All Posts Tagged With: "Republicans"

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.

The Democrat Convention has a NASCAR race quality about it with viewers morbidly “hoping” for a BIG crash while eschewing that idea for political correctness.

Nearly half of U.S. voters (49%) think it is at least somewhat likely that Hillary Clinton will overshadow the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama at the party’s national political convention next week. Twenty-three percent (23%) say it is Very Likely. Even 44% of Democrats think it is at least somewhat likely to happen, including 18% who say it is Very Likely.

Nearly as many voters (47%) do not expect Mrs. Clinton to overshadow Obama, although only 8% say it is Not At All Likely. Most think Obama will outshine Bill Clinton Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats say it isn’t likely to happen, but only 10% say it won’t happen period. The Democrat Convention has a NASCAR race quality about it with viewers morbidly “hoping” for a BIG crash while eschewing that

idea for political correctness.

Mark J. Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser during much of her unsuccessful presidential bid said Tuesday, “This year, the party that wins the battle of the conventions will likely win the election.” 56% of Democrats say they are more likely to watch the conventions this year, versus 19% who say they are less likely to watch. With Obama expected to be the first African-American presidential candidate of a major national political party, 77% of black voters say they are more likely to watch the conventions this year. A black-centric television network said it will cover the Democrat Convention but ignore the Republican convention broadcast.

By contrast, more Republicans (40%) say they are less likely to watch the conventions than those who say they are more likely to do so (31%). Unaffiliated voters are more interested in conventions, too. Forty percent (40%) say they are more likely to watch this year, as opposed to 29% who describe themselves as less likely.

Fifty-two percent of voters describe political conventions in general as boring versus 32% who say they are exciting. More Democrats rate conventions as exciting (44%) than those who characterize them as boring (35%). For 64% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters, however, conventions are boring. The enthusiasm gap is likely produced by the simmering controversy between Clinton and Obama, and the possibility of a class in Denver but the absence of the same controversy at the Republican Convention in Minnesota.

More and more say McCain will make a surprise VP Nomination and more news by anouncing his cabinet - we will see.

Forty-nine percent of voters say conventions are a waste of time and money, while 30% think they are really necessary. Democrats are closely divided; with 36% saying conventions are a waste and 39% saying they are necessary. Once again, Republicans (59%) and unaffiliateds (54%) by high margins rate them more as a waste of time.

Remember the date of August 7, 2008.

It is when America had another major loss in the war on terrorism and continued this country’s long slide into becoming subjugated by Muslims and radical Islams. Perhaps I am being overly dramatic, yet I really don’t think so. But let me tell you what happened and you can decide for yourself.

A journalist, Sherry Jones had written her first novel, “The Jewel of Medina” which followed the life of one of Mohammed’s wives. In a Reuter’s interview Sherry is quoted as saying “I have deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed…. I envisioned that my book would be a bridge-builder.”

Random House picked up the novel with a publishing date of August 12 and then an eight-city publicity tour. However, on August 7th Random House decided it was not going to publish this book and the Reuter’s article continued:

Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received “cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”

“In this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel,” Perry said.

If it weren’t so scary I would find it to be incredibly ironic. One of our most sacred freedoms is that of the free press. How often has the media berated conservatives for wanting to take out books they deemed offensive? How many times has the ACLU defended schools that stocked books that most of the parents find inappropriate for children?

Yet when a major publishing company backs down on publishing a book there isn’t a single outcry. No one at ACLU is standing up for Sherry Jones’s. There isn’t even a whisper on how Random House was blackmailed by “the Muslim community” except by bloggers. There are a lot of heated exchanges on the internet but it still all goes back to a writer’s freedom to write whatever she likes, even if it might offend some Muslims. Boo hoo. Could you imagine the outcry if that best seller the Da Vinci Code treated Mohammed the same way it treated Jesus? Or the uproar by the biased media if it had been a Christian group that threatened violence if Random House published an anti Christian book? It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

It almost makes me say why bother? The press is crucifying anyone who supports the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But why should our soldiers give their lives to protect freedoms that the press is willing to roll over on when there is the first hint of violence? It is simply unbelievable that a major company such as Random House is terrified of upsetting the Muslims and actual gave in to their blackmail. And yet it did happen.

I use to think the conservative talk radio and TV shows were getting pretty extreme at times. I don’t any more. And to go back to the start of this article, do you think I was exaggerating about the importance of what just happened? No, I don’t think so, either. Not sure what we can do other than keep a watch for other instances of how this country is bowing down to the radical Islams. If the liberal press won’t do their job then we must do it for them. And if you agree then please feel free to start emailing this article and any others like it to your friends and even to conservative radio and TV shows. We need to let the Muslims and the liberals know that

once again it is the conservatives, the true patriots who will save the far left from their own cowardice and will protect all of America’s freedoms, including the freedom of the press.

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?

The Republicans have precious little to be excited about these days. Things are looking bleak. The evangelical Christians aren’t excited about John McCain becoming president, so their support is less than enthusiastic.  A feeling of utter desperation must be why a group of conservative right-wing Republicans recently pulled the Federal Marriage Amendment out of the closet, so to speak. Only this time it’s called the Protect Marriage Act. It’s impossible to keep the name straight anymore but, regardless of what it’s called, what this law seeks to do is write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Thankfully, this particular piece of legislation has a very long shot at even getting a hearing. Still, it’s particularly irksome on two fronts. First, this continuous attack on the Constitution is getting to be the Theater of the Absurd. Enough is enough. Second, we gay folk are tired of being used as a polarizing issue when all we really want are our civil rights as guaranteed in said Constitution (not ’special’ rights as the conservatives would have you believe). I discovered the ultimate in hypocrisy when I went to look the bill up and discovered that two of its cosponsors are none other than Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) and Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), two far-right conservatives whose sexual exploits make a mockery of heterosexual marriage.

For those of you who need a review, we’ll start with Senator Vitter. During his campaign for the senate, the good Mr. Vitter was accused of carrying on a rather lengthy tryst with a French Quarter prostitute. At the time he labeled the accusation as “absolutely and completely untrue.” It was after he was elected that his telephone number was found in the phone records of the famous ‘DC Madam.’ At that point denial seemed silly, so instead he pulled the rehabilitation and reconciliation routine out of his pocket. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling,” said Vitter. Signing on to write discrimination into the Constitution must be his way of purging his guilt.

Senator Larry Craig’s sponsorship of this bill is even more absurd. On August 27, 2007, we learned from the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, that Craig had been arrested trolling around the men’s bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport looking for extramarital homosexual favors. Unfortunately, he was soliciting homosexual favors from an undercover policeman. This is the same Senator Craig who appeared on Meet the Press at the height of President Clinton’s impeachment trial (1999) and informed Tim Russert that the majority of citizens in Idaho thought that Bill Clinton was a “nasty, bad, naughty boy.” Yes, those are his exact words. What do you suppose they think of Senator Craig if they think Bill Clinton was bad, naughty and nasty?

Senator Craig was accused of playing ‘footsy’ in the bathroom stall with the officer, who was in the adjoining stall. After much wrangling and gnashing of teeth, the charges were reduced and Craig pled guilty to a lesser charge of ‘disorderly conduct.’ However, there had been rumors and innuendo about Craig’s homosexuality in the past and this incident brought it all front and center once again. In late 2007, the Idaho Statesman ran an exhaustively-researched story revealing that Craig has been accused of having a history of homosexual encounters dating back to 1967. (For the record, he has had more than one men’s room encounter.) No fewer than eight gay men came forward to tell stories to the Statesman of having had sex with Craig after seeing him deny his homosexuality on television. Should he resign if he’s a homosexual? Hell, no.

There are gays in office who serve both their constituents and the government admirably. Likewise, there are people in office who have done far worse than solicit sex with someone. (Just take a look at our imperial president’s dismal record of service to this country. He still has his job.) However, Larry Craig should come clean. It’s difficult to believe that all of these gay men are uniting to spread lies about Craig. If the prostitute-loving David Vitter is still serving, Larry Craig should be allowed to serve. After all, Vitter could just as easily have been caught in a sting and charged. What cooked Vitter’s goose was that his name was posted on the web by the D.C. Madam herself. What neither of these clowns should be doing is preventing those who truly do want to be married, regardless of their sexual orientation, from doing so. This is a double dose of hypocrisy.

Our third horseman is still a babe in the woods compared to Vitter and Craig, but no less hypocritical. This guy hasn’t even been elected yet and he’s got a first-class scandal under his belt. His name is Mike Erickson and he’s running on a pro-life ticket in Oregon’s 5^th Congressional District. What’s Erickson’s transgression? How about the fact that he’s running on a pro-life ticket but paid for his girlfriend’s abortion. Perhaps ‘girlfriend’ isn’t an appropriate term here. Let’s just say he had an intimate relationship with someone who became pregnant in 2000. According to the woman, “not only did he pick me up and drive me to the abortion clinic, he completely encouraged me to do that.” The woman also revealed that he withdrew $300 from his bank account to pay for the procedure. Of course, Erickson is claiming that he didn’t know he was paying for that type of medical procedure.

The unnamed woman, a Republican, first thought about coming forward when Erickson ran (and lost) in 2006. She had received a mailer highlighting his endorsement by Oregon Right to Life and was disgusted by the fact that he was running on a pro-life ticket. However, she backed down after setting up an interview because she was afraid of the repercussions of coming forward. In 2008, she decided to share her story with the Portland Tribune. The story appeared on the front page on May 12. The 33-year-old Clackamas County woman states, “I think it’s completely hypocritical that he would solicit or ask for an endorsement from Right to Life.” There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on this one.

According to Lois Anderson, political director for Oregon Right to Life, she spoke to the woman at length back in 2006 and found her to be credible. She also spoke to Erickson, who denied it all. Since the allegations were uncorroborated, Oregon Right to Life allowed its 2006 endorsement of Erickson to stand. Oregon Right to Life stated that the woman had been clearly traumatized by the abortion and the organization would have no choice but to give an explanation if they retracted their endorsement. In Anderson’s mind, there was no way to do this without revealing information that was harmful to the woman. “I don’t have any reason to doubt her,” Anderson states, “I think the fuzziness is because of the trauma.” In 2008, Oregon Right to Life did not endorse Erickson. Instead, they endorsed his Republican challenger, Kevin Mannix, also running on a pro-life ticket.

What’s the point? The point is that government is a haven for hypocrites. Public servants are neither here to tell people how to live their personal lives nor to legislate morality. The U.S. Constitution is very clear about its basic tenets: All men are created equal. All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means that everyone has the right to marry. There is nothing in our Constitution now that denies same-sex marriage. Yet, the threat has been introduced because politicians have muddied the waters by blurring the line between church and state. Our government isn’t based on the Bible, but on the Constitution. I’m confident that our founding fathers would never approve of the Constitution being amended for the purpose of denying a specific group of people its civil rights. While many of them were God-fearing men, they clearly understood that religion and politics do not mix.

The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot, as usual, by just about handing George Bush — a failed president with a horrendous legacy, a man whose approval rating is the lowest it’s been since they started keeping such statistics, a leader who is the architect of the most unpopular administration in American history — everything he wants. George was given two gifts this week, courtesy of line-crossing Democrats, or what we like to call “Bush Democrats.”

Gift No. 1: Another $163 billion to continue the illegal occupation of Iraq. How generous of our imperial leader and his submissive minions on Capitol Hill to give the new administration a financial running start at continuing on with this absurd war. As if the poor slob who gets elected isn’t inheriting enough problems. This country is in a colossal mess thanks to the last eight years of inept and misguided ideological-driven leadership.

Gift No. 2: A FISA Act that not only gives Bush and the Telecoms retroactive immunity, but also expands his spying powers. It doesn’t get much better than that for a president who blatantly broke the law and committed an impeachable offense. Luckily for all of us, this bill has been approved only by the House. When it moved to the Senate late this past week, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) managed to prevent it from being rammed through by delaying a vote until after the July 4 holiday. He released this statement:

“I’m pleased we were able to delay a vote on FISA until after the July 4th holiday instead of having it jammed through. I hope that over the July 4th holiday, Senators will take a closer look at this deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American people. It is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation.”

Nevertheless, the chief architect of this travesty, in concert with President Bush, was none other than Democrat Steny Hoyer. He now holds the dubious title of “Bush Democrat.” The propaganda machine was churning out the crap the other day as Hoyer described this as a compromise that not only

gives the government what it needs to protect us against terrorism, but also puts safeguards in place to guard our rights. The bill is anything but. What the bill stands for is a total cave-in by a spineless Congress. Bush and the Telecoms get their retroactive immunity and we reward a president-out-of-control by giving him expanded spying powers. By doing so, the House has legitimized his law-breaking warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. It was not our government’s finest hour by any stretch.

In addition to electing a gridlock-proof majority (as opposed to the slim, ineffectual one-seat majority they have now), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is targeting the “Bush Democrats” for removal. On the House side, they’ve identified John Barrow of Georgia’s 12th District as someone to replace. For the record, Barrow crossed the aisle on both votes. The DSCC is instead supporting State Senator Regina Thomas.

However, let’s make sure Steny Hoyer is on the list. The spirit of bipartisanship is a wonderful thing. I understand the need for being able to work across the aisle with others. However, the two parties were never intended to be a mirror image. The Democrats look like Republican Lite. We need Democratic party members who will STAND UP to the Republicans, not STAND WITH them.

I got a little bit of flack for my last post, but it was so heated you would have thought that I had declared that Hannah Montana was the Anti-Christ.

In the interest of fairness and to further the discussion, intelligently, I wanted to post my favorite response to my post. Although, I respectfully disagree with the author, I appreciate that she took the time to express herself.

Divided We Fall

The Democratic infighting, and the lengthy process is only making McSame’s job easier.
The sniping and the division must cause him to smile a grinchy smile.
This rant in in response to a post on Siren’s, to a piece about some voter’s choosing “None of the Above” - unhappy with the presidential offerings.

I guess that hit a nerve with me because, any move that gives the Reich wing a possible, remote hint of an advantage is not worth it to me. This is NOT an attack on the writer, but the concept of that strategy.
I want regime change- I wanted it 8 years ago, and I want it more than ever— now!

The idea of writing in *none of the above* candidates, is, in my opinion, a line of thinking that inadvertently winds up helping McSame & the republicans. There is a snarky part of me that feels like if no candidate fits the bill- is not good enough for said voters, then why don’t the dissatisfied run for office, if they think their standards & platform are superior? It seems like a cop out to just declare no candidate is good enough.

(…continued)

After watching the democratic debate last night I have come to the same conclusion that many others have already figured out. I realized that liberals aren’t happy unless they are running around squawking like Chicken Little and crying out “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

These Chicken Little Liberals are constantly warning the American people of one pending disaster after another. You know the list – global warming, nuclear proliferation, the war in Iraq, the economy etc. etc. And if there is no current threat they will make one up because otherwise they become irrelevant if they can’t show how only they can save us.

Since nearly every liberal subscribes to the Chicken Little philosophy they differentiate themselves from each other by the way they talk about these “disasters”. Hillary wants to play mother hen by spreading her wings for all the little chicks to hide under while she takes care of us and protects us from whatever is falling from the sky. This solution appeals to all those people who don’t want to be thinking adults and take on the responsibility of taking care of themselves much less their own offspring.

Barack Obama also believes that the sky is falling but instead of discussing how to fix it or even stop the sky from falling he tells us how glorious the sky will be once it is no longer falling. But don’t be fooled by his rhetoric for he too, believes that only he and his liberal base can take care of all the little people who aren’t capable or refuse to help themselves.

As for the Republicans and John McCain? Instead of running around crying that “the sky is falling” and getting everyone scared and upset, they simply blast whatever is falling from the sky into harmless little pieces. Problem solved.