Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Obama’s unfavorable ratings higher than ever

Granted, this is only a snapshot in time, and Lord knows the MSM will go into hyperspin mode to rehab his image, especially after he sews up the nomination.  But as of today, this is not good news for Barry O.  From the News Buckit:

We reported on the previous high on Saturday. Today, Obama topped that and equaled his worst spread – minus six – of the campaign.

On Monday, McCain is viewed favorably by 55% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 42%. Obama’s reviews are 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 42% favorable, 55% unfavorable.

Chart’s here. Relevant portions below.

I should also note Clinton’s well below Obama here and the mirror image of McCain’s stat, but her negatives have been well-reported since, oh, the 90s. In contrast, Obama’s tanking numbers have not been so scrutinized in the media.

McCain’s numbers remain strong on the favorability front at plus 13.

March 24, 2008 Posted by | Hillary, McCain, Obama, polls | 5 Comments

“Peace” protestors getting violent…yet again

Man, “peace” protestors sure do ignore that whole “peace” thing, don’t they?  From Capt. Ed:

A group of anti-war protesters interrupted an Easter Mass in Chicago yesterday, stunning parishioners with their shouts during Cardinal Francis George’s homily. They then squirted stage blood on the congregation, leading to their arrest and an angry confrontation in the gathering space outside the hall. As it turns out, the protesters not only were mostly incoherent, but also very, very late (via Memeorandum):

Six people were arrested at Holy Name parish’s auditorium Sunday after disrupting an Easter mass to protest the Iraq war.

The group—whose female and male members identified themselves as Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War—stood up at the beginning of Cardinal Francis George’s homily and shouted their opposition to the conflict, which marked its fifth anniversary last week. As security guards and ushers tried to remove them from the service, the demonstrators squirted fake blood on themselves and parishioners dressed in their Easter finery.

The red substance, which one protester later described as “stage blood,” initially drew gasps and a few terrified yelps from the 600 worshipers at the mass. The shock, however, quickly transformed into anger as people booed the six while they were escorted from the parish auditorium.

Why did they target the Chicago cathedral? Almost three months ago, Cardinal George met with President Bush. The protesters explained (much later) that the Cardinal should have challenged Bush to end the war during that private meeting. They failed to explain (a) how they know that Cardinal George didn’t do that, and (b) why it took them ten weeks to protest the meeting.

I warned people three weeks ago that the anti-war movement was going to start getting violent. Alan Colmes scoffed at the notion, but assaulting people sitting in church demonstrates that the fringe of the movement has no sense of boundaries, and their frustration at losing in the political process keeps growing. Instead of peacefully protesting outside the cathedral, which is their right to do, they insisted on breaking the law and conspiring to commit multiple acts of battery. This time, they used fake blood. How long before that won’t be enough, and they start trying to draw real blood instead?

Jim Hoft has a roundup of links relating to the story. It turns out that one of the apparent sponsors of this attack is the International Solidarity Movement, a pro-Palestinian organization. Why is a sponsor of the Palestinian cause sponsoring or at least offering apologetics for an attack on a Catholic Mass? One might expect the news media to ask that question, and to ask whether this is just an anti-war attack or whether it is an anti-Catholic, anti-Christian hate crime.

If that’s not clear enough, let me ask readers what kind of coverage this would have provoked had it been conducted against the worshipers at a mosque. If a group of anti-terrorist protesters had broken into Friday prayers at a Chicago mosque to spray stage blood all over Muslims in protest of al-Qaeda and the Taliban — a little stronger connection than that between the Catholic Church and the war in Iraq — the newspapers would have trumpeted it as a hate crime against American Muslims, followed by weeks of human-interest, anecdotal accounts of how terrible America is to its Muslim citizens. 

“Peace” and “Palestinians” should never be used in the same sentence!  At any rate, funny to see the “peace” nuts reacting three months later to something that pissed them off.  Then again, we all knew they were a little “slow”, didn’t we?

March 24, 2008 Posted by | Iran, moonbats, vandalism | 6 Comments

Today’s round of the MSM’s “Guess That Party”

Today’s edition of the game that’s sweeping across MSM-land is brought to you from New Fallujah (aka Detroit):

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a one-time rising star and as Detroit’s youngest elected leader, was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages surfaced that appear to contradict his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy also charged the popular yet polarizing 37-year-old mayor with obstruction of justice and misconduct in office.

Former Chief of Staff Christine Beatty, 37, who also denied under oath that she and Kilpatrick shared a romantic relationship in 2002 and was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

In all, Worthy authorized a 12-count criminal information.

“This case was about as far from being a private matter as one can get. Honesty and integrity in the justice system is everything. That is what this case is about,” Worthy said at a news conference.

“Just when did honesty and integrity, truth and honor become traits to be mocked, downplayed, ignored, laughed at or excuses made for them? When did telling the truth become a supporting player to everything else?”

A perjury conviction could bring up to 15 years’ imprisonment and force Kilpatrick to relinquish the mayor’s office.

Worthy has said she and her staff have pored over more than 40,000 pages of documents since January, when the Detroit Free Press published excerpts of sexually explicit text messages sent to Beatty’s city-issued pager in 2002 and 2003.

The messages contradict statements Kilpatrick and Beatty gave under oath during a whistleblowers’ trial last summer when each denied a romantic relationship.

Conspicuous by its absence is the word “Democrat”…but nope, no liberal media bias!

Exit question: Why is this dude being charged with perjury?  Didn’t the left tell us during the late 1990′s that lying under oath about sex isn’t really perjury?

March 24, 2008 Posted by | media bias | 8 Comments

Chris Matthews: I did NOT endorse Obama

Just because Barry O gets Moonbat Matthews hornier than a hooker does Spitzer does NOT mean that Barry O gets the coveted “Chris Matthews and his three viewers” endorsement!  From Newsbusters:

Good thing Chris Matthews was down in DC and Mika Brzezinski in NYC this morning. Had they been in the same studio, it might have taken Springer-show security to pry them apart. Such was the level of bad vibes that cropped up between the MSNBC pair during Matthews’ appearance on Morning Joe today.

The first incident to incite Matthews’ ire was Mika’s suggestion, after an impassioned Matthews plea for the country to rally around Obama, that the Hardball host had done what it certainly sounded as if he had: endorsed the junior senator from Illinois. That drew a denial and an if-looks-could-kill glare from Matthews seen here in the screencap.

Here’s that first testy exchange:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Joining us on the phone now, Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson, who has been listening to our recent interview in the last few minutes with Governor Bill Richardson, and Chris Matthews, I don’t know, Chris, you weren’t endorsing Barack Obama there, were you?

CHRIS MATTHEWS [voice dripping with controlled anger]: Why do you say that?

BRZEZINSKI: I don’t know; I just, just asking, just asking.

MATTHEWS: No I wasn’t.

BRZEZINSKI: OK, just making sure. 

Just because Matthews begs and pleads with America to rally around the Messiah, and just because Matthews ges that “thrill” in his leg when Barry O speaks, does not mean that Matthews’ man-crush translates into an all-out endorsement!  What reasonable person would assume otherwise?  For those of you on the left, the prior two sentences were sarcasm.

Kudos to Newsbusters for doing the job that Americans won’t do: watching MSNBC.

March 24, 2008 Posted by | media bias, Obama | 1 Comment

Obama: I’m not a liberal!

“But I play one in the Senate!”  From IHT:

At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Even so, Obama does not come to the campaign with a reputation as one of the accommodating bridge-builders in the Senate. His voting record, albeit short, is to the left; the National Journal declared it the most liberal of 2007. Congressional Quarterly said he voted with his party 97 percent of the time on party-line votes that year.

Obama has been endorsed by advocacy groups like MoveOn.org that are anathema to Republicans on Capitol Hill. And some of his strongest supporters are activists at the “net-roots” who have clamored for less accommodation across party lines.  (Because nothing says “I’m a centrist” more than giving the moonbats a woody, right? – Ed.)

“Nobody’s yet taken him on as a liberal,” said Andrew Kohut, who leads the Pew Research Center. “But McCain will.”

So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Obama as a big-government liberal out of touch with American values and unprepared to be commander in chief.

“When you’re rated by National Journal as to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders, that’s going to be difficult to explain,” said Danny Diaz , a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. …

Remember when I said that liberal politicians run from the “liberal” label faster than Ted Kennedy from an A.A. meeting?  This is but another example.

March 24, 2008 Posted by | moonbats, Obama | 2 Comments

Obama: Hey, lookie…Bubba met with Rev. Nutjob once!

From the Old Gray Hag’s blog:

During one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton, he addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.

Among those in attendance, was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is seen shaking hands with Mr. Clinton in a photograph provided today by the Obama campaign. Mr. Wright’s relationship with Senator Barack Obama, as his longtime pastor, has been the subject of considerable controversy in recent days because of incendiary excerpts of sermons Mr. Wright gave at their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago.

In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign. There is nothing in the picture or the note that addresses whether Mr. Clinton had met Mr. Wright prior to the White House meeting or whether he or Mrs. Clinton knew anything about Mr. Wright’s views. … 

Got that?  In liberal-ese, meeting a dude one time is the same as having said dude be your “spiritual mentor” and “unity advisor” for two decades.  Using this “logic” (and I use the word loosely), that sorority chick I picked up at Bullwinkle’s Tavern in 1994 and took back to my apartment for an evening of unbridled fornication must be my wife.  After all, “one time” equals “enduring relationship”, now doesn’t it?

March 24, 2008 Posted by | Bill Clinton, Obama | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers