You know, there are a lot of things Glenn Beck the nutbag does that make me crazy-angry, but most of the time I just write him off as a crazy, desperate has-been Rush Limbaugh wannabe and ignore his ugly self. Not this time.

I am mom. And I roar, scratch and bite when someone thinks it's perfectly okay to mock an 11-year old child for any reason, but especially when it's to stoke up more political hate toward the President and his family.

For this, he ought to have to get on his knees with real tears in his eyes, look in her eyes and beg forgiveness before he does the same to the President and First Lady. There is absolutely no excuse -- NONE -- for mocking an 11-year old child.

Obama remarked yesterday during his press conference that Malia asked him of the Gulf oil spill: "Did you Plug The Hole Yet, Daddy?" Beck, taking off on this, mockingly affected Malia's voice, asking "Daddy" why he "hates black people so much." Then Beck attacked Malia's intelligence, saying: "That's the level of their education, that they're coming to - they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' "

This routine continued for several minutes, as Beck and his co-hosts touched on a variety of topics and laughed the entire time, all of it at the expense of an 11-year-old girl.

Yet it was only a few days ago that Beck, on his radio show, demanded that liberal pundits "leave people's families alone" when it came to Sarah Palin:

Beck: There's a difference! Leave my family -- leave people's families alone! I don't think I've -- I mean, I don't think I have ever -- I mean, I made this when it was Bill Clinton -- you don't go after Chelsea Clinton! You don't talk about the Bush kids! Now, the minute they get into politics, that's a different story. You leave the families alone! We've never done anything but protect the families, and question why the White House would bring their children into political debate. Leave the families alone!

Beck proves every day how excrementally evil he is. He should not have the microphone or the platform. There will come a day where he'll look in the mirror and actually see who he is.

I hope his children grow up to be just like him, but liberals. That would be a start toward making the universe right again.

(h/t QueenofSpain)

Update: Beck has issued a half-hearted apology. If he apologized with half the passion he laces his invective with, I might even believe it. He rang the bell and did it evilly. He didn't bother to apologize to Malia or to the Obama family, so as far as I'm concerned, he's still on the hook.

It's only a matter of hours before a Michelle Malkin files a criminal complaint against this kid's mother, don't you think?

The mother of a Maryland second-grader who questioned First Lady Michelle Obama about the Obama administration's immigration policy will not be deported, federal officials said Thursday.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not take action against the mother, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

“ICE is a federal law enforcement agency that focuses on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes criminal aliens who pose a threat to our communities," spokesman Matthew Chandler said in an e-mail. "Our investigations are based on solid law enforcement work and not classroom Q and As.”

On Wednesday the little girl asked Obama why the president was "taking everybody away that doesn't have papers."

"That's something that we have to work on, right? To make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers," Obama said.

"But my mom doesn't have any papers," the student said as the first lady ended her answer.

The exchange went viral almost immediately and provided the most unscripted, "real world" moment of an otherwise over-scripted series of events in honor of Mexican President Felipe Calderon's state visit.

In an interview conducted in Spanish after the event, the 7-year old girl told a reporter: “I’m a big girl and I don’t want to be left with nothing. I could almost die.”

“My mommy wants papers so that she can be here legally, so that she doesn’t have to go to Peru,” the girl said (according to a rough translation by the bilingual Eye.)

Ed.: Sure enough, the disappointment is palpable at Malkin's place.

The Villagers are giving this "Party Crashers" story the Anna Nicole Smith-type coverage, and it's been led by none other than the Washington Post's Sally Quinn. They seem to be the only people outraged over it, and good old Sally wants heads to roll. When Sally got on board with the story it was very predictable that she would finally come out and demand a human sacrifice at her Beltway altar, because D.C. is her hallowed grounds and to think some undesirables crashed "her" party is just too much for her to bear.

Sally was very upset when Hillary was the first lady because she was ignored and Sally will not be ignored.

Michelle Obama is now in Quinn's crosshairs and is being asked to pay a price to appease the Beltway Village Gods. Desirée Rogers is a close friend of Michelle's and so she must be taught a lesson by the Villagers.

Digby predicted this was coming too.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect the social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which the press had a personal stake, (Ryan's comments about "overshadowing" notwithstanding) I'm pretty sure this is about Michele and "her pal" somehow not respecting the pecking order and failing to understand just how sacrosanct are the invitation lists to the White House. (You'll recall that Michelle had a press avail the day of the state dinner and mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was rather odd at the time.)

The lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with the Village tabbies. They have far more power than you might think.

Well guess what? The Queen Tabby made her move today:

Many in Washington wondered why the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, did not resign over the state dinner security breach. At least Sullivan testified before Congress on the subject. White House social secretary Desirée Rogers came under fire after the Salahi scandal erupted. From the start, Rogers was an unlikely choice for social secretary. She was not of Washington, considered by many too high-powered for the job and more interested in being a public figure (and thus upstaging the first lady) than in doing the gritty, behind-the-scenes work inherent in that position. That Rogers stayed and that the White House refused to allow her to testify before Congress reflected badly on the president. He, not a member of his staff, ended up looking incompetent. Although it has emerged that a State Department protocol error is to blame for the presence of a third uninvited guest, both Rogers and Sullivan should step down.

The administration's problem extends beyond these failings. When White House counsel Greg Craig was fired over disagreements about the timing and publicity of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, many Obama supporters were troubled. Craig was one of the most admired and trusted men in Washington. His firing was a turning point for a lot of people, who began to question the president's judgment.Whether or not the Craig decision was the president's idea, somebody else should have taken the hit for it... Emanuel, the most political animal in this town, also should understand that keeping Rogers on as social secretary reflects upon the president's judgment.

Obviously, the Obamas have made a Big Social Mistake somewhere along the line and it's time for those who really run things to assert themselves. She put it in terms of "protecting" the president, but if you read the whole thing, it's quite clear that it's actually a threat: unless they straighten up and understand who's really in charge, right quick, this could get ugly. Sally says heads must roll ... or else.

Let the games begin.

I imagine Quinn will be appearing with Bill O'Reilly soon to demand that a sacrifice be carried out.

DOWNLOADS: (1142)

PLAYS: (4015)

Embed

Michelle Malkin has a new book out. If it's as well researched as her two most recent outings -- which featured the classic right-wing technique of gathering any smidgen of evidence one can find to support a thesis (no matter how dubious or downright false) while carefully excising any smidgen of contradictory evidence (no matter how mountainous) -- it promises to be a real mess.

Malkin was on Sean Hannity's program last night touting it. I was particularly interested in how she described it -- heavy on innuendo, intimations of shady dealings, and a major emphasis on First Lady Michelle Obama as a kind of Machiavellian manipulator running the show from behind the scenes. She labels her "the First Crony."

This has a familiar ring, doesn't it? The wingnut right attacked Bill Clinton relentlessly as a corrupt Southerner involved in shady dealings (think Whitewater or Mena), while the Evil Hillary ran the show behind the scenes. And the mainstream right made heavy use of these attacks.

It's just deja vu all over again.

Especially the complete and utter loss of perspective:

Hannity: Now that you've done all this research -- and I'll let the audience, because you really, with great specificity and detail, go into the corruption -- how corrupt is this administration compared to others?

Malkin: Well, I think you have to judge them by their rhetoric. And if you look at the gap between the rhetoric and the reality, this has to be one of the corrupt, most corrupt administrations in recent memory.

Hmmm. I dunno about you, but when I look at the levels of corruption within an administration, I look for actual things like, you know, corruption. Things like Halliburton and Enron.

As for the gap between rhetoric and reality, I usually think of it as matter of disappointment and disenchantment, not of corruption per se (though it can indicate a kind of ethical corruption, depending on the facts). And I think most other people do too.

Malkin and Hannity sure have a strange standard for what constitutes "corruption." Especially considering they not only stood idly by and cheered while corruption ran rampant in Bush's little war zone but aggressively attacked anyone who brought it up as insufficiently patriotic.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Bill W.)

The conservatives have been waiting for a chance to scream sexism at Obama over Palin and Drudge finds a way to do it. He takes Obama out of context. In the full clip, Obama clearly is talking about John McCain as Wolfson points out, but Drudge and as usual---FOX/Hannity---lie and say he was speaking about Palin. This is Rove Politics 101.

Marc Ambinder gets to the truth: Obama Did Not Call Sarah Palin A Pig

And he also remembers that McCain actually attacked Hillary with the same phrase.

And so is John McCain. Speaking about Hillary Clinton....

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health-care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the 1990s.

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal.

As Duncan says "Just more Zombie lies."

Bush sat down with reporter Mike Allen yesterday for a Politico/Yahoo interview, billed as the first for a president talking to an online audience. Probably the biggest news in the discussion was Bush’s bizarre comment about giving up golf during the war “to be in solidarity” with grieving families.

I neglected, however, to read the entire transcript of the interview, and notice that the questions were kind of bizarre, too.

Dan Froomkin asked, “Has there ever been a more moronic interview of a president of the United States than the one conducted yesterday by Mike Allen?” After seeing that, I couldn’t imagine what would draw such a sharp rebuke. Allen, after all, was a White House correspondent for the Washington Post and Time magazine, so he presumably knows how to conduct an interview with the president that isn’t “moronic.”

So, I read the transcript. Froomkin has a point. The first seven questions — seven -- were about Jenna Bush’s wedding. Froomkin also pulled together this non-wedding-related list of Allen’s questions:

“Mr. President, I know you’re going to hate this, but I’m hoping that we may twist your arm and talk about baseball for just a moment. (Laughter.) Mr. President, you’re a Major League Baseball team owner again. Everyone is a free agent. You have a Yankees-like wallet. Who is your first position player? Who’s your pitcher?”

“Now, Mr. President, you and the First Lady appeared on American Idol’s charity show, ‘Idol Gives Back.’ And I wonder who do you think is going to win? Syesha, David Cook, or David Archuleta?”

“All right. Mr. President, who does the better impression, Will Ferrell of you, or Dana Carvey of your father?”

“And speaking of impressions, our friend, Robert Draper, author of ‘Dead Certain,’ said you do a great impression of Dr. Evil from ‘Austin Powers’.”

Allen also asked Bush, “Do you feel that you were misled on Iraq?” That’s not bad at all — except it was a question that came from a Politico reader.

Usually when a tragedy strikes like a cyclone or a hurricane, one would think that Laura Bush would flash the face of being compassionate to all the suffering people instead of an attack dog politician. Wouldn't there have been a better time to criticize the government?

Froomkin:

When a country run by a despotic and isolationist regime is laid low by a massive natural disaster, the diplomatic thing to do is to respond with a show of compassion. Not kick 'em when they're down.

More than 22,000 people have died in the staggering devastation caused by this weekend's cyclone in Burma. But when First Lady Laura Bush made her first-ever visit to the White House briefing room yesterday, to talk about what's going on in that country, it was not to deliver a message of goodwill.

Rather than announce the launch of a massive relief effort that could take advantage of a rare diplomatic opening, the first lady instead tossed insults at Burma's leaders, blamed them for the high death toll, and lashed out at their decision to move forward with a constitutional referendum scheduled for this Saturday.

The traditionally issue-averse first lady's concerns about the Burmese junta and its abuses of human rights date back several years, and she's been particularly outspoken since last fall.

But why respond to a catastrophe with such hostility? The awkward timing, as it turns out, may have had something to do with an event entirely unrelated to the cyclone.

"I'm going to leave tomorrow for Crawford, for Jenna's wedding, and I wanted to be able to make a statement about Burma before I left," the first lady told reporters.

AFP Via Yahoo:

Cecilia Sarkozy's decision to bow out of a picnic with the president of the United States this weekend is the latest proof of the French first lady's unpredictable, even rebellious take on her new role.

President Nicholas Sarkozy travelled alone to meet George W. Bush and his family at their Atlantic holiday home after Cecilia -- staying just an hour away at a US lakeside resort -- bowed out due to a throat ailment.

The US leader said he was "disappointed" but understanding after Cecilia called Laura Bush at the last minute to excuse herself, but the change of plan sounded a false note in what was billed as a rare personal get-together.

She was photographed later Sunday taking a stroll in town with two friends. Nicolas Sarkozy, meanwhile, was seen wearing earphones and jogging on a lakeside path with a seven-strong entourage. Read more...

Can you blame her?

If you haven't heard by now, XM shock-jocks Opie and Anthony are in full apology-mode over crude sexual comments (WARNING: disgusting language) guest “Homeless Charlie" made about Condoleeza Rice and Laura Bush. This kind of trash should be universally deplored, but when other idiot shockjocks like Mancow Muller -- who describes himself as a "conservative, Bible-thumping radical who curses" -- claim that Opie and Anthony are "liberal guys" and that's why they're "getting a free pass" from the media, I'd be remiss if I didn't call him out on it. Here's a contrast of what he said and what O&A themselves said about their political leanings in an interview on "Hannity & Colmes" last year.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Logan for the vid)

Mancow: "These are liberal guys. Can you imagine - these are liberal guys, can you imagine if-if Rush or Hannity or you, Bill got on and talked about raping Hillary? You'd be out of the country by now, but these guys are getting a free pass because the media hates - hates -uh this First Lady and hates Condoleeza Rice."

In that H&C clip, Opie and Anthony had just gotten their show back after a two year hiatus from terrestrial radio where they were fired for running a contest in which they encouraged listeners to have sex in public places. One of those places was St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, and the uproar that ensued resulted in their canning.

The funniest part has to be when Hannity asks them when their next outrageous controversy will happen and when he will have to defend them. Well, here you go, Sean. Will you stay true to your word? Something tells me no.

NEWSWEEK:

It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll[..].

While the poll has some high marks for Clinton, it's not all good news. Though the New York senator and former first lady aims to project an aura of inevitability that she will win the Democratic nomination, Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent.

Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll's margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney.