Unless we take immediate action, some conservative legislators may cave in and give up when it comes to giving the American people a measure of energy independence and relief from high prices at the gas pump.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just played his trump card, which is the political equivalent of blackmail and extortion.
Simply put, Reid is telling conservatives in Congress to give up on "drill here, drill now" ... agree to "sham" legislation that will increase your taxes and drive up your cost for gasoline at the pump ... or he'll make sure conservatives take the blame for shutting down the government.
According to the Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill:
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cautioned Republicans Monday against forcing a government shutdown over expanded oil drilling while noting increased support for bipartisan energy legislation... Republicans are mulling whether to press the offshore oil drilling fight by blocking the funding resolution, which contains the congressional moratorium on such drilling. Reid reminded the GOP that its government shutdown led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) during the Clinton administration was met with widespread public disapproval."
Reid went on to self-righteously pontificate:
"We are not interested in any games being played. We simply want to make sure the government is allowed to function. There have been Republicans saying what they want to do is close down the government. I would hope that some of those people have read very recent history where Gingrich tried to do that and it didn't work out well for the Republicans and certainly didn't work out well for this country."
The only ones playing games here are Harry Reid and his liberal cohorts in Congress.
This sickening gamesmanship and disgusting political maneuvering beg some rather obvious questions:
What does a moratorium on drilling have to do with funding the United States government in the first place?
Why not take the drilling moratorium out of the funding resolution and allow a fair-up-or-down vote on domestic drilling?
That's why we have our own message for Reid and his liberal allies in Congress who are dead set on raising the price of gasoline and keeping us dependent on foreign oil at the behest of left-wing special interests.
Harry Reid needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that holding the American people hostage is not a "game" and the American people are not going to let him get away with it!
Moreover, our elected leaders (particularly the conservatives in Congress who have bravely championed the call for domestic drilling and lower prices at the pump) need to understand that NO LIBERAL-INSPIRED "COMPROMISE" OR SO-CALLED "COMPREHENSIVE" LEGISLATION WILL BE TOLERATED... PERIOD!
If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and liberals in the House and Senate want to play games and shut the government down over this issue... SO BE IT! The American people will know who is to blame!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Are Conservatives Already Starting To Waffle?
John Gizzi with Human Events thinks so.
"The White House wouldn’t rule out signing a continuing resolution to fund the government that includes a ban on offshore drilling. That response from Press Secretary Dana Perino this afternoon has several on the pro-energy side a bit nervous as to just how fully committed the Bush Administration is to making off-shore drilling happen."
But Gizzi goes on to say what Republicans should be doing... how they should be playing the game:
"Fair enough. But wouldn’t it also help make an appropriations bill move a bit if the threat of a veto of a CR with a ban on offshore drilling were put on the table now?"
Gizzi is 100 percent right! Why can't conservatives play hardball? Why can't President Bush threaten to veto legislation that does not contain adequate provisions for domestic drilling? Why can't conservatives in Congress stand up to Reid’s political games?
That last question is gaining importance because it would appear that a growing number of conservative legislators are starting to waffle!
According to TheStreet.com:
"Senate Majority Leader Reid has placed his faith for compromise in the so-called 'Gang of 10,' which has increased now to 16 senators."
The Associated Press reports:
"A bipartisan group, originally known as the Gang of Ten, that has crafted a drilling compromise gained more members and has grown to 22 senators."
So why are they running for the hills?
The crux of the problem is that too many of our conservative legislators actually believe the American people WILL BLAME THEM for a government shutdown!
What they need to hear from each and every one of us RIGHT NOW is that the American people WILL BLAME THEM if they "compromise" or vote in favor of so-called "comprehensive" legislation .
They need to know that YOU WANT THEM TO STAND FIRM!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
The Choice Is Between Energy Independence And Lower Prices At The Pump Or Higher Taxes And Higher Prices At The Pump!
Harry Reid actually had the nerve to issue the following statement:
"It should be clear to all that we are offering Republicans multiple opportunities to vote for increased drilling, which they have chosen to make their marquee legislative priority and campaign issue. We offered votes on drilling before the August recess, and Republicans rejected our offers. This time, I hope Republicans will put their votes where their mouths are to pass comprehensive legislation that includes drilling."
The statement is outright deceptive!
What Reid and his liberals cohorts have actually offered are "sham bills" designed to increase our taxes, increase the cost of gasoline at the pump and increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Here's what House Minority Leader John Boehner had to say:
"Instead of giving the American people the energy bill they expect and deserve, it appears that Democrats will bring up another sham bill loaded up with tax hikes and failed energy policies that will raise gasoline prices further, not lower them. Any bill that puts 80 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf off limits permanently cannot be called an 'all of the above' energy plan, and the American people will not support it. We have three weeks left in this Congress, and it's time for the Democrats who control it to do the right thing and give Americans the energy vote they deserve."
Of course, Reid has yet to put his latest "sham" on the table, but it is likely to take the form of the so-called "compromise" legislation being offered by the ever-growing "Gang of Ten."
Here's what The Wall Street Journal wrote about that plan:
"Ask GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer what he thinks of the recent 'Gang of 10' Senate energy compromise, and his answer is short and not sweet: 'I'd call it 40% tax increase, 10% energy and 50% snake oil.'"
The Journal wrote in another piece wrote that; "The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better."
And the Institute for Energy Research called the "Gang of Ten" betrayal, as it was originally proposed, a blueprint for economic and electoral disaster and pointed out that this so-called "compromise" legislation:
severely limits potential production by only granting four coastal states the ability to opt out of energy bans;
imposes arbitrary 50-mile buffer zones that would exclude a wealth of potential resource deposits (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico's Destin Dome which is some 25 miles offshore) and;
possibly give the ban the force of permanent law for the first time ever.
In other words, liberals in Congress are basically telling us that we can drill for all the oil we want as long as we drill where there is NO OIL!
And now it would appear that some Republicans may actually succumb to Reid's legislative blackmail and vote in favor of "snake oil."
We can stop that from happening by taking immediate action!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax Messages to President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people will not stand for Harry Reid’s political games! Tell them that "drill here and drill now" means just that. Tell them that you expect them to lift the moratorium without any political games or so-called "compromise" bills.
And most importantly let our conservative elected officials know that if liberals intend to hold domestic drilling hostage to a potential government shutdown, the American people still want them to stand firm!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillvii.html
AOL Members May Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not function, copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
September 11, 2008
Obama Panicking Over Palin
Obama Panicking Over Palin
Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:10 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
Once upon a time it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. It didn’t work out that way.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that Barack Obama would win the presidency handily. That isn’t working out either.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that John McCain was in for a drubbing. Yet another inevitablility not working out.
In political campaigns, things can always change, of course, but as of now, it appears that John McCain is headed for the White House. That’s not inevitable, but at the moment it looks as if he’s headed for the winner’s circle, thanks largely to his choice of a running mate who has electrified most of the electorate.
The Obama campaign’s stunned reaction to this totally unexpected development has been at first to ridicule McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, then to underestimate the effect she was having on the McCain campaign, and now to go all-out in attacking her.
Obama’s reaction to this sudden turn in his fortunes has been nothing less that sheer and visible disorientation. It’s obvious that he simply doesn’t know which way to turn, and his confusion has led him to launch a sleazy campaign to destroy Gov. Palin’s reputation — no matter what it takes — before she destroys his presidential hopes.
A prime symptom of his disorientation was the ill-advised comment about putting lipstick on a pig. The old self-confident, sure-footed Barack Obama, safe in the cocoon woven about him by a worshipful media, would have understood the consequences of making such a remark and the almost certain probability that it would be a boomerang that would smite him on its return trip, and would have thus avoided it.
This disaster, however, is nothing compared to the catastrophe that is waiting in the wings as a result of his scorched-earth attack on Sarah Palin. Unable to grasp the obvious fact that the media’s ongoing effort to slander Palin is backfiring, he has allowed his campaign to dispatch an army of lawyers and private investigators to Alaska to dig for dirt in Palin’s backyard.
Obama must understand that Palin, with a favorability rating in excess of 80 percent, is unpopular among the old-boy’s network she has uprooted, and has easily fended off their attempts to damage her reputation.
Turning to these malcontents for ammunition, when their arsenal of anti-Palin weapons has proved worthless, is a massive waste of effort that is certain to backfire again. They haven’t made a dent in her popularity.
Nor will Obama’s scandal mongers. Try as they may to make a mountain over the so-called “troopergate” molehill, for example, they will have a hard time explaining why it would be wrong to want to see a four-times married and divorced law enforcement officer kept on the job when he had tasered his 11-year-old stepson, illegally shot a moose, drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion, and told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
According to the Anchorage Daily News: "Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, ‘The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession.’"
She warned that if he messed up again, he'd be fired.
"This discipline is meant to be a last chance to take corrective action," Grimes wrote. "You are hereby given notice that any further occurrences of these types of behaviors or incidents will not be tolerated and will result in your termination."
This is the man the media and the Obama gumshoes want to pillory Sarah Palin for wanting to have stripped of his badge and gun, and portray him as a victim of heartless Sarah.
Talk about panic.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:10 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
Once upon a time it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. It didn’t work out that way.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that Barack Obama would win the presidency handily. That isn’t working out either.
A few weeks ago, it seemed inevitable that John McCain was in for a drubbing. Yet another inevitablility not working out.
In political campaigns, things can always change, of course, but as of now, it appears that John McCain is headed for the White House. That’s not inevitable, but at the moment it looks as if he’s headed for the winner’s circle, thanks largely to his choice of a running mate who has electrified most of the electorate.
The Obama campaign’s stunned reaction to this totally unexpected development has been at first to ridicule McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, then to underestimate the effect she was having on the McCain campaign, and now to go all-out in attacking her.
Obama’s reaction to this sudden turn in his fortunes has been nothing less that sheer and visible disorientation. It’s obvious that he simply doesn’t know which way to turn, and his confusion has led him to launch a sleazy campaign to destroy Gov. Palin’s reputation — no matter what it takes — before she destroys his presidential hopes.
A prime symptom of his disorientation was the ill-advised comment about putting lipstick on a pig. The old self-confident, sure-footed Barack Obama, safe in the cocoon woven about him by a worshipful media, would have understood the consequences of making such a remark and the almost certain probability that it would be a boomerang that would smite him on its return trip, and would have thus avoided it.
This disaster, however, is nothing compared to the catastrophe that is waiting in the wings as a result of his scorched-earth attack on Sarah Palin. Unable to grasp the obvious fact that the media’s ongoing effort to slander Palin is backfiring, he has allowed his campaign to dispatch an army of lawyers and private investigators to Alaska to dig for dirt in Palin’s backyard.
Obama must understand that Palin, with a favorability rating in excess of 80 percent, is unpopular among the old-boy’s network she has uprooted, and has easily fended off their attempts to damage her reputation.
Turning to these malcontents for ammunition, when their arsenal of anti-Palin weapons has proved worthless, is a massive waste of effort that is certain to backfire again. They haven’t made a dent in her popularity.
Nor will Obama’s scandal mongers. Try as they may to make a mountain over the so-called “troopergate” molehill, for example, they will have a hard time explaining why it would be wrong to want to see a four-times married and divorced law enforcement officer kept on the job when he had tasered his 11-year-old stepson, illegally shot a moose, drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion, and told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
According to the Anchorage Daily News: "Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, ‘The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession.’"
She warned that if he messed up again, he'd be fired.
"This discipline is meant to be a last chance to take corrective action," Grimes wrote. "You are hereby given notice that any further occurrences of these types of behaviors or incidents will not be tolerated and will result in your termination."
This is the man the media and the Obama gumshoes want to pillory Sarah Palin for wanting to have stripped of his badge and gun, and portray him as a victim of heartless Sarah.
Talk about panic.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
September 10, 2008
Obama And 9/11
I CAN'T INGINE OBUMA AS POOP PUMPER MUCH LESS PRESIDENT
Obama And 9/11
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The Anniversary: Eight days after terrorism declared war on America, a young state senator blamed it on "a failure of empathy" — yet another reason why Barack Obama should never be commander in chief.
The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine got a lot of attention for its cover, which carried a "satirical" cartoon depicting Michelle and Barack Obama that Obama supporters found tasteless and offensive. Buried inside that issue's feature story, however, was a reaction by Obama to 9/11 that all voters should find even more tasteless and offensive.
The article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept. 19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown and otherwise undistinguished state senator from Illinois. The senator, a former community organizer, wrote that after tightening security at our airports and repairing our intelligence networks, we "must also engage . . . in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness."
According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles aimed at our centers of finance, government and military power "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
As if the answer to the attacks should have been food stamps for al-Qaida.
Sen. Obama advised caution and warned of overreacting. "We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad," he wrote. "We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent."
We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.
In an opinion piece in Commentary magazine, writer Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."
As Greenwald put it, Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?" Did poverty and despair also cause the Weather Underground member and host of Obama's first fundraiser to bomb government buildings?
Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:
Osama bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9/11 and other major attacks, has a degree in mechanical engineering. Mohammed Atta, who flew a jet into the World Trade Center, is the son of a lawyer and earned a master's degree in urban planning at Hamburg University. Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. Seven doctors were involved in the London-Glasgow bomb plots.
You get the idea, even if Barack Obama doesn't.
In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush pointed out the real reasons Islamofascists hate us: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he said.
Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.
Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.
Email To Friend |
Obama And 9/11
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The Anniversary: Eight days after terrorism declared war on America, a young state senator blamed it on "a failure of empathy" — yet another reason why Barack Obama should never be commander in chief.
The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine got a lot of attention for its cover, which carried a "satirical" cartoon depicting Michelle and Barack Obama that Obama supporters found tasteless and offensive. Buried inside that issue's feature story, however, was a reaction by Obama to 9/11 that all voters should find even more tasteless and offensive.
The article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept. 19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown and otherwise undistinguished state senator from Illinois. The senator, a former community organizer, wrote that after tightening security at our airports and repairing our intelligence networks, we "must also engage . . . in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness."
According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles aimed at our centers of finance, government and military power "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
As if the answer to the attacks should have been food stamps for al-Qaida.
Sen. Obama advised caution and warned of overreacting. "We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad," he wrote. "We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent."
We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.
In an opinion piece in Commentary magazine, writer Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."
As Greenwald put it, Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?" Did poverty and despair also cause the Weather Underground member and host of Obama's first fundraiser to bomb government buildings?
Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:
Osama bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9/11 and other major attacks, has a degree in mechanical engineering. Mohammed Atta, who flew a jet into the World Trade Center, is the son of a lawyer and earned a master's degree in urban planning at Hamburg University. Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. Seven doctors were involved in the London-Glasgow bomb plots.
You get the idea, even if Barack Obama doesn't.
In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush pointed out the real reasons Islamofascists hate us: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he said.
Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.
Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.
Email To Friend |
A 'Macaca' Moment For Obama?
A 'Macaca' Moment For Obama?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Back when he led the polls, Barack Obama gallantly promised a new, post-partisan politics. Now his lead is gone, and he's getting personal about Sarah Palin. However he justifies it, he's starting to look small.
Ever since the governor of Alaska joined the Republican ticket, Team Obama has been at a loss about how to take her on. For a while, they just called Gov. Palin the "mayor of Wasilla" and "lieutenant governor" of the state. But now they've turned to far worse code words in a bid to psychologically demean her.
On Tuesday in Virginia, Obama himself sank to levels not even plumbed by Joe Biden. He basically called the GOP's vice presidential contender a stinking fish and a pig, all to the knowing cheers of his audience.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he told his crowd. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink. We've had enough of the same old thing."
But rest assured, Obama said when questioned later, the statement was "innocent."
We're not so sure. In light of Palin's reference to pit bulls and lipstick in her convention speech last week, and her nickname of Barracuda, Obama's remark looked like a bid to psychologically bully her with an arpeggio of trash talk.
It also wasn't spontaneous. Obama's remarks leading into the lipstick comment appeared to be lifted from a Sept. 5 political cartoon by the Washington Post's Tom Toles. Confidently delivered, Obama's lines were all memorized.
The hostility of it all echoes politician George Allen's exasperated identification of an Indian-American filmmaker who was stalking him as "macaca," a patronizing remark that sank his campaign. It's made worse because claims of sexism against Obama from disgruntled Hillary Clinton Democrats are already a live issue.
It was hip and modern Obama, not crotchety old John McCain, who called a female reporter "sweetie" on the campaign trail, noting in his apology that it was a bad habit.
Meanwhile, feminist columnist Tammy Bruce wrote recently that Obama just didn't compare Hillary Clinton to actress Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." He actually said: "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." He effectively reduced her strong electoral challenge to premenstrual syndrome.
Obama then refused to even consider Clinton as his running mate, despite the votes she'd bring. It infuriated many female voters.
The mate he did pick, Joe Biden, has shown at least as much befuddlement. After solicitously complimenting Palin on her looks, he called Palin the "lieutenant governor" of Alaska.
Obama himself has condescendingly referred to Palin's motherhood to deflect voter attention from her successful role as governor. "She hasn't been on the scene, you know, she's got five kids and my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he smarmed.
His supporters in the left-wing blogosphere reflected the tone Obama had set, obsessively Googling for Palin bikini pictures, and photoshopping their own when they couldn't find any.
Why would someone like Obama, presumably from the "enlightened" liberal branch of the Democratic Party, stoop to such apparent misogyny in lieu of confronting Palin as a political opponent?
It's not merely that she's got a stellar record as governor that eclipses his record by comparison, but perhaps the crude identity politics of the Democratic platform as well.
Democrats don't see voters as individuals, but as special interest groups. They pigeonhole them into narrow agendas and identities, and anyone who dares to stand outside that is considered a nonperson. They can be degraded.
In Denver, the main spoil Democrats offered to women was abortion on demand, not party power. No small wonder, then, that a Democrat leader Wednesday said McCain chose Palin, "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."
Governor of Alaska, our biggest energy state? A reformer who took on her own party? Initiator of the world's largest construction project in the $40 billion trans-Canada natural gas pipeline? National Guard chief in our most strategic state?
These are real achievements. Democrats could challenge them, but they have little to offer instead.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Back when he led the polls, Barack Obama gallantly promised a new, post-partisan politics. Now his lead is gone, and he's getting personal about Sarah Palin. However he justifies it, he's starting to look small.
Ever since the governor of Alaska joined the Republican ticket, Team Obama has been at a loss about how to take her on. For a while, they just called Gov. Palin the "mayor of Wasilla" and "lieutenant governor" of the state. But now they've turned to far worse code words in a bid to psychologically demean her.
On Tuesday in Virginia, Obama himself sank to levels not even plumbed by Joe Biden. He basically called the GOP's vice presidential contender a stinking fish and a pig, all to the knowing cheers of his audience.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he told his crowd. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink. We've had enough of the same old thing."
But rest assured, Obama said when questioned later, the statement was "innocent."
We're not so sure. In light of Palin's reference to pit bulls and lipstick in her convention speech last week, and her nickname of Barracuda, Obama's remark looked like a bid to psychologically bully her with an arpeggio of trash talk.
It also wasn't spontaneous. Obama's remarks leading into the lipstick comment appeared to be lifted from a Sept. 5 political cartoon by the Washington Post's Tom Toles. Confidently delivered, Obama's lines were all memorized.
The hostility of it all echoes politician George Allen's exasperated identification of an Indian-American filmmaker who was stalking him as "macaca," a patronizing remark that sank his campaign. It's made worse because claims of sexism against Obama from disgruntled Hillary Clinton Democrats are already a live issue.
It was hip and modern Obama, not crotchety old John McCain, who called a female reporter "sweetie" on the campaign trail, noting in his apology that it was a bad habit.
Meanwhile, feminist columnist Tammy Bruce wrote recently that Obama just didn't compare Hillary Clinton to actress Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." He actually said: "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." He effectively reduced her strong electoral challenge to premenstrual syndrome.
Obama then refused to even consider Clinton as his running mate, despite the votes she'd bring. It infuriated many female voters.
The mate he did pick, Joe Biden, has shown at least as much befuddlement. After solicitously complimenting Palin on her looks, he called Palin the "lieutenant governor" of Alaska.
Obama himself has condescendingly referred to Palin's motherhood to deflect voter attention from her successful role as governor. "She hasn't been on the scene, you know, she's got five kids and my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he smarmed.
His supporters in the left-wing blogosphere reflected the tone Obama had set, obsessively Googling for Palin bikini pictures, and photoshopping their own when they couldn't find any.
Why would someone like Obama, presumably from the "enlightened" liberal branch of the Democratic Party, stoop to such apparent misogyny in lieu of confronting Palin as a political opponent?
It's not merely that she's got a stellar record as governor that eclipses his record by comparison, but perhaps the crude identity politics of the Democratic platform as well.
Democrats don't see voters as individuals, but as special interest groups. They pigeonhole them into narrow agendas and identities, and anyone who dares to stand outside that is considered a nonperson. They can be degraded.
In Denver, the main spoil Democrats offered to women was abortion on demand, not party power. No small wonder, then, that a Democrat leader Wednesday said McCain chose Palin, "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."
Governor of Alaska, our biggest energy state? A reformer who took on her own party? Initiator of the world's largest construction project in the $40 billion trans-Canada natural gas pipeline? National Guard chief in our most strategic state?
These are real achievements. Democrats could challenge them, but they have little to offer instead.
Email To Friend |
McCain Has Proven He's a Change Agent
McCain Has Proven He's a Change Agent
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:26 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Now that the conventions are over, it is evident that the battle of John McCain is over (McCain won), and the battle of Barack Obama will determine the outcome of the election.
Now that McCain has definitively, and I suspect irreversibly, separated himself from Bush, he has become an acceptable alternative to Obama for voters seeking change. The question now is whether Obama's extra quotient of change — or the different direction that change will take — is worth the risk of electing him.
Obama was wrong to invest so much in the Bush-McCain linkage. Any candidate can define himself at his convention. And if McCain chose, as he did, to use the gathering to distance himself from Washington and from the Bush administration, there was really nothing that Obama could do to stop him. He should have focused very specifically on McCain himself and taken shots at specific votes and bills that he introduced.
Now, after the massive exposure McCain got at his convention and the demonstrable commitment to change embodied in the selection of Sarah Palin, it is too late.
The Obama campaign doesn't seem to get that it is running against McCain, not Sarah Palin. They spent the entire Republican Convention and the week since attacking the vice presidential candidate. That's like stabbing the capillaries instead of the arteries.
Nobody is going to vote for or against McCain because they want Sarah Palin to be vice president of the United States, or don't. But Palin has served, and will serve, a key purpose in illustrating and demonstrating what kind of a man John McCain is. She stands as a tribute to his desire to bring change, his willingness to cut loose from the past, and his courage in attempting innovation.
No amount of criticism of Palin is going to stop that process. Obama needs to remember who his opponent is.
Now the election will hinge on a referendum on Obama. Is the extra healthcare coverage he would pass worth the huge tax increases he will impose?
Nobody buys his claim that he will only increase taxes on a few rich people and give the rest of us tax cuts. Voters can add, and they realize that his spending plans and tax-cut promises come to a trillion dollars and that his tax increases represent only one-tenth as much. They know that everyone who pays taxes will end up paying more if Obama is elected. The question will be, Is it worth it?
Is his commitment to income redistribution and increasing tax "fairness" worth the risk his tax plans pose for the economy?
Is his plan to pull out of Iraq and his commitment to multilateralism in foreign policy worth the risk of putting someone with virtually no foreign policy experience in charge of our international relations in the middle of a war?
Is his promise to respect the Constitution and ratchet back the intrusions of the Bush homeland security measures worth the extra risk of terror attack?
The answer to these questions will only partially depend on what Obama is proposing and on how sound we think his judgment is. They will also depend on the events that will transpire between now and Election Day.
If Iran moves closer to getting nuclear weapons or Israel attacks Iran to forestall that development, things could change in a hurry. If the current atmosphere of economic uncertainty and impending possible crisis — signaled by the federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — deepens, it may make voters less willing to risk the high taxes and big spending that Obama will bring in his wake.
If Russia continues to assert its imperial right to dominate Eastern Europe and restore a Soviet-style satellite empire, voters will wonder if they can take a chance on Obama.
But if things are relatively peaceful and uneventful, voters may bristle at the stagnation and turn to Obama in the hopes of change.
The key point is that this race is now not about Bush or McCain or Clinton or Palin. It's all about Obama.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Print Page |
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:26 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Now that the conventions are over, it is evident that the battle of John McCain is over (McCain won), and the battle of Barack Obama will determine the outcome of the election.
Now that McCain has definitively, and I suspect irreversibly, separated himself from Bush, he has become an acceptable alternative to Obama for voters seeking change. The question now is whether Obama's extra quotient of change — or the different direction that change will take — is worth the risk of electing him.
Obama was wrong to invest so much in the Bush-McCain linkage. Any candidate can define himself at his convention. And if McCain chose, as he did, to use the gathering to distance himself from Washington and from the Bush administration, there was really nothing that Obama could do to stop him. He should have focused very specifically on McCain himself and taken shots at specific votes and bills that he introduced.
Now, after the massive exposure McCain got at his convention and the demonstrable commitment to change embodied in the selection of Sarah Palin, it is too late.
The Obama campaign doesn't seem to get that it is running against McCain, not Sarah Palin. They spent the entire Republican Convention and the week since attacking the vice presidential candidate. That's like stabbing the capillaries instead of the arteries.
Nobody is going to vote for or against McCain because they want Sarah Palin to be vice president of the United States, or don't. But Palin has served, and will serve, a key purpose in illustrating and demonstrating what kind of a man John McCain is. She stands as a tribute to his desire to bring change, his willingness to cut loose from the past, and his courage in attempting innovation.
No amount of criticism of Palin is going to stop that process. Obama needs to remember who his opponent is.
Now the election will hinge on a referendum on Obama. Is the extra healthcare coverage he would pass worth the huge tax increases he will impose?
Nobody buys his claim that he will only increase taxes on a few rich people and give the rest of us tax cuts. Voters can add, and they realize that his spending plans and tax-cut promises come to a trillion dollars and that his tax increases represent only one-tenth as much. They know that everyone who pays taxes will end up paying more if Obama is elected. The question will be, Is it worth it?
Is his commitment to income redistribution and increasing tax "fairness" worth the risk his tax plans pose for the economy?
Is his plan to pull out of Iraq and his commitment to multilateralism in foreign policy worth the risk of putting someone with virtually no foreign policy experience in charge of our international relations in the middle of a war?
Is his promise to respect the Constitution and ratchet back the intrusions of the Bush homeland security measures worth the extra risk of terror attack?
The answer to these questions will only partially depend on what Obama is proposing and on how sound we think his judgment is. They will also depend on the events that will transpire between now and Election Day.
If Iran moves closer to getting nuclear weapons or Israel attacks Iran to forestall that development, things could change in a hurry. If the current atmosphere of economic uncertainty and impending possible crisis — signaled by the federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — deepens, it may make voters less willing to risk the high taxes and big spending that Obama will bring in his wake.
If Russia continues to assert its imperial right to dominate Eastern Europe and restore a Soviet-style satellite empire, voters will wonder if they can take a chance on Obama.
But if things are relatively peaceful and uneventful, voters may bristle at the stagnation and turn to Obama in the hopes of change.
The key point is that this race is now not about Bush or McCain or Clinton or Palin. It's all about Obama.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Print Page |
Enjoy
THIS SENT VIA SEVERAL READERS AND FRIENDS OF FRIENDS THANKS TO ALL ESPECIALLY ALICE
Enjoy
Enjoy
One of Them and One of Us
by Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders: What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain? What is there either in this woman's record or resume to elicit such feline ferocity?
What did we know of her when she was introduced?
That she was a mother of five who had brought into this world a baby boy with Down syndrome, thus living her Christian beliefs. That she was a small-town conservative who had risen from mayor of Wasilla (Pop. 9,700) to be governor of a state twice the size of Texas .
That she was a reformer who had dethroned an Old Boys' Network by dumping a sitting Republican governor. That she had taken on Big Oil, taxed the companies and returned the money in $1,200 checks to every citizen of Alaska . And that she had cut a deal with Canada to build a pipeline to bring natural gas to her fellow Americans.
And, oh, yes. She was "Sarah Barracuda" -- a fierce high school athlete, a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, a Feminist for Life and lifetime member of the NRA. Introduced by McCain, she praised Hillary Clinton and pledged to finish her work by smashing through the glass ceiling in which Hillary had made 18 million cracks.
What, in any or all of this, is there to justify the feral attacks within minutes of her introduction? What had she done to cause this outburst? Answer: absolutely nothing.
