Two legs good. Four legs bad. GOP "Consistency" on Deficits

By Keith R. Schmitz

Why are the only hard news interviews seemingly on the Daily Show?

The other night Jon Stewart put New Hampshire Senator John Sununu on the griddle over the new found GOP religion on deficits (emphasis mine).

Stewart: I'm not an economist, but let's say I start out with a surplus and I say lets have a tax cut to stimulate the economy, lets make it 1.2 trillion dollars and that surplus turns into a deficit. Why would I at that point go, hey you know what could fix that? A tax cut.

This GOP view seems to change with administrations, and as usual right wing talk radio carries the water.

Remembering back a few years ago a combination of boredom and lack of knowledge about my high blood pressure led me to tune in Mark Belling one afternoon during the Bush administration. He was challenging his listeners to come up with a reason why deficits were bad. Since he was not exactly broadcasting to the Wharton School of Business no answers were forthcoming.

It occurred to me that rewinding to the early years of Bill Clinton when again I was bored and not knowledgeable about high blood pressure Belling was then exhibiting his brand of mental unhinging on deficits.

Clinton goes on to build that surplus $1.2 trillion surplus, despite his "distractions" and GOP railing about "tax and spend" Democrats.

Now rather than tax cuts for the wealthy and a boneheaded invasion of Iraq to bequeath to our grandchildren there is deficit spending intended to help out our economy and average people. GOP defines these deficits as wasteful.

Two legs good. Four legs bad.

Maybe the GOP should change their web site URL address to Expediency.com.

Update: F. Jim proves more of the above point. Someone please explain (and I'm sure someone will) why blowing money out of a confetti cannon at the Defense Department does not constitute reckless spending?

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

by capper

Walker must have a distinct phobia when it comes to telling the truth. The news came out yesterday that his campaign is lying about his most recent commercial. The fallout is still coming in on that lie.

Today, the lies keep on flowing out of his mouth and keyboard. Walker did an "online chat" for JSOnline, in which he handpicked most of the questions to give himself softballs. He did let a few tougher questions through, which I am sure he thought he had the answers down pat. But his lies are pretty easy to observe to anyone paying attention.

One of the questions had to deal with transit. Here is the question, and Walker' response (emphasis mine):

Q: Emily Mullen of Milwaukee - You claim to be pro-transit, yet as County Executive you have presided over significant fare increases and crippling service cuts. In addition, while in the State Assembly you never voted to increase the State's support of transit. How do you reconcile your record with your alleged support of transit?

A: Scott Walker - Emily, When I came into office as County Executive, the state covered about 44% of the costs of the transit system and the county tax levy covered 14%. That is now 40% from the state while about 14% comes from the county tax levy. In the future, we need to control costs and get stable support from the state. In the Assembly, I voted for some increases in transit spending, but they were not always as much of an increase as some transit advocates wanted to spend. I don't claim to be pro- or anti- transit. I just tell you what I want to do with transit in the future. To control costs, I want to consolidate transit amongst the four systems in southeastern Wisconsin. To stabilize state support, I want to capture the growth in the CURRENT sales tax collected on automobile related sales and apply it to transit statewide. In this budget, that would be more than $100 million with about 60% coming back to the Milwaukee area.

As I have highlighted, Walker claims to be neither pro-transit nor anti-transit.

If he is truly not pro-transit, why did he film this commercial?




But he didn't do just that one commercial. He also has a web commercial that is even titled "Walker: Committed to Transit". I don't know about you, but that seems to me to be that he is pretty much claiming to be pro-transit.

He also spouts about some plan that he has to fix transit. A plan that would take the sales tax from everyone in the state, to just support our transit system. A plan that has been repeatedly proven to be a non-starter from day one. Yet he is hypocritical enough to accuse Senator Taylor of not being realistic about the plan.

But then again, remember he also claims not to be anti-transit. Then could he please explain why he is using such a poor business design of raising rates and cutting services. Does he think that he is actually doing anyone any favors. Or is he really trying to kill transit? After all, he is overseeing one of the few systems in the entire nation that hasn't seen a huge jump in ridership. In fact, due to his incompetence, Milwaukee buses are actually losing riders. And let us not forget that when he had a chance to approve a tax-neutral plan that would have boosted ridership, like it has elsewhere in the state and the country, Walker vetoed it.

He also claimed not to be anti-transit just one day after he cuts more routes.

In summary, Walker denies being pro-transit, but then puts out to commercials touting how he is pro-transit. Walker in the same sentence, denies being anti-transit, but then has given us six years of methodically trying to dismantle it.

Not only is Walker incompetent and a hypocrite, he is a lousy liar. And he is not even very good at his lying either.

Taxes, Lies and Videotape

by capper

Walker launched a new ad recently. He's been running a lot of new ads lately. It must be due to all that special interest money he is getting from Madison. And here it was the hypocrite Walker who kept saying that Senator Taylor was the one that would be getting big bucks. Like I said, what a hypocrite.

Back to the ad. It's well done with a diverse group of people, and Walker, talking about how they believe in Milwaukee, and how they believe in Scott Walker. This has been a common theme in political ads locally. (I wonder if Charlie Sykes will be getting on Walker for that ideological plagiarism, like he did on Obama.) Of course, I would be glad to say that too, if I were an actor and was being paid to say that.

Xoff has a detailed look at how Walker and his campaign got caught up in the lie regarding this commercial and how it was made. He even goes as far as to point out where we have seen on of the hired actors before, and how this sort of chicanery appears to be a Republican forte.

So, Walker is lying about who is getting big money and he is lying about the commercial that his special interest monies have paid for. But that is not the only lie we see Walker trying to peddle to us. His whole tax thing turns out to be a farce as well.

Walker has been promoting Family Care. He's been promoting it a lot. Let's ignore the fact that it is a state mandate that every county goes to Family Care, which is basically a plan based on the HMO-type of administrative costs. Or as pa capper said, and remember he is a self-proclaimed neocon, "Walker wants to charge us more so that people can die."

Walker boasts how it will supposedly eliminate the waiting list of developmentally delayed and physically disabled people who are in need of services. What it will most likely do, is just bump that waiting list along the line, as there are currently not enough service providers to meet that high level of demand.

What Walker has not been telling us is the cost. In a report to the County Board, Corey Hoze, Director of the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services lays out the progress of the transition to Family Care. I received a copy of this report and have scanned the parts of the report that deals with the cost and some of the ramifications that Family Care will have on Milwaukee County. With a big thanks to James Wigderson on the technical advice, here are the links to page7, page 8 and page 9 of the report. Here is the pertinent part to cost:

...expenditures in year one would decrease by approximately $79.2 million, revenues would decrease by $80 million, and tax levy would increase by nearly $800,000 compared to DSD's 2008 Adopted Budget. The estimated tax levy increase is approximately $5.4 million in the second year and $5.8 million in the third year. These gaps do not include the additional tax levy required for the eligibility function as described below.

As you can see, Walker is poised to add $12 million dollars to the tax levy, just for this one program. $12 million dollars in new taxes from a guy who brags about holding taxes down. And not only is he planning on raising taxes, he is planning on giving us less services for the extra money we have to pay:

The budgetary limitations are due, in part, to the continued funding of discretionary programs for persons with disabilities primarily funded with Community Aids and tax levy. These programs include advocacy, supported living options, work and day programs, respite, recreation, transportation, and services to persons in need of short-term support to live independently in the community. Currently, approximately 700 individuals with disabilities are served by DSD through these locally funded programs under purchase of service contracts. It is estimated that 470 of these individuals may be eligible for Family Care services. Therefore, if funding for these programs became unavailable,participation in the Family Care program could permit these individuals to continue receiving services. However, as many as 230 of the individuals currently receiving these services may not be eligible for Family Care and would have services discontinued if funding became unavailable.

