Monday, September 29, 2008
The House of Representatives were working on the Wall Street bailout package today and nearing a vote. Just prior to the vote Nancy Pelosi, the esteemed Speaker of the House stood up on the floor and spent over four minutes attacking the Bush administration and extolling the virtues of the Clinton administration.
This was a circumstance in which the bill was 12 votes short of passage. After a week of highly partisan screeching by her and her fellow Dems in Congress, Pelosi delivers this speech and then promptly holds a press conference with Steny Hoyer, Barney Franks, and Rahm Emanuel expressing shock over why they can’t get the GOP to participate.
This was a week in which there have been continuous attacks on John McCain, first because he wasn’t in Washington helping craft a bailout package, and then because he came to Washington to craft a bailout package. If you want to see an incredible article on the day to day changes on the Democratic leadership stances, go here. There are simply too many to list here, it is highly recommended you scan this article.
The theme of this press conference was to express the Democrats desire to have a bipartisan solution to the bill. Completely ignoring the irony of this statement, they forged ahead attacking the GOP for not acting in a bipartisan way. Following the statements, the group took questions from reporters. When a reporter asked about the notion that Pelosi’s speech may have turned away some Republicans, Barney Frank mocked the GOP reps for “having their feelings hurt” and again ridiculed them for a lack of bipartisan spirit. Not to sound homophobic but the image of Barney Frank lecturing someone on a being a man was not an image I needed to be stuck with.
The best part of this press conference was just how many times the word “bipartisan” was used by every one of the speakers. It was amusing to watch Steny Hoyer intone that 60% of Democrats voted for the bill while 67% of Republicans voted against it, clearly making it the fault of the GOP. The bottom line is that the Democratic leadership couldn’t even sell this bill to much more than a simple majority of it’s own party.
As of the writing of this, I have become utterly uncertain what’s even in the bill anymore. I know part of the reason for the resistance to the bill is the recognition of the representatives of simple distaste of voters of bailing out banking lenders and borrowers from a mess of their own making. There is a growing sense that maybe it’s time for these people to be adults and live with their bad decisions. Many representatives, especially those in vulnerable districts, are afraid to vote for this and stick the taxpayers with the $700 BILLION tab.
What I saw in the faces of the Democratic speakers at the press conference was gripping fear. There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess, Democrats, Republicans, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Wall Street, and borrowers. The reality right now though is that the Democrats control Congress and the last week has been a study in absolute incompetence on the part of it’s leadership. Bush has proposed the plan, Congress controlled by the Democrats, could not deliver, largely because they could not resist the liberal necessity to attach goodies to the bill. Further, as I said earlier, they have attempted to run roughshod over the Republican members. Finally, they have presented a public image that can be described as being nothing more than a circus. Announcing they have a plan, only to have the Republican members come out and say they did not agree with their plan. Continuously, as mentioned earlier, delivering partisan attacks. Finally, holding a show vote when they knew they did not have the votes needed for passage. It is clear that today’s vote was for nothing more than to be used as a political attack.
Now to the Dow dropping. At the time of writing this, I am watching Sheppard Smith on Fox News. In the corner of the screen, they have a shot of the board at the NY stock exchange and it is easy to see that he market is quite volatile right now. The Dow is in the middle of it’s largest one day point drop ever. While the press conference is ongoing, the numbers are dropping, afterwards, the numbers are back up. To quote Smith “… we’ve recovered 250 points off the lows of this day and it would appear to me that the down slope happened as the leadership spoke and the upturn happened when the leadership shut up.” It’s hard to put it any better than this. My only hope is that, if this is true, I hope they shut up and stay that way because I would like to retire someday.
The only thing that may be rivaling the drop of the Dow is the drop of Barack Obama’s credibility. He is looking foolish because he took full credit for the plan (see my blog from yesterday for one of my “I told you so” moments). He is also going to take some of the Congressional heat because of the Democratic partisan attacks on John McCain last week. McCain is already on record as pinning this all on him. This is the statement from the McCain campaign. story here
“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.
Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.
Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.” —McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin
It just may turn out that McCain’s bad week last week may be passed on to Obama this week.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Reading reports on his comments, one is left with the impression that the entire thing was his idea, going as far as saying “They (the provisions in the proposed bill) are identical to the things I called for the day that (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson released his package," story here:
As an aside, the thought did occur to me that this man is a master of taking credit for, well, everything that has worked. He does this by making overly broad statements on most issues. Later, when the issue is resolved, he can then say that it transpired in a way identical to the way he proposed. Obama is not the first charlatan to operate this way, fortune tellers have gotten away with this for centuries. If all of this fails, he simply re-invents what he said in the first place. He has done this on the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Iran, etc, etc, etc. The good thing for him is that he has a willing accomplice in the media.
Back to the original question though, is it a good idea to take credit for this bailout package? My thoughts are that I’m not convinced it is.
This is a plan that is not going to be popular with voters, it’s going to be tolerated. An analogy would be having your septic tank go out. You pay, what $2000, to get it fixed. Your really not happy to pay the $2000 bucks but you kow the alternative is crappy. In this scenario, Obama is the one replacing your septic tank. While you appreciate getting rid of the septic tank problem, you certainly don’t thank Obama, the septic tank guy, for sticking you with the $2000 bill.
No doubt his objective was to attempt to show leadership. He has a long ways to go though to show he has more leadership ability than the far more experienced McCain. I don’t believe this was the way to do it. If it was, his making the “call me if you need me” statement and having to be drug back to Washington last week was certainly not the best way to go about it.
This is yet more proof that, for the grace of a media that’s in the tank for him and the current affirmitive action program in place in American politics, Obama would still be a “community organizer” in Chicago.
So what are your thoughts on Obama’s aking credit for this bailout package?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Although I will admit I am going to miss seeing the debate, if it happens. I must confess though that I am going to Tivo it to watch later.
With this in mind, I decided to do something a little different for my blog today. I think it is a combination of my mind already being off politics and out at the lake and, admittedly, laziness. So I am going to leave you with some images of Michigan that we have taken along the way. Enjoy.
-1 F, -7 F wind chll, 3 layers of clothes, 1/2 mile hike = one great time
Thursday, September 25, 2008
This may be a case in which Obama may want to listen to his running mate Joe Biden. Biden recently called upon the wisdom of one our past presidents for guidance on how to lead in this fiscal crises. He said that we should use Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership during the stock market crash of 1929 as a model.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed,"
We will excuse Joe for not knowing that Roosevelt wasn’t president in 1929 or that television was in it’s developmental stage at the time. Liberals have a long history of not letting the truth get in the way of a good attack.
So come on Obama, show the grit Roosevelt showed and get back to Washington. Roll up your sleeves and help save our coutry. If you don’t remember where the Senate building is just go on one of those bus tours, most of them stop there.
Note: I realize this gaffe is a couple of days old and I have already alluded to it in another post but it is so funny I just had to. Chuck
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are time bombs for the Democratic party. Over the last nine years, the top five congressional recipients of contributions form these two corporations were Democrats. The list, according to Free Republic is as follows:
1. Dodd, Christopher J Senate D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John Senate D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack Senate D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary Senate D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E House D-PA $65,500
Notice number 3. Senator Obama was able to make it to third on the list in only three years. This is impressive. Talk about over-achieving. Just imagine what he could of done if he’d been in there for the full nine years. Further, 7 of the top 10 were Democratic Congressional members.