No. Sarah Palin is not resented for what she has done, but for who she is: a Christian conservative who believes unborn children are gifts of God, even those with birth defects, and have a God-given right to life.
Normally, the press is reluctant to rummage into the private lives of public servants, unless their conduct affects their duties or they preach virtues they hypocritically do not practice.
Yet, no sooner was Palin introduced, than the media went berserk over the news that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. As one in three births in America is out-of-wedlock and Hollywood celebrates this lifestyle, why did The New York Times and The Washington Post splash this "news" on page one above the fold?
How does Bristol Palin's pregnancy disqualify Sarah Palin to be vice president? Why is it even relevant?
They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.
So out of bounds was the media that Obama, in an act of decency, declared Palin's family off limits and reminded the media that he was himself born to a teenage single mom.
If one would wish to see the famous liberal double standard on naked display, consider.
Palin's daughter was fair game for a media that refused to look into reports that John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president, was conducting an illicit affair with a woman said to be carrying his child and cheating on his faithful wife Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. That was not a legitimate story, but Bristol Palin's pregnancy is?
Why did the selection of Sarah Palin cause a suspension of all standards and a near riot among a media that has been so in the tank for Barack even "Saturday Night Live" has satirized the infatuation?
Because she is one of us -- and he is one of them.
Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia , Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State . Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.
Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope . Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America -- until Barack started winning.
Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black-power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.
Sarah is a rebel. Obama has been a go-along, get-along cog in the Daley Machine. She is Middle America . Barack, behind closed doors in San Francisco , mocked Middle Americans as folks left behind by the global economy who cling bitterly to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.
Barack has zero foreign policy experience. Palin runs a state that is home to anti-missile, missile and air defense bases facing the Far East, commands the Alaska National Guard and has a soldier-son heading for Iraq .
Barack, says the National Journal, has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, besting Socialist Bernie Sanders. Palin's stances read as though they were lifted from Reagan's 1980 "no pale pastels" platform. And this is what this media firestorm is all about.
-----------
Read more articles like this at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE!
http://www.humanevents.com/
Enjoy
Enjoy
One of Them and One of Us
by Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders: What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain? What is there either in this woman's record or resume to elicit such feline ferocity?
What did we know of her when she was introduced?
That she was a mother of five who had brought into this world a baby boy with Down syndrome, thus living her Christian beliefs. That she was a small-town conservative who had risen from mayor of Wasilla (Pop. 9,700) to be governor of a state twice the size of Texas .
That she was a reformer who had dethroned an Old Boys' Network by dumping a sitting Republican governor. That she had taken on Big Oil, taxed the companies and returned the money in $1,200 checks to every citizen of Alaska . And that she had cut a deal with Canada to build a pipeline to bring natural gas to her fellow Americans.
And, oh, yes. She was "Sarah Barracuda" -- a fierce high school athlete, a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, a Feminist for Life and lifetime member of the NRA. Introduced by McCain, she praised Hillary Clinton and pledged to finish her work by smashing through the glass ceiling in which Hillary had made 18 million cracks.
What, in any or all of this, is there to justify the feral attacks within minutes of her introduction? What had she done to cause this outburst? Answer: absolutely nothing.
No. Sarah Palin is not resented for what she has done, but for who she is: a Christian conservative who believes unborn children are gifts of God, even those with birth defects, and have a God-given right to life.
Normally, the press is reluctant to rummage into the private lives of public servants, unless their conduct affects their duties or they preach virtues they hypocritically do not practice.
Yet, no sooner was Palin introduced, than the media went berserk over the news that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. As one in three births in America is out-of-wedlock and Hollywood celebrates this lifestyle, why did The New York Times and The Washington Post splash this "news" on page one above the fold?
How does Bristol Palin's pregnancy disqualify Sarah Palin to be vice president? Why is it even relevant?
They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.
So out of bounds was the media that Obama, in an act of decency, declared Palin's family off limits and reminded the media that he was himself born to a teenage single mom.
If one would wish to see the famous liberal double standard on naked display, consider.
Palin's daughter was fair game for a media that refused to look into reports that John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president, was conducting an illicit affair with a woman said to be carrying his child and cheating on his faithful wife Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. That was not a legitimate story, but Bristol Palin's pregnancy is?
Why did the selection of Sarah Palin cause a suspension of all standards and a near riot among a media that has been so in the tank for Barack even "Saturday Night Live" has satirized the infatuation?
Because she is one of us -- and he is one of them.
Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia , Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State . Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.
Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope . Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America -- until Barack started winning.
Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black-power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.
Sarah is a rebel. Obama has been a go-along, get-along cog in the Daley Machine. She is Middle America . Barack, behind closed doors in San Francisco , mocked Middle Americans as folks left behind by the global economy who cling bitterly to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.
Barack has zero foreign policy experience. Palin runs a state that is home to anti-missile, missile and air defense bases facing the Far East, commands the Alaska National Guard and has a soldier-son heading for Iraq .
Barack, says the National Journal, has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, besting Socialist Bernie Sanders. Palin's stances read as though they were lifted from Reagan's 1980 "no pale pastels" platform. And this is what this media firestorm is all about.
-----------
Read more articles like this at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE!
http://www.humanevents.com/
Spare Me the Phony Outrage,’ Obama Says
CNSNews.com
‘Spare Me the Phony Outrage,’ Obama Says
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama addresses supporters at Lebanon High School High School in Lebanon, Va., Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008. (AP Photo/Don Petersen)(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama, appearing at a Norfolk, Va., high school Wednesday morning, responded to the “made-up controversy” involving Obama’s own comment about “lipstick on a pig.”
“Enough! I don’t care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them (Republicans) take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift Boat politics. Enough is enough.”
At a campaign appearance in rural Virginia on Tuesday, Obama questioned Sen. John McCain’s commitment to “change,” saying, “You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.”
Although he said it with a straight face, many Americans viewed the comment as a sly reference to Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has joked that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. (See earlier story)
The McCain campaign and its supporters expressed outrage, and by Wednesday morning, the Republican National Committee had produced an ad juxtaposing Obama’s and Palin’s “lipstick” comments -- and suggesting that Obama had deliberately insulted Palin.
“What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country,” Obama said on Wednesday. “They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know that it’s catnip to the news media.”
Obama said the American people end up losing when the important issues are not addressed. “The McCain campaign would much rather have a story about phony and foolish diversions than the future,” he said.
“These are serious times. And they call for a serious debate about where we need to take the nation.” Obama then listed some of the serious issues and warned that a McCain administration would continued the “failed” policies of the Bush administration.
“So spare me the phony outrage,” Obama said. “We have real problems in this country right now. And the American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems that we are facing. That’s the kind of debate that I intend to have, because that’s the kind of debate that the American people deserve.”
Recent polls indicate that white women are moving to the McCain campaign in large numbers.
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, white women back the McCain-Palin ticket over Obama-Biden, 53-41 percent. Before the conventions, they backed Obama over McCain by 50-42 percent.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
csaling at 01:45 PM - September 10, 2008
When Obama scratched his face & flipped off Hillary Clinton his fans cheered. Of course he was just scratching his face. When Obama referred to Pigs & Lipstick, his fans cheered. When Obama referred to Dead Fish wrapped in paper, his fans cheered & began chanting no more pit bull? If Obama's fans believe his was insulting Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin & John McCain. What are the rest of us to believe?
MrPitchfork at 01:16 PM - September 10, 2008
hahaha! You've got to be kidding me... I guess their campaign has always been so honest and straight forward with all that promise of "change". Yeah right.. change.. LOL... how about this for change.. shrink the federal government, get rid of the federal reserve and IRS, become energy independent, create jobs in America, protect our borders, stop stealing money from the American people... FIRE Pelosi.. send Al Gore to China as restitution for the deficit.. They can have the money he's saving from making his house "green".. no wait.. it uses 20% MORE energy than it did before...
gjgilm@aol.com at 01:11 PM - September 10, 2008
first he failed to respect our wounded in Europe, now he reaches into the gutter to name call, and THEN has the audacity, having created this fire to blame the republicans about not talking about serious issues----the junior senator from Ill. is showing his lack of experience---and his lack of social skills---it would seem Haavard didn't fully take on him. Gary (old dude) http://threescoreplusten.blogspot.com/
Tarmangani at 01:04 PM - September 10, 2008
Just an innocent remark. I suppose if McCain said something like "My plan is the steak and lobster plan and theirs is the fried chicken and watermelon plan.". I suppose Barack would just say that there was no harm and McCain was just trying to make a point. I tend to think he would not.
Albaby at 12:59 PM - September 10, 2008
Spare me your phony "love of country" and "Swift boat politics comments. They are as outrageous as most of your other comments. I see you also regularly wrap yourself in the flag and wear a flag pin now. Will you show us where those other seven states are? LOL
Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.
CNSNews.com Toolbox
Print Article
E-mail this Article
Subscribe to E-Brief
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Share it:
x Send link to a friend:
sending...
Your Name: Your E-mail: Your Friend(s) e-mail address(s):
Add emails separated with ";"
Related Articles
Poll Shows McCain Still Leads Obama by Five Points
McCain Closing in on Obama on Economy
Obama on Wright, Ayers: ‘Guilt by Association’
November Lineup: Obama vs. Obama
Americans Mull Obama’s ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Comment
Foreigners Support Obama over McCain by More Than 4 to 1, Global Poll Shows
Obama Promises to Boost Charter School Funding
McCain Holds onto Five-Point Lead
Related Videos
Bob Barr: Libertarians Are In It To Win It"
Newt Gingrich: 'Elite Media Is Totally Pro-Obama'
Obama is No 'Anti-War' Candidate, Say Liberal Activists
‘Spare Me the Phony Outrage,’ Obama Says
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama addresses supporters at Lebanon High School High School in Lebanon, Va., Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008. (AP Photo/Don Petersen)(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama, appearing at a Norfolk, Va., high school Wednesday morning, responded to the “made-up controversy” involving Obama’s own comment about “lipstick on a pig.”
“Enough! I don’t care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them (Republicans) take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift Boat politics. Enough is enough.”
At a campaign appearance in rural Virginia on Tuesday, Obama questioned Sen. John McCain’s commitment to “change,” saying, “You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.”
Although he said it with a straight face, many Americans viewed the comment as a sly reference to Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has joked that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. (See earlier story)
The McCain campaign and its supporters expressed outrage, and by Wednesday morning, the Republican National Committee had produced an ad juxtaposing Obama’s and Palin’s “lipstick” comments -- and suggesting that Obama had deliberately insulted Palin.
“What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country,” Obama said on Wednesday. “They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know that it’s catnip to the news media.”
Obama said the American people end up losing when the important issues are not addressed. “The McCain campaign would much rather have a story about phony and foolish diversions than the future,” he said.
“These are serious times. And they call for a serious debate about where we need to take the nation.” Obama then listed some of the serious issues and warned that a McCain administration would continued the “failed” policies of the Bush administration.
“So spare me the phony outrage,” Obama said. “We have real problems in this country right now. And the American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems that we are facing. That’s the kind of debate that I intend to have, because that’s the kind of debate that the American people deserve.”
Recent polls indicate that white women are moving to the McCain campaign in large numbers.
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, white women back the McCain-Palin ticket over Obama-Biden, 53-41 percent. Before the conventions, they backed Obama over McCain by 50-42 percent.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
csaling at 01:45 PM - September 10, 2008
When Obama scratched his face & flipped off Hillary Clinton his fans cheered. Of course he was just scratching his face. When Obama referred to Pigs & Lipstick, his fans cheered. When Obama referred to Dead Fish wrapped in paper, his fans cheered & began chanting no more pit bull? If Obama's fans believe his was insulting Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin & John McCain. What are the rest of us to believe?
MrPitchfork at 01:16 PM - September 10, 2008
hahaha! You've got to be kidding me... I guess their campaign has always been so honest and straight forward with all that promise of "change". Yeah right.. change.. LOL... how about this for change.. shrink the federal government, get rid of the federal reserve and IRS, become energy independent, create jobs in America, protect our borders, stop stealing money from the American people... FIRE Pelosi.. send Al Gore to China as restitution for the deficit.. They can have the money he's saving from making his house "green".. no wait.. it uses 20% MORE energy than it did before...
gjgilm@aol.com at 01:11 PM - September 10, 2008
first he failed to respect our wounded in Europe, now he reaches into the gutter to name call, and THEN has the audacity, having created this fire to blame the republicans about not talking about serious issues----the junior senator from Ill. is showing his lack of experience---and his lack of social skills---it would seem Haavard didn't fully take on him. Gary (old dude) http://threescoreplusten.blogspot.com/
Tarmangani at 01:04 PM - September 10, 2008
Just an innocent remark. I suppose if McCain said something like "My plan is the steak and lobster plan and theirs is the fried chicken and watermelon plan.". I suppose Barack would just say that there was no harm and McCain was just trying to make a point. I tend to think he would not.
Albaby at 12:59 PM - September 10, 2008
Spare me your phony "love of country" and "Swift boat politics comments. They are as outrageous as most of your other comments. I see you also regularly wrap yourself in the flag and wear a flag pin now. Will you show us where those other seven states are? LOL
Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.
CNSNews.com Toolbox
Print Article
E-mail this Article
Subscribe to E-Brief
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Share it:
x Send link to a friend:
sending...
Your Name: Your E-mail: Your Friend(s) e-mail address(s):
Add emails separated with ";"
Related Articles
Poll Shows McCain Still Leads Obama by Five Points
McCain Closing in on Obama on Economy
Obama on Wright, Ayers: ‘Guilt by Association’
November Lineup: Obama vs. Obama
Americans Mull Obama’s ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Comment
Foreigners Support Obama over McCain by More Than 4 to 1, Global Poll Shows
Obama Promises to Boost Charter School Funding
McCain Holds onto Five-Point Lead
Related Videos
Bob Barr: Libertarians Are In It To Win It"
Newt Gingrich: 'Elite Media Is Totally Pro-Obama'
Obama is No 'Anti-War' Candidate, Say Liberal Activists
U.N. Thugs
WELL WORTH READING, GOOD FOUNDATION FOR GET U S OUT THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF US.
U.N. Thugs
By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2F7B062F-8FE7-47AB-8F84-483F76CDC926
Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel -- as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.
Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.
Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.
Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”
For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.
As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery - the most racist of practices - endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan 's president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.
The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.