In addition to the above potential service reductions, the emergency shelter care programs may also need to be reduced or eliminated.

To recap, we will be paying more in taxes and getting less in services. Not only that, but now we will have hundreds of individuals that could be in serious trouble and a danger to themselves and/or to others, if they don't continue to receive the support services they need. I have already shown the cost to society of having untreated mental health issues and alcohol and drug treatment issues go untreated.

I wonder how all this fits into Walker's Safe, Affordable and Pride malarkey?

Scott Walker, The Hypocrite: Part II-The McIlheran Edition

by capper

I have shown where Scott Walker is a hypocrite. Here is another shining example of his hypocrisy.

Walker sent an email to Patrick McIlheran (I'm sure Sykes, Belling and the rest of the local right wing media will be giving him more free advertising soon enough). In his email, Walker crows about how he got tough with the unions to save the taxpayers from having their hard-earned money from being squandered:

”So, I had to send out hundreds of layoff notices in December to the remaining 75% of the employees in those areas to let them know that there was not funding left for their jobs. Soon after that action, our largest employee union came to the table and made significant concessions to save the jobs. Still, we had to hold some of those positions throughout 2007. Had we filled all that they restored without funding, we would not have a surplus of $7 million.

Well, now instead of crowing about his hard-nosed approach, Walker should consider putting his nose down and eating some crow. Walker wasn't has tough as he would like you to think he was.

A friend of mine that is still employed by the County, gave me a copy of the union's tentative contract. The same contract that Walker signed and the union ratified. Here is part of it:

Sorry about the poor quality, but please not the last bullet point where it says employees would receive a $250 lump sum payment. This is a signing bonus, folks. Walker was so desperate to have this contract signed, a contract that was authored by David Reimer (who was sent by Doyle to help, and who also was Walker's opponent in 2004), that he gave each and every county employee a signing bonus. That's tough as nails, for sure.

And speaking of budgets and savings, Walker is still trying to take credit for the hard work of the County Board. Not everyone is letting him get away with it though. Soon to be retired County Board Supervisor Richard Nyklewicz Jr. had this to say, as reported by All Politics:

Milwaukee County Supervisor Richard Nyklewicz Jr., who is retiring from the board next month, used his last stint as finance committee chairman today to launch a blistering criticism of Walker, saying Walker had unfairly claimed credit for a 2007
year-end surplus of $7 million.

The surplus was due primarily to huge savings in health insurance costs for county employees that offset some deficits in several county departments, Nyklewicz said. Those changes were included in the 2007 county budget, which Walker vetoed in its entirety.

“He abdicated his responsibility for the budget” at the time, but now takes credit for it, Nyklewicz said.

County Auditor Jerome Heer agreed that health care changes led to the
surplus. A task force that included some top Walker aides called for the health care changes, which have resulted in savings of about $75 million over three years, Heer said

Walker may have dropped out of school, but he still has earned a Master's Degree in Hypocrisy.

Scott Walker, The Hypocrite

by capper

Walker is a big, old hypocrite.

He repeatedly harps about how Senator Taylor is "raising tons of money from special interests in Madison" and other silly things like:

In fact, outsiders such as Governor Doyle and special interest groups in Madison and even Washington, DC are gathering loads of cash to influence our election in April.

He even gets his poor wife into the act of spreading these baseless claims. But even if it were true, how would he explain this email sent out by his campaign (the name and other personal information has been changed to protect the source)(emphasis mine):

From: Walker Supporter

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:36 PM

To: Walker Supporter [WalkerSupporter@hypocrite.com

Subject: Upcoming Scott Walker Event Reminder!

Please forward this on to all those interested in participating. Attached is a copy of the invitation.

