he was out, not down
There have been many a news item that transpired during my hiatus that I was itching to comment on. Unfortunately, the news is so old now that my comments are now irrelevant, but I have kept up to date with the issues and have often left little tidbits on my Twitter page.
First off, I would like to say that it is encouraging that the bloom has come off the Obamarose. People are slowly realizing that almost a year ago, 52% of the electorate voted for a guy who is clearly in over his head. The ObamaCare bill, now in its second incarnation, is still up for debate, Cap-n-Tax is stalled in the US Senate, and Iran is still playing Obama for a fool (Life is great, isn't it?). Republicans, who had been marginalized as a regional party in the minds of liberals, picked up two governorships, despite Obamessiah's reliance on his cult personality. Liberals would love to continue to spin those two elections as non-referenda on Obama's becoming the White House's Megan Fox, while championing a "pickup" in a New York district that hasn't seen a Democrat representative in 16 years. Oddly, the Republican and the conservative candidate, in that election, picked up more votes than the Democrat.
The idea was to show how candidates who ally with the Tea Party Movement will be on the losing end of any future elections. The same group that continues to portray legitimate criticism as "unpatriotic" claim that Doug Hoffman's loss in Tuesday's election was a referendum on Sarah Palin-style conservatism. Back here in the real world, the Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Laura Ingrahams, et al, brought a virtual no one to within 4 percentage points of beating his Democratic contender. This is interpreted by many of the Beltway Republican types as a wakeup call to avoid choosing squishes like Scozzafava for future races. Of course liberals want the GOP to heed the advice of Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) because they want to advance their agenda. They understand that the RNC nominating moderate squishes is a guaranteed win for Democrats. I would call on the RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC to stop taking advice from liberals.
What happened Tuesday is causing some conservative Democrats to become skiddish about supporting the wishes of San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid. The nutroots are demanding congressional Democrats shove their unpopular policies down the throats of the electorate, because somehow these moderate Democrats should have the assurance that the White House and the DNC will have their backs come this time next year. I say, a congresscritter has to answer to their constituent...not Tim Kaine and Barack Obama. Democrats can ignore the results of Tuesday at the peril of their congressional majorities, which is fine by me. The people have spoken, just as they have time and time again. We all remember what happened when the Republicans ignore the will of the people in 2006, right?! Democrats still herald that result, like Rahm Emmanuel did about governors races in 2005 (Damn that Spirit of Spin Past).
Meanwhile, the Toilet Paper goes back to the meme that all Tea Partiers are crazy nutjobs...apparently, the Tea Party's strategy is working, if they can get all this consternation from Toilet Paper...
Have a great day!
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
05 November 2009
19 August 2009
Eric Boehlert: The media is in the tank for the "reich-wing fascists..."
...and the Easter Bunny is real...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
11 August 2009
Meggie Mac: Why's everybody always pickin' on me?
Dr. Asten: Because you try to portray yourself as a serious political analyst, but you come off as a whiner...
Liberals, and some conservatives, hammer former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, for whatever reason. They dismiss her views as illegitimate and claim her rhetoric bars her from being a serious political analyst. Usually, the same group of people who demean Palin for some of her less than stellar comments, are the ones who've engaged in rhetoric that would make Idi Amin blush. Keith Olbermann's latest Speshul Komint, much like the one he gave after the passing of Prop 8, is being lauded by the usual groups as a takedown of Palin, as well as Glenn Beck. Olbermann went after Palin and Beck for using "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric, yet remained mum on his "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric that occurs daily on his show. Olbermann, and the liberals who believe he's "speaking truth to power," and have engaged in their own irresponsible rhetoric have no authority to counsel others about theirs. The sentiment shared by Palin, and several elderly members of the electorate, is not unfounded. They're being told that ObamaCare will create a new bureaucracy, which I erroneously said it wouldn't, and that it would have specific powers in determining which insurance policies qualify as Qualified Health Benefits Packages (QHBP). I should also note while Olbermann was giving a tongue lashing to Palin and Beck about reading the bill, he hasn't read it either...stating that there would be no Health Choices Commissioner, but he didn't read page 41. Say what you will about former Governor Palin, but at least she contributes something substantive to the debate, unlike Meggie Mac, who whines about not being taken seriously.
Meggie Mac writes in a post on The Daily Beast about a statement made by Michelle Malkin about which conservative personality should "shut up." I have said at least once that Meggie needs to stop engaging in catfights with people who are her ideological supporters and take her fight to her ideological enemy. It does her no good to engage in public spats with women who can mop the floor with her in an argument. She doesn't recognize her role as the Obamedia's real life Stephen Colbert, as evidenced by her appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. The entire conservative movement, save Kathleen Parker and David Frum, welcome moderate conservatives into the debate to counter Obama and his acolytes. The problem with Meggie Mac stems from her idea that she's smarter than the rest of the people in the room, when she's clearly in over her head. Throughout the article, where she's bitching about Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter for not being civil, the girl doesn't mind being a little snarky herself, taking shots at Malkin and Coulter's publisher, Regenery. Someone needs to tell her, AGAIN, that taking pot shots at prominent, and attractive women on the Right, to cater to the Left is not going to build trust among the conservative base that really don't trust McCains anyway...except for The Other McCain.
Have a great day...
Liberals, and some conservatives, hammer former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, for whatever reason. They dismiss her views as illegitimate and claim her rhetoric bars her from being a serious political analyst. Usually, the same group of people who demean Palin for some of her less than stellar comments, are the ones who've engaged in rhetoric that would make Idi Amin blush. Keith Olbermann's latest Speshul Komint, much like the one he gave after the passing of Prop 8, is being lauded by the usual groups as a takedown of Palin, as well as Glenn Beck. Olbermann went after Palin and Beck for using "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric, yet remained mum on his "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric that occurs daily on his show. Olbermann, and the liberals who believe he's "speaking truth to power," and have engaged in their own irresponsible rhetoric have no authority to counsel others about theirs. The sentiment shared by Palin, and several elderly members of the electorate, is not unfounded. They're being told that ObamaCare will create a new bureaucracy, which I erroneously said it wouldn't, and that it would have specific powers in determining which insurance policies qualify as Qualified Health Benefits Packages (QHBP). I should also note while Olbermann was giving a tongue lashing to Palin and Beck about reading the bill, he hasn't read it either...stating that there would be no Health Choices Commissioner, but he didn't read page 41. Say what you will about former Governor Palin, but at least she contributes something substantive to the debate, unlike Meggie Mac, who whines about not being taken seriously.
Meggie Mac writes in a post on The Daily Beast about a statement made by Michelle Malkin about which conservative personality should "shut up." I have said at least once that Meggie needs to stop engaging in catfights with people who are her ideological supporters and take her fight to her ideological enemy. It does her no good to engage in public spats with women who can mop the floor with her in an argument. She doesn't recognize her role as the Obamedia's real life Stephen Colbert, as evidenced by her appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. The entire conservative movement, save Kathleen Parker and David Frum, welcome moderate conservatives into the debate to counter Obama and his acolytes. The problem with Meggie Mac stems from her idea that she's smarter than the rest of the people in the room, when she's clearly in over her head. Throughout the article, where she's bitching about Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter for not being civil, the girl doesn't mind being a little snarky herself, taking shots at Malkin and Coulter's publisher, Regenery. Someone needs to tell her, AGAIN, that taking pot shots at prominent, and attractive women on the Right, to cater to the Left is not going to build trust among the conservative base that really don't trust McCains anyway...except for The Other McCain.
Have a great day...
Jay Bookman: The "mob" uses lies and distortions...
...I just can't point them out...
Jay Bookman, not to be confused with Florida Evans' building superintendent from the TV series, Good Times, ridicules the "mob" in a blogpost for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, specifically talking about an article on the conservative website, Human Events which cites an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. His entire post centers on a paragraph which says that a person who has the same condition as reknown scientist, Stephen Hawking, who has Lou Gherig's disease, would not stand a chance in the British health system, based on the point-system used by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The fact that Dr. Hawking still lives in the UK and and breathes there too, does not render IBD's criticism of the British healthcare system moot.
The section of the House Bill, 1233 (pages 425-430), which talks about "end-of-life counseling," or advanced care planning, has met the ire of not only SarahCuda, but several older men and women, who are concerned that the Obama Administration is advocating euthanasia. Based on my reading of the bill, it mandates a counseling session between the individual and their practitioner if one hasn't occurred in the past 5 years. It discusses several programs available to the individual, and makes plans for the patient if s/he becomes unable to communicate their wishes, due to health problems. These plans, between the patient and under the guidance of a trained healthcare official, are subject to change as the patient's condition deteriorates or progresses. It does not mention any bureaucracy being created to determine whether an elderly person lives or dies, it does mention the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. In my view, the talking point coming from some on the Right about Obama's "death panel" is wrong. Keith Olbermann took Sarah to task recently in a Speshul Komint, essentially blaming her for any violence that may come from any future town halls. There was no Speshul Komint from Keith when he was comparing President Bush and Republicans to Nazis and Fascists. Also notably absent are Speshul Komints from Keithy over shenanigans by Code Pink and the anti-war movement.
That was the only thing about ObamaCare that I believe the Right got wrong. There are, however, more things about the bill where the Right's opposition would gain a little traction, like the costs. If the Right continues to hammer the expense into the minds of the electorate, this plan is toast. No plan by the White House, nor Democratic members in Congress, have been able to prove that revolutionizing 15% of the economy will be deficit neutral. When you start getting flak over the costs of the program, you can best bet the vulnerablility of the plan has been exposed. I've perused several left-wing blogs, who've spared no expense in poking fun at Kenneth Gladney, but they don't mention how much the program will cost over the longterm, and how the proposals used to pay for it, will not adequately pay for the expansion of the healthcare system. This seems to be an indication of how Obamists will plan to focus the debate on ObamaCare, and George Soros is waiting in the wings...
Obama holds a town hall meeting of his own today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He will be limited on what he can say about the bill, as it hasn't been finalized (not that it's stopped him before). The Obama White House is changing its strategery to reshape the debate on ObamaCare. They've released a new website at whitehouse.gov called "Reality Check," which serves as a ObamaCare Media Matters, of sorts, and shows videos of several members of the Obama Administration trying to "correct conservative misinformation" about ObamaCare (yea, that'll convince people...getting members of the White House to convince me the plan's well worth the anticipation. Liberals didn't believe "spin" coming from the Bush White House, but they want me to believe it coming from Obama? They really think I'm stupid...). Dorothy Rabinowitz has other thoughts...
Have a great day...
Jay Bookman, not to be confused with Florida Evans' building superintendent from the TV series, Good Times, ridicules the "mob" in a blogpost for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, specifically talking about an article on the conservative website, Human Events which cites an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. His entire post centers on a paragraph which says that a person who has the same condition as reknown scientist, Stephen Hawking, who has Lou Gherig's disease, would not stand a chance in the British health system, based on the point-system used by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The fact that Dr. Hawking still lives in the UK and and breathes there too, does not render IBD's criticism of the British healthcare system moot.
The section of the House Bill, 1233 (pages 425-430), which talks about "end-of-life counseling," or advanced care planning, has met the ire of not only SarahCuda, but several older men and women, who are concerned that the Obama Administration is advocating euthanasia. Based on my reading of the bill, it mandates a counseling session between the individual and their practitioner if one hasn't occurred in the past 5 years. It discusses several programs available to the individual, and makes plans for the patient if s/he becomes unable to communicate their wishes, due to health problems. These plans, between the patient and under the guidance of a trained healthcare official, are subject to change as the patient's condition deteriorates or progresses. It does not mention any bureaucracy being created to determine whether an elderly person lives or dies, it does mention the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. In my view, the talking point coming from some on the Right about Obama's "death panel" is wrong. Keith Olbermann took Sarah to task recently in a Speshul Komint, essentially blaming her for any violence that may come from any future town halls. There was no Speshul Komint from Keith when he was comparing President Bush and Republicans to Nazis and Fascists. Also notably absent are Speshul Komints from Keithy over shenanigans by Code Pink and the anti-war movement.
That was the only thing about ObamaCare that I believe the Right got wrong. There are, however, more things about the bill where the Right's opposition would gain a little traction, like the costs. If the Right continues to hammer the expense into the minds of the electorate, this plan is toast. No plan by the White House, nor Democratic members in Congress, have been able to prove that revolutionizing 15% of the economy will be deficit neutral. When you start getting flak over the costs of the program, you can best bet the vulnerablility of the plan has been exposed. I've perused several left-wing blogs, who've spared no expense in poking fun at Kenneth Gladney, but they don't mention how much the program will cost over the longterm, and how the proposals used to pay for it, will not adequately pay for the expansion of the healthcare system. This seems to be an indication of how Obamists will plan to focus the debate on ObamaCare, and George Soros is waiting in the wings...
Obama holds a town hall meeting of his own today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He will be limited on what he can say about the bill, as it hasn't been finalized (not that it's stopped him before). The Obama White House is changing its strategery to reshape the debate on ObamaCare. They've released a new website at whitehouse.gov called "Reality Check," which serves as a ObamaCare Media Matters, of sorts, and shows videos of several members of the Obama Administration trying to "correct conservative misinformation" about ObamaCare (yea, that'll convince people...getting members of the White House to convince me the plan's well worth the anticipation. Liberals didn't believe "spin" coming from the Bush White House, but they want me to believe it coming from Obama? They really think I'm stupid...). Dorothy Rabinowitz has other thoughts...
Have a great day...
30 July 2009
Mark Morford: The Birthers are hijacking the GOP's agenda...
...the crazies on the Left did no such thing about Democrats...
By continuing to blog about the "Birthers," I am not lending them any credibility, because I don't agree with their movement. When I blog about them, I am only discussing how liberals apply credibility with the same standards as the shifting winds. Mark Morford, a blogger at HuffnPuff pokes fun at Birthers and the GOP, by offering up 9 more conspiracy theories they could embrace once the Obama birth certificate story dies. He and I agree that the Birthers have no legs to stand on, in light of the evidence, it's a fallacious claim he makes which gives me a problem. He claims that while the Left has no shortage of crazies, they did not dominate discussion in quite the same way as the Birthers are about the GOP. Anyone remember Trig-gate?
After Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in the Election of 2008, journalists were airlifted into Juneau to try and dig up dirt on dear old Sarah. Barack Obama was licking his chops in anticipation for a saucy divorce story that similarly derailed the campaigns of his opponents for the US Senate. Unfortunately, Sarah was still married to her first husband and had children by him. She had no illegitimate children, and she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the union. Obama, whose lead over McCain was shrinking, began to panic. Soon, there were murmurings in the blue blogosphere about Sarah's fifth child actually being her grandson. "JACKPOT!" Obama said, reminiscing the 1970s and 80s gameshow. He stayed above the fray, but gave a milquetoast condemnation to liberals who pushed the story (and liberals blamed Sarah Palin for not quelling the rumors that started in the blue blogosphere...and they, oddly, don't call on Obama to do the same about the Birthers).
Need another? Look at Troopergate, where Sarah was under investigation for firing the Public Safety Commissioner. Before the investigation was complete, liberals were claiming that she abused her power and that she was unfit for being "a heartbeat away." The investigation found Sarah acted well within her authority to fire Walter Monegan for insubordination. Instead, liberals trumpted the notion that Palin "abused power," which was in contrast to the report. The report claimed she violated an ambiguous ethics law which said, "any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust..." Hell, she could be sued for merely releasing carbon dioxide in the air...and liberals felt that THIS was the sole disqualification for her VP candidacy? Obama had many more problems than that. He obviously had become unnerved by Palin, since he referred to her as a "pig" in one of his campaign speeches. I don't think Morford is convinced that crazies on the Left don't make policy for Democrats yet.
In the aftermath of the contentious Election of 2000, liberals became apopletic about the possibility that the winning president can win the electoral vote, but not the popular one. Various conspiracy theories emerged that President Bush conspired with then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris to throw the election his way. There was one article that posed the hypothetical that something was amiss because the governor of the state in question happened to be the brother of one of the candidates. Several news outlets questioned the results of the election in an attempt to make Bush's presidency illegitimate, with chief conspiracy theorist, Michael Moore claiming that the news networks followed the lead of Fox News Channel.
There were murmurings about US forces committing war crimes among the blue blogosphere that got aired on the floor of the US Senate. Everyone, who's honest, recalls Senator Richard Durbin on the floor of the US Senate referring to GITMO as a "gulag," even though no independent report stated that GITMO detainees were being abused. When the tragedy at Abu Ghraib was exposed, at least one prominent Democrat alleged that all detainees in US custody were treated similar to prisoners in Saddam's rape rooms. The Haditha incident brought out more hysterics as Congressman Jack Murtha and Senator John Kerry alleged our forces were killing innocents in cold blood, by breaking into their houses in the dark of night. This, no doubt, was borne on the pages of blue blogs.
In my final episode of the wackiness of liberals being aired out by Democrats, comes the impending Bush impeachment. Because liberals felt that "Bush lied, kids died," since the intel he used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, and because they felt Bushie wanted to dismantle the US Constitution amendment by amendment, they believed he needed to be impeached. It was a crackpot idea, in light of many Democrats claiming the same thing Bush did...only years earlier. But that didn't stop the Democrats in the US House of Representatives from staging mock impeachment trials. I think Mr. Morford should take a more objective view of the crazies on the Left, and how they routinely make policy for Democrats, and stop projecting onto Republicans.
Can he explain the regular meetings Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other prominent Democrats, have with kos and other liberal bloggers and fellow crazies?
Have a great day...
By continuing to blog about the "Birthers," I am not lending them any credibility, because I don't agree with their movement. When I blog about them, I am only discussing how liberals apply credibility with the same standards as the shifting winds. Mark Morford, a blogger at HuffnPuff pokes fun at Birthers and the GOP, by offering up 9 more conspiracy theories they could embrace once the Obama birth certificate story dies. He and I agree that the Birthers have no legs to stand on, in light of the evidence, it's a fallacious claim he makes which gives me a problem. He claims that while the Left has no shortage of crazies, they did not dominate discussion in quite the same way as the Birthers are about the GOP. Anyone remember Trig-gate?
After Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in the Election of 2008, journalists were airlifted into Juneau to try and dig up dirt on dear old Sarah. Barack Obama was licking his chops in anticipation for a saucy divorce story that similarly derailed the campaigns of his opponents for the US Senate. Unfortunately, Sarah was still married to her first husband and had children by him. She had no illegitimate children, and she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the union. Obama, whose lead over McCain was shrinking, began to panic. Soon, there were murmurings in the blue blogosphere about Sarah's fifth child actually being her grandson. "JACKPOT!" Obama said, reminiscing the 1970s and 80s gameshow. He stayed above the fray, but gave a milquetoast condemnation to liberals who pushed the story (and liberals blamed Sarah Palin for not quelling the rumors that started in the blue blogosphere...and they, oddly, don't call on Obama to do the same about the Birthers).
Need another? Look at Troopergate, where Sarah was under investigation for firing the Public Safety Commissioner. Before the investigation was complete, liberals were claiming that she abused her power and that she was unfit for being "a heartbeat away." The investigation found Sarah acted well within her authority to fire Walter Monegan for insubordination. Instead, liberals trumpted the notion that Palin "abused power," which was in contrast to the report. The report claimed she violated an ambiguous ethics law which said, "any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust..." Hell, she could be sued for merely releasing carbon dioxide in the air...and liberals felt that THIS was the sole disqualification for her VP candidacy? Obama had many more problems than that. He obviously had become unnerved by Palin, since he referred to her as a "pig" in one of his campaign speeches. I don't think Morford is convinced that crazies on the Left don't make policy for Democrats yet.
In the aftermath of the contentious Election of 2000, liberals became apopletic about the possibility that the winning president can win the electoral vote, but not the popular one. Various conspiracy theories emerged that President Bush conspired with then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris to throw the election his way. There was one article that posed the hypothetical that something was amiss because the governor of the state in question happened to be the brother of one of the candidates. Several news outlets questioned the results of the election in an attempt to make Bush's presidency illegitimate, with chief conspiracy theorist, Michael Moore claiming that the news networks followed the lead of Fox News Channel.
There were murmurings about US forces committing war crimes among the blue blogosphere that got aired on the floor of the US Senate. Everyone, who's honest, recalls Senator Richard Durbin on the floor of the US Senate referring to GITMO as a "gulag," even though no independent report stated that GITMO detainees were being abused. When the tragedy at Abu Ghraib was exposed, at least one prominent Democrat alleged that all detainees in US custody were treated similar to prisoners in Saddam's rape rooms. The Haditha incident brought out more hysterics as Congressman Jack Murtha and Senator John Kerry alleged our forces were killing innocents in cold blood, by breaking into their houses in the dark of night. This, no doubt, was borne on the pages of blue blogs.
In my final episode of the wackiness of liberals being aired out by Democrats, comes the impending Bush impeachment. Because liberals felt that "Bush lied, kids died," since the intel he used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, and because they felt Bushie wanted to dismantle the US Constitution amendment by amendment, they believed he needed to be impeached. It was a crackpot idea, in light of many Democrats claiming the same thing Bush did...only years earlier. But that didn't stop the Democrats in the US House of Representatives from staging mock impeachment trials. I think Mr. Morford should take a more objective view of the crazies on the Left, and how they routinely make policy for Democrats, and stop projecting onto Republicans.
Can he explain the regular meetings Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other prominent Democrats, have with kos and other liberal bloggers and fellow crazies?
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)