Vocal Minority

Schmuck Republicans: Edwin Merwin (R-SC) and James Ulmer (R-SC) [UPDATED: Apologies]

JTA reports this morning:

SC GOPers: DeMint like a Jew watching our nation’s pennies’
October 19, 2009

Two South Carolina Republican officials defended Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) by likening him to Jews who "take care of the pennies."

Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County GOP Chairman James Ulmer wrote the Orangeburg Times and Democrat to defend DeMint after a Democratic politician said he didn't help direct enough funds to local projects. "There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves," the chairmen write. "By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation’s pennies and trying to preserve our country’s wealth and our economy’s viability to give all an opportunity to succeed."

The Palmetto Scoop, a conservative website in the state, said such comments underscored the Republican Party's difficulties.

"It's people like Ulmer and Merwin that make many folks fear for the future of the once Grand Ole Party," it said.

I'm going to say at the onset that this is not the most innocuous example of remarks. I don't even think it's necessarily anti-Semitic, but more an ignorant "stereotype" remark. But, to be sure, it was an inartful (as Obama administration apologists say) way to explain DeMint's fiscal frugality.

At least when a Republican says a stupid bigoted comment, the rest of the party reprimands them. Yet Democrat anti-Semites, or those who are friends with them, get a free pass for decades.

Just trying to put things in context, that's all. Let's not be selective in our outrage. One might question our intellectual honesty.

UPDATE 12:45 PM: Late this morning, the Republican Jewish Coalition posted this press release:

UPDATE: S. Carolina GOP leaders apologize for insensitive reference to Jews
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 By: RJC Press Office

Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2009) — The RJC has learned that Edwin O. Merwin, Jr. and James S. Ulmer Jr. apologized swiftly for the insensitive reference to Jews in their Sunday article in The Times and Democrat.

Late Monday, Mr. Ulmer wrote:

Last week I co-authored a letter to the editor which focused on the vital importance of reining in the unsustainable and excessive federal government spending which is going on currently in Washington, D.C. In one of the paragraphs which I wrote, I quoted a statement which I have heard many times in my life, truly in admiration for a method of bettering one's lot in life.

I admit that perception is indeed reality to many and that I could have certainly worded that sentence much better. I sincerely apologize for this great error. If I had quoted that great man from Pennsylvania, Ben Franklin, using his, "A penny saved is a penny earned," I doubt I would be writing this note.

I meant absolutely nothing derogatory by the reference to a great and honorable people. I hope that anyone and all who were offended by my comment will accept my humble apology.

Early Tuesday morning, Mr. Merwin wrote:

Last week I co-authored a letter to the editor that focused on the vital importance of reining in the unsustainable and excessive federal government spending which is going on currently in Washington, D.C.

At this time I wish to deeply apologize for any material included in that letter that would be considered antisemitic in any way. I have always abhorred in the past, and shall continue to do so in the future, antisemitism in any form whatsoever. I concur fully with the apology offered by my co-author, Jim Ulmer, and likewise beg that any and all who were offended will accept my deep felt apology.

The Republican Jewish Coalition appreciates the prompt and sincere apologies.

Apology accepted. That took just two days.

Now, should we expect any time soon for Jesse Jackson to apologize for his “Hymie Town” remark in 1984?

Or Al Sharpton for his “diamond merchants” remark in 1991?

Or Barack Obama for fraternizing with overt Jew-hating radical Islamist Rashid Khalidi?

Or Barack Obama for doing nothing when contributors to his “Organize for America” website compared Jews to Nazis and Palestinians to concentration camp victims only two weeks ago?

Or Barack Obama for seeking to negotiate without preconditions with Iran’s Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying dictator Ahmedinejad?

Or Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright for referring to the president’s Jewish WH staff “them Jews” in June?

Didn’t think so.

Like I said earlier, let's not be selective in our outrage. One might question our intellectual honesty.

Schmuck Republican: John McCain "Convinced" Obama Respects the Constitution

I almost fell off my seat when I heard about this. The U.K. Guardian reports:

John McCain stands up for Barack Obama during town hall meeting
Obama’s former rival heckled by audience for saying the president respects the US constitution

During the meeting in the retirement community of Sun City, Arizona, Obama’s former rival defended the president after an attendee asked: “Doesn’t he [Obama] know that we still live under a constitution?”

“I’m sure that he does,” McCain said. After the crowd erupted into laughter, the Arizona senator said: “No, no. I am serious. I am sure that he does and I’m sure he respects the constitution.”

“No!” the attendees shouted. McCain responded: “I am absolutely convinced of it. I just believe, my friends, that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy and about the role of government. That is why we have competition for public office and competition amongst parties, and competition about different ideas and vision for the future of America. I’m convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.” […]

John S. McCain, you are a schmuck! You are convinced that Barack Obama respects the Constitution? Why? What convinced you of this, Mr. McCain?

Was it when Obama said—way back in 2001—that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” because it doesn’t allow for “redistributive wealth” and espoused an unconstitutionally activist judiciary to correct those flaws:

[T]he Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

Was it when he took over GM and wielded unconstitutional power over areas of the American private sector he sought to punish?

Maybe it was when the president appointed his 37th unelected, unaccountable, untouchable “czar” to encroach upon the last nook and cranny of Americans’ personal freedom. That would be the free-speech-hating FCC “Diversity” Czar Mark Lloyd, who said:

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press … This freedom is all too often an exaggeration … At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

Or was it when the president was expressing his intent to regulate the income of Americans whom he considers enemies of his State—corporate CEO’s, Wall Street types, physicians, insurance companies (but not trial lawyers, Hollywood actors, or union bosses).

Barack Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution, John McCain, and you—unlike your much more courageous running-mate Sarah Palin—didn’t have the balls to say it. What a disgrace. 

It was hard enough pulling the lever for this RINO in 2008 only because it meant helping to prevent an Obama presidency. But if John McCain thinks he’ll be able to throw his hat in the presidential ring ever again, he’s going to have another think coming.

P.S. Free Republic reader “Nervous Tick” justifiably wonders: 

What would McCain know about respecting the constitution?
EXHIBIT A: the McCain/Feingold.

Schmuck Republicans: The "Crazy Eights" Who Voted YAY on C(r)ap and Trade Bill

[Graphic from Michelle Malkin]

The C(r)ap and Trade bill passed by a margin of seven votes in the House. How many Republicans voted for this economy-obliterating bill? Eight. That’s right. The bill would have been dead in the House had eight Republicans not pushed it over the finish line. For that I consider each and every one of these Republican Congressmen traitors to their party and their country. One of them, Rep. Lance, represents my own district (NJ-7)

On Friday evening, I emailed Mr. Lance informing him that even if the C(r)ap and Trade bill dies in the Senate, he should not count on my vote next time around. I urge all citizens who love their country and their children—because those are the two things the C(r)ap and Trade bill are going to destroy—to contact their Republican representatives if they are on this list.

Shame on each and every one of you for voting in favor of the most reckless piece of regulation in American history. If yours truly has anything to say about it, your days in Congress are numbered.

Although it's no consolation, there were 44 sensible Democrats who voted NAY (some, it is reported, because the bill didn't strangle American liberty and economy enough!)

Mark Sanford's Confession. What Now?

Oh goody. Another ostensibly prominent Republican falls from grace. By now you most certainly know that South Carolina governor Mark Sanford addressed his state after several days MIA to confess of an extra-marital affair with a woman in Argentina.

You’ll find no defense or excuses here. They guy screwed up. Big time. He correctly resigned his post as the head of Republican Governor’s Association. He stil plans on being S.C.’s governor, which I guess is the Palmetto State’s problem to deal with.

I can’t help but notice that governor scandals happen a lot, and in both major parties: Eliot Spitzer (NY) and Jim McGreevey (NJ) on the Democrat side (oh, I forgot Sen. John Edwards!). John Rowland (CT) and now Sanford (not to mention Nevada Senator John Ensign who, until a couple days ago, I never even heard of) on the Republican side. A pox on both their houses.

Blogger Streiff at Red State pretty much says it all:

This is a crying shame. Governor Sanford had much to offer to his country, especially at a time when the federal government seems to have lost its wits in regards to fiscal sanity. It is also a shame because it means we may have to endure yet another Mitt Romney candidacy as fiscal conservatives look for a home on 2012. On the positive side, it is better we find this out now than a year or two from now.

Romney would certainly be better than another McCain. He was personally my favorite choice when the Republican contenders were all battling it out in ’08. There’s plenty of time.

Meanwhile, Eric Zimmerman at The Hill blog wonders whether Romney will become the Republican contender in 2012 by default:

Potential Republican contenders for the 2012 Presidential nomination have been imploding at an alarming rate.

Earlier this year, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) gave a horrendous and much-criticized rebuttal to President Obama's first address to Congress. Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) has been at the center of a constantly unfolding tabloid drama surrounding her daughter.