In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Williams is the producer and host of the Canadian award-winning daily current affairs program On the Line (CTS).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
member@americancongressfortruth.org
http://www.americancongressfortruth.org
Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism. To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
U.N. Thugs
By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2F7B062F-8FE7-47AB-8F84-483F76CDC926
Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel -- as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.
Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.
Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.
Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”
For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.
As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery - the most racist of practices - endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan 's president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.
The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.
In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Williams is the producer and host of the Canadian award-winning daily current affairs program On the Line (CTS).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
member@americancongressfortruth.org
http://www.americancongressfortruth.org
Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism. To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.
McCain: Obama 'Lipstick' Remark Disgraceful
McCain: Obama 'Lipstick' Remark Disgraceful
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 10:00 PM
LEBANON, Va. -- What's the difference between the presidential campaign before and after the national political conventions? Lipstick. The colorful cosmetic has become a political buzzword, thanks to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's joke in her acceptance speech that lipstick is the only thing that separates a hockey mom like her from a pit bull.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama told an audience Tuesday that GOP presidential nominee John McCain says he'll change Washington, but he's just like President Bush.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
McCain's campaign called the comments "offensive and disgraceful" and said Obama owes Palin an apology. Obama's campaign said he wasn't referring to Palin and said the GOP camp was engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." Obama's camp also noted that McCain once used the same phrase to describe Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan.
Obama followed up by saying Palin is an interesting story, drawing boos at the mention of her name that he tried to cut off.
"Look, she's new, she hasn't been on the scene, she's got five kids. And my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he said.
In Virginia, a questioner asked Obama to join Republicans and agree that candidates' families and religion are off limits. Palin's pregnant teenage daughter and the teachings of her church, the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church, have been the subject of scrutiny since McCain picked her as his running mate.
Obama responded that he already has said families are off limits and he's very protective of his daughters, 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha. He said he doesn't want their inevitable future mistakes to become newspaper fodder if he gets to the White House.
Obama also is no stranger to attacks on his religion. He's been the subject of a false rumor campaign saying he's a Muslim, and the racially tinged sermons of his longtime former preacher caused problems for his campaign earlier this year.
He stressed that he's a Christian and "so the fact that Gov. Palin is deeply religious, that's a good thing." Poking around in her religion or saying it's wrong is offensive, he said, adding that he wants to debate the issues.
"But don't give people some sort of religious litmus test because I don't want somebody to question my faith and I'm certainly not going to question somebody else's," he said.
Print Page
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 10:00 PM
LEBANON, Va. -- What's the difference between the presidential campaign before and after the national political conventions? Lipstick. The colorful cosmetic has become a political buzzword, thanks to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's joke in her acceptance speech that lipstick is the only thing that separates a hockey mom like her from a pit bull.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama told an audience Tuesday that GOP presidential nominee John McCain says he'll change Washington, but he's just like President Bush.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
McCain's campaign called the comments "offensive and disgraceful" and said Obama owes Palin an apology. Obama's campaign said he wasn't referring to Palin and said the GOP camp was engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." Obama's camp also noted that McCain once used the same phrase to describe Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan.
Obama followed up by saying Palin is an interesting story, drawing boos at the mention of her name that he tried to cut off.
"Look, she's new, she hasn't been on the scene, she's got five kids. And my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two and they tire Michelle and me out," he said.
In Virginia, a questioner asked Obama to join Republicans and agree that candidates' families and religion are off limits. Palin's pregnant teenage daughter and the teachings of her church, the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church, have been the subject of scrutiny since McCain picked her as his running mate.
Obama responded that he already has said families are off limits and he's very protective of his daughters, 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha. He said he doesn't want their inevitable future mistakes to become newspaper fodder if he gets to the White House.
Obama also is no stranger to attacks on his religion. He's been the subject of a false rumor campaign saying he's a Muslim, and the racially tinged sermons of his longtime former preacher caused problems for his campaign earlier this year.
He stressed that he's a Christian and "so the fact that Gov. Palin is deeply religious, that's a good thing." Poking around in her religion or saying it's wrong is offensive, he said, adding that he wants to debate the issues.
"But don't give people some sort of religious litmus test because I don't want somebody to question my faith and I'm certainly not going to question somebody else's," he said.
Print Page
Can Palin Be VP and a Good Mother? Absolutely
Can Palin Be VP and a Good Mother? Absolutely
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:17 PM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As if in a time warp from the '50s, liberal commentators like Sally Quinn have questioned whether a woman with five kids can handle the job of being vice president. But for those who picture Sarah Palin coming back from her office at the White House each evening to cook dinner and wash dishes, here’s what the life of a vice president really is like.
The vice president lives rent-free in a handsome 9,150-square-foot, three-story mansion overlooking Massachusetts Avenue Northwest. Complete with pool, pool house, and indoor gym, the white brick house was built in 1893 as the home of the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Observatory. Congress turned it into the official residence of the vice president in 1974 and gave it the address One Observatory Circle.
During the day, at least five Navy stewards attend to every personal need of the second family, including cooking, shopping for food, cleaning, and doing the laundry. The stewards, officially called Navy enlisted aides, make a mean latté, which they served me when I interviewed Lynne Cheney about her book “Blue Skies, No Fences: A Memoir of Childhood and Family.”
Owned by the Navy, the home sits on 12 acres. At least two groundskeepers take care of the outside, supplemented by contractors hired by the General Services Administration.
Staffers with offices in the residence and in the west wing attend to planning trips and social events, which Vice President Cheney tends to give a few times month. At times, the staff also helps Lynne Cheney with shopping.
Beyond the incremental cost of food for themselves, the Cheneys receive all services free of charge. They do not have to pay for heat or electricity. Nor is there any need for ADT.
The Secret Service maintains a round-the-clock vigil at the home and drives the Cheneys wherever they want to go. As at the White House, the Secret Service outfitted the home with an array of sensors, video cameras, and other intrusion detectors.
To be sure, Dick Cheney works hard. He arrives at the White House by 8 a.m. each day, leaving in time for dinner. He even fetches his own coffee at the White House mess. But he also manages to spend weekends at his home on the eastern shore, flown there by Marine helicopter.
Not a bad life, especially when one considers that if Palin is elected vice president, her husband Todd says he plans to be a stay-at-home dad. But the fact that any response is needed to claims that Gov. Palin cannot be a mother and vice president at the same time, demeans women.
The irony is that, in their eagerness to attack John McCain’s running mate, liberals who stand for equal rights for women sadly are sabotaging their own cause by suggesting that being a mother disqualifies a candidate for the second highest office in the land.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:17 PM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As if in a time warp from the '50s, liberal commentators like Sally Quinn have questioned whether a woman with five kids can handle the job of being vice president. But for those who picture Sarah Palin coming back from her office at the White House each evening to cook dinner and wash dishes, here’s what the life of a vice president really is like.
The vice president lives rent-free in a handsome 9,150-square-foot, three-story mansion overlooking Massachusetts Avenue Northwest. Complete with pool, pool house, and indoor gym, the white brick house was built in 1893 as the home of the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Observatory. Congress turned it into the official residence of the vice president in 1974 and gave it the address One Observatory Circle.
During the day, at least five Navy stewards attend to every personal need of the second family, including cooking, shopping for food, cleaning, and doing the laundry. The stewards, officially called Navy enlisted aides, make a mean latté, which they served me when I interviewed Lynne Cheney about her book “Blue Skies, No Fences: A Memoir of Childhood and Family.”
Owned by the Navy, the home sits on 12 acres. At least two groundskeepers take care of the outside, supplemented by contractors hired by the General Services Administration.
Staffers with offices in the residence and in the west wing attend to planning trips and social events, which Vice President Cheney tends to give a few times month. At times, the staff also helps Lynne Cheney with shopping.
Beyond the incremental cost of food for themselves, the Cheneys receive all services free of charge. They do not have to pay for heat or electricity. Nor is there any need for ADT.
The Secret Service maintains a round-the-clock vigil at the home and drives the Cheneys wherever they want to go. As at the White House, the Secret Service outfitted the home with an array of sensors, video cameras, and other intrusion detectors.
To be sure, Dick Cheney works hard. He arrives at the White House by 8 a.m. each day, leaving in time for dinner. He even fetches his own coffee at the White House mess. But he also manages to spend weekends at his home on the eastern shore, flown there by Marine helicopter.
Not a bad life, especially when one considers that if Palin is elected vice president, her husband Todd says he plans to be a stay-at-home dad. But the fact that any response is needed to claims that Gov. Palin cannot be a mother and vice president at the same time, demeans women.
The irony is that, in their eagerness to attack John McCain’s running mate, liberals who stand for equal rights for women sadly are sabotaging their own cause by suggesting that being a mother disqualifies a candidate for the second highest office in the land.
September 9, 2008
Sarah Palin by an Alaskan Brush Pilot
Subject: Who is Sarah Palin by an Alaskan Brush Pilot and Guide
One of our good friends, Eddie Spalten from San Antonio , fishes at the Wildman Lodge on the Alaskan Peninsula . The lodge is owned by Butch and Kathy Wildman. The Wildmans spend their winters in Texas and their summers in Alaska . Kathy’s father and former husband served in the Alaskan legislature for around 30 years so Butch and Kathy know Alaska politics.
Eddie emailed Butch and asks Butch what the Wildmans think of Gov. Sarah Palin. Butch’s unedited email is attached below. Please read it and forward it to your friends. This is what the citizens of Alaska think of Sarah Palin!
Thanks, Gene Powell
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wildman Lake & Cinder River Lodges [mailto:fish@wildmanlodge.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:19 AM
To: eddie@amerroofing.com
Subject: Who is Sarah
Hi Eddie:
Fishing is good here at Wildman and I rarely have time for politics, but many of our friends are asking us “Who is Sarah Palin?” Of course, as Alaskans, Kathy and I are extremely proud of her. We just want to let you know that Sarah “Barracuda” Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen, how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn’t do a poll before jumping in with both feet like too many of the Washington types. She has little legislative experience because she has always held the EXECUTIVE position; in private life, as mayor of Anchorage ’s largest bedroom community or more recently as Governor of our State. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done.
One of our State’s major problems is that its Capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the State government is in Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since Statehood in 1959. When Sarah moved to Juneau , so did accountability and responsibility When the oil revenue started flown and a barrel of North Slope Crude hit $23.00, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was happenings when oil hit $100.00 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with this fiasco, as her father and also her ex-husband were Alaska Legislators who served in Juneau as Senators, Senate President, or members of the State House for a combined period spanning nearly three decades.
About the time Sarah took the HELM as Governor of Alaska, about half of the State legislature was in the pocket of big oil companies or contractors doing big projects for Native Corporations around Alaska, all funded by State oil revenue. Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled in to the Public Safety who are supposed to “preserve and protect”.
When Sarah walked into the Governor’s Mansion, she promptly dismissed the State Trooper detachment assigned to Governor and had her and her husband’s gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former Governor’s STATE Jet and told legislators that there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines, just like her and her family if they wanted to travel. Next came the nut cutting (the Barracuda part) the heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail for on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with numerous department heads and those who have been riding the gravy train for way too long, AND THEN SHE HAD LUNCH. By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down.
She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau . I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska , that hold her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage , she listens to them but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You want to talk about CHANGE? You should see a before and after picture of the State government in Alaska . That’s CHANGE! Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal many voters who my otherwise could have gone the other direction on election day. The conservative block will not be for Barack. We have their vote. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will bring to Washington D.C. McCain has been advised well, Let’s just hope the American people can get the straight scoop on her in the weeks ahead. This is just the opinion of one Alaska Bush Pilot and Guide, who pays attention to national politics, watches the news and is deathly afraid of the direction our nation is headed. I guarantee that if Sarah gets a chance to dig her spurs into the flanks of the liberal Washington types, they will know that she is in the saddle.
Butch King
Pilot/Guide
Butch & Kathy King
Proprietors
Wildman Lake Lodge
http://www.wildmanlodge.com
No one likes to read long drawn out messages
...so here's the executive summary.........
Congress Military
John McCain 26 Years 22 years
Barack Obama 143 days 0
Summary Concluded.
One of our good friends, Eddie Spalten from San Antonio , fishes at the Wildman Lodge on the Alaskan Peninsula . The lodge is owned by Butch and Kathy Wildman. The Wildmans spend their winters in Texas and their summers in Alaska . Kathy’s father and former husband served in the Alaskan legislature for around 30 years so Butch and Kathy know Alaska politics.
Eddie emailed Butch and asks Butch what the Wildmans think of Gov. Sarah Palin. Butch’s unedited email is attached below. Please read it and forward it to your friends. This is what the citizens of Alaska think of Sarah Palin!
Thanks, Gene Powell
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wildman Lake & Cinder River Lodges [mailto:fish@wildmanlodge.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:19 AM
To: eddie@amerroofing.com
Subject: Who is Sarah
Hi Eddie:
Fishing is good here at Wildman and I rarely have time for politics, but many of our friends are asking us “Who is Sarah Palin?” Of course, as Alaskans, Kathy and I are extremely proud of her. We just want to let you know that Sarah “Barracuda” Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen, how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn’t do a poll before jumping in with both feet like too many of the Washington types. She has little legislative experience because she has always held the EXECUTIVE position; in private life, as mayor of Anchorage ’s largest bedroom community or more recently as Governor of our State. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done.
One of our State’s major problems is that its Capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the State government is in Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since Statehood in 1959. When Sarah moved to Juneau , so did accountability and responsibility When the oil revenue started flown and a barrel of North Slope Crude hit $23.00, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was happenings when oil hit $100.00 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with this fiasco, as her father and also her ex-husband were Alaska Legislators who served in Juneau as Senators, Senate President, or members of the State House for a combined period spanning nearly three decades.
About the time Sarah took the HELM as Governor of Alaska, about half of the State legislature was in the pocket of big oil companies or contractors doing big projects for Native Corporations around Alaska, all funded by State oil revenue. Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled in to the Public Safety who are supposed to “preserve and protect”.
When Sarah walked into the Governor’s Mansion, she promptly dismissed the State Trooper detachment assigned to Governor and had her and her husband’s gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former Governor’s STATE Jet and told legislators that there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines, just like her and her family if they wanted to travel. Next came the nut cutting (the Barracuda part) the heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail for on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with numerous department heads and those who have been riding the gravy train for way too long, AND THEN SHE HAD LUNCH. By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down.
