Ja, mein Furher! We hope you liken da Hitler....ah,ha,ha - da Obama Youth that sings praises to you, dear leader!
Looken, looken, the blank stare in der eyeballs ! So easily do da kinder submit to your will, mein Furher!
Yes, yes, da neocon Rager Simon says its reminds him of "Young Pioneer Camps I saw when visiting the Soviet Union in the Eighties", but feh! Who cares when we have uzeaful idiyats like all of our friends in de media, ya?
Extra ration stamps for all of them under your rule, Mein Obama!
Ja!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Nancy Pelosi: Worst...Speaker....Ever
But hey, don't just take my word for it! How about Megan McArdle's word?
Pelosi screwed up royally.....Pelosi cut a deal in which, as far as I can tell, every single Republican in a safe seat had to vote yes so that the Democrats could maximize their no votes. Given that the Republican caucus is pretty much in open revolt, this was beyond moronic. She then spent a week openly and repeatedly blaming the Republicans and the Bush administration for the current crisis. The way she set things up, it was "Heads I win, tails you lose": vote for the deal and I'll paint you as heartless reactionaries bailing out your fat cat friends. If you're going to do that, you'd better make sure you have some goddamn margin for error in your own party. She didn't. Then she got up and delivered yet another speech blaming the Republicans for the bailout deal she was about to pass....
From Eric Cantor, my original pick to be McCains #2 (shhhh! Don't tell Sarah) - via Pejman:
And I think that this is a case of a failure of Speaker Pelosi to listen not only to her members, but certainly to our members and the common bonds that brought our members together on this very, very important issue facing the american people. This is not a partisan crisis. This is an economic crisis facing everyone in this country. And to look at the votes today, 94 Democrats voted no. 94. Now, when we were in the Majority, I think we would make a decision that we would be able to come to the floor and bring a solution to the American people and pass it. They made a decision to leave 94 of their votes off the table and, frankly, as you can see, a majority of our votes that wouldn't go along. Clearly this is an instance where you see Speaker Pelosi's failure to listen, failure to lead.
Yup.
Now back to another liberal, Katie Allison Granju, who declares that Pelosi "needs to go":
...the speech was incredibly inappropriate. At a moment when the Speaker should have been rallying the entire membership of the House to pull together as Americans and solve the crisis before them, Pelosi chose instead to use her pulpit to lay blame and point fingers. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around, and some finger pointing is going to have to occur as we decide what specific mistakes were made and how we can avoid repeating them. But yesterday was not the time.
Yesterday was a time for statesmanship and gravitas, qualities that are critical in the individual who is only a few degrees away from the presidency, and who is vested with representing the entire body of the House of Representatives. In our two party system, there is no way to leave partisan politics out of the Speaker's role, but Pelosi acts more like a House majority or minority leader, or a whip - or even like the DNC Chair - than she does like the great Speakers of yore, like Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neill.
Even over at ABC (Almighty Barack Central), there is some question about Pelosi's leadership:
Yes, House Republicans didn't deliver many votes and 66% of them voted against the bill.
But considering that only a dozen votes needed to switch in order to provide a different outcome, and 95 Democrats in the House voted against it, critics are now wondering why couldn't House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have assured a different outcome considering how important she said its passage was?
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., told me yesterday that he felt no pressure at all to vote for the bill....
Finally, Amy Holmes speaks to the results of the Democratic party's habit of repeatedly spitting into the well:
After eight years of relentless partisan attacks on George Bush, Democrats have not only succeeded in sowing distrust of the administration, but of their own judgment, as well. So, now, when our leaders tell us that we have a genuine crisis, they have no credibility to lead us out. Such are the wages of blind, partisanship. We don't trust what they tell us they see.
The Democrat's hatred of Bush and their rage at being out of power has come back to harm the entire nation they claim to represent. No suprise here; but how will they govern with either Barack or McCain at the helm in 2008, being that they now have zero credibility?
If Eric Cantor is in fact a kinder, gentler Gingrich, we may see Republican contol - and cleanup - of this messy House within a few years...
Pelosi screwed up royally.....Pelosi cut a deal in which, as far as I can tell, every single Republican in a safe seat had to vote yes so that the Democrats could maximize their no votes. Given that the Republican caucus is pretty much in open revolt, this was beyond moronic. She then spent a week openly and repeatedly blaming the Republicans and the Bush administration for the current crisis. The way she set things up, it was "Heads I win, tails you lose": vote for the deal and I'll paint you as heartless reactionaries bailing out your fat cat friends. If you're going to do that, you'd better make sure you have some goddamn margin for error in your own party. She didn't. Then she got up and delivered yet another speech blaming the Republicans for the bailout deal she was about to pass....
From Eric Cantor, my original pick to be McCains #2 (shhhh! Don't tell Sarah) - via Pejman:
And I think that this is a case of a failure of Speaker Pelosi to listen not only to her members, but certainly to our members and the common bonds that brought our members together on this very, very important issue facing the american people. This is not a partisan crisis. This is an economic crisis facing everyone in this country. And to look at the votes today, 94 Democrats voted no. 94. Now, when we were in the Majority, I think we would make a decision that we would be able to come to the floor and bring a solution to the American people and pass it. They made a decision to leave 94 of their votes off the table and, frankly, as you can see, a majority of our votes that wouldn't go along. Clearly this is an instance where you see Speaker Pelosi's failure to listen, failure to lead.
Yup.
Now back to another liberal, Katie Allison Granju, who declares that Pelosi "needs to go":
...the speech was incredibly inappropriate. At a moment when the Speaker should have been rallying the entire membership of the House to pull together as Americans and solve the crisis before them, Pelosi chose instead to use her pulpit to lay blame and point fingers. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around, and some finger pointing is going to have to occur as we decide what specific mistakes were made and how we can avoid repeating them. But yesterday was not the time.
Yesterday was a time for statesmanship and gravitas, qualities that are critical in the individual who is only a few degrees away from the presidency, and who is vested with representing the entire body of the House of Representatives. In our two party system, there is no way to leave partisan politics out of the Speaker's role, but Pelosi acts more like a House majority or minority leader, or a whip - or even like the DNC Chair - than she does like the great Speakers of yore, like Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neill.
Even over at ABC (Almighty Barack Central), there is some question about Pelosi's leadership:
Yes, House Republicans didn't deliver many votes and 66% of them voted against the bill.
But considering that only a dozen votes needed to switch in order to provide a different outcome, and 95 Democrats in the House voted against it, critics are now wondering why couldn't House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have assured a different outcome considering how important she said its passage was?
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., told me yesterday that he felt no pressure at all to vote for the bill....
Finally, Amy Holmes speaks to the results of the Democratic party's habit of repeatedly spitting into the well:
After eight years of relentless partisan attacks on George Bush, Democrats have not only succeeded in sowing distrust of the administration, but of their own judgment, as well. So, now, when our leaders tell us that we have a genuine crisis, they have no credibility to lead us out. Such are the wages of blind, partisanship. We don't trust what they tell us they see.
The Democrat's hatred of Bush and their rage at being out of power has come back to harm the entire nation they claim to represent. No suprise here; but how will they govern with either Barack or McCain at the helm in 2008, being that they now have zero credibility?
If Eric Cantor is in fact a kinder, gentler Gingrich, we may see Republican contol - and cleanup - of this messy House within a few years...
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Bank and Mortgage Mess: Blame Obama !
Seriously.
The New York Post has a peice by Stanley Kurtz which breaks down Obama's ties to the groups that helped cause the nearly trillion-dollar bailout the American taxpayers will be charged for. Their lead editorial summerizes nicely:
As Congress slogged toward an apparent financial-market rescue bill over the weekend, the time arrived for a closer look at the roots of the crisis.
Who were the culprits? Many and varied.
But as Election Day grows ever nearer, the role of one candidate in particular stands out: that of Barack Obama.
Obama spent many years cultivating ties with, working with - and even funding - the very folks who pushed for the risky lending that underlies the current mess.
That is, "community organizer" groups like ACORN.
ACORN is especially noteworthy, not only because of its prominence in the drive to relax mortgage requirements, but also because of its shady tactics.
And its links to Obama.
Various ACORN chapters across the country, led by folks like Chicago's Madeline Talbott, staged in-your-face protests in bank lobbies and filed complaints meant to hold up mergers sought by targeted banking firms.
Unless the banks agreed to ACORN's terms - which many (understandably) did.
Talbott & Co. generally wanted them to ease down-payment requirements and ignore weak credit histories. And their intimidating tactics often necessitated police action, as at a '97 protest at Pulaski Bank & Trust in Arkansas, where activists blocked drive-through lanes.
The movement's biggest victory, of course, came when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up the riskier loans - providing fresh incentive for banks to make even more of them.
No need to recount where all that led.
Meanwhile, Obama was right there by ACORN's side all along.
"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he told the group last November.
Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.
ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from '95 to '99.
Ironically, the group stood to be a key beneficiary of the goodies Democrats were loading into Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's rescue plan - including one demand that 20 percent of any profits the feds make from reselling mortgage securities go to fund groups like ACORN.
Happily, that add-insult-to-injury bit appears to have been eliminated from the rescue bill - thanks essentially to Republican objections.
Debate over the rescue plan begins in earnest today - and much disapprobation will be heaped on "Wall Street greed" as it proceeds.
Don't be misled, though.
In the end, from a mighty ACORN an even mightier crisis did grow.
With Barack Obama's help.
Read the Kurtz piece , "O's Dangerous Pals", and decide for yourself.
If this is the damage to America that Barack Obama was able to do simply as a "community organizer", imagine what a swarth of destruction he will cut thru this nation as our president!
Can't wait for the rest of the media to follow up on this story....
The New York Post has a peice by Stanley Kurtz which breaks down Obama's ties to the groups that helped cause the nearly trillion-dollar bailout the American taxpayers will be charged for. Their lead editorial summerizes nicely:
As Congress slogged toward an apparent financial-market rescue bill over the weekend, the time arrived for a closer look at the roots of the crisis.
Who were the culprits? Many and varied.
But as Election Day grows ever nearer, the role of one candidate in particular stands out: that of Barack Obama.