Newt Gingrich called Sonia Sotomayor a racist, then (sort of) apologized. Meanwhile, President Obama neutralized Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman by appointing him Ambassador to China. […]

At this rate, Mitt Romney will be the last guy standing when the Iowa caucuses roll around. The good news for him is he's actually becoming MORE popular, surviving what some are already calling a "curse" on 2012 GOP contenders.

Whoa there, Mr. Zimmerman. I think you’re jumping the gun. You can’t rule out Bobby Jindal because of one speech that some, not everyone, considered weak. He’s made other national appearances and has done fine.

As far as I can see, Sarah Palin is getting more popular every time another vicious news story comes out about her and her family. She’s the cat that keeps coming back. Besides, as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, if Sarah Palin weren’t as dangerous to the Left as they would have us believe, they wouldn’t keep pummeling her with negative media coverage. The recent hulabaloo with David Letterman gained her some sympathy points, coupled with the knockout punch she threw when she was subsequently on with Matt Lauer.

Finally, whether or not Newt called Sonia Sotomayor a racist, which she is (or at least, she made a racist comment, which the leftist media has all but ignored except for reporting Republican crtiticism of it), I never considered him a serious contender. In my opinion, he’s old news.

So, not so fast there, libs. Don’t pop open the sparkling Kool-Aid just yet. Obama’s been in office only half a year, and if his sinking poll numbers are any indication, you have a lot more to worry about on your side than we do on ours.

Do you think the Sanford scandal will have an effect on the 2012 Republican nomination, and if so, how?

Speaking of Red State, blogger E Pluribus Unum has a passionate message for all you gloating Democrats in the media who are milking the Sanford affair for all they can:

To majority media and other Democrats : we police our own, and you don’t get to judge: Drop dead.

By all means report the facts. I’m sure you’ll be happy to cover every salacious detail. Have at it. Be sure to cover the pain and suffering of Governor Sanford’s family. While you are at it, cover the depth to which all South Carolina and nation-wide Republicans and conservatives rightly feel betrayed.

Beyond that, just shut up. Shut your lying, hypocritical, power-above-patriotism, hyper-partisan, two-faced, shamelessly double-standard bearing pie hole.

You don’t get to judge.

The Library of Congress could hardly contain chapter and verse of the multitudes of ways the press and the other Democrats have gotten away with judging Republicans by wholly different standards than that applied to Democrats. But that double standard is both obvious and as wide as the Grand Canyon. You show no honor, no equity, no fairness, and no scruples yourselves. You, to put it mildly, do not police your own.

We do. We’ll deal with Sanford. We have standards (you don’t), and we have a long history of punishing and purging our leaders who prove unworthy of trust. For your part, serial adulterer Bill Clinton remains a rock star as far as you are concerned, and that about sums up the standards to which Democrats hold themselves..

So, spare us your mock outrage, your tut-tutting, your finger-wagging, your eyebrows furrowed in anger. If you are well and truly outraged by Mark Sanford’s adultery, but could not trouble yourself to muster even a little mild disapproval against the cretin who wiped his feet with the honor of the office of President of the United States, then you are a hypocrite yourself of the lowest stripe. You are unworthy to judge.

So just shut up.

Eric Zimmerman, I think he’s talking to you …

Related reading at Chicago Ray.

Hate at Masada 2000: Jewish Right-Wing Website Goes Too Far

If Israel’s far-right Kach party were American and Republican, they would be this week’s Schmuck Republicans.

On Friday evening, I was informed of a website called Masada 2000, run by members/supporters of the Kach party (founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was assassinated in NYC in 1990.) The website, just like the political party which launched it, is virulently anti-radical-Muslim and anti-leftist. This, I will readily admit, is something I can understand, having read parts of David Horowitz’s book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, and being currently in the middle of Jamie Glazov’s new book United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.

I was informed of a page on the website called the “S.H.I.T. List,” where that four-letter word serves as an acronym for “Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening” Jews. Listed are infamous leftist anti-Israel and/or Palestinian-sympathizing luminaries, e.g., activists like Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, and Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin; Israel-denouncing professors like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and practically anyone employed by UC-Berkeley; Hollywood types like Rosanne Barr and Ed Asner (Et tu, classical musician David Barenboim??? Why!?); far-left rabbis like Michael Lerner; and other assorted “peace” activists (meaning activists who support the Palestinian cause and blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East as readily as they blame the United States for the world’s ills.)

By all accounts, such people should be called out and excoriated by American Jewry at large. Their actions and statements against the Jewish people and against Israel (not to mention against Americans and the U.S.) are hateful and indefensible.

