Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Joe Biden’

I have to say it’s been quite entertaining to watch the parade of people withdraw themselves from nominated positions as they head over to find their places underneath the bus. It’s probably a  fleet of buses or a long train by now there are so many people under it!

 It seems many of them have a hard time remembering  to pay their taxes. Hmm are these the same people who were blathering on about how paying taxes was patriotic and we should all want to pay higher taxes? Isn’t that what Joe Biden said?

Of course I forgot to mention Bill Richardson who is currently under investigation by a federal grand jury in a pay to play scheme thus he had to withdraw from his nomination for Secretary of Commerce.

Then we have Tom Dashel and Nancy Killefer withdrawing for not paying taxes and Tim Giethner was confirmed despite having a similar embarassing problem. Not to mention the whole “nobody will work in my administration if they have been a lobbyist.” thing.

Give us a break! Now the media is finally starting to report on the plethora of problems. Well all I can say is where the hell were they for the last two years? How is it no one saw this coming? WE saw it coming! We told you so idiots!

I’ll tell you why no one saw this coming because the mainstream media deliberately played the role of public relations representative rather than do their job and report accurately the facts and or lack of them in an unbiased and professional manner. They in fact became more than a little responsible for the outcome of the primaries and the election and they will share the responsibility of the aftermath.

I will admit to being pleased with the decision to limit the salaries and bonuses of top executives of companies that take Bailout funds. I think pretty much everybody agrees on that except maybe the execs who will have to take a pay cut.

Listen if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they should expect some conditions. After all if they are in bad shape and need bailing out shouldn’t they be looking for ways to cut expenses and railse more capital? Isn’t that more reasonable than to continue spending on lavish office remodels or over the top business retreats? Or paying say, $400 Million to have your name on a stadium?

If they want us to foot the bill they should expect not to go on as though it’s business as usual. It’s not. Not when you need bailing out that is about as far from business as usual as you can get and still be in business and it dictates that you do some serious evaluation and re-tooling at the very least. To get out of the position where you need a bailout and get to a position where you make a profit they should be thinking this way already.

If they don’t like the conditions they should look elsewhere for help. Now if they want to pull their own fat out of the fire it is their business how they spend their gains. That’s the American way.

Though lately I’ve had some interesting conversations with people on this subject and find myself wondering what some people are really thinking. One friend suggested that we go even further and limit the salaries and bonuses of all company executives regardless of whether they accept bailout funds or whether they are private or public companies.

His theory is that no one can possibly make more than the president without having broken some law or regulation and without having screwed over “the rest of us”. My reaction was something like WTF?

I think that is way too far myself. Isn’t one of the greatest things about our country? Isn’t the American Dream the idea that if you have an idea or a product, a service or whatever and you do what it takes to make a sucsess the sky is the limit? The idea that anyone can make it regardless of who they are?

I understand the anger and the feeling that many times the Big Shots get where they are on the backs of the rest of us. I mean I get just as PO’das the next person over all these people who rip others off or waste money on stupid things then cry about needing a bailout even as their own bad management caused the problem but do we really want to go so far that nobody can make more than a set amount?

Who decides what that amount is? Will that amount be different for different people or will everybody have the same limits? What happens if your idea makes more than that? Should you not benefit from your efforts?

I’m all for doing what we can to preserve the idea of freedom we have here. I want to improve it as well by doing what we can to make all of us more free and insuring equality but if we get too involved in legislating people’s freedom it can have the adverse effect of making us all less free.

JMO what’s yours?

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Seems to me she gets it just fine! I think she interpeted Joe Biden’s remarks the other day quite well!

Hat tip to Texas Darlin’ for the video. And Deadender’s blog who posted the vide on youtube.

And here’s something else to ponder. I only wish the major news outlets would report on this stuff.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html?s=al&promo_code=6DC0-1

‘Smears’ About Obama Largely True

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

 

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

 

Obama’s http://www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama’s ideological allies are not dominant.

