We mourn the death of Tony Snow.

Tony Snow as been dead for less than two days, and already the community at Daily Kos is shilling trash about him.

Here is a selection of a few of the comments. I’ll let them speak for themselves as to how mean these people are. All comments are completely unedited, except for the second one which is an excerpt from a Diary entry. Check back, as I’ll add more as I find them.

Goebbels didn’t kill anybody

eom

by Chango on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:49:34 AM PDT

…

Question #2.Was Tony Snow part of a Goebbels-like propaganda machine allowing a cabal of pillaging, warmongering thugs to seize War Powers of an Industrialized "Democracy" allowing said Regime to unrepentently torture, maim, and kill civilians in foreign lands while rationalizing his patrons Police-State Powers at home via the comprehensive, calculated dissembly of the Rule of Law?

May I return to Question #1????

Yes, Goodfellas, all.

…

(Retrieved from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/12/122753/510/649/550575)

No, his political philosophies mad him evil.

Really, really evil. An active enabler of evil. A cheerleader of evil. The guy’s in Hell now, getting Satan a pack of smokes. "Anything else you need, Boss?"

by Jacques on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:26:07 AM PDT

 That always delightful writer, P.J.O’Rourke, has his own take on it.  Read what he says here. 

 The British police cave again to outrageous Muslim demands. Now their dogs must wear socks. 

Read about it here. 

Who is it that orders the police to grovel like this? Is it Britain’s clueless Home Secretary? Or is it the unbelievably weak Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair?

 Read here why this writer calls our enemies by that name.

 German government funds paid for a conference in which an Iranian spokesman advocated the destruction of Israel.

Read about it here.  

 Those who profess to have bleeding hearts for the poor and hungry of the earth – Democrats and the left generally – are largely responsible for making them poorer and hungrier, by insisting on substituting biofuels for fossil fuels, so sending up the cost of food.

Apparently their ‘global warming’ sentiments are stronger than their ‘compassion’.

Read about it here.  

 … so Power Line asks, what do they really want? 

We’re all enjoying, for now, the anguish experienced by many on the left over Barack Obama’s entirely predictable lunge towards the center, now that he has clinched the Democratic nomination. But few seem to be enjoying it more than our friend Tiger Hawk. He writes:

In this morning’s lead editorial ("New and Not Improved"), [the editors of the New York Times] detail and denounce many of Obama’s post-Hillary pivots to the center. As their irritation builds, I’m thinking that there are only three positions that could explain this editorial. First, that the editors genuinely believe that Obama could win the general election with his primary season policy ideas. It is believable that they think this because they live inside a Manhattan cocoon, but silly. Second, that the editors would rather that Obama lose than compromise his principles. This seems unlikely in the cold light of a November morning, however satisfying it might feel to spew such romantic drivel on the Fourth of July. Or, third, the editors know that Obama’s pivots will be much more believable to the swing voters if the Times denounces them. This theory holds that the editors are pretending to be outraged so as to further deceive the rubes who prefer the Flop to the Flip.

It is so hard to know which explanation to believe.

 

The first explanation seems like the most plausible of the three, but let’s consider two more. Fourth, the New York Times is just posturing. It wants Obama to win at all costs and recognizes that (though he might well win running from the left), his chances are better if he moderates. However, the editors want to preserve their purity and can do so at no cost by expressing disappointment with Obama. Fifth, the Times is thinking ahead. It understands that Obama maximizes his chances of winning by tacking towards the center and isn’t that bothered that he’s doing so. But it has its eyes on the Obama presidency and wants to make it plain to the candidate that, as president, he’ll need to return to his lefitst principles if he wants to stay on the Times’ good side. 

 Obama and Clinton – lest we forget, read a reminder here. 

 … while enriching his developer friends at public expense. That is his record of accomplishment.

See the distressing PICTURES here.

 Jennifer Rubin writes on the Contentions website of Commentary Magazine:

The Wesley Clark mess is not going away – in large part because Barack Obama seems compelled to double down, or at the very least ignore the warning flares being sent up my the amazed mainstream media. Now the MSM is in full feeding frenzy because, for unknown reasons, Obama may be listening to the loony Left which is encouraging him to resist apologizing for Clark’s mega-gaffe. As Rick Klein details, whatever opportunity Obama might have used to allow his patriotism speech to be construed as an apology and whatever chances he had to expunge Clark’s insults have now been tossed away. And McCain now is daring himto cut Clark “loose” — an unlikely occurrence given that Obama has thrown his lot in with the far Left on this one. (Besides, Clark hasn’t gone to the National Press Club to denounce Obama as just another phony politician.) Indeed his spokesman doesn’t even know how to cut Clark loose, she says. (Hint: “I want no part of Clark representing me; he’s an embarassment.”)

So we have Obama’s entirely self-created blunder where even the MSM is virtually slack-jawed at the sight of the Obama campaign’s determination to inflict more and more damage upon itself. His atrocious judgment in perpetuating a horrible storyline for himself defies the pre-existing media narrative — that Obama is smart, savvy, world-wise, and adept. Not the Obama we have seen lately: he is either paralyzed by indecision or in such a cocoon of liberal elitism that he sees nothing wrong with attacking a war hero’s military service.

The McCain camp is going to town because its opponent has simply reinforced the McCain storyline that Obama — the man with no national record and scant national service of his own — is arrogant and ill equipped to navigate through mildly rocky political waters. One can hardly fault the mainstream media for its surprise. Obama’s behavior is remarkable to those whodoubted Obama’s credentials; it must be shocking to those who thought he was the brightest new political light in a generation. Not since Howard Dean’s wail have we seen such an act of self-destruction.