You are invited to an event honoring Scott Walker Milwaukee County Executive

Brocach Irish Pub (upstairs lounge)

7 W. Main Street

Madison, WI

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

5:30pm – 7:30pm

Host Contribution: $250 Attendee:

$25/Individual

PAC and individual checks gratefully accepted.

Checks may be made payable to "Friends of Scott Walker" and sent to:

Friends of Scott Walker

PO Box 100828

Milwaukee, WI 53210

Please RSVP to Walker Supporter at 608.555.555 or by email to WalkerSupporter@hypocrite.com

Authorized and Paid for by Friends of Scott Walker, John Hiller, Treasurer

He complains that Senator Taylor is getting special interest money from Madison, but is grateful for his own special interest money from Madison.

That makes him a big, old hypocrite.

The Conservative Thanksgiving Day Hypocrisy Parade™

by folkbum

Yes, it's that time of year when we blow conservative talking (or typing) heads full of helium and march them through the streets so the kids can point and laugh. My only regret is that I lack, say, Al Roker to provide his inimitable off-beat commentary as we watch the gasbags roll by. So instead, I will sometimes rely on members of the Cheddarsphere to offer their comments. Anyway, let's start the Hypocrisy Parade™!

First up is my BFF, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran. Nick describes the balloon as it wafts past our cameras:

Wow... this takes a lot of [helium] for Patrick McIlheran to say:

Milwaukee School Board member Jennifer Morales wants the schools, for benefits purposes, to treat people who are shacking up as if they were married -- "domestic partner" benefits, it's called.

It's supposed to be the epitome of progress. Morales says it's a matter of fairness: "Fairness for employees is fairness for employees," she told the Journal Sentinel. "It's not about me, it's not about Tina."

Tina would be the woman to whom Morales says she's married. If the schools approve this deal, Morales and Tina Owen, who works at an MPS charter school, would be considered spouses for benefits purposes.

That would be the same guy who wrote pretty passionately to pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Wisconsin, and then wrote about how such a ban wouldn't affect benefits for same sex couples, so they need not worry. Ummm... yeah... right. It especially takes a lot of [helium] to use the phrase "shacking up", and then immediately talk about about Owen and Morales. So first Patrick fights to prevent committed couples like Owen and Morales from getting married... and the criticizes them because they're not married... saying they're just "shacking up"... and aren't deserving of the benefits that any other married couple might receive. That's not just arrogant on his part, but insulting.

For anyone interested in a different description of that balloon, you can check out capper at Whallah! or Mike Mathias.

Next up is one I've been looking forward to for months. Former Wisconsinite Kevin Binversie moved to the Death Star Washington, DC, earlier this year, but he has been posting regularly at the Badger Blog Alliance. Here we see his puffy head floating by, because over the summer, a favorite topic of his was the Democratic National Committee's insistence that its rules be followed. Specifically, the rules about when states could hold primaries. "Democrats Disenfranchise...Democrats," he wrote. "Gee, I thought from all the crap Jay, Xoff, and the elected gang in Madison have been telling all of us for years; only our side can do that." You'll notice that what's blowing out the tail of the Binversie Balloon is smarm. (Kevin returned to the topic again later.) Well, Kevin's silence is deafening since this from the Republicans:

Republican Party leaders [. . .] recommended punishing five states for shifting their nomination contests earlier, moving to strip New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their delegates.

"It's very important that our party uphold and enforce the rules that we unanimously voted into place at the Republican National Convention in 2004," said Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee. The rules ban holding votes before Feb. 5.

The ropes of apologies unposted are dangling from Kevin's balloon. I sure hope the marching band walking behind him doesn't trip over them!

And bringing up, aptly, the rear of our Hypocrisy Parade™ is the biggest gasbag of all, Charlie Sykes--not that his head needs any additional inflation for the holiday! Sykes is always good for outrage, and when the Catholic League yelled "jump," Charlie opened his valves and flew into the air. See, Miller Brewing Company put its mug (get it? mug?) on a poster advertising a street fetish fair in open-minded San Francisco, and Charlie Sykes led the Cheddarshpere's outrage parade. (The outrage parade, by the way, is not affiliated with this Hypocrisy Parade™.)

