Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Joe Biden

You may have gotten lost in the words of the previous entry.  Let's get concrete.

 

I said Sarah Palin strikes me as better Presidential material than Dick Cheney, and I meant it.  Dick Cheney has been an effective VICE PRESIDENT for President Bush, whatever you think of him, because he has provided what President Bush wanted:  basically a chief of staff--a vice principal.  However, Dick Cheney has never shown any ability to relate to the public at large, or the political skills necessary to implement a policy agenda as the TOP man   That is one reason he was never mentioned as a possible top man--a possible President.  And that health is hardly a good thing in a PRESIDENT, it it?

 

Thus, if a 3 a.m. call came in tomorrow about Russia invading the Ukraine, you might feel a lot more comfortable with Dick Cheney there than Sarah Palin (or Barack "World" Obama)  I darn sure hope you would feel more comfortable with John McCain there than Obama.  But three months from now, I would be more comfortable with Sarah Palin getting that call, with the McCain team advising her, than I would with Dick Cheny.  That is because Sarah Palin has shown, already, qualities that Dick Cheney never had.

 

Plain is not a Washington insider who cut her teeth on the intrigues of power.  She has raised a family in the context of a uniquely American life that taught her things Cheney has given no evidence of ever learning (whether he has or not, people do not perceive he has, and that is the same thing).  Palin has the warmth, ability to relate to people, and ability to inspire people that Cheney has never shown.  You should, correctly, have the sense that Palin would be GROUNDED in the right kind of view of life in America when she receives that 3 a.m. phone call, and the consequences her decisions will have on real people in the U.S. than Cheney ever has had or ever will have--even if Cheney may know more about the nuts and bolts of what is going on.

 

Palin went from may or of a small town to defeating her own party's INCOMUBENT governor.  Then she became possibly THE most popular governor in the U.S. in less than two years.  Is that a lesser leap than going from there to Vice President of the United Staes, and then to President (if necessary).  Objectively, it is not. 

 

Now consider Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  She is a popular Senator from my home state of Texas.  She received some support for Vice President.  Contrary to what you might believe, I was NOT prepared to endorse John McCain for President, despite my correct view of Obama as a truly dangerous man for this country.  Kay Bailey Hutchinson as VP would simply have confirmed my determination to vote for Bob Barr.  That is true even though Kay Bailey Hutchinson is an energy expert herself, and a reliable, moderate conservative.  Why is that?

 

Again, if there were a 3 a.m. phone call tomorrow, I might want Kay Bailey Hutchinson to field it.  I have no real doubt, however, that Sarah Palin will make the better President--not to mention Vice President--at the time she would actually be called up to assume that job.

 

That is because Kay Bailey Hutchinson is an ESTABLISHMENT Republican.  She could never have taken on the establishment, as Sarah Palin did in Alaska.  Worse, it would never have occurred to her.  She has done a decent job, but for there to go higher would illustrate the Peter Principle (people rise to their level of incompetence).  Huchinson is comfortable in the establishment.  She is not going to rock any boats.  She is not especially warm, although there is nothing wrong with her personality.  She is the female equivalent of Joe Biden on the Republican side. 

 

Yes, Sarah Palin WOULD make a better President than Joe Biden, from all indications, at the time either might be called upon.  As with Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Biden is the picture of an establishment Senator unable to go higher.  He got nowhere in two runs for the Presidency.  He has not done anything to approach the meteoric rise of Sarah Palin AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HER PARTY.  Her accomplishments as governor, in two years, dwarf the real accomplishments of Joe Biden in the Senate all of those years (yes, they more than dwarf the lack of accomplishment by Obama).  Biden, from a Democratic point of view, has done a decent job in the Senate as a solid, leftist Senator.  He has shown none of the BRILLIANCE of Sarah Palin, and none of the ability to relate to people while CHALLENGING HER OWN PARTY.  What is the main example of Biden standing up to the establishment?  It was in his ridiculous opposition to the first Gulf War.  Despite family ROOTS something like Sarah Palin, he does not have the FAMILY HISTORY of Sarah Palin as she raised 4 children while she and her husband lived a working class existence in commercial fishing and the oil fields.  I am not talking about Biden's personal family life.  I am talking about the EXPERIENCE of lifing a normal family life outside of Washington.  Isn't it amazing how Democrats want to treat a commute home every day, while being in the Senat for 35 years, as more than the equivalent of raising a family in a working class existence outside of Washington--in Alaska, in the case of Sarah palin.  They are NOT the same, and Sarah Palin's life BETTER prepares her to be President, so long as she has the abilitiy.  Her meteoric career shows she has the ability.  Biden's life to this point has prepared him to be Senator, with any higher aspirations an example of the Peter Principle at work.  Palin's life to this point indicates no limitations on her ability--no indication that she has reached the limits of her potential. 

 

McCain's risk is that Palin will show that she is out of her depth, even though she has shown more qualities needed in a really good President than Cheney, Hutchinson or Biden--including more ability to ACCOMPLISH things than Obama.  She did not go to Harvard or talk about helping her fellow man while inserting herself into the leftist political macine in Chicago with people like Reverend Wright and William Ayers as mentors. She saw a need, and actually DID things to help her fellow Alaskans.

 

This is why McCain's selection of Palin immediately caused me to endorse McCain, while a selection of Huthinson would not. As Vice President, Palin and Jindal were, by far, the best choices out there for McCain.  That is because they are the persons who will likely make the BEST Preisdent, if and when called upon--having the qualities out of which GREAT Presidents are made.  That cannot be said of any other Republican out there, including Romney.

 

P.S.  One of those Democratic "talking points" out there is that Plain told Politico.com that she "did not know" what the job of Vice President is. I don't know what the job of Vice President is.  NO ONE knows what the job of Vice President is.  The official functions are to preside over the Senate (which is not routinely done) and wait for the President to die.  That is obviously not a JOB description.  The real "job" of the Vice President is defined by the PRESIDENT, or by the TEAM of the President and the Vice President.  I state flatly:  Anyone who says they KNOW what the job of the Vice President is cannot be qualified to be either Vice President or Presdient of the United States.  Leftists who use THIS absurd talking point (Obama?) beware.  You are merely underlining your own DISQUALIFICATION to ever be Vice President or President of the United States.

Sarah Palin and Sex Discrimination, Continued: WHO Is the BEST Vice President?

We need to apply what we have learned (previous entry) to specific examples.

 

I heard Lary King asking the following, as if it were a "gotcha":   "Isn't it clear that Palin was not the BEST qualified, among the available alternatives, to take over as President--if required."  (or words to that effect)

 

You may not realize it, but the above is SEXIST, especially in the way that leftists, feminists, and Democrats ordinarily use the term.

 

Who is the BEST qualified to be President among Barack "World" Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton?  Only in your dreams is the answer Obama.  He is the LEAST "qualified".  "But...", you stutter, Obama has qualities not MEASURED IN EXPERIENCE.

 

Uh-huh. How can YOU say that Governor Plain does not have those kind of intangible qualities that John McCain saw in her, KNOWING that she was going to be EDUCATED in the INFORMATION she needs?  You can't say that McCain is wrong, can you, unless you KNOW Palin, and the things about her, that he does?  Does raising 4 children, and taking on a Down's Syndrome child with joy, COUNT?  Does it count that she did that while FIGHTING the Republican establishment in Alaska (which ALONE would cause me to consider her as possibly "best" qualified--ANYONE who takes on almost ANY Republican establishment in this ccountry strikes me as a heroine, besides the Down's Syndrome baby).  What about being able to go from a small town councilperson/mayor to FIGHTING the corrupt establishment on an energy commission, while raising those same 4 children?  What about then going from being that same small town mayor, and raising those same four children, to RUNNING AGAINST HE INCUMBENT GOVERNOR AND WINNING?  What about then passing ethics legislation, with Democrats; appointing Democrats to your administration; fully exposing and ending the oil related corruption that you had run against; amd arranging a 40 billion? (something like that) dollar natural gas pipeline that even Obama has endorsed. What about vetoing 300 earmark type spending bills in your first year--more than any other Alaskan governor in history.  President Bush vetoed NONE in his first SIX YEARS, to his enduring SHAME.  What about ending the Bridge to Nowhere?  There is the sports background, and the overall uniquely American background.  There is the energy EXPERTISE. 

 

Nope.  The QUESTON is SEXIST.  It assumes that the accomplishments of a WOMAN like this, and her CHARACTER, could not convince McCain that she WILL, indeed, be the best person to take over if something happens to him as President.  Maybe he read her CHARACTER.

 

Well, didn't McCain say that he wanted to pick a person ready to take over?  I am sure he said something like that, as they all do.  WHY should you assume she will not be ready to take over, and MORE ready than the other choices he had available?

 

You don't understand the subtle sexism here, do you?  Now you would if the media and feminists were defending one of their own.  It is the WRONG question, and the WRONG assumption, to ask whether the "best' qualified to "take over" person was selected.

 

You are NOT selecting a PRESIDENT when you choose a VICE PRESIDENT. Nope. You are Larry King are WRONG, if you believe otherwise.  If John McCain, or I, were voting TODAY for President among ALL of the 4 people I named above, and Sarah Palin, would we vote for Palin?  Probably not, as NONE of you people should have voted for Obama.  So what?  The Presidential nominee is NOT voting for a President.  He is choosing a VICE PRESIDENT.

