his image since 1992 when he gave the keynote address at the Republican National Convention and railed against radical feminists and abortionists and militant homosexuals in a speech which the late great Molly Ivins said "probably sounded better in the original German." These days he can manage to blather on cable news for hours a day without revealing his true nature.

Well - almost. Here's Pat discussing Barack Obama last week:

This is not a street fighter, and he doesn't have the eye of the tiger. It is quite apparent. I think Chuck is exactly right. He's up there, sort of holding forth. I mean, he's not what you would expect from a black guy from the South Side of Chicago.

Oh really Pat? Care to clarify? What exactly would you "expect" from a black guy from the South Side of Chicago?

Tell you what, next time you're in Harlem why don't you meet up with Bill O'Reilly to discuss it over a nice glass of M-Fing iced tea at Sylvia's restaurant.

Mitt Romney

What has the two-legged Republican stool been up to this week? To find out we first need to take a quick look at Mitt Romney circa 1994, running for Senate in Massachusetts. Here's what he had to say back then:

Citing Kennedy's record of advocacy for gays and lesbians, Romney wrote, "For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern."

Sounds good, right? Okay, so here's how he decided to make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern last week:

A candidate for the Republican party nomination for President of the United States has said that he thinks a child would be better off with a dead parent rather than a gay one.

Yup.

Mitt Romney, a former Governor of Massachusetts, was speaking at a college in rural Iowa.

Asked what he would say to a gay couple wanting to get married, he pointed out his support for a change to the US Constitution to bar gay and lesbian Americans from marriage.

"I believe that maintaining the strength of the marriage relationship, the family relationship, is critical to the strength of an entire society," he said, according to Rocky Mountain News.

"And I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home.

"Even when there's a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad."

Okay... we've all heard that line before from the hatemongers of the religious right. So come on Mitt, take it to the next level. Drive that campaign bus right over the edge of the rhetorical cliff.

"And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child."

Good gracious Mitt, it appears that you've turned from a reasonable man into an ignorant, bigoted, pandering piece of shit! I guess that's what happens when you run for president on the GOP ticket.

Duncan Hunter

Last week the State Department called a "town hall meeting" to explain to U.S. diplomats that they have to go to Iraq or else. Which, not surprisingly, didn't go down too well. According to MSNBC:

Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting" called to explain the step, these workers peppered the official who signed the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats - under threat of dismissal - to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces.

Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone.

(snip)

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," (foreign service veteran Jack) Crotty said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

"You know that at any other (country) in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point," Crotty said to loud and sustained applause from the about 300 diplomats who attended the meeting in a large State Department auditorium.

It's okay though, because Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Obviously) has a smashing solution - he wants to fire the diplomats and replace them with wounded soldiers from Walter Reed hospital. I'm not kidding.

U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, will be meeting with President Bush today regarding his Wounded Warrior proposal to Congress. During today's meeting, Congressman Hunter intends to also suggest that State Department personnel who refuse deployment to Baghdad be replaced with wounded veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda hospitals.

"When the State Department appears to be filled with reluctant personnel, let's turn to those who have bravely followed the American flag in the most dangerous of assignments," said Congressman Hunter. "The U.S. Marines, soldiers, airmen and Navy personnel presently recovering at our national military hospitals have all the character required by the Department of State. They are brave, loyal, intelligent and fiercely determined to win the War on Terror.

"They are veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters and you can be sure that when called on for difficult assignments, they won't convene a town meeting to protest. Especially for those whose mobility has been impaired by wounds, State Department positions, not only in Baghdad but around the world, will provide excellent jobs as well as availing our nation of their enormous talent."

What on earth is Hunter thinking? No wait, don't tell me...

Hey you guys - thanks for your service to our country, now get back out there and relive your horrendous traumatic experience all over again! Come on, what's the matter? Let's face it, it's got to be better than recuperating in this shithole, right? I mean, you know we've slashed your benefits so you're once you get out of Walter Reed, you're screwed. And let's be realistic - the chances are quite good that you'll come back from Iraq with your one remaining leg still attached.

Three cheers for our brave troops! We promise we'll give you another round of applause when you get back (unless you decide to run for president as a Democrat, of course, in which case we'll say you're a coward who doesn't deserve your medals and probably shot yourself to get out of combat). Best of luck!

Richard Curtis

Okay, it's time for another round of your favorite Top 10 game, "Guess The Party Affiliation!" This week we're trying to guess the party affiliation of Richard Curtis of Spokane, Washington. Curtis resigned his position as a state representative last week after "he was quoted in police reports as saying a man he had sex with after they met at an erotic video store was trying to blackmail him," according to the Associated Press.

Here's a clue:

...in police reports, Curtis said he was being extorted by a man he had sex with at a hotel room in Spokane ... The other man, Cody Castagna, 26, contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.

Still can't get it? Try this, from the Spokesman Review:

A state representative dressed as a woman and engaged in oral sex at a Spokane Valley adult bookstore before rendezvousing at a downtown Spokane hotel for another sexual encounter with a man now under investigation for extortion, police reports released Tuesday allege.

Okay, last clue:

Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, Curtis has voted against bills that would grant civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

So let's see - this elected representative who has repeatedly voted against equal rights for gay Americans dressed as a woman and went to an adult bookstore where he gave another guy a blowjob before taking him to an expensive hotel room, banging his brains out, and then running out on the promised $1,000 fee. Sure sounds like one of those evil liberal Democrats to me!

Curtis, a Republican, told a newspaper in his southwest Washington district on Monday that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt.

Gosh, there's a surprise! He was a Republican after all. Anything else?

He also declared he was not gay.

Well, obviously.

Tony Snow

And finally, there was big news at the American Magazine Conference last week when former White House press secretary Tony Snow revealed this disturbing piece of information: "I will tell you there are fairness problems with the press."

Wait... don't tell me... the press is too liberal, right? Gee, how did I guess.

But that's not all - according to Tony, in the desolate land of liberal media lies, there's one shining beacon of truth-telling. Said he, "The rap on Fox having bias is an unfair one."

That's odd - I could have sworn Tony wasn't so fair and balanced when he worked for Fox News. In fact, I'm pretty sure that he was such a partisan tool, the White House called him up and said, "Hey, how would you like to go out and officially make shit up for the president?" and he said "When do I start?!?!"

But let's place the blame where it's due. Fox News vice president Brian Wilson (no, not the Brian Wilson) revealed the shocking truth about Fox during a speech at Texas Tech last week:

Wilson said he believes the reason Fox often receives criticism for being biased is because of the opinions of Fox hosts like Bill O'Reilly. "Bill O'Reilly is not a journalist; it is an opinion-based program," he said. "I think we get unfairly smeared because of Bill O'Reilly, and it has a huge following. I don't agree with half of what he says, but that is what characterizes Fox News."

Oh, I get it - it's not Fox News that's biased, it's just all the programs they show on Fox News. Funny how that works.

See you next week!

-- EarlG