In the end, Miller buckled like a spaghetti bridge built by the kids insulted in this post by squeaky-clean Owen Robinson, who next year might get his very own balloon (keep reaching for the sky, Owen!). Miller's logo came off the poster, the Catholic League notched another victory into its bedpost, and Sykes was triumphant.

But when the Milwaukee Interfaith Conference complained about something Sykes had posted on his own website--a "parody" of the now-common "Coexist" bumper sticker that, among other things, replaced the Star of David with a Swastika--Sykes did not lead any kind of parade, outraged or not. Now, there's a difference between the Catholic League and the Interfaith Conference. The New York-based CL has basically become a front group for Republicans, and the IC is made up of actual and real church, synagogue, mosque, and temple leaders from around the Milwaukee area--so it doesn't take a genius to figure out which Sykes will align himself with.

So, long story short, Sykes spewed his noxious gas right back at the IC, claiming that he was drawing a "line" in defense of free speech and artistic expression. I know! It's the funniest balloon out here! Brawler, what do you think?

It's a Sykesian masterpiece of taking a principled stand on free speech while at the same time denying accountability for controversial implications of said speech. Which is classic Sykes -- and is the antithesis of Journalism 101.

Paul Noonan has some thoughts on the matter. Oh, and Jim Rowen, what make you of this cartoon balloon?

Charlie is framing the issue as one of free speech. His free speech. And I've got no complaint with that. I want him to have free speech, but to exercise caution, like we all do, so we do not commit libel, slander, or needlessly poison the public debate.

What's the point, even if it's profitable, wins ratings, notoriety, celebrity? It's a drag on the community. What's wrong with a little effort to be uplifting? To be a real uniter, not a 50,000-watt divider.

And, briefly, we can roll the film on some historical footage from Bill Christofferson of Charlie Sykes's "free speech for me but not for thee" attitude.

Well, every Thanksgiving Day Hypocrisy Parade™ has to end, and the 2007 version has now finally gone past. Thanks to all who participated, whose hard work makes all of this possible. Great job, everybody! See you next year!

The Good Old Days

by folkbum

Remember the Good Old Days, when an ad comparing George W. Bush to Hitler uploaded by a user during a Moveon.org contest was enough to prompt howls of condemnation from the right and, even today, leads MoveOn's critics to assert that they called Bush Hitler, rather than one supporter. (Remember that the ad was promptly removed as soon as it was brought to MoveOn's attention.)

Nowadays a prominent member of the Right Cheddarsphere can write, "After her debate debacle, The Hildabeast went into full 'Don’t hit me, I’m a girl' mode with a trip to her alma mater, Wellesley College. [. . .] Our cameras were there," and then post a YouTube of Adolph Hitler. (No link from me--I stopped sending him traffic when he called me a Nazi--but you can google those words and come up with it. Or click around the blogrolls of many prominent conservative Wisconsin bloggers. It won't be hard to find.)

This blogger can do that and not earn nary a peep from any of his Right Cheddarsphere colleagues, or from Charlie Sykes who prominently links that blogger (and who trashes MoveOn regularly), or any of the many conservative bloggers who are always on the lookout for sexist behavior or bad words directed at women.

Whatever happened to the Good Old Days?

The Great Sheboygan Fascist Crackdown--It Already Happened Here (and the right Cheddarsphere stood by and watched)

by folkbum

I wrote yesterday about the Great Sheboygan Fascist Crackdown of 2007, something I probably would not have done until Wisconsin's right-o-sphere all but double-dog dared me to. I didn't have much to add until they went over the top and assumed my silence was not mere complicity but partisan endorsement, which is stupid, given their own silence on abuses of power worse than one Mayberry Machiavelli's clumsy (and illegal) attempt to silence a critic.

