April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
When you think of Neil Cavuto, for those who know him in any way, several things surely come to mind. Unless you are in a certain small, frothing sect, those words likely include “intelligent” and gentleman”.
When you think of what Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs calls “the professional Left”, you probably think what Gibbs implied when saying that: intemperate. The more seasoned political campaigners among you might even come up with “unhinged”.
So it is that the professional Left are calling Neil Cavuto a ‘moron.’ [UPDATE: See my Reply to a comment, below. It is very possible only the MM fan passing it along changed the title from Cavuto to Morons. The rest stands with that amended context. If I did read it right and MM changed it upon reflection, good for them. If I misread and transferred the email title to a similar but different post title, I apologize to MM for that. This instance may solely be fans of the professional Left, and not the PL, proper].
Now, remember, these same people insist that Christine O’Donnell and most anyone associated in any way with the Tea Party or its sentiments are too nutty and/or dumb to come near elective office, meanwhile embracing any candidate who will agree with them that your car is a weather machine.
These are people who revere Al Gore as a visionary sage and genius. They are convinced the smartest man to occupy the Oval Office is someone who also says — serially — that carbon dioxide “poisons the water we drink.” (Who shall be the one to tell him about Perrier?)
In an email sent to me by someone I do not know, that these deep thinkers, I see that the kidz over at Media Matters [UPDATE: or just one of their readers, per above/below], are in a lather because, on a Cavuto hit I did yesterday, en route from the Milwaukee airport to a talk at Marquette University and while discussing the Left’s precious GM bailout — and the Volt, one of two principal reasons for that (the other being paying off one of the unions helping them push ‘green’ central planning with ownership disproportionate to its claims of, er, the means of production) — Neil began joking about in the future worrying whether someone remembered to plug the car in.
As the basis for their rant, [Media Matters] does not say that Neil claimed the Volt is a plug-in car (he didn’t), but only go so far as to say he ‘suggested’ that. And that’s apparently sufficient for them to act-out (and post!) a tantrum, reminding us yet again who they really are. I am the other ‘moron’ referred to, it seems, though on the basis of my not hiding my contempt for their agenda. Not because I said the Volt was a plug-in, either (I didn’t), though I did reply, after noting that while that isn’t the issue here, in making that joke about plug-ins he did raise a good, other issue.
They don’t like us talking about the good issues their agenda raises. This is what ticked them off (other than that people like Cavuto, and occasionally me, have platforms). Noting the inanity of the Left’s parallel campaign, in the name of the same agenda that compels the taxpayer to underwrite curbside baubles for poseur middle class America like the Volt, to move America’s transport sector onto the electrical grid, against which they are also waging war.
If you are very earnest, however, and spend your day transcribing televisions shows, this is cause for outrage and spasms.
Go ahead. Watch. And each time the Left flips out — I know, I know, how can you tell? — recall their trademark lack of measure or perspective. Which, I recall, was what a famous DNC memo warned about Al Gore.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?