 

You say you don't understand the distinction?  Sure you do.  Look at Barack "World" Obama.  Did HE choose the BEST qualified person to be President?  Don't be silly.  Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes.  18 million people thought she was best.  Less than 5,000 thought Biden was best.  Did Larry King aske the same question of Obama?  I don't think so.  But even if he did, it is still the wrong question.

 

I think Obama was WRONG not to choose Clinton, but can I be sure of that?  Of course not. Obama is choosing a VICE PRESIDENT.  The main function of a VICE PREESIDENT is to do what the PRESIDENT wants him or her to do.  If you don't think that a person like Hillary Clinton will really be a TEAM player, does it make any sense to choose her?  Of course not.  It is like a star basketball player who REFUSES to be a team player.  You may choose the person best qualified to be PRESIDENT, but NOT the person best qualified tobe VICE PRESIDENT (because--contrary to Larry King's stupid assumption--you are trying to put together the best TEAM, on the assumption you will LIVE).  Further, by picking the best TEAM, you fully expect that you will have have the best PERSON to carry on your work (which, by definition for a politician, you will assume will make the BEST President) by the time anything happens to you, if it does.

 

Is Sarah Palin ready to be President TODAY?  Maybe not.  I would say "defninitely not" as to Obama.  But she is just being nominated for Vice President today.  IF Obama is NOW ready to be President (a big IF), was he ready when he STARTED to prepare to run for the job?  It is 100% certain he was not.  Sarah Palin has been acting as governor of Alaska, and not RUNNING for President.  What Larry King assumes is that ONLY a person who has actively run for President can be chosen Vice President, because ONLY that kind of person would really not need to LEARN things. 

 

I listened to Sarah Palin. I looked at her record.  I agree with McCain.  I have no doubt that Palin will LEARN whatever she needs to know to be prepared to be President.  I have no doubt that she can do that before November 4.  I have even less than no doubt that she can do that by January 20.  But she does not even NEED to be ready on January 20.  She, as Vice President, will be doing what MCCAIN wants her to do--learning all of the while.  There is NO job for which it is more important to be able to LEARN than it is to be set in your ways.  Palin's job will be to act as a part of "Team McCain".  I believe McCain is right that she is the BEST person available for that job--even discounting the confidence that McCain has in HER. Okay, there are others (like Robert Jindal) in a position to provide some of the same qualities.  That does not show that Palin is not "best" for Vice President, but only that there may be many "bests" (in different ways).

 

Any other position, other than what I explain above, is absurd.  The TEAM is what is important in choosing a Vice President, and the ability to BE ready to be President if called upon--at the time called upon.  To me, Palin seems best for that position for McCain.  That makes her best for the nation.

 

"But.." you stutter again (you stutter a lot, don't you), McCain chose Palin  BECAUSE she is a woman.  So what again (so long as that is not the ONLY reason).  A woman is what she IS.  It is part of her.  If McCain thought she had the qualities, including her "female" qualities, that he NEEDS for his TEAM, there is nothing wrong with that.  Now this is not true in regular employment (although in an ideal universe it should be--that is a universe where there is no substantial discrimination on things like race).  But the idea of politics is to provide effective LEADERHSIP, and the qualities for that leadership role may be better found in a woman at some times and places, and better found in a man in others.  Feminists, when they are not into their LEFTIST IDEOLOGY mode, keep saying that females bring especially female qualities to politics that we--as a society--NEED.  I say you need to look at people as INDIVIDUALS, but male individuals often think differently than female individuals. As I said, being a woman is part of what Sarah Palin IS.  Being a MOTHER is part of what she IS. If McCain thought that entire package was/is the BEST Vice President for his TEAM, and therefore for the country if he becomes President, I see no reason to doubt him on that  From what I have seen of her, I agree with him.

 

Now you may (rightly) think that the above proves I have been infected with the same disease of both Biden and Obama (who his supporters say thinks too intellectually about things on occasion). It is wordy.

 

The bottom line is NOT wordy.  The selection of a Vice President is NOT voting for a President.  You are as stupid (or biased) as Larry King to believe otherwise.  It is SEXIST to suggest that a woman like Sarah Palin automatically does not have the qualities to be a Vice President, and a good President AT THE TIME SHE WILL BE NEEDED.  We will have ample opportunity to continue to evaluate what McCain saw/sees in her during the next two months.  If you are gong to close your mind on her, then I believe you are either sexist or a leftist ideologue.   There is no objective reason to ASSUME McCain is wrong in considering her the BEST choic for VICE PRESIDENT. 

 

P.S.  It is also sex discrimination to immediately start comparing Sarah Palin to Dan Quayle.  It is worth notig, however, that President Bush41 had a Presidency unaffected by Quayle's supposed incompetence.  Bush's mistakes were his own, and Quayle had nothig to do with them.  That is true of ost Vice Presidents.  Dick Cheney, meantime, lacked a number of cruicial qualities necessary for an effective PRESIDENT.  If Cheneywere forced to take over, I think the odds are he would have been a disaster (if ony because leftists would have made it so). That illustrates that it is the TEAM that matters.  Thre is every indication athat Sarah Palin can provide as much to complement John McCain as Cheney has provided for Bush (since McCain is his own Cheney), with a BETTER ability to be an effective President, if necessary (at which time she will hafve the advantage of having the entrie McCain team available to her, with the communication skills to get the best out of them).

Sarah Palin and Sex Discrmination: A Primer (Doris Kerns Goodman Again Guest Stars)

Enough fun.  Let us do some serious analysis.

 

Can we expect sex discrimination against Sarah Palin?  Sure we can, especially since the leftist mainstream media is willing to condone it, or even encourage or lead it.

 

For example, Joe Biden made a GAFFE in his acceptance speech.  It was not simply a slip of the tongue.  It was in the TEXT of the prepared speech.  Biden said that Obama was proposing sending three BATTALIONS of additional troops to Afghanistan.  What Obama has actually proposed is sending three additional BRIGADES to Afghanistan.  A brigade is 3 times the size of a battalion.  This is a mistake that calls into question whether Biden even UNDERSTOOD exactly what Obama was proposing, or else had no idea of the difference  between a brigade and a battalion. 

 

Okay, despite this, I would agree it is not really a big deal.  Just one of those slips that occur no matter how careful you are.  After all, we old white guys (Biden and me) have to stick together (those times when I am not in my Native American mode, because of my Native American--5-10%--"blood", at which times Joe Biiden is one of the "white eyes").  I am willing to give Biden a break on this one.

 

The mainstream media was more than willing to give him a break.

 

Another example (among many with Obama):  Obama called Iran a "tiny" country, in comparison with Russia and China, when he was trying to MINIMIZE the threat from Iran.  I don't care how you look at it.  That is the WRONG way to look at Iran, even if it is smaller than Russia and China.  I am not so willing to give Obama a pass on this one, but the mainstream media was, as on any number of Obama misstatements (587 states, 10,000 people dying in that tornado in Kansas, and etc.). In isolation, most of these mistakes were hardly very important. Sometimes they were more significant. The common denominator is that the mainstream media was willing to give Obama pretty much a pass on these things.

 

Now we get to the sex discrimination.  What if Palin makes a similar mistake in her acceptance speech, or some other context?  What if she calls a battalion a brigade, or refers to Iran as a "tiny" country, or a country in "Europe" (or some such thing). 

 

The sex discrimination, which has an ideological compoent, of course, is to OVERHYPE the mistake--to say that Palin calling a "battalion" a "brigade" is CONCLUSIVE evidence that she doesn't know what she is talking about. 

 

That IS sex discrimiantion, even if the "criticism" is true.  It is treating a woman DIFFERENTLY than you treat the same type of mistake by the old white guy (or the young half-black guy).

 

It is the same type of SEX DISCIMINATION to start trying to ACCUMULATE minor mistakes, while not doing the same thing with the guys, in order to suggest that together they are more significant than in isolation.

 

I alert you to all of this in advance, so that you can properly evaluate sex discrimination against Sarah Palin when you see it. 

 

P.S.  As a concrete example of the above, refer to my criticimsms of Doris Kerns Goodman below. First, she suggests that Palin is a bad choice because she is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.  Then she suggests that the same problem does not exist with Obama, even though he will (if he wins) be THE President (rather than a "heartbeat away").  Goodman says that "we have a comfort level with Obama."  (I don't, and the Joe Biden choice suggests others do not, but hat is anoter can of worms).  Is this not SEXISM? Sure it is.  Similarly, Goodman, in effect, says that McCain chose Palin because she will not stand up to him, and give him advice he doesn't like.  That is even more blatant sexism.  Is this not a BETTER explanation for Obama's choice.  It is hard to find where Biden NOW disagrees with Obama.  Is not Goodman merely ASSUMING that he will do so because he is an old white guy, and Palin is only a GIRL.  I think so.  There is simply no doubt that HILARY CLINTON would have stood up to Obama more than Biden.  Meanwhile, Palin stood up against the ENTIRE Republican establishment in Alaska, while showing an ability to form allliances for reform with DEMOCRATS.   Goodman should be CONDEMNING Obama, and praising McCain and Palin, under her own logic.  Okay, she thought she could get away with it because she is a POLITICAL HACK.  But WHY did she think she could get away with this upside down analysis?  The only explanation is that Goodman thinks she can play on the image of WOMEN as deferring to men.

 

Clinton and Obama Discuss Sarah Palin (Guest Appearce by Politcal Hack Doris Kerns Goodman)

Early this week, I revealed the exclusive transcript of the 3 a.m. phone call initiated by Barack "World" Obama after the became nervous about DISSING Hillary Clinton in his Vice Presidential selection. Obama had been unable to sleep because he had realized just how much of a "woman scorned" he had created. Obama   At then end of the call, it was clear Obama realized that he was a "dead man walking".  Well, this blog has now received access of the 3 a.m. phone call Obama is going to have with Hillary Clinton Saturday morning.  Yep.  This blog has sources in the FUTURE.

 

Segue to Hillary Clinton's bedroom.  A phone is ringing on the nightstand. It is 3 a.m.  As usual Bill Clinton is not there.  A hand reaches out and picks up the phone.

 

"Hello"

"Hillary, it's Barack"

"Barack who?"

"That joke is getting old.  That is what you said last time."

 

"The oldies are the goodies."

 

I need help"

"I told you not to interrupt my dreams like this"

 

"But I REALLY need help"

 

"I was having a most wonderful dream.  When I heard your voice I thought I was still in the dream, but I realized you weren't screaming any longer"

"Hillary, you don't mean that"..........."Do you?"

 

"Of course not, honey.  Don't worry about it."

 

"That McCain has pulled a dirty trick.  Who would have believed he would choose a WOMAN when the Republicans don't even have one with enough reputation to help him."

 

"Barack, Barack.  You got yourself into this.  There was a woman with a big reputation out there.  Besides, if she is that bad, what is your problem?"

 

"Hillary, you KNOW I just could not live with Bill. Don't keep throwing up that VP business to me.  I am in TROUBLE here.  Sure she is a nobody.  But so was I.  I can't really say that much about her experience.  She has NONE more than I have.  She's a nobody.  There must be 50 million mothers in this country as qualified as she is.  Every time I attack her on experience, though, I am attacking MYSELF.  And she is a WOMAN.  I need HELP here."

 

"Barack, Barack.  Don't go to pieces.  I am sure there are not 50 million mothers as qualified as she is.".  ....."Maybe 18 million". ... Hillary adds thoughtfully:   "You know, Barack, I will help you with a little free advice here.  I dould NOT dis the experience of raising 4 children." 

 

"But Barack, honey, I am sure Joe can help you.  5,000 voters are impressed with him.  You might remember I was able to live with Bill.  Why not you?"

 

Obama (mumbling):  "That's not what I heard....live with Bill my ass."

 

"Did you say something, Barack dear."

 

"No, no.  But you know we did not suit together.  It would never have worked.  You have to stop bringing up those 18 million against Joe's 5,000.  He can't help it if he has no charisma.  I've got enough charisma for both of us."

 

"Doris Kerns Goodman says that a good Vice President CHALLENGES her President.  She says Palin won't stand up to McCain.  I know.  There's ANWR, but I'm not worrie about HER, Barack.  I am just looking for a reason why you did not choose ME.  Was that it?  Did you not have the kind of confidence Lincoln had.  Were you AFRAID of someone standing up to you."

 

Obama (mumbling again):  "I was afraid of someone steamrolling right over me."

 

"Barack, honey, did you say something?"

 

"No, no.  You know Doris Kerns Goodman is a political hack posing as an historian.  Why would you listen to HER?"

 

"Well, I am just looking for an EXPLANATION.  If you had chosen ME, I would make this Palin b..... look like the pretty doll figure she is, if McCain even DARED chose her."

 

Obama (mumbling below his breath:  "Meow, Meow"  Aloud:  Look.  I though we were beyond this.  You promised to HELP me.  You have to destroy this woman.

 

"Didn't I prostitute myself for you at the convention?  Didn't I swallow my pride.  Didn't I do everything I could for you?   Didn't I even talk to BILL for you.  Barack, I really think you are a worse SEXIST than I though.  You just epect a woman to 'give, give', give', while the man'takes, takes', takes'."

 

"Hillary, don't DO this to me!"

 

"Barack, Barack.  I thought you understood.  That convention speech was all show.  You are dead to me.  You might look in your computer, since you are so tech savvy.  You might find a horse's head there somewhere.  Oh, I will seem to be doing my best.  But what can I do with a candidate this BAD.  Me. A poor little woman."

 

Obama, a light dawning, as horror spreads over his face:  "You can't mean....   "You doh't mean".  This was MCCAIN'S choice.  You couldn't possibly......."

 

"Barack, Barack. I take back what I said last time.  You really aren't very smart.  I think I have done a service to my country here."

 

Obama, face twisting in anger:  I'll expose you and McCain.  You can't get away with this.  This is WRONG.  I'll contact the Department of Justice.  You're going to JAIL."

Evil, but joyous, laughter....and then a click.

Sarah Palin: Feminism, Sexism, and My Identity Crisis

Have I become a FEMINSIT?  I have asked that question before this year, and it is beginning to really bother me.  See the previous entry.  I would previously have said that sexiism is part of my bery identity as a person.

However, has Darth Vader (Hillary Clinton or my two feminst daughters, Kenda and Kyla--take your pick) converted me to the Dark Side of the Force?

I worry.  Consider.  After Mitt Romney lost the Republican nomination for President, I switched to Hillary Clinton as MY candidate for President--not just for the nomination, but for the general election.  If she had won, I might still be for her, despite Sarah Palin.  I cast my VOTE for Hillalry Clinton in the DEMOCRATIC primary in Texas,

Now I am going to be voting for Sarah Palin.  Make no doubt about it.  It does not matter that John McCain's name is on top of the ticket.  I am going to vote FOR SARAH PALIN.

You can see my identity crisis here. I am going to end up voting for TWO women this election, when I had the chance to vote for a REAL SEXIST (Obama).  I am serious here.  This is really disturbing for me.  I may have to go into analysis.

P.S.  Yes, this "surfing" during these political events is also beginning to wear on me metnally.  I just saw Doris Kerns Goodman on MSNBC (I think--a part of the National Barack Channel networks).  In case you did not know, Goodman is a leftist POLITICAL HACK masquerading as a historian.  I first became familiar with her long ago, on the Imus in the Morning radio program.  In fact, that is when I first became familiar with John McCain, when he was still a media favorite (he still is an Imus favorite, since Imus is not quite the sanctimonious hypocrite of these other people, despite selling out to MSNBC and the media "elite" during those years before they turned on him).  True to form, Goodman gave nothing but political propaganda with the weight of her "historian hat" supposedly behind it.  Of course, political propaganda is what MSNBC does.  Goodman first said that McCain's choice was primarily relevant because of the light it throws on his judgment and termperament to be President.  MARVEL at that awhile.  Do you wonder why I call this woman a LEFTIST POLITICAL HACK?  Do you wonder why I say MSNBC is an outlet for leftist Democrat propaganda?  WHERE did you hear that pharase before?  RIGHT.  It was in OBAMA'S SPEECH last night.  It is the new lefitst/Obama mantra/catch phrase.  I digress (not really).  Goodman went on to say that you have to question McCain's judgment in choosing a woman with so llittle experience to be a hearbeat away from the Presidency, since 9 Vice Presidentets have become President when something happened to the President (or 1 out of 5).  She went on to say that some 5 others went on to be elected President in their own right, making it one out of 4.  However, that last just PROVES HER BIAS, and how she is FUDGING to amke a POLITICAL case.  If 5 Vice Presidents are elected in their own right, they PROVED THEMSELVES TO THE PUBLIC enough to be ELECTED.  They did NOT become President jsut because a Presidential candidate chose them.  So it is 1 out of 5 (as I CORRECT political hack Goodman in her logic).  Well, 1 out of 5 is a fair number, right.  Yep.  But there are two problems. The first is one Goodman, political hack that she is, failed to address.  That is the EXPERIENCE a VICE PRESIDENT gets before something happens to the President.  I think there has been only ONCE (Willian Hentry Harrison?--not sure) that a President has died SHORTLY after taking office. For example, Truman succeeded FDR.  Okay, maybe it was TWICE that a President died quickly.  That is only 1 out of 20.  Second, even political hack Goodman could not ignore that Obama has no more experience than Palin, and he is running for President.  ALL (100%; 43 out of 43) persons elected PRESIDENT have become President.  Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive as a politcal hack.  So Goodman had to address why Obama was not MORE of a worry than Palin, in terms of lack of experience.  You have to like this one, because it says more about political hack Goodman than about Obama.  She said that "we" have develooed a "comfort level" with Obama (Berlin and all), which we don't have with Paline.  SAY WHAT?  Look up "political hack historian" in the dictionary, and you see a picture of Doris Kerns Goodman.  WHY did Obama pick Joe Biden as VP.  Even MSNBC says it is because people do NOT have a "comfort level" with Obama as Commander in Chief.  If any statement can prove someone is incompetent as an "expert", that satement by Goodman proves it.   This biased stuff can melt your mind after awhile, which is why I  no longer even surf MSNBC or CNN 9beofre suspending that practice for the brief time of these conventions and VP picks).  On the upside:  Doris Kerns Goodman is a WOMAN, although perfectly willing to trash a fellow woman in her role as political hack assassin.  I have not yet descended so far into the loss of my sexist identity that I accept any stupid thing a woman says.

Sexist Recruits: Mainstream Media and the Left Join Me

It is time.  It is time for me and Al Bundy (my fictional hero, and founder of "NO MA'AM").  To quote Obama:  "It is OUR TIME".

Yes, the Democratic nominess for President has now been exposed as a SEXIST, and maybe the entire Democratic Party.  Obama has confirmed it again today, in his sexist dismissal of Sarah Paline.

CNN  (in a John Roberts segment) has brought up the "question" of whether a WOMAN and MOTHER can be both an effective Vice President and mother of a Down's Syndrome baby.  They need all of that attention from their MOTHER, you know.

Sexist that I am, I still would not DARE say something like that.  Is it not THE most hated criticism of feminism that mothers of yound children should not work because it keeps them from properly fulfilling their PRIMARY role as a MOTHER?

Al Bundy is a fictional character, so maybe "our time" is not quite right.  But what I really meant by "OUR TIME" is the time for we sexists to RISE.

We have never been able to get media support before.  We have never been able to get the support of the Democratic Party before. NOW WE CAN.  They are even EAGER to be sexist even beyond my wildest dreams.

Yes.  I think it is TIME.  It is time to start a REAL LIFE organization like Al Budny's "No Ma'am". 

This strikes me as really "NO LOSE".  If Sarah Palin wins, conservatism wins on most issues (just not on crass sexism)  If Sarah Palin loses, leftist Democrats and the mainstream media will probably have to KILL FEMINISM to bring it about. 

This election is really getting fun.

P.S.  If you doubt my credentials as a sexist, remember that I have said, on the record in this blog, that women should never have gotten the vote.  Now I have said this does NOT mean I automatically oppose woman candidates.  So I am not a hypocrite.  Hoever, the objective evidence is that women VOTING have virtually destroyed civilization.  So you might question Obama's qualifications to be Commander in Chief, or even Sarah Palin's (although she is not directly running for that job), but you can't question my qualifications as a SEXIST.  What gladdens my heart is all of these new RECRUITS I am getting to my cause.

S

Sarah Palin: Correct Prediction

Nope. It was not ME who correctly predicted that the McCain VP choice would be Sarah Palin.  Here is the COMMENT from 8/24/2008 on this blog:

Comment from tedmol | Email tedmol
8/24/08 11:20 PM | Permalink

Delete Comment Block This Screen Name

Actions [+]

"Despite the Dems and the allied main stream media’s desperation to see Romney as McCain’s Veep, Mitt is clearly out, with (1) Obama doubling down on the class warfare theme (McCain’s 7 houses) and (2) McCain doubling down with ads showing the hypocrisy of Biden attacking Obama in the primaries — Romney did way more than that contra McCain.

This leaves only Govs Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty. Pro-abortion Ridge and Dem-Lieberman were never real considerations, despite relentless media goading. Pawlenty’s lackluster TV performances, coupled with Palin pizzazz, the primacy of oil drilling and the ticked off women/Hillary voters, does now portend a McCain/Palin checkmate on the Dems. This is so albeit the Dems and liberal media dare not mention Palin’s name, that is, everyone but…..

And if there’s any question as to Palin being uniquely positioned and able to more than nullify Biden in debate, see the excellent discussion at palinforvp.blogspot.com

Team McCain, well done!!!"

 

To my shame, I dismissed the above comment on the grounds that not many people live in Alaska.  I have almost never been this wrong.  I did state that McCain would not likely choose Romney, as has always been obvious.  I also said the Governor of Alaska would be "fine" if McCain chose her.  That was a dismissal worthy of Obama.  Maybe I could get a job with his campaign. 

 

Anyway, Governor Palin has always been more than "fine" with me.  I just never thought she had a chance.  Ever since she PROUDLY, not as if it were any "sacrifice" at all, had a Down's Syndrome baby, Palin has been a HEROINE of mine. I may have even mentioned her, at the time, in this blog as such a heroine.  If not, I should have.

 

Anyway, I wanted to give credit where credit is due. Obviously, on politics you have no business listening to me rather than the person making the above comment!!!  Talk about the RIGHT call.  I still don't even believe it.

But I LIKE it a lot, and I like her a lot.

Obama: Inexperienced Sexist

First, Barack "Wrold" Obama dissed Hillary Clinton's calim to be more experienced and qualified for President.  Then he dissesd her for Vice President, in favor of a MAN who won 5,000 votes (as distinguished from Cltinton's 18 million).

Now Obama has issued another statement DISSING a WOMAN.  He has denigrated her as the mayor of a town of 9,000 people--ignoring that she was elected GOVERNOR of Alaska, was head of an important commisson in Alaska, and is considered the most POPULAR GOVERNOR IN THE NATION after her less than 2 years in office.  She is the ONLY candidate with executive experience.  That leads to the question:  Is Obama as SEXIST as I am, or MORE?  The EViDENCE is that he IS.  As usual with Obama, his RECORD, and unscripted words, reveal him to be unworthy of being President.

Now the mainstream media is QUICKLY picking up the Obama assertiona that this "takes Obama's lack of experience off of the table." 

Say What?  Sarah Palin has ACCOMPLISHED more in Alaska, even taking on Big Oil, than Obama has ACCOMPLISHED in his whole life.  Hoever, beyond that, Obama's statement ("one heartbeat away from the Presidency") could be said of OBAMA.  Just substitute "a few years in the Illinois legislature with NO foreign policy experience" for "mayor of a town of 9,000 people".  Obama, however, will NOT be a "heartbeat" away from the Presidency, if elected.  He will be the PRESIDENT. He is LESS qualified to be the President than John McCain, as HIS OWN STTEMENT SAYS.

John McCain will be the President.  He provides the experience.  Sarah Plain can LEARN from him, as Obama would have to LEARN (but NOT from the second spot, but from the top spot for which he is not ready).

It is simply NOT true that "experience is off of the table.  The EXPERIENCE that matters is that of the President.  The Vice President is there to complement the Preisident. 

The only question now is HOW sexist Obama and the mainstream media want to prove themselves.  Well, that is not the ONLY question.  Another interesting question is just how far both Obama and the mainstream media will go to PROVE themselves the sanctimonious hypocrites that they are. 

Sarah Palin, Vice President

Yes, I now OFFICIALLY endore John McCain for President of the United States.

As a conservative, this is a major surprise to me.  I could not imagine that McCain could pick a person this conservative.  As I said, Goveror Plain is a HEROINE to the pro-life movement, of which I regard myself as a part. 

Again, I did not think McCain had it in him  Now I stand by my statements that this is RISKY.  Plain could cost McCain the election, if she does not do well.  Hoever, that is part of what makes this choice so IMPRESSIVE.  McCain has proven himself willling to take a RISK--a risk on his own judgment.

Therefore, I repeat, I now endorse John McCain for President of the United States.  Nope.  I have not really changed my mind on McCain, although this choice impresses me on many levels. But there is simply no way I could fail to vote for Sarah Palin as Vice President.  This is one election when I am voting for VICE PRESIDENT, with the President just being the running mate.

McCain VP; Has McCain Shown Who Is a Commander In Chief?

In one way, you really have to like John McCain.  Remember that "plan" of Barack "World" Obama to text message his VP choice on Friday morning?  Remember how that plan FAILED (whether by deliberate leak or incompetence).

Now look at John McCain.  He promised to reveal his VP choice this morning.  As this is being written, it is a mere TWO HOURS before the event where the VP pick will APP{EAR.  It is STILL SECRET.  The media is beside itself. They seem to be INSULTED that they can't get a reliable "leak", and that the names floated yesterday 9mainly Romney and Pawlenty) were evidently false.

Has McCain not jsut PROVED he is better fitted to be Commander in Chief than Obama?  I think so.  McCain made a commitment.  He also committed to keeping his choice secret until this morning.  He has KEPT those commitments.  Obama FAILED to keep his commitments.

The media, of course, has merely again shown how disgraceful they are.  For that alone, McCain has shown Commander in Chief ability.

P.S.  Yes, I--of all people--should know better than to pay any attention to the medai.  The "news" today is that Romney, Pawlenty, and Lieberman are all OUT.  The heavy speculation today is SARAH PALIN, Governor of Alaska.  My gut tells me this CAN;T be right, although it would be one of the few McCain picks that would cause me to vote for McCain.  But how can McCain run on experience, and say Palin is "ready" to be President.  yes, she is as, or more, ready than OBAMA.  And OBAMA can hardly attack her too hard on experience.  Still, this would be a RISKY pick.  So would Meg Whitman, who would be another risky pick.  What aobut Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  She was OUT yesterday, and denied it yesterday.  Was I right all along.  Will it be Governor Crist of Florida?  As I say above, what other evidence do you need, since we DON'T KNOW, that John McCain is more qualified to be Comander in Chief than Barack "World" Obama.  If it IS Governor Sarah Palin, you heard it here (almost) first.  See my original entry this week evaluating the possible VP picks.  Nope.  I am not talking about ME.  I am tallking about the COMMENT.  You can check it out.  The comment identified Sarah Plain as the likely choice.  I dismissed it, and still would be ASTOUNDED at that risky a pick.  Yes, I would be impressed too.  Palin is a pro-life heroine, and a conservative reformer who is an EXPERT on energy matters.  She is one IMPRESSIVE individual.  She just has little real experience, being a first term governor of Alaska.  I still can't see it, but the person commenting could.  Maybe that person knew a lot more than I do, and that is a humbling thing for me to admit. The fundamental point remains:  Does it not say major GOOD things about John McCain that, against all odds, he has KEPT this secret to the very end?

Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi: Not a Catholic

Yes, the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in Denver, Colorado has confirmed what I told you in this blog (see multiple entries this week).

You CANNOLT be a Catholic and not believe that human life begins at conception. 

Yep.  Llike I said:  I know more about the Catholic Church than supposed Catholic Nancy Pelosi (who even said she "studied the subject a long time).   And I was raised Prebyterian.  The woman is hopelessly stupid.

As I said, when Pelosi said "many Catholics disagree with the Church teaching that human life begins at conception", she was really saying that those people are NOT, and should not consider themselves, Catholic.  

Don't take my word for it.  The Archbishop was interviewed on Fox, and said the very same thing.  HIM I believe.

Told you so.

Gustav: Wolf Blitzer, LIAR

"The Gulf coast is now in Trouble."

The above statement is objectively a LIE.  It is not a matter of opinion.  It is a LIE.

You may have wondered how a person can lie about a hurricane.  Well, Wolf Blitzer managed it, and I think the mainstream media rgularly does the same sort of thing, or at least close to it.

Yep.  I don't watch CNN either.  But I have been surfing even places I do not even surf anymore, just to keep up on McCain's VP choice.  I know.  Logically, I will find out, and it doess not matter when I find out. But I am curous (which the TV people count on in hunting for a USELESS scoop--we will all know by 11:00 a.m. EDT tomorrow.

For the record, Gustav is not even IN the Gulf of Mexico.  It is not even now a hurricane.   It is PROJECTED to go into the Gulf of Mexico, but that is NOT A FACT.  It is projected to go into the Gulf of Mexico as a major hurricane, but that is NOT A FACT.  It is all projectioin and SPECULATION.  Further, the WHOLE Gulf Coeast is NOT "in ttrouble".  It is highly unlikely that Gustav will strike omore than one place on the Gulf Coast.  So the CORRECT statement (one not a Wolf Blitzer LIE) is:  "Some part of the Gulf Coast MAY be in trouble by early next week."

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to be a modern, mainstream "journalist", or TV host, interested only in HYPE.

McCain VP: "Long Knives" and Religious Bigotry--Pawllenty or Romney?

Colin Powell rumors, including new ones, have been SHOT DOWN (as expected).  Joe Lieberman was always a longshot.

 

The McCain VP sweepstakes seem to be coming down to Governor Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney. 

 

If you look at straws in the wind, and the "long knives" cutting up Romney, you would guess Pawlenty.  Yet, that choice adds so LITTLE to McCain--a governor with NO real national identity, and no experience in real national politics.  There is almost no way I will vote for a McCain-Pawlenty ticket, even though Pawlenty has "acceptable" conservative credentials.  I have not closed my mind on it, but I would take a LOT of persuading.

 

WHY is Romney somewhat the underdog, even though he is the obvious choice (with a good chance I would vote for that ticket, which should be conclusive right there).  Well, you can go back to the comment to my entry on the VP choice several days back.  The McCain campaign came down awfully hard on Joe Biden's campaign comments about Obama.  Would they really have done that if McCain expected to choose Romney?  Maybe.  It is only a straw in the wind, because Romney never said McCain was not READY to be President. Individual issues are easier to handle.

 

But, as I said, the "long knives" have been out for Romney.  That only makes me like Romney more, but it may indicate that McCain is having people confirm McCain's rather unfavorable primary view of Romney.  Mike Huckabee was fairly friendly with McCain, and HATES Romney.  He has been sticking knives in Romney from the beginning of the VP sweepstakes, even after Huckabee was obviously OUT.

 

Then there are more "long knives" out in the last few days  They are trashing Romney as "too rich", and a person out of touch with "blue collar" Americans.  That criticism is actually valid.  Not the "rich" part, but I have discussed before my Boston daughter's description of Romney trying to take the subway in Boston.  It is hard for Romney to play a "man of the people". Still, Romney has the credentials to HELP the "people" with his economic wisdom and experience.

 

The "long knives" have long been out for Romeny over his Mormon relilton. I have NO RESPECT for people who either attack Romney that way, or put up with the idea that it is even an acceptable question (would you really see the religion of a JEW like Lieberman so discussed without CONDEMNING THE BIGOTRY--don't think so).  But all of the TV networks, and the truly despicable AP (with an indescribably EVIL article about Romey's great grandfater being a polygamist), have acted like this is an ACCEPTABLE reason to be against Romney.  It is NOT.  You are a Bigot if you are against Romney on that basis (unless you have an absolute religious test for whom you will vote for--such as ONLYU a born again Chirstion). 

 

I am listening to Fox News right now.  They are talking only about Romeny and Pawlenty.  However, they are allowing--even encouraging--this EVIL idea of a "Mornon distraction with Fomney.  I am willing to state flatly:  Fox News is ACCEPTING AND ENCOURAGING EVIL with this kind of stuff.  They would never allow it with a JEW or an African-American.  That is why I have often said that Fox is part of the RPOBLEM, and NOT part of the solution. 

 

So I don't know.  My gut tells me McCain will not accept Romney . My intellect tells me Romney is the RIGHT choice, if not really the safest choice (which my conservative instincts also tell me).  But I am convinced that Pawlenty will be a lackluster candidate, no better than Biden--if as good.  I think that is why I expect it.  It fits my view of McCain. 

 

But those who have the "long knives" out for Romney for the WRONG reason--relitious BIGOTRY--and those (like Fox News, the AP especially, and the rest of the mainstream media) who accept that bigotry, should be aware that I will not forget it.  It affects my view of Huckabee.  It certainly affects my view of Fox News.  Nothing could affect my view of the despicable AP, because it could not get lower.  In any event, I WILL REMEMBER the people willing to go with religious bigotry here.  I will have nothing but contempt for those people until the end of my life.

 

P.S.  Fox is saying that Pawlenty has cancelled all events today, and that his stock has been "rising".  It does remain my gut feeling that Pawlenty IS the choice, now that Governor Crist seems to have been eliminated.  To me, the choice is typical McCain, and therefore more likely than Romney.  Have I told you I do not intend to vote for McCain, even against Obama?  I know I have.  At this point, only a Romney choice would affect that decision, and it has not looked likely for some time (actually for the entire time since the contentious primaries).

 

P.S. 2:  Could Pawlenty prove me worng.  Sure.  I don't know that much about Pawlenty.  I don't prejudge.  But what I do know, and what I have seen of him, does not indicate to me he is going to inspire too many conservatives.  He will be the presumptive heir to McCain if the McCain ticket wins, and it does not give me great confidence in him that he was a McCain loyalist throughout this campaign.  I don't get the impression that I would have ever voted for Pawlenty for the Republican nomination.  WHY should his selection change my view of McCain?  Not likely.

Speeches: Not That Important

With Obama, it is always "the speech".  Problem with Reverend Wright, and supporting him for 20 years, deliver a SPEECH.  Do we have a problem with "divisiveness" in this country, and a problem with race? Obama gives a SPEECH on the subject, and people (media) go wild (even though his record does not show he has ever "brought people togeter" in a significant way.). 

Now tonight the media is hyping "The Speech" of Obama's life--on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech.

 

Dirty little secret:  "The Speech" is not that important.  Sure, you have to make it.  It can give you a quick boost, if people reeally relate to it.  It is still just a SPEECH.  That is what Obama supporters seem to fail to realize.  A SPEECH does not solve the problem of Obama supporting racist hater Wright for 20 years.  A SPEECH does not provide experience for Obaama, or a record he does not have.  A SPEECH does not make up for Obama's EXTREME leftist record in the Illinois legislature, including votes in favor of INFANTICIDE and against widely popular crime measures (see Washington Times article).  A SPEECH is just WORDS.  Words have to be consistent with actions, , and your other words, or they mean nothing.  For example, EVERYONE agrees that President Clinton does not believe Obama is qualified to be President.  He has previously so indicated.  Last night, President Clinton gave a great SPEECH saying that Obama IS ready to be President.  So what. It was just a SPEECH.

 

Therefore, when you hear hype about Obama's SPEECH, remember that it is not that important, in the end.  A speech is merely a speech--read off of a tleprompter.  It is hard to even point to specific ACCOMPLISHMENTS created by King's "You Have a Dream" speech, however it may have inspired people.  Obama is no Martin Luther King, and the JOB he is seeking is NOT as an inspirational leader of African-Americans.  President of the United States is a job having to do with more than words, and being able to read inspiring words off of a teleprompter is a talent only mildly useful to a President.  

Economy: Okay

Although it is not receiving major attention in the mainstream media--just a passing mention while BAD "news" would be played up as major--the GNP numbers for the Second Quarter have been revised UPWARD.  Growth was 3.3%.  That is actually HEALTHY--certainly not even close to a "recssion".

What is the reactioin?  Right the first time.  the reaction is the "gloom and doom" reaction that it is good to have this good news, but it doen't change that the economy can't REALLY be "good" until the housing "crisis" is solved AND the financial "crisis" is "solved". 

Buhnk.  Now there ARE things that will KILL the eoncomy.  We can CRUCIFY the economy on a cross of "global warming".  We can CRUCIFY the eoncomy if we continue to REUSE TO ALLOE DRILLING, and devleopment of our other resources (like coal and nuclear power). 

In light of the bursting of the housing "bubble" (that HAD to burst at some point), the economy has done WELL.  You won't hear it in the mainstream media, but it is true.  Are some people hurting?  Yep.  But if you think we can keep all people from ever suffering any pain, then you should be working in the mainstream media.  You need to stay oout of the real world for your own good.

Remember all of those stories about how the initially announced growth of 1.9% was "tepid" and insignificant.  Remember all of those DEMOCRATS who kept saying we are IN a "recession" (not to mention that dufous, McCain, despite his occasional defense of our economy)?  WILL we get CORRECTIIONS and "revised" mainstream media/Democrat views on our economny?  Don't hold your breath waiting, or you will DIE.

P.S.  Did you doubt me on my comparison of oil speculators with media speculators on Gustav?  Well, oil prices were slightly DOWN today, even as the media ratcheted up its SPEUCULATION and HYPE.  Q.E.D.  Oil speuculators are MORE rational than media speculators, and LESS subject to irrational emotion.

Gustav: Irrational Panic?

See the previous entry today on (probable) hurricane Gustav. Did you doubt me?  Never do that.

Do you realize that FEMA is "front loading" resources (SPENDING MONEY) to prepare for a hurricane which we are not even sure will hit the U.S. 

Yes, did you realize that Gustav may NOT hit the U.S. at all? Hurricane Dean (I think it was)  MISSED the U.S. altogether last year, after we spent MILLIONS "preparing for it.

HOW did we survive hurricanes all of those years where we did not being MAJOR preparations until the track of the hurricane was fairly well defned.  Yes, that approach FAILED with Katrina, partially because it ALTERED COURSE late and partially because we were dealing with Louisiana, which FAILED (under Democratic rule in the state and the city of New Orleans) to respoind when the threat became apparent.  However, are we goingt o evacuate the ENTIRE GULF COAST every time a hurricane is a possible threat?  We seem to be headed in that directioin, but it is STUPID.  Remember how many many DIED in trying to EVACUATED HOUSTON for hurricane Rita?

Yes, Gustav MIGHT hit the Yuchatan (Cancun area).  It MIGHT not hit the U.S. at all.  The probabilities seem to be that Gustav will go into the Gulf of Mexico, and become a fairly major hurricane.  But we have survived LOTS of hurricanes like Gustav without major problems. 

Is the media trying to turn us all into SCARED RABBITS. Short answer:  YES.

Even Fox News (as I continue to say:  part of the PROBLEM and NOT part of the solution--mostly not worth watching any more than the rest of the mainstream media), or maybe I should leave out the "even" because Fox News HYPES as much or more than any of them, is talking non-stoip about how the Republican Convention may be dramatically changed (days even cancelled) because of Gustav. THIS IS ALL STUPID SEPCULATION WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER GUSTAV IS GOING TO BE A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE U.S.

I heard Chris Wallace talk about how BAD it would be for Republicans to be talking politics when people are "HURTING".  Wallace is a intellecutally vapid, sanctimonious hypocrite.  People are ALWAYS hurting.  They hurt in teh Great Depression (Roosevelt still had conventions).  They hurt in Vietnam.  They hurt in Iraq.  42,000 DIE every single year in TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.  That is about 12 per DAY.  There are LIKELY to be more people "hurting" on the highways during the Republican Convention, than there are because of Gustav.

Sure, it is POSSIBLE Gustav will turn into one monster of a hurricane affecting this country in a major way.  But it is UNLIKELY.  At this point, it is all SPECULATION.

I can't tell you how stupid this overhype is.  I don't think it is healthy--causing people to be "prepared".  I think it is vastly unealthy--continuing to advance an idea that politicians MUST "wring their nands" and exude "concern" over ever "hurting" American, or poetntillay huring American, or be trashed.  Have we REALLY gone that far off of the deep ened? 

I am afraid maybe so.  In the meantime, you shoudl go to the national hurricane center website to get FACTS about storms (and even they are human, and inclined to a certain amount of scare, which deos give them attention, but MUCH better than the "news").  Watching or paying any attention to the media is a MISTAKE.

P.S.  I am perfectly aware that Gustav is likely to make it into the Gulf of Mexico, even if it passes over the tip of the Yuchatan Peninsula.  The land there is so flat as to not break up a major storm.  However, a lot depends on how FAR south Gustav goes.  If the computer models--very fallible lately--are just a LITTLE off, Gustav could be more affected, AND it could end up heading for northern Mexico, or as a minor hurricane headed for the Texas coast near Mexico.  If you noticed DEPRESSION on the part of the media around 2 p.m. EDT, it is because Gustav is STILL not a huurican, as winds have stayed steady at 70 mph.  It is still expected to become a hurricane, but my main p9oint remains.  We don't KNOW very much about how strong this storm will be, or where it is going.  To EVACUATE, or spend millions of dollars, ALL along the Gulf Coast based on SPECULATION is INSANE.  Yes, preliminary preparations are indicated.  Panic is stupid, and expensive.  As Houston showed, it can also be FATAL.

Kyla and Historic Moments

See one entry ago (yesterday).

I thought about it, and realized I was UNDERSTATING the sheer magnitude of the moment, if Kyla becomes the first woman President 20-25 years from now.

She would not only be the first woman Preisdent.  She would not only be the first HISPANIC (basent being beat to the punch in the ensuing 20 years, which is entirely possible--probably MORE likely than a woman after the Hillary fiasco) President.  She would also be the frist NATIVE AMERICAN President.

Hold on, you say.  Kyla can't possibly be all of those things.  Wrong.  Remember that there is NO DEFINITION POSSIBLE for who is a Native American and who is not (as 50% white guy Barack "World" Obama proves as to definitions of this sort of thing).  It seems pretty certain that I have SOME Native American "blood", although family history is a little vague and uncertain on exactly how much.  Say it is only 5%.  SO WHAT.  If Kyla feels like calling herself a Native American because of that 5%, can ANYBODY say she is wrong?  Tell me YOUR definition of a "Native American".  The local Tigua Indians accept 1/8, and I don't think that there ARE any Tiguas with much GREATER percentage than that.  There may well be people accepted as members of the "tribe" with a lesser percentage.  There was some problem about ever getting them accepted as an Indian tribe, when there were no "pure bloods" around.  As I have said, there is NO DEFINITIION, and even trying to come up with one puts you in a racist position.

Dirty little secret (again, but you won't listen):  MOST Americans (not to mention people of the world) are of MIXED RACE and ethnicity.  That is becoming more true all of the time.  The entire concept of "race" is of doubtful usefullness, and getting more doubtful daily.

In any event, the election of Kyla to the Presidency will be so much more "historic" than the nomination of Obama, it is not even close.  Don't say you weren't WARNED.

Guistav: Gasoline Speculatiors, Otherwise Known As The MEDIA

The HYPE on trpopical storm/hurricane Gustav is about to hit fever pitch as our disgraceful media ROOT for another Katrina (their "finest" hour, which should depress them since their coverage of Katrina was TERRIBLE).

Who needs oil speculatiors in our financial markets when we have MEDIA SPECULATORS out of control. Thus, we have all of those HOPEFUL stories about how this is the trhird annniversay of Katrina, and you know what Katrina did to gasoline prices (not to mention New Orleans, where people are being SCARED once again.

Yes, it appearsl likely, although not certain, that Gustav will become a major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico.  And it is necessary to alert Gulf coast residents to prepare for a POSSIBLE hurricane.

However, where is the PERSPECTIVE--not to mention the concentration on the FACTS instead of the HYPER-SCARE speculation.  Yes, I think we have become too prone to PANIC even in preparation measures such as evacuatons and SPENDING money on excessive CYA (cover your ass) precautionary measures. 

You may think I go the opposite direction in not encouraging enough preparation.  Doesn't matter to the point here.  That point is that there is NO excuse for the excessive media SCAREHYPE and SPECULATON.  Jack Webb had it right ("Dragnet"):  "Just the facts, ma'am."

Nope, it is NOT facts to talk about how Gustav COULD be just like Katrina, or even a category 5 hurricane.   How MNANY hurricaneshave we SURVIVED in the Gulf of Mexico BEFORE Katrina, without major loss of life or major disruption to oil and gasoline supplies?  Well, almost ALL of them--MANY.

It is LUCKY that "journalists" do not CONTROL theoil and gasoline markets. If they did, we would have $10.00 a gallon gasoline.  As it is, "journalists" are doing their best to SPPOK the oil and gasoline markets.

How do these people ("journalists") sleep at night?  My own explanation is that they are too STUPID to realize the human misery they are causing, and often seem to be ROOTING for.  

Hispanic Hisoric Moment: Will I Be Responsible?

After I posted the previous entry, I realized something.  I could be responsible for a MORE "historic" moment that the nomination of Barack "World" Obama. 

 

I have mentioned before that my daughter, Kyla, has ambitions to be ruler of the world, with the Presidency of the United Stats as a STEPPING STONE.  Both of my daughters are 50% (same percentage as Obama is "African-American") Hispanic.

 

Since Hillary LOST, Kyla still has an opportunity (although she is now only 24) to be the FIRST woman President of the U.S.  Further, she will perhaps have the opportunity to be the FIRST Hispanic President of the U.S. (a LARGER "minority" than Obama's).

 

Will I be INTERVIEWED by these networks some time as to what it feels like to be the father of such an HISTORIC figure?  Maybe.  First, of course, I have to live that long.

 

I am not quite as doubtful about Kyla eventually becoming President.  You know that person who said Hilalry Clinton would add MACHISMO to Obama?  Well, Kyla would add MACHISMO to ANYBODY.  Be prepared.  You may have another "historic moment" in your lifetime.  Just don't say you never though it possible, now that I have TOLD/WARNED you. 

Barack "World" Obama: First African-American Presidential Nominee, or Just Another White Guy?

 I saw the "moment" that Barack "World" Obama was nominated as the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States. 

 

You may have noticed by now that I am cynical as heck, and not impressed by emotional hype. This is an illustration.  Nope. I do NOT  think this is some sort of "watershed" historic event.  Oh, you can't argue that Obama is the first person who LOOKS African-American who has ever been nominated for President of the United States.  But we still have not had a WOMAN, an ORIENTAL, an INDIAN (Native American OR from India), a JEW, an Italian? (no, I don't know either), a Pole (again, I don't really know), a SWEDE (ditto), an ARAB, a MORMON,  and so on.  I see no reason why ANY of those cannot be nominated, with the right candidate, and I consider it an INSULT to this country to say (as ALL of the cable networks and media are now saying) that they could not previously IMAGINE an African-American winning nomination for President of the United States.  At this particular point in time, I think it would be MUCH more "iffy" for a MUSLIM to be nominated, almost alone among groups who have not been nominated, which explains the internet attacks on Obama as a Muslim.

 

First, is Obama really African-American?  No, this is not some subtle point, or outrageous smear.  I have no question that Obama is 50% African-American.  And he "looks" "black" (in a visible, mixed race sense).  So what.  What is the DEFINITION of "African-American."  The dirty little sescret, for both redneck bigots and leftist bigots, is that there is NONE.  Unlike Obama, I see an obvious DEFINITION as to when each individual human life begins (see this week's entries, I think extending into last week).   But I have never SEEN a defintion of what an African-American is, except from the old Ku Klux Klan types.  Is 10% enough?  Is 20% enough?  Do you have to "look" "black"?  Do we go back to the infamous Black Code definitions of the WHITE RACISTS.  That would be ironic, wouldn't it.  I think so.  To suggest that we should ADOPT the racist attitudes of the post-Confederate South strikes me as RACIST in itself. I have previously said so in this blog.  It is NOT post-racial to make this big a deal about this "historic" moment. It implies that we are still focused entirely too much on race, when we should be going beyond it.  If I were a TV commentator, I would say that it is more significant that Obama is of MIXED race, because that is the "future" of humanity.  You can see why I woould be fired as a TV commentator. 

 

What about this idea that all of these media types, and commentators, could never imagine an African-American being elected President in their lifetimes.  What a PUNY imagination these people have!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Am I saying that I could imagine, a year ago, that Obama would be nominated?  Nope.  Never occurred to me.  It was Hillary's turn, and Obama is UNQUALIFIED.

 

However, I definitely imagined that COLIN POWELL could have been nominated.  Remember (was it 1996 or 2000?) when most, or at least many, people assumed the nomination was Powell's for the asking (certainly the VICE PRESIDENCY, which would be a stepping stone to the top spot).  I did not go that far, and did not support Powell because of his suspect conservatism, but I could IMAGINE Colin Powell being nominated to be President.  Are these media people saying that they could not IMAGINE Colin Powell being nominated to be President of the United States some time in the future, if he went after the job?  Are "journalists" really admitting to being that STUPID?  I think they are. You will remember that Colin Powell removed HIMSELF from consideration, when it was assumed that the Vice Presidential spot was absolutely his for the asking.

 

Then there is Condi Rice.  A number of Republicans wanted HER to run for President this time--AFrican-American AND a woman.  Somehow the "historic" part did not seem to be pushed in her case.  Michael Steele ran for the Senate in Maryland.  I think he would have been the first black Senator from Maryland, and one of the FEW ever elected to the United States Senate.  No hype over how "historic" that would be.

 

How do Democrats manage to suggest that it is only DEMOCRATS that matter here.  Don't forget Clarence Thomas--only the second African-American named to the U.s. Supreme Court.

 

Yes, I AM cynical--too cynical, even in my own mind.  It does not make for being a good person.  However, I ask you t evaluate whether I am being TOO cynical here.  I don't think so (to quote "Monk" once again).

 

P.S.  Some people--Tony this means YOU--have questioned whether I watch more of this stuff than I claim, because I somehow seem to see all of these things.  He was talking about the MSNBC comments (where I swore off even surfing MSNBC years ago in this blog, but have modified my policy SLIGHTLY for this convention to get a feel for the leftist propaganda being put out).  As I told Tony, you might consider how BAD MSNBC is when I see these things in about a MINUTE of surfing a day.  However, you might wonder hoe I came to see the anointing--oops!, I mean nomination ob Obama when I have said I am not watching the convention.  It might almost make you believe there is a God (either operating for my benefit or to get me in trouble--take your pick).  I had just finished watching a rerun of "Maverick" on the Western Channel, and I turned to see the panel discussion at the end of Brit Hume's show on Fox (as I often do).  THERE IT WAS.  The roll call was on, and I got to see Hillary move to nominate Obama by acclamation, and the subsequent love fest.  THAT is how I became a part of history, at least through my television set.    

Hillary Clinton and Sex Discrimination: Should She SUE the Democratic Party?

Should Hillary Clinton SUE the Democratic Party for sex discrimination?  Think about it.  She was DENIED a job allegedly because of her sex, and the job was given to a LESS qualified (by an objective qualification measure) MALE.  There are even some indications that Hillary Clinton was discriminated against because of her RACE, although that is less obvious.  The Democratic Party itself even took actions to insure that Hillary Clinton would not get the job for which she had the superior quafilifications, such as DISALLOWING the results in Michigan and Florida until after the discriminatory result had been obtained.  You do realize, don't you, that Hillary Clinton would have WON if Michigan and Florida had "counted" from the beginning, because of the momentum that would have given her going into Super Tuesday?  The Democratic Party DID deprive Florida and Michigan voters of the right to have their vote count, despite the late, face saving, political sop to Florida and Michigan--hoping that the voters will be DECEIVED into believing their votes really counted.

 

Then the Democratic Party compounded the sex discrimination by giving the VP job to a less qualified WHITE MALE.  Oh, the "qualification" issue is closer with Joe Biden, but how can you argue with the opinion of 18 million voters, against 5,000 or so?  Is this not CONCLUSIVE that Hillary Clinton was the better qualified candidate for VP?.

 

Believe it or not, the above is all a tease/head fake.  This entry is NOT about the entertaining, if logical, fantasy of Hillary Clinton suing the Democartic Party for sex discrimination.

 

This entry is about Hillary Clinton's false charge that McCain is "against" "equal pay for equal work" for women.  That was the absurd overstatement in Clinton's speech last nigh (a statement I know abut only because some news organization saw fit to replay it as one of the "significant' parts of her speech.

 

Leftists lie.  They lie often.  They lie routinely, and as a matter of course.  They lie without guilt, in a "higher" cause than truth.

 

"Equal pay for equal work" has BEEN the law of the land since the Civil Rights Act (Title VII).  It is STILL the law.

 

What happened is that a woman named Ledbetter sued Goodyear for allegedly paying her half what Goodyear was paying "similar" male employees.  Fine, right.  Not quite.  Ms. Ledbetter did this 18 YEARS after the alleged sex discrimination started. There is ALWAYS a statute of limitations (except in murder), because it is UNFAIR to expose defendants to lawsuits over things that happened DECADES ago.  The law contains a requirement that the employee complain to the EEOC within 180 days, or the claim is barred.

 

Ok again, right.  May seem a little short on the statute of limitations, but the law is the law.  Not quite.  There is SOMETIMES (when often seems pretty arbitrary) a JUDGE CREATED rule that the statute of limitations does not sart to run until the person knew, or should have known, of the claim.  Federal judges, and I believe the EEOC, had been applying this rule (NOT part of the Congressional "Equal Pay" law).  The issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

Look what the Supreme Court was faced with.  It was faced with saying 18 YEARS was just fine (the woman won in the lower courts).  What effect would this have on SMALL business (on ALL business, but especially on relatively smaller businesses).  A person with a small business could be exposed to lawsuits FOREVER (18 years is pretty close to forever).  The RECORDS may not even exist.  Is that "fair"?  Of course not. 

 

The Supreme Court held, 5 to 4, that the 180 day requirement was applicable (probably with some narrow exceptions, but any such details are irrelevant to this discussion). 

 

Neter Congress again.  Women's groups (predictably) wanted to REVERSE the Supreme Court decision.  This resulted in a bill.  Let the NFIB (a small business interest organization) tell you its opinion of the bill:

"The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 (S. 1843):

• Creates a new paycheck rule dissolving any statute of limitation* for an employee filing a compensation discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• Forces employers to defend employment decisions that occurred in the distant past
• Allows plaintiffs to file lawsuits based on circumstantial evidence and "he said, she said" testimony
• Removes incentives for employees to act immediately when they are subjected to discrimination
• Contains a "pension annuity check rule" that would allow an employee to bring charges against an employer so long as the employee receives benefits, such as retirement benefits
• Brings about excessive litigation, significant costs and little resolution to small business"

The above is somewhat biased, of course, although LESS of a distortion than Hillary Clinton's FALSE statement.  From the feminist point of view, they were merely trying to "restore" the "law" to their most favorable idea of what it was before the Supreme Court told them differently 

 

John McCain voted against the bill, on the grounds that it merely encouraged lawsuits and enriched trial lawyers, rather than really helping women.  That is not an unreasonable position, and certainly is NOT being "against" equal pay for equal work.  "Equal pay for equal work is STILL the LAW.

 

Now you can argue that a firm six month deadline makes it too difficult for woman victims to effectively get compensation, even though the law says they are entitled to it.  However, that is not nearly what Hillary Clinton said.

 

Are there possible compromises here, to protect business from possible lawsuits from disgruntled employees 50 (pick your own number) later.  Sure there are.  You could increase the limitations to, say, two years.  You could have a six month, 1 year, or two year limitation on the REMEDY (saying, for example, in the Ledbetter case that she could recover for wages dating 6 months back from her complaint to the EEOC, but no further--assuming the discrimination was ongoing. You could otherwise try to TIGHTEN requirements, rather than pas a VAUGE law, so as to limit "stale" lawsuit by employees only looking to sue when they came up with other grievances against the employer.  Democrats don't care about subjecting employers to lawsuits for the infinite future. That does not make it "fair". 

 

Of course, you should have known that something more complicated was involved here than was stated in the Hillary speech.  It should have rung FALSE to you that "equal pay for equal work" is not the law, after all of teh civil rights legislation we have had. 

 

Sure, this is an egregious OVERSTATEMENT, with a grain of truth at the core.  But it is only a grain.  Imagine if President Bush had made thisobvious an overstatement about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!!!!  He would be impeached by now. 

 

Leftists get a pass on this stuff (distorting the facts out of all recognition). They shouldn't.

Chris Matthews and MSNBC: Racist Provocateurs

I have correctly noted that leftists like Chirs Matthews are the PRIMARY racists in this country today, because they are the ones who want to DEFINE people, as well as their rights and responsibilities, in terms of their "membership" in a racial GROUP--rather than treating people as individuals.

 

MSNBC and Chirs Matthews were obsessed with race as they TRASHED Hillary Clinton--being an arm of the Obama campaign both in the primaries and the general elction.

 

Even for Chris Matthews, however, what I saw last night was revealing.  Yes, I again made the MISTAKE of surfing MSNBC briefly, which I should never do.  In fact, I never do it--modifying that policy only to get a feel as to how the leftist media is treating this campaign. I can usually stand no more than 30 seconds, which is about what I saw last night.

 

There was something in Hillary Clinton's speech last night, or at least that is what I understood from this 30 seconds since I did not listen to the speech, about the old Underground Railroad which transported escaped slaves north, and about Harriet Tubman.  Somehow, MSNBC morphed that reference into the idea that Hillary Clinton UNDERSTANDS the "original sin" (I assure you I am not making up that term--it was the term used) of slavery which carries down to today (the implication being it carries down as a sin of WHITE PEOPLE--again, a racist concept).

 

Somehow, in this context, Chris Matthews made a statement suggesting that African-Americans still visualize "slave catchers with torches in the woods, where the only ting the black fugitives can do is run"--while Obama represents a partial expiation of this "sin".

 

Say what?  Those people are all DEAD.  Obama's ancestors were NOT even slaves, although some of his WHITE ancestors may have been slave owners.  But every slave owner is DEAD.  Every slave is DEAD.  It has been almost 150 years since there were "slave catchers".  It has been more than FORTY years since it has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.  It is only racist leftists who believe that "white people" today--many of whose ancestors were not even in this country at the time, and some of whose ancestors DIED to eliminate slavery--have a racial GUILT for slavery. 

 

yes, the NATION is "guilty" of allowing slavery.  However, a nation is composed of PEOPLE.  Every person involved in slavery, whether as a slave or slave owner, is DEAD.  This idea that a nation's "sins" follow it through all eternity is actually the EVIL concept that resulted in never ending WARS in Europe, as "grudges" were kept going down the centuries.  It is also the same principle as the endless BLLOD FEUD, like between the Hatfield's and the McCoy's.  

 

That is why I say MSNBC is acting as a provocateur of a racial BLOOD FEUD for all eternity.

 

Now, you can argue that slavery, and later discrimination, still have an effect on African-Americans today.  That is true, but irrelevant.  The people are still DEAD who were involved in the evil of slavery--DEAD a LONG TIME.  At what point do we have to get beyond the blood feud mentality, and start treating EVERYONE as individuals?

 

Does it really HELP African-Americans to suggest that they should STILL be looking behind them for "slave catchers", and STIL be looking for assurance that we are only an Obama defeat away from RETURNING to the days of slave catchers?  Give me a break.  There are few things that HURT Africna-Americans than that kind of paranoia. 

 

Yes, we are back to Reverend Wright, which is why MSNBC defended Revered Wright.  If you treat this all as a WAR between "white Euroopeans" and "people of color", you are merely a RACIST fomenting RACIAL HATRED.

 

That is a perfect description of Chris Matthews, and the other people at MSNBC.

 

Mexico: A Failed Country

Things are getting crazy here on the Mexican border (I live in El Paso, and am typing this within 5 miles of the Mexican border.

 

While the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference) thought it was significant "news" yesterday whether terrorist detainees were in danger from hurricane (now tropical storm, although the media is ROOTING for it to become a dangerous hurricane) Gustav, the failed country of Mexico continues to descend into violent chaos.

 

The known "death toll" from the continued drug cartel violence (gun battles on the streets, mass executions, etc.) has now almost reached 900, merely since the beginning of the year.  This is finally beginning to produce panic in El Paso--rumors of the war spreading across the border.

 

The authorities confirmed yesterday that there was information, although not specific, that  drug cartel HIT TEAMS had crossed the border into the U.S.

 

Meanwhile, TODAY'S "news" from the despicable AP is about the DISRUPTION OF FAMILIES (pro-illegal immigrant propaganda) caused by that ICE raid which found 600 illegal immigrants ILLEGALLY working in a Mississippi plant.  The despicable AP, of course, does not do stories on CITIZENS deprived of jobs by the illegal workers, or how the WAGES of U.S. workers are thereby reduced.

 

The lack of media and political interest in the MANY bad effects of illegal immigration, and the deteriorating situation along the Mexican border, is truly astounding.

Hilary Clinton: No Win for Obama

I did not listen to Hillary Clinton's "big speech".  Why should I?  Why should anyone (except her real fans--I supported her for President but hardly qualify as a real fan).  This media assumption that SPEECHES matter is one of the wonders of our time.  It (whatever is behind this strange media focus on WORDS) may partly explain why Obama's campaign is ALL aobut speeches, whith no record behind them.

Doesn't matter.  Hillary Clinton's speech could not help Barack "World" Obama.  If it were a bad speech, it could hardly help.  Yet, the better the speech was, the WORSE Obama looks.  This is the woman he PASSED OVER for Vice President.  If she completely ouclasse Joe Biden (likely), then what does that say about Obama picking Biden for VP, and not even CONSIDERING Hillary Clinton.  Deosn't say much for Obama, does it?

Nope.  There was just no way for Obama to win last night.  And tonight holds little promise for beng better.  Oh, the mainstream media is sure to exclaim over how "brilliant" Joe Biden's speech is, because they are in the tank for Obama.   But what if Biden is outclassed by BOTH Clintons--Hillary and Bill.  Can that possibly be good for Obama?

Then Obama is going to do a McCain campiagn commercial on Thursday, playing "the One" in Mile HIgh stadium on a GREEK TEMPLE type stage.  Who could make this stuff up?  John Elway Obama isn't. 

 

Only McCain could possibly lose this election, and even he may not be able to do it.

Using Hillary Clinton: Obama, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, and Keith Olbermann

As I said, I ma not interested in the scripted TV SHOW that political conventions have become. However, I will rarely surf through the cable channels just to get a feel for what the commentators are saying.  Bad mistake, except for blog entries.

Rachel Maddow is this chick from Air America who is somewhere to the left of Keith Olbermann.  You don't get any more left than that, or any more dishoenst in a politically partisan way.  YEARS ago, I dismissed Ketih Olbermann as the most despoicable cable TV host on this, or any other planet.  He has no redeeming features, as a political hack or as a human being (something I don't say lightly, as--for example--I have no problems with Obama as a human being).  Rachel Maddow is not QUITE as obnoxious as Olbermann (how could she be?), but she really is actually to his LEFT.  That is evidently why MSNBC has now hired her.  If you did not know, MSNBC has lost all pretense of objectivity, and put all of its bets on being the LEFTIST cable network.  Indeed, parent NBC has seemingly made the same decision, and has become an arm of the Obama campaign (even more than the rest of the TV networds, other than Fox News). This is just background.

As noted, I was surfing, and I watched about a minute of Maddow (she is good looking) talking with MSNBC people (Olbermann, Buchanan, and maybe Brokaw).  Maddow went on a tirade about what Hillary Clinton needed to do in her speech tonight.

Maddow's thesis was that Hilalry needed to SMACK DOWN McCain for USING Hillary Clinton.  Review my entry this week about Obama being a "dead man walking", for having DISSED Hillary Clinton (the entry about Hillary Clinton and the REAL 3 a.m. phone call). 

Maddow wants to sell the idea that it is MCCAIN who is USING Hillary Clinton, like men traditionally use women against their will?  Can you get any more politically biased, ont to mention stupid, than that.  Maddow is talking about the McCain ADS showing Clinton talking about Obama.  Is that "using" Clinton? Of course not.  That is simply using the WORDS Clinton has said, as Obama would use the words Romeny said if Romney is McCain's VP pick.  McCain doesn't expect any help from CLINTON (althogh he may, subtly, get it).  He wants to appeal to Clinton VOTERS.  McCain, of course, is similarly "using" Joe Biden's words.  For Maddow to suggest that this has anything to do with FEMINISM, and with men using women, shows why nobody listens to either Air America or MSNBC.

Look at OBAMA, though.  Obama passed over