[H/T Toby Toons for the image.]
This past week in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner (that killed six people and wounded nine others–including the congresswoman), the mainstream/liberal media instantly pounced on “the violent rhetoric” by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party as the cause of Loughner’s mad shooting spree. Oh, and they did this within half an hour of the victims being shot, before any of the facts of the case had come in. To be specific, the likes of Andrew Sullivan (he of “Trig Truther” fame), Markos Moulitsas, Matthew Yeglesias, Paul Krugman, The New York Times Editorial Board and just about everyone at MSNBC immediately implied that “right-wing rhetoric”, and specifically Sarah Palin, were accessories to this tragedy. In fact, Markos Moulitsas even went so far as to tweet out “Mission Accomplished Sarah Palin” immediately after the shooting, and blamed her based an obscure map that she had put out almost year ago on her Facebook page “targeting” certain districts for the 2010 election. To quote Alex Knepper, according to liberals, “Guns don’t kill people, Sarah Palin’s metaphors do”. (See an image of her Facebook map below.)
Except that it didn’t take conservative bloggers long to learn that the Democrats had put up a similar “target” map in 2009 (before Palin did) stating which Republicans they wanted to “target” for opposing the now infamous stimulus bill. Continue reading
For some odd reason, Sarah Palin causes liberal elites to rabidly foam at the mouth. Professor William Jacobson of the blog Legal Insurrection wrote an insightful piece about how conservatives seem to reflexively defend Palin, because liberals seem to be perpetually attacking her. Furthermore, not only do liberals seem to revel in finding weird reasons to attack Sarah Palin, but they also seem to only be happy when they are attacking her family as well (probably because they see them as little “spawns of Sarah”). Now, why is this? I haven’t a clue. However, I can state beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not helping them.
It’s become apparent as of late that the Left has a new obsession. Christine O’Donnell’s dabbling in witchcraft in high school and her 1995 stance against masturbation (when she was a conservative activist) have truly captivated her critics. Whether it’s Bill Maher, Maureen Dowd, Richard Cohen, or Frank Rich, all the Left can talk about is witchcraft and masturbation.
However, as I have noted, all of this creepy talk from the Left is actually a sign of weakness. Why? Because there is no way on earth they would be talking incessantly about witchcraft and masturbation if unemployment wasn’t so high and their poll numbers weren’t so low. If you read the tea leaves properly by really taking a look at popular culture–and even the so-called liberal media–it is painfully obvious that victory just isn’t in the cards for the Democrats this November and a few of them are slowly starting to realize it.
So, without much fanfare and ado, I would like to share with you five bad omens for the Left’s prospects in November.
This past Friday night, Bill Maher broke with tradition. Instead of just having a panel composed of three Leftist yes men who hang on his every word, Maher had a panel of two conservatives (Andrew Breitbart and Amy Holmes) and one progressive (Seth MacFarlane, the creator of The Family Guy).
Things were humming along quite nicely until the topic of health care came up. Maher seemed flummoxed by the fact Americans didn’t appreciate just how much President Obama had done for them by shoving ObamaCare down their throats. Here’s what he said:
“It would be popular if the Democrats would talk about it more.”
Genius! It’s all because that Obama just hasn’t given enough speeches about health care yet. There’s no other reaction possible to such gibberish than to roll one’s eyes.
Then, when Amy Holmes explained to Maher that the Democrats had “talked endlessly” about Obamacare, and “their agenda was rejected by the American people”, Maher had the following reply:
Here we go again.
Most people who don’t live in a cave are probably somewhat familiar with the left’s recent attacks on Christine O’Donnell. First, it was that she was against masturbation in 1995, now it’s that she dabbled in witchcraft when she was in high school. (No, seriously, I’m not making this stuff up–these people are just that pathetic.)
Now, granted, Bill Maher (the man who first engaged in this attack on O’Donnell) is obviously trying to paint Christine O’Donnell as crazy or out of the mainstream, by implying that she’s some sort of a secret witch. (Wait–I’m confused. First she was a radical Christian who was against masturbation, and now, she’s a witch? Which one is it?) However, Bill Maher is one to talk about others being out of the mainstream. First of all, this guy is perpetually surrounded by a coterie of skanks, and his look is free-clinic chic, to say the least. Second of all, Maher dressed up as the Crocodile Hunter for Halloween, after the guy had tragically died from a stingray piercing his heart. To say that was “in bad taste” is the understatement of the millennium. And finally, Maher referred to Bristol Palin as a “Hillbilly Heroine” on his TV show (see embed below).
So, my response to people who say that we should take Bill Maher’s accusations of witchcraft seriously: really? We should listen to this degenerate with regard to which candidates we support?! (No I’m not shouting–I’m growling.)
Predictably backwards considering the left-stream media plus President Obama have made it so. Now, we can add Mike Castle (R-DE), supposedly right-wing though his record doesn’t reflect that, among others:
The problem here is: Just who is listening to whom?
The left-stream media has operated for decades on the premise that they shape opinion. But they ran into a problem along the way: Common sense. Common sense told the “unwashed masses” that the media was lying as they played the “nothing to see here, move along” card. But the media didn’t get it. They are now on a suicide course of political activism.
Common sense tells us that the left-stream media isn’t listening to its audience though that audience is rejecting vocally and tacitly the media’s spin. Continue reading
It’s official. Every liberal pundit with an ounce of credibility is either ignoring the latest Vanity Fair column about Sarah Palin, or is running like heck from it. The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Hill have all ignored the story. And now, many noteworthy progressives, such as Kirsten Powers, Ben Smith, Julia Baird and David Weigel are panning it as untrue, disgraceful, sexist blather. In fact, only the far left nutter websites, like Crooks and Liars, see it as any sort of plus for the progressive cause.
So, why the mad dash away from this column by the leftist elites? It’s bashing Sarah Palin, so one would think that they would love it. Well, without much ado and mincing any words, I can tell you the four major reasons why liberals can’t seem to distance themselves from this column fast enough.
OK–it’s time to just come out and say it. So-called liberals must be desperate, because–with regard to the Ground Zero mosque (as with so many other past cultural issues)–Barack Obama has sided against the American people–again. How do I know this to be true? Well, let’s just look at the steady stream of hysterical op-eds coming out of The New York Times slandering the American people as racist, Islamaphobic, unpatriotic dumb-dumbs. (Yes, I know, so-called liberals must be pretty desperate to play the patriotism card–I thought they thought that patriotism was gauche.)
For instance, last weekend, TV entertainer, Dick Cavett, wrote a column titled, Real Americans, Please Stand Up. (Did you get that? If you disagree with him about the Ground Zero mosque, you aren’t a “real American”.) In this op-ed, Cavett goes on to lament how “ashamed of us” he is, and he even goes so far as to write the following insanity–
As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”
So now, not only am I not a “real American”, but I want to kick pregnant Japanese women in the belly.
Oh, but Mr. Cavett is not alone in his inane ramblings. On Sunday, theater critic, Frank Rich, wrote a column titled, How Fox Betrayed Petraeus, and on Monday cultural writer, Nicholas Kristof, wrote a column titled, Taking bin Laden’s Side.
Now, just from the titles of these op-eds alone, it should be painfully obvious what The New York Times is trying to do–i.e., “otherize” all opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as bigoted, anti-American rednecks with the worst possible motives. However, all of these columns were rich in over the top rhetoric, but deeply lacking in any information about the previous troubling, statements from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the man behind the mosque), or the fact that that Iman Rauf has not been at all transparent about where the money’s coming from to build this mosque at Ground Zero. So, for flat out slandering the American people as anti-American bigots–and being disingenuous as to why they are really upset about the Ground Zero mosque–The New York Times deserves to wear “The Cone of Shame”. Continue reading