Obama spent many years cultivating ties with, working with - and even funding - the very folks who pushed for the risky lending that underlies the current mess.
That is, "community organizer" groups like ACORN.
ACORN is especially noteworthy, not only because of its prominence in the drive to relax mortgage requirements, but also because of its shady tactics.
And its links to Obama.
Various ACORN chapters across the country, led by folks like Chicago's Madeline Talbott, staged in-your-face protests in bank lobbies and filed complaints meant to hold up mergers sought by targeted banking firms.
Unless the banks agreed to ACORN's terms - which many (understandably) did.
Talbott & Co. generally wanted them to ease down-payment requirements and ignore weak credit histories. And their intimidating tactics often necessitated police action, as at a '97 protest at Pulaski Bank & Trust in Arkansas, where activists blocked drive-through lanes.
The movement's biggest victory, of course, came when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up the riskier loans - providing fresh incentive for banks to make even more of them.
No need to recount where all that led.
Meanwhile, Obama was right there by ACORN's side all along.
"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he told the group last November.
Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.
ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from '95 to '99.
Ironically, the group stood to be a key beneficiary of the goodies Democrats were loading into Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's rescue plan - including one demand that 20 percent of any profits the feds make from reselling mortgage securities go to fund groups like ACORN.
Happily, that add-insult-to-injury bit appears to have been eliminated from the rescue bill - thanks essentially to Republican objections.
Debate over the rescue plan begins in earnest today - and much disapprobation will be heaped on "Wall Street greed" as it proceeds.
Don't be misled, though.
In the end, from a mighty ACORN an even mightier crisis did grow.
With Barack Obama's help.
Read the Kurtz piece , "O's Dangerous Pals", and decide for yourself.
If this is the damage to America that Barack Obama was able to do simply as a "community organizer", imagine what a swarth of destruction he will cut thru this nation as our president!
Can't wait for the rest of the media to follow up on this story....
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama's Forgotten Soldier
For a young guy, Obama seems to have a real problem with his memory. Like misstating how many states are in our Union, for instance. Or forgetting the name of the soldier who's name he wears on a wristband. Or forgetting that the parents of our fallen hero asked Obama to please stop wearing the bracelet:
Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family....
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail. (h/t D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue.
More at Dehavelle:
According to the father, Tracy Jopek wrote to the Senator: “She had asked him not to wear the bracelet.”
The WPR host — clearly anti-war (and quoting Lancet numbers of deaths) suggested that Obama had not worn it recently. This was months ago.
Here’s the clincher — Barack Obama is using the bracelet to support a position that his father (and Ryan Jopek himself) clearly do not subscribe to, and at the time even the mother that gave him the bracelet didn’t want it used in the media (that comment was made here) and asked him to take it off.
Whatever Tracey Jopek's initial motives were, I don't think she realized she had played into the hands of a con man; by giving him something personal to exploit for his own gain.
But that's all Obama is: A grifter, saying one thing while doing another, telling us to "look into his eyes" while he stacks the deck and moves the chips. And as usual, we have heartbreak and confusion left in the shyster's wake, wondering how such a sure thing could have turned out so wrong. Watch for the slips - like the inability to remember a soldier's name wrapped around his wrist -because it gives up the game. The bracelet is just an insignificant detail, the image is the thing wherin he'll capture the conscious of the electorate....
Welcome to Barack Obama's America. It begins with an forgotten soldier....
Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family....
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail. (h/t D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue.
More at Dehavelle:
According to the father, Tracy Jopek wrote to the Senator: “She had asked him not to wear the bracelet.”
The WPR host — clearly anti-war (and quoting Lancet numbers of deaths) suggested that Obama had not worn it recently. This was months ago.
Here’s the clincher — Barack Obama is using the bracelet to support a position that his father (and Ryan Jopek himself) clearly do not subscribe to, and at the time even the mother that gave him the bracelet didn’t want it used in the media (that comment was made here) and asked him to take it off.
Whatever Tracey Jopek's initial motives were, I don't think she realized she had played into the hands of a con man; by giving him something personal to exploit for his own gain.
But that's all Obama is: A grifter, saying one thing while doing another, telling us to "look into his eyes" while he stacks the deck and moves the chips. And as usual, we have heartbreak and confusion left in the shyster's wake, wondering how such a sure thing could have turned out so wrong. Watch for the slips - like the inability to remember a soldier's name wrapped around his wrist -because it gives up the game. The bracelet is just an insignificant detail, the image is the thing wherin he'll capture the conscious of the electorate....
Welcome to Barack Obama's America. It begins with an forgotten soldier....
"Ooooooohhhh.....SarahCuda !"
Or, Sarah Palin Update #17:
Nothing like taking a nickname that your opponents try to tag you with negatively and wearing it proudly across your chest:
Love the video as well (a short clip, via Hot Air) that shows Sarah pumping up the crowd in a Philadelphia pub before last night's debate:
Pub-goers swarmed her asking for pictures and autographs, pleading with secret service agents and handlers just to get a handshake. She made her way through the crowd, all smiles, and stepped up on a dais in the corner to make some brief remarks...
She signed autographs in this way: "S Palin '08"
If loving Sarah is wrong.....
Nothing like taking a nickname that your opponents try to tag you with negatively and wearing it proudly across your chest:
Love the video as well (a short clip, via Hot Air) that shows Sarah pumping up the crowd in a Philadelphia pub before last night's debate:
Pub-goers swarmed her asking for pictures and autographs, pleading with secret service agents and handlers just to get a handshake. She made her way through the crowd, all smiles, and stepped up on a dais in the corner to make some brief remarks...
She signed autographs in this way: "S Palin '08"
If loving Sarah is wrong.....
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Doing the work the New Jersey Republican Party won't do....
After weeks of unreturned emails, and a fair amount of fruitless searching, I finally came up with the name of the Republican opponent to Rush Holt in New Jersey's 12th Congressional district.
Good work in getting the name out there, NJ-GOP.
Anyway, he's a nice enough fellow named Alan Bateman, currently the mayor of Holmdel, a main-street Jersey type of town harboring around 16,000 residents. He holds rational views on energy, taxation, and the economy, but if a candidate campaigns in the woods and nobody hears him, does he make a sound?
Lines were drawn Tuesday in the race for a seat representing the state's 12th Congressional District, as Republican challenger Alan Bateman outlined his plan to reduce energy costs that Democratic incumbent Rush D. Holt called partisan politics.
Bateman, a Holmdel committeeman, was joined by state Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr., R-Monmouth, as he outlined his energy plan Tuesday at an afternoon conference held at the commuter parking lot off Garden State Parkway Exit 109 in Middletown.
The plan calls for lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling and a commitment to generating 20 percent of the country's energy needs through alternative sources, such as biofuels, solar, wind and nuclear power, Bateman said during a telephone interview.
"The whole area of energy and gas prices really is a huge concern," Bateman said. "It's impacting all aspects of people's lives — from driving to the cost to heat and cool their homes and other goods they buy. It's negatively impacting on the quality of life."
But Bateman's plan is a party line and will do nothing to solve the energy crisis, according to a statement released by Holt.
What is Holt's nonpartisan solution?
Holt, a former scientist running an alternative energy lab at Princeton University, said his energy plan would tax oil companies' profits to provide $1,000 energy rebates for families and decrease foreign oil consumption through promoting cleaner domestic energy.
"I would urge Mr. Bateman to join me in a less partisan and more thoughtful approach to actually solving our energy crisis," Holt said in the release.
Ah, higher taxes and inaginary new technologies! That's always the solution, isn't it, Mr. Holt? And how do you think the oil companies are going to recoup the socialist redistribution of their wealth?
What's that? Price regulation, you say? Gee, that worked out so well in the '70's....
Funny how Holt can accuse Bateman of being "partisan" when he toes the line of the most left-wing elements of the Democratic party....this, from a man who votes almost 98% of the time with his party's hacks.
OK, Alan, I've done what I can (and likely given you more links in this one post than anyone else currently residing on the web). I realize you are funded about as well as, hmmm...a mayoral rather than a Congressional candidate, but let's try to get your name out there a bit, OK? Bill Spadea ran an honorable and exciting campaign against Holt in 2004 and took 40% of the vote, among the highest of any Republican taking on a Democratic incumbant. Even if you can't win the damn thing, work the energy a bit and get some turnout to help the other Republicans who will be fighting a media-aided Democratic onslaught in 2008.
Good luck, Alan.
Friday, September 26, 2008
"If you can't win fair, win dirty"
Or, if you don't like the truth, simply suppress it by threatening people's livelihood. Ah, at last a glimpse of how the elusive Barack Obama would actually govern....
Via Snowflakes in Hell:
Barack Obama’s campaign is trying to silence the National Rifle Association’s latest ad campaign using strong arm tactics by threatening them with possible legal action if they run the ads:
Failure to prevent the airing of “false and misleading advertising” may be “probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility” Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
So basically, stop running NRA’s ads, or your broadcast license could be in jeopardy.
More from The Bitch Girls:
Barack Obama is used to having his way. Interestingly, he is not a fan of people pointing out when he’s lying about things like civil rights, especially that pesky Second Amendment.
That’s why Obama has a team of hired goons - some call them lawyers - to threaten legal action against those who air his record.
The Obama campaign sent cease and desist letters to news outlets in Pennsylvania and Ohio, denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves. All stations where NRA-PVF has purchased or plans to purchase ads have been provided with documented evidence of Sen. Obama’s anti-gun record.
The only problem is that the ads are based on a real, proven record.
And Obama's brownshirts in Missouri are going to take it a step further...via Gateway Pundit:
KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.
Check out the link - some interesting Obama video, and a dare for his campaign....
Is this why the liberals always shriek about Bush's so-called "stormtrooper" tactics? So they can excuse it when one of their own actually, you know, engages in it?
Stalin would be proud of his American descendants...
Via Snowflakes in Hell:
Barack Obama’s campaign is trying to silence the National Rifle Association’s latest ad campaign using strong arm tactics by threatening them with possible legal action if they run the ads:
Failure to prevent the airing of “false and misleading advertising” may be “probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility” Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
So basically, stop running NRA’s ads, or your broadcast license could be in jeopardy.
More from The Bitch Girls:
Barack Obama is used to having his way. Interestingly, he is not a fan of people pointing out when he’s lying about things like civil rights, especially that pesky Second Amendment.
That’s why Obama has a team of hired goons - some call them lawyers - to threaten legal action against those who air his record.
The Obama campaign sent cease and desist letters to news outlets in Pennsylvania and Ohio, denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves. All stations where NRA-PVF has purchased or plans to purchase ads have been provided with documented evidence of Sen. Obama’s anti-gun record.
The only problem is that the ads are based on a real, proven record.
And Obama's brownshirts in Missouri are going to take it a step further...via Gateway Pundit:
KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.
Check out the link - some interesting Obama video, and a dare for his campaign....
Is this why the liberals always shriek about Bush's so-called "stormtrooper" tactics? So they can excuse it when one of their own actually, you know, engages in it?
Stalin would be proud of his American descendants...
Thursday, September 25, 2008
David Letterman: Bitch
So what's the most important thing in the world to the late-night funnymen? An economic crisis that has the potential of spinning the country into a new Great Depression? No, that's great fodder for one-liners ("Can the writers get me a few pickle-barrel jokes, please?").
Apparently, the most important thing in the world is not canceling out on a Late Night gig, no matter what the cause and what your responsibilities may be.
Listen to some of Letterman's bitchy little snarks last night:
"Late Show" host David Letterman treated John McCain's decision to cancel an appearance on his talk show more like a stupid human trick than the act of a statesman.
The Republican presidential candidate said he was halting his campaign activities Wednesday, citing the need to deal with the nation's financial crisis, and called Letterman to drop out of the show's late-night lineup. On the air Wednesday night, Letterman assailed McCain's rationale and, with prickly humor, questioned whether the nominee — now trailing in some polls — was in trouble.
This doesn't smell right," Letterman said. "This is not the way a tested hero behaves. Somebody's putting something in his Metamucil."
Letterman called McCain "a true American hero" but told his viewers: "This is not the John McCain I know, by God. It makes me believe something is going haywire with the campaign."
Instead of suspending a campaign, Letterman said, a presidential candidate should go to Washington to deal with a crisis and let his running mate shoulder the burdens of politicking
So. An expert in politics, he is. Ah, just shut up and dance for me, night-monkey:
"That's what you do. You don't quit. ... Or is that really a good thing to do?" Letterman said, a reference to McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "What's the problem? Where is she? Why isn't she doing that?" he asked.
Letterman later asked: "Are we suspending it because there's an economic crisis or because the poll numbers are sliding?"
I'm sorry, little David, that you had a disruption in your show. I understand that to a rich guy like you - who owns a multitude of cars and land and homes and horse farms - this crisis will have minimal affect, and even an Obama tax increase is something you can easily afford to pay.
But guess what, bitch? John McCain doesn't work for you. He works for the American people, and they needed him to make sure the right thing is being done on this whole financial bailout business. So he went to Washington to do his job; to do his duty.
Let Obama sit on your couch and yuk it up, sharing ageism jokes with you while you trade sexist sneers. McCain is trying to help the country - and you, Obama, and Olbermann (McCain's stand in for last night - nice touch) are simply trying to help yourselves.
We are cognizant of the difference.
Apparently, the most important thing in the world is not canceling out on a Late Night gig, no matter what the cause and what your responsibilities may be.
Listen to some of Letterman's bitchy little snarks last night:
"Late Show" host David Letterman treated John McCain's decision to cancel an appearance on his talk show more like a stupid human trick than the act of a statesman.
The Republican presidential candidate said he was halting his campaign activities Wednesday, citing the need to deal with the nation's financial crisis, and called Letterman to drop out of the show's late-night lineup. On the air Wednesday night, Letterman assailed McCain's rationale and, with prickly humor, questioned whether the nominee — now trailing in some polls — was in trouble.
This doesn't smell right," Letterman said. "This is not the way a tested hero behaves. Somebody's putting something in his Metamucil."
Letterman called McCain "a true American hero" but told his viewers: "This is not the John McCain I know, by God. It makes me believe something is going haywire with the campaign."
Instead of suspending a campaign, Letterman said, a presidential candidate should go to Washington to deal with a crisis and let his running mate shoulder the burdens of politicking
So. An expert in politics, he is. Ah, just shut up and dance for me, night-monkey:
"That's what you do. You don't quit. ... Or is that really a good thing to do?" Letterman said, a reference to McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "What's the problem? Where is she? Why isn't she doing that?" he asked.
Letterman later asked: "Are we suspending it because there's an economic crisis or because the poll numbers are sliding?"
I'm sorry, little David, that you had a disruption in your show. I understand that to a rich guy like you - who owns a multitude of cars and land and homes and horse farms - this crisis will have minimal affect, and even an Obama tax increase is something you can easily afford to pay.
But guess what, bitch? John McCain doesn't work for you. He works for the American people, and they needed him to make sure the right thing is being done on this whole financial bailout business. So he went to Washington to do his job; to do his duty.
Let Obama sit on your couch and yuk it up, sharing ageism jokes with you while you trade sexist sneers. McCain is trying to help the country - and you, Obama, and Olbermann (McCain's stand in for last night - nice touch) are simply trying to help yourselves.
We are cognizant of the difference.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Get your Obama-based currency here!
Not unlike Julius Caesar, The Chosen One (as in chosen by the media) has allowed his sainted image to be struck upon gold coin:
Windsor, Elizabeth & Windsor has already sold more than 300 limited edition commemorative silver coins to the Democratic Party to hand out to key members of the campaign to elect Obama.
The contract is worth about £100,000 to the company, based on Warstone Lane, Hockley.
And a spokesman for WEW said they expected thousands more coins to be bought if Obama becomes president, which could bring millions into the small firm.
WEW is producing limited edition runs of gold, silver and platinum Obama coins, and plans to produce new ones in other finishes for public consumption if the demand emerges.
The coins show Senator Obama’s face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend “President of the United States of America”.
It's a foreign company, of course. What's the matter, O - couldn't find an American firm willing to pay homage to your visage? Or are you just another greedy American capitalist shipping work overseas so that you can save a few pennies?
"Change", indeed - with our new master's face all over it...
Windsor, Elizabeth & Windsor has already sold more than 300 limited edition commemorative silver coins to the Democratic Party to hand out to key members of the campaign to elect Obama.
The contract is worth about £100,000 to the company, based on Warstone Lane, Hockley.
And a spokesman for WEW said they expected thousands more coins to be bought if Obama becomes president, which could bring millions into the small firm.
WEW is producing limited edition runs of gold, silver and platinum Obama coins, and plans to produce new ones in other finishes for public consumption if the demand emerges.
The coins show Senator Obama’s face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend “President of the United States of America”.
It's a foreign company, of course. What's the matter, O - couldn't find an American firm willing to pay homage to your visage? Or are you just another greedy American capitalist shipping work overseas so that you can save a few pennies?
"Change", indeed - with our new master's face all over it...
Sarah Palin, the Jews, and the Democrats
Hopefully I'm done with this topic. Caroline Glick over at the J-Post talks about the damage done by the Democrats in forcing Sarah Palin to be disinvited from the anti-Ahmadinejed rally yesterday, and it is so spot-on I can't think of a thing to add:
American Jews have good reason to be ashamed and angry today....
On Monday, the New York Sun published the speech that Republican vice presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would have delivered at that day's rally outside UN headquarters in New York against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and against Iran's plan to destroy Israel. She would have delivered it, if she hadn't been disinvited.
Palin's speech is an extraordinary document...
It was a remarkable speech, prepared by a remarkable woman. But it was not heard. It was not heard because the Democratic Party and Jewish Democrats believe that their partisan interest in demonizing Palin and making Americans generally and American Jews in particular hate and fear her to secure their votes for Obama and his running-mate Sen. Joseph Biden in the November election is more important than allowing Palin to elevate the necessity of preventing a second Holocaust to the top of the US's national security agenda.
American Jews have good reason to be ashamed and angry today....
On Monday, the New York Sun published the speech that Republican vice presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would have delivered at that day's rally outside UN headquarters in New York against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and against Iran's plan to destroy Israel. She would have delivered it, if she hadn't been disinvited.
Palin's speech is an extraordinary document...
It was a remarkable speech, prepared by a remarkable woman. But it was not heard. It was not heard because the Democratic Party and Jewish Democrats believe that their partisan interest in demonizing Palin and making Americans generally and American Jews in particular hate and fear her to secure their votes for Obama and his running-mate Sen. Joseph Biden in the November election is more important than allowing Palin to elevate the necessity of preventing a second Holocaust to the top of the US's national security agenda.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
An Idiot Grows In The Garden (State)
Our very own useful idiot:
Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey "said the bailout's lack of built-in oversight reflects, 'really, almost a use of force in Iraq kind of authorization–do whatever you think is responsible. You got a carte blanche.' "
And his inspiration:
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Monday that the turmoil on Wall Street was rooted in part in U.S. military intervention abroad and voiced hope that the next American administration would retreat from what he called President Bush's 'logic of force.
Peas in a pod...
Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey "said the bailout's lack of built-in oversight reflects, 'really, almost a use of force in Iraq kind of authorization–do whatever you think is responsible. You got a carte blanche.' "
And his inspiration:
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Monday that the turmoil on Wall Street was rooted in part in U.S. military intervention abroad and voiced hope that the next American administration would retreat from what he called President Bush's 'logic of force.
Peas in a pod...
Barack Obama - Filthy Liar, or Lying Filth?
Remember when Barack Obama, when asked about his relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, described him as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis."
Turns out, Obama was full of sh*t. And with good reason.
The truth is that Ayers and Obama were partners in the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC), an organization whose mandate was the reformation of Chicago's public schools.
Intersting that Obama never wrote about this - his only true "executive" experience - in his two autobiographies...!
Stanley Kurtz has done the research....turns out that in fact, Obama was CAC's first board chairman, serving in that capacity for four years and remaining on the board for two more. Ayers was the founder of CAC and, according to Kurtz, its guiding spirit. Additionally, documents show that Ayers was part of a working group of five that assembled the initial board.
Via Powerline, which has a great synopsis of the Obama/Ayers connection:
Ayers helped put Obama in the top position of an organization that distributed more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical activists. Moreover, Kurtz shows that Ayers did not bow out of the process after helping to install Obama. To the contrary Ayers collaborated with Obama n determining how to distribute this money.
During this period, Ayers co-chaired something called the "Collaborative," which worked with Obama's group to shape education policy. In essence Ayers formulated the policy that would inform the distribution of funds; Obama headed the body that distributed the money accordingly.
So Obama and Ayers actually worked hand in hand to distribute millions of dollars in aid that was attached to a radical, anti-American ideology. Pretty far cry from "a guy who lives in my neighborhood", no?
At The Corner, they break it down into three easily digestable facts:
* Obama had a long-term working relationship with William Ayers.
* The Chicago Annenberg Challenge ("CAC"), the only executive experience on Obama's resume, was an objective failure despite the expenditure of millions of dollars.
* Through the CAC, Ayers and Obama financed radical organizations, including one with a history of engaging in voter fraud.
Just the kind of change we were hoping for, right?
Finally, we'll go back to Powerline, where they tie it all neatly (and logically) together with the beloved Reverand Racist Wright:
....there is a straight line between Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright and Bill "fight American repression" Ayers. Obama would have us believe that he wouldn't have listened approvingly to Wright preaching against America. But Kurtz's work confirms that he not only listened to "God damn America" rhetoric, he funded it to the tune of many millions of dollars.
And this is the man that the Democratic party, and the mainstream media, is desperately pushing - by any means necessary - as the next president of the United States.
Wow.
Well, one thing Obama is being somewhat honest about is his call for "change".
Now that we can see it for what it is, can we turn away from it?
Turns out, Obama was full of sh*t. And with good reason.
The truth is that Ayers and Obama were partners in the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC), an organization whose mandate was the reformation of Chicago's public schools.
Intersting that Obama never wrote about this - his only true "executive" experience - in his two autobiographies...!
Stanley Kurtz has done the research....turns out that in fact, Obama was CAC's first board chairman, serving in that capacity for four years and remaining on the board for two more. Ayers was the founder of CAC and, according to Kurtz, its guiding spirit. Additionally, documents show that Ayers was part of a working group of five that assembled the initial board.
Via Powerline, which has a great synopsis of the Obama/Ayers connection:
Ayers helped put Obama in the top position of an organization that distributed more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical activists. Moreover, Kurtz shows that Ayers did not bow out of the process after helping to install Obama. To the contrary Ayers collaborated with Obama n determining how to distribute this money.
During this period, Ayers co-chaired something called the "Collaborative," which worked with Obama's group to shape education policy. In essence Ayers formulated the policy that would inform the distribution of funds; Obama headed the body that distributed the money accordingly.
So Obama and Ayers actually worked hand in hand to distribute millions of dollars in aid that was attached to a radical, anti-American ideology. Pretty far cry from "a guy who lives in my neighborhood", no?
At The Corner, they break it down into three easily digestable facts:
* Obama had a long-term working relationship with William Ayers.
* The Chicago Annenberg Challenge ("CAC"), the only executive experience on Obama's resume, was an objective failure despite the expenditure of millions of dollars.
* Through the CAC, Ayers and Obama financed radical organizations, including one with a history of engaging in voter fraud.
Just the kind of change we were hoping for, right?
Finally, we'll go back to Powerline, where they tie it all neatly (and logically) together with the beloved Reverand Racist Wright:
....there is a straight line between Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright and Bill "fight American repression" Ayers. Obama would have us believe that he wouldn't have listened approvingly to Wright preaching against America. But Kurtz's work confirms that he not only listened to "God damn America" rhetoric, he funded it to the tune of many millions of dollars.
And this is the man that the Democratic party, and the mainstream media, is desperately pushing - by any means necessary - as the next president of the United States.
Wow.
Well, one thing Obama is being somewhat honest about is his call for "change".
Now that we can see it for what it is, can we turn away from it?
Jews For....Palin????
Or, "Anti-Iran Rally Turns Into Anti-Obama Rally"
Well, guess I am not the only frustrated conservative Jew out there...it seems like quite a few showed up at the anti-Ahmadinejad rally in NYC yesterday, and let their feelings about the Sarah Palin dis perpetuated by the liberal Jewish lobbying groups be known:
Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin didn't participate in the "Stop Iran Now" rally and there were a lot of hard feelings about it. It was a simple sign that read "We Want Sarah. Shame On The Rally Organizer."
Howard Webber from Brooklyn held it.
"As important an event as this is, you needed a unity of Democrats and Republicans to show Ahmadinejad that we're not going to accept a nuclear Iran."
Buddy Macy of Little Fells, N.J., felt much the same way. "I'm so disappointed, upset," Macy said. "She would have brought 10,000-20,000 more supporters of Israel . People who were curious were stopped because of partisan action."
The rally organizers, whom self-identify more as "liberals" than "Jews" (although only one designation can get them killed....hmm, does that speak to their character?) were disappointed that some folks dared not to march in ideological goose-step with them:
The brouhaha started after Clinton pulled out after she learned Palin was invited. Three organizations supporting the rally threatened to pull out unless Palin was disinvited. She was but organizers didn't stop there.
They were furious Monday about the political signs brought by some at the rally, like an anti-Obama sign that said, "Jews Against Obama & Ahmadinejad."
"I am upset by the sign because this is a non-political event," said Janice Shorenstein, president of the Jewish Community Relations Council. "We are here today to cry out against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not political. American elections are not part of this event."
Don't cry, bubele...after all, you were the one that made it political....
Well, guess I am not the only frustrated conservative Jew out there...it seems like quite a few showed up at the anti-Ahmadinejad rally in NYC yesterday, and let their feelings about the Sarah Palin dis perpetuated by the liberal Jewish lobbying groups be known:
Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin didn't participate in the "Stop Iran Now" rally and there were a lot of hard feelings about it. It was a simple sign that read "We Want Sarah. Shame On The Rally Organizer."
Howard Webber from Brooklyn held it.
"As important an event as this is, you needed a unity of Democrats and Republicans to show Ahmadinejad that we're not going to accept a nuclear Iran."
Buddy Macy of Little Fells, N.J., felt much the same way. "I'm so disappointed, upset," Macy said. "She would have brought 10,000-20,000 more supporters of Israel . People who were curious were stopped because of partisan action."
The rally organizers, whom self-identify more as "liberals" than "Jews" (although only one designation can get them killed....hmm, does that speak to their character?) were disappointed that some folks dared not to march in ideological goose-step with them:
The brouhaha started after Clinton pulled out after she learned Palin was invited. Three organizations supporting the rally threatened to pull out unless Palin was disinvited. She was but organizers didn't stop there.
They were furious Monday about the political signs brought by some at the rally, like an anti-Obama sign that said, "Jews Against Obama & Ahmadinejad."
"I am upset by the sign because this is a non-political event," said Janice Shorenstein, president of the Jewish Community Relations Council. "We are here today to cry out against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not political. American elections are not part of this event."
Don't cry, bubele...after all, you were the one that made it political....
Monday, September 22, 2008
Team McCain unloads on the New York Times...
...and it's a long time coming. On a conference call today with various media (including Times folks?), when queried about the latest accusations levied against Senator McCain in the NYT, campaign official Steve Schmidt told it as it is:
But let's be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama's record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads.
This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is.
Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.
Wow. About time. And while the liberals will howl will glee, those on the fence know better than to believe what they read, and those are the folks that Barack Obama's campaign ought to start worrying about....
But let's be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama's record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads.
This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is.
Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.
Wow. About time. And while the liberals will howl will glee, those on the fence know better than to believe what they read, and those are the folks that Barack Obama's campaign ought to start worrying about....
Hollywood goes wilding on Sarah Palin...
....and her family, of course. All fair game to our intellectual and social betters in Hollywood.
Tina Fey, on Sarah Palin:
She was more open about her thoughts on reprising the "SNL" role. As in, she'd prefer not to.
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5," she said. "So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me."
Sorry Tina, but you may have a recurring role for the next 4-8 years.
And incest in the Palin family? Why not?
....the NBC comedy show returned to making fun of the Alaskan governor in a skit where New York Times reporters sought to probe the possibility Palin's husband, Todd, was having sex with the couple's own daughters.
"What about the husband?" asked a Times reporter during a mock assignment meeting for the paper. "You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska."
The assignment editor for the Times, portrayed by actor James Franco, responded: "He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin."
In fairness, this sketch was more about mocking the NY Times than the Palins, but, my god - why do I think they would never "go there" with the Obama clan?
And more Hollywood garbage at last night's Emmy Awards:
"John Adams" star Laura Linney, who won for lead actress in a mini or movie, threw some support toward Obama, although not by name. Referencing recent Republican attacks on Obama's stint as a community organizer, Linney said the miniseries made her "so grateful and thankful for the community organizers that helped form our country."
With this year's election likely to be tight, "Recount" producer Paula Weinstein and director Jay Roach both warned that the events depicted in their telepic could once again reemerge in 2008.
"It's going to get close again, this election," said Roach, clutching his outstanding directing in a longform Emmy. "Keep your local officials honest and please vote, vote, vote."
Interestingly, Obama's name wasn't uttered once -- but Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin came up a few times during the kudofest. The Emmycast's five hosts began the show by yammering on about not having a show open -- leading Howie Mandel to compare their stage time to "Sarah Palin's bridge to nowhere."
Whose bridge ???? Holy ignorance, Howie....
More idiocy from '60's left-overs:
Some, like Tom Smothers -- receiving a commemorative Emmy for "The Smothers Brothers Show," an unflinchingly political program cancelled prematurely by nervous executives in 1969 -- celebrated certain civil rights.
"It's hard for me to stay silent when I keep hearing that peace is only obtainable through war," Smothers said. "There's nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action."
And that's the real reason you were cancelled, smart guy.
OK, for balance, we'll throw in a funny pro-McCain "endorsement", although it is exactly what you would expect from Colbert:
The most thinly veiled political commentary came from Stephen Colbert. "I think right now America needs a prune," he told fellow presenter Jon Stewart while noshing on a bag of the snacks. "It may not be a young, sexy plum. Granted, it is shriveled and at times hard to swallow. But this dried-up old fruit has the experience we need."
I'll take it, I guess.
Gee, I wonder how many "on-the-fence" voters were conviced by last night's luminaries to vote for Barack Obama? Lots, right?
I mean, after all, don't we all want to be in the good graces of Laura Linney?
Tina Fey, on Sarah Palin:
She was more open about her thoughts on reprising the "SNL" role. As in, she'd prefer not to.
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5," she said. "So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me."
Sorry Tina, but you may have a recurring role for the next 4-8 years.
And incest in the Palin family? Why not?
....the NBC comedy show returned to making fun of the Alaskan governor in a skit where New York Times reporters sought to probe the possibility Palin's husband, Todd, was having sex with the couple's own daughters.
"What about the husband?" asked a Times reporter during a mock assignment meeting for the paper. "You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska."
The assignment editor for the Times, portrayed by actor James Franco, responded: "He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin."
In fairness, this sketch was more about mocking the NY Times than the Palins, but, my god - why do I think they would never "go there" with the Obama clan?
And more Hollywood garbage at last night's Emmy Awards:
"John Adams" star Laura Linney, who won for lead actress in a mini or movie, threw some support toward Obama, although not by name. Referencing recent Republican attacks on Obama's stint as a community organizer, Linney said the miniseries made her "so grateful and thankful for the community organizers that helped form our country."
With this year's election likely to be tight, "Recount" producer Paula Weinstein and director Jay Roach both warned that the events depicted in their telepic could once again reemerge in 2008.
"It's going to get close again, this election," said Roach, clutching his outstanding directing in a longform Emmy. "Keep your local officials honest and please vote, vote, vote."
Interestingly, Obama's name wasn't uttered once -- but Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin came up a few times during the kudofest. The Emmycast's five hosts began the show by yammering on about not having a show open -- leading Howie Mandel to compare their stage time to "Sarah Palin's bridge to nowhere."
Whose bridge ???? Holy ignorance, Howie....
More idiocy from '60's left-overs:
Some, like Tom Smothers -- receiving a commemorative Emmy for "The Smothers Brothers Show," an unflinchingly political program cancelled prematurely by nervous executives in 1969 -- celebrated certain civil rights.
"It's hard for me to stay silent when I keep hearing that peace is only obtainable through war," Smothers said. "There's nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action."
And that's the real reason you were cancelled, smart guy.
OK, for balance, we'll throw in a funny pro-McCain "endorsement", although it is exactly what you would expect from Colbert:
The most thinly veiled political commentary came from Stephen Colbert. "I think right now America needs a prune," he told fellow presenter Jon Stewart while noshing on a bag of the snacks. "It may not be a young, sexy plum. Granted, it is shriveled and at times hard to swallow. But this dried-up old fruit has the experience we need."
I'll take it, I guess.
Gee, I wonder how many "on-the-fence" voters were conviced by last night's luminaries to vote for Barack Obama? Lots, right?
I mean, after all, don't we all want to be in the good graces of Laura Linney?
Jews, Free Thyselves!
If it seems as if many Jews have replaced the "Judiasm" part of their faith with liberal orthodoxy, well, it's true. Being a good liberal seems to go over better at the synagouge than being a good Jew, and that's a danger sign.
But this type of devotion is hard to break, as most Jews would sooner give up their Judiasm than their liberalism and their blind fealty to the Democratic Party. A party whom pulled out of today's protest of Iran's Ahmadinejad because the organizers had the nerve to invite Sarah Palin (A Republican? gasp!) to speak, along with Hillary Clinton. A party who then used political threats against Jewish interest groups to pressure the rally organizers to force Sarah Palin to be disinvited, meaning that there will be no high-profile politician serving notice at this rally that Ahmadinejad's insanity will not go unchecked.
And yet, the Jews, like lemmings, continue to swim in the Democratic stream, even with a standard bearer who surrounds himself with more anti-Israeli advisors than any candidate in known history. Roger Simon pleads for sanity from our people:
The virtual night of the long knives played out between the Democratic Party and various Jewish organizations surrounding the Iran demonstration, including allegations that party operatives were threatening the loss of tax exempt status over Sarah Palin’s appearance, with more unpleasant revelations undoubtedly to come, is obviously causing people to reconsider this allegiance to the Democratic Party that approaches fealty.
I urge my fellow Jews to keep thinking about this and not to retreat into the cocoon-like safety of an outmoded tradition. Change is difficult. But remember that Hillary Clinton – that paragon of the Democratic Party, a woman who calls herself a “progressive” - was willing to forego the protest of the man who is arguably the most significant enemy of the Jews since Hitler for partisan and (most likely) personal pique reasons. How morally repellent is that!
And then Joseph Biden told us he was busy–too busy to protest a nuclear-armed madman who fervently believes that his mysterious Twelfth Imam (Mahdi) is destined to unite a chaotic globe under Allah....
No, those Democrats thought of themselves and their party first, the citizens of this country and the world later. ....
The Jews, firmest devotees of liberalism, will likely be killed by it, should Obama and crew be elected. Still, they will support him by a 70%+ margin...
And these are supposed to be the smartest people in the world? I weep...
But this type of devotion is hard to break, as most Jews would sooner give up their Judiasm than their liberalism and their blind fealty to the Democratic Party. A party whom pulled out of today's protest of Iran's Ahmadinejad because the organizers had the nerve to invite Sarah Palin (A Republican? gasp!) to speak, along with Hillary Clinton. A party who then used political threats against Jewish interest groups to pressure the rally organizers to force Sarah Palin to be disinvited, meaning that there will be no high-profile politician serving notice at this rally that Ahmadinejad's insanity will not go unchecked.
And yet, the Jews, like lemmings, continue to swim in the Democratic stream, even with a standard bearer who surrounds himself with more anti-Israeli advisors than any candidate in known history. Roger Simon pleads for sanity from our people:
The virtual night of the long knives played out between the Democratic Party and various Jewish organizations surrounding the Iran demonstration, including allegations that party operatives were threatening the loss of tax exempt status over Sarah Palin’s appearance, with more unpleasant revelations undoubtedly to come, is obviously causing people to reconsider this allegiance to the Democratic Party that approaches fealty.
I urge my fellow Jews to keep thinking about this and not to retreat into the cocoon-like safety of an outmoded tradition. Change is difficult. But remember that Hillary Clinton – that paragon of the Democratic Party, a woman who calls herself a “progressive” - was willing to forego the protest of the man who is arguably the most significant enemy of the Jews since Hitler for partisan and (most likely) personal pique reasons. How morally repellent is that!
And then Joseph Biden told us he was busy–too busy to protest a nuclear-armed madman who fervently believes that his mysterious Twelfth Imam (Mahdi) is destined to unite a chaotic globe under Allah....
No, those Democrats thought of themselves and their party first, the citizens of this country and the world later. ....
The Jews, firmest devotees of liberalism, will likely be killed by it, should Obama and crew be elected. Still, they will support him by a 70%+ margin...
And these are supposed to be the smartest people in the world? I weep...
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Kiss Florida Goodbye, Baracky...
....so much for your vaunted "50 state strategy"; you better get scramblin' in order to keep the "blue base".
So a little lady from Alaska strolls into Florida yesterday, and what do we see?
Sarah Palin tonight attracted the largest crowd yet to any Republican campaign event this cycle, drawing tens of thousands of Floridians out in a conservative-leaning retirement community north of Orlando for a solo rally. Exactly how many voters Palin, making her first campaign trek to the Sunshine State, had in The Villages is uncertain. Mike Tucker, a local fire marshal, estimated 60,000. But reporters on the ground, including AP's Brendan Farrington and my colleague Ken Vogel, would only say "tens of thousands..."
So somewhere between 30-60,000, I'm guessing, assuming the AP isn't trying to bring the figure down a bit for personal reasons...anyway:
Regardless, the size of the crowd underscores just how enthused conservatives are for Palin and the sort of buzz she's still able to drive nearing a month after her introduction as John McCain's running mate.
....the Florida GOP is saying tonight that Palin's crowd broke state attendance records. At the very least, it outpaced the 15,000 President Bush drew to the retirement community four years ago.
To reiterate: An Alaska governor who was virtually unknown a month ago and is the number two on the presidential ticket may have doubled or tripled the crowd for a sitting president.
Seems like people are ready for change - and they've found it in McCain/Palin. Methinks Baracky should hit Michigan right around now; 'cause if he can't win the class war there, he's toast, Kerry-style.
So a little lady from Alaska strolls into Florida yesterday, and what do we see?
Sarah Palin tonight attracted the largest crowd yet to any Republican campaign event this cycle, drawing tens of thousands of Floridians out in a conservative-leaning retirement community north of Orlando for a solo rally. Exactly how many voters Palin, making her first campaign trek to the Sunshine State, had in The Villages is uncertain. Mike Tucker, a local fire marshal, estimated 60,000. But reporters on the ground, including AP's Brendan Farrington and my colleague Ken Vogel, would only say "tens of thousands..."
So somewhere between 30-60,000, I'm guessing, assuming the AP isn't trying to bring the figure down a bit for personal reasons...anyway:
Regardless, the size of the crowd underscores just how enthused conservatives are for Palin and the sort of buzz she's still able to drive nearing a month after her introduction as John McCain's running mate.
....the Florida GOP is saying tonight that Palin's crowd broke state attendance records. At the very least, it outpaced the 15,000 President Bush drew to the retirement community four years ago.
To reiterate: An Alaska governor who was virtually unknown a month ago and is the number two on the presidential ticket may have doubled or tripled the crowd for a sitting president.
Seems like people are ready for change - and they've found it in McCain/Palin. Methinks Baracky should hit Michigan right around now; 'cause if he can't win the class war there, he's toast, Kerry-style.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
McCain Rips 'em A New One....
A tale of media bias, lying, and disrespect so ugly that it bears interrupting a beautiful Saturday to mention.
We refer to the nasty piece scribbled by Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty that declares Senator McCain's ad targeting Senator Obama’s ties to disgraced Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines to be racist. Why? Because Raines is black (therefore, criticism = racism).
Well, the old navy pilot knows when to unleash the big guns, and boy, did the campaign lay down some fire today:
The only problem with Ms. Tumulty’s story is that we also released an today targeting Senator Obama’s extensive ties to Jim Johnson. The ad is called…Jim Johnson. And Ms. Tumulty might have been aware of its existence if she’d bothered to call this campaign to find out the facts (reporting) before indicting us for racism in a half-baked, late night rant. Tumulty also takes Obama’s response, signed by Mr. Raines, at face value. The Obama campaign says Raines didn’t advise the campaign, and Tumulty apparently wasn’t interested in getting to the bottom of that either.
So we contacted Ms. Tumulty and told her of the multiple sources that tie Raines to Obama, including three separate instances in the Washington Post, none of which was ever challenged by Raines or the Obama campaign until yesterday. Tumulty did not correct her post, she simply responded “I grew up in Texas. I know what this stuff looks like.”
Well, now we all know what hysterical liberal bias looks like as well.
Wow.
Can McCain simultaneusly defeat Barack Obama and delegitimze the morally corrupt media in one fell swoop?
I see a new Republican hero on the horizon...!
We refer to the nasty piece scribbled by Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty that declares Senator McCain's ad targeting Senator Obama’s ties to disgraced Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines to be racist. Why? Because Raines is black (therefore, criticism = racism).
Well, the old navy pilot knows when to unleash the big guns, and boy, did the campaign lay down some fire today:
The only problem with Ms. Tumulty’s story is that we also released an today targeting Senator Obama’s extensive ties to Jim Johnson. The ad is called…Jim Johnson. And Ms. Tumulty might have been aware of its existence if she’d bothered to call this campaign to find out the facts (reporting) before indicting us for racism in a half-baked, late night rant. Tumulty also takes Obama’s response, signed by Mr. Raines, at face value. The Obama campaign says Raines didn’t advise the campaign, and Tumulty apparently wasn’t interested in getting to the bottom of that either.
So we contacted Ms. Tumulty and told her of the multiple sources that tie Raines to Obama, including three separate instances in the Washington Post, none of which was ever challenged by Raines or the Obama campaign until yesterday. Tumulty did not correct her post, she simply responded “I grew up in Texas. I know what this stuff looks like.”
Well, now we all know what hysterical liberal bias looks like as well.
Wow.
Can McCain simultaneusly defeat Barack Obama and delegitimze the morally corrupt media in one fell swoop?
I see a new Republican hero on the horizon...!
Friday, September 19, 2008
Blue State Success Stories!
Well, I guess you can call in "Blue City Success Stories", but the bottom line is...Democrats always place ideology above results.
Example: The top ten poorest cities in America, and their choices of leadership:
Detroit, MI (1st on poverty rate list) hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH (3rd) . . . since 1984
Cleveland, OH (4th) . . . since 1989
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor
St. Louis, MO (6th) . . . since 1949
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor
Milwaukee, WI (8th) . . . since 1908
Philadelphia, PA (9th) . . . since 1952
Newark, NJ (10th) . . . since 1907.
And this is the governing philosophy that Barack Obama and the Democratic party wants to inflict upon the rest of the United States.
I can't wait until all of America looks just like Newark....
Example: The top ten poorest cities in America, and their choices of leadership:
Detroit, MI (1st on poverty rate list) hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH (3rd) . . . since 1984
Cleveland, OH (4th) . . . since 1989
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor
St. Louis, MO (6th) . . . since 1949
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor
Milwaukee, WI (8th) . . . since 1908
Philadelphia, PA (9th) . . . since 1952
Newark, NJ (10th) . . . since 1907.
And this is the governing philosophy that Barack Obama and the Democratic party wants to inflict upon the rest of the United States.
I can't wait until all of America looks just like Newark....
Sandra Bernhard: Rapist
Sorry, that's an unusually blunt (although apt) header
But this bit of ugliness from the Medusa of comedy goes well beyond the pale; Tim Graham has the description of Sandra's rape fantasies from a pleased reviewer:
....the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as "A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a F–ked Up White Man’s Racist World" and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.
When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.
I guess to a liberal, rape is politically correct, as long as it is a Republican female getting violated, of course.
And excuse me, but - "provocative" and "humerous"? If a conservative comedian did a bit about "lynching Barack Obama", he would justifiably be run out of town on a rail (with four-network full coverage). But let a liberal comedianne fantasize about the rape of a conservative politician, and it's all fun and games. Just ask the Washington Post:
No one does angry funnier than Sandra Bernhard. So when she turns her chainsaw wrath on the Republicans' new media magnet, Sarah Palin, the trash talk is so witheringly foul it feels as if it's been fired in a furnace of pure, unadulterated rage.
...For though there are slightly less caustic moments of "Without You I'm Nothing," it is the interludes in which the comedian spews epithet-laden venom like a rotating sprinkler that a spectator washes in most happily.
Well, when the "spectator" in question is a member of the mainstream media, that is....although I would trade the phrase "washes in" with "wallows in" for the sake of accuracy....
Update: Video at Gateway Pundit. Man, is she hard to look at....
Update II: A worthy read: "Sandra Bernhard Respects Black Men - That's Why she Expects Them to Rape on Command"
But this bit of ugliness from the Medusa of comedy goes well beyond the pale; Tim Graham has the description of Sandra's rape fantasies from a pleased reviewer:
....the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as "A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a F–ked Up White Man’s Racist World" and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.
When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.
I guess to a liberal, rape is politically correct, as long as it is a Republican female getting violated, of course.
And excuse me, but - "provocative" and "humerous"? If a conservative comedian did a bit about "lynching Barack Obama", he would justifiably be run out of town on a rail (with four-network full coverage). But let a liberal comedianne fantasize about the rape of a conservative politician, and it's all fun and games. Just ask the Washington Post:
No one does angry funnier than Sandra Bernhard. So when she turns her chainsaw wrath on the Republicans' new media magnet, Sarah Palin, the trash talk is so witheringly foul it feels as if it's been fired in a furnace of pure, unadulterated rage.
...For though there are slightly less caustic moments of "Without You I'm Nothing," it is the interludes in which the comedian spews epithet-laden venom like a rotating sprinkler that a spectator washes in most happily.
Well, when the "spectator" in question is a member of the mainstream media, that is....although I would trade the phrase "washes in" with "wallows in" for the sake of accuracy....
Update: Video at Gateway Pundit. Man, is she hard to look at....
Update II: A worthy read: "Sandra Bernhard Respects Black Men - That's Why she Expects Them to Rape on Command"
Because DOING something about it would entail taking responsibility...
The Democrats appear to be ready to cut-and-run on the current financial crisis, just as they were begging to be allowed to do in Iraq:
The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn’t equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can’t agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.
Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments — Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven’t ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.
One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that “no one knows what to do” at the moment.
Well, of course "no one" know what to do - it's a Democratic-controlled Congress, after all. But cheer up, Harry, 'cause deep inside you know exactly what to do - blame George Bush for everything as you are boarding the plane!
Ah, it's likely the best thing that could happen - leaving it to Bush to straighten out. He'll figure a way out of this mess, as he always somehow does. And when he gets the job done, the Democrats will then drag their cowardly asses out of their hidey-holes, pointing the cooked finger of blame for all of their problems at...George Bush.
More like a disfunctional child than a political party with aspirations to lead America...
Ed at Hot Air:
First Pelosi adjourns the House in the middle of an energy supply crisis that hammered the working class with sharp hikes in fuel and food costs. Now both Pelosi and Reid want to adjourn both chambers of Congress rather than deal with the credit crisis that Washington created with its heavy-handed mandates to issue credit to marginally qualified borrowers and lack of oversight over government-guaranteed entities. Given their ineptitude, we probably should be grateful....
Yup.
The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn’t equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can’t agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.
Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments — Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven’t ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.
One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that “no one knows what to do” at the moment.
Well, of course "no one" know what to do - it's a Democratic-controlled Congress, after all. But cheer up, Harry, 'cause deep inside you know exactly what to do - blame George Bush for everything as you are boarding the plane!
Ah, it's likely the best thing that could happen - leaving it to Bush to straighten out. He'll figure a way out of this mess, as he always somehow does. And when he gets the job done, the Democrats will then drag their cowardly asses out of their hidey-holes, pointing the cooked finger of blame for all of their problems at...George Bush.
More like a disfunctional child than a political party with aspirations to lead America...
Ed at Hot Air:
First Pelosi adjourns the House in the middle of an energy supply crisis that hammered the working class with sharp hikes in fuel and food costs. Now both Pelosi and Reid want to adjourn both chambers of Congress rather than deal with the credit crisis that Washington created with its heavy-handed mandates to issue credit to marginally qualified borrowers and lack of oversight over government-guaranteed entities. Given their ineptitude, we probably should be grateful....
Yup.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Joe Biden: Confused about Patriotism
I thought patriotism was all about loving your country, standing up for it, and willing to die to defend it.
Well, Joe Biden has shown me the error of my ways - the only true patriots are the ones who want to pay higher taxes:
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.
Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to "take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."
Under the Democrats' economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.
Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday that, in his words, "it's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.
Amazing how liberals can twist every definition, even those most sanctified, into something cheap and dirty if it helps further their agenda.
And that "take money" line...kind of gives away the true thought process here, doesn't it?
Patriotic? To "take"?
No.
Well, Joe Biden has shown me the error of my ways - the only true patriots are the ones who want to pay higher taxes:
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.
Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to "take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."
Under the Democrats' economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.
Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday that, in his words, "it's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.
Amazing how liberals can twist every definition, even those most sanctified, into something cheap and dirty if it helps further their agenda.
And that "take money" line...kind of gives away the true thought process here, doesn't it?
Patriotic? To "take"?
No.
So we're the losers?
Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000, discusses some of the weaknesses in Barack Obama's campaign for president:
“Democrats are notorious for whining when things go bad,”
She believes Obama “should get back to issues, instead of talking about change."
“People still have lingering doubts about Obama as to whether he can be trusted as commander in chief,” Brazile said
“He has had some moments where he seems unsure of his own voice...”
Fair, if soft, criticism. But what if Obama fails to win the election? Aye, there's the rub:
“If he doesn’t, then Obama didn’t lose,” she said. “The country just wasn’t ready.”
Ah.
So despite the myriad of failings of Barack Obama's presidential campaign (which he has used as an example of his "experience", mind you), if he loses the election, it won't be his fault, by golly.
It will be ours. For not being ready to accept hard-left policies? For not being ready to elect a man as our Commander-in-Chief who, due to his hobnobbing with domestic terrorists, couldn't even get security clearance for a basic FBI job? For not being ready to elect a man with no real-world experience to the hardest job on the planet?
Or are we all just racists, plain and simple?
It's not hard to guess what answer Donna Brazile is shooting for.
“Democrats are notorious for whining when things go bad,”
She believes Obama “should get back to issues, instead of talking about change."
“People still have lingering doubts about Obama as to whether he can be trusted as commander in chief,” Brazile said
“He has had some moments where he seems unsure of his own voice...”
Fair, if soft, criticism. But what if Obama fails to win the election? Aye, there's the rub:
“If he doesn’t, then Obama didn’t lose,” she said. “The country just wasn’t ready.”
Ah.
So despite the myriad of failings of Barack Obama's presidential campaign (which he has used as an example of his "experience", mind you), if he loses the election, it won't be his fault, by golly.
It will be ours. For not being ready to accept hard-left policies? For not being ready to elect a man as our Commander-in-Chief who, due to his hobnobbing with domestic terrorists, couldn't even get security clearance for a basic FBI job? For not being ready to elect a man with no real-world experience to the hardest job on the planet?
Or are we all just racists, plain and simple?
It's not hard to guess what answer Donna Brazile is shooting for.
Money Is Funny, Honey...
...like a man constantly bragging about his, hmm, "big unit", only to have it revealed as significantly substandard (by some gossipy one-nighter), we see that Barack Obama's fundraising prowress is not what it was once believed to be:
Earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a personal appeal to Barack Obama: Help me grow the Democrats’ Senate majority by sharing some of the $77 million you’ve got in the bank. Obama’s campaign said no.
In rejecting a direct request from his Senate leader, Obama has put a fine point on the financial pressures he’s feeling as the presidential race turns toward the fall. Obama raised a record-setting $66 million in August, leaving his campaign with about $77 million in cash now. Because he has turned down public financing, he can keep raising money through Election Day.
John McCain, having accepted public financing, can’t do that — but he already has the $84 million in public money in his campaign coffers. More importantly, McCain will get substantial help from the Republican National Committee — which has dramatically outraised its Democratic counterpart — and the Republican Party’s state and local committees.
So Obama flips-flops on public financing thinking it would be to his advantage (and it is always about what is to Barack's advantage), and yet again shows his poor judgement. And suprisingly, one-time small-time governer and presidential aspiree Howard Dean (how come the media never questioned his credentials?) has seemed to do quite the piss-poor job in raising money for his party in what should have been a blowout year. What happened to their vaunted fundraising advantage?
And the article doesn't even mention how expensive the failed "50-state" strategy of Barack Obama is, spending huge amounts of money in states he is sure to lose (ie. Florida - Obama=$8 million, McCain =$0, McCain leads by 4) and guarenteeing his $77 million+ will not stretch as far as McCain's $84 million. Another great judgement call by The Chosen One!
Maybe a few more $30K/plate dinners in Beverly Hills will convince Obama that he really is a "big man"...
Earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a personal appeal to Barack Obama: Help me grow the Democrats’ Senate majority by sharing some of the $77 million you’ve got in the bank. Obama’s campaign said no.
In rejecting a direct request from his Senate leader, Obama has put a fine point on the financial pressures he’s feeling as the presidential race turns toward the fall. Obama raised a record-setting $66 million in August, leaving his campaign with about $77 million in cash now. Because he has turned down public financing, he can keep raising money through Election Day.
John McCain, having accepted public financing, can’t do that — but he already has the $84 million in public money in his campaign coffers. More importantly, McCain will get substantial help from the Republican National Committee — which has dramatically outraised its Democratic counterpart — and the Republican Party’s state and local committees.
So Obama flips-flops on public financing thinking it would be to his advantage (and it is always about what is to Barack's advantage), and yet again shows his poor judgement. And suprisingly, one-time small-time governer and presidential aspiree Howard Dean (how come the media never questioned his credentials?) has seemed to do quite the piss-poor job in raising money for his party in what should have been a blowout year. What happened to their vaunted fundraising advantage?
And the article doesn't even mention how expensive the failed "50-state" strategy of Barack Obama is, spending huge amounts of money in states he is sure to lose (ie. Florida - Obama=$8 million, McCain =$0, McCain leads by 4) and guarenteeing his $77 million+ will not stretch as far as McCain's $84 million. Another great judgement call by The Chosen One!
Maybe a few more $30K/plate dinners in Beverly Hills will convince Obama that he really is a "big man"...
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
New Jersey/McCain: Just flirting? Or is it more?
OK, here's another poll that shows McCain within striking distance of Barack Obama in New Jersey:
THE POLL: Quinnipiac University, presidential race in New Jersey of likely voters. (The state has 15 electoral votes.)
THE NUMBERS: Barack Obama 48 percent, John McCain 45 percent.
OF INTEREST: Obama's lead has dropped 7 percentage points from last month when the same poll found the Democrat ahead of McCain, 51 percent to 41 percent. McCain gained ground with men, who favor the Arizona senator over Obama, 53 percent to 40 percent. Men were almost divided between the candidates in last month's poll. McCain has a 19-point lead with white voters. Obama has strong support from women, blacks and younger voters.
DETAILS: Conducted Sept. 10-14 with 1,187 likely New Jersey voters. Sampling error margin plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.
One poll is a fluke, two is a coincidence....but if I see a third......
Look, these numbers are exactly the same as the Marist Poll released last week. Both had a +/- of 3% as well, meaning back to back polls have the race tied. With Obama's lead in Blue York now down to only 5% (in a poll with a 4% margin of error), one can make an argument that we are seeing a trend here, and that Obama's voters now are strictly limited to dyed-blue Democrats.
Some of it could be disaffection with the Democrats as well. Most New Jerseyans would just as soon spit at Jon Corzine as would look at him, and the New York Democratic party has had its share of woes lately (paging Elliot Spitzer!), not to mention having its favorite adopted daughter (Hillary) rejected by the party.
But can the turnout of the New Jersey suburbanites top the turnout of Corzine's union armies, Obama's brainwashed Rutgers undergrads, and ACORN's voters of dubious registration? That will be the difference maker in the Garden State, and I am not counting on it.
But again: If this is what is happening in New York and New Jersey, what is going on in the "swing states"? I think that Obama's internal polling numbers must be terrifying; hence the stench of panic emanating from the campaign, and the shrieking madness being voiced by the media.
Smells like....Republican victory.
THE POLL: Quinnipiac University, presidential race in New Jersey of likely voters. (The state has 15 electoral votes.)
THE NUMBERS: Barack Obama 48 percent, John McCain 45 percent.
OF INTEREST: Obama's lead has dropped 7 percentage points from last month when the same poll found the Democrat ahead of McCain, 51 percent to 41 percent. McCain gained ground with men, who favor the Arizona senator over Obama, 53 percent to 40 percent. Men were almost divided between the candidates in last month's poll. McCain has a 19-point lead with white voters. Obama has strong support from women, blacks and younger voters.
DETAILS: Conducted Sept. 10-14 with 1,187 likely New Jersey voters. Sampling error margin plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.
One poll is a fluke, two is a coincidence....but if I see a third......
Look, these numbers are exactly the same as the Marist Poll released last week. Both had a +/- of 3% as well, meaning back to back polls have the race tied. With Obama's lead in Blue York now down to only 5% (in a poll with a 4% margin of error), one can make an argument that we are seeing a trend here, and that Obama's voters now are strictly limited to dyed-blue Democrats.
Some of it could be disaffection with the Democrats as well. Most New Jerseyans would just as soon spit at Jon Corzine as would look at him, and the New York Democratic party has had its share of woes lately (paging Elliot Spitzer!), not to mention having its favorite adopted daughter (Hillary) rejected by the party.
But can the turnout of the New Jersey suburbanites top the turnout of Corzine's union armies, Obama's brainwashed Rutgers undergrads, and ACORN's voters of dubious registration? That will be the difference maker in the Garden State, and I am not counting on it.
But again: If this is what is happening in New York and New Jersey, what is going on in the "swing states"? I think that Obama's internal polling numbers must be terrifying; hence the stench of panic emanating from the campaign, and the shrieking madness being voiced by the media.
Smells like....Republican victory.
Market collapses, Obama collects windfall...
Barack Obama claims John McCain is out of touch with ordinary Americans? Er, OK. But guess which candidate is having a dinner where brainwashed admirers will be ponying up close to $30K just to bask in his magnificant presence?
Yesterday, Obama declared how we are in "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."
Today he will host a dinner in Beverly Hills --- costing attendees $28,500 dollars each!
Hundreds of high rollers, including some of the biggest executives in film, television and music, will munch gourmet chow and hang out with the candidate. Streisand will then sing at the five-star Beverly Wilshire, no doubt reviving the Depression-era standard "Happy Days Are Here Again" with new urgency.
In Democratic politics, nothing "changes"....
Yesterday, Obama declared how we are in "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."
Today he will host a dinner in Beverly Hills --- costing attendees $28,500 dollars each!
Hundreds of high rollers, including some of the biggest executives in film, television and music, will munch gourmet chow and hang out with the candidate. Streisand will then sing at the five-star Beverly Wilshire, no doubt reviving the Depression-era standard "Happy Days Are Here Again" with new urgency.
In Democratic politics, nothing "changes"....
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why the Democrats win so many elections...
....it's because supporters like these get their names and quotes into the papers:
“I just do not trust the American people,” said Eleanor Shavell, 58, a computer programmer, who, along with several others, joked she would move to Canada if Mr Obama loses. “I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we’re headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it’s like at school, there’s always got to be a bottom 50 per cent.”
Oh Eleanor, when will the world learn to follow your enlightened lead?
And on the Sarah Palin front:
"You want to know the honest truth? I think she’s like a bad actor from a B-list sex movie,” said Paula Vanbuskirk, an Obama-supporting independent, whose contempt for the Alaska governor and self-styled “hockey mom” was shared by almost everyone questioned by the Financial Times
Contempt. Republicans save it for America's enemies. Demcorats unleash it upon their neighbors, should they be insufficiently "enlightened".
The Financial Times article makes one more comment worth noting:
If it was Mr McCain’s intention to ignite a fresh “culture war” between middle America and east coast liberals by nominating Ms Palin, the evidence in Manchester suggested he has succeeded in spectacular fashion.
John McCain, in picking Sarah Palin, offered a contrast with Obama and Biden. It is the Democrats who looked at this contrast and said, in classic Bugs Bunny fashion, "Of course you know, this means war!"
And anyway - East Coast liberals vs. Middle America in a culture war? Take Middle America, and give the points, 'cause this one is a lock....
“I just do not trust the American people,” said Eleanor Shavell, 58, a computer programmer, who, along with several others, joked she would move to Canada if Mr Obama loses. “I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we’re headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it’s like at school, there’s always got to be a bottom 50 per cent.”
Oh Eleanor, when will the world learn to follow your enlightened lead?
And on the Sarah Palin front:
"You want to know the honest truth? I think she’s like a bad actor from a B-list sex movie,” said Paula Vanbuskirk, an Obama-supporting independent, whose contempt for the Alaska governor and self-styled “hockey mom” was shared by almost everyone questioned by the Financial Times
Contempt. Republicans save it for America's enemies. Demcorats unleash it upon their neighbors, should they be insufficiently "enlightened".
The Financial Times article makes one more comment worth noting:
If it was Mr McCain’s intention to ignite a fresh “culture war” between middle America and east coast liberals by nominating Ms Palin, the evidence in Manchester suggested he has succeeded in spectacular fashion.
John McCain, in picking Sarah Palin, offered a contrast with Obama and Biden. It is the Democrats who looked at this contrast and said, in classic Bugs Bunny fashion, "Of course you know, this means war!"
And anyway - East Coast liberals vs. Middle America in a culture war? Take Middle America, and give the points, 'cause this one is a lock....
McCain would rather lose an election than a war...
...but Barack Obama, stout patriot and politician that he is, would gladly force an American defeat if it could somehow help him personally.
Amir Taheri talks about the signals Obama has been giving the Iraqi leadership:
Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.
Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.
Obama, as an American president, would change history, all right - turning us from winners into losers to maintain his illusionary policies and to keep the support of his hard-Left base.
This is change only the Democrats (and the media, so invested in the loss narrative) can believe in...
Amir Taheri talks about the signals Obama has been giving the Iraqi leadership:
Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.
Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.
Obama, as an American president, would change history, all right - turning us from winners into losers to maintain his illusionary policies and to keep the support of his hard-Left base.
This is change only the Democrats (and the media, so invested in the loss narrative) can believe in...
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Sacre Bleu ! He Married a Jew!
And yet they tell us that if we fail to elect Barack Obama as our next president, we'll be the racist hatemongers....sigh.
From yesterday's New York Post:
JUST in case anyone harbored the delusion that anti-Semitism no longer exists in France, the Paris bureau of the Reuters wire service carried a story this week about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's son getting married, which mentioned the bride is Jewish in both the headline and the lead sentence. "Son of France's Sarkozy Marries Jewish Heiress," the headline read. Sarkozy's 22-year-old son Jean "married a member of the Jewish family that founded one of France's biggest retailers," Reuters reported.
The bride was finally named a few sentences down as Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, whose family owns the Darty electronics chain.
Nice!
From yesterday's New York Post:
JUST in case anyone harbored the delusion that anti-Semitism no longer exists in France, the Paris bureau of the Reuters wire service carried a story this week about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's son getting married, which mentioned the bride is Jewish in both the headline and the lead sentence. "Son of France's Sarkozy Marries Jewish Heiress," the headline read. Sarkozy's 22-year-old son Jean "married a member of the Jewish family that founded one of France's biggest retailers," Reuters reported.
The bride was finally named a few sentences down as Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, whose family owns the Darty electronics chain.
Nice!
Saturday, September 13, 2008
New Jersey Awakens? Nah...
...this poll looks good, but it will likely be the last positive sign we see coming out of New Jersey before it turns its usual liberal blue in November (don't stop 'till you've completely destroyed the state, folks!). Still, hope springs eternal, so here goes:
Barack Obama's lead over John McCain in "blue state" New Jersey is in single digits - with the Democratic nominee holding a scant three-point lead when "leaning" voters are factored in, a surprising poll found yesterday.
The survey from the Marist College Polling Institute shows Obama snaring 47 percent to the Republican McCain's 40 percent among voters who are solid in their decision.
But when voters leaning toward one side but not firm in their decision are factored in, the spread only favors Obama by 48 to 45.
Although I do not expect Blew Jersey to changes its colors, the tightening of the race here harkens back to October 2004, when Bush started to close on Kerry, and his campaign had to spend time and money in what should have been a reliable state, in order to shore up his base.
And if it is getting tight in Jersey, you can bet the "purple" states are getting redder every day. To wit:
"If New Jersey remains in trouble for Obama, he's probably doing worse in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio," which are true battlegrounds.
Like I said, hope ....
Barack Obama's lead over John McCain in "blue state" New Jersey is in single digits - with the Democratic nominee holding a scant three-point lead when "leaning" voters are factored in, a surprising poll found yesterday.
The survey from the Marist College Polling Institute shows Obama snaring 47 percent to the Republican McCain's 40 percent among voters who are solid in their decision.
But when voters leaning toward one side but not firm in their decision are factored in, the spread only favors Obama by 48 to 45.
Although I do not expect Blew Jersey to changes its colors, the tightening of the race here harkens back to October 2004, when Bush started to close on Kerry, and his campaign had to spend time and money in what should have been a reliable state, in order to shore up his base.
And if it is getting tight in Jersey, you can bet the "purple" states are getting redder every day. To wit:
"If New Jersey remains in trouble for Obama, he's probably doing worse in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio," which are true battlegrounds.
Like I said, hope ....
Stay Classy...
E.J. Dionne, doing his best Keith Olberman on the editorial pages of the Washington Post:
The campaign is a blur of flying pieces of junk, lipstick and gutter-style attacks. John McCain's deceptions about Barack Obama's views and Sarah Palin's flip-flopping suggest an unedifying scuffle over a city council seat.
The media bear a heavy responsibility because "balance" does not require giving equal time to truth and lies. So does McCain, who is running a disgraceful, dishonorable campaign of distraction and diversion.
Gee, E.J., tell us how you really feel ! I love it when you guys come busting so flamboyantly out of the closet:
John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala on CNN just now slipped and said "we" when asking how Democrats should respond to Republican attacks.
Tell us something we don't know, John. All this, meanwhile, while the WaPo was running a front-page story on Cindy McCain's past drug problems. Slogging thru the mud, indeed...
Meanwhile - speaking of truth and lies and dishonorable - Obama put out a new ad today mocking John McCain's admission that he does not use a computer:
Let's see how long that stays up. 'Cause there is certainly no dishonor in mocking a man who, due to torture at the hands of American's enemies, cannot type:
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.
Same link -even back in 2000, even the lefties at Salon were smarter enough to know:
"Six months ago, no one would have pegged McCain as the most cybersavvy of this year's crop of candidates. At 63, he is the oldest of the bunch and because of his war injuries, he is limited in his ability to wield a keyboard."
Nice, Baracky. Hey, you and your media buddies just stay classy, OK?
Update: Ace'd in a post entitled:
"Obama: Ha, Ha, McCain Is Old, He Can't Use a Computer
North Vietnamese Captors: Yeah, Ha Ha, We Did That to Him; Pretty Good Gag, Eh?"
In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate . Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.
Nice story; seeing how his infirmary has been turned into an opportunity for Cindy and John McCain to engage each other nightly and keep their marriage strong. Nice way it has been treated by the Obama camp, too. Remember this, when E.J. Dionne is lecturing you on who is "dishonorable".
The campaign is a blur of flying pieces of junk, lipstick and gutter-style attacks. John McCain's deceptions about Barack Obama's views and Sarah Palin's flip-flopping suggest an unedifying scuffle over a city council seat.
The media bear a heavy responsibility because "balance" does not require giving equal time to truth and lies. So does McCain, who is running a disgraceful, dishonorable campaign of distraction and diversion.
Gee, E.J., tell us how you really feel ! I love it when you guys come busting so flamboyantly out of the closet:
John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala on CNN just now slipped and said "we" when asking how Democrats should respond to Republican attacks.
Tell us something we don't know, John. All this, meanwhile, while the WaPo was running a front-page story on Cindy McCain's past drug problems. Slogging thru the mud, indeed...
Meanwhile - speaking of truth and lies and dishonorable - Obama put out a new ad today mocking John McCain's admission that he does not use a computer:
Let's see how long that stays up. 'Cause there is certainly no dishonor in mocking a man who, due to torture at the hands of American's enemies, cannot type:
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.
Same link -even back in 2000, even the lefties at Salon were smarter enough to know:
"Six months ago, no one would have pegged McCain as the most cybersavvy of this year's crop of candidates. At 63, he is the oldest of the bunch and because of his war injuries, he is limited in his ability to wield a keyboard."
Nice, Baracky. Hey, you and your media buddies just stay classy, OK?
Update: Ace'd in a post entitled:
"Obama: Ha, Ha, McCain Is Old, He Can't Use a Computer
North Vietnamese Captors: Yeah, Ha Ha, We Did That to Him; Pretty Good Gag, Eh?"
In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate . Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.
Nice story; seeing how his infirmary has been turned into an opportunity for Cindy and John McCain to engage each other nightly and keep their marriage strong. Nice way it has been treated by the Obama camp, too. Remember this, when E.J. Dionne is lecturing you on who is "dishonorable".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)