Last night, I was watching the following exchange on The O’Reilly Factor with Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, when Chris Wallace blasted the Obama Administration so hard that it made my jaw hit the floor. The reason why this surprised me so, is because Chris Wallace runs a very “fair and balanced” show and he usually keeps his personal opinions to himself—i.e., he is no partisan hack. Below is a list of criticisms that Wallace hurls toward the Obama administration:
—Both Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace call out Barack Obama for going on all of the other Sunday talk shows this weekend EXCEPT Fox News Sunday, which has the highest ratings. Wallace further points out that he has always been fair to the Obama Administration, that they “refuse to take yes for an answer”, and that “there is a certain childishness or pettiness” about their behavior.
—Chris Wallace also calls out David Axelrod for going on Face the Nation and denigrating the 9/12 tea party demonstrators by stating that, “They are not representative.” Wallace then adds, “This from the President who said that he wanted to reach out to all Americans?”
—Chris Wallace even hilariously points out that Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN, will go on Fox News Sunday, but Barack Obama won’t.
—However, Wallace really burns the Obama Administration when he offers up the following zinger—
“These guys…everything is personal…everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.” (See embed below).
Yesterday on MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell had Representative John Culberson (R-TX) as a guest on Hardball. O’Donnell began the interview by rudely sneering at Culberson, and then seemed to go into a trance and began shouting the same questions over and over at Culberson, and then refused to let Culberson answer any of his questions. And, if this whole scenario wasn’t strange enough, O’Donnell was repeatedly asking Culberson how he would have voted on Social Security in 1935 and on Medicare in 1965. When Culberson kept repeatedly saying that he would have voted “yes” on both programs (and Culberson tried to remind O’Donnell that “it is 2009”), O’Donnell not only kept shouting over Culberson and repeatedly asked him the same questions (as if Culberson had refused to answer them and O’Donnell didn’t seem to notice that he already had), but then he also started screaming that both programs were “socialist programs”. Well, at least liberals now finally admit that they really do love socialism, but I digress (however, we were considered evil “racists” if we even dared to point out that Barack Obama might have socialist tenancies). And then, when Culberson finally had enough of O”Donnell’s little trip to Crazytown and smacked him down by saying, “This is why MSNBC is in the tank, because you won’t let your guests answer any questions”, O’Donnell childishly resorted to calling Congressman Culberson a “liar” based on absolutely no evidence at all (see embed below).
But hey, we all know that name-calling is the default position of most liberals—see Nancy Pelosi and “Nazis”, Charles Blow and “hooligans”, Harry Reid and “evil-mongers”, and the DNC and “The Mob”, just to name a few.
Anyway, Lawrence O’Donnell’s unbalanced behavior on yesterday’s edition of Hardball shouldn’t really surprise anyone, because he’s been shaky pudding for some time now. Hey, blast from the past—remember this hate filled, bigoted, anti-Mormon rant that O’Donnell went on over a year ago in regard to Mitt Romeny’s speech about his faith? He basically stated that all Mormon’s are “racists”. Again with the name-calling.
[Just a thought—maybe the reason why Lawrence O’Donnell wants socialized medicine so badly, is to pay for the team of psychiatrists, and all of the medications, that he is so obviously in need of, but I digress.]
Oh, and one more thing. Hey liberals, do you want to know why you are so badly losing this health care debate? It’s not just that you don’t have the facts on your side, but it’s also that you are OBNOXIOUS and so no one can stand to listen to you all anymore. You see, I’m sincerely trying to help you out here. Help me to help you by knocking off the shouting and the name-calling—or you can continue to act like children and keep losing this debate. Oh wait–nevermind. What was I thinking? I don’t want socialized medicine. Scratch that previous sentence and keep up the obnoxious behavior liberals—you’re doing a heckuva job!
I’m not sure if anyone else has noticed this recent phenomenon or not, but for the past year or so, liberals have progressively become more and more flagrant with regard to making sexist, racist, or bigoted comments about anyone who ran against or voted against Barack Obama. At first, liberal sexism and bigotry started out as a distant rumble–now it has become a thunderous roar. And, if you will be kind enough to bear with me, I will demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, that I am right.
First, I will begin with liberal sexism, which ironically began when Hillary Clinton ran for president (yes, I know that she is also a Democrat, but you can’t forget that she was opposing “The One” ; therefore, she became “the enemy”). For example, you had New York Magazine Columnist, Kurt Andersen, write in a column that Hillary had a “Wal-Mart shopper’s bad hair and big bum”. (Andersen also admitted in this column that the media was rooting for Obama and called Hillary’s voters “uneducated losers and Yokels from the C and D counties” Hey Andersen–elitist much?!) Now, I wonder what Andersen would have to say if someone referred to Michelle Obama as having “Wal-Mart shopper’s bad hair and big bum”? I bet that he would think that it was a tad sexist if those same words were used on his candidate, huh? Oh, and who could forget David Shuster saying that the Clinton’s were “pimping Chelsea out”? Gee, I wonder what his reaction would have been if someone had said that about the Obamas when they brought their daughters on Access Hollywood? I bet that Shuster would have been outraged. And, Chris Matthews
managed to outrage just about every woman I know by calling Hillary Clinton “witchy”, “Nurse Ratched”, “Madame Defarge”, and by saying that here voice was “like fingernails on a chalkboard”. Once again, I wonder what Matthews’ reaction would have been if a conservative pundit had said the exact same things about Michelle Obama? And, if Matthews remarks weren’t bad enough, Keith Olbermann turned up the misogyny to full throttle when he said, in regard to Hillary, that “Someone should take her into a room and only he comes out” (translation–beat the crap out of her). Gee, I wonder what old Olbie’s response would have been if some conservative pundit had said the same thing about Michelle Obama? I bet he would have a very long winded Special Comment prepared especially for him (as well as labeling him “The Worst Person in the World”) don’t you think? And finally, Maureen Dowd managed to anger many of The New York Times’ regular readers (Clark Hoyt, the New York Times public editor, admitted as much in an op-ed; however, he later allowed Dowd to transfer her sexist venom to Sarah Palin) by writing a plethora of sexist columns about Mrs. Clinton, such as this column titled, “Can Hillary Cry her Way Back to the Whitehouse?”, this one titled, “There Will be Blood” (where she stated that Hillary “got agitated and was flapping her arms”), and this one titled, “Seeing Red over Hillary” (where she compared Hillary Clinton to Scarlet O’Hara), just to name a few. Oh, I almost forgot. Jake Tapper was the only reporter who had the stones to call out The One for using sexist code words against Hillary Clinton (like “claws coming out” and “periodically, when she’s feeling down”) and for calling a reporter “Sweetie” (and he also called out US Congressman Steve Cohen, an ardent Obama supporter, for referring to Senator Clinton as “Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction”). Come to think of it, Obama, himself, wasn’t exactly setting the most politically correct tone, was he?
[On a side note, Huffington Post blogger Jeff Norman defended former Air America radio host Randi Rhodes’ right to refer to Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro as “big f**king wh*res”, by stating that it was a free speech issue and by writing that Ferraro was “whining on Fox News” about the comment being sexist. Now, suppose a conservative radio host had referred to Michelle Obama as a “big f**king wh*re”? I wonder if Norman would still think that it was just “semantic quibbling about free speech”? I highly doubt it.]
Now, Hillary Clinton was just the appetizer for liberals’ sexism–Sarah Palin was the main course. When Governor Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, most of the liberal elites let their inner misogynist come out to play. For example, you had the usual suspects like Chris Matthews start immediately attacking her–in fact he went so overboard that Pat Buchanan called Matthews a misogynist to his face (and Pat Buchanan is hardly a staunch feminist so when he tells you that “you have a problem with strong women”, then you need serious help). Then, of course, Maureen Dowd started right where she left off with Hillary, and started writing sexist and degrading columns about Sarah Palin such as this one titled, “A Vice in Go-Go Boots” (which was loaded with sexist stereotypes such as calling Governor Palin “An underqualified babe”), or this one titled, “Mud Pies for That One” (where she called Palin “John McCain’s Mean Girl” and falsely accuses the McCain campaign of racism), or this column titled, “Sarah’s PomPom Palaver” (where she compared Palin to Alicia Silverstone in “Clueless”). Just a thought, but I wonder what Maureen Dowd would have said if a conservative pundit was writing columns about Michelle Obama that were loaded with sexist stereotypes? Take that back–I know exactly what she would way. In this column, Dowd claims that conservatives were trying to paint Michelle Obama as a “harridan”, but of course she offers absolutely no examples of how conservatives were attempting this feat. However, I find this charge incredibly hypocritical on Dowd’s part, because pretty much all she does in her b*tchy columns is paint other women as harridans, but I digress.
[Oh, if anyone is curious, I wrote a diary a while ago that went into great detail about Maureen Dowd’s pathetic behavior towards other women that she’s threatened by and her snobbery towards her fellow Americans.]
[My husband pointed out to me that we weren’t even allowed to ask if Barack Obama was born in the US, even though his father, step father, and sister were all born outside of the US (I personally think that he was born in the US, but that’s not the point.) However, members of the MSM and bloggers on Daily Kos were allowed to perpetually float their tinfoil hat theories about Sarah Palin’s baby, and no one really batted an eye. (But then again, when Daily Kos bloggers routinely traffic in anti-Jewish sentiment, Markos Moulitisas simply refers to it as “democracy”, so therefore, I guess that no one should really be surprised by any of the filth that appears on Daily Kos.)]
Now, if the first video wasn’t grotesque enough for you, here is another video of Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin’s daughter a “Hillbilly Heroine”, calling Sarah Palin a “MILF”, then he proceeds to make fun of her children’s names, and then he tops it off by stating that Americans are racist and aren’t very bright. Don’t believe me? Watch the embed and see for yourself.
Furthermore, liberals have continued to attack Sarah Palin with sexist bile to this day–more than six months after Barack Obama has been elected president! If that’s not sick, then I don’t know what is. For instance, everyone’s heard about David Letterman recently making a total ass out of himself by saying that Sarah Palin looks like a “slutty flight attendant” and then making a disgusting joke about her fourteen year old daughter getting knocked up by Alex Rodrgiuez (H/T Caleb Howe). However, what’s even more pathetic than Letterman’s obvious sexism and rape jokes about a fourteen year old girl, are liberals who actually defend him. For example, as Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out, Contessa Brewer of MSNBC ( the official Obama network) seems visibly angered by conservative pundit John Ziegler’s criticisms of David Letterman and even goes so far as cutting his mike and stating that she would have no problem with being called a “slutty flight attendant” (which I find extremely hard to believe). Furthermore, as HotAirPundit points out, “Imagine if it was Michelle Obama Letterman was talking about, and he took a shot at Obama’s daughters”–I bet that Contessa Brewer would go bats**t if that happened, but I digress.
And finally, now liberals have graduated from making sexist attacks against women who run against Obama to making sexist attacks against conservative women in general. Exhibit A would be Perez Hilton calling Carrie Prejean a “stupid btch” because she disagrees with him on gay marriage, even though, as Michelle Malkin points out, she has the same position on gay marriage as Barack Obama. Exhibit B would be the column in Playboy Magazine, written by liberal blogger Guy Cimbalo, about the top ten conservative women that he would most like to “hate f*k” (translation–rape). Playboy wound up having to pull down the article because it was so offensive, but our own Caleb Howe was smart enough to save the offensive article here. However, what’s even more egregious than that misogynistic hatefest of an article, was the fact that AOL fired liberal blogger Tommy Christopher for daring to criticize the dreadful article. Tommy Christopher was one of the few liberals in the blogosphere or the MSM that had the decency to report on this outrage and not turn a blind eye to it, and he had a spot inside the White House press corps, but I guess that liberals like to protect their own–that and Playboy and AOL are both owned by Time Warner.
So, in conclusion, to take a page from Jeff Foxworthy’s playbook, if you think that it’s OK to call female candidates “witchy”, talk about their “bad hair and big bum”, imply that you’d like to beat them, call them a “mean girl”, compare them to Alicia Silverstone or Scarlett O’Hara, call them “slutty flight attendants” or “big f**king wh*res”, and make tasteless remarks and rape jokes about their female children–then you might be a sexist. Either that, or you’re a liberal who doesn’t believe in taking personal responsibility for your own actions. Oh, and if you think that it’s OK to call a woman a “stupid btch” or “hate f*k her simply because you disagree with her politics, then you’re not only a sexist, but you’re a full-blown misogynist as well.
Now, on to liberal racism and bigotry. First I’ll start with the most obvious example–Lawrence O’Donnell’s famous anti-Mormon rant in which he states that “Mitt Romney comes from a religion that was founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and a rapist” (see embed below where Pat Buchanan makes a fool out of O’Donnell).
Well, first of all, as Newsbusters and Jake Tapper point out, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, was actually anti-slavery. However, what really cracks me up about O’Donnell’s nutty rant, is that he implied that Romney needed to”answer” for what Joseph Smith said or thought in 1844. However, when Barack Obama gave his famous race speech–which was in response to Reverend Wright’s rants going public–Lawrence O’Donnell was one of the loudest voices on MSNBC praising Obama’s speech. So, let me get this straight. According to Lawrence O’Donnell, Mitt Romney needs to “answer” for what Joseph Smith said back in 1844; however, Barack Obama doesn’t have to answer for his pastor’s very recent racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic rants (see embed below)?! Man, that’s really rich.
Furthermore, as Allahpundit of HotAir points out, Reverend Wright told reporters several days ago that “them Jews aren’t going to let me talk to Obama”. To quote Allahpundit, “Exit question: 20 years spent in the pews of Trinity and who knows how many private conversations had with Wright, and yet not once did Obama ever encounter this sort of rhetoric from the good reverend, huh? Who, mind you, can’t even suppress it when speaking to reporters on the record. Remarkable.” Allahpundit further points out that “at least we now know how Hamas propaganda wound up in the church bulletins“.
Oh, but silly me. It’s Mitt Romney who needs to answer for what Joseph Smith said in 1844–not Barack Obama who needs to answer for what his pastor/mentor of twenty years (who married him and baptized his kids) said in 2004-2009, because, according to Joe Klein, I’m just “spreading the poison” by even bringing this up.
Oh, and speaking of liberal bigotry, here is our old pal Bill Maher again. This time, instead of spewing sexist venom, he’s spewing anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Mormon and anti-Christian venom in his documentary “Religulous” (see the embed below). Hey Bill, there’s a word for people who make documentaries that call Muslims, Jews, Mormons and Evangelical Christians “crazy” and mocks their cultures and beliefs–hint: it starts with the letter B and ends with “igot”. Oh, and one more thing. Could any of you imagine what liberals’ reactions would be if a fiery Evangelical minister made a documentary making fun of Muslims, Jews and Mormons and implied that they were “crazy”? Just a thought.
And guess what other famous liberal is not only a sexist, but also a racist–you guessed it Maureen Dowd. During the general election, Ms. Dowd wrote a column called “Mr. Darcy Comes Courting” where she poses the question “Can America get over it’s prejudice and elect the first black president?” Well, I find it quite humorous that Ms. Dowd is so quick to toss out accusations of racism against her fellow Americans when, according to the Gawker, Maureen Dowd thinks that all black people look alike. Not to mention, Ms. Dowd even admitted in a column that she asked her “cute black mailman” (her words, not mine) how he felt about Obama’s win. Furthermore, the Gawker also pointed out that, in the same column where she brags about talking to her “cute black mailman” (and black people in general for the first time), Maureen Dowd also seems to brag about having one black friend, Gwen Ifil. (Hey Maureen–project much?!) I mean, can any of you imagine the reaction that a conservative columnist would have gotten if she wrote a column bragging about talking to black people for the first time and about having a black friend?
Oh, and here’s another example of bigotry brought to you courtesy of Maureen Dowd. Now, in the column “Barbies for War!” (which is probably the snobbiest thing that I’ve ever read in my entire life), Ms. Dowd writes about her trip to Wasilla, AK. In the column, she writes about AK as if she is literally visiting a foreign country and observing the local people’s customs (Dowd also spends half of the column making fun of Sarah Palin‘s church). In “Barbies for War!”, she mentions meeting Betty Necas. In her column, Ms. Dowd mentions that Ms. Necas was a teenage mom, and describes her as a “Wal-mart mom” who “wears sweatpants and has tattoos on her wrists”. OK, let’s play a game. Suppose that a conservative columnist from say The Wall Street Journal or National Review wrote a column about visiting inner city Harlem as if it were a foreign country, mocked the churches there, and described Obama supporters that he came in contact with as wearing tattoos and sweatpants, being overweight, and liking mac and cheese (which is how she described Hillary’s supporters in “Mr. Darcy Comes Courting”)? I’m not a betting woman, but I would bet everything that I own that he would be out of a job the very next day–and rightfully so I might add.
[On a side note, poor Maureen can’t seem to catch a break. Not only is she a bigot, but she’s also a rather unimaginative plagiarist, so you kinda have to feel sorry for her, but I digress.]
However, the best example of liberal racism and bigotry that I can think of is Janeane Garofalo. First, she goes on Keith Olbermann’s show and calls all of the Tea Party protesters “a bunch of teabagging, racist redncecks” even though, during the Bush Years, she said that dissent was patriotic and that she was “in favor of any citizen talking if they wanted to” (see embed below).
However, in another segment on Olbermann’s show, Garofalo states that “Black Repulicans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome” (particularly, Michael Steele) and then compares female Republicans to “Eva Braun” (Olbermann laughs along as she spews her bigotry). Yes ladies and gentlemen, you heard her correctly–Ms. Garofalo thinks that all black people should think alike, and if they don’t, then they are mentally ill. There’s a word for that–it starts with the letter R and ends with “acist”. Below is a hilarious video from the Fox News Show Red Eye which calls Garafalo out on her obvious bigotry.
Moreover, Barack Obama, himself, was hardly Mr. Tolerance on the campaign trail. We all remember when he referred to rural Pennsylvanians as “Bitter, gun-clinging, xenophobes” and when he referred to his grandmother as a “typical white person”. Suppose a white southern, conservative male, like say Fred Thompson, referred to someone as a “typical black person” on a radio show–I bet the left would crucify him, but I digress. Oh, and as far as Obama attending reverend Wright’s church for twenty years, I think that Charles Krauthammer in his column “Questions of Character” said it best when he wrote that, ““He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond”. I also thought that Krauthammer hit it out of the park when he wrote the following–
“Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.”
So, in conclusion, I think that the liberal philosophy on racism and sexism can be summed up by the following phrase–
Bigotry for me, but not for thee.
Actually, that would be the short version. The long version would be, “I’m a liberal and I voted for Obama….I can never be a racist or a sexist. Therefore, I get to say all of the bigoted crap that I want”. There are several examples of this philosophy put into action. The first one would be when The LA Times published an op-ed titled, “Obama the Magic Negro” and Rush Limbaugh wrote a song mocking the column, and all the liberals called him a racist (I, personally, don’t think the term “magic negro” is very tasteful or politically correct, but I also think that it’s total hypocrisy to say that The LA Times can publish the column, but that Rush Limbaugh is a racist for mocking the column–and for the record, I don’t regularly listen to Rush). Another example of this philosphy is Perez Hilton calling Carrie Prejean a “stupid b*tch” for disagreeing with him on gay marriage (and for the record, I have no problem with gay marriage), but then thinking that he can turn around and call will i am a “f**got” (and having the nerve to be surprised when he got punched out for it). And finally, the George Allen “Macaca” incident comes to mind. Don’t get me wrong, I do not approve of calling anyone “Macaca”–it is rude and boorish and Senator Allen was right to apologize. However, when I first heard the term, I wasn’t quite sure what it meant, but I knew that it sounded familiar. Well, when I looked it up in my old zoology textbook (I took vertebrate zoology in undergrad in order to get my biology degree and I never traded in that textbook, because I thought that it was cool), I remembered that it was the Genus for for the Maques monkey (in Senator Allen’s defense, I doubt that he knew what it meant, because he doesn’t strike me as someone who moonlights as a closet zoologist–no offense to him).
However, If someone said that I had “a Wal-Mart shopper’s bad hair and big bum”, called me “Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction”, said that I “looked like a slutty flight attendant”, made rape jokes about my daughter, or said that they wanted to “hate-f**k” me, I know for a fact that I wouldn’t have to look any of those things up in a textbook–I’d know exactly what that person meant. Furthermore, when I heard Janeane Garofalo say that “All black Republicans have Stockholm Syndrome”, and when I heard Maureen Down brag about deigning to talk to her “cute black mailman”, or when I heard Lawrence O’Donnell’s anti-Mormon rant, I didn’t have to look any of that up in some textbook–I knew exactly what they were getting at. And finally, when I heard Reverend Wright’s sermons/rants, I knew exactly what he meant (and I’m pretty sure that Obama did too)–yet Senator Allen loses his VA Senate seat for calling some guy “Macaca”, but Barack Obama gets to be president after sitting in a racist, anti-Semitic church for twenty years. Go figure.
[Oh, and none of you lefty lurkers better bring up Jerome Corsi. I wrote a diary where I went out of my way to condemn his “secret Muslim theory” about Obama and I told people not to buy his book. Furthermore, Redstate and The Minority Report banned anyone who even mentioned that Obama was a Muslim or the Antichrist. Unlike liberals, we police our own here and call out bad behavior. And besides, NOBODY mainstream in the Republican party was promoting that.]
So, In conclusion, why do liberals feel entitled to have the philosphy “Bigotry for me, but not for thee?” There are basically three reasons. The first reason is that some of them have become so “personally and ideologically invested in Barack Obama” (to quote Pat Buchanan), that they have literally become Machiavellian and will use any weapon in their arsenal to destroy people who they perceive as Obama’s enemies–and will even resort to sexism and blatant bigotry if they feel that it’s necessary (Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivan and Jeaneane Garofalo fall into this category). The second group are people who have kind of a medieval mentality. They think that by voting for Obama for president (and by being liberals themselves) that they have bought indulgences in The Church of the Obamamessiah, and so therefore, they can get away with saying any offensive crap that they want, and that because they support St. Barack of Hope, they will automatically get absolution for their sins (this is similar to people who travel in big private jets but buy carbon credits–Maureend Dowd, Bill Maher, and Lawrence O’Donnell fit into this group). Now, the third group simply consists of people who are aware of the MSM’s liberal bias; therefore, they know that they can say whatever they want and they won’t be held to the same standard that a conservative would (Sonya Sotomayor, Perez Hilton, and Guy Cimbalo (the guy who wrote the Hatef**k article) fit into this category).
OK, right now, some liberals who are reading this might be saying to themselves, “You know, Susannah makes some good points. Maybe we should take the plank out of our own eye and start calling out bad behavior on our side when we see it”–however, trust me, these people are in the minority. Most of the trolls that will read and comment on this diary will A.) Personally attack me and Redstate (instead of refuting any of the points that I made) B.) Bring up how “evil” they think Bush and Cheney are C.) Carry on about how they don’t believe in American exceptionalism and how we should be more like Sweden–that’s the whiny, liberal troll trifecta boys and girls. (Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that all liberals are whiny. My mother’s a liberal and she’s certainly not whiny; however, the trolls that we get here sure the hell are).
So, come on all of you trolls out there–channel you’re inner Joy Behar or Keith Olbermann and give me your best shot. Just please try not to be too shrill–we don’t want to hurt any dog’s ears in the nearby vicinity do we? OK–all together now–
“I’m a liberal and I voted for Obama…..I can’t be a sexist or a racist. Therefore, I get a pass to say all of the offensive crap that I want. And besides, Bush is evil and Cheney is Darth Vader, and America sucks and we should bow to and backslap more dictators so other countries will like us more” (pouts and stomps foot).
Oh, and if any of you forgot how to whine and moan, see exhibit A below.
Damn, it’s good to be back–even if just for a little while. 😉
OK–maybe I’m a bit paranoid, but I definitely believe that there has been a vast left wing conspiracy afoot in the mainstream media for some time now. Now, if you all will bear with me, I believe that I can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right.
A few of nights ago, I was watching the O’Reilly Factor when Greta Van Susteren came on and stated that many journalist that she knew personally “were reveling with glee” at the news that Bristol Palin (the pregnant eighteen year old daughter of Sarah Palin) and her fiancé, Levi Johnston, were splitting up. At first, that sounded a little extreme to me, until I watched the following video (see embed below) from ABC News that ran on The O’Reilly Factor the following night after Van Susteren appeared. Bernard Goldberg hit the nail on the head perfectly when he called it embarrassing.
First of all, after watching that video, I noticed that the female anchor characterized it as an “exclusive interview” where they “found” Levi Johnston, and that he was “speaking out” for the first time. Well, actually, it looked to me like Good Morning America was stalking Levi Johnston and that they ambushed him in his pick-up truck, in the snow, when he was on his way to go work out at the gym
Second of all, is this really the most important thing that Good Morning America could find to report on? Think about it for a second. They sent a reporter and a camera crew all the way to Wasilla, AK (which probably wasn’t at all cheap) to talk to Levi Johnston, during the biggest recession since the great depression (as the Obama administration is so fond of saying). Don’t any of you think that’s a little strange? Not to mention, it just reeked of pure meanness. It reminds me of that hilarious Saturday Night Live skit, with James Franco, where they made fun of the New York Times for obsessing over the Palin family and ignoring the mortgage crisis (they didn’t post the video on SNL, but I have the transcript). I mean, aren’t there more important people to sandbag right now than Levi Johnston? Couldn’t GMA have tied to embarrass Barney Frank or Chris Dodd who helped cause this recession, or Charlie Rangel who is in all kinds of hot water for tax fraud? On second thought, Neal Karlinsky (from GMA) probably would be afraid to confront Charlie Rangel, because Congressman Rangel would have told him to go mind his “own God-d**n business” (see embed below)–which, by the way, is exactly what Levi Johnston should have done, when Neal Karlinsky rudely stuck his head into Levi Johnston’s truck and asked him, in a very condescending tone, “What does he mean to you?” (referring to Johnston’s son), and then accusingly asked Johnston if he had a picture of his son with him in his truck
And finally, at the end of this video, Neal Karlinsky starts to hypothesize about Levi Johnston’s future. Well, I think that Neal Karlinsky should be much more worried about his own future. I mean, when you’re stalking nineteen year old boys in the frigid Alaskan wilderness, you’ve pretty much hit rock-bottom and are in dire need of a support group in my opinion. (Hi I’m Neal, and I’m a douchebag who stalks teenage boys in the Alaskan wilderness. Then the group responds, “Hi Neal. Welcome to Douchebags Anonymous”–but I digress.)
Now, GMA stalking Levi Johnston over his and Bristol Palin’s child has reminded me of another “sex story” that took place last summer–the John Edwards sex scandal. However, if you all recall, the media covered the John Edward’s sex scandal quite differently than they covered the “Palin sex scandal”. For instance, The New York Times ran three front page cover stories in one day about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, but Clark Hoyt , the public editor, admitted that “the Times never made a serious effort to investigate the (Edwards) story“. Of course, Hoyt gave a bunch of lame excuses as to why the Times ignored the Edwards story such as, “Edwards-Hunter was never a Times like story” (oh, but three front page stories about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is a “Times like story”?), and that “by the time The Enquirer reported on its hotel stakeout, Edwards was no longer a presidential candidate (oh, but Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston were such big political power players). However, Hoyt admits that, “The Times was energetically going after the McCain story. It should have pursued the other story as well”. So, let me get this straight. The Times was willing to risk getting sued over the phony McCain sex scandal story, and was willing to run three front page stories about the pregnant teenage daughter of Sarah Palin in one day, but thought that the John Edwards story wasn’t a “Times like story”? Interesting. One more thing–the Times must have thought that the Bristol Palin/ Levi Johnston breakup was a “Times like story” because they reported on it here (like they were Bennifer or Brangelina ).
On a side note, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter actually went on “Morning Joe” and tried to defend, with a straight face, the media going after Bristol Palin like vultures, but ignoring John Edwards–a twice presidential candidate and possible VP pick, or a possible Attorney General pick, for Barack Obama (News Busters has the transcript of Scarborough eviscerating Alter). Now, Alter’s pathetic excuse was that Edwards was no longer a presidential candidate when the story broke. Well, I guess Alter must have forgotten that the Edwards affair began in 2006, according to his own admission, just before Edwards announced his candidacy for President. Furthermore, a large part of the scandal was that John Edwards was making monthly payments to Rielle Hunter (when she lived in both NC and CA), as Byron York points out. Not to mention, The National Enquirer initially broke the story in October of 2007, and there was absolutely no follow-up by the MSM.
So, now the question has evolved from “Was the media biased in its 2008 election coverage?” to “Why was the media so biased in its 2008 election coverage?” Well, I have developed two theories in order to try to explain the glaring MSM bias that was so prevalent in the 2008 election coverage–and is still going on today
My first theory is the JournoList theory. I’m sure that we’ve all heard about Michael Calderone’s (of The Politico) big story this week about the “JournoList”–which consists of several hundred left-wing bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, and policy wonks who have “talked stories and compared notes in an on-line meeting space” for the last two years. Calderone reports that the JournoList, or the JList for short, includes many staffers and writers from a plethora of MSM news outlets such as Newsweek, The Politico (Mike Allen, Ben Smith, and Lisa Lerer to name a few), The New Republic (including it’s senior editor John Judis and its associate editor Eve Faibanks), The New Yorker, The Nation (a very liberal magazine), and a bunch of left-wing bloggers from The Huffington Post, as well as far-left bloggers Ezra Klein (who is actually the founder of the Jlist) and Matthew Yglesias. Furthermore, the JList even counts as members several famous pundits, such as CNN’s Jeffery Toobin (who also writes for The New Yorker), Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (Frank Rich is also rumored to be on the JList, but it hasn’t been confirmed yet).
Now, how would this seemingly innocuous JList help to distort the 2008 election coverage? Well, I will give you some verbatim quotes from several JListers that I took straight out of the Politico article, and then I will read between the lines and translate them each and explain to you what these pundits and bloggers were really saying. For starters, John Judis, senior editor of The New Republic, described the JList as “a virtual coffeehouse where participants get a chance to talk and argue”. Well, I don’t know exactly how much real “arguing” actually goes on amongst JListers, because Judis admitted in another statement that, “There is a general agreement on the stupidity of today’s GOP”. Don’t get me wrong. I think that a JournoList of people from say The Nation, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, that also possibly included writers and bloggers from National Review, Redstate, The Minority Report–and even some pro-Hillary blogs like The Hillbuzz–might have been” a virtual coffeehouse where participants got the chance to talk and argue”–instead they wound up with a far-left cyberspace circlej**k.
Furthermore, New Republic associate editor, Eve Fairbanks, said of the JList that, “It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and toss them around and back and forth, and determine if they have any value and get people’s input before you put them on a blog”. And, by “determine if they (the ideas) have any value” and “get people’s input”, I think that what Fairbanks was really saying is that the people on the JList need to get each others APPROVAL (instead of “input”) before they write a column or a blog covering a news story. I’m sorry, but I can just hear their previous conversations now….”The John Edwards story is not a dignified or a “Times like” news story. It’s from The National Enquirer for God’s sake. Tell your people not to cover it.”…..”The Palins are white trash and are right wing, religious freaks. We must unmask them and their pregnant seventeen year old daughter–and we must get to the bottom of the story of their baby with Down‘s Syndrome.”…..”Anyone who discusses the Reverend Wright story is spreading the poison and is a racist”. Need a specific example? OK, here goes. Right after the Reverend Wright story initially broke, Joe Klein (a confirmed member of the JList) went on Anderson Cooper’s show, 360, and told Lanny Davis (the former Special Counsel to President Clinton) that he was “spreading the poison”, and that “an honorable person would stay away from this stuff” when Davis stated that the Reverend Wright story was something to legitimately be concerned about. (I guess, according to Joe Klein, an “honorable person“ would have stayed away from the John Edwards story as well, huh?) Now, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Klein had spent the afternoon conversing with his fellow JListers who agreed with him that discussing the Reverend Wright story was “spreading the poison” and should not be covered. Then, Klein goes on 360 and spouts his JList talking points that anyone who dares mention Reverend Wright is “spreading the poison” and is not “honorable“, and then Anderson Cooper turns around and AGREES with Klein (he probably assumed that Klein was spouting the decided upon “conventional wisdom“) by asking the rhetorical questions, “Is this really important?… Should we really be talking about this?” (Yeah, like if Hillary Clinton or John McCain had attended a racist, anti-Semitic, Anti-American church for twenty years, the media wouldn’t be “talking about it”?)
Oh, and what’s more, Jeffery Toobin even admitted that one of his pieces in The New Yorker got it’s start via a JList conversation. Not to mention, The Nation’s Eric Alterman stated that he’s “seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond”. Well, perhaps he’s talking about Jeffery Toobin’s embarrassing performance on CNN, after the news about Obama’s infamous bitter comments broke, that was chronicled on Newsbusters. Jeffrey Toobin was sitting on a panel with Gloria Borger and Jack Cafferty, on Wolf Blitzer’s “The Situation Room“, when he was asked to comment on Obama’s infamous statements about rural Pennsylvanians. Toobin responded by stating that, ”What Obama said is factually accurate” and that “this is so ridiculous“. I’m not kidding–Toobin went on national television and stated that Obama was “factually accurate” in that rural Pennsylvanians are bitter, gun-clinging, Bible clinging, xenophobic racists. However, I will give Toobin the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably wouldn’t have gone on national television and said something so outrageously stupid, had everyone in his online Obama brainwashing cult not been previously regurgitating similar talking points. But, what’s even more outrageous is that Jeffery Toobin got everyone on Wolf Blitzer’s panel to AGREE with him (I guess the old adage is true after all–if people hear something enough, they think that it’s true). Jack Cafferty (who I happen to think is a few fries short of a Happy Meal) even went so far as say that, “They call it the Rust Belt for a reason….The people are frustrated. The people have no economic opportunity. What happens to folks like that in the Middle East, you ask? Well, take a look. They go to places like Al Qaeda training camps.” So, I guess Jack Cafferty thinks that the next 9/11 will be planned by unemployed PA steel workers, but I digress.
And finally, The Nation’s Eric Alterman was quoted as saying that, “I’m pretty lazy when I’m not getting paid”, and said of the JList that, “For me, it’s enormously useful because I don’t like to spend my time reading blogs and reading up to the minute political minutia. This allows me to make sure I’m not missing anything important”. OK, please allow me to translate Mr. Alterman’s statement for you all–”I’ve already admitted that I’m very lazy and doing actual research for my columns would take valuable time away from my playing Guitar Hero. In other words, the JList keeps me in the loop; therefore, I really can’t afford to piss off Ezra Klein and the other JListers (and possibly get kicked off of this list) by digging up dirt and doing some real reporting on St. Barack of Hope“.
[By the way, here is an interesting tidbit. After the PA debate during the Democratic primary–you know the one where they finally, for the first time, asked Obama some real questions (after he pretty much had the nomination sown up) that any twelve year old could have predicted that he would have gotten asked (the questions were about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and his bitter comments)–over 40 journalists and bloggers wrote a signed letter to ABC complaining about that debate. Well, Michael Calderone reports in his column about the JList (see previous link) that of the journalists who signed the letter, “many were JList members”. So you see, these JList members were even trying to influence what questions could and could not be asked of Barack Obama during the presidential debates.
Oh, and on a side note, in January of 2008 (over a year ago at the beginning of the Democratic primary), Jonah Goldberg wrote a column where he quoted Ezra Klein, the founder of the JList, as saying about Obama that, “Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They do not even inspire. They elevate. He is not the word made flesh, but the triumph over flesh, over color, over despair”. Whoa. Alright, now who on the JList wants to be the skunk at the garden party? I mean, who in January 2008 wanted to bust Ezra Klein’s bubble by telling him any inconvenient truths about Barack Obama–like say that he had attended a racist, anti-American church for twenty years? That would be like telling your five year old nephew Ralphie that there was no such thing as Santa Clause. Who wants to be THAT guy? Not me. Therefore, I could see why people on the JList might be intimidated to have any real “arguments” concerning Barack Obama when the founder of the list refers to Obama as “the word made flesh”.
Here is one more thing. Goldberg also quoted The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat (who is rumored to be replacing Bill Kristol at The New York Times as the token conservative) as hilariously saying about Ezra Klein that, “He’s got a fever, and the only cure is more Obama” (see this Christopher Walken SNL video if you didn’t get the joke).
OK, so now it is an accepted truth that the media (including reporters who were and who were not on the JList) was in the tank for Barack Obama even before the Iowa caucuses. Jonah Goldberg noticed it (when he cited Ezra Klein’s “word made flesh” comment in the column that I just linked to) back in January of 2008. Not to mention, Chris Matthews made the phrase “tingle up my leg” famous back during the Democratic primary, and Saturday Night Live even performed a classic skit mocking the media love for Obama (see embeds of both videos below). Furthermore, The Washington Post even admitted that they had been biased in favor of Obama over McCain throughout the 2008 general election.
However, what has been under-reported about the 2008 election, is the high threshold for hatred and out-right nastiness that both Obama’s far-left supporters and his acolytes in the MSM exhibited towards all of Obama’s opponents–even their children. Don’t believe me? Well, here goes. Here is Keith Olberman yelling at the top of his lungs that Hillary Clinton wanted Obama assassinated, here is David Shuster saying that the Clintons were “pimping Chealsea out”, here is The NYT’s Bob Herbert falsely accusing both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns of running a “southern strategy“, here is Maureen Dowd trafficking in sexist stereotypes against both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, here is Andrew Sullivan stating that Sarah Palin should release her medical records in order to prove to everyone that her infant with Down’s Syndrome, Trig, is really her baby and not her daughter Bristol’s, here is Bill Maher also spouting the nonsense to Jeffery Toobin (yeah, him again) that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin’s baby (it’s the third video on the blog), and finally, here is Frank Rich, in his column last Sunday (who never shies away from being an awful person), comparing Bristol Palin to a sexual predator, to a guy who allegedly used to have sex with prostitutes, and to a guy who allegedly likes to have sex in public bathrooms. I’m not kidding. In Rich’s column, in the tenth paragraph, Rich writes that the Republican party “has been rebranded by Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, and the irrepressible Palins”–and if you click on the word “Palins”, you will see that it is a link to a picture of a pregnant Bristol Palin. Classy, huh?
Oh, and I almost forgot. Below is an embed of Bill Maher saying that he’s starting a “Free Levi Movement” where he is encouraging Levi Johnston to abandon his baby and let “the Paling women folk take care of it” and then adding that they will just give it “some F***ked-up redneck name” anyway. You stay classy, Bill (language warning for this video). Now, when you watch this video, take a look at the panel. You see who is on it? It’s fellow Trig Palin “truther” Andrew Sullivan. What is this anyway? The annual meeting of the tin foil hat club? But, I digress.
[On a side note John Kass wrote an excellent column last September, titled, “Politics Don’t Get Dirtier than Smearing a Pregnant Girl”. It is truly excellent. I highly recommend it. In the column, Kass discusses the Daily Kos bloggers that started the whole “Bristol is the mother of Trig” rumor (that the MSM ran with as fact) by stating that, “Reading it (the Daily Kos), you could almost hear the saliva dripping from their teeth as they typed anonymously”. Kass then further states that, “I don’t know if a Komodo dragon can type, but their mouths are so full of bacteria that if they bite your leg, you’ll likely die. This anonymous komodo was probably typing in mommy’s basement, perhaps with a bowl of Chex mix and a Diet Coke nearby”.]
So, now I think that the next obvious question to ask is why was the far-left and the MSM (redundant, I know) so nasty to anyone who had the audacity to run against Obama? Well, I think that Jonah Goldberg touched on it in a column that he wrote last summer called “A Messiah in Our Midst?” where Goldberg specifically writes that, “Lots of people have pondered the possibility that Barack Obama is our divine redeemer”. In order to back up his point, Goldberg specifically quotes Oprah Winfrey as calling Barack Obama “the One”, and as saying that, “We need politicians who know how to be the truth” and that, “Obama will help us evolve to a higher plane” (Goldberg also points out that Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the light”). Goldberg even mentions a website called “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” in his column. Well, I took the liberty of checking out this website and of writing down some of the quotes that they document famous pundits, newspapers, and celebrities to have said about Barack Obama. Commentator@Chicago Sun Times said about Obama that he is, “not just an individual, but indeed an advanced soul”. Daily Kos said, “Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, the utter improbability of it all”. Dinesh Sharma said, “Many even see in Obama a Messiah like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama”. The Chicago Sun Times said, “We just like to say his name. We are considering it as a mantra”. Jesse Jackson Jr. said that, “What Obama has accomplished is so significant that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance”. And finally, Chris Matthews said about Obama that, “This is bigger than Kenndy. This is the New Testament”. There are many more juicy quotes listed on the website (like the Ezra Klein “word made flesh” quote, and Oprah’s “unvarnished truth” quote), but I can’t possibly list them all here.
Anyway, reading all of this rhetoric deifying Obama has reminded me of this awesome video (embed is below), that Redstate’s Erick Erickson put on Redstate last summer. The video titled, “Building a Religion” consists of scenes of Obama and his campaign rallies set to a song titled “Comfort Eagle”, that was written and recorded in 2001 by the alternative rock band Cake.
Anyway, the reason why all of this Messiah stuff is so funny, is that, like most good satire, there is an element of truth to it–and it brings me to my second theory of what went so horribly wrong with the 2008 election coverage (and what is still wrong with the media coverage of Obama)–the Messiah theory. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that people in the media literally worshipped Barack Obama (except for Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, and Andrew Sullivan). However, I don’t think that it’s too much to say that a lot of liberals in the MSM might have unconsciously put their faith in Barack Obama, so to speak, and viewed him as a source of salvation or redemption for some of America’s past sins, which could explain why many of the members of the MSM and many celebrities were so incredibly nasty to Obama‘s opponents–and even to their children and to a baby with Down‘s Syndrome. Think about it. If you criticize a politician that someone supports, well, they will probably just say, “Let‘s agree to disagree“. However, if you criticize a person that someone is “emotionally or ideologically invested in” (to quote Pat Buchana‘s description of how many members of the MSM felt about Barack Obam during the 2008 election), or that is viewed as a redeemer of some sorts, then you will more than likely elicit a much more nasty response from that person then if you just criticized a politician that they happen to support. And in a nutshell, that is what was wrong with the 2008 election coverage–many in the MSM media didn‘t view Barack Obama as an ordinary politician that they had to cover and investigate, but as a source of salvation that they had to promote and defend.
By the way, I might add, that it is always dangerous to put your faith (or look for “the Truth”) in another human being, because they will always eventually disappoint you. For example, if you wanted to put your faith in me, I would strongly advise against it and would warn that it would end quite badly for you. Not that I don’t try to be a good person–I do, but I am also a fallible human being with many flaws who constantly makes mistakes (just ask Steve Foley, George Claghorn, Caleb Howe, and Mike DeVine who I perpetually annoy to help me embed cornball videos on to my blogs for my own amusement)–oh, and by the way, so is Obama. In fact, he is already in the process of disappointing his followers by destroying business confidence (as our own Francis Cianfrocca (Blackhead) points out in his excellent column), by screwing up the stimulus bill, and by simply appearing to be in over his head (as Michael Wolff points out in his excellent column). In fact, just today, The Politico’s Jonathan Martin wrote a column titled, “Friendly Fire: NYT Hits Obama”, about how it is “unprecedented for him to get hit on the same day by columnists Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd–and the paper’s lead editorial”. Martin further added that, “These are friendly voices that have been sympathetic, and even at times, gushing toward Obama during the campaign and in his administration’s early days”. But, what was most damning, was when Martin wrote that, “The sentiment, coming just two months after the President was sworn in, reflects elite opinion in the Washington-New York corridor that Obama is increasingly overwhelmed, and not fully appreciative of the building tsunami of populist outrage”.
So, in conclusion, the far-left and the MSM can only make excuses for Obama for so long. Eventually, they will run out of columns to write about Levi Johnston (the last time that I checked, he is not responsible for the economy), Rush Limbaugh, and bonuses going to “greedy AIG executives“ (that have been planned for months), and they will have to start covering the Obama administration for real–and they will probably be disappointed (he can’t possibly live up to the expectations that were set for him), and will turn on him. In fact Frank Rich, who last week wrote a column comparing Bristol Palin to a sexual deviant, wrote a column today about the Obama administration titled, “Has a Katrina Moment Arrived?”. However, I think that for the MSM to blame Barack Obama for their unethical journalism is a cop-out. In my opinion, they should blame themselves (which they probably won’t do) for thinking that by projecting all of their hopes on to, and by putting their faith into, an inexperienced Chicago politician, that they could somehow fill the void in their pathetically empty lives.
Apparently, the President of the United States is afraid of him. While the “I won” comment is making its rounds across the blogosphere to the rest of the world, there was more than that to the story.
President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Has anyone pointed out to the President that Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host? To have the most powerful man in the nation afraid of him might make some people feel pretty good but I have a feeling that Rush will find it hilariously immature.
Did I mention Limbaugh’s a talk show host? It’s his job to do what he does. That’s what he gets paid to do. If people are listening to him, it must be because he has something to say worth listening to. Perhaps if the President were less concerned with trashing the dignity of the office to which he were elected and listened to some Rush himself, he wouldn’t be using such immature comments in strong-arm Chicago-thug style tactics to get his way.
Did I mention Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host? I’m sure I have. Aside from the fact that he’s usually right and revels in being right, he’s paid really to entertain us, which he does admirably. The humor makes the bitter pill of reality goes down easier.
Kind of reminds me of that line in “Indpendence Day” when Connie was reading the papers with bad press against the President, played by Bill Pullman, when she read, “… needed a warrior but elected a boy.” The similarity ends there, however, because we have elected a boy, whereas Pullman showed the right stuff, via acting, when it was necessary.
One hopes that the boy matures quickly or it’s going to be a very rough four years. He needs to start with refreshing his memory on the actual meaning of bipartisanship. Such would not include descriptors indicating fear of a TALK SHOW HOST or the words, “I won.” Bipartisanship would include reasoned and respectful debate on differences to reach a compromise, something the Democrats never gave Bush for his entire eight years but expect as their due because “they won.”
Sore losers, poorer winners. Indeed, it seems as if the Democrats in majority are bent on retribution and vengeance for their previous losses than working for the good of the nation. Okay, if that’s the way they want to use their power, that’s what they can do, but any Republican with an ounce of self-respect will not be on board with it. Don’t give them an out to blame Republicans for their failures. Make the Democrats own their legislation in every way.
From a comic strip came this great pearl of wisdom: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Comic… strip… Get it? It’s time the Democrats took responsibility for their agenda rather than finding willing scapegoats upon which to place the blame for failures.
Between comic strips and talk show hosts, one wonders how anyone is expected to take the Democrats seriously.
It’s really hard to believe that, in spite of all the new evidence that has been compiled since Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, people are still trying to panic other people about global warming.
The Associated Press warns that the new administration won’t have much time to save the planet from a global warming apocalypse. Never mind that the “ticking time bomb” is a dud. […]
Ticking time bomb, eh? What are they panicked about? It was a false premise in the beginning. The only thing running out of time is their chance to prove it’s true before too many people wake up to the fact that it was a bogus claim originating with an environmentalist blowhard who has nothing better to do with his time than try to sucker people into mad schemes. Not to mention that Pelosi, et al are losing millions from their investements in alternative energies before legislation can be enacted to turn the tide toward profitability. As usual, the cart was put before the horse… or donkey, in this case.
When there’s a cause around which the liberal brain can wrap itself around with “feeling,” they simply can’t let go, no matter the reasons or proofs of the opposite are presented. They jump to the conclusion (the premise) first, then try to prove it, or not, if they believe they can get away with it without having to put in that kind of work. We’ve seen it over and over, not only for the last eight years with Bush, but with anything that went against what liberals wanted to believe.
For instance, did you know that the Democratic Majority Senate had enough votes to pass the bailout but didn’t? According to Nancy Pelosi, Republicans are irresponsible.
Senate Republicans’ refusal to support the bipartisan legislation passed by the House and negotiated in good faith with the White House, the Senate and the automakers is irresponsible, especially at a time of economic hardship. The consequences of the Senate Republicans’ failure to act could be devastating to our economy, detrimental to workers, and destructive to the American automobile industry…
This obsession with premises before having any indepth research to support them is killing the country. We hear them all the time, in the news, from politicians, from environmentalists, from the U.N., other countries, and so on. Yet, every time we question those premises, we get other premises to prop up the initial one rather than a reasoned argument backed by facts.
Not too long ago, I was called anti-American filth because of my attitude toward Obama and the pledge I made to treat him the same as Bush has been treated by him and everyone else. I thanked the person for it, considering he’s one of those rabid Bush haters with endless talking points (most of them provably false). I figure since he says the opposite of factual about everything else, he probably means the opposite of what he said about me, too.
Uttering such premises, ad infinitum, doesn’t make them true, unless you can nudge some into a self fulfilling prophesy such as this economic downturn, now recession, that we’re experiencing. Liberal politicians have been calling for such since at least 2004; probably longer, but I can only find evidence as far back as ’04. When it didn’t happen on cue, they simply moved the date. Since 2007, they’ve worked actively to bring it about, resisting changes to Fannie/Freddie, their refusal to rescind the oil drilling moratorium, the Iraq War funding shenanigans, the pork barrel spending while complaining about the national debt, and so on. They finally got their recession.
Now, they’ll do the same with global warming regardless of the facts on the ground (lots and lots of snow even in places that rarely see it). The only problem is: Mother Nature isn’t playing along with their games. And, of course, if it all fails and people die because of having to be so “green” via legislative encroachments on their private lives, it will always be the Republicans’ fault.
Kinda reminds me of my grandsons, the older blaming the younger when they’re both caught doing mischief. The Democrats have a majority, darn near a supermajority. If you count McCain, Graham, and a few others they have that supermajority. But they’re still not going to accept responsibility. It’s not a disconnect between facts and perception, it’s the premise they operate under. I, for one, am getting sick of it.
If people want to get this country back on the right track, it’s time to stop accepting talking about (aka premises) as truth without question. Question them, every one, every time. Demand facts and proof. If you don’t get it, assume it’s false rather than true and stand your ground.
Oh, one last thing, I heard on the news this morning that Dickson County TN is swiftly running out of salt to combat the icy roads. That was Channel 5 news for anybody in the middle Tennessee area, but, of course I can’t find it online, yet. It doesn’t fit the premise of global warming, does it? It’s all Mother Nature’s fault, you know. She just won’t let a good premise, that stands to make lots of money for lots of charlatan,go unchallenged. Yeah, that’s the culprit.
I opposed the bailout from the beginning, in spite of what was said about what it would do. Looking back, I believe I was right. Nothing has changed since it was signed into law except the Treasury Department has new powers; powers it shouldn’t have.
Companies are lining up to get their share of the bailout fund and the treasury will likely call for more funds. None of these funds are going to be put into the hands of consumers. Instead they will be used to prop up failing businesses which are failing for various reasons. This is not capitalism. Sorry, but, it isn’t.
People are human and have some fault or another. Greed is one of those. Covetousness and envy are two others. Others are wrath, sloth, pride, and gluttony. Any one of these can lead to actions that are not good for the person or the people in his environment. When I hear talk about redistributing the wealth I get a picture in my mind of people who have worked for a wage, used those wages to buy goods or services, and now want their wages back because the people who received them are too rich.
In the real world it doesn’t happen quite that way. The government does it for you under the guise of giving back to the people who aren’t rich. The problem with that is the government plays the “middle man.” Anybody who knows anything about manufacturing, goods and services, knows the middle man has his cut, too. Bulk wholesale prices are far below the retail price, so when you buy those goods and services you’re paying for a lot of jobs on the way back to the manufacturer who initially offered the goods. So, the government becomes the middle man for redistributing what others created; in this instance wealth.
As the richer sectors of America are required to redistribute their wealth via the government, the government is the only one growing richer. Its cut of the wealth comes first. Unfortunately, they’re the greediest of all. The more they have, the more they want. What gets spent down is often the tiniest percentage of that wealth actually in the hands of the people for whom it was garnered in the first place. Rather than trickle down prosperity, we have trickle down poverty.
There is no longer any incentive for the rich to keep creating wealth as it is confiscated by the government. If they’re not creeating wealth, they’re also not offering jobs and expanding the tools by which they create that wealth. The rich become less rich as result, not just from higher taxation, but from the lack of wealth creation. It can be taxed only once… at least until they die and then it will be taxed again.
People are still losing jobs left and right. The government still plans morehardship adding to the economic woes and expects everyone to look to it for the answers. It’s funny how we’re supposed to look to a body of people, most of whom have never created any wealth at all, except for themselves, for the answers to prosperity.