But then Masada 2000 goes waaay too far: First, the actual blurbs on these individuals are not pretty; they’re completely bereft of the Jewish value of derech eretz (“way of the land,” i.e., decent, respectful, civilized behavior) and are a textbook case of l’shon ha-ra (“wicked tongue,” i.e., malicious gossip—even gossip which is true). Photos of individuals that appear on the list are distorted in the style of the John McCain Atlantic magazine incident. Even yours truly, who has on this blog castigated left-wingers with whom I disagree, try to refrain from over-the-top stuff like this.

Secondly, and most importantly, the list appears to include anyone who does not endorse Kach’s far-right position on Israel and the Middle East conflict. That’s how they manage—proudly—to accumulate nearly 9,000 names on their S.H.I.T. list.

Someone apparently thought it appropriate to go through a directory of rabbis in the Reform Movement (the most liberal of the Jewish denominations) and insert virtually every name into their list. If there are any anti-Semitic/Israel or pro-Palestinian statements or actions these clergypeople are responsible for, Masada2000 more often than not does not cite them. Presumably any Reform rabbi is guilty by association (Incidentally, while they are very rare, I do know some Reform clergy who are staunchly right-wing.)

As someone who has recently renounced his affiliation with the Reform Movement due to its leftist politics, I was nevertheless disturbed to find dozens upon dozens of my own friends and coworkers on the S.H.I.T. list.

Why these Reform rabbis are on this list is beyond me. Unlike with the other names I mentioned above, Masada 2000 provides no citations of statements these rabbis might have made to make them personae non gratae of the Jewish people. It seems the Kach wing considers them guilty simply by their affiliation with the Reform Movement. Perhaps it’s because the position of many Reform rabbis is to favor the Two-state Solution in the Middle East, which Kach is adamantly against.

Let me make this perfectly clear: There is no way such individuals deserve to find themselves on any list that includes the likes of Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Leslie Cagan, Medea Benjamin, and Ed Asner—all of whom by word and by deed disgrace the Jewish people and the State of Israel (and who, not coincidentally, generally have nothing nice to say about the U.S. either.)

To be sure, I have challenged my liberal rabbi friends for their support of liberal causes even when they seem to trump Jewish values or just plain common sense, and I have been particularly critical of their support for Barack Obama. Indeed, just last week, in light of President Obama’s moral-relativism-dripping Cairo speech and his weak-kneed approach to the Iranian election protests, I expressed my disappointment in my Obama-supporting Jewish friends (including clergy.) But such individuals don’t go out of their way to jeopardize Israel or denounce Jews, as others do. These are the only people who belong on such a list.

Ah, you might be thinking: I’m being biased because of my personal relationship with these Reform rabbis. Well, perhaps. But would I be friends with any of these individuals if I really thought them to be self-hating Jews and deliberately Israel-threatening? Of course not. Would I ever pal around with Jews who organize and attend rallies “in solidarity” with the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation, and so forth? Never.

Shame on Kach and the organizers of this hateful website for lumping decent—albeit, in my estimation, misguided—liberal Jewish leaders with the ultra-leftists who are truly enemies of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. I am proudly conservative and proudly Jewish, but such a party does not represent me.

Schmuck Republican: Newt Gingrich Retracts the Truth

This is Mr. Speaker’s second time on the schmuck list. (First time was last year when he jumped on the man-made global warming climate change bandwagon.) Congrats, Newt.

Sorry, but Newt Gingrich is a wuss. After calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist for her 2001 comment that a Latina woman would make better conclusions than a white man, he since has retracted it, admitting he was too harsh. Rather than sticking to his guns, he took the political way out. And naturally, the Obamedia is enjoying reporting on this supposed arrival at decency. (Because we know Democrats have never smeared or hurled names at Republican judicial nominees, right Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, etc., etc.?)

Conservative commentator Joe Scarborough also belongs on the schmuck list today. On yesterday’s show I heard him praise Newt for rescinding his comment, saying that everyone makes mistakes and it takes a big person to live up to them. Sorry, Joe. I enjoy your show and usually agree with you, but the big mistake was trying to backpeddle on the truth. Especially now that the focus is not on Sotomayor’s racist comment, but rathoer on the Republican response to her racist comment.

Rush Limbaugh has not yet retracted his racism comment, nor does he seem to plan to. As he said on yesterday’s show: “It’s the truth. And the truth doesn’t need retracting.”

Amen. The Democrats and media are flummoxed about Rush because he told an inconvenient truth, and that puts a little more than a pin prick in the bubble the Democrats and Obama-worshiping media dwell in. As Ann Coulter once said, the truth cannot be delivered with Novocaine. Racism is racism, whether it’s white against black or vice versa. That our friends on the left don’t like to admit. (Indeed, the reverse racism is a common and completely acceptable modus operandi of the Left.).

Let’s for the sake of argument pull the accusation back one step: Whether Sonia Sotomayor is a racist is up for debate; whether her statement was a racist statement is not. You can be sure that if a white male said anything similar, he’d be tarred and feathered as a racist by every Democrat from Capitol Hill to the studios of MSNBC.

Thomas Sowell In this article, which Rush quotes from yesterday, Thomas Sowell speaks truth to the ever-growing Democrat power:

… Since it has been repeated like a mantra that Judge Sotomayor’s words have been “taken out of context,” let us look at Rush Limbaugh in context. The cold fact is that Rush Limbaugh has not been nominated to sit on the highest court in the land, with a lifetime appointment, to have the lives and liberties of 300 million Americans in his hands.

Whatever you may think about his choice of words, those words and the ideas behind them do not change the law of the land. The words and actions of Supreme Court justices do. Anyone who doesn’t like what Rush Limbaugh says can simply turn off the radio or change the station. But you cannot escape the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. Nor will your children or grandchildren.

What does it say about a nominee to the Supreme Court that the most that her defenders can say in her defense is that her critics used words that her defenders don’t like?

What does it say about her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court when her supporters’ biggest talking points are that she had to struggle to rise in the world?

Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds — Richard Nixon — had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.

Sometimes, instead of making you appreciative of a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling, and resentful of those who were born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.

Much in the past of Sonia Sotomayor, and of the president who nominated her, suggests such resentments. Both have a history of connections with people who promoted resentments against American society. La Raza (“the race”) was Judge Sotomayor’s Jeremiah Wright. If context is important, then look at that context.

Sonia Sotomayor has, in both her words and in her decision as a judge to dismiss out of hand the appeal of white firefighters who had been discriminated against, betrayed a racism that is no less racism because it is directed against different people than the old racism of the past.

The code word for the new racism is “diversity.” The Constitution of the United States says nothing about diversity and the Constitution is what a judge is supposed to pay attention to, not the prevailing buzzwords of the times.

What the Constitution says is “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans — and that is not taken out of context. People have put their lives on the line to make those words a reality. Now all of that is to be made to vanish into thin air by saying the magic word “diversity.”

The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the Constitution, proclaimed equal rights for all, not special rights for those for whom judges have “empathy.”

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated in Congress, its opponents claimed that it would lead to discrimination against white people. Its supporters declared that it meant no such thing and added new provisions to make sure that it meant no such thing. That was the law that was passed.

It was not the law, but the judges, who changed equal rights into special rights and thereby set the stage for the new mantra of “diversity” that trumps equal rights. Diversity was Judge Sotomayor’s rationale for going along with the denial of equal rights for white firefighters in Connecticut.

When all else fails, supporters of Judge Sotomayor say that she is Hispanic and a woman, and that it would be politically dangerous to deny her a place on the Supreme Court. This is as much an insult to the intelligence of Hispanic and female voters as it is to the Constitution of the United States and to those who put their lives on the line for equal rights.

Bravo, Dr. Sowell.

I urge Republicans not to let the “racism” issue distract us from everything else that is wrong with Barack Obama’s unqualified, biased, leftist activist judicial pick.

Schmuck Republican: Joe the Plumber

I personally still think [same-sex marriage is] wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

—Samuel Joseph “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, May 4.

I really did have respect for this guy for standing up to Obama during the campaign and for braving the hail of bullets from the predictable Obama-worshiping media that ensued. 

But come on. There are hundreds of millions of reasonable human beings worldwide who oppose same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t mean they are averse to having homosexuals near their children! What the hell is this?

You can stop talking now, Joe. Your fifteen minutes is over.

Schmuck Republican: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) [UPDATED]

Yesterday’s AP article read:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested on Monday that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves.

The Republican lawmaker’s harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide.

“I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed,” Grassley said. “But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they’d follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.

“And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology.”

Say what you will about the AIG execs who rewarded themselves with the $165 million while the company hit the economic iceberg. But come on, commit suicide???

That’s gotta be the lamest comment since the hateful British enviro-wacko George Monbiot said in 2006, “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”

In other words, Grassley was talking like a liberal: Say or do something I disagree with? You deserve to die.

Talking like an intolerant liberal. That’s why Grassley is VM’s latest Schmuck Republican.

[UPDATE: Grassley was on Hannity’s show this afternoon, where he tried to explain himself and apologized for the confusion. OK, whatever. It still was a schmuck comment.]