"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue," Oscar Wilde once said.
Maybe their being on the payee side of the homage ledger answers to the 
question: Why does the "values" crowd have anything to do with Dick Morris?
The gleeking, beef-witted boar-pig trots his formidable backside around cable TV and talk radio as a conservative political consultant, despite he's one of the sleaziest two-bit players on the national scene.
And no need to jump on the Wayback Machine to find Morris' name in headlines concerning his sexual peckerdilloes. As recently as this Spring his was being mentioned in the same scandalous breath as alleged madam DC Deborah Jeane Palfrey's.
If there's anyone who should have no credibility with anyone- let alone the religious right or their righteous talk radio mouth pieces- it would be this fawning sheep-biting canker-blossom.
Yet self-appointed moral guides such as Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck have all recently guested the toe-sucking, whoring, weasel-toed, Hillary-hating, Mr. Morris.
He's their man in full!
(Pardon the strings of insulting Elizabethan modifiers- we've been been under the influence lately of this Shakespearean insult generator, you perfidious doghearted scullion!)
As a Fox News Channel political analyst, Rev. Morris appears on Billo Reilly's Kulturkampf every month or so. He's allowed to pontificate like a deacon regularly on Christianist, right-wing Townhall.com, the popular online conservative pow-wow pulpit owned by radio mini-cabal Salem Communications' (KKOL, KGNW).
(If we didn't know what evangelicals think of Catholics, we'd guess their acceptance of him was because he's converted to Catholicism).
Whatever accounts for their tacit support of this puking fen-sucked nut-hook, he's all over the place strumpetting his new book, Outrage: How Illegal Immigration, the United Nations, Congressional Rip-offs, Student Loan Overcharges, Tobacco Companies, Trade Protection, Drug Companies are Ripping Us Off and What to Do About It.
He's writes about Congress, telling NewsMax: "We watched Congress become more and more hedonistic, dedicated to their own pleasure and selling out to special interests which pay for their vacations, their campaigns, and increasingly, their families."
That this batrachian conniver should complain about anyone else's "hedonism" is truly cynical and amazing.
If the religious conservatives weren't blinded by their craving to hear the glib hatred Morris can be counted upon to spout about Hillary Clinton, he'd never never get invited to the conservative media venues he haunts regularly.
In 1996, he got caught with his pants down- literally- just as Bill Clinton was to give his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.
Morris was publically (and pubicly) busted by a hooker he had done wrong. She told the NY
tabs that while abed with her in a Washington lovenest he'd rented- he
took a break from sucking her toes, dialed Clinton and let her listen as he talked to the president for whom he was serving as a political consultant. 
Of course he blamed all this on the Clintons, and since being fired by them, he's knocked down a fair living inside the GOP noise machine being a professional Clinton hater. He writes a column for Rupert Murdoch's New York Post; and has written several Hillary hit books.
He and veteran GOP scheissemeister Dave Bossie are raising money for a hit film they'll use to Swift Boat Hillary's presidential campaign. (Bossie is being assisted by former Tacoman and KVI talk host, Floyd Brown who worked with him on the nasty 1988 Willie Horton TV ad that helped sink Michael Dukakis).
Morris has the sincerity of the Tobacco Institute and the forthrightness of Alberto Gonzalez- to hear him talking about other people's morals makes us assume the pre-natal position and suck our own toes.
We haven't decided who we're supporting in the Democratic primaries, but Morris made a promise about electing Hillary that may have us tilted towards... Hillary:
"I’m leaving the country if it happens,” Morris told Alan Colmes on Hannity & Colmes recently.
I cited the date for that on BW. So don't get on your high horse ass-backwards. I said July 06 - right? But the other one was May 07. Notice you neglected to note that. Hmm?
Posted by: joanie | June 21, 2007 at 11:04 PM
joanie wrote:
"Obviously, Randi is a might too intellectual and too sourced for these morons."
Sorry, RR couldn't last 1-round with Larry Elder; now there's someone who is well sourced. Not too many want to go up against him (including the mighty Rusho!)
An incredibly fine debator.
[XM Radio at 15:00]
Posted by: Duffman | June 22, 2007 at 05:20 AM
Notice, Duff, I don't respond much to you anymore? Too much blather and no substance. I'll let merci speak for me.
Posted by: joanie | June 22, 2007 at 06:55 AM
What's new; like I implied this is not surprising, since you appear to be one of RR's lap-dogs. Of course you know that means I WIN! haha
[See you at the polls where if you vote Dem, you WILL be voting for Mrs Clinton]
Posted by: Duffman | June 22, 2007 at 07:00 AM
Ah, geez, nevetS, you like Gallup Polls so much, check this one out. "Only 29% of Americans Say U.S. Is Winning War on Terrorism - Lowest percentage recorded to date" and notice the date, won't you, please?
Posted by: joanie | June 22, 2007 at 07:04 AM
joanie wrote:
Notice, Duff, I don't respond much to you anymore? Too much blather and no substance. I'll let merci speak for me.
This is what's known as a concession statement; all other's herein who debate the infamous 'joanie' can achieve this too if you're persistant. :)
Posted by: Duffman | June 22, 2007 at 07:18 AM
whatever, duff.
Posted by: joanie | June 22, 2007 at 07:27 AM
Have a good life! :)
Posted by: Duffman | June 22, 2007 at 07:28 AM
"joanie wrote:
Notice, Duff, I don't respond much to you anymore? Too much blather and no substance. I'll let merci speak for me."
Errr ph(j)oanie, if you have to point it out its self evident that he hasn't noticed. Besides, you won't be able to not respond to Duff. He has your number.
Now go back to your Randi podcast before the kids come back from recess.
Posted by: pugetSound | June 22, 2007 at 08:16 AM
cpp3 - I will discontinue my discussion with you on this topic. I cannot reason with someone as irrational and narcissistic as you who cannot produce a coherent argument.
I will agree to disagree with your viewpoint - End of story [email protected]#%*
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2007 at 01:03 PM
That's it run when you can't hang. Feel free. Of course you still have yet to refute my point other than to set up an argument that I didn't make and knock it down! Have fun playing with the strawmen.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | June 22, 2007 at 01:05 PM
You are insistent on chasing your tail, dude. There is nothing to run from here, just your pueling and bitching. So demonstrate how the right has embraced the Radical side of Islam. Give specific instance and I'll consider it if it turns out to be true.
Look, joker - neither the right or the left has found a solution to stem the conflict between US forces and Islamists - the right chooses to confront them and produces a standoff and the left chooses to engage them in dialogue that produces nada, nothing. So you can stop blowing smoke and making it political and move on as I choose to do.
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2007 at 01:50 PM
Again you're trying to make a strawman argument. I did not say that the right was embracing radical Islam. I'll break it down for you really slowly so you can follow along:
YOU: Liberals want to negotiate with terrorists.
ME: Uh no we don't, nice strawman...here is a nice link of people who call themselves Republicans advocating it.
YOU: They aren't conservatives they are liberals.
Now where in any of this has it been stated that the right has embraced radical Islam? Nowhere except in your attempt to put words in my mouth since you failed at debating the issue and are changing the subject. Just admit that you got called on an incorrect statement and "move on." As you claim you have.
"the right chooses to confront them and produces a standoff and the left chooses to engage them in dialogue"
Are you sure about that? You really ought to catch up...Your buddies in the Bush Administration are talking to Syria, Iran and North Korea while people like YOU are dissing liberals for it. Here is a nice breakdown. Would you care to refute this or shall I count on you changing the subject again?:
April, the Bush Administration says U.S. Officials should have no contact with the Syrian government, lashes out at Democrats.
One month later, Rice meets with Syrian ambassador one on one.
January, Bush Administration rejects talks with Iran out of hand.
Four months later, Bush Administration holds meeting with Iran.
Even sitting down with North Korea is appeasement.
In a sharp reversal of policy, Bush sends envoy to North Korea for direct talks.
So, again, its the liberals who want to talk with terrorists? Go ahead and attempt to respond but you're just digging deeper at this point.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | June 22, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Since when is it a problem to have a dialog with the enemy?
You just need a big stick and the balls to use it when the enemy needs to feel the pain, thus moving the dialog along.
Sometimes it is best to put fear in the enemy's heart and to make them beg for dialog first. Then talk.
Dick Morris is still a Richard. I find his story's entertaining because of his history with the Clinton family. He seems to know what he is talking about. Sure don't want him on my side though. You can tell that he is still a dem at heart.
Posted by: chucks | June 22, 2007 at 03:24 PM
That wasn't the question though, Chucks. Our buddy KS specifically called out liberals for wanting dialog with terrorists and stated clearly the conservatives did not. It really has nothing to do with what you're saying.
However since you do ask that question, it helps when you don't take your stick and overuse it to the point it gets so stressed out that the rest of your enemies know they can keep pushing you...especially since the aforementioned stick is jammed in the sand.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | June 22, 2007 at 03:34 PM
We gots us plenty more stick my friend. The Navy and Air Force guys are kind of bored right now. Do not underestimate our stick. We have plenty more soldiers all over the world ready to play stick with the sand crabs.