She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau . I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska , that hold her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage , she listens to them but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You want to talk about CHANGE? You should see a before and after picture of the State government in Alaska . That’s CHANGE! Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal many voters who my otherwise could have gone the other direction on election day. The conservative block will not be for Barack. We have their vote. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will bring to Washington D.C. McCain has been advised well, Let’s just hope the American people can get the straight scoop on her in the weeks ahead. This is just the opinion of one Alaska Bush Pilot and Guide, who pays attention to national politics, watches the news and is deathly afraid of the direction our nation is headed. I guarantee that if Sarah gets a chance to dig her spurs into the flanks of the liberal Washington types, they will know that she is in the saddle.
Butch King
Pilot/Guide
Butch & Kathy King
Proprietors
Wildman Lake Lodge
http://www.wildmanlodge.com
No one likes to read long drawn out messages
...so here's the executive summary.........
Congress Military
John McCain 26 Years 22 years
Barack Obama 143 days 0
Summary Concluded.
The Case against Barack Obama:
BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY A LOYAL READER AND CONTRIBUTER THANKS AD FROM DAA
Today's News & Views
September 9, 2008
Starting a Serious National Conversation About Barack Obama
The Case against Barack Obama:
The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate
By David Freddoso
Regnery Publishing, 2008, 244 pages
If there is an overriding lesson to David Freddoso's meticulous, measured, and thoroughly mesmerizing examination of the rise of a very unlikely presidential nominee it might be "don't embellish!" There is plenty, more than enough, in the record of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama that Americans will find unappealing.
But getting the truth out about the one-term senator is much easier said than done. "Our press normally fixes a critical eye on ambitious politicians who promise us the world," Freddoso writes in the introduction. "That eye just seems to well up with tears whenever it falls upon the junior senator from Illinois."
All of us have many first-hand brushes with that reality. For example, how many times have we heard that pro-life Senator John McCain's choice for vice president--pro-life Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin--is "short on experience"? Ask exactly what it is in Obama's time in the Illinois state Senate or the United States Senate that qualifies him to hold the most powerful office in the world, and you get variations of what I have often heard from starry-eyed friends: just look, it's all there. Where? On Obama's web page.
Truth be told, as Freddoso does so well in his book, Obama has a paper-thin bordering on non-existent list of accomplishments. If you listen attentively, most of the time the core of the case Obama makes for himself just glides over this inconvenient truth. Instead it's about being a "reformer" who is able to "reach across the aisle" to Republicans because he "transcends" humdrum partisan politics.
However, according to Freddoso, "the idea of Barack Obama as a reformer is a great lie." Obama "has silently and at times vocally cooperated with Chicago's Democrat Machine to preserve one of the most overtly corrupt political systems in the nation."
Too late for the book but in time to be mentioned in an interview with me (and to be included in a column written for nationalreview.com), Freddoso pointed to the Saddleback Forum which took place a couple of weeks ago. Rick Warren asked Obama to name one time when he had acted against his own or his party's interests for the good of the nation.
"He responded by citing his work with John McCain on ethics reform--work that in fact never occurred," Freddoso patiently explains. "The two men never did work together on ethics reform--in fact they clashed in a nasty exchange of letters over the issue after meeting once to discuss it. Obama's fictional answer to this question was revealing, given that the entire premise of his campaign is his alleged commitment to bipartisan reform." As Freddoso put it in an answer to a question I asked him recently, "He continues to validate the thesis of my book."
As I read The Case against Barack Obama, it became clear that abortion is a prism through which we can understand a man whose outsized talents are matched by an overweening ambition.
Freddoso writes, "Hillary Clinton was not radical enough on abortion." To be fair Sen. Clinton has plenty of company: nobody is more radical on abortion than Barack Obama. Freddoso quotes columnist Terence Jeffrey, who correctly observed, "Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever."
Freddoso uses Obama's behind the scenes work to scuttle Illinois's "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act" as a particularly telling illustration of "a shrewd, calculating politician" who "reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans."
His portrait is good but incomplete. Freddoso did not have the benefit of NRLC's White Paper
(http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html), which documents how Obama led the fight to kill a bill to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions, based on a vision of "abortion rights" more sweeping than that defended by any member of Congress--and then actively misrepresented the substance of the legislation when he sought higher office.
And, of course, Obama signs the Abortion Establishment's Pledge of Allegiance to be behind every piece of legislation it proposes, including the measure Obama vowed to sign as his first act as president: the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA makes Roe v. Wade seem moderate by comparison. Co-sponsored by Obama, it is a piece of legislation so extreme it would wipe out every limitation on abortion and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.
"Politicians promises are often empty," Freddoso writes, "But this one deserves to be taken seriously." Sen. Obama is "less respectful of human life than even the most pro-abortion members of the United States Senate."
Let me end with where The Case against Barack Obama begins: the hearing room of the Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners, January 2, 1996. It is a deeply revealing story about Obama's first run for public office.
According to Freddoso, in his political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, "Obama attributes his 1996 election [as a state senator] to the message he brought to the neighborhoods of Chicago's South Side--telling people to drop their cynicism about politics, because yes, they can make a difference through voting, activism, and advocacy." Obama himself wrote, "It was a pretty convincing speech, I thought."
That's the myth. The reality is that his speechifying had nothing to do with the election. Obama's campaign volunteers and staffers were at the hearing "to challenge the nearly 1,600 signatures that state senator Alice Palmer's campaign had collected in order to place her on the ballot for re-election."
Obama's people were there, Freddoso writes, to "disqualify as many signatures as possible." They succeeded. Indeed, by the time they got through, the other three candidates were disqualified as well.
"Technically, everything legal and on the up and up," Freddoso told me, "but throwing an incumbent state senator off the ballot doesn't quite fit with the image he's trying to sell now--as an agent of positive change and reform and somebody who is not cynical about politics."
Freddoso quotes from one admirer who dubbed Obama "a kind of human Rorschach test." Freddoso quotes Obama biographer David Mendell, who wrote that Obama "is an exceptionally gifted politician whom throughout his life, has been able to make people of widely divergent vantage points see in him exactly what they want to see." People see in him what they want to see. I asked Freddoso what he thought of that assessment.
"When reporters start to pull at some of these threads, I really do think a very different image of this man is going to emerge--a shrewd, calculating politician aligned with the Chicago machine who reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans." Indeed he believes "the halo is already starting to come off his head, particularly with the news about the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act."
As for his book, which appeared at number 5 on the August 24 New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction, Freddoso has high hopes. "I hope it can start a serious national conversation about his record that sets aside the lies but also takes a real look at his record, which is not a flattering one."
Today's News & Views
September 9, 2008
Starting a Serious National Conversation About Barack Obama
The Case against Barack Obama:
The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate
By David Freddoso
Regnery Publishing, 2008, 244 pages
If there is an overriding lesson to David Freddoso's meticulous, measured, and thoroughly mesmerizing examination of the rise of a very unlikely presidential nominee it might be "don't embellish!" There is plenty, more than enough, in the record of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama that Americans will find unappealing.
But getting the truth out about the one-term senator is much easier said than done. "Our press normally fixes a critical eye on ambitious politicians who promise us the world," Freddoso writes in the introduction. "That eye just seems to well up with tears whenever it falls upon the junior senator from Illinois."
All of us have many first-hand brushes with that reality. For example, how many times have we heard that pro-life Senator John McCain's choice for vice president--pro-life Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin--is "short on experience"? Ask exactly what it is in Obama's time in the Illinois state Senate or the United States Senate that qualifies him to hold the most powerful office in the world, and you get variations of what I have often heard from starry-eyed friends: just look, it's all there. Where? On Obama's web page.
Truth be told, as Freddoso does so well in his book, Obama has a paper-thin bordering on non-existent list of accomplishments. If you listen attentively, most of the time the core of the case Obama makes for himself just glides over this inconvenient truth. Instead it's about being a "reformer" who is able to "reach across the aisle" to Republicans because he "transcends" humdrum partisan politics.
However, according to Freddoso, "the idea of Barack Obama as a reformer is a great lie." Obama "has silently and at times vocally cooperated with Chicago's Democrat Machine to preserve one of the most overtly corrupt political systems in the nation."
Too late for the book but in time to be mentioned in an interview with me (and to be included in a column written for nationalreview.com), Freddoso pointed to the Saddleback Forum which took place a couple of weeks ago. Rick Warren asked Obama to name one time when he had acted against his own or his party's interests for the good of the nation.
"He responded by citing his work with John McCain on ethics reform--work that in fact never occurred," Freddoso patiently explains. "The two men never did work together on ethics reform--in fact they clashed in a nasty exchange of letters over the issue after meeting once to discuss it. Obama's fictional answer to this question was revealing, given that the entire premise of his campaign is his alleged commitment to bipartisan reform." As Freddoso put it in an answer to a question I asked him recently, "He continues to validate the thesis of my book."
As I read The Case against Barack Obama, it became clear that abortion is a prism through which we can understand a man whose outsized talents are matched by an overweening ambition.
Freddoso writes, "Hillary Clinton was not radical enough on abortion." To be fair Sen. Clinton has plenty of company: nobody is more radical on abortion than Barack Obama. Freddoso quotes columnist Terence Jeffrey, who correctly observed, "Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever."
Freddoso uses Obama's behind the scenes work to scuttle Illinois's "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act" as a particularly telling illustration of "a shrewd, calculating politician" who "reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans."
His portrait is good but incomplete. Freddoso did not have the benefit of NRLC's White Paper
(http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html), which documents how Obama led the fight to kill a bill to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions, based on a vision of "abortion rights" more sweeping than that defended by any member of Congress--and then actively misrepresented the substance of the legislation when he sought higher office.
And, of course, Obama signs the Abortion Establishment's Pledge of Allegiance to be behind every piece of legislation it proposes, including the measure Obama vowed to sign as his first act as president: the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA makes Roe v. Wade seem moderate by comparison. Co-sponsored by Obama, it is a piece of legislation so extreme it would wipe out every limitation on abortion and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.
"Politicians promises are often empty," Freddoso writes, "But this one deserves to be taken seriously." Sen. Obama is "less respectful of human life than even the most pro-abortion members of the United States Senate."
Let me end with where The Case against Barack Obama begins: the hearing room of the Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners, January 2, 1996. It is a deeply revealing story about Obama's first run for public office.
According to Freddoso, in his political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, "Obama attributes his 1996 election [as a state senator] to the message he brought to the neighborhoods of Chicago's South Side--telling people to drop their cynicism about politics, because yes, they can make a difference through voting, activism, and advocacy." Obama himself wrote, "It was a pretty convincing speech, I thought."
That's the myth. The reality is that his speechifying had nothing to do with the election. Obama's campaign volunteers and staffers were at the hearing "to challenge the nearly 1,600 signatures that state senator Alice Palmer's campaign had collected in order to place her on the ballot for re-election."
Obama's people were there, Freddoso writes, to "disqualify as many signatures as possible." They succeeded. Indeed, by the time they got through, the other three candidates were disqualified as well.
"Technically, everything legal and on the up and up," Freddoso told me, "but throwing an incumbent state senator off the ballot doesn't quite fit with the image he's trying to sell now--as an agent of positive change and reform and somebody who is not cynical about politics."
Freddoso quotes from one admirer who dubbed Obama "a kind of human Rorschach test." Freddoso quotes Obama biographer David Mendell, who wrote that Obama "is an exceptionally gifted politician whom throughout his life, has been able to make people of widely divergent vantage points see in him exactly what they want to see." People see in him what they want to see. I asked Freddoso what he thought of that assessment.
"When reporters start to pull at some of these threads, I really do think a very different image of this man is going to emerge--a shrewd, calculating politician aligned with the Chicago machine who reflexively goes to ideological views that are very far to the Left from most Americans." Indeed he believes "the halo is already starting to come off his head, particularly with the news about the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act."
As for his book, which appeared at number 5 on the August 24 New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction, Freddoso has high hopes. "I hope it can start a serious national conversation about his record that sets aside the lies but also takes a real look at his record, which is not a flattering one."
The real Joe Biden
What do you think? I would think this guy would have iron-clad proof of truth, and several lawyer's opinions, before publishing this; since Truth is the only defense against a charge of Libel . John
Subject: The real Joe Biden
From an accountant who has done work for Biden.
Family, I feel an obligation to honesty and truth to share with you some facts. My Father and Mother instilled in me the values and morals of treating people fairly and always being honest. If you purchase something, you pay for it. If you borrow something, you give it back.
I have been "stiffed" three times in my 30 year professional career by someone who I rendered services to, gave a finished product to, but who refused to pay for those services even though they acknowledged the services and products were correct, were what they asked for, and were never challenged for not being correct. I am lucky in having only three, but those three hurt badly.
Joe Biden was one of those people. I worked on his 1988 Presidential campaign financial disclosure engagement. I busted it for him and got everything right. He stiffed me for over $15,000 worth of work. He refused to pay once he dropped out of the race. I did similar Capitol Hill campaign financial disclosure work for Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, and a Democratic candidate for Ambassador to New Zealand. All of those folks paid even though they lost the election or did not get the appointment. That type of work is very demanding and very tedious because your efforts are scrutinized by Congress. Biden did not care.
I am on the Board of Directors of a company that owns a majority position in a private jet management company in Northern Virginia. They manage jets for businesses and rich folks. They also charter planes to the public. This past winter John Thompson chartered over $250,000 worth of air time. He paid every penny.
Joe Biden, in his latest unsuccessful run for President, chartered over $150,000 worth of air time. He PAID ZERO.
He continues to refuse to pay stating his race is over and he is out of money. He never once complained about his flights. Joe Biden is a rich man. He could pay.
Joe Biden is a liar and a cheat. I know it first hand.
Character is what life is all about. Joe Biden is a man of bad character and sets a bad example for America.
I feel compelled to share this dark side of a man who asks for your vote and trust.
Best Regards, Bruce D. Riddle, CPA, CFP
BDR Associates, LLC
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 101
Rockville, MD 20850
Work - (240) 631-1981
Cell - (301) 580-7800
Fax - (240) 631-2778
Website - www.bdrtax.com
Subject: The real Joe Biden
From an accountant who has done work for Biden.
Family, I feel an obligation to honesty and truth to share with you some facts. My Father and Mother instilled in me the values and morals of treating people fairly and always being honest. If you purchase something, you pay for it. If you borrow something, you give it back.
I have been "stiffed" three times in my 30 year professional career by someone who I rendered services to, gave a finished product to, but who refused to pay for those services even though they acknowledged the services and products were correct, were what they asked for, and were never challenged for not being correct. I am lucky in having only three, but those three hurt badly.
Joe Biden was one of those people. I worked on his 1988 Presidential campaign financial disclosure engagement. I busted it for him and got everything right. He stiffed me for over $15,000 worth of work. He refused to pay once he dropped out of the race. I did similar Capitol Hill campaign financial disclosure work for Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, and a Democratic candidate for Ambassador to New Zealand. All of those folks paid even though they lost the election or did not get the appointment. That type of work is very demanding and very tedious because your efforts are scrutinized by Congress. Biden did not care.
I am on the Board of Directors of a company that owns a majority position in a private jet management company in Northern Virginia. They manage jets for businesses and rich folks. They also charter planes to the public. This past winter John Thompson chartered over $250,000 worth of air time. He paid every penny.
Joe Biden, in his latest unsuccessful run for President, chartered over $150,000 worth of air time. He PAID ZERO.
He continues to refuse to pay stating his race is over and he is out of money. He never once complained about his flights. Joe Biden is a rich man. He could pay.
Joe Biden is a liar and a cheat. I know it first hand.
Character is what life is all about. Joe Biden is a man of bad character and sets a bad example for America.
I feel compelled to share this dark side of a man who asks for your vote and trust.
Best Regards, Bruce D. Riddle, CPA, CFP
BDR Associates, LLC
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 101
Rockville, MD 20850
Work - (240) 631-1981
Cell - (301) 580-7800
Fax - (240) 631-2778
Website - www.bdrtax.com
Obama: By Bill Brown
Obama: By Bill Brown of the Billy Graham Team
Bill Brown, is a highly respected retired member of the Billy Graham team so, I take his assessment of Obama very seriously and for that reason accept his challenge to pass this on. I share his concern about the 'rock star' image Obama has and watch with growing concern at the celebrity status the media has foisted upon him. Here is hope this email informs you in a wise way. BW
________________________________
The Obama Tidal=2 0Wave
We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.
His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.
The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma. Both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions.
On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler, too, inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.
Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans riding on the Obama Tidal Wave it is just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the reality of the ride is what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:
· He voted for partial birth abortion.
· He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
; · Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government (quotas)..
· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
· Admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine in high school and in college.
· His religious convictions are very murky.
· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim Nations
· Opposed the Patriot Act.
· First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform.
· Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
· Supports universal health-care.
· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
· Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
· Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. (241 votes Demo, 10 votes Republican)
· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.< br> · Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports
increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec. Tax Increase.
· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets.
· He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax. Tax Increase.
· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Tax Increase.
· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded...which is not true.
· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it.
Inaction is action.
If you agree this is important, pass it on. The mainstream media will not do it for you!
Bill Brown
Billy Graham Team, Retired
Bill Brown, is a highly respected retired member of the Billy Graham team so, I take his assessment of Obama very seriously and for that reason accept his challenge to pass this on. I share his concern about the 'rock star' image Obama has and watch with growing concern at the celebrity status the media has foisted upon him. Here is hope this email informs you in a wise way. BW
________________________________
The Obama Tidal=2 0Wave
We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.
His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.
The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma. Both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions.
On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler, too, inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.
Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans riding on the Obama Tidal Wave it is just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the reality of the ride is what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:
· He voted for partial birth abortion.
· He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
; · Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government (quotas)..
· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
· Admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine in high school and in college.
· His religious convictions are very murky.
· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim Nations
· Opposed the Patriot Act.
· First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform.
· Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
· Supports universal health-care.
· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
· Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
· Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. (241 votes Demo, 10 votes Republican)
· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.< br> · Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports
increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec. Tax Increase.
· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets.
· He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax. Tax Increase.
· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Tax Increase.
· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded...which is not true.
· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it.
Inaction is action.
If you agree this is important, pass it on. The mainstream media will not do it for you!
Bill Brown
Billy Graham Team, Retired
U.N. Thugs
U.N. Thugs
By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2F7B062F-8FE7-47AB-8F84-483F76CDC926
Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel -- as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.
Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.
Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.
Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”
For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.
As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery - the most racist of practices - endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan 's president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.
The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.
In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Williams is the producer and host of the Canadian award-winning daily current affairs program On the Line (CTS).
By Christine Williams
FrontPageMagazine.com
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2F7B062F-8FE7-47AB-8F84-483F76CDC926
Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel -- as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.
Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.
Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.
Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”
For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.
As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery - the most racist of practices - endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan 's president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.
The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.
In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Williams is the producer and host of the Canadian award-winning daily current affairs program On the Line (CTS).
Obama’s Tax Plan Based on ‘Neighborliness’
Obama’s Tax Plan Based on ‘Neighborliness’
CNSNews.com
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Sen. Barack Obama speaks at a rally in Dublin, Ohio on Aug. 30, 2008. (AP File Photo/Alex Brandon)(CNSNews.com) - We can afford to pay higher taxes. They can’t. That’s the gist of Sen. Barack Obama’s tax plan, which he discussed with Fox New Channel’s Bill O’Reilly in an interview that aired Monday night.
Obama has campaigned on a promise to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while protecting tax cuts for poor and middle class families. He favors a return to the 39 percent income tax bracket for the highest earners -- including himself and O’Reilly, he said.
“You can afford that. That’s point number one,” Obama told O’Reilly. In exchange, Obama said he would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.
“If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t -- what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness,” Obama said.
‘Robin Hood Obama’
“You’re a big ‘tax the rich’ guy,” O’Reilly told the Democratic presidential candidate.
O’Reilly called the senator “Robin Hood Obama,” and reminded him that taking money away from high-earners and giving it to low earners is income redistribution. “It’s a socialist tenet,” O’Reilly said.
Even President Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax, Obama responded. (“Not at the level you do,” O’Reilly retorted.)
“I don’t like paying taxes. What, you think I like writing a check?” Obama said.
“What I believe is, is that there are certain things we have to do. We’ve got to help people who are having tough times affording college, so they can benefit like we benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time -- they don’t have health care; people who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills…”
Obama also mentioned the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. “At a certain point, we have to pay for it,” he said.
In his interview with O’Reilly, Obama did not say where he would cap payroll taxes. (His Web site says he would ask people earning over $250,000 to contribute “a bit more” -- 2 to 4 percent more, he says -- to Social Security to keep it sound.)
Obama told O’Reilly he does not plan to raise corporate taxes. And he agreed that a “prohibitive” capital gains tax rate would inhibit investment. He mentioned raising the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent.
According to his campaign Web site, “Obama will create a new ‘Making Work Pay’ tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The ‘Making Work Pay’ tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.”
He also promises to eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000. He is pushing a $4,000 annual tuition tax credit for college students. And he says he will “dramatically simplify” tax filings so that millions of middle class Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 7 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
RightStuff at 02:22 PM - September 09, 2008
Barack Obama is an out-and-out Marxist. My money represents my liberty, and whenever anyone messes with my money, they are messing with my liberty. In addition to Obama's ideology, he is a puppet of those who would want to completely command and control every aspect of our lives. This will hopefully be revealed clearly as the next few weeks of this campaign period unfolds.
SailormanCGA72 at 02:16 PM - September 09, 2008
The idea of neighborliness would necessarily assume a voluntary transfer of goods, services, money, etc. from one neighbor to another. I doubt very seriously if Mr. Obama and the IRS would agree to voluntary participation in his "neighborly" redistribution of wealth. Sounds much more like strongarm socialism.
Ender Wiggin at 01:59 PM - September 09, 2008
I encourage everyone to watch the actual interview with O'Reilly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crvINqq5izM When Ms. Jones say "we can afford higher taxes, they can't" you should understand who "we" are. If you look at a statistical breakdown of Obama's and McCain's tax plans Obama cuts your taxes unless you earn more than $603,000 annually. So don't include "me" in that "we." I do think it's important to ask Michael Moore's question: Are we going to live in a "me" society or a "we" society. I think helping make sure kids can go to college is a pretty darned good thing. It will make our country better and benefit everyone in ways we can only begin to imagine. Providing health care for all will reduce our own insurance costs because we already pay for poor people's hospital visits through our taxes. Preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. It's much cheaper than the Iraq debacle, and we seem to find plenty of money for that.
kbjb028 at 01:49 PM - September 09, 2008
And now Obama wants the government to regulate how I behave towards my neighbors. His campaign slogan should be "Hi, I'm from the government and I am here to help you". That's always been a line that makes me shudder.
Red46 at 01:37 PM - September 09, 2008
When will someone mention that taking care of the waitress is her, her family or her community's concern. If I give her a dollar, she'll have a dollar. If I give a reputable charity a dollar for her, she'll get 75-95 cents of that dollar. If I give the government a dollar to give to her, she'll get what is now...38 cents? The only reason to establish these programs is to swell a voting base for socialists.
CNSNews.com
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Sen. Barack Obama speaks at a rally in Dublin, Ohio on Aug. 30, 2008. (AP File Photo/Alex Brandon)(CNSNews.com) - We can afford to pay higher taxes. They can’t. That’s the gist of Sen. Barack Obama’s tax plan, which he discussed with Fox New Channel’s Bill O’Reilly in an interview that aired Monday night.
Obama has campaigned on a promise to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while protecting tax cuts for poor and middle class families. He favors a return to the 39 percent income tax bracket for the highest earners -- including himself and O’Reilly, he said.
“You can afford that. That’s point number one,” Obama told O’Reilly. In exchange, Obama said he would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.
“If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t -- what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness,” Obama said.
‘Robin Hood Obama’
“You’re a big ‘tax the rich’ guy,” O’Reilly told the Democratic presidential candidate.
O’Reilly called the senator “Robin Hood Obama,” and reminded him that taking money away from high-earners and giving it to low earners is income redistribution. “It’s a socialist tenet,” O’Reilly said.
Even President Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax, Obama responded. (“Not at the level you do,” O’Reilly retorted.)
“I don’t like paying taxes. What, you think I like writing a check?” Obama said.
“What I believe is, is that there are certain things we have to do. We’ve got to help people who are having tough times affording college, so they can benefit like we benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time -- they don’t have health care; people who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills…”
Obama also mentioned the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. “At a certain point, we have to pay for it,” he said.
In his interview with O’Reilly, Obama did not say where he would cap payroll taxes. (His Web site says he would ask people earning over $250,000 to contribute “a bit more” -- 2 to 4 percent more, he says -- to Social Security to keep it sound.)
Obama told O’Reilly he does not plan to raise corporate taxes. And he agreed that a “prohibitive” capital gains tax rate would inhibit investment. He mentioned raising the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent.
According to his campaign Web site, “Obama will create a new ‘Making Work Pay’ tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The ‘Making Work Pay’ tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.”
He also promises to eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000. He is pushing a $4,000 annual tuition tax credit for college students. And he says he will “dramatically simplify” tax filings so that millions of middle class Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 7 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
RightStuff at 02:22 PM - September 09, 2008
Barack Obama is an out-and-out Marxist. My money represents my liberty, and whenever anyone messes with my money, they are messing with my liberty. In addition to Obama's ideology, he is a puppet of those who would want to completely command and control every aspect of our lives. This will hopefully be revealed clearly as the next few weeks of this campaign period unfolds.
SailormanCGA72 at 02:16 PM - September 09, 2008
The idea of neighborliness would necessarily assume a voluntary transfer of goods, services, money, etc. from one neighbor to another. I doubt very seriously if Mr. Obama and the IRS would agree to voluntary participation in his "neighborly" redistribution of wealth. Sounds much more like strongarm socialism.
Ender Wiggin at 01:59 PM - September 09, 2008
I encourage everyone to watch the actual interview with O'Reilly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crvINqq5izM When Ms. Jones say "we can afford higher taxes, they can't" you should understand who "we" are. If you look at a statistical breakdown of Obama's and McCain's tax plans Obama cuts your taxes unless you earn more than $603,000 annually. So don't include "me" in that "we." I do think it's important to ask Michael Moore's question: Are we going to live in a "me" society or a "we" society. I think helping make sure kids can go to college is a pretty darned good thing. It will make our country better and benefit everyone in ways we can only begin to imagine. Providing health care for all will reduce our own insurance costs because we already pay for poor people's hospital visits through our taxes. Preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. It's much cheaper than the Iraq debacle, and we seem to find plenty of money for that.
kbjb028 at 01:49 PM - September 09, 2008
And now Obama wants the government to regulate how I behave towards my neighbors. His campaign slogan should be "Hi, I'm from the government and I am here to help you". That's always been a line that makes me shudder.
Red46 at 01:37 PM - September 09, 2008
When will someone mention that taking care of the waitress is her, her family or her community's concern. If I give her a dollar, she'll have a dollar. If I give a reputable charity a dollar for her, she'll get 75-95 cents of that dollar. If I give the government a dollar to give to her, she'll get what is now...38 cents? The only reason to establish these programs is to swell a voting base for socialists.
Analysis: Palin Smears Intensify
Analysis: Palin Smears Intensify
Monday, September 8, 2008 11:14 PM
By: Newsmax Staff
After selecting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, Sen. John McCain has soared in the polls -- taking a 10-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll among likely voters.
The development has shaken many in the major media who are strongly backing Obama, a Democrat. His allies have now launched an all-out offensive against the first GOP female vice presidential candidate.
Worrisome for the Obama camp is the momentous effect Palin has had on women. Before her selection, Obama led McCain among white women, 55 percent to 37 percent.
The most recent poll data out last week shows 53 percent to 41 percent in favor of McCain. ABC News called it "one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preference.''
"She's not part of the Washington, D.C., cocktail circuit," Steve Schmidt, a McCain adviser, told Time magazine.
"Elite opinion looks down with contempt at people who are not part of their world," he said.
Palin has become a juggernaut. The Obama campaign wants her stopped, and the media -- which has given Obama almost a free pass in vetting him -- is giving Palin a vigorous examination.
On Monday, the Obama campaign released a new TV ad directly attacking Palin.
The ad states:
“They call themselves mavericks. Whoa. Truth is, they're anything but. John McCain is hardly a maverick, when seven of his top campaign advisers are Washington lobbyists. He's no maverick when he votes with Bush 90 percent of the time. And Sarah Palin's no maverick either. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Politicians lying about their records? You don't call that maverick. You call it more of the same.”
Such political attacks have been backed up by vicious personal smears.
Comedian Bill Maher cracked a tasteless “joke” involving Palin’s Down syndrome child -- and referred to her as a “stewardess.” In the monologue of a recent HBO show, Maher noted that Palin has five children, including an infant “that has Down syndrome. She had it when she was 43 years old. And it looks a lot like John Edwards.”
Also notable was US Weekly magazine, whose cover story featured Palin and the headline “Babies, Lies & Scandal.”
Asked by Fox News Megyn Kelly to identify any “lies” Palin had uttered, US Weekly Senior Editor Bradley Jacobs could not offer any.
Just months ago, the same weekly had published Barack and Michelle Obama on the cover with the headline “Why Barack Loves Her.”
Meanwhile, the media has been elevating minor controversies in Palin’s home state of Alaska to national “scandals.” For example, the firing of a state trooper who allegedly Tasered his own 10-year-old son has been elevated to an international human-rights case.
The latest line of attack on Palin is focused on her strong Christian beliefs. She has been labeled a wacko fundamentalist who doesn’t believe in evolution. (Interestingly, several polls show most Americans don’t believe in it, either. A 2006 CBS poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in scientific evolution, and most Americans believe life was created and guided by God.)
A recent Associated Press investigative report was headlined: “Pentecostalism Obscured in Palin Biography.”
Her crime, according to the AP?
Here’s what AP wrote: “Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian. Yet John McCain's running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It's often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike.”
CNN on Monday was out with a similar “expose,” citing her former Alaskan pastor as saying Palin wanted to hide her Pentecostal roots.
Why? CNN claims she may be embarrassed that Pentecostals “speak in tongues.”
Though Palin has clearly demonstrated that her faith does not mix with her public service, it’s a major problem for the media.
It should be remembered that this is the same media that ignored Obama’s involvement with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. until video clips of his pastor condemning the United States made it onto YouTube. The media continues to largely ignore the fact Obama won’t admit he was raised a Muslim and later converted to Christianity.
The bias against Palin has become so apparent that even some in the major media are taking notice.
During the Republican National Convention last Wednesday, Palin mentioned how the media was covering her, and angry Republicans began screaming “NBC, NBC, NBC.”
NBC News, once considered the gold standard of broadcast news, has become so closely associated with the Obama campaign that it even replaced veteran news anchors for the two conventions with Democratic pundits Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
The network’s slanted coverage of the GOP became such an embarrassment that the network this past Sunday removed both Olbermann and Matthews as its election news anchors.
The pro-Obama bias has not only affected Palin and the GOP. During one Democrat debate earlier this year, Sen. Hillary Clinton referenced a “Saturday Night Live” sketch that showed CNN moderators bending over backwards to help Obama.
Hillary may have the last laugh as the Republicans, with Palin leading the charge, are stealing the women vote – a bloc Hillary solidly owned and one she could have brought home to the Democratic Party on Election Day.
E-mail Us
Monday, September 8, 2008 11:14 PM
By: Newsmax Staff
After selecting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, Sen. John McCain has soared in the polls -- taking a 10-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll among likely voters.
The development has shaken many in the major media who are strongly backing Obama, a Democrat. His allies have now launched an all-out offensive against the first GOP female vice presidential candidate.
Worrisome for the Obama camp is the momentous effect Palin has had on women. Before her selection, Obama led McCain among white women, 55 percent to 37 percent.
The most recent poll data out last week shows 53 percent to 41 percent in favor of McCain. ABC News called it "one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preference.''
"She's not part of the Washington, D.C., cocktail circuit," Steve Schmidt, a McCain adviser, told Time magazine.
"Elite opinion looks down with contempt at people who are not part of their world," he said.
Palin has become a juggernaut. The Obama campaign wants her stopped, and the media -- which has given Obama almost a free pass in vetting him -- is giving Palin a vigorous examination.
On Monday, the Obama campaign released a new TV ad directly attacking Palin.
The ad states:
“They call themselves mavericks. Whoa. Truth is, they're anything but. John McCain is hardly a maverick, when seven of his top campaign advisers are Washington lobbyists. He's no maverick when he votes with Bush 90 percent of the time. And Sarah Palin's no maverick either. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Politicians lying about their records? You don't call that maverick. You call it more of the same.”
Such political attacks have been backed up by vicious personal smears.
Comedian Bill Maher cracked a tasteless “joke” involving Palin’s Down syndrome child -- and referred to her as a “stewardess.” In the monologue of a recent HBO show, Maher noted that Palin has five children, including an infant “that has Down syndrome. She had it when she was 43 years old. And it looks a lot like John Edwards.”
Also notable was US Weekly magazine, whose cover story featured Palin and the headline “Babies, Lies & Scandal.”
Asked by Fox News Megyn Kelly to identify any “lies” Palin had uttered, US Weekly Senior Editor Bradley Jacobs could not offer any.
Just months ago, the same weekly had published Barack and Michelle Obama on the cover with the headline “Why Barack Loves Her.”
Meanwhile, the media has been elevating minor controversies in Palin’s home state of Alaska to national “scandals.” For example, the firing of a state trooper who allegedly Tasered his own 10-year-old son has been elevated to an international human-rights case.
The latest line of attack on Palin is focused on her strong Christian beliefs. She has been labeled a wacko fundamentalist who doesn’t believe in evolution. (Interestingly, several polls show most Americans don’t believe in it, either. A 2006 CBS poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in scientific evolution, and most Americans believe life was created and guided by God.)
A recent Associated Press investigative report was headlined: “Pentecostalism Obscured in Palin Biography.”
Her crime, according to the AP?
Here’s what AP wrote: “Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian. Yet John McCain's running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It's often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike.”
CNN on Monday was out with a similar “expose,” citing her former Alaskan pastor as saying Palin wanted to hide her Pentecostal roots.
Why? CNN claims she may be embarrassed that Pentecostals “speak in tongues.”
Though Palin has clearly demonstrated that her faith does not mix with her public service, it’s a major problem for the media.
It should be remembered that this is the same media that ignored Obama’s involvement with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. until video clips of his pastor condemning the United States made it onto YouTube. The media continues to largely ignore the fact Obama won’t admit he was raised a Muslim and later converted to Christianity.
The bias against Palin has become so apparent that even some in the major media are taking notice.
During the Republican National Convention last Wednesday, Palin mentioned how the media was covering her, and angry Republicans began screaming “NBC, NBC, NBC.”
NBC News, once considered the gold standard of broadcast news, has become so closely associated with the Obama campaign that it even replaced veteran news anchors for the two conventions with Democratic pundits Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
The network’s slanted coverage of the GOP became such an embarrassment that the network this past Sunday removed both Olbermann and Matthews as its election news anchors.
The pro-Obama bias has not only affected Palin and the GOP. During one Democrat debate earlier this year, Sen. Hillary Clinton referenced a “Saturday Night Live” sketch that showed CNN moderators bending over backwards to help Obama.
Hillary may have the last laugh as the Republicans, with Palin leading the charge, are stealing the women vote – a bloc Hillary solidly owned and one she could have brought home to the Democratic Party on Election Day.
E-mail Us
Hillary Clinton: Palin's Pick 'Great Accomplishment'
U.S. Politics International Pundits Health Science & Technology Entertainment Election 2008
Hillary Clinton: Palin's Pick 'Great Accomplishment'
Monday, September 8, 2008 5:30 PM
Anyone wanting a Hillary vs. Sarah smackdown might be in for a letdown. First, Sarah Palin launched her Republican vice presidential campaign with praise for the strides made by Hillary Rodham Clinton in her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. On Monday, Clinton spoke in kind.
"It is a great accomplishment," Clinton said of Palin's selection as the GOP's first female running mate. Clinton told a rally of 500 that the election will be decided on issues, not the historical significance of the candidates, and Democrat Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden bring more to the table than the Republican ticket.
"Women as well as men make their decisions after they weigh the evidence," Clinton said. "As Americans go into that voting booth, what they have to ask themselves is not so much who am I for, as who is for me? And I don't think it's an even close question that we have the ticket that is going to do the best job in restoring the American promise."
About the most she'd say about Palin is that she and Republican presidential candidate John McCain "are not the change that we need."
Former Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson is dismissing any notion the Obama campaign would dispatch Clinton to take on Palin, as much as he thinks some people would revel in seeing the two strong women butt heads.
"Don't hold your breath," he wrote in his New Republic blog. "Clinton-Palin might drive ratings and sell magazines, but it wouldn't be good for the Democratic Party, or the cause of women's rights. Some might enjoy the spectacle, but don't expect Hillary Clinton to play along."
Clinton said: "I didn't run because I was a woman but I was very conscious of the fact that my campaign meant a lot to so many, and I appreciate that. But this election is about the two parties, and the two presidential nominees, where they stand, what they would do, what our country needs right now."
And she said the Democratic ticket is the one that "will fight to revitalize the economy and create jobs and make college affordable and enable hard-working Americans to be able to afford both a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk."
It was Clinton's second campaign swing through Florida since she conceded the Democratic primary to Obama. She told supporters that it will be a critical state in November, and one that has been harder hit than most by unemployment and home foreclosures.
She later addressed nearly 1,600 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which endorsed her last year. Clinton asked them to help Obama now.
So far polls have found few signs that women who backed Clinton in the primary would cross over to vote Republican in large numbers. Even so, Palin has been the talk of the presidential campaign for a week and the Obama campaign has seemed unsure what to do about her.
Now commenting from the sidelines, Wolfson said each day the Democrats focus on Palin is a day they are not driving home the message that McCain just represents four more years of President Bush.
He warned against giving in to "an obsession in our popular culture with the 'cat fight,' an offensive term that describes the spectacle of two well-known women fighting with one another."
E-mail Us
Hillary Clinton: Palin's Pick 'Great Accomplishment'
Monday, September 8, 2008 5:30 PM
Anyone wanting a Hillary vs. Sarah smackdown might be in for a letdown. First, Sarah Palin launched her Republican vice presidential campaign with praise for the strides made by Hillary Rodham Clinton in her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. On Monday, Clinton spoke in kind.
"It is a great accomplishment," Clinton said of Palin's selection as the GOP's first female running mate. Clinton told a rally of 500 that the election will be decided on issues, not the historical significance of the candidates, and Democrat Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden bring more to the table than the Republican ticket.
"Women as well as men make their decisions after they weigh the evidence," Clinton said. "As Americans go into that voting booth, what they have to ask themselves is not so much who am I for, as who is for me? And I don't think it's an even close question that we have the ticket that is going to do the best job in restoring the American promise."
About the most she'd say about Palin is that she and Republican presidential candidate John McCain "are not the change that we need."
Former Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson is dismissing any notion the Obama campaign would dispatch Clinton to take on Palin, as much as he thinks some people would revel in seeing the two strong women butt heads.
"Don't hold your breath," he wrote in his New Republic blog. "Clinton-Palin might drive ratings and sell magazines, but it wouldn't be good for the Democratic Party, or the cause of women's rights. Some might enjoy the spectacle, but don't expect Hillary Clinton to play along."
Clinton said: "I didn't run because I was a woman but I was very conscious of the fact that my campaign meant a lot to so many, and I appreciate that. But this election is about the two parties, and the two presidential nominees, where they stand, what they would do, what our country needs right now."
And she said the Democratic ticket is the one that "will fight to revitalize the economy and create jobs and make college affordable and enable hard-working Americans to be able to afford both a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk."
It was Clinton's second campaign swing through Florida since she conceded the Democratic primary to Obama. She told supporters that it will be a critical state in November, and one that has been harder hit than most by unemployment and home foreclosures.
She later addressed nearly 1,600 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which endorsed her last year. Clinton asked them to help Obama now.
So far polls have found few signs that women who backed Clinton in the primary would cross over to vote Republican in large numbers. Even so, Palin has been the talk of the presidential campaign for a week and the Obama campaign has seemed unsure what to do about her.
Now commenting from the sidelines, Wolfson said each day the Democrats focus on Palin is a day they are not driving home the message that McCain just represents four more years of President Bush.
He warned against giving in to "an obsession in our popular culture with the 'cat fight,' an offensive term that describes the spectacle of two well-known women fighting with one another."
E-mail Us
September 8, 2008
Palin: Phantom Of The Oprah
Palin: Phantom Of The Oprah
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: Oprah Winfrey won't invite Sarah Palin on her show because she doesn't want to use it to promote any candidate. Yet she was willing to use the celebrity garnered from her show to promote Barack Obama.
This is the classic distinction without a difference. Oprah is one of those one-name celebrities. Her very mention of a book's title can make it a best-seller. When Oprah speaks, people listen.
People listened earlier this year when she bypassed Sen. Hillary Clinton to publicly embrace the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, who had been on her show twice — in January 2005 and October 2006.
Oprah, right, Michelle and primary candidate Barack in New Hampshire in December. No room for Palin on this platform.
Oprah has influence, and she used that influence to help Obama. She said she endorsed him as an individual and not as a talk show host. She says when he was on her show he was not yet officially a candidate and that her policy is not to use her show to advance the cause of any candidate. Or is it just Republicans?
The endorsement of Oprah the beautician or Oprah the sales clerk at a department store cosmetics counter would have no impact. Using her celebrity as the No. 1 talk show host does. Obama doesn't have to appear on her show once she's publicly endorsed him.
A study by two University of Maryland professors found that Oprah's endorsement of Obama may have netted him 1 million votes in his primary run against Hillary Clinton. The Obama campaign said her rallies produced 10,000 new volunteers, 650 volunteers in critical New Hampshire alone.
Her decision to endorse Obama on "Larry King Live" on May 1, 2007, over Hillary did not come without a cost. An August 2007 CBS poll found her approval rating had dropped from 74% just seven months earlier to 61%. How many were Hillary supporters?
Maybe that's what she's afraid of. A too aggressive or patronizing Palin interview might turn off hockey and soccer moms everywhere. Palin's mere presence would remind Hillary voters of both her endorsement snub and Obama's veep selection snub.
Oprah's claim of fairness falls flat when you consider that, according to the Drudge Report, she blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as part of his book tour promoting his autobiography.
Oprah Winfrey has an agenda, one that does not include giving any kind of national exposure to women and African-Americans who are Republican and conservative and articulate. These are species not supposed to exist and might shatter the liberal myth that Republican conservatives are misogynist racists.
Of her enthusiasm for The One, she says: "What I saw with Barack Obama was something that was transcendent, and I felt transformational for me as a human being and for this country. And I only pray in the deepest part of my being that America will rise to this moment. And I feel that what he was able to offer us as individual citizens and as a united country was something that we have never seen before. I really, I think it's the most powerful thing I've ever experienced."
Like most of the media and the entertainment industry, Oprah is in the tank for Obama. When Obama speaks, tingles run up and down the legs of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. When Obama gave his acceptance speech in Denver, Oprah said she "cried my eyelashes off." She probably would not have been surprised if he had fed the crowded stadium with five loaves and two fishes.
Oprah says that having the female governor of Alaska, the first female on a national GOP ticket, on a show with a largely female audience might influence the election she's already tried to influence.
We know the articulate and engaging Alaskan governor would win some new friends.
So how about having Gov. Sarah Palin on one show where she can talk about her smashing the political glass ceiling to become the ultimate working mom? Then have Sen. Joe Biden on the next day where he can explain to Oprah's audience why he thinks Sarah Palin is "good looking."
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: Oprah Winfrey won't invite Sarah Palin on her show because she doesn't want to use it to promote any candidate. Yet she was willing to use the celebrity garnered from her show to promote Barack Obama.
This is the classic distinction without a difference. Oprah is one of those one-name celebrities. Her very mention of a book's title can make it a best-seller. When Oprah speaks, people listen.
People listened earlier this year when she bypassed Sen. Hillary Clinton to publicly embrace the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, who had been on her show twice — in January 2005 and October 2006.
Oprah, right, Michelle and primary candidate Barack in New Hampshire in December. No room for Palin on this platform.
Oprah has influence, and she used that influence to help Obama. She said she endorsed him as an individual and not as a talk show host. She says when he was on her show he was not yet officially a candidate and that her policy is not to use her show to advance the cause of any candidate. Or is it just Republicans?
The endorsement of Oprah the beautician or Oprah the sales clerk at a department store cosmetics counter would have no impact. Using her celebrity as the No. 1 talk show host does. Obama doesn't have to appear on her show once she's publicly endorsed him.
A study by two University of Maryland professors found that Oprah's endorsement of Obama may have netted him 1 million votes in his primary run against Hillary Clinton. The Obama campaign said her rallies produced 10,000 new volunteers, 650 volunteers in critical New Hampshire alone.
Her decision to endorse Obama on "Larry King Live" on May 1, 2007, over Hillary did not come without a cost. An August 2007 CBS poll found her approval rating had dropped from 74% just seven months earlier to 61%. How many were Hillary supporters?
Maybe that's what she's afraid of. A too aggressive or patronizing Palin interview might turn off hockey and soccer moms everywhere. Palin's mere presence would remind Hillary voters of both her endorsement snub and Obama's veep selection snub.
Oprah's claim of fairness falls flat when you consider that, according to the Drudge Report, she blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as part of his book tour promoting his autobiography.
Oprah Winfrey has an agenda, one that does not include giving any kind of national exposure to women and African-Americans who are Republican and conservative and articulate. These are species not supposed to exist and might shatter the liberal myth that Republican conservatives are misogynist racists.
Of her enthusiasm for The One, she says: "What I saw with Barack Obama was something that was transcendent, and I felt transformational for me as a human being and for this country. And I only pray in the deepest part of my being that America will rise to this moment. And I feel that what he was able to offer us as individual citizens and as a united country was something that we have never seen before. I really, I think it's the most powerful thing I've ever experienced."
Like most of the media and the entertainment industry, Oprah is in the tank for Obama. When Obama speaks, tingles run up and down the legs of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. When Obama gave his acceptance speech in Denver, Oprah said she "cried my eyelashes off." She probably would not have been surprised if he had fed the crowded stadium with five loaves and two fishes.
Oprah says that having the female governor of Alaska, the first female on a national GOP ticket, on a show with a largely female audience might influence the election she's already tried to influence.
We know the articulate and engaging Alaskan governor would win some new friends.
So how about having Gov. Sarah Palin on one show where she can talk about her smashing the political glass ceiling to become the ultimate working mom? Then have Sen. Joe Biden on the next day where he can explain to Oprah's audience why he thinks Sarah Palin is "good looking."
Email To Friend |
Reduced to Sputtering -- Media
Today's News & Views
September 8, 2008
Reduced to Sputtering -- Media"
#1. "Why McCain Is Running Against the News Media"
Headline of story written by Peter A. Brown for this morning's Wall Street Journal.
# 2. "MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign."
From "MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors," written by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz.
#3. Meet the Press host Tom Brokaw, asking pro-abortion Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden about the speech given last week by pro-life Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin:
Brokaw: Who was the first person you called after the speech?
Biden: After my speech?
Brokaw: After her speech.
Biden: I didn't call anybody. I didn't--I happened to be--I didn't get her--I didn't see her speech, I saw part of it. I--we were, we were flying to--from Florida to Virginia, and I caught the tail end of it. And--oh, I guess I--actually, I called my wife. I called my wife.
And probably sobbed when he did. For someone, like me, who both scribbles for a livelihood and works for an organization routinely bashed by scribes of the "mainstream media," it doesn't get much better than watching them squirm.
With growing anger, Americans have watched the usual suspects work over pro-life Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Brass knuckles, blackjacks, and assorted other weaponry have been the order of the day.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Republican National Convention. Gov. Palin refused to buckle, refused to be intimidated, and refused to let the Keith Olbermanns, Chris Matthewes, and Andrea Mitchells get away with the vicious caricatures they drew of Palin and her entire family.
Her calm display of grace while under siege energized the convention and, for that matter, anyone and everyone who believes in fair play. The subsequent response to the joint appearances of pro-life Sen. John McCain and Gov. Palin--the numbers of people, the enthusiasm, and the instant bond--instantly brings to mind the response to pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama during his heyday.
Three quick points.
First, Peter Brown is a fine analyst and an excellent writer. But there is a strong suggestion in his piece in today's Journal that the McCain campaign is inflating the media bias McCain and Palin have endured just to motivate the troops. I can only shake my head in disbelief. It's been a feeding frenzy like nothing I have ever seen.
As the story written by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz illustrates, the worst offenders--MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews--have been demoted, or transferred laterally, if you want to take the most benign view. While taking the anchor spots away from them for "live political events" is unmistakable evidence of their grotesque one-sidedness, it is also true that they will stay on as "commentators." My guess is that freed from even an afterthought of impartiality, they will be even more vicious than ever.
Second, a front page story in this morning's USA Today carries the headline "McCain, GOP get a bounce in poll." We learn in the second paragraph that McCain leads Obama 50% to 46% "among registered voters." He had "lagged by 7 percentage points" just before the Republican convention began last week. We also learn the "enthusiasm gap" has almost completely vanished.
Oh, by the way, buried in the second half of the story in one sentence is this nugget: "Among those seen as most likely to vote, McCain lead Obama by 54% to 44%"--an advantage of not 4% but 10%.
And third, pro-abortion Sen. Joe Biden's response to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press Sunday is indicative, I believe, of just how flummoxed the Obama campaign is by the resurgence of Sen. McCain. There is an old adage--"if you strike the King (or in this case, the Queen), you must kill the King"--that applies perfectly.
The Obama campaign and its allies in the mainstream media and the sleazier blogs assumed that if they hurdled enough muck and injected enough poisonous lies, Palin would be neutralized, if not turned into a drag on the ticket. But that was always risky for the simple reason, as Brown delicately points out, "[T]he public already has grave doubts about the news media." People not only easily intuited the blatantly unfairness, they also took an instant shine to the brilliant, articulate, and folksy governor.
Please take a few minutes to read Part Two, in which I talk about Biden's foray into the historic position of the Catholic Church on abortion. It was so painfully wrong that I felt a twinge of embarrassment on his behalf.
Please send me your comments at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.
September 8, 2008
Reduced to Sputtering -- Media"
#1. "Why McCain Is Running Against the News Media"
Headline of story written by Peter A. Brown for this morning's Wall Street Journal.
# 2. "MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign."
From "MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors," written by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz.
#3. Meet the Press host Tom Brokaw, asking pro-abortion Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden about the speech given last week by pro-life Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin:
Brokaw: Who was the first person you called after the speech?
Biden: After my speech?
Brokaw: After her speech.
Biden: I didn't call anybody. I didn't--I happened to be--I didn't get her--I didn't see her speech, I saw part of it. I--we were, we were flying to--from Florida to Virginia, and I caught the tail end of it. And--oh, I guess I--actually, I called my wife. I called my wife.
And probably sobbed when he did. For someone, like me, who both scribbles for a livelihood and works for an organization routinely bashed by scribes of the "mainstream media," it doesn't get much better than watching them squirm.
With growing anger, Americans have watched the usual suspects work over pro-life Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Brass knuckles, blackjacks, and assorted other weaponry have been the order of the day.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Republican National Convention. Gov. Palin refused to buckle, refused to be intimidated, and refused to let the Keith Olbermanns, Chris Matthewes, and Andrea Mitchells get away with the vicious caricatures they drew of Palin and her entire family.
Her calm display of grace while under siege energized the convention and, for that matter, anyone and everyone who believes in fair play. The subsequent response to the joint appearances of pro-life Sen. John McCain and Gov. Palin--the numbers of people, the enthusiasm, and the instant bond--instantly brings to mind the response to pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama during his heyday.
Three quick points.
First, Peter Brown is a fine analyst and an excellent writer. But there is a strong suggestion in his piece in today's Journal that the McCain campaign is inflating the media bias McCain and Palin have endured just to motivate the troops. I can only shake my head in disbelief. It's been a feeding frenzy like nothing I have ever seen.
As the story written by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz illustrates, the worst offenders--MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews--have been demoted, or transferred laterally, if you want to take the most benign view. While taking the anchor spots away from them for "live political events" is unmistakable evidence of their grotesque one-sidedness, it is also true that they will stay on as "commentators." My guess is that freed from even an afterthought of impartiality, they will be even more vicious than ever.
Second, a front page story in this morning's USA Today carries the headline "McCain, GOP get a bounce in poll." We learn in the second paragraph that McCain leads Obama 50% to 46% "among registered voters." He had "lagged by 7 percentage points" just before the Republican convention began last week. We also learn the "enthusiasm gap" has almost completely vanished.
Oh, by the way, buried in the second half of the story in one sentence is this nugget: "Among those seen as most likely to vote, McCain lead Obama by 54% to 44%"--an advantage of not 4% but 10%.
And third, pro-abortion Sen. Joe Biden's response to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press Sunday is indicative, I believe, of just how flummoxed the Obama campaign is by the resurgence of Sen. McCain. There is an old adage--"if you strike the King (or in this case, the Queen), you must kill the King"--that applies perfectly.
The Obama campaign and its allies in the mainstream media and the sleazier blogs assumed that if they hurdled enough muck and injected enough poisonous lies, Palin would be neutralized, if not turned into a drag on the ticket. But that was always risky for the simple reason, as Brown delicately points out, "[T]he public already has grave doubts about the news media." People not only easily intuited the blatantly unfairness, they also took an instant shine to the brilliant, articulate, and folksy governor.
Please take a few minutes to read Part Two, in which I talk about Biden's foray into the historic position of the Catholic Church on abortion. It was so painfully wrong that I felt a twinge of embarrassment on his behalf.
Please send me your comments at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.
Why Obama's Organizer Days Are A Big Joke
Why Obama's Organizer Days Are A Big Joke
By MICHELLE MALKIN | Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Rudy Giuliani had me in stitches during his red-meat keynote address at the GOP convention. I laughed out loud when Giuliani laughed out loud while noting Barack Obama's deep experience as a "community organizer."
I laughed again when VP nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cracked: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Team Obama was not amused. (Neither were the snarky left-wingers on cable TV who are now allergic to sarcasm.) They don't get why we snicker when Obama dons his Community Organizer cape.
Apparently, the jibes rendered Obama's advisers sleepless. In a crack-of-dawn e-mail to Obama's followers hours after Giuliani and Palin spoke, campaign manager David Plouffe attempted to gin up faux outrage (and, more importantly, donations) by claiming grave offense on the part of community organizers everywhere. Fumed Plouffe:
"Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed. Let's clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."
Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors' lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama's brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.
What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.
Obama's community organizing days involved training grievance-mongers from the far-left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub "direct actions"); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush on a government planning meeting about a landfill project opposed by Chicago's minority lobbies.
With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state and undermine the free market, as well as some that have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and voter fraud.
The group continues to garner scrutiny from law enforcement.
Last week, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards.
Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts on ACORN's payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused "of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials." Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.
ACORN's political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register voters across the country. Meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services Inc." for "advance work."
Jim Terry, an official from the Consumer Rights League, a watchdog group that monitors ACORN, noted: "ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain.
"Now it looks like ACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama's political gain." With a wave of his magic wand, Obama amended his Federal Election Commission forms to change the "advance work" to "get-out-the-vote" work.
Now, don't you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don't you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a nonprofit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain. He was just "organizing" his "community." Guffaw.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
Email To Friend |
By MICHELLE MALKIN | Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Rudy Giuliani had me in stitches during his red-meat keynote address at the GOP convention. I laughed out loud when Giuliani laughed out loud while noting Barack Obama's deep experience as a "community organizer."
I laughed again when VP nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cracked: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Team Obama was not amused. (Neither were the snarky left-wingers on cable TV who are now allergic to sarcasm.) They don't get why we snicker when Obama dons his Community Organizer cape.
Apparently, the jibes rendered Obama's advisers sleepless. In a crack-of-dawn e-mail to Obama's followers hours after Giuliani and Palin spoke, campaign manager David Plouffe attempted to gin up faux outrage (and, more importantly, donations) by claiming grave offense on the part of community organizers everywhere. Fumed Plouffe:
"Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed. Let's clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."
Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors' lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama's brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.
What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.
Obama's community organizing days involved training grievance-mongers from the far-left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub "direct actions"); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush on a government planning meeting about a landfill project opposed by Chicago's minority lobbies.
With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state and undermine the free market, as well as some that have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and voter fraud.
The group continues to garner scrutiny from law enforcement.
Last week, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards.
Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts on ACORN's payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused "of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials." Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.
ACORN's political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register voters across the country. Meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services Inc." for "advance work."
Jim Terry, an official from the Consumer Rights League, a watchdog group that monitors ACORN, noted: "ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain.
"Now it looks like ACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama's political gain." With a wave of his magic wand, Obama amended his Federal Election Commission forms to change the "advance work" to "get-out-the-vote" work.
Now, don't you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don't you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a nonprofit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain. He was just "organizing" his "community." Guffaw.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
Email To Friend |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
