Dunno if anyone read the stories today, but my newspaper was one of three (along with the New York Post and the Washington Times) booted off Obama's campaign plane effective today. The excuse was that their seating was cut back because Michelle and her entourage was joining the campaign for the last few days. I've seen reports, too, that writers from Ebony and Jet are being added to do documentary-type stuff.
No matter. These are three major daily newspapers from three of the nation's largest cities. One other thing they have in common is that they officially endorsed John McCain in the last week.
This on the heels of Orlando TV reporter Barbara West's and her station's access to the Obama campaign being cut off completely after she asked "tough questions" of Joe Biden last week. Same thing happened to a Philadelphia TV station after more "tough questions" for Biden.
Obama's thugs, we know, have illegally accessed with government computers everything about Joe The Plummer, trying to find dirt. We saw what they did in Alaska, armed with fistfulls of cash for anyone with a story to tell (true or not) about Sarah Palin. They're also now going after West's husband, a Republican who once did consulting work for the GOP.
We also know that Obama and his socialist coherts (Pelosi, Reid, et al) plan immediately to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine to stifle opposing viewpoints. It, of course, will apply only to talk radio. Not CNN. Not the New York Times. Not the networks. Why? Because that's the only area that conservatives have an honest voice, besides Fox News.
After that, their target will be the Internet.
I guess there's a ray of light still shining. The socialist thugs who are about to run our government, our lives, haven't to anyone's knowledge begun plans to clear prison space for "dissenters."
Not yet anyway.
(Imported from Oct. 31, 2008)
Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Home run choice
Thought I'd write this blog specifically for and to my liberal friends and also to those "middle of the road" types who for reasons beyond my grasp seem to think Barack Obama is more than an empty suit.
I've heard this "change" mantra to the point of wanting to revisit breakfast. And lunch. I lost count in June of the empty-headed drones I'd heard saying they're voting for Obama or leaning that way because "he's for change" or "I just think we need a change."
Tell me something then. If Obama is all about change and intends to change the way things happen in Washington and change the tone of politics, etc., etc., etc. (insert gagging noise here), why did he choose for his vice-presidential running mate one of the biggest Good Ol' Boy Washington insiders there is in Joe Biden?
Why did he allow John McCain to steal the spotlight by picking Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice?
Rhetorical question. I already know the answer, much like I knew what The Messiah wasn't going to say Thursday night before he didn't say it.
As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Only in this case, the more times he says "change," the more we see everything's the same.
But let's talk about Palin, shall we?
The media, of course, immediately jumped on the "Lacks Experience" train. The network anchors sneered, and the headlines proudly proclaimed that by choosing the 44-year-old Palin, who has served only two years as governor after being a small-town mayor, McCain can no longer use Obama's inexperience against him.
'Scuse me! Obama isn't running against Palin! He's running against McCain!
And don't give me any of this "one step away from the presidency" nonsense. First of all, when was the last time a president died in office? How about the last time other than by assassination? Bet I don't know two people who could answer that without the help of Google.
And second, as long as that batshit pyscho treehugging Nancy Pelosi is TWO steps away from the presidency, I say the Republicans could run a head of Romaine lettuce for VP, and it would be a wash.
I consider Palin a home-run choice, not only for the way it "plays" to Hillary supporters but for who she is and the issues for which she stands. She'll appeal to a wide section of the conservative base as a staunch pro-lifer and a lifelong NRA member AND a proponent of drilling for our own oil (including in her home state).
And I like the choice, of course, because of the fact that Libs are going to have a very difficult time selling anyone other than their rabid, deranged base that she's an unworthy candidate.
Because let's face it, McCain could have picked Mahatma Ghandi, and the move0n.org clan would still spew its vile filth, and the media types would all shake their heads in disapproval.
Palin, though, happens to be one of the two brighest emerging stars on the political landscape (the other being Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal).
Besides the age and inexperience factor, let's take a look at the "criticisms" I've heard so far:
"Beauty queen bimbo" ... doesn't really warrant a response, I don't think.
"So, she's governor of a state filled with a lot of nothing" ... July 2006 numbers: 670,00 people in Alaska, 853,000 in Delaware, Biden's state. And she governs her state. Biden represents his, although I know many who would claim otherwise.
"Alaska! Big Oil! That figures!" ... actually, it doesn't. When oil prices began their wild sprint toward $150 a barrel, Palin went toe-to-toe with her state's powerful oil industry and pushed through a tax on oil company profits in Alaska. And where did the money go? To the people, in the form of $1200 gasoline rebate checks.
Anyone who bothers to read even a little background on this woman, rather than listen to the mainstream media's template of negativity, will find someone who doesn't play politics. Or favorites. She bucked the Good Ol' Boy Network from Day 1 in office, rooting out cronyism and corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle and telling lobbyists to take a hike. (Biden, by the way, has intimate relationships with quite a few lobbyists, including the ones in his immediate family. And we all know about Obama's crooked dealings with the Tony Rezkos back in his state legislature days in Chicago, although we're not allowed to mention that, lest we be branded racists.)
When Palin took office, she called out embattled but closed-mouth Republican senator Ted Stevens, demanding he explain publicly why he was the center of an ethics investigation.
Even before running for governor, she quit her position as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rather than look the other way on ethics violations being committed by the chairman, who was also the Republican Party chief.
Wanna talk party outcast?
Yet she defeated a former Republican governor in a primary and then a two-term incumbent Democrat to become governor, and her approval rating hovers around 80 percent thanks to her tax-cutting AND budget-balancing (something Libs don't believe is possible) performance in two years.
You know, if you simply read Biden's and Palin's bios, you might be tempted to believe she was the "change" candidate's VP pick.
That's if you bought into all this "change" nonsense in the first place.
(Imported from Aug. 30, 2008)
I've heard this "change" mantra to the point of wanting to revisit breakfast. And lunch. I lost count in June of the empty-headed drones I'd heard saying they're voting for Obama or leaning that way because "he's for change" or "I just think we need a change."
Tell me something then. If Obama is all about change and intends to change the way things happen in Washington and change the tone of politics, etc., etc., etc. (insert gagging noise here), why did he choose for his vice-presidential running mate one of the biggest Good Ol' Boy Washington insiders there is in Joe Biden?
Why did he allow John McCain to steal the spotlight by picking Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice?
Rhetorical question. I already know the answer, much like I knew what The Messiah wasn't going to say Thursday night before he didn't say it.
As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Only in this case, the more times he says "change," the more we see everything's the same.
But let's talk about Palin, shall we?
The media, of course, immediately jumped on the "Lacks Experience" train. The network anchors sneered, and the headlines proudly proclaimed that by choosing the 44-year-old Palin, who has served only two years as governor after being a small-town mayor, McCain can no longer use Obama's inexperience against him.
'Scuse me! Obama isn't running against Palin! He's running against McCain!
And don't give me any of this "one step away from the presidency" nonsense. First of all, when was the last time a president died in office? How about the last time other than by assassination? Bet I don't know two people who could answer that without the help of Google.
And second, as long as that batshit pyscho treehugging Nancy Pelosi is TWO steps away from the presidency, I say the Republicans could run a head of Romaine lettuce for VP, and it would be a wash.
I consider Palin a home-run choice, not only for the way it "plays" to Hillary supporters but for who she is and the issues for which she stands. She'll appeal to a wide section of the conservative base as a staunch pro-lifer and a lifelong NRA member AND a proponent of drilling for our own oil (including in her home state).
And I like the choice, of course, because of the fact that Libs are going to have a very difficult time selling anyone other than their rabid, deranged base that she's an unworthy candidate.
Because let's face it, McCain could have picked Mahatma Ghandi, and the move0n.org clan would still spew its vile filth, and the media types would all shake their heads in disapproval.
Palin, though, happens to be one of the two brighest emerging stars on the political landscape (the other being Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal).
Besides the age and inexperience factor, let's take a look at the "criticisms" I've heard so far:
"Beauty queen bimbo" ... doesn't really warrant a response, I don't think.
"So, she's governor of a state filled with a lot of nothing" ... July 2006 numbers: 670,00 people in Alaska, 853,000 in Delaware, Biden's state. And she governs her state. Biden represents his, although I know many who would claim otherwise.
"Alaska! Big Oil! That figures!" ... actually, it doesn't. When oil prices began their wild sprint toward $150 a barrel, Palin went toe-to-toe with her state's powerful oil industry and pushed through a tax on oil company profits in Alaska. And where did the money go? To the people, in the form of $1200 gasoline rebate checks.
Anyone who bothers to read even a little background on this woman, rather than listen to the mainstream media's template of negativity, will find someone who doesn't play politics. Or favorites. She bucked the Good Ol' Boy Network from Day 1 in office, rooting out cronyism and corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle and telling lobbyists to take a hike. (Biden, by the way, has intimate relationships with quite a few lobbyists, including the ones in his immediate family. And we all know about Obama's crooked dealings with the Tony Rezkos back in his state legislature days in Chicago, although we're not allowed to mention that, lest we be branded racists.)
When Palin took office, she called out embattled but closed-mouth Republican senator Ted Stevens, demanding he explain publicly why he was the center of an ethics investigation.
Even before running for governor, she quit her position as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rather than look the other way on ethics violations being committed by the chairman, who was also the Republican Party chief.
Wanna talk party outcast?
Yet she defeated a former Republican governor in a primary and then a two-term incumbent Democrat to become governor, and her approval rating hovers around 80 percent thanks to her tax-cutting AND budget-balancing (something Libs don't believe is possible) performance in two years.
You know, if you simply read Biden's and Palin's bios, you might be tempted to believe she was the "change" candidate's VP pick.
That's if you bought into all this "change" nonsense in the first place.
(Imported from Aug. 30, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)