Now the investigation is probably not going to focus on congressional contributions but it will keep the story alive and let us, and Fox News, and Drudge, etc to continue talking about it, day after day after day. Who knows, things may get so crazy, the MSM may even mention it.
Another thing that may be brought up again is the comfy relationship Democratic members of Congress have had with mortgage lenders, including cozy loans.
Finally, there is a real risk for Obama in the investigation itself.
There is a slight risk that his name could come up. He has had significant ties to these companies. It would not look good for his name to show up in a memo or e-mail.
The major damage to Obama though, could come from the people that will be investigated. Three people with close ties to the Obama campaign, sometimes acting as advisors, will likely be investigated. More importantly, they have each had their own controversies at the company.
Franklin Raines is the former Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. Though both Obama and Raines deny the accusations, there has been strong speculation that Raines has advised Obama on policy.
Jamie Gorelick was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and walked away with as much as $26 million. There are strong indications that she helped cover up problems by staffers at the company. Her ties to Obama aren’t as strong as the other two but there are rumors that she is in line for Attorney General, having served as assistant under Janet Reno.
Finally, we have James Johnson. Johnson is the former Chairman of Fannie Mae and will likely have his own questions to answer about his tenure there. More significantly for this discussion, there are strong ties between Obama and Johnson. Johnson has been an economic advisor to Obama and led his VP search committee initially. Johnson had to leave the search team after it was revealed that he had gotten questionable loans from Countrywide Mortgage Lender, preferred mortgage company of most Democratic politicians. Obama, showing his commitment to maintaining high ethical standards responded to the controversy by saying “I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages.” Story here:
I think this is why Obama has been so vocal about attacking McCain about these failures. He is trying to get out ahead of the story and lessen the damage to himself. I think though that in the words of the good Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
It appears that him and Obama are not talking lately and Biden seems to be running his own show. Trouble is, some of the stuff he’s been saying is not in agreement with what Obama wants. This is not only embarrassing for Obama and the campaign but it is exhausting for the campaign spin-meisters.
First up, we have the ill-advised Obama ad attacking McCain for not being able to do e-mail. The ad would have been a good idea except that McCain cannot do e-mail because he has trouble typing due to a war injury. This was an injury sustained while being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton. So, needless to say, that ad was not real popular.
As it turns out, Biden was not one of the fans. According to this story Biden had this to say during an interview on CBS with Katie Curic:
Asked whether he’s disappointed with the tone of the campaign, including the ad that Couric characterized as “making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer,” Biden said “I thought that was terrible by the way.
“I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it”
Of course by terrible, he didn’t mean it was that bad according to this correction later:
“Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize,” he said, “especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.”
Read the rest of the article to see how the McCain campaign used the comments to criticize the Obama campaign, call out the NYT again for not reponding to the original ad, and continue the tying of Obama to Chicago style politics.
Bidden was just getting started though. Biden was asked about clean coal plants in the US for energy. This from a story on Ben Smith’s blog, Biden steered away from Obama again by saying:
Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but not for the United States.
"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."
"We’re not supporting clean coal,"
This flies in the face of the Obama official position on coal. Another interesting thing is that Obama and Biden sparred about this during the primaries while running against each other. Obama is for clean coal and Biden is against it. This begs the question of who really is in charge here? Naturally we are misunderstanding Biden again and anyone pointing out the discrepancy is vilified:
Biden spokesman David Wade responded by calling McCain's statement "yet another false attack from a dishonorable campaign."
He continued: "Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology. Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."
How McCain got that Biden doesn’t support clean coal from this statement "We’re not supporting clean coal," is beyond me.
For more fun, read this article here about Obama attacking McCain for saying AIG should not have been bailed out when three minutes after McCain said it, Biden said the same thing. This is a good read and contains a real shocker. Matt Lauer actually called Obama on this discrepancy and asked him a tough question. No word yet if Matt has been fired by NBC for making The One feel uncomfortable and pressured to explain something unflattering.
Finally we have a bonus Biden gaffe that Cube posted on her blog today. Biden remarked that when the stock market crashed in 1929, FDR got on television and… Other than the facts that TV was experimental and the public didn’t have them yet and that Hoover was president at the time, his statement was entirely true. The other thing that pisses me off is that this will get no media play. Anyone want to guess what would happen if George Bush or Dan Quayle had said this?
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, the VP debate is going to interesting. I believe that Sarah Palin will eat this man’s lunch while he munches on his foot.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The NYT along with the other liberal media such as the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc have for years been highly partisan organizations. As was accused by the McCain campaign today, the NYT has essentially been the public relations arm of the Democratic party for decades.
In two separate incidences today, one involving a campaign aid, the other a supporter at a rally, the liberal media got it’s comeuppance. This is the story from Foxnews.com, they put it best.
“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 any standard — a journalistic organization,” strategist Steve Schmidt told reporters on a conference call. “It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor [Sarah] Palin and excuses Senator Obama.”
Schmidt accused the Times of giving Obama a pass on his “deceitful ads” and abdicating its journalistic responsibility to vet Obama’s “background and past statements.” It was an unusually harsh critique for a campaign that last year enjoyed largely favorable press coverage.
“This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate,” Schmidt fumed. “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 to advocate for the election of the other candidate — Barack Obama.”
I can only say one thing, WOW.
Then we had a woman with lots of guts, maybe she is being inspired by hockey mom Sarah Palin, stand up and give the assembled press Hell.
The woman ripped reporters for focusing on the pregnant teenage daughter of Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee, while largely ignoring Obama’s ties to radical Bill Ayers and controversial Chicago businessman Tony Rezko.
“We want the media to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies,” she exclaimed. “Shame on you! Shame on all of ya’s!”
This is not only gutsy but quite funny. Imagine a press staffer being there. They’re bored because their boss made them follow this McCain guy instead of the dreamy Obama. Further, they’re hoping no one can read they’re thoughts about the dreamy remark because the reporter is, in fact, a man. When all of a sudden, he’s snapped out of his fantasies about Obama by this woman giving him a dressing down in front of this huge crowd. Everyone’s laughing, she saying shame on you. ‘This sucks, I wish I were at the Obama rally.’ It would have been a sight to see folks.
So of course the editor of the NYT (who knew they had an editor) Bill Keller, offered this reply, “You know, you are absolutely correct. We have totally been in the tank for The One, Obama. We are so ashamed. Further, we apologize and will stop this immediately and start reporting fairly.” Just joking, what he really said was this:
“The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively,” Keller wrote. “It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisers. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.”
The article didn’t say if he was able to get through this without laughing hysterically or not. If he does not find this comment ridiculous, he’s a bigger idiot than even I give him credit for. Also, do you like the whole "it's the conservative's fault" explanation? The NYT couldn't be wrong, the conservatives are just being whiny and misunderstanding.
For more amusement, check out this article on Politico.com. The NYT provides a list of the “hard-hitting” investigative stories they have done on Obama. I just took a sample from the middle of the list to give an indication of just how rough they have been on this poor soul.
29. Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
30. The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
31. Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church [New York Times, 6/1/08] 32. Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]
The horror they have put this man through.
As I said at the beginning, it is about time the GOP did this. I have said before, it is not the fault of the media for acting this way. It is our fault for tolerating it. If a network or show you are watching cannot bring itself to be balanced, turn it off. We have the power to end this, we just have to stand up to them. For a change, one campaign aid and one lady in Pennsylvania got it right. Here’s hoping for many returns. Stand up, hound these reporters at these rallies.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Citing General Petraeus by name, the resolution, which is sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham, "commends and expresses the gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible."
The Senators -- allies of John McCain -- had hoped to attach the resolution to a defense bill under consideration this week. But Mr. Reid wouldn't allow it.
This was actually blocked from coming out of the Senate Armed Services Committee by Democratic Chairman Carl Levin at the insistence of Democrat Harry Reid
Keep I mind, this is a resolution, it has no binding legal authority. It’s the Congressional equivalent of a “who did something nice” card like we all see at work or our children see in elementary school. It doesn’t cost money. It simply says “Thank You” to the troops and General Patreaus.
Further, I do not want to accuse these two Dems of being against resolutions, because they are not. A quick search shows that they have both sponsored important resolutions in the past.
Harry Reid Sponsored resolutions to:
Oppose the surge one month after Bush announced it. He even scheduled a rare Saturday debate on it.
In March, 2007, before the surge had a chance to really get going he co-sponsored The Joint Resolution To Transition The Mission In Iraq.
And of course we cannot forget the Asbestos Awareness Day resolution he sponsored, this certainly benefited society.
Carl Levin along with too many anti-war resolutions to list, also sponsored these noteworthy classics:
A resolution urging Canada to end commercial seal hunting.
A resolution honoring the Detroit Red Wings Stanley Cup win in 2008.
So these men will sponsor resolutions to attack the troops, honor a professional hockey team, or fight the twin scurges of American society, seal hunting and asbestos, but cannot allow one to be voted on that supports the troops?
The Democrats though are loathe to give any credit to Bush. They care less about the troops, the war in Iraq, and the greater war on terror than they do about the war on George Bush. Further, acknowledging success with the surge makes it painfully obvious, because it’s not already, that they were flat out dead wrong on the surge. They fought it’s implementation, derided it as folly, predicted that it would fail. Now they are stuck with the bad news that it actually worked, helping assure success and stopping the dying of our troops. This is not good news for the Dems.
Quite frankly, I cannot sum up the Democratic stance any better than the WSJ already has:
The reality is that success in Iraq has confounded the political left, which placed a huge political bet on our defeat. Senator Reid famously declared the war lost in April 2007. Joe Biden introduced a resolution opposing the surge. And Hillary Clinton said the reports of progress in Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief." In the Democratic narrative, our troops in Iraq are victims of a lost cause, not heroes. They're allowed to get maimed and killed, but not to succeed.
Thus Democrats are left to argue that success in Iraq is irrelevant because the real fight against al Qaeda is occurring in Afghanistan. Or that the reduced violence in Iraq has resulted not from the troop surge but from the Sunni Awakening and the retreat of the Sadr militias.
That’s pretty much ‘nough said. The only thing I can add is that a generation ago the liberals spit on troops at the airport returning from Vietnam. They have become much more refined and civilized since then, now they let their Congressmen do it from afar.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Where do you start with a survey like this? This survey, while trying to explain racism, is incredibly racist in itself.
First, what does a typical white voter look like? Other than badly in need of tan of course. The article does break whites down into Republicans and Democrats but this is too simplistic for someone of any race. The political spectrum is complex in what constitutes party affiliation. There are social liberals and conservatives, fiscal liberals and conservatives, and a combination of both. There are people who are very liberal or conservative and would never vote for the other party. There are people who are moderate and can be drawn to the opposite candidate for many reasons, including yes race, age, and/or gender. There are some voters who don’t even follow the issues and vote based on how they feel about a person. These people may or may not vote for Obama, irregardless of his race, but because of some other characteristic such as likeability, speaking ability, etc. These factors alone cloud the study. For some voters race may be an issue but not the issue. Race along with any of the above could push them away. This does not make race the factor, it makes it a factor.
There also is the issue of racial attitudes being complex and virtually impossible to measure. If there is a person on God’s earth without any racial prejudice, I would like to meet them. No one, including myself, can say they are without some prejudice. It is human nature, it is ingrained into our very fiber. Further, it is not just racial, it is gender, height, age, etc., etc., etc. Everyone of us has it and anyone reading this that thinks they do not is lying to themselves. But, you know what? It’s ok. The key is to not go out and behead someone or fly a plane into a building because your innate prejudice has turned into psychotic hatred. Oops, that sounded a little prejudiced.
Since everyone has prejudice, what does this mean? Very little to everything. There is a huge difference between prejudice against a race and prejudice against a person. You may have an issue with, blacks as an example, but when you go to work and see Joe, things are fine because he’s “different”. This is often the case with all biases. It’s easier to dislike an anonymous group than an individual. I believe this is another flaw in the study. I think it is a little simplistic to say people will not vote for Obama just because he is black. I think most of these people have another issue and that, combined with race, equals a no vote.
Finally, there is the most obvious issue with the survey. Why only whites? Why not Hispanics, Asians, and, of course, blacks. Why have we never studied why blacks vote almost entirely for Democrats? It certainly isn’t because they have done so well under the Democrats. What exactly have the Democrats done for them really? The Democratic party by and large favor policies that are actually destructive to blacks. The welfare system of the 60’s and 70’s had insane rules that favored unmarried women over married. This set up a cycle of generation-to-generation single motherhood that blacks are still trying to break. This single motherhood has led to a host of other social ills that feed on each other, lower high school graduation rate, higher unemployment, and higher imprisonment rates. Liberals favor a wide open abortion industry that disproportionally effects blacks. Finally, I do not believe that blacks are more stupid than others and buy the hollow, unfulfilled promises of Democrats that they receive decade after decade. Is it possible that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats because they view the GOP as the party of “old white guys”? Admittedly if this were true it would likely be the fault of the GOP as much as the Democratic party but nonetheless is still a racial attitude. Why isn’t this studied? Why didn’t they study why blacks aren’t voting for McCain/Palin, is it racism?
The study did try to address all of the above issues but, as I sad before, I believe the simple fact that it was done to begin with is racist in itself. Further, while the study did say that there could be other reasons besides race why voters are not flocking to Obama, the fact that the survey was done in the first place speaks to an arrogance and incredulousness on the part of the AP and Yahoo that they feel a need to examine why not everyone is rushing to The One like they are. They seem to have to explain why we are not all basking in his glory. Maybe it’s not because he is black after all? Maybe it’s because he is a vacuum headed, arrogant, inexperienced, unprincipled, unpatriotic, insufferable, wishy-washy, empty suit. But, then again, I admit I have always been prejudiced against vacuum headed, arrogant, inexperienced, unprincipled, unpatriotic, insufferable, wishy-washy, empty suits.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The latest example is this article about by Joe Milica of the Associated Press Joe Biden’s comments on John McCain’s economic plan. Article available here
The article has the usual slant, giving one side (not McCain’s) and ignoring that Obama’s plan has come under similar attacks. So, in other words, it is routine fare for the liberal media.
There are a couple of glaring examples of out and out bias though.
First of all, there is the little matter of Joe Biden’s remark that paying taxes is patriotic. The article quoted Biden as saying this: (all emphasis mine)
"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said. Of those who would pay more, he said: "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."
Somehow McCain took Biden’s remark to mean that it was patriotic to raise taxes, so the article took McCain to task for his misinterpretation.
McCain misstated Biden's remark when he told supporters at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that Biden had said "raising taxes is patriotic."
Then we have this:
In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, McCain's campaign charges that Obama would increase the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.
widely debunked claims (this is another liberal media trick, who is widely debunking McCain’s claims?)
We also have this fun part, though not quite as obvious, definitely twisting the facts.
Although McCain claims Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.
This statement is fun in that it may be both true and false at the same time. Maybe 4 out of 5 households would receive tax cuts, by their math though, 20% of the households are missing. Furthermore, Obama himself has said he would raise taxes, it is patriotic after all. Further, the author ignores the fact that not all of the mentioned 80% of households pay taxes and therefore cannot get tax cuts. The author obviously subscribes to the Democratic notion that people who do not pay taxes can still get a tax cut. Finally, the author himself quoted Biden as saying they would raise taxes. Unless I am guilty of misinterpreting this: “Of those who would pay more”.
As I said, it is nothing more than standard fair for the liberal media, that doesn’t mean it is any less tiresome and nauseating. But then again, maybe I’m just misstating the article.
Note: no horses, dead or alive, were harmed in the writing of this blog.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
There is a news story that has gotten more attention here in Michigan than nationally. Story here
The Detroit area Macomb County Republican chairman, James Carabelli, has been quoted by Michigan Messenger as saying “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” Mr. Carabelli and the Michigan Republican party deny he made the statement and have threatened a libel suit against the site if it does not print a retraction.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Party have filed a lawsuit to prevent the county from doing what they may or may not be planning to do.
I can’t attest to the merit of the suit, it has turned into a he said-she said affair with no real indication of who is telling the truth. The Michigan GOP and Macomb County have strongly and consistently denied the accusation and claim they couldn’t do it if they wanted to. The claim by the county is that the voter roll does not provide enough information to practically carry a plan like this through.
Further, I am not familiar with this publication. A quick scan of the headlines on the site make their slogan, “A Center For Independent Media” a little dubious. Following is a sample of the headlines this evening:
Fight for the soul of Michigan’s highest court
Beginning of article: “Arch-conservative Clifford Taylor…” (emphasis mine)
Obama condemns “shameless” McCain campaign
Lose your house, lose your vote
DOJ politicization hurt voters’ rights, has it hurt Michigan?
Rove tricks? McCain absentee ballots raise questions
1980’s savings and loan bailout haunts John McCain
Conservatives looking decidedly socialist as AIG and market flounder
Borderline tabloid and decidedly liberally slanted headlines like this do harm their credibility a bit and make it a little easier to believe they may have misquoted Mr. Carabelli.
Forgetting the accuracy of this upstanding publication for now, I have a different theory on why the lawsuit was filed in the first place.
It is no secret that Michigan’s economy is in the toilet. It has the highest unemployment rate in the country and is losing population so fast that by spring it may have fewer people than North Dakota. The problem with this for the Democratic party is that we are in the second term of a Democratic governor who inherited the state from a three term Republican governor that left the state in better shape. Further half of the legislature is controlled by the Democrats. Between them they have had some really idiotic and publicly embarrassing attempts to “fix” the economy in Michigan. Staying true to the Democratic ideals, these fixes have largely comprised of increased taxes, which is exactly what a state bleeding jobs needs to do.
One thing Obama does not need, in a tight race for a state that is very important to his presidential aspirations, is to have the public notice that the Dems have run our state into the ground.
This lawsuit, therefore, is nothing but a distraction. A waste of federal (read as ours) money. To make this whole thing even funnier is the fact that the Democratic Party, led by Barack Obama, spent the entire winter and spring working to ensure the voters of Michigan were disenfranchised in the primary. So, it appears that the Michigan Messenger is not the only one with a credibility problem tonight.
Monday, September 15, 2008
This article from the Washington Post may paint a different picture.
According to the article, while Obama was touring Iraq he campaigned to have Iraqi officials and General Patraeus delay the troop withdrawal until he took office in January.
I will ignore the obvious arrogance on Obama’s part in assuming he will take office in January.
First up are the Iraqi officials. From the article we have this: (emphasis mine)
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
Turns out though that the Iraqi officials have no interest in this idea;
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Obama then went on to attempt to persuade the US generals to delay the withdrawal for a “realistic withdrawal date”, of which they declined.
The article went on to point out that his attempt at delaying the withdrawal is contradictory not only because of his ‘out of Iraq now’ stance but also because of his recent promise to have all troops out of Iraq by 2010.
Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.
There is also one other contradiction that the article did not address. Obama cannot seem to make clear what “all of the troops” mean. He makes the promise that he will withdraw all troops then in the next sentence say “some” troops will have to remain behind. Am I the only one having a flashback to Bill Clinton’s definition of is moment?
I think there’s a couple of reasons Obama is attempting to delay the withdrawal. First, Bush announcing troop withdrawals now steals some of his “I’ll bring the troops home” thunder. The image of troops returning to US bases will take some steam from one of his main campaign themes, withdrawal from Iraq. Second, he wants to be the one to bring the troops home. He doesn’t actually care if they home or not, as long as he can be seen as the one “liberating” them.
Another flashback takes us back to Germany and Obama’s decision to go to the gym instead of meeting with injured troops and Ramstein Airbase because he could not take the press with him. I have said it before and I will say it again. The troops are nothing more than props for Barrack Obama and the Democrats.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
According to this article in the Times of India, scientists at Oxford University studied the brains of vegetarians and vegans and found they were six times more likely to have brain shrinkage.
Scientists have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain-with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage. Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.
Now I don’t want to make too much of this because quite frankly, these studies are sometimes reversed, but it is interesting and helps underscore two things.
One, that your mother was wrong. Mom always told us to eat our vegetables so we would grow big and strong. Kids everywhere now can point to this article and inform their mothers that if she wants them to grow up to be a rocket scientist, she should take away the vegetables and bring them a burger with a side of hot dogs.
Second, this confirms something we already knew. Sarah Palin is actually smarter than these elitist main stream media types that have been attacking her. While they are sitting in their fancy restaurants and cafes in New York City and Los Angeles laughing at the rube Palin and eating their fancy little salads with vegetables from the rain forests of South America, their brains are shrinking. In the meantime, Gov Palin is up in Alaska killing wild animals and eating them, keeping her brain a normal, healthy size.
I don’t know about you but I’m going to clean my refrigerator crisper drawer out and throw away all of those dangerous vegetables and toss a steak on the grill.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
It seems that Sarah Palin’s decision to keep her son Trig instead of aborting him has doctors worried in Canada that this may have a chilling effect on other women carrying Down’s Syndrome babies. The chilling effect? She may spur other women to keep their babies. Gasp. Article here.
Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), told the Globe and Mail yesterday, "Palin's decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same."
"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he said.
Under the facade of "freedom to choose", Lalonde said that "popular messages" about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, "could have detrimental effects on women and their families."
"We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible," Lalonde said. "We're coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions."
Here is this “choice” word again. This has been used a lot lately to Attack Gov Palin for being against women having the right to choose. This attack is getting older by the minute. They are not concerned about choice. If they were, they would celebrate her “choice” to have her baby.
We, as conservatives, have sat around and let the left, assisted by the left leaning media, to define the abortion debate. Look at the words used to describe the positions in the debate. Those of us who are against abortion call ourselves pro-life because we support all life from the time of conception. The media calls us anti-abortion. Now, for the record, I personally am comfortable with this label because I am, in fact, anti-abortion. People who support abortion rights are “pro-choice” according to the media. The point is, if they are pro-choice, we should be pro-life. If we are anti-abortion, they should be called pro-abortion (or, anti-life?).
I realize that this seems like semantics but it gives the pro-abortion people a psychological advantage with the public. We are not taking our stand because we support life, we are mean and uncaring because we are “anti” abortion. The pro-abortion people though aren’t for abortion, they’re for a woman’s right to choose. The other part of this is that it sterilizes the abortion debate by removing the word from their stance. We aren’t debating abortion, we’re debating “choice”. How can we live with ourselves.
Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, said, "Many of the country's medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition."
"It's very dark," she said in the Globe and Mail report. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome. They hear about the burden . . . it places on children and a marriage."
"They hear about things like shortened life expectancy. They hear a lot about the challenges of a life with Down syndrome. That's why Mrs. Palin has become an example that could possibly stem the tide of families who abort fetuses after a positive determination for Down syndrome," Ms. Flint said.
"We know overwhelmingly the message families get is 'Don't have this baby, it will ruin your life,' and I don't think people would look at Sarah Palin and see a ruined life," Ms. Flint said. "Regardless of politics, I think it's a good example."
Statistics show that between 80 – 90% of Down’s babies are aborted in Canada (approximately the same as the US).
Further, do notice that the group concerned about this effect on abortion is the group of doctors that perform abortions. Their abortion mills are money makers. Their crocodile tears for these poor women being deprived of their right to abortion is nothing more than tears over the loss of their cash cow.
As I said earlier, the attacks against Gov Palin are not about choice. They’re about her making the wrong choice, according to some. The fact that anyone can look at pictures of her beautiful child and think he should have been killed in the womb is stunning. I have to believe that the people holding these views have made a serious wrong turn somewhere in their lives. To be at a place emotionally that they can hold these views is a foreign concept to me.
I believe the real issue among the “kill the babies” crowd is fear. Sarah Palin is putting a face to the abortion debate. Trig Palin is not a Down’s Syndrome baby that was imperfect and therefore should have been aborted, he’s a beautiful gift of life. This scares the pro-abortion people because the public may start coming to grips with what abortion really is, it’s a choice to commit infanticide.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
-President George W. Bush: September 11, 2001
In the fall of 2001 I was working an odd shift in which I would go in at 11:00 am and work until 11:00 pm three days a week. On these days if I wanted to see my sons, I had to get up in the morning before they went to school. I would get up, see them off to school, and then l would stretch out on the couch and watch TV and nap until leaving for work.
Exactly seven years ago this minute I was watching The Today Show as American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center Tower 1, changing our lives.
Our parents speak of knowing what they were doing when they heard about John F Kennedy being assassinated. For our grandparents it was when Pearl Harbor was bombed. I can remember this day clearly in my mind. I do not talk about this moment much because it is too painful, and, it is my memory. It is a personal experience that cannot be shared with others.
I remember going to work that day. I took care of a woman in the Emergency Room who’s son was an American Airlines pilot. He was not flying that day but she developed chest pain just watching the footage on TV.
I remember my son in the days that followed being very anxious. He was eight years old at the time and smart for his age. He knew something was going on, he had seen the non-stop news coverage at home. He was having trouble sleeping. When we realized what was going on, we turned the news off when he was at home and I followed the story online. I felt that as nation we were losing our innocence, I did not want my children to have theirs robbed also by these monsters.
I remember the scenes of destruction, New York City, Washington DC, and Shanksville, PA. With horror, I remember watching the people in the World Trade Center leaping to their deaths in panic to escape the flames.
Mostly though, I remember the people. I remember the bravery of the rescuers in New York and Washington, some professional, some not, rushing towards the destruction to attempt to help those injured. I remember the families searching for loved ones, instinctively knowing that many of them would not find what they were looking for. I remember George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Rudy Giuliani at their finest. These men did an incredible job leading a country through a horrific time. I remember the bravery and the sacrifice of the people of United Airlines Flight 93. Their commandeering of the airplane and diversion to a field in Pennsylvania likely saved hundreds of people.
Finally, I remember the anger at the bastards that did this. The hatred that dwells in some men’s hearts are not for us to understand. We, thank God, do not have the capacity for this lack of humanity. We are not capable of killing almost 3,000 innocent civilians. I remember this anger because it is still in me today. I have tried to make peace with what happened that day but cannot. I still cannot watch footage of the events of that day without feeling like a knife is plunging into my heart. I have yet to watch any of the movies. I think it is because I witnessed it live as it was happening instead of the detachment of seeing it on the news later. I don’t know but it is still there today. It effects how I view the Muslim religion and likely always will. I may have even forgiven the religion as whole if I had seen any remorse from the leaders of the religion. All we got though were some hollow sympathies, no real condemnation, no assistance in tracking down the perpetrators. I remember the Palestinians shooting their guns in the air at celebration of the news.
More than anything, I remember the innocent people that were lost on this day. 2,973 souls were lost in these attacks (I do not, nor will I ever, include the attackers in these numbers). Thousands upon thousands of family members lost their husbands and wives, their children and parents, grandchildren and grandparents, among others on this day. Several nations lost citizens. A nation lost it’s sense of security.
My fear, as we get farther from this day is that we are not remembering as a nation. On this day we were one nation. Since then, politics has raised it’s ugly head and divided some of us on the issue. People have gone back to their lives, children to raise, work to do, lives to live.
I just want the victims to know, I still remember and I know I am not the only one. They have not been forgotten and they never will. May they rest in peace.
September 11th, 2008, 0846 am
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Carol Fowler is from the Fowler family of entertainers. Readers may remember that her husband Don was the wacky guy who a couple of weeks ago said that hurricane Gustav was a gift from God to the Democratic party. According to Jonathan Martin’s blog at Politico.com, Ms Fowler said this of Gov Sarah Palin in an interview
"whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”.
This not only shows that the idiocy on the left knows no end, it also shows the indignation by many on the left at Palin’s decision not to abort her son after finding he had Down’s Syndrome. I mean, women abort 1000’s of perfectly healthy babies everyday, how could Palin choose to keep a damaged one? Oops, there goes that choice word again. Funny how the left gets upset that she made her own choice about her unborn baby. A cynical person would think that they don’t really care about choice like they say. In their mind there is only one choice, ignoring the obvious fallacy of this argument.
Finally, it gives us an indication that the attacks on Sarah Palin’s decision not to abort and the even more horrific attacks on her precious son are not going to end anytime soon. There is that little voice in the back of my mind that says let them keep it up because they will attack themselves right out of the election. In this instance though, I told the voice to shut up. This child is not a political football for anybody. The attacks on him and about him need to stop.
Finally, to prove that she is not only an idiot but also has the usual liberal penchant for denying the obvious, Ms Fowler continued:
“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said. Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."
Finally we have Matt Damon. Mr. Damon told the Associated Press that he thought that a Palin Presidency would be like a “bad Disney movie” Story here:
"I think there's a really good chance Sarah Palin could become president, and I think that's a really scary thing," he told the Associated Press, referring to the Republican vice presidential nominee.
Damon suggested the odds are John McCain won't survive his first term.
"It's like a really bad Disney movie," he said. "The hockey mom, you know, 'Oh, I'm just a hockey mom'... and she's facing down [Russian] President Putin... It's totally absurd... It's a really terrifying possibility."
Further, to show he’s no political dummy, Mr. Damon offered up the analysis that the pick of Palin by McCain was for "political purposes.". You can almost see him nodding his head knowingly and winking.
The best part of this is a quote by him in Conde Nast Traveler last month:
"For a lot of actors, our biggest fear is that we're going to start talking about things we don't fully understand and sound like idiots," he said. "In the long run, I'll do much more good if, when I open my mouth, I have something worth saying."
He may want to go back and review that article again, because this was actually pretty good advice to himself.
Love them or not, the far left can be fun.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Mr. Hill made the comment that he did not think Sarah Palin would be an effective leader. What he forgot was that he was not on The Today Show or MSNBC. In a venue like this or any other number of other liberal networks, the comment would have been allowed to stand. Bill O’Reilly asked why he believed Palin could not be an effective leader. Mr. Hill stammered and said ‘well I don’t agree with her policy’ at which O’Reilly pointed out that this was not a legitimate argument.
This exchange pointed out two issues. One, the exchange illustrates why liberals do not like to go on Fox News. Fox is not the far right boogeyman they make them out to be. The problem liberals have with Fox is that they are not allowed to spew their Democratic Party talking points unchallenged. They are often put in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their statements and often cannot. Second is that the left is bereft of ideas. All they really have are these talking points. When they are asked to expand on them, they have nothing. He doesn’t think she will make an effective leader, not for a rational reason but because he doesn’t agree with her.
The second incident was reaction to a Sarah Palin comment. Sarah Palin made a comment about small town people and Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun Times took it as a racist quote. Note: quoted by Bill O’Reilly.
Sarah Palin: “We grow good people in our small towns with honesty, integrity, and dignity.”
Mary Mitchell: Does that mean people who grow up in urban America are less honest, less sincere, and have less dignity.
First, the short answer is yes. I don’t want to make a blanket statement because clearly there are good and bad in small and large towns. With this said, I have lived in both and the bottom line is that by and large, there are better people in small towns, proportionally.
Further I do realize that Ms Mitchell did not mention race but, in my experience, for the left “urban America” is code word for minorities. Ms Palin was not attacking urban areas, she was making a simple statement complimenting small town people and as usual the leftist media is going take anything she says and twist it out of context. Conversely, Obama did attack small town people in his ‘clinging to guns and religion’ comment. I wonder, did Ms Mitchell rush to the defense of small town people?
I do have to say though that I want to thank these leftist whackjobs. I work full time and do my blogs often after working 12 hour shifts. If they keep this up, it makes it easier for me to write a blog, they almost do it for me. Oh, plus, every comment like this is another vote for McCain/Palin. So, to the left, keep up the good work.
Monday, September 8, 2008
This is curious considering that I went to her site and she has a post on the front page about the very issue, clearly acknowledging that the media is doing exactly what she was saying they were not. She even wrote a blog herself posing the question as to whether the pregnancy of Palin’s oldest daughter, Bristol, is fair game for discussion. Her thinking was that Sarah Palin’s support of abstinence only sex education makes the subject discussion worthy. I have an issue with this theory in that it feels that the left is saying that with Palin’s views, her daughters pregnancy is some sort of twisted Karma. This is not a legitimate point but instead is petty and mean spirited.
I realize that I have been attacking this site and I do not want to give that impression. I visited it and, truth be told, found little that I agreed with. With this said, I found it to be a well written site and some may find it worth visiting, especially mothers. The point here though is that she added credence to the argument that the left is being complicit with the vile attacks by the left leaning MSM. Listening to talk shows and perusing the internet, there is a lot of denial that these attacks are even happening. Additionally the denials tend to follow a pretty typical pattern. The person denies it is happening but then launches into a defense of why, if it were happening that is, it would be ok because…
Then we have this from Obama. Foxnews.com ran a story about Obama backing off of his promise to end Bush’s “tax cuts for the wealthy”. story here
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
Am I the only one who is seeing this? He is saying, quite clearly, that his rescinding the tax cuts will hurt the economy. What the Hell. The obvious next question is, why would he do it then in the first place? I have to say this again just for my self because it’s not sinking in. He is proposing tax increases that he believes will damage the economy but will do it anyways. Something that is almost as ridiculous is that I get the impression that he is giving himself credit for being responsible because he is delaying the cuts. Further ridiculousness is that roughly half of the voters are buying this nonsense.
Finally we have possibly the best Orwellian quote I have ever heard. Mort Kondracke of the Beltway Boys on Fox News was talking about Obama’s economic policy. He called the policy “Redistributionist Economics”. We no longer have socialism, we now have redistributionism. George Orwell would be proud, this is newspeak at it’s finest. I don’t know about you but I would rather not have my meager wealth redistributed, I like it right were it’s at.
All of this leaves us with the original question for these people, what color is the sky in your world?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Now the real question is, what do they mean by the GOP didn’t speak to Hispanics? Did they mean that the Hispanics weren’t watching? They know this isn’t true because the ratings numbers say that 1.4 million Hispanics watched, 200,000 more watched the GOP than the Democrats even though the GOP convention was not carried on Telemundo or Univision. Or, do they mean that the GOP didn’t pander to the Hispanics?
I felt that the GOP talked to Hispanics the same as they talked to African Americans, Asians, American Indians, Polish, Italians, etc. They further talked to women of these and all other races. The short is, they talked to all Americans.
They talked about national security, the economy, taxes, leadership, they talked about many topics that are of interest to Americans. What they didn’t do was break Americans down into racial or ethnic groups or gender. In other words, they didn’t pander to any one group. They didn’t make promises to any of these groups that they cannot keep.
The left has a problem with this. They like breaking Americans into groups. This supposedly makes these groups feel special, feel targeted. The problem with making one group feel special is that you are excluding someone else. Good luck trying to get the left to see this. The sad joke here is that they believe that by not “speaking to Hispanics” the GOP is being divisive. The truth is that the GOP, by not targeting special interests groups, was being far more inclusive than the Democrats.
Another thing I love is that the Dems had a slot scheduled on Wednesday night of their convention to honor the troops. So they were “speaking” to the troops at this time. I don’t think I heard a speaker at the GOP convention that didn’t “speak” to the troops. Imagine, penciling in a time to honor the troops, incredible.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m sick to death of politicians ‘talking to’ specific groups. I view it as not only divisive but I also can’t help when I hear this that they are actually talking down to these groups. They are saying that maybe they aren’t really a part of America. Maybe they don’t have the ability to succeed given the opportunities in America, we need to “speak” to them and target them for, something. I don’t get it.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Mike Huckabee gives a stirring speech at the RNC
Like everyone else, I loved Sarah Palin's speech to the RNC on Thursday night. I thought it was funny, poised, and a breath of fresh air for the GOP. I liked Rudy's speech also. I can't help but think that if he had shown this kind of passion during the primaries, he could have changed his fortunes considerably.
For all of this though, the most memorable moment of the night in my mind is this portion of the speech by Mike Huckabee, available here. The story he told about Martha Cothran, a teacher in Little Rock that wanted to teach her students a lesson about honor, sacrifice, and dedication was incredible. She would not let her students have desks until they could tell her how they could earn it. They could not figure it out throughout the day.
At the end of the day she had 27 veterans carry the desks in and arrange them in the room. The teacher told the students that they did not have to earn the desks, the veterans already had. This had the crowd in the convention center on their feet.
I am not an emotional person but seeing the one veteran wiping his eyes can choke anyone up.
It was Sarah's night but I wouldn't want Huckabee's great speech and wonderful story to get lost in all the excitement over her. He deserves our respect and thanks for sharing this touching story.
Finally, the men and women of the armed services deserve our respect and thanks for all they have earned for us.
Friday, September 5, 2008
I found the usual hateful statements and some that were quiet frankly bizarre. While wandering in the barbarous lands, I learned several things; one that the liberal media does not like Palin (I know, your shocked), she scares the Hell out of them, these networks can spin anything, and they don’t get too wrapped up in the whole truth thing.
Note: all emphasis is from me
First up is a couple of entries from The New York Times that I found through MSNBC:
We have this article Foreign Policy Factions Divide GOP
Hidden from view during much of the Republican convention here, a fierce struggle has been under way for the foreign policy heart of John McCain.
It centers on the deep schism inside the Republican Party over how to engage with the rest of the world, a running debate that has consumed different wings of the party and the Bush White House for the past seven and a half years.
To prove their theory of the deep schism the Times ran this quote from Henry Kissinger “As a nation we have to understand our reach, but also our limits,” I don’t know about you but I think this was damning of McCain’s policy, Kissinger really should go easier.
Additionally they included this
The debate over whether to seek democracy or stability is part of what Richard N. Haass, who directed policy planning at the State Department in Mr. Bush’s first term, calls “the single most important fault line in American foreign policy today.”
Do you see the word Republican in this statement?
Until I read this article, I didn’t realize how deep the divisions were in the GOP. The reality is that there is a divide in the Democratic party and it is making the leftists nervous. In response they are trying to manufacture fractures in the GOP in hopes that it will cause actual divisions. One needs no more proof of this than the networks talking about McCain having less support from the GOP than Obama has from the Dems when poll numbers actually show the opposite.
We have this article from the Times, Obama To Dispatch Female Surrogates
This doesn’t exactly fit with the theme of this blog but it was too fun to pass up.
Advisers to Mrs. Clinton, who has been on vacation this week, said that she stands ready to help the Obama-Biden ticket, but they urged not to overestimate the effect she could have, noting that she had other commitments this fall, like campaigning and raising money for Senate candidates.
Sounds like she is there for him all right. I’ve said this before and I sill believe it. Clinton is not going to help Obama. Her best interest is for him to lose, giving her the edge in 2012.
Then we have this gotcha article on Palin from ABC in which they were able to knock down some of the claims she made during her speech Wednesday. On Obama, Earmarks, Palin Less Than Honest
PALIN: "[Obama] is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word 'victory' except when he's talking about his own campaign."
FACT: On July 15, in a speech in Washington, D.C., Obama twice used the word "victory" in reference to Iraq.
"In fact," he said, "true success in Iraq -- victory in Iraq -- will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. ... I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success. That's what's best for Iraq, that's what's best for America, and that's why I will end this war as president.
You have to ask, is this bias or are they dimwitted enough to not realize she was talking about an American victory in Iraq. These statements by Obama do not talk about that.
Then they really nailed her on this one.
PALIN: While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay. I also drive myself to work.
FACT: Soon after entering office, Palin put the state-owned Westwind II jet that her predecessor Frank Murkowski purchased amid much criticism. When the deal fell through with the sole eBay bidder, the plane was sold offline.
This one is too stupid to bother commenting on. They also added this about her driving for good measure.
Palin, as she said, drives herself to work. In July, her Chevy Suburban was rear-ended while driving from Wasilla to her office in downtown Anchorage.
I’m not even sure what the Hell the relevance of this is.
Then we have this incomprehensible statement in this article Highly Partisan Reception Greets Palin as V.P. Pick on ABC
Sarah Palin is receiving a highly partisan reception on the national political stage, with significant public doubts about her readiness to serve as president, yet majority approval of both her selection by John McCain and her willingness to join the Republican ticket.
I didn’t know you could fit this many contradictions in one paragraph. This takes practice.
Now as a final bonus, I have some interesting ratings numbers from the Wednesday night speech for you. This is from CBS, these are numbers you won’t see thrown around a lot on the network news programs. Article here:
According to Nielsen, 37.2 million people watched the speech on six networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News Channel, and MSNBC). That is just 1.1 million less than watched Obama's speech last Thursday night. Compare that to the estimated 24 million who watched Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden's speech last Wednesday night.
According to Nielsen, Palin also attracted 19.5 million women, which is 4.9 million more than watched Biden. And 1.4 million Hispanic viewers watched, which is more than the 1.2 million who watched day 3 of the Democratic convention, even though Univision and Telemundo did not carry Palin's speech last night. In fact, it's also of note that Palin's speech was carried by four less networks than Obama's speech (BET and TV One also showed Obama).
Well, that’s it for now. For one thing, I think I need a another shower.
Update: Reports are showing that McCain drew more viewers than Obama. Setting a new record for viewership. This is with two fewer channels showing the speech. So much for the effect of BET and TV One. Me thinks The One's star is diming.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Sarah Palin was incredible last night. I had a feeling she would be good and I was wrong, she was amazing. She had poise, humor, and moxie. This is a word you don’t get to use often but it seems to be apt here. She proved last night that she will not take any nonsense from the left and she put them on notice that she’s coming for them. I can’t say enough.
It appears not everyone shares this enthusiasm though. Like everyone else I’ve been pouring over the news articles about her today and I noticed one thing, the articles came in one of three basic styles. The authors where either impressed with her speech, gave her grudging respect, or were scared of what her speech portended.
One such article is this one I found linked to on the Drudge Report today. This article by Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times was in the latter category. Some of the excerpts from the article (in red) are:
The people who cooked up this scheme don't care whether Palin will be a heartbeat away from the presidency if something happens to the 72-year-old McCain.
Palin's on the ticket because she's a woman and she isn't afraid to engage in the Republicans' mean-spirited personal attacks.
It’s always the GOP who have the mean spirited attacks, these same liberal commentators were complaining that Obama was not getting tough enough on the GOP.
"They loved their country in good times and bad, and they are always proud of America," Palin said an obvious dig at Michelle Obama, during her remarks about her small-town roots.
"In small towns, we don't heap praise on working people when they are listening and talk about how bitter they are and they cling to their religions and guns when those people aren't listening,"
"We prefer candidates who don't talk to us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."
Those are the kinds of jabs the Obama campaign will have a difficult time dealing with simply because Palin is a female, and the campaign will not want to appear to be sexist.
First of all, they had no problem attacking Hillary. Second the above quotes, including Michelle’s, were directly from Michelle and Barack Obama themselves. It is not an attack if your calling them on something they said. An attack is when you spread lies questioning who the mother of Palin’s child is.
On Wednesday night, Palin introduced her three daughters, including her 17-year-old pregnant daughter Bristol, who was seated with the young man who fathered her baby.
Yet earlier, when reporters reported her daughter's pregnancy and debated the issues surrounding that pregnancy, we became the problem.
You’ve gotta love this. The poor journalists being attacked because they are targeting Palin’s family. This girl is not running for president and therefore her pregnancy is not up for “debate”
"I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone," Palin said.
"But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion -- I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."
Palin showed that she could be as sarcastic as the most experienced politician.
She skillfully used one-line zingers and attacked Obama without ever using his name.
"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those who use their careers to promote change,"
Palin energized the Republican convention. No doubt about that.
She's a fighter, all right.
While McCain's big gamble that put Palin on the ticket as his vice presidential pick might be a scheme -- the battle is real.
It’s easy to dismiss this article as another attack piece by a far left whackjob. That is an oversimplification though. This article is not really an attack piece, it is whiny and full of fear. “-- the battle is real.” This line sums up the entire article. The left thought they were going to run off Palin or at the very least, cause her to cower and wilt under their senseless attacks. There have been rumors floating around that the left may have been participating in a loosely coordinated attack on her to force McCain to drop her from the ticket. The word is that a lot of them were giving her two weeks.
She showed them she wasn’t having any of that. They are not running her off. I think there may be some realization dawning on the left that instead of running her off, she may just keep them from getting their Messiah elected. Last night did not go as they planned. Last night instead of wilting, she came out and smashed them in the mouth like a good hockey mom would. Who’s wilting now?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
John McCain, in an interview, could not remember how many houses he and his wife owned. For most of us this seems like a ridiculous notion, not remembering how many houses we own. I, for one only own 20% of a house, my credit union owns the rest.
For the McCain’s the question isn’t as simple. They own several houses, most of them for investment. For McCain, the question would have been just as relevant if they had asked him how much stock he owned in, say General Motors, he likely doesn’t know off of the top of his head. Also, he doesn’t own all of the houses himself, his wife owns some of them.
The reality is though is that this is not about houses or who owns what. If it was, we would be talking about Obama’s house and the shady circumstances under which it was bought.
This is about the liberals derision over anyone that has self reliance and ambition and has the audacity to succeed without government handouts. Cindy McCain said it best with this:
"My father had nothing. He and my mother sold everything they had to raise $10,000," she said. "I'm proud of what my dad and my mother did and what they built and left me. And I intend to carry their legacy as long as I can."
The problem is that this goes against everything the libs stand for. Under liberal dogma, people are not encouraged to be responsible for themselves and be successful without governmental assistance. Anyone who has the audacity to do this is an elitist and clearly benefited from some unfair advantage, completely ignoring the fact that their theory of affirmative action and government assistance is the worst form of special advantages.
Another interesting part of this attack is that they are going completely against another of their bedrock principles, that women are equal to men and do not need men to be successful. While I believe that women can be what they want and preach this to my daughter every chance I get, they seem to be a little hazy on the issue.
If you were to take their attack to it’s logical conclusion, you find it to be quite paternalistic and condescending to Cindy McCain and all women in general. John McCain’s the man, he should know what is going on with their investments. Cindy McCain is just a woman, she couldn’t have her own investments even though it is largely her wealth, without her husband knowing what is going on.
Before anyone thinks I have ran out and joined NOW and become a feminist, realize I believe a marriage should be a true partnership and both husband and wife should know what is going on, if both choose to do so. In our case, my wife is bored to death with investments and prefers that I take care of it. On the other hand, she pays the bills and I couldn’t even tell you how much our house payment is. This is not borne of any sexual identity, it is from the fact that she doesn’t like dealing with big issues like buying a car or investing and I could not be trusted to pay the bills. We would be living in a cardboard box if not for her genius with balancing a budget.
The point is though, that the Democrats forget just about anything with their ideology when it’s politically convenient, in this case women’s rights.
So come on folks, eat the rich. We can’t tolerate having these self-made people around. We need to tax them and give the money to the people without ambition. This will teach them to earn their own living.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
First though, I want to share a good blog that I came across today. This is a blog from John Moody at Fox News blogs
Shut Up and Do Something!
John McCain’s decision to cancel all but necessary ceremonies at the Republican convention this week drew respectful notice from his own and the Democratic Party. It was, simply put, the right thing to do. McCain knows that there are more important things going on in the country than his own glorification.
So how come the protesters gathered in the Twin Cities didn’t get the message? Gustav or not, misery in New Orleans or not, they’re determined to march, make noise, make the police muster in force, get themselves arrested, and generally call attention to their various complaints.
Wouldn’t their efforts be put to better use if, for example, they called off their protests, rented themselves a charter bus to the Gulf Coast, and tried to do some good for the victims of the hurricane?
It’s the difference between mature leadership and rabble-rousing, the gap between respectful disagreement and show-boating. The standard bearer of the GOP knows that his week would be tarnished by ignoring the ravages of Gustav and pretending nothing was happening. Thedemonstrators in St. Paul should learn from his example.
Now this is not only a good blog, it also helps back up what I said. McCain shows leadership and tells the GOP we’re going to put politics aside and focus on the people suffering in the Gulf states. Where was Obama? He didn’t take the same leadership. He couldn’t even admonish one of the super delegates for saying that the hurricane was a gift from God.
Now on to the attacks by the left that Obama is still not addressing.
First we have this out of Red State in which they are announcing that the Alaskan Democratic party has released an opposition paper sent to media outlets. In this release the party has listed Palin’s social security number, minus the last four digits and her address. This is despicable and as, Red State notes is reminiscent of the Democratic Party using Michael Steele’s social security number to access his credit report in 2005.
Then we have Fatima Ali from the Philadelphia Daily News saying this:
If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!
Admittedly this has nothing to do with the Palin attacks but I just couldn’t resist adding this.
Finally, I saved the best for last. This is one of the most vile, retched things I have read about a political candidate and I believe this is exactly what Obama was hoping for. This is Susan Reimer from the Baltimore Sun.
You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.
(When James Dobson, the conservative Christian radio host who fancies himself a kingmaker, jumped up to say that the selection of Palin means he can now "pull the lever" for John McCain, I almost felt sick. I don't know what I'll do if she trots out the story of her 5-month-old baby to shore up the Republican base.)
Fisherman, sportswoman, hunter. Speaks truth to power in a state corrupted by oil. Has a son headed to Iraq. A woman who made the decision to carry to term a baby she knew to be developmentally disabled.
These are not only repulsive things to say about Palin but also bring up another point about the left, the fact that they seem to be absolutely offended that a woman would choose to carry her baby to term. Heaven forbid this baby should be handicapped. She clearly should have snuffed out this less than perfect life. They cannot comprehend the notion that a child like this is a life and any life is a gift to be cherished, not ashamed of. I like tough politics and I will be sarcastic and a little harsh but I generally try not to be too nasty. With this said, this woman can take her hateful comments and go straight to Hell.
As of this writing, we are still waiting for Obama to come out and really disavow this hate speech. I for one am not holding my breath.