Kevin Williamson uncovered this:
Here’s all you need to know about the state of the elections…
A tally of name appearances at 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 16, on the ABC News website at “The Blotter from Brian Ross and The Investigate Team”
One is tempted, and I think I will, to use the “Send Tips to Brian” link in the upper right of the page to let him know that not only is Sarah Palin not running for President, but I have heard Barack Obama might be….
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Race-baiting moonbat prof/columnist: Sarah Palin MIGHT be racist…possibly…don’t really know for sure
A college professor/MSM columnist writes a hit piece on Gov. Palin…color me surprised. However, the line of attack is based on a “guilt by collective association” point of view. You know, the same point of view that, when applied to “protected” politically correct groups, would be branded as racist?
The link to the column is here, but to summarize:
Sarah Palin grew up in Idaho, which is where Ruby Ridge is, which is where white separatist tax evader Randy Weaver was from, and which is where Aryan Nation bases its headquarters; and Idaho borders Montana, which is where various anti-government nutjobs like the Unabomber and Freemen and Montana Militia were from; and she lives in Alaska, which doesn’t have that many black or Hispanic folks living there; ergo, Palin was exposed to an entire culture of white supremacy wingnuttery. She can’t avoid being a white power nutbar.
What if I used the same line of thinking? You know, I’m from Memphis; and Memphis is predominantly black; and crime is high there; therefore, I’m certain to pimp some ho’s, sling some crack, steal some hubcaps, and pop a cap in someone’s #ss sometime in the near future. Suffice it to say, such a conclusion would be deemed to be both ridiculous and racist.
Oh, sure, the good professor throws us a bone towards the end of her drivel:
There is no evidence that Palin was ever affiliated with white-supremacist groups during her years in Idaho or at home in Alaska. On the other hand, the beliefs of ultraconservative, evangelical churches like her family’s come dangerously close to those of the Christian Identity movement of those years. Likewise, Palin’s husband was a member of a political party whose members favored secession for Alaska, suggesting an affiliation with radical antistatism.
Perhaps somewhere on the record, Palin has publicly condemned the radical politics of her region. But it is hard to know where she stands on issues of race, equality and diversity. Thus it is high time to review the cultural ideals and models of the radical rurals from the Great White Northwest and find out for sure where Gov. Palin stands.
Ace retorts much better than I could:
If only we could find out if say, and I’m just spitballing here, if Obama had any connection to radical racists, perhaps even one connected to a church of some sort. And as for ‘radial antistatism’, do you suppose Obama ever knew anyone who, and again I’m just thinking out loud here, wanted to overthrow the US government by force?
Of course, questions must be asked, even if there’s no actual evidence. Of Palin naturally. You see if there was actual evidence in Obama’s case, the MSM wouldn’t ask questions, they’d have to work hard to hide that evidence. How hard would they have to work? As hard as if Elizabeth Edwards’ feelings were depending on it.
Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot. The village can find her indoctrinating college kids in Connecticut.
As Tom asks, “does the NYT read its own paper without laughing?” From Just One Minute:
The NY Times pries into the role played by First Dude Todd Palin up in the Great North and comes away with this:
It is not necessarily clear whether Mr. Palin is helping shape his wife’s agenda or simply advocating for it, nor whether he ever put pressure on lawmakers, but his role has not been the customary one of a governor’s spouse in Alaska.
That has made many people in government uncomfortable and often confused over how to react.
The editors may have forgotten but the Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in the NY primary. As they also may have forgotten, the possible role in a Hillary Administration of the former President turned First Spouse had everyone scratching their heads about the Wild Bill question.
Did the Hag freak out when Hillary tried having influence in Bubba’s administration? Did they forget that Gov. Palin isn’t going to be the president, but the vice-president? Do the queerbaits at the NYT not understand that true marriages (and not the corporate arrangement that the Clintons have) are those where spouses are allowed to voice their opinions about things, regardless of whether or not the other spouse heeds the advice?
It seems, on that last question, that the Hag is cool with influential liberal spouses, but not supposedly influential conservative spouses. Do you think the MSM would freak out if Maria Shriver had an influential role in the Governator’s policies? Somehow, I doubt it.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Via Say Anything. Obama’s questions:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
So Obama gets “how does it feel to win” and “what did you think of Hillary’s speech.” Palin gets questions about the territorial integrity of Georgia.
Fair? Balanced? Objective? Not even a little bit.
Meanwhile, at Newsbusters they have the portions of Palin’s interview with Gibson that ABC edited out of its broadcast:
A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
WSJhas a great column on why Gov. Palin irks feminists. It’s a great column, and you should definitely read it. In short, though: She’s a successful conservative woman who is happily married and doesn’t demand a big government approach to support women. This column should put to rest any pretense that feminists actually care about all women.
Of course, I have a list of reasons that liberal feminists detest Gov. Palin:
- she’s not a lesbian;
- she shaves her legs and armpits;
- she bathes;
- she spells the word “women” correctly, not “womyn”;
- she’s attractive;
- she doesn’t reek of patchouli;
- she believes in the God of Heaven and creation, not in the god of big government;
- any failures in life she has had, she hasn’t attributed them to the “phallusocracy”.
Those are just a few. Any others?
William Kristol zings the MSM on their insane witch hunt against Gov. Palin:
Sarah Palin is quickly proving to be more than a match for the mad, mad media. Having foolishly started a war with her that they can’t win, the liberal media would be well advised, for once, to implement their own favorite war-fighting strategy: cut and run.
…I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what “Saturday Night Live” crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.
I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don’t do that for all four of the candidates, they’re on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.
And I think that that’s a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.
Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they’re not doing on the other candidates. And that’s going to subject them to people concluding that they’re giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, “Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time.”
What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.
Which right-wing nutbar said this?
Mark Penn, Democrat operative/strategist.
The NYT on “Gov. Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere” thingy:
She could explain, as well, why she was for the Bridge to Nowhere when it was first proposed and reversed field once it became a symbol of legislative abuse.
The NYT on “Obama and Biden voted for that ‘legislative abuse’” thingy:
While we’re piling on the Old Gray Hag, let’s look at what she had to say in 1984 (when Geraldine Ferrarro was running for VP) about the need for some kind of Senatorial experience to be VP:
Yet to be shrill is no worse than to be righteous, like the people who insist that the women Vice Presidential candidates so far proposed lack the requisite standing and experience. Why, it is said, none of them is even a senator.
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens?
Representative Morris Udall, who lost New Hampshire to Jimmy Carter by a hair in 1976, must surely disagree. So must a longtime Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford. Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial?…Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
What sayeth the Hag today?
Voters have a right to hear Ms. Palin explain in detail her qualifications to be standby president with no national or foreign policy experience. More is required of any serious candidate for such a high office than one interview with questions put by one selected source.
They’ve gone backwards in their rationale, and yet they call themselves “progressive”? What a difference a party affiliation makes, huh?
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Geez, you’d think with such awesome powers they’d pick a more lucrative way to exploit such supernatural abilities. Anywho, from Newsbusters:
Fineman the Magnificent? Here’s how Howard Fineman begins his MSNBC column today [emphasis added]:
No, Barack Obama was not making fun of Sarah Palin when he talked about some Republican putting “lipstick on a pig.”
He was trying to be colloquial, and John McCain’s campaign knew as much – even as it was going theatrically ballistic.
To which I have a simple question: how does Howard know?
Seriously. Short of sodium pentathol, or Carnac-like gifts, how can Howard possibly know what was in Obama’s mind when he uttered his lipstick line? At the same time, does Fineman have some fabulous sources at the highest levels of the McCain campaign who were willing to divulge for the record things that would be intensely damaging if true?
Presumably neither scenario obtains. So how does Fineman come off relating what he did, not as his considered opinion but as flat, declarative statements of fact?
Hard to see this as other than the height of journalistic hubris.
… David Shuster is apparently a proud graduate of the same mindreading school Fineman attended. He just told senior McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer: “I know that you guys don’t really believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig. So why not just acknowledge that this is a wise or shrewd political strategy to knock Obama off his game and put him on a territory where he’s not comfortable?”
Nancy was having none of it: “David, you have so been drinking the Kool-aid here.” (Awesome! – Ed.)
View video here.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
After being followed across the world by His disciples the MSM, The One of Supremely Thin Skin decided to lash out at His followers reporters today for having the temerity to question Him on His “pig” analogy. From Politico:
Speaking at a high school in Norfolk, Obama took a few moments to address what he calls “the made-up controversy” of the day, Amie Parnes reports.
Obama said the McCain campaign moved to “seize an innocent remark and take it out of context because they knew it’s catnip for the news media.”
“See, it would be funny, but the news media decided that would be the lead story yesterday. (I guess they ran out of more newsworthy stories, like Gov. Palin’s pregnant teenager or her Down’s syndrome child, huh? – Ed.) This happens every election cycle. Every four years, this is what we do. This is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about…Enough!” he said.
Obama called the attacks “lies, outrage and swift boat politics.”
“These are serious times and they call for a serious debate…spare me all the phony outrage. Spare me all the phony talk about change,” he said.
“Spare me all the phony talk about change”? For a year or more, I’ve been begging you to do just that, pal.
Exit prediction: The MSM, exhibiting signs of “battered spouse syndrome”, will take this beating from the Obamessiah yet immediately circle the wagons around him, defending his abusive behavior.
Exit question: Is this sign of touchiness really the indicator that The One wants the nation to see that he is tough enough to combat terrorism? What a pansy!
Is this a line of attack that The One really wants to pursue? From Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):
Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark. …
It takes real chutzpah to attack someone for allegedly supporting something that you voted for!
Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin’s new “change” mantra.
“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.”
“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”
Pig? Stinky fish? OK, so maybe he was talking about McCain and not Palin, right? Well, the crowd didn’t take it that way, did they?
Reporters were a bit skeptical that Obama intended to do that; from the sketchy reports we have, he seemed to be talking about how John McCain can claim to represent change but isn’t really an agent of change. But [Mass. Gov. Jane] Swift said, “it’s pretty clear the crowd thought that that was the insult he was leveling.” And Swift made the (hopefully) undeniable observation that Palin is the only one of the four national candidates who wears lipstick.
Maybe the Hildebeast, Ferraro, and other women were onto something with this “O as sexist” meme.
Presumably, the “Sweetie” running on the other side of the ticket doesn’t love or care for her Down’s syndrome child. This is sleazy for even Greasy Joe’s standards:
Was Joe Biden referring to Sarah Palin, a mother of a child with Down syndrome, when he made this comment?
“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there’s joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support stem cell research?”
Biden received a thunderous ovation when he made the remark at a town hall style meeting this morning in Columbia.
Good to see that Greasy Joe is listening to his #1′s suggestion that “kids are off limits” in the campaign.
I’m thinking that Sen. Infanticide doesn’t really want this “who cares about babies?” / “embryonic stem cell research” issue coming up right about now. If the cretin who opposed the Infants Born Alive Protection bill (for those of you on the left, that was Sen. Obabykiller) was content to let a Down’s syndrome baby die a slow death in a soiled utility closet, it’s safe to say he would have no qualms about killing such a baby in order to harvest his/her stem cells. Only in Liberal La-la-land does killing a baby to use its stem cells equate to caring for children.
Team McCain-Palin responds:
Barack Obama’s running mate sunk to a new low today launching an offensive debate over who cares more about special needs children. Playing politics with this issue is disturbing and indicative of a desperate campaign.
For the love of God, McCain, run with this sound bite…and run with it far and wide!
Exit question: Can Biden save himself by “confessing” that he’s a serial plagiarist and therefore stole the sickeningly offensive line from someone else?
The MSM Palin Freakout-O-Meter is registering off the charts.
Check this out: the Washington comPost is reporting that Gov. Sarah Palin billed the state of Alaska for per diem charges that…um…she was allowed to bill the state for! Excerpt:
New Washington Post “Expose” on Palin:
You have to read the article carefully to figure this out, but what the story ultimately reveals is that Palin (a) billed the state for most expenses allowed by law, including per diem when she stayed in her own home (her “duty station” was the state capitol of Juneau) in Wasilla; (b) didn’t bill the state for other expenses, when she could have done so lawfully, such as per diems for her children; and (c) spent a lot less money on expenses than did her predecessor, especially on travel and by ridding herself of the state’s personal chef. [FWIW, she apparently maintained two residences, the governor's mansion in Juneau, which by state law is her official work "base" and where assumedly she didn't get a per diem (but where her predecessor had a personal chef whom she let go), and Wasilla, from where she commuted to Anchorage for work when the legislature wasn't in session. Saintly to take the per diem she was legally entitled to when in the second residence? No. Worthy of the lead headline on Washingtonpost.com? Please! Not illegal, not unethical, and not a scandal.]
Meanwhile, I have to wonder whether the Post has several reporters looking over Joe Biden’s expense reports. Does he bill the government for his daily roundtrip to Delaware? How many “fact-finding missions” has he participated in annually during his Senate career? Inquiring minds want to know?
UPDATE: The Post doesn’t do the math for us, but the total per diem claimed was $16,951 divided divided by 312 days, or $54.33 per day (the per diem is $60, so there were some partial days).
Also, the article headline, “Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home,” and some related content, is very misleading. A glance at the expense report reproduced on the Post’s website makes it clear that she requested per diem for her daily expenses, but not for lodging, and that she apparently wrote “lodging–own home” only to explain why she wasn’t requesting hotel expenses. One almost wonders whether the author of the story understands what a “per diem” is; the story notes that Palin rarely charged the state for meals when in Wasilla and Anchorage, but of course she didn’t, because she instead just asked for the per diem!
Keep it up, comPost. Those plunging subscription and ad rates don’t perpetuate themselves, ya know? Quips Ace:
So let me sum up, a governor bills the state for legal reimbursements and oh yeah spends a lot less than her predecessors on personal travel and that rates a front page story under the headline: Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home?
I’m starting to feel bad for the MSM. I mean, they are now reduced to debunking their own ‘scoops’ in their own stories.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
From Shelly O:
Obama then moved on to politics, where she first brought up her husband’s vice-presidential choice. “I think it was a really good pick—Senator Joe Biden,” she said, and later added, “People say they have amazing chemistry, and it’s true.”
Obama continued with talk about Biden when she said, “What you learn about Barack from his choice is that he’s not afraid of smart people.” The crowd softly chuckled.
But hey, don’t you go thinking that liberals are elitists who look down their noses on normal America, m’kay?
Exit question: Considering Shelly’s recently found pride in her country, does she still have that pride now that more people in America like that Alaskan rube than her Marxist hubby?
The Detroit Free-Press (a contradiction in terms, no?) ran a couple of pieces on “independent focus groups” and their reactions to acceptance speeches at the two conventions recently. These “independents” included some Code Pinkos who, as sheer luck would have it, gushed over The One’s speech and panned Gov. Palin’s speech.
The fishwrap’s response? “Sorry…sort of.” Details:
A Detroit Free Press editor expressed regret Monday that left-wing and anti-war activists were included in a focus group of so-called independent voters the newspaper interviewed during the political conventions, but said he didn’t see the harm in having a “radical leftist or two” in the group.
In response to questions posed to the would-be independent panel, two members of the anti-war group CodePink — as well as two other liberal activists — offered praise of Barack Obama after his Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech. A week later they turned the tables and ripped into Republican Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination acceptance speech. Their comments appeared online and were excerpted in the Free Press’ print edition.
“I wish that it weren’t the case that there were two people from an activist group and we didn’t know about it,” assistant managing editor Randy Essex said of the CodePink members.
Nonetheless, Essex defended the panel’s results.
“If there is a radical leftist or two in the group, I don’t care,” Essex told FOXNews.com. “I want a robust conversation, a complete range of political viewpoints.”
The four activists were part of a group of seven self-described “independents.” Nine Republicans and 11 Democrats were also on the panel. …
It sure is a good thing that these “reputable” MSM sources have multiple layers of fact-checking at their disposals, huh? Nope…no liberal media bias!
Wow…did The One really say this? Yes, indeed.
Not long after the Obama campaign signaled it wouldn’t go directly after Sarah Palin, the candidate goes right at her.
Well, how about Gov. Palin? She’s you know, an up and comer from Alaska. She – they’re starting to run an ad now saying she opposed the bridge to nowhere. Well now, let’s get the facts clear here. When she was mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks – pork barrel spending – all the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get! And got a whole lot of it. When it came to the bridge to nowhere, she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it!
You remember that? For it before you were against it? I mean you can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.
It’s unusual to see the presidential nominee so focused on his rival’s running mate, and a sign that her wattage is changing the race a bit.
Pots and kettles are coming to mind. Oh, wait…that’s racist, isn’t it? Someone do me a gi-normous favor and remind me to care, m’kay? Thanks in advance.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Drudge reported on this last week. Oprah has since replied that she’s not allowing any politician to come on her show during this campaign cycle, though she did have the Obamessiah on twice before he announced his candidacy. Apparently, her predominantly female audience is fiercely divided on her decision to not allow the first female VP candidate in 24 years on the show.
My take? It’s Oprah’s show, and she can bring whomever she darned well pleases onto the show. She’s campaigned for The One, so she’s invested in him. However, she also has to be able to handle the fallout from any of her decisions, even poor business decisions like this one. My guess is that in the end, her double standard and her choice of race over gender won’t scar her too terribly.
UPDATE (09/08/2008 – 10:00 AM EST): The backlash against Oprah has begun, for whatever that’s worth.
Call a wahhhhhhhhmbulance, because the MSM is crying a river that they’ve been caught red-handed. From the LA Times:
News executives Thursday tried to shake off the excoriations of the media emanating from the Republican National Convention, defending their coverage of GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin as responsible and evenhanded.
While top television network officials and newspaper editors largely dismissed the critiques as partisan rhetoric, some fretted that charges of media bias had reached a new and disturbing level.
“I really do take exception to it,” NBC News President Steve Capus said. “These terms get thrown around in an awfully cavalier way, and they’re incredibly damaging. We’re in the business where words matter, and those are awfully, awfully strong accusations.” (If the shoe fits, pal, then wear it. – Ed.)
At nearly every turn, McCain’s campaign challenged the reporting on Palin, particularly questions raised about her 17-year-old pregnant daughter, Bristol. Senior McCain strategist Steve Schmidt said the media were displaying “a level of viciousness and scurrilousness,” and Cindy McCain called the coverage “insulting.”
Some in the media said the reporting went overboard. On MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, said he was “stunned” by the focus on Bristol Palin “when there’s been an unwritten code that kids are off-limits.”
I’ve noticed something going on here: ever notice that when a teenager commits a violent crime like murder or rape, that teenager’s name is never mentioned? But by gosh, when you’re a teenager who has commited the far worse crime of getting knocked up while being a Republican governor’s daughter, your name is plastered on the front page of the NYT.
Anywho, back to the whinefest:
Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, argued that the campaign first put the spotlight on Palin’s family.
“I believe you tread lightly when it comes to children, and our coverage of Gov. Palin’s children has been in response, I would say, to an invitation from the campaign,” he said. “They have thrust her children onto the stage: her son who is serving in the military, her daughter who is pregnant and about to be married.”
The NYFT is bellyaching about their perceived bias? The same rag that ran a hit piece on McCain having an affair with a lobbyist, with no evidence, no named sources, all innuendo, and prompting their own ombudsman to admit that the shoddy pap should have never been printed…is Keller freakin’ serious? That smear job was the impetus to get people like me in the old man’s corner!
Besides, I just killed the basis of that whole “she brought her kids to the convention, ergo they’re fair game” attack in the prior post. But here’s quite the laugher:
Attacking the coverage “rouses the base,” Keller added, and is an effort by the campaign to “sort of brush us back, maybe set narrower limits on what we write about.”
Newsroom leaders said the tactic would not be effective.
Not effective, huh? Dream on, ostriches!
Look, I wouldn’t have a problem with the MSM looking into Gov. Palin’s record (and not her family), if only they would have shown a similar interest in The One’s background: domestic terrorist pals and business associates, criminal associates (Rezko), failure as a community organizer, close relationships with nutbar “ministers”, etc. But they’ve shown no such interest whatsoever. Until they do, they are cordially invited to can the “righteous indignation over media bias” act.
Nope Yep…no clear liberal media bias!
Ho. Ly. Shiite. This has got to be one of the most ludicrous conclusions I’ve ever seen a human being reach. From the AP, via the Washington Times:
People: Make up your minds.
For two days, the chorus from Republicans on TV news and in the halls of the convention has been resounding: Back off and let the Palin family be. “That’s out of bounds,” said Minnesota’s Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty. “There’s no need to be intrusive and pry into that.”
Yet Wednesday found the following scenes unfolding:
_Sarah Palin’s pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old daughter and probable future son-in-law stood in a nationally televised, politically packaged airport receiving line to meet and greet the Republican candidate for president.
_The extremely cute and bubbly Piper Palin, 7, made her debut on her mother’s behalf, appearing in a video on John McCain’s daughter’s blog. “Vote for my mommy and John McCain,” she said, giggling as Meghan McCain grinned.
_Bristol Palin and her 18-year-old boyfriend, Levi Johnston, sat and held hands as they watched the Alaska governor deliver an acceptance speech that, in its opening minutes, focused heavily on her family and children. Later, the family _ including Johnston _ ascended the stage, basked in an extended ovation and waved.
Huh? The Republican message about the Palin offspring comes across as contradictory: Hey, media, leave those kids alone _ so we can use them as we see fit. …
Just so I understand this correctly: Bringing your family and friends into the public eye when you’re angling for the biggest gig of your life makes them “fair game”?
OK, AP, have it your way. I guess that means the following:
1. Your boy Obama is to be ignored when he says family, especially kids, are off limits.
2. We can start trashing Obama’s kids for being on TV, in magazines, at campaign events, at the DNC convention, etc. After all, his kids are obviously “political props”, right?
3. We should have been trashing Chelsea Clinton all these years, both when her dad was running for (and subsequently serving as) president, and when her mom was running for president.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Where does Gov. Palin get off constantly referring to The One’s former job title as a “community organizer”? He’s a U.S. Senator, for crying out loud! I mean, it’s not as if he ignores her current job as governor and constantly references her former mayoral position?
Actually…it’s a lot like that.
Anywho, someone dial 9-wah-wah…the mean ol’ Alaskan “Sweetie” is being rude to the Obamessiah again!
From leftist Obamaphile Roger Simon last week:
And even though there will be debates and commercials and town hall meetings in the weeks ahead, presidential campaigns are still largely about giving speeches. They used to be done on stumps and now they are done on television, but they still have to be done.
And Barack Obama knows how to do them
From leftist Obamaphile Roger Simon this morning, sarcasm dripping about the MSM’s inquisition of Palin:
Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She [Palin] gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.
Not much to add, is there? Speeches used to be the single most important aspects of a presidential campaign, but dude, that was sooooooo August!
With that kind of flip-flopping, no wonder he loves him some Obamination.
From Mark Steyn:
I would like to thank the US media for doing such a grand job this last week of lowering expectations by portraying Governor Palin – whoops, I mean Hick-Burg Mayor Palin – as a hillbilly know-nothing permapregnant ditz, half of whose 27 kids are the spawn of a stump-toothed uncle who hasn’t worked since he was an extra in Deliverance.
How’s that narrative holding up, geniuses? Almost as good as your “devoted husband John Edwards” routine? …
It’s pretty safe to say that had the same thing happened to Barry O, he would have “umm”ed and “uhh”ed his way into sounding like a blithering idiot (like he always does when there’s no teleprompter to bail him out).
The hell you say! From Rasmussen:
Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) also believe the GOP vice presidential nominee has better experience to be president of the United States than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
But 49% give Obama the edge on experience, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey – taken before Palin’s historic speech Wednesday night to the Republican National Convention.
That 49% number will come down after her speech last night. Note the numbers from independents:
While Republicans and Democrats predictably favor their party’s candidate by overwhelming margins, the experience gap among voters unaffiliated with either party is even narrower than the national totals. Forty-two percent (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.
The potential problem for Democrats is that Obama, the junior U.S. senator from Illinois and a former state legislator, is the party’s standard-bearer, while Palin, an ex-mayor and now governor of Alaska, is number two on her party’s ticket. (Looks like Rasumussen gets it! – Ed.)
Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
“Mommy! Sweetie hit me hard! Make her stop!” Team Barry sent out a whiny text message after Gov. Palin’s successful speech last night that, like every other bit of Barry’s verbal diarrhea, is short on substance and specifics.
Obama: tough enough to deal with terrorism…but not enough to deal with a hockey mom from Alaska.
Torn between two lovers, I am: hetero man-crush on Newt or hetero crush on the Alaskan hot chick? Here’s a snippet of things to come from Palin’s speech:
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.
Day-um! Red meat for the masses!
I may have just developed a platonic heterosexual man-crush on Newt Gingrich (“Not that there’s anything wrong with that!” ) for publicly schooling MSNBC’s Ron Allen! From the ‘Busters:
Such marvelously occurred Tuesday evening on the convention floor in St. Paul when MSNBC’s Ron Allen said to the former Speaker, “But to be fair, her resume is not something we’re familiar seeing with presidential candidates.”
This didn’t sit well with Gingrich who strongly replied (video embedded right, h/t NB readers Matt Noll and Patrick):
It’s stronger than Barack Obama’s. I don’t know why you guys walk around saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama. She’s been a real mayor, he hasn’t. She has been a real governor, he hasn’t. She’s been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn’t. She was a whistleblower who defeated an incumbent mayor. He has never once shown that kind of courage. She’s a whistleblower who turned in the chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I’ve never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write.
Newt then challenged Allen:
I’d like you to tell me one thing Sen. Obama’s done.
With that, Allen retreated, and said:
Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to leave it there. I’m not going to argue the case. Thanks very much.
Hmmm. Imagine that. I guess folks like Allen are only willing to argue the case when there’s nobody playing the part of the defense attorney.
Game, set, match! Thanks for playing, MSM!
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett