….and the whole quota/race card/homophobe card crowd.

1. Since the NYT did not have an openly gay op/ed columnist until this week were they up until that point bigots who were practicing discrimination?

2. If the answer to question one is “No” since the highly liberal New York Times took 160 years to have an openly gay op/ed columnist have we established that “160 years” is an acceptable watermark/deliminator to decide how quickly institutions can wait before advancing an opening gay person to their most prestigious positions without being considered bigots/racists/homophobes?

Just askin’

If you were for any reason wondering why the commentators at TPM are by and large defending Ed Schultz’s remarks in comments you are forgetting one of the primary tenets of liberalism.

The idea that Ed Schultz is being, shall we say “ungentlemanly” on his radio show is not of any relevance.

To them being liberal is the equivalent of “Once saved always saved” to some protestants, what you do doesn’t matter as long as you say the right thing.

…but he is spot on concerning the prediction:

House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted Republicans would make huge gains in next year’s elections. “I think we’ll pick up a dozen Senate seats and 30 to 40 House seats,” Gingrich said. That would give Republicans their second biggest House majority in history and their third biggest gain in Senate seats ever.

and that doesn’t even include the White House.

Republicans scored an upset in one of Hawaii’s most Liberal Congressional districts on Tuesday, dealing a blow to the national Democratic Party in a race that largely turned on the party’s plan to overhaul Healthcare.

Oops sorry that is the headline and lead paragraph that the NYT should have run a year ago when Charles Djou won a congressional seat against a divided democratic party in Hawaii last May if they treated that election the same way they did NY-26.

It’s a game you can play with MSM sites, Reuters for instance:

Here are the lead paragraphs that Reuters ran yesterday and one year ago, can you guess which one is which?

A {name of State} {Name of party} defeated two {name of party| who split their party’s vote Saturday in a special U.S. congressional election in the heavily { name of party} district …

And here is the lead paragraph of the other:

{name of party} {name of winning candidate} drew on voter discontent over {name of party} plans to revamp }{name of program} to score an upset win on Tuesday in a special election to represent a {name of philosophy} {name of state} congressional district.

One story minor unimportant victory of minority party signaling nothing, the other a seizmic shift the the political landscape. If you can’t figure out which is the GOP win and which is the Democratic win then you might be a liberal or a member of the MSM psy-ops campaign.

One of the busts I’ve had against Tim Pawlenty is that he was a “me too” fellow.

Back in NY-23 when Palin first endorsed Doug Hoffman (back when Newt was backing Dede along with the NRCC) Pawlenty Hemmed and Hawwed and then became “me too”.

Then when Morning Joe was going on about the “Blood Libel” and the target maps, Pawlenty refused to call it the BS that it was on the show. That really angered me.

My comment concerning him on at CPAC was a single sentence: Tim Pawlenty bores me.

Pawlenty was right on a lot of issues, but I wanted to see a leader and Pawlenty wasn’t leading.

Boy what a difference a week makes:

Headline Pawlenty calls for end of ethanol subsidies — in Iowa

Headline: Pawlenty calls for Medicare and Social Security reform — in Florida

This is leading. Little Miss Attila is going all in on Pawlenty in the same way that Stacy is all in on Herman Cain. It’s not a secret who my first choice, nor is it a secret that I’m impressed by Herman Cain but if Pawlenty keeps this up I will certainly be willing to give him a 2nd look.

You have the Ny-26 election, you have the tornados in the midwest and they led with Netanyahu’s speech. It took them 11 minutes to get to the election in western NY.

Of course once they got there they didn’t disappoint not showing the “tea party” candidate Davis and his graphic because the viewers would put two and two together and get four and using Scott “I was for the Ryan Plan before I was against it” Brown to hit Ryan’s plan. (He will be on today, that should be interesting).

The fact that the MSNBC morning show led with the Netanyahu speech and highlighted the fact that he got more standing O’s then the one how earth shattering it was. Of course, perhaps the idea was to show Democrats along with the GOP supporting Israel to make sure the money from liberal Jews keeps coming.

Take a look at the speech

or read it here.

Will it be enough to move this administration when the time comes? I think Morning Joe thinks so, and I think Democrats are desperate to stop the damage to their brand by this president.

Update: They also gave Paul Ryan a good long segment to himself, full marks there.