For the last 3 weeks or so, I have been sulking, politically, and busy, professionally, thus preventing more of my words of mediocrity from appearing on this blog site. I apologize to my hundreds of readers for my delays in getting back to you, both on here, and through the many emails you have sent.
So, let me recap what has gone on since I last posted.
We are gearing up for a new Clinton administration, a third term for Bill and Hillary's people. Barack even admitted that he was intentionally hiring former Clinton people because he wanted experienced people on his staff. However, with Hillary the most likely Secretary of State, and Bill publicly stating interest in a job in the president-elect's cabinet, America is entering into the 1990's all over again. Higher taxes are on the way! Oh, and in bad news for the economy, this Clinton regime will not have the internet boom fall into its collective lap this time around.
Congress, with their 59 Democrats in the Senate, is spending like there is no tomorrow. Since some of our Republican friends thought that acting like a Democrat and spending more than we have was how to get re-elected, we have no one left to fight for spending control. Except when it comes to the military. They are all for gutting the military...similar to what happened 10 minutes after Bill took office in 1993. Then, for 8 years, our weakened military was unable to fight off terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, two US Embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole. (The same military and defense cuts led to our vulnerability to the 9-11 attacks.)
Everyone from the city of Chicago (fully under the impression of the buddy-boy network now that their puppet is the president-elect), to the state of Cahl-EEE-foh-nee-yah; from the mom and pop candy store to the biggest automakers in the United States; are all asking...or, begging...for a big slice of the open flood of money from Washington. It is downright sad. There is such a panic over the economy, 99% of which is exacerbated by the 24-hour, repetitive news cycle, that everyone is making a run on any money they can get their paws on, no one taking a moment to really think of where this money is coming from, or what the price is going to be in the long run.
The one bright spot of the 2008 elections, well, the one successful bright spot, if you will, was Saxby Chambliss fending off the millions of Obama-aid send to Georgia to reclaim his seat in the Senate, thus preventing the filibuster-prof majority for the Democrats. Saxby will be looked to for leadership and strength, as he is one of the few Republicans to be able to return to Washington in January. Saxby won by double-digit margins, thus preventing a drawn-out, lawsuit-filled holiday season, as there would assuredly be suit after suit after suit should the polls have been withing 5 points. So, Saxby Chambliss is the one hero that Republicans can look to for the next couple of years. He fought the "Obama-mania media" and the Liberals from NYC to LA to win back his seat.
Next, I want to address the pseudo-controversy surrounding Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. His comments about Janet Napolitano, Obama's pick to head Homeland Security. The same media who criticized Sarah Palin for having 5 kids is now attacking Rendell for his comments. He made a comment, that was unknowingly picked up by a nearby live mic, that said that since Napolitano does not have a family, she is a great pick for the job, because she can devote 19-20 hours a day to the job. To me, Rendell was only repeating the logic that many used to attack Sarah Palin. Now they are upset at this logic? In addition, this comment was not sexist, as many are purporting to be. The quote was, "Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it." The only reference to her gender came in the form of pronouns used instead of her name. There was no reference to her gender other than that. It just goes to show how sensitive and ready to pounce people are today. Everyone is looking for a reason to get mad at someone.
Previously in this piece, I referred to Chambliss as the 'one successful brightspot' in this year's campaign cycle. There can be arguments as to how successful she was, but the fact is she did not get elected. And I do blame her running mate as much as I do the left-wing media that actively campaigned for her opponents. I am talking, of course, about the "breath of fresh air," Governor Sarah Palin. She was the bright spot to outshine all bright spots. She, and she alone, carried John McCain to a lead in September. Then the financial crisis hit, and then the media put the blame solely on the Bush Administration, and that proved to be too much for even the bright-eyed, intelligent, strong Conservative leader Palin.
However, I do believe that Sarah Palin may well repeat her own Modus Operondai come 2012. If you know much about her, you know that before winning the Governorship, Palin did lose a bid to become Lieutenant Governor her first time around. So, perhaps, in 2012, it is time for her to take a step up, much as she did in Alaska. A Palin-Romney ticket sounds great to me. Or, perhaps, Sarah Palin-General David Petraeus ticket? Okay, I am stretching it there, but Petraeus has climbed about as high as anyone can in the military. In four years, he may want to climb to a higher office.
It has been a hard month to swallow. It sickens me how much of a rock star our president-elect is. He is not a leader. He was not elected to be a leader. He is simply installing Clinton Administration 2.0, then going around talking good. However, Saxby Chambliss helped America avoid sheer disaster, and may just be enough for us to limp to the 2010 mid-terms, where I hope people like Sarah Palin are the face of the party, and not these middle of the road phonies who think Republicans need to lean left, instead of the Democrats leaning from the FAR FAR FAR left toward the center.
I am hopeful.
I do want to add that I had a lot of ground to cover in this piece, and I did not want to include the Black Friday tragedies and the India Terrorist Attacks in with this litany of commentary. I will discuss those events in coming blogs. Thank you for your time!
Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts
Friday, December 5, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
100th POST!!!! Making the Case Against Barack Obama
Today, I will address the current ideals surrounding the state of affairs in the Presidential Election. I think that this election is very important, and I think far too many Americans are taking this very nonchalantly and not truly vetting their choice.
First thing I want to address is the accusation of negativity. Why is it that McCain's negative ads are all people remember? No one remembers that Obama attacks McCain, also, as much as possible. The fact is, there are no radical associations or dangerous decisions that McCain has made that would warrant an attack ad. Instead, people like Barbara Walters and Joy Behar on The View, people on CNN, MSNBC, and hundreds of "I am rich, so listen to my opinion as if it were the Gospel" Hollywood buffoons constantly hint at McCain's age as being a factor. MSNBC allowed an ad to run that attacked McCain's skin cancer scare of a few years ago. Democratic politicians come out and accuse McCain of being racist and comparing him to George Wallace.
Yet, only Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly condemn those attacks. Obama would not even distance himself from the comparisons made between McCain and Wallace. McCain gave Obama the chance at the last debate, but Obama decided, instead, as always, to point the finger at McCain and the right wing. Obama knows McCain is not racist, yet Obama refused to set the record straight. He refuses to go against his party.
Yet, McCain rips the mic away from a supporter for trying to insult Barack Obama and call him a Muslim...he grabbed the mic away and corrected her, on the spot, without pause. But Barack Obama cannot set the record straight on the racism allegations made by his own party's elected officials? And McCain is the negative one?
Now, the left wingers are having a field day with the cost of Sarah Palin's new campaign wardrobe. They scoff at it's estimated $150K price tag. They attack her as being a phony and an elitist. They say she is not in touch with the middle class as she says she is. They attack her for getting a new wardrobe for the campaign trail.
Has there ever been a question about how much Obama's or Biden's, or even McCain's, suits cost? Has there ever been a question about any other candidate's wardrobe costs? No.
This is a sexist attack by the left. Palin did not go shopping and send a bill to the RNC. The RNC bought the wardrobe for her. She is giving the wardrobe to charity once she is done with it.
How is the cost of a wardrobe for the campaign trail a viable issue for the election? If it can be used to smear a Republican, by gosh, its fair game!
As far as the attack ads coming from the Republicans, all McCain and the Right Wing have done is do what the media should...ask questions about Obama's history. If I had no risk of anyone looking into my past and fully vetting me out, I could say anything that people wanted to hear just to get elected.
My biggest problem with Obama are the holes in his history (he is the first modern-day candidate NOT to release his birth certificate...and we know nothing, cannot even find his senior thesis, about his college years other than the fact that he went there..), and the fact that time and time again, he has to distance himself or clarify himself where it relates to important people in his life, past and or present.
The Ayers questions are valid. Ayers' living room was the launch pad for Obama's political career. That is a FACT. Ayers may have been a terrorist when Obama was 8, but he still preaches, under the guise of college professor, much of the same anti-American and anti-government propaganda as he did then. In 2001, Ayers claimed in the New York Times that he and the Weather Underground had done more...eerily, the comments were published on 9-11-01. Obama wrote a blurb for Ayers' book. You don't put your name on someone else's work unless you trust them and know them...or are a complete naive buffoon...and, in either case, as it relates to a man who preaches the outrageous ideals Ayers preaches, it shows a lack of ability and readiness to lead a nation.
As for Reverend Wright, you cannot spend 20 years in the pews of a church with a pastor you do not agree with. You do not let a preacher who spews hatred and racism and anti-Americanism from the pulpit marry you and baptize your children, unless you somewhat agree with him.
Let me ask you this...
If John McCain had spent any significant time in the same room, even if it was a coincidental passing in a hotel lobby, as Tim McVeigh or Ted Kazynski (Una bomber), would he race be close today?
If John McCain had spent just 5 years in a church the featured a preacher who even once made reference to race, or to the fact that America's chickens where coming home to roost in reference to the 9-11 attacks, where would this Presidential race be?
If McCain had similar connections to radical ideals and thoughts like Obama does...would the race be nearly this close?
Next, why is everyone so bent on the idea that Sarah Palin is inexperienced and unqualified? She has executive experience, unlike any of the 3 men on the ballot. She has run a town and a state. She has had to make executive decisions that determine people's future. She has not been part of a decision-making body where your decisions get lost in the shuffle, like Congress. Besides, she is the second on the ticket...not the first.
If you want to talk about her inexperience, why, then is it unfair to question Obama's? I cannot remember whom of my respondents said it, but the idea that questioning what Obama has done and has not done was not constructive. Yet, questioning Palin, who has more experience as a leader than Obama, is fair game.
Obama's political career to the White House includes no major accomplishments, other than speaking well enough to get elected to a new office. He has not had a news-worthy battle for a bill or ideal. He has gone with his party without much resistance. He has only disagreed with George Bush...never has taken a stance against his own party. What has he really done to prove he is ready to lead from day one? He cannot even be a leader in his own party.
Obama does not have the experience or the mettle to lead from day one. Even his running mate said that the world knows that Obama is not ready...they are going to take advantage of Obama's inexperience. There will be a new crisis once Obama takes office...meaning that our enemies know he is not ready.
The question, then, is, who is going to get hurt because of this world-wide perception of Obama's weakness? Can we afford to find out?
First thing I want to address is the accusation of negativity. Why is it that McCain's negative ads are all people remember? No one remembers that Obama attacks McCain, also, as much as possible. The fact is, there are no radical associations or dangerous decisions that McCain has made that would warrant an attack ad. Instead, people like Barbara Walters and Joy Behar on The View, people on CNN, MSNBC, and hundreds of "I am rich, so listen to my opinion as if it were the Gospel" Hollywood buffoons constantly hint at McCain's age as being a factor. MSNBC allowed an ad to run that attacked McCain's skin cancer scare of a few years ago. Democratic politicians come out and accuse McCain of being racist and comparing him to George Wallace.
Yet, only Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly condemn those attacks. Obama would not even distance himself from the comparisons made between McCain and Wallace. McCain gave Obama the chance at the last debate, but Obama decided, instead, as always, to point the finger at McCain and the right wing. Obama knows McCain is not racist, yet Obama refused to set the record straight. He refuses to go against his party.
Yet, McCain rips the mic away from a supporter for trying to insult Barack Obama and call him a Muslim...he grabbed the mic away and corrected her, on the spot, without pause. But Barack Obama cannot set the record straight on the racism allegations made by his own party's elected officials? And McCain is the negative one?
Now, the left wingers are having a field day with the cost of Sarah Palin's new campaign wardrobe. They scoff at it's estimated $150K price tag. They attack her as being a phony and an elitist. They say she is not in touch with the middle class as she says she is. They attack her for getting a new wardrobe for the campaign trail.
Has there ever been a question about how much Obama's or Biden's, or even McCain's, suits cost? Has there ever been a question about any other candidate's wardrobe costs? No.
This is a sexist attack by the left. Palin did not go shopping and send a bill to the RNC. The RNC bought the wardrobe for her. She is giving the wardrobe to charity once she is done with it.
How is the cost of a wardrobe for the campaign trail a viable issue for the election? If it can be used to smear a Republican, by gosh, its fair game!
As far as the attack ads coming from the Republicans, all McCain and the Right Wing have done is do what the media should...ask questions about Obama's history. If I had no risk of anyone looking into my past and fully vetting me out, I could say anything that people wanted to hear just to get elected.
My biggest problem with Obama are the holes in his history (he is the first modern-day candidate NOT to release his birth certificate...and we know nothing, cannot even find his senior thesis, about his college years other than the fact that he went there..), and the fact that time and time again, he has to distance himself or clarify himself where it relates to important people in his life, past and or present.
The Ayers questions are valid. Ayers' living room was the launch pad for Obama's political career. That is a FACT. Ayers may have been a terrorist when Obama was 8, but he still preaches, under the guise of college professor, much of the same anti-American and anti-government propaganda as he did then. In 2001, Ayers claimed in the New York Times that he and the Weather Underground had done more...eerily, the comments were published on 9-11-01. Obama wrote a blurb for Ayers' book. You don't put your name on someone else's work unless you trust them and know them...or are a complete naive buffoon...and, in either case, as it relates to a man who preaches the outrageous ideals Ayers preaches, it shows a lack of ability and readiness to lead a nation.
As for Reverend Wright, you cannot spend 20 years in the pews of a church with a pastor you do not agree with. You do not let a preacher who spews hatred and racism and anti-Americanism from the pulpit marry you and baptize your children, unless you somewhat agree with him.
Let me ask you this...
If John McCain had spent any significant time in the same room, even if it was a coincidental passing in a hotel lobby, as Tim McVeigh or Ted Kazynski (Una bomber), would he race be close today?
If John McCain had spent just 5 years in a church the featured a preacher who even once made reference to race, or to the fact that America's chickens where coming home to roost in reference to the 9-11 attacks, where would this Presidential race be?
If McCain had similar connections to radical ideals and thoughts like Obama does...would the race be nearly this close?
Next, why is everyone so bent on the idea that Sarah Palin is inexperienced and unqualified? She has executive experience, unlike any of the 3 men on the ballot. She has run a town and a state. She has had to make executive decisions that determine people's future. She has not been part of a decision-making body where your decisions get lost in the shuffle, like Congress. Besides, she is the second on the ticket...not the first.
If you want to talk about her inexperience, why, then is it unfair to question Obama's? I cannot remember whom of my respondents said it, but the idea that questioning what Obama has done and has not done was not constructive. Yet, questioning Palin, who has more experience as a leader than Obama, is fair game.
Obama's political career to the White House includes no major accomplishments, other than speaking well enough to get elected to a new office. He has not had a news-worthy battle for a bill or ideal. He has gone with his party without much resistance. He has only disagreed with George Bush...never has taken a stance against his own party. What has he really done to prove he is ready to lead from day one? He cannot even be a leader in his own party.
Obama does not have the experience or the mettle to lead from day one. Even his running mate said that the world knows that Obama is not ready...they are going to take advantage of Obama's inexperience. There will be a new crisis once Obama takes office...meaning that our enemies know he is not ready.
The question, then, is, who is going to get hurt because of this world-wide perception of Obama's weakness? Can we afford to find out?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Lipstick of Doom
"The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull...Lipstick."
The famous, oft-repeated joke that Sarah Palin made in reference to herself, and other Alaskan hockey moms, at the Republican National Convention last week. The comment has been played, repeated, looped, and Youtubed a million times over. There is no way on Earth that his campaign did not hear and understand the comment.
Yet, Barack Obama, as he paused, stammerred, and "uh"-ed his way through a campaign stop in Virginia yesterday, he made a very snide remark and went below the belt on the McCain-Palin ticket.
His comment, which is an old saying, was that "You can put lipstick on a pig...{dramatic pause as he allows the crowd to 'get it' and laugh}...but it's still a pig."
For me, I have to conceed that it is in fact an old saying. However, his decision to use it, and then include the long pause for the crowd to get the joke, shows just how rattled he and his campaign really are.
There has been a 23 percentage-point swing in the last 10 days in a crucial area of Obama's demographic. Women, scorned by Obama being the nominee and then not even vetting or considering Hillary for his VP, are flocking to the energy, family-values, and inspiring story of Sarah Palin.
And Obama blatantly calls her a pig on the campaign stump.
For conversation's sake, let me pose this hypothetical, despite the fact that the likelihood of this being fact is minimal. Let's just say that Obama was not taking a swipe at Palin. Let's just say the "lipstick on a pig" comment was meant at face value and not a play on a largely famous comment from just one week prior. Let us say the comment is innocent in nature and not a swipe. Let's just say that.
So, now, we see just how poorly Barack Obama's judgement is working. Knowing the sensitive situation he is in with the way the media has lashed out and attacked Palin, he had to have known how his lipstick comment would be recieved. He HAD to have known that saying such a thing would be taken hard by many people. He HAD to have known.
Yet, he showed his typical poor judgement. The same poor judgement he used in choosing his pastor of 20 years. The same poor judgement in the people he has been closly associated with. The same poor judgement he used in talking about how the surge has been a failure. The same poor judgement, and possibly poor intelligence, he showed when talking about visiting the 56 or 57 states.
Either way, it shows the simple fact most people can already see, despite the attempts of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MTV, and the left-wing blogosphere to smear and destroy the Republicans, that Barack Obama does not have the judgement, intelligence, and leadership ability to lead our country.
He called Palin a pig. Plain and simple. He refuses to focus on the issues alone, instead he takes cheap, below-the-belt swipes at the VP candidate and not his opponent. He will not tell us his solutions, other than he won't repeat what George W. Bush has done. So, he calls the VP candidate a pig. Well, I think he just showed that he is a chicken.
The famous, oft-repeated joke that Sarah Palin made in reference to herself, and other Alaskan hockey moms, at the Republican National Convention last week. The comment has been played, repeated, looped, and Youtubed a million times over. There is no way on Earth that his campaign did not hear and understand the comment.
Yet, Barack Obama, as he paused, stammerred, and "uh"-ed his way through a campaign stop in Virginia yesterday, he made a very snide remark and went below the belt on the McCain-Palin ticket.
His comment, which is an old saying, was that "You can put lipstick on a pig...{dramatic pause as he allows the crowd to 'get it' and laugh}...but it's still a pig."
For me, I have to conceed that it is in fact an old saying. However, his decision to use it, and then include the long pause for the crowd to get the joke, shows just how rattled he and his campaign really are.
There has been a 23 percentage-point swing in the last 10 days in a crucial area of Obama's demographic. Women, scorned by Obama being the nominee and then not even vetting or considering Hillary for his VP, are flocking to the energy, family-values, and inspiring story of Sarah Palin.
And Obama blatantly calls her a pig on the campaign stump.
For conversation's sake, let me pose this hypothetical, despite the fact that the likelihood of this being fact is minimal. Let's just say that Obama was not taking a swipe at Palin. Let's just say the "lipstick on a pig" comment was meant at face value and not a play on a largely famous comment from just one week prior. Let us say the comment is innocent in nature and not a swipe. Let's just say that.
So, now, we see just how poorly Barack Obama's judgement is working. Knowing the sensitive situation he is in with the way the media has lashed out and attacked Palin, he had to have known how his lipstick comment would be recieved. He HAD to have known that saying such a thing would be taken hard by many people. He HAD to have known.
Yet, he showed his typical poor judgement. The same poor judgement he used in choosing his pastor of 20 years. The same poor judgement in the people he has been closly associated with. The same poor judgement he used in talking about how the surge has been a failure. The same poor judgement, and possibly poor intelligence, he showed when talking about visiting the 56 or 57 states.
Either way, it shows the simple fact most people can already see, despite the attempts of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MTV, and the left-wing blogosphere to smear and destroy the Republicans, that Barack Obama does not have the judgement, intelligence, and leadership ability to lead our country.
He called Palin a pig. Plain and simple. He refuses to focus on the issues alone, instead he takes cheap, below-the-belt swipes at the VP candidate and not his opponent. He will not tell us his solutions, other than he won't repeat what George W. Bush has done. So, he calls the VP candidate a pig. Well, I think he just showed that he is a chicken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
