All Posts Tagged With: "Democrats"

A good day for Republican Women is a bad day for the press

The attack on Sarah Palin scares me. The media no longer even tries for impartiality. They are full force against her and are pulling out all the stops to attack this woman on all levels. They have stooped so low that they even published her Social Security number, address and phone number simply to harass and possibly endanger her and her family. The media doesn’t care if they contradict themselves or who else they take down just as long as they get Sarah Palin.

I never thought I would hear the liberal media suggest that a woman should stay at home with her infant rather than work, but I heard it. I never thought I would hear the same people who fawned over the movie Juno now imply that it is a sign that this teenage girl was “forced” to have the baby because of her mother’s values. I never thought I would hear the same people who defended Obama’s lack of experience go after someone for their supposed lack of experience.

Sometimes I feel as if I am watching a two year old having a tantrum. They are howling and screaming and stomping their feet on the ground. They were so sure that McCain would pick Romney or some other white male who they were sure they could beat. But this? McCain did it again. True to his maverick nickname he picked an unknown woman. And the liberals and media were taken unaware. They really don’t like that. The media is so damn smug because they are always in the loop and know what will happen before the little people do. Not this time.

So the media and liberals are angry. McCain didn’t play by their rules and for that they want to punish him. They will tear Sarah Palin apart and make McCain regret he ever picked her. Except in doing so they are showing their true colors. They are looking more and more like a pack of wolves going after their prey. And it isn’t simply the TV reporters but even the scandal papers like US are going after Sarah. She is being hit from every side while the liberals begin whisper campaigns to raise doubt about her by hinting that McCain might drop her. He won’t. But as I said the liberals will try everything to take down the McCain and Palin ticket. And for the stark fact that they are afraid this ticket might win. And that scares them.

This four part series by the Denver Post enlightens Democrats, , and anyone else interested in the history, highlights, personalities, shifts and the current status and opportunities for the Democratic Party.

A good read for all.

I just read a fascinating article by Alice Thompson of the Times Online who was discussing a new book “Not In My Name - A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy” by Julie Burchill:

The premise is that as the economy gets worse, people no longer care about being green because they can’t afford it any more. It makes perfect sense. When you were making a good salary and had enough to satisfy your basic needs then you had the extra to buy the higher priced green items. But today, when money is tight, buying green is a luxury available only to the upperclass or “toffs”.

Perhaps because most people can’t afford to go green, there is a growing trend to mock the rich who are green. There is a collective sarcastic laugh by the masses when Al Gore and his ilk continue to lecture everyone else. In a bad economy that “Truth” of Gore’s is not simply “Inconvenient” but is now ridiculous. Who is going to pay extra for green

foods when they have barely enough to put any food on the table? Not only are people backing away from the expensive green ideology but they are also laughing at far left greenies and monitoring their hypocrisies. The conservative bloggers and other right wings take delight in finding and counting the hypocrisy of Gore and other greenies who preach that we must be green while they fly around in their private gas guzzling jets.

Although Gore and his Hollywood sycophants still tout the green doctrine, the politicians are observing which way the wind is blowing and are now changing their tune. Maybe that’s another reason Gore is such a lousy politician, but even Obama has given fewer and fewer green speeches. Because as long as the economy is lousy, only Kermit can afford to be green.

I spent some time surfing liberal websites and found two underlying themes.

First there is a lot of hatred in that group. It goes without saying that liberals hate Bush, Republicans and John McCain. Some of their groups are still trying to get Congress to start impeachment procedures against Bush. Yup, that’s just what this economy and shaky Wall Street needs right now.

I had also heard that there was division within the Democrat Party but I didn’t realize until today how deep it went. There is a YouTube video of Howard Dean in Charlotte making a stump speech for Obama. At first all you could hear was the rhythmic monotone chanting of “Yes I Can”. It actually was rather scary as it came across so militaristic*. Then off to the side were more protesters with their own signs. Although there was no organization in their protesting they were still able to interrupt Dean’s speech. If you thought they were McCain supporters you are wrong. It was a group of Hillary Clinton supporters. Wow. I have yet to see the media cover any of this.

Hillary’s supporters are beyond mad at Obama. One of their signs requested a roll call during their convention which Dean said would happen. I’ll believe it when I see it. For a roll call of how each state voted would clearly show that Obama was not the chosen one and narrowly won the primary. If they do show it then look for it around mid afternoon when no one is watching. There were also a number of blogs by Hillary supporters who write that they will never support Obama and will vote for McCain instead.

The second point is that the Democrats are doing the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In those elections, along with the current one, liberals are writing that the public is stupid to vote for McCain. I didn’t get it then nor do I understand it now. Because how much sense does it take to realize that if you want people to vote for your candidate then don’t call them stupid?

The recent polls still show McCain close to Obama, and in some polls actually surpassing Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the above contributes to McCain making a better show of it than expected.

* Shortly after Obama won his primary he sent out an email to say he was creating a “Fellowship”. He talked of sending people to training programs and then these “leaders” would be assigned where to work during the summer. When I first read this I was confused since not much happens in the summer. After that video I think I now understand the purpose of his “Fellowship” which in this light makes it all that much scarier.

By now everybody has seen the cover of the New Yorker depicting Obama and his wife as Islamic terrorists. You can almost hear the magazine’s staff laughing at the thought that less educated, less sophisticated and less enlightened people actually believe this about the Democrat candidate. This cover was meant to ridicule these rubes while the article defended Obama’s patriotism. The only problem with this satire is that, as backed up by recent surveys, there really are a significant number of people who believe that Obama is associated with Islam and US radicals. They believe that instead of being a satire the New Yorker cover actually depicted the “truth” about Obama and his wife.

No surprise that Obama is furious. He has spent millions trying to establish that he is a patriotic American and that all the rumors are lies. And yet as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this cover erased a lot of the progress he had made. The TV news and cable shows continuously showed this cover and it is so provocative that people will remember the image long after they remember that it was to be a satire. The New Yorker cover also had an unintended result which might be a key to defeating Obama this fall.

The more I watch Obama, the more I feel that he is becoming a self righteous, self important man who believes in his own hype. Think about it. What kind of man would create a seal identical to the presidential seal? How egotistical is it to move his acceptance speech from the hall to a stadium where he can speak to the masses all gathered to worship him? Or to want to speak from the Brandenburg Gate in Germany, where only President Kennedy and Reagan have spoken? He really is beginning to think of himself as the next JFK and Martin Luther King rolled up into one.

Then along comes The New Yorker cover which seems to be ridiculing Obama and his wife rather than the intended satirizing of red state Republicans. And you know what? Obama’s reaction is showing a trait that could become an Achilles heel for him. He can’t laugh at himself. Barack has become such a stuffed shirt that he can’t tolerate anyone making fun of him or satirizing him. Sure, he has some humorous moments in his speeches but these are ones he approved and it never shows him in a negative or even awkward situation.

A few days before the latest problem he and his family had been interviewed by a tabloid gossipy TV show. It was light and fluffy and cute but he didn’t even like it when his own little girls teased him. Papa Obama was clearly uncomfortable although he laughed and went along with it. It appeared that he was also annoyed that his girls got more questions and coverage than he did. What could have been a wonderful PR moment turned negative when afterwards he said he regretted doing it and will not do any more family interviews. This interview was quickly followed by the New Yorker cover plus the callous remarks by Jesse Jackson. Barack might have diffused these situations if he laughed them off. Instead he got angry, righteous and superior which only served to prolong it all.

In the beginning of the year Obama seemed to be a likeable young man. Yet it seems as if he has changed into a pompous hypocrite who no longer tolerates anyone making fun of him and instead believes he deserves to be treated as someone who is destined for greatness. These new traits also include the inability to tolerate anyone making fun of him. And that is what the Republicans must do if they want to win. Show how rediculous he has become and laugh at him. For if he has become this arrogant and this self righteous when he is only a candidate for President, can you imagine what he will be like if he is actually elected President?

Chavez is trying to set the political and economic direction of Latin America.

The Wall Street Journal asks and explains this provocative question — What is it about Democrats and Communist Dictator Hugo Chávez? Even as the Venezuelan strongman was threatening war last week against Colombia, Congress was threatening to hand him a huge strategic victory by spurning Colombia’s free trade overtures to the U.S. Chavez is trying to set the political and economic direction of Latin America. He wants the region to follow his path of ever greater state control of the economy, while assisting U.S. enemies wherever he can. He’s already won converts in Bolivia and Ecuador, and he came far too close for American comfort in Mexico’s election last year. Meanwhile, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe is embracing greater economic and political freedom. He has bravely assisted the U.S fight against narco-traffickers, and he now wants to link his country more closely to America with a free-trade accord. As a strategic matter, to reject Colombia’s offer now would tell everyone in Latin America that it is far more dangerous to trust America than it is to trash it.

Yet Democrats on Capitol Hill are doing their best to help Mr. Chávez prevail against Mr. Uribe. Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that “they don’t have the votes for it, it’s not going to come on the floor,” adding that “what they [the White House] don’t understand it’s not the facts on the ground, it’s the politics that’s in the air.”

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don’t want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue. Our guess is that Messrs. Baucus and Rangel understand the stakes and privately favor the accord. The bottleneck is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is refusing to allow a vote under pressure from her left-wing Members. These Democrats deride any link between Hugo Chávez and trade as a “scare tactic,” as if greater economic prosperity had no political consequences. “President Bush’s recent fear-mongering on trade shows just how desperate he is to deliver one final victory for multinational corporations,” declared Illinois Democrat Phil Hare, who is one of Ms. Pelosi’s main trade policy deputies.

These are the same Democrats who preach the virtues of “soft power” and diplomacy, while deriding Mr. Bush for being too quick to use military force. But trade is a classic form of soft power that would expand U.S. and Latin ties in a web of commercial interests. More than 8,000 U.S. companies currently export to Colombia, nearly 85% of which are small and medium-sized firms. Colombia is already the largest South American market for U.S. farm products, and the pact would open Colombia to new competition and entrepreneurship.

Which brings us back to Mr. Chávez and his many Democratic friends. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd’s early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez’s August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela’s oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.

If Obama wants to demonstrate Presidential qualities, he’d be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.

Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect “trade unionists.” In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is whether they’re going to choose Colombia — or Hugo Chávez.

57% Support Ending Offshore Oil Drilling ban

Democrat members of the House of Representatives called for nationalizing oil refineries at a Wednesday News Conference. Proponents point to the fact that Norway, Mexico, Venezuela and other socialist and communist countries have nationalized their oil and many other industries as justification for this radical proposal. At the same time Congressional Democrats told President Bush to “drop dead” on his call to lift the moratorium on offshore oil drilling despite 57% of American’s support for that idea.

I’ve waited to write a recap of the Hillary Clinton campaign until the feeding frenzy was over.

In nearly every article I read, the author was quick to point out that it wasn’t the media’s horrible treatment of Hillary Clinton that caused her to lose. I agree. However, the reporters and pundits who had a field day attacking Hillary Clinton on personal grounds rather than policy issues do not get a bye on this one. Maybe they can justify their actions in their own small minds, bit I do not think we should. Women, in particular, should view this as part of a broader attack on our participation in government. Here are some of the more brilliant comments issued during the Clinton campaign that represent an affront to all women:

“There’s just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary.”

-Tucker Carlson

“Mrs. Clinton’s testicle lockbox is big enough for the entire Democrat hierarchy, not just some people in the media.”

-Rush Limbaugh

“The reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”

-Chris Matthews

Now, if you can believe it, all of these political hacks have their own shows. That’s right. Somebody considers these gentlemen (and I use the term loosely) worthy of broadcast status. However, nobody ever said they appealed to anyone’s intellectual side and it is certainly clear that the three of them have issues with women in general that they projected onto Hillary Clinton.

If you want to talk about the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the members of the Senate who saw fit to give President Bush unprecedented war powers as a reason she should not be elected, then I’m behind you. That’s one of the reasons why she wasn’t my number one candidate. If you don’t agree with Clinton’s immigration policy, then by all means call her to task. If you think her economic policy is doomed to fail, then say so. However, the line should be drawn when the banter borders on verbal abuse. The fact is that Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews would never treat John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney with such utter disrespect and disdain.

When NBC Political Director Chuck Todd was asked if the media covered Clinton fairly he said, “You can only cover the campaign that is in front of you. And the fact is the campaign that was in front of us was one that was being presented as somebody who was running for Bill Clinton’s third term.” Honestly, Todd should consider going into politics because his answer had nothing to do with the actual question he was asked. If the media raised this issue, one could at least argue against that premise. You could argue that Hillary Clinton was her own person. However, let’s take this comment at face value because even this is a bunch of blarney.

Many will argue, myself included, that John McCain is running George Bush’s third term campaign. How do we know that? John McCain is in 100% voting agreement with George Bush over the last year from tax cuts, to war funding, to torture and beyond. His campaign employs high-powered lobbyists and fund-raisers, many of who worked on the Bush campaigns. You know, the guys he has taken a public stand against. Neither NBC nor any of the other mainstream media have chosen to address these issues. Instead, they insist on presenting John McCain as an anti-Washington, straight-talking, special-interest-battling maverick. Hillary Clinton would never have been given such a break by the media.

Rather than discuss her policies and positions, the media focused on such pressing national issues as her cleavage, her wrinkles, or her choice of clothing. Prior to the Democratic primary kick-off, Fox News Channel conducted focus groups to determine what kind of campaign the voters wanted to see from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Fox consultant, Frank Luntz, was aiming high on the intelligence scale when he conducted these focus groups. “How many of you want to see them really argue,” he asked. “And, how many of you want them to make love to each other?” Can anybody figure out what’s wrong with that picture? It’s no wonder then that we have men in the audience at Hillary Clinton events yelling, “Iron my shirt!” The media’s total lack of responsibility in presenting objections to Clinton’s presidency in fair, balanced and truthful terms goes a long way toward fostering such a bigoted response from the general male population.

When you put the pieces of the anti-Hillary media coverage puzzle together, it is pretty obvious that the majority of the bashing comes from conservative news outlets and commentators. Now, I understand that people will argue that point where Chris Matthews is concerned. He did work for Jimmy Carter and Tip O’Neill. That was then, however, and this is now. Matthews admitted voting for George Bush in 2000, and he has done absolutely nothing but present the president in the most respectful, glowing, positive terms, no matter what transgressions the man has committed. The popular misconception that Matthews is from the ‘liberal media’ gives MSNBC an advantage, allowing the network to present itself as being balanced.

Those who employ the ilk of Matthews, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Carlson are conspicuous by their silence. Of course, the mainstream media has been thoroughly ‘corporatized’ and aren’t the least bit interested in being credible news outlets. Those days are gone. When David Schuster made a degrading remark about the Clinton’s “pimping out” Chelsea to campaign for her mother, MSNBC apologized and gave Schuster a token suspension. However, they allowed mad dog Matthews to remain on the loose to regularly attack Hillary Clinton on everything but the issues. While she was actively campaigning for the presidency, his fixation on Clinton neared obsessive proportions.

And while we’re talking about the flak the Clintons took for having Chelsea campaign, let’s remember that Mitt Romney employed all of his children in his bid for the White House. While he was actively campaigning for the presidency, Romney was asked why his children weren’t serving their country in Iraq instead of campaigning for their father. Romney’s answer was steeped in sheer entitlement and arrogance. According to Romney, his sons were indeed serving their country by helping their father get elected. The mainstream media barely mentioned Romney’s comment, even though it was worthy of a thrashing for its total lack of sensitivity for the families whose members are in harm’s way every day fighting a war that is both unjustified and illegal.

The media’s assault on Hillary Clinton started months ago back in Iowa. They were calling for her to quit then. She showed true grit and determination for many months beyond that and, frankly, whether or not she was your choice for president, you should be proud of her efforts as a woman competing in what has historically been a man’s world. In the final analysis, Barack Obama didn’t win by a landslide. He didn’t embarrass Hillary Clinton. In fact, neither would have gotten to the necessary delegate count without the superdelegates thrown in. Carol Jenkins, president of The Women’s Media Center, said of Clinton, “All women have gained from her ability to go the distance and not be turned into a quitter.” Jenkins also rightfully pointed out that each woman would have to judge for herself whether or not she’d be willing to go through what Hillary Clinton went through.

Poor Hillary. Talk about open mouth and insert foot! Maybe I am naive but I honestly don’t think she meant that she was staying in the race hoping that Obama might be assassinated in June as was Bobby Kennedy. I know it sounded that way and the media and pundits jumped on her but I really think it was more of a case of not being more careful of how she was saying something.

She was trying to defend why she should stay in the primaries and was simply giving examples of other primaries that were still being contested in the summer months. She said that her husband didn’t wrap up his first primaries until June and that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. Again, she was only trying to point out that Bobby was still campaigning in the month of June, not that she was waiting for someone to assassinate Obama.

What is interesting is how everyone immediately thought the worst of her. It says a lot about her character or at least how others perceive her character that they would even think she might be hoping her opponent was shot. And more than anything else that is why she should never be president. How could you possibly trust Hillary when you believe she is capable of doing almost anything to obtain her goals? And some would say that she has done the unthinkable before to protect herself (think Vince Foster).

Even though Hillary might not have meant she was waiting for Obama to be assassinated I am nervous that there are some who might take her up on that. God forbid, if Obama were to be shot, Hillary could not be the candidate for too many people would remember this statement and say she was the cause. One bright spot is that the majority of Hillary’s most ardent supporters are middle aged white woman. That is the least likely group to pick up a gun and go after somebody. But as they say, it only takes one crazy person and no matter what the demographics every group has at least one nut case.

On the other side, John McCain should be on his hands and knees thanking Hillary for her controversial statement. Late Friday he published his medical records and his wife’s tax returns from last year. It is a typical politician’s tactic to provide potentially damaging information on the eve of a three day weekend when most people have the TV’s turned off and aren’t paying attention to the news. Clinton’s faux pas combined with all the continuing weather related disasters and stories on the high gas prices dropped McCain’s news to the bottom of the stories being reported.

Most people, though. aren’t paying much attention to politics right now. And I must admit that I love this weekend. As a child it meant a big parade in my small town where if I wasn’t marching in my Girl Scout uniform then I could be found with my family under the big tree waving my little flag. And then regardless of how cold it still might be you just had to take a dip in the pool even if it was just a quick in and out. As an adult this was always the first big national holiday since February and I really looked forward to the much needed three day weekend.

As you enjoy your holiday here is a final fun political thought. In addition to parades, pools, beaches and cook outs, this weekend also marks the start of the summer movie season. For me, as for many others, I can’t wait to go see the new Indiana Jones movie. But keep this in mind as you watch Harrison Ford in this action packed movie – this vibrant, energetic man is just 7 years younger than John McCain!