In comments to that post, Michael J. Cheaney makes a reasonable point that the Great Sheboygan Fascist Crackdown of 2007 was worth outrage because it was in our own backyard, so to speak, and potentially then Something That Could Happen Here. (That is kind of what Wiggy's saying, too, I think.)

Indeed, such a thing Has Happened Here, as capper reminds us:

Curiously, the right did not have the same outrage when former State Senator Tom Reynolds and friends tried to use strong arm tactics on lefty blogger Gretchen Schuldt of Milwaukee Rising, when she was being a citizen blogger and investigating possible campaign violations from Reynolds failed bid to be re-elected.

Nor do I remember the outrage at Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke when he abused his position and authority in trying to strong arm deputies who didn't agree with him, or actively opposed his actions, even though they did so on their own time.

In fact, instead of outrage, Clarke was praised as was Reynolds, who McBride actually called "untouchable".

The left might not have reached the fevered zeal of the right regarding the Sheboygan blogger, but at least they weren't as selective with their outrages.

Click through, because he's got the links to prove it. You can also amuse yourself site-searching Wigderson, Fred, Peter, Pete, Patrick, et al. just to verify that they never seemed to mind the threatened legal action against blogger Gretchen Schuldt for her use of public documents to challenge Tom Reynolds, or the not-so-threatened action against the deputy who dared defy Clarke in a union newsletter.

Unless of course those bloggers want to insist that their silence was not, indeed, complicity, partisanship, or endorsment of Reynolds's and Clarke's actions when It Did Happen Here.

Islamic Fascism vs. Christian Zealots: A lesson in conservative hypocrisy

(Bumped from Tuesday night, where it got lost among the elections stuff, and updated with more examples. I'm bumping it because I think this deserves more attention, particularly from the conservative portions of the Cheddarsphere. New examples added to the text below are in gray.)

I didn't spend all of Tuesday night watching poll results come in. I also toodled around the Cheddarsphere a little bit and I found--with some measure of predictability--that the right is displeased with our Russ Feingold. Here's what Russ said:

I call on the President to stop using the phrase “Islamic fascists," a label that doesn’t make any sense, and certainly doesn’t help our effort to build a coalition of societies to fight terrorism. The President has often correctly referred to Islam as a religion of peace, but this reckless language, much like his prior reference to the fight against al Qaeda as a ‘crusade,’ completely cuts the other way. Fascist ideology doesn’t have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam.

There are two key elements to this paragraph. First, there's the all-important question of whether fascist is the right term to describe what it is that we're facing. I say no, as does David Neiwert, who goes further than I would in identifying some calling-the-kettle-blackism. And Neiwert has the background knowledge and the links to prove that it's not fascism at all:

"Islamofascism" is also, as I've pointed out a couple of times, a generally inappropriate term. This is especially so because fascism, as we have known it historically, only arises from a democratic state in a state of decay or crisis. Indeed, fascism, as I've explored in some depth, is a specific pathology constituted of a constellation of certain traits, only some of which are described by Islamic radicalism, and some of which are specifically repudiated by it. Perhaps they intend "Islamic totalitarianism," which would be accurate; but fascism is a very specific kind of totalitarianism, and what we see in the Islamic world today does not fit the description.

And yet conservative Cheddarsphereans have latched on to fascist; it's hard to escape it when even such normally-measured blogger types as Marquette Professor John McAdams seem to have embraced the term. And the debate over fascism's appropriateness precedes Feingold's statement. For example, it came up last week at Michael Caughill's From Where I Sit. My favorite--and don't miss the comments to this one, either--may be last month at Fred Dooley's Real Debate Wisconsin:

Instead of being critical of the President's language, why don't you direct your outrage towards those who are continuing to plan and atempt to put into place terrorists plots. [. . .] Frankly I don't care how you feel about language while other Muslims are trying to kill me.

But focusing on this takes away from what is, to me, the most important part of Feingold's statement and, in fact, represents a serious misreading of it.

This reckless language, Feingold says, [. . .] doesn’t have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam.

There is a strong case to be made about the imprecise language, but I think what Russ is asking for, instead, is a certain level of sensitivity to the world's second largest religion. Associating fascism, accurate or not, with Islam is not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people across a large swath of the civilized world. But the conservative Cheddarsphere only sees a target. Missing that point entirely, Owen goes off on the Senator, quoting Dictionary.com and, based on some complex linguistic argument, declares Russ "unfit to be President." The Asian Badger wonders if Feingold went "off his meds." Kate pointedly blames Muslims, saying

If they do nothing to help stop the "hijacking" of their religion, then they have no right to be offended. If people claiming to be Christians were behaving in such a barbaric manner, there would be such a backlash, there would be no traction, and they would be extremely lonely in their endeavors.

And finally, Peter DiGaudio, with his usual charm and grace, proclaims that "RUSS LOVES THOSE ISLAMISTS" and calls Islam--not just radical Islam, but all Islam--"a bloodthirsty cult of murder, violence and death."

It took me a couple of days to remember exactly what this whole debate over "Islamic Fascism" reminds me of. But it is, in fact, something that happened right here on the pages of this very blog. Last New Year's Eve, Bryan Kennedy guest-posted about his progressive religious values. Here's how he opened his post:

How is it that conservative religious zealots have seized my Savior and determined His values? Why do they try to tell me how to live my life and how to follow Him? How did they come to the conclusion that Christ was pro-war, pro-business, and that He spouted hatred for people who were not like Him?

I admit, it's no "bloodthirsty cult" kind of talk, but it sure raised hackles! It became the subject of the Spice Boys' second post ever, garnering a terse dismissal. But it was enough to catch Owen's eye:

Ah yes, we can’t be judgmental, can we? Unless, of course, you are a liberal and you are judging conservatives as hateful zealots. Then it’s okay. [. . .] I think it’s funny how so many liberals love to wax moral over the virtues of tolerance and acceptance while rejecting as intolerable a philosophy held by a large portion of the population.

Professor McAdams was also miffed:

[Bryan Kennedy] has posted a tantrum, directed against “conservative religious zealots” on folkbum’s rambles and rants blog. [. . .] There is an excellent Yiddish word to describe what liberals are showing when they talk about religious tolerance. The word is chutzpah.

And should we even talk about how much Fred blew up?

Let me tell you something, in the first 7 words of his "essay" Brian Kennedy managed to insult Christians. That might offend some people, would you not think? Brian Kennedy is running for Congress in a VERY conservative district. What he published here at the very least was monumentaly stupid, though obviously an honest reflection of his beliefs. To Spiceblog, it was just an essay with an odd disclosure.

By the way the 7 words, How is it that conservative religious zealots. I do not really care what else he had to say. My point is in 7 words he managed to insult bunches of Christians by calling them zealots. Not a great way to start an open dialouge is it?

Here's what I see:

• Bryan Kennedy speaks out against a narrow group of fundamentalists who seem to have hijacked an entire political party and ruined, for many of us, a peaceful and loving religion. Owen, Fred, and Prof. McAdams--all Christians who feel unfairly maligned--find that unacceptable.
  
• George W. Bush throws around the emotionally charged word fascist, which may or may not accurately describe a narrow group of fundamentalists who seem to have hijacked and ruined a religion of love and peace. Owen and other Cheddarsphereans (I can't even imagine what the national bloggers are saying) find that not only acceptable, but deem Senator Feingold insane or something for daring to think that perhaps Muslims might feel as unfairly maligned as they did when Bryan Kennedy spoke.

I can suggest two new words to look up on Dictionary.com for these Feingold critics: empathy and hypocrisy. Not necessarily in that order.