Aramadamadingdong and the dancing mulahs are already playing the game. Soon, our guys will be up to bat.
Posted by: chucks | June 22, 2007 at 04:09 PM
I rest my case. Truly inspiring and cogent thought process there. I'm sure bombing the shit out of anyone you don't like is the best way to go. Sand crabs...wow really advanced thought process there too.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | June 22, 2007 at 04:20 PM
If I may: we have got to learn to 'communicate' with the world from a humble position. IMHO our President's problem (among other things) he communicates like a cowboy out of the old West. Scares the heck out of me. No, we can't do it with just POWER any more although I agree with an immense power should we get in the position to warrant it (i.e. like being attacked). The George Bush approach is outdated and downright stupid. In the words of a great L.A. philosopher 'can't we all get along' PEACEfully! :)
Posted by: Duffman | June 22, 2007 at 04:31 PM
cpp3 - What does this refer to ?
"The right has embraced its more radical side" (Radical side of what ?) That could be Islamists or whoever.
Never said that the conservatives didn't want a dialogue - I did mention negotiating with terrorists and that is different, and was referring to release of hostages - you didn't ask what was meant, you spouted off and assumed.
Its not a problem having a dialogue with the enemy. It would be a problem to honor any agreement they sign of ours. Case & point; Like former Pres. Carter did with North Korea in 1994, which came back to bite us, with the approval of Clinton.
The bottom line is the results - while the talks are a start, they need to keep on going - I'll keep an open mind but don't like the rhetoric of Pelosi and Reid - they are out to divide us in front of the rest of the world. On the other hand, its true that Bush doesn't communicate worth spit much of the time. Neither side is right and they are both playing politics.
With the little Hitler in Iran, we need to pay attention over there and be prepared to step in and quash their facilities - if we have to, but no preemptive strikes unless it is confirmed that danger to our National Security is imminent.
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2007 at 05:23 PM
chuck's answer to everything eventually:
kill 'em, nuke 'em, kill 'em, nuke 'em, kill 'em . . . and on and on and on.
Didn't somebody you all think is on your side say something about turning the other cheek . . . ?
And nothing humble about "bla bla bla duff." Just a lot of talking out of whichever side of his mouth is working that minute.
Gee, things are looking up. putsie tried to post something without defaulting to name calling. Too bad it was so boring, puts. You might go back to name calling. You're better at it. Go with what you do best is my advice.
Posted by: joanie | June 22, 2007 at 06:04 PM
ph(j)oanie sez:
"Go with what you do best is my advice."
And I would suggest you take Horace Greely's advice and head west which should put you in the Puget Sound in short order. Enjoy the swim.
Actually, what I do best is point out your lack of consistancy.
So to Duff, I would have to say you have her number.
Ph(j)oanie just had to respond to you even after making a big deal of the fact that she was ignoring you. All in a day for dear ph(j)oanie.
Posted by: pugetSound | June 22, 2007 at 09:26 PM
"So to Duff, I would have to say you have her number."
Yeah PS I think you're right. Her concession statement said volumes!
"Notice, Duff, I don't respond much to you anymore? Too much blather and no substance. I'll let merci speak for me.
Posted by: joanie | June 22, 2007 at 06:55 AM"
...and to even give 'merci(styblehead)furious' her Power of Attorney like that must indicate a complete melt-down? Hmmmm...wonder if she's ever bought a used car...;)
Posted by: Duffman | June 23, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Especially entertaining on this board is the verbal high-fiving that goes on between the little men (pugetsound, KS, Duffman, Nevets) whenever one of them believes he has "scored."
Posted by: Brenda | June 23, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Assuming we're all men..how sexist! :)
Posted by: Duffman | June 23, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Snuffman is really 12 guys, the 3 faces of Steve is fascinatin' too!
Posted by: sage | June 23, 2007 at 10:31 AM
"..verbal high-fiving that goes on between the little men (pugetsound, KS, Duffman, Nevets).."
..also discriminatory statement against height-challenged individuals...how politically incorrect indeed; you should be ashamed of yourself :(
Any one looking for a used car?
Posted by: Duffman | June 23, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Hey Duff
Puts here, you know the only two who pull the gender cards when they get the tables turned on them are name callers extraordinaire Snarky and
Ph(j)oanie.
It's the web, gender is irrelevant.
The only real question is if "Brenda" was Snarky or Ph(j)oanie ie which of them ran down to the library to use the free computer to send the annonymous posting.
Posted by: pugetSound | June 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM
That's right Puts. It MUST be me or joanie. Surely no other female reader of this board would point out
your faible d'esprit.
Back to ignoring you now.
Posted by: sparky | June 23, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Sparky, you know little men - any attention is better than no attention! As for aliases? They must ass-u-me everyone does it. It is called projection.
Posted by: joanie | June 23, 2007 at 05:12 PM
Well Joanie, that timeline was meant for the Capt, I saw what you put, maybe the Capt. didn't or misread it. As for your article, you should do some research yourself and see how much money an Iraqi thinks a dead relative is worth. Follow that common dreams article and you will see where they have mislead you and thier base on the subject. Is 2.5 million ID (Iraqi Dinar) worth a life. For most who have lost a relative in Iraq it is.
Posted by: nevets | June 23, 2007 at 09:49 PM
"What price (when we do pay) do we place on the life of a 9-year-old boy, shot by one of our soldiers who mistook his book bag for a bomb satchel? Would you believe $500? And when we shoot an Iraqi journalist on a bridge we shell out $2,500 to his widow — but why not the measly $5,000 she had requested?” and later in the feedback: "If we consider that the average GDP per capita in the United Sates is $43,500, and that in Afghanistan the average GDP is $800, then the compensation to Afghan families for the wrongful death of a family member by the US Military should be approximately $110,000. This means that the US government is under compensating the Afghani families by a factor of 55."
Why do you think they ask for more?
Why did you not post your link supporting your statement?
Why do you decide what an Iraqi life is worth? "For all the talk of Iraq being a sovereign nation, foreign occupiers are the ones deciding what an Iraqi life is worth."
You are full of it, ass-backwards. I think your life is worth much less than you do. So, who gets to decide? Me? That would be justice, wouldn't it.
Posted by: joanie | June 23, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Follow your story Joanie, the facts are there. If you refuse to believe and keep your head in the sand. Fine.
Posted by: nevets | June 24, 2007 at 07:13 AM
And if you can't admit when you are wrong, better to parade as if you know? Hmm. As expected.
Posted by: joanie | June 24, 2007 at 09:07 AM
After 6 years of propping up the Bush MisAdministration, the Washington Post publishes a long article about Darth Cheney, one in a series of 4 to be run this week.
Interesting reading, though not much new information.
Posted by: sparky | June 24, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Maybe new to those who choose to remain ignorant?
Posted by: joanie | June 24, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Well, Cheney's approval rating is down in the dumpster, so Im not sure anyone but the very hard core supporters would be surprised by this article....check out the picture of Powell leaving a meeting, with a smirking Cheney in the background.
Posted by: sparky | June 24, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Especially entertaining on this board is the verbal "high-fiving that goes on between the little men (pugetsound, KS, Duffman, Nevets) whenever one of them believes he has "scored."
Brenda - living in a dream world - what are you talking about ? Just another smart-a$$ comment from the peanut gallery - who is a sheeple - trying to be politically correct with this website. Why don't you show some courage and take an independent stand on something instead of mocking those who do ?
Posted by: KS | June 24, 2007 at 09:16 PM
"The only real question is if "Brenda" was Snarky or Ph(j)oanie ie which of them ran down to the library to use the free computer to send the annonymous posting."
OR It could also be cowpotpi3 doing the same to throw others off with a different gender.
Posted by: KS | June 24, 2007 at 09:23 PM
Or it could be Klueless, puts, or duff trying to frame us. Desperate people do desperate things . . .
Posted by: joanie | June 24, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Whats the matter Joanie, not able to follow up your story. Here's a clue for you, ACLU. Thats where the author got his details. Why don't you go over there and look at what price the Iraqis put on their loved ones. Too bad the kiddies are not around to help you out, now you have to do your own homework.
Posted by: Nevets | June 25, 2007 at 07:20 AM
Another retread post for "I'm guessing again."
Posted by: joanie | June 25, 2007 at 08:04 AM
I don't watch Dick Morris. I may have seen him once as he looks familiar. At any rate, the one thing he's said, whether he is a hypocrite is that Congress does receive and we pay for:
1. Free premium healthcare for life
2. Full salaries after they leave office
3. Free travel and expenses paid
4. Kick-backs and favors from lobbyists and vice-versa
5. And untold other benefits, favors, unique and insider abilities to amass great fortunes and manipulate markets and policies to their benefit.
This does not exempt the Executive Branch from taking advantage of the same and many more benefits. I'm unsure about the Judicial Branch, which seems to be the most ethical, albeit less and less judicial and open-minded as a Justice ought to be and more and more one-sided and serving as a Cabinet Member "at the pleasure of the president" which they are not.
Posted by: ebari | February 21, 2008 at 01:05 PM