This past week, Time magazine wrote an extremely dishonest column comparing Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan. In fact, Michael Sherer, one of the column’s co-authors, claimed on Hardball that Obama has always seen Reagan as a model, even though Sherer admitted in his column that “Reagan would come to epitomize all that Obama opposed”. That is the understatement of the millennium. Allow me to put it like this–Ronald Reagan strongly believed in American exceptionalism, and he would rather have shaved his head with a cheese grater than gone on an Apologolooza/America Sucks world tour or bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. (Maybe Time magazine is confusing President Ronald Reagan with Ron Reagan Jr.)
But enough talking. The video below, made by Citizens United, perfectly demonstrates the real contrasts between the two men better than a hundred more words of blogging ever could.
[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.
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.)
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.
(H/T to Allahpundit of Hot Air.)
Recently on The O’Reilly Factor, a moderate Canadian Muslim woman by the name of Raheel Raza spoke out against building the now infamous Ground Zero mosque. (She has previously written about her feelings as well.) First of all, her performance on O’Reilly’s show tonight was gangbusters. She blew him away with her extremely well articulated reasoning for being against the building of the Ground Zero mosque. To be specific, Ms. Raza stated that, “It’s confrontational, it’s in bad faith, and it doesn’t set up any real dialogue or discussion on tolerance.” Then, she went on to further state that, “Bleeding heart, white liberals don’t understand the battle that moderate Muslims face and how radical Islam has grown since 9/11 because of political correctness.” She was so terrific and spot-on that she, literally, left Bill O’Reilly speechless–all he could respond with was, “What a great answer!”. (You can watch Ms. Raza’s entire interview in the embed below.)
Folks, what this woman did on O’Reilly’s show took guts–I’m not going to mince words. You know that she’s going to catch all kinds of hell when she gets back home from “tolerant liberals” who can’t tolerate any apostasy from their PC ideology. We need to give Ms. Raza, and moderate Muslims like her with the courage to speak out against radical Islam, as much support as possible. It’s the right thing to do.
Update: This diary was originally posted a week ago in a Live Wire for The Minority Report, but it looks like I was quite prescient when I wrote that Raheel Raza was going to “catch hell” when she went back home to Canada. Yesterday, Kathy Shaidle of NewsReal reported that Ms. Raza has already received a threatening phone call from the property owner of the Ground Zero mosque. Again, now more than ever, the Raheel Razas of the Muslim world–with the fortitude to take a stand against radical Islam–need and deserve our support.
The author of the article likens it to a Tennesee Williams play. Mary Landrieu sold out the country for $300 million, not $100 million as previously reported. Dana Milbank is right. It is a play but nothing really like those from Williams.
The script has become old and worn from overuse and the lines have been memorized by those who hear them, more so than those who act the parts for our benefit. The patrons are mutinous demanding better for their money but the actors seemed locked into this one play unable to step out of it to engage in another.
“My vote today,” she [Landrieu] said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, “should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end.”
How many times have we heard this same claim, yet, 97% of all bills that are approved in cloture become law. The actor indicates he hears the mutinous crowd, promising something different, but as the final act ensues we hear once again the same tired lines that echo in our memory like a too real nightmare proving to the patrons they were not heard at all.
Note: This is quite likely one of the shortest posts I’ve ever written but does anything more really need to be said?
Crossposted to RedState.