 

These “smears” and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

 

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

 

In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

 

 

 

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”

 

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

 

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama’s campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

 

“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”

 

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama’s allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

 

“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”

 

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.

 

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

 

Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

 

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

 

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

 

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)

 

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”

 

“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.

 

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

 

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

 

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

 

“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

 

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”

 

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.

 

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.

 

And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

 

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”

 

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

 

As Newsmax has documented in [“Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,”] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

 

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

 

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, “[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”

 

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.

 

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”

 

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

 

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”

 

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”

 

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September [“NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,”] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

 

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

 

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

 

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

 

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

 

Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

 

True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

 

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

 

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

 

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

 

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

 

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama’s visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”

 

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

 

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

 

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

 

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

 

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

 

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

 

Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined “Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid.” Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.

 

It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

 

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

 

 

Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

 

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

 

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.

 

“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”

 

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

 

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

 

 

Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”

 

As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

 

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

 

Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”

 

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

 

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Read Full Post »

That’s right! He may be a registered Republican but like Sarah Palin and others he has been maligned and mocked, he has had his privacy invaded and his personal information spread throughout the world wide web for all to see. In short he has become the target of the Obamabots.

We PUMAS know what that’s like. We know it quite well. You need not commit a crime, no all you have to do is question The One or speak out against him and you will soon find yourself in the same situation as Joe.

The only “crime” Joe the Plumber committed was asking a simple question of the Democratic Candidate for president. He wanted to know how Obama’s tax plans would affect his future. He wanted to know why if he worked harder and was successful he would be punished for that success. He wants to buy the business he’s been working for and he wants to keep the fruits of his labor. ( Imagine that! He wants to keep the money he earns! How scandalous! )

Obama basically mocked him and said we need to “spread the wealth around” said a bunch of hoo haw crap and basically he told Joe that if he is successfully through his hard work the tax plan would take some of Joe’s hard earned money and spread it around to those who weren’t so successful. Because you know Joe should feel bad and somehow guilty that those people aren’t successful right? I mean it must be Joe’s fault if some of those people don’t work or don’t achieve success on their own and Joe and the rest of us should be responsible for them right? Spread the wealth around!

And he wonders why people are calling him a Socialist or Marxist or just flat out the next Hitler! Yeah I said it!

Next we have the Media, Obama’s personal 527’s, jumping on Joe too! We’ve heard it from Biden too. “Well Joe doesn’t actually make $250,000 so he won’t be affected by the tax plan.”

NEWS UPDATE FOR OBAMA SURROGATES, SUPPORTERS AND THE MEDIA: It doesn’t matter how much money Joe makes or doesn’t make or if he would be affected by the tax plan. He has every right to ask the question and as a voter he deserves the respect of not only an honest answer but to not be attacked simply for asking! Obama wonders why people hate him?

There it is in print! Voters deserve respect from a candidate and any candidate of any worth knows that! You don’t ask for their votes and attack them publicly if they disagree or question you! It is not typically an incentive for support. He has to be the densest candidate ever to not see this simple, obvious truth.

They ( Obama supporters AND the MSM ) have now dug up everything they could on Joe the Plumber. We now know that Joe is his middle name and where he has lived previously. The Bots on Daily Kos have listed his address, the value of his home, his proffessional status, his tax liens, divorce records and all kinds of other private information that they have made public. A whole page dedicated to threads about Joe the Plumber.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7479265&mesg_id=7479265

Nice huh? They also went way overboard with Sarah Palin as we know but she is a public figure seeking office so some ( not all ) of that was to be expected but Joe the Plumber and so many more of us are neither yet the Bots seem to live to smear, threaten and harass all who refuse to worship their Idiot God.

What’s next? Joe the plumber T-Shirts? Probably already printing them. November can’t come soon enough!

CQ

Read Full Post »

Told you this would be the next talking point!

From http://rallygrrrl.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/palin-uses-hate-to-motivate/

The ‘dangerous road,’ however, is not just a generic attack on Sen. Obama’s trustworthiness or honesty.  Rather, the McCain campaign has chosen to stand before campaign rallies and accuse Sen. Obama of hiding sympathies with domestic terrorists–to accuse their opponent, essentially, of being a terrorist.

With the McCain campaign now using the Palin stump speech to accuse Sen. Obama of hiding a terrorist agenda, the McCain campaign has staked its future on rhetoric that skirts the boundary between character assassination and incitements of actual violence against their opponent.

Inspiring progress is good. Inspiring assassination is bad. Ironically, this kind of rhetoric actually makes Palin sound like a domestic terrorist herself.

Idiots abound! Seriously Palin remarked that Obama “pals around”with a domestic terrorist not to promote hate or incite violence. No! She points this out because it is TRUE!

Apparently to Obamacrats she was promoting hate and inciting people to assassinate Obama! How and where did they get this out of the statements made by Sarah Palin? See if you can read any of that stuff out of this statement.

I see nothing in that that would incite hate or violence. Now even though Obamacrats will say it’s all so untrue, it’s a smear, a travesty, a character assassination, “I mean Barrack was 8 years old!” and all that standard crap, the fact remains that William Ayers is in fact an unrepentant terrorist, the only reason he is not rotting in jail for his crimes is a technicality in his trial and he has said publicly on many occasions that he is not sorry and he wishes they had set more bombs.

I don’t care that Obama was 8 when Ayers did this but I do care that Obama, the adult has had a long, working relationship with this man and continues to do so completely aware of what he did and the fact that the man is still not sorry to this day and in fact said he did not want to discount the possiblility that he could do such a thing again in certain circumstances.

Obama sat on the board of the Woods Foundation and the Annenburg Challenge with Ayers, they live in the same neighborhood, they not only know each other Obama’s political career was launched from Ayers’ living room. The organizations they served on together gave money to ACORN, Trinity United Christian Church, Louis Farrakkan and the Nation of Islam, Kahlidi and others.

You know it would be one thing for the bots to say this is just guilt by association if in fact Ayers were someone who had admitted his crimes, repented and asked forgiveness for them. It would be one thing to say it’s just a smear if in fact Ayers was “just some guy in the neighborhood” and not the long standing association that is the case here. Ayers in fact does not consider the bombings and acts of terror crimes and is even quite proud of them. As for repentance or forgiveness you can forget that too. In fact Ayers was quoted on Sept. 11, 2001 as saying he “wished they could have done more”.

I could forgive someone who once did something wrong as a young, idealistic, college student if the student actually grew up and admitted that they were wrong and he regretted his actions. I cannot forgive a man who insists to this day he was right and does not regret any of it.

I’m also tired of bots saying that no one died as a result of the bombings. That is total BULLSHIT! People did die. People went to prison. In fact it really wouldn’t make it any more right if they did not kill people but they did. Here’s a video that tells a bit more of the story about Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like far more than just some angry college kids protesting. Protesting the war I understand. Bombing buildings, violence, disregard for innocent bystanders I will never understand or tolerate. Could you be “friends” with a guy like this? Really? Not me. Never. Period.

So you have to ask yourself how is it that Sarah Palin referring to the well known fact that Obama is friendly with and has worked with Bill Ayers, the fact that they have given speeches at the same events, the fact that Obama launched his career from Ayers’ living room translate to “The republicans are trying to incite assassination!”?

Answer: It doesn’t but the Obamacrats want you to think it does and they want to razzle, dazzle you into looking away from the facts. They would have you believe that it’s all some right wing conspiracy designed to promote race and class wars and to incite violence. In fact it is the far left who have been flirting with turning this into a violent revolution and they have not been shy about it. Brazen is a word you could use to describe some of the blog posts I’ve read urging people to use “any means necessary” to get Obama elected.

Then you have all the threats of the havoc that will suposedly ensue if the election is lost, “stolen” from Obama. You know his cousin Ralia Odinga in Kenya has had very similar campaigning “techniques” and to be brutally honest the violence that ensued after Odinga lost a bid for the presidency and claimed it was “stolen’ from him were terrifying and cannot be allowed to go on here.

Obama is the least patriotic, most dangerous and the least qualified candidate we have ever had. We have never had a presidential candidate with so many ties to so many extremist and criminal people!

Yet the media and the DNC continue to spoon feed us with the “he-is-the-greatest-thing-to-come-along-since-sliced-bread” and “if-you-critisize-or-question-him-you-are-a-bigot with-qestionable-motives” memes. It amazes me that in this day and age so many people still wait for the media to tell them what to think instead of thinking for themselves. If anyone can get through this election cycle and not see that the media are not credible sources in fact they are basically all about the ratings and the advertising revenues well , they are either naive, hiding out in a cave or lying to themselves.

Long gone are the journalistic standards we came to depend on like say, Walter Kronkite for one. If we have learned anything it is not to trust the media. I suggest that we also suspend the trust in the leadership of the DNC at least in it’s current form as they are the schmucks who got us into this situation by nominating a complete and utter fraud.

Many say that if Obama loses and we have four more years of Republican control it will be the fault of Hillary and PUMA. I say to you no that it is/will be the fault of the DNC for discarding the only candidate with a chance of winning and the candidate who had the solutions to fix what ails America.

They discarded a candidate with a true servant’s heart, one that had the desire and willingness to serve the people (all of them) of America to instead nominate a candidate who is far more like a spoiled brat with a huge ego and an overblown sense of entitlement.

In short they axed a candidate who longs to serve to nominate a candidate who longs to be served. (Think of teenagers who want to live in your house and let you pay the bills while they drive the car you bought for them and eat the meals you cook and serve and wear the clothing that you paid for and launder for them…getting the similarities here?) Can we really expect anything good from someone with his almost child-like insistence that he “voted” against the war ( He wasn’t a senator yet so it wasn’t an option at the time) and he toured Europe and lived in Indonesia, Plus he ran his campaign so that qualifies him and we are never to question this! To question is to admit you are a card carrying racist! Can we expect any quality results from a candidate of this calibur?

The republican candidate, John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin also have a desire to serve. Like “my” candidate, Hillary, they want to serve their country while Obama wants the country to serve him, his buddies and his socialistic ideas that serve the same.

Our choice this time is of the greatest importance! The outcome of this election is make or break for Democracy as we know it! It usually comes down to the lesser of two evils but this time that difference is so much more stark! The stakes have never been higher!

I will vote McCain/Palin to defeat the evil that is Obama. This is not an easy or a happy decision but it is the right one. No Obama. No Way. No How.

CQ

Read Full Post »

McCain tells it like it is in Albuquerque, New Mexico!

I’m so glad to see someone finally call him out on this stuff! Mac hit hard with a dose of truth and I’m pretty sure we’ll see a plethora of “news” articles claiming that his remarks were “racially tinged” tomorrow. it was worth it! That’s the McCain that will fight tooth and nail to protect this country and it’s citizens, ALL of them! Go john!

I’m sure everybody already heard and/or watched Sarah Palin making comments about Obama “pallin’ around with terrorists” this weekend and saw that she may as well be an honorary PUMA now as the media immediately labeled her remarks as racist.

Then we have Dianne Feinstien constantly repeating the word assassination to Bob Schiffer Sunday morning. Apparently telling the truth about Obama is racist and means you are plotting his demise. or at least that seems to be the newest, sinister talking point of the Obamacrats. Well, you have to distract the voters somehow I guess.

I guess next they’ll start talking about natzisms from GOP operatives and all the while handing out the brown shirts and sizing jack-boots!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

I’ve been swamped lately and hard pressed to find time for much but I had to comment on last night’s debate while it’s still fresh in my mind.

First I suppose we have to look at the expectations for each candidate. It’s no secret Biden has a tendency to let his mouth get him into trouble. We could all think of at least two or three things right off the top of our heads. What’s more if you complied the list from that you’d find it goes far beyond a few.

Joe has what my mom would call incurable hoof-in-mouth disease. He can’t help it. It’s his nature. He sometimes manages to control it but it is always there awaiting an opportunity. I’m quite sure many Obamacrats were holding their collective breath last night. Hoping he wouldn’t make some blunder or come off as condescending.

For the most part I believe he managed to meet expectations in this regard, though I take issues with other aspects of the debate.

Palin on the other hand has been under fire from the far left and the MSM from the minute she was announced as the VP pick. We have been “informed” by the media that she is a complete idiot and that she would not stand a chance in the arena of real political debate with a veteran politician.

The press has been pushing this theme from day one and they have gone all out to portray it as such. The heavily edited interview with Charlie Gibson comes to mind as I saw the un-edited version and the difference in the over-all feel of the interview was definitely coloured by the edits. Just as I feel the interview with Katie Couric was scripted for the spin.

In truth between the media and the Obamacrats, Sarah Palin could not help but exceed expectations. She did so with a lot of personal style and spirited responses. She showed that she can take it and dish it out and do it all with class.

So, no train-wrecks, no major screw ups. Both candidates fared better than feared and really there was no clear winner. Having said that I also thought both candidates could have done better on certain issues.

Biden, for starters, seemed absolutely shocked that Palin was not just some babe-in-the-woods that he could marginalize and intimidate with his “father-knows-best-so-run-along-and-play-now” approach. In fact, to my surprise and amusement, she actually had him on the defensive a few times and did not allow him to control the situation. Miss Sarah is no pushover!

I couldn’t help imagining a thought bubble over Joe’s head as he kept grinning ear to ear. He seemed to be thinking, “Man! They said this was going to be an easy one! Just keep from making any gaffes and treat her like a silly, misguided girl they said! Be gracious they said! She won’t be able to hold up under pressure. Be cool and let her lose on her own. Jeez! She’s not gonna give it up. She’s like a dog with a bone. Who said she could DO that?” All the while grinning like a guy who knows he’s been had.

I found it really tiring that he kept going back to Bush, Bush, Bush. Much as I personally detest Bush, John McCain is NOT Bush and it was really not getting anywhere going on and on about Bush. He also said several things about McCain not being a maverick and not being worried about the sub-prime mortgage crisis that were not true. He claimed Obama warned about this two years ago. I call BS there because he never said a word about it until Hillary announced her 10 point plan for the economy at which time he immediately took it changed it up slightly and announced it as his. Just like her health care plan and so on. Obama had no concerns about the mortgage crisis until it was upon us.

The other thing Biden kept injecting was his “greatness” as told by him. Seriously he tried to stay on the McCain = Bush thing but often resorted to blathering on about himself and his roots. Blah, blah, blah. I want to hear what you are really going to do and why you think you can characterize wealth re-distribution as “fairness”.  Or why he said Obama voted against funding for the troops for political reasons risking thousands of lives and now defends it.

As far as speaking for his ticket, he spoke more of himself than of Obama’s abilities and he far from honest about the cost of all the spending that would accompany the proposed changes. He also stated his position in the administration would be to be there for every meeting and decision to advise Obama. That doesn’t speak too well to Obama’s confidence or ability to lead without a “mentor”. (read: training wheels) Hmmm sorta reminds one of Cheney/Bush no?

The moment that really cracked me up was after Sarah Palin talked about how Americans were ready for Hockey moms and Joe Six-Pack types in office because the could relate to them and vise versa. Biden began his rebuttal with his “for you to say that because I’m a man I don’t know what it’s like to raise a child and worry whether they will make it, sniff, sniff, well that’s just sniff, that’s just not right…” as he tried to play the “sexist” card on Palin! Too funny! She never once intimated that he did not understand any of that she was stating that Americans relate better to people more like themselves, more like her. Small town hockey mom turned Mayor/Governor/Vice Presidential Candidate. It was ridiculous for Biden to try playing it that way and looked desperate in my opinion.

As to Palin’s performance I have to say she earned some respect as a strong debater. She knocked him off his game a bit and scored some points talking to the voters and the camera. She was warm and honest but I admit it was frustrating when she wouldn’t answer the question and would steer the debate back to what she wanted to get across. But you have to admit it was an effective tactic and it seemed to serve her pretty well. She’s not the first or the last to implement such strategies.

I thought over-all she came across as passionate, not nearly as stupid as the far left and the media would have us believe and she seems to have a better grasp on energy policy as it relates to the economy and foriegn policies than expected. She held her own and made some points for her team. I think she made her ticket proud. I may not agree with her on certain issues but I can respect her and I think the candidate at the top of the ticket is more important anyway.

When the time comes to cast my vote I’ll be thinking of who I can trust, who really has the willingness, the desire and the passion to serve rather thanan ego driven need for power and fame. I’ll be thinking about who can actually get someting accomplished instead of talking in platitudes about vague “changes”. I’ll be thinking about how one candidate has a record of accomplishments and a reputation for being a straight talker and the other candidate has none of the above.

I’ll be thinking about how one candidate spent time being tortured in a POW camp even after being given an opportunity to leave. How he stayed for his men and what he had to endure in that awful place because of his service to and love for his country. I’ll be thinking about how another candidate was using the lives of our troops as pawns in his bid to get elected to the highest office in the land by trying to halt negotiations to bring our troops home from Iraq until after the election because he wanted to use the war for his own means.

When the time comes to vote I’ll be thinking of how putting the country first is the only way we will ever achieve the goals we set. How it is the only way to keep our country and our democracy safe and how it is the only way we can force our party to remember we are the base and they cannot take us for granted. The only way we can set the standards of principal before party. The only way we can make the DNC accountable and bring them back to the principals we hold dear. We must not reward treachery and abandonment of principals.

No instead we must ensure adherence to principals regardless of partisan politics and electoral victories. If we have no principals then we have no party, no country, no democracy. The founders wanted this to be protected at any cost. This year it will cost the Obamacrats the election. I shudder to think what it might cost should Obama actually win. Country first!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

This one has been simmering for a while now. I have been a Dem all my life. I am a Dem because of what they stood for. True democratic princials like equality for everybody, We the People, One Voice, One Vote, the lifting up and support of the middle and lower classes. In fact Democrats as I knew them were the ultimate good guys. They stood for eliminating classes and making all Americans truly equal.

We have some great examples to look up to in our party. Some great people who inspire us and make us strive for those great causes the party aspires to. Names like Franklin Delenor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton the only two term Democrat president in the last fourty years, just to name a few. In my opinion we as democrats need to go back to our core and really find and hone our message of equality and opportunity, the message that these great leaders were so passionate about instead of reverting to the childish and disgusting tactics that have been taking place in this election cycle. In particular I am talking about the last few days since John McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

The internet has been abuzz with rumors flying about like millions of flies on shit. Sorry for the crude reference there but it’s truly appropriate I think. The Obamabloggers and even the media pundits (most not all) have been going on and on with things that are so not in line with the message they preach.

They claim they are the party who treats women as equals (Hillary supporters would say different) yet they are starting rumors that Gov. Palin’s last child was really her daughter’s and that she lied and faked a pregnacy and childbirth to cover it up. (Gotta admit it’s hard to fake a childbirth! There was a hospital and an attending Dr after all.) They even started passing around photos and discussing if she were “fat enough” to have really been pregnant and if her daughter looked “fat enough” to have been the mother. How progressive and liberal of them.

Then they moved on to saying her son was born with Downs Syndrome because of supposedly bad pre-natal care. WTF? How would any of them be privy to the quality of her pre-natal care? Again sooo progressive and liberal. Feminist even. Snark!

Now Gov. Palin has disclosed that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and they are standing behind her for making her own decision to marry the father and have the child. The Bots are saying how terrible that she has a daughter unmarried and pregnant as if it is not a part of life. Terribly progressive of them also to critisize not only this young girl but her family for standing by her and John McCain for knowing about it and still having the gall to pick this woman for his running mate.

I think it shows how much this woman stands by what she says. The daughter chose to keep her child and the family chose to support her. Sounds to me like she walks the walk of someone who believes in family values. Contrary to the bot’s belief that this makes her some sort of hypocrite it actually shows that she would not turn her back on her daughter in a time of great need as to do so would be for more hypocritical.

The fact that McCain knew ahead of time and still picked her shows that he cares about more than just “appearances for politics’ sake” and that what Gov. Palin brings to the ticket is more important to him than what some bigoted people who would rather throw the girl to the wolves think. In other words her intellect, integrity and strengths are what he made his choice on.

If, like me you might have wondered where some of this stuff originated I will link to a site that did some digging into this. Before you say it I know this is a conservative site. They, unlike the Dems will stand up for their own so they have gotten to the bottom of it. If there were more liberal sites that would be brave enough to publish this stuff and digg into it I would have linked to them but the so called liberal siteslike DailyKos and HuffPoand the reat of the Obamaphiles are the ones spreading this crap as you will see below.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_Whos_Behind_Anti-Palin_Smear_Site

Nice huh? I mean that it’s definitely Obama supporters is bad enough but they were even stupid enough to re-direct the traffic to Obama’s website is beyond belief. Again I must say how progressive and liberal and pro-women’s rights all this crap is. NOT!

I have heard it all from the smears mentioned above to the other aguments that I’ll go into here. The Obama team and supporters were obviously knocked for a loop here. They did not expect, have a plan for or react to this in anything even resembling a demeanor befitting a presidential candidate.

The Dems are quickly becoming everything they claim to hate these days. Who are the real hypocrites here?

I’ve been told that it’s just shameful that McCain only picked her to win! Imagine that. Did they think he was trying to pick someone who would cause him to lose? It’s a clear case of pandering! Well what do you expect? Isn’t that what politicians do? Try to get your vote?

She doesn’t have experience. Yeah because you know actually being a Mayor or a Govenor where you really have to make executive decisions is not helpful experience at all. I suppose Mr. Inexperience himself who’s very thin record is all legislative and not anything resembling actual leadership skills at the top of the ticket is okbut someone with more actual experience as VP is not. Do they realize how dumb this argument sounds?

Then there’s the totally sexist response about the fact she’s a former beauty queen, has five kids (how irresponsible! Yeah and not in line at all with her pro-family, pro-life political stance. Eyes rolling) her children, particularly the youngest who has special needs and they aren’t really sure if he’s her’s or her daughter’s might suffer because of her run for VP and the job if she gets elected. Hmmm very pro-women’s rights there. NOT!

Even scarier they claim is that she could be a heartbeat away from the actual white house and be in charge of the nation! McCain could croak at any moment the shout gleefully! Do I even have to go into how many ways this is just wrong? Is it even remotely progressive or liberal or even decent to be gleeful about someones perceived imminentdeath? Hardly. The thing about how she could be in control well what’s wrong with that? She’s a woman? Is that the problem? Really? From the progressive party?

If it’s experience they have no right to go there. If it’s her family having an un-wed teen mother to be in their ranks then Mr. “raised by a single mother” has absolutely no ground to stand on. Oh, and if it’s because she’s a former beauty queen and pretty how the hell does that reconcile with or reflect on the Democratic party? Please! As if looks are what makes the person. She’s not going for America’s Top Model or anything and she went to college and has done pretty well for herself so the brainless bimbo tactic is not going to fly. Sooo progressive.

I also heard the argument that it wasn’t fair to pick her and she got special treatment by being promoted to this position because she’s not qualified. OMG! I nearly blew a gaskett the first time I read one of these opinions! You mean special treatment like awarding delegates to someone who wasn’t on the ballot? Or maybe like giving delegates earned based on actual votes cast to another candidate? Maybe like having someone add your name to a whole bunch of legislation that you had nothing to do with so you can pad your nearly non-existent resume? That kind of special treatment? Pot? This is Kettle…you know the rest.

And the unqualified thing I can’t believe they would go there with all the questions on so many fronts as to Obama’s qualifications for the job. Do they not see the total idiocy of this approach? They are only shining light on their own candidates flaws with this line of attack. They are shooting themselves in the foot and doing it with fervor that is unbelievable. This guy really is more “evangelical” in some ways than the folks who are actually characterized as evangelicals. I mean to say he seems an awful lot like a Jim Jones style Preacher in a crazy, we’re right and everybody else is wrong revival tent with the cult of followers and their fanatical devotion to him. They will do anything for him including the smearing of people with lies and stereotypes they claim to hate.

There seems to be a consensus among Obama supporters that since Hillary suspended, endorsed and went along with their sham roll call vote and faux unity for her party’s sake that those who don’t jump ship and join the Obamaphenomina are not true democrats and that we aren’t true Hillary supporters. They want to believe this because they want to believe the lie that Clinton supporters are falling in line like good little soldiers. I’m not denying that some are but the majority I talk to are not by any means going to vote for Obama. They are varied in their plans for November 4th. Some will stay home, write in Hillary, vote 3rd party and yes some will vote for McCain/Palin. Hillary can do what she must but we will each do the same.

I recently had a Obama supporter tell me in a forum I have belonged to for years (btw this person had just joined and had 12 posts all that day all that thread yet they called me the troll) that I don’t “get to call myself a Clinton supporter if I don’t support Obama”. I let them know in no uncertain terms that I get to call myself anything I please and they do not get to define me. A friend there male, libertarian and believe it or not very anti-Clinton told them in no uncertain terms what to do with that attitude. He said I could quote him so here it is:

> “She can call herself any-damn-thing she wants to —
> first of all — and second — just because Hillary
> gives some ass-saving speech telling everyone they
> should support Obama and anyone who thinks that is
> prima facia evidence of Hillary’s real position
> probably has their head so far up their ass they
> can’t see daylight.
>
> But, hey, have a nice day & hopefully you’ve got
> other tricks up yer sleeve besides being a shill for
> Democrat unity. “

Far less polite than most of my fellow PUMAS like to put it but the meaning is the same. Hillary is doing what she has to and what she feels is right. Each of us must also make our own choices and we will. Nobody has to right to tell another person how to make that choice. It’s personal and it deserves to be respected. That is one of the core principals the party I have always known holds dear. Or at least they used to.

I guess the one silver lining to all this is it will shine the light bright on the tactics of Camp Obama and the utter hypocrisy and sexism that is more prevalent than any of us would have liked to think existed in this day and age. The light will shine on elections and the need for reform of the system and of the parties. For sure you know this stuff will no longer be dismissed as just a bunch of disgruntled Hillary supporters exaggerating about abusive tactics. Now that they are using this line of attack? Or maybe they think it’s a defense? The republicans will see to it that people know all about it in great detail because that’s what they do. Plus we all know the media LOVES the republicans and they believe everything they say. OK I’m exaggerating there but since it’s no longer perceived to be about Hillary it will get coverage and that’s a good thing.

Unless your a member of Team Obama that is. I will never join that team. I like the ideas and I still look up to the people who have represented our party so well. There are many wonderful, passionate and brilliant democrats still around and alot of them call themselves PUMAS. They are waiting for the current party leadership to finish their self destruction so we can get down to reforming our party and adhereing to the values we once stood for. Those democrats are not going away and because leadership decided to do everything but the right thing they will teach the leadership and the party a lesson. It will hurt but the alternative would be far worse. Those who would sacrifice all that The Party and Democracy stood for only to acheive a means that was not worthy will regret their decision in time. In any case they are not my concern. My party and my country are my concern and I will work to defeat anyone who would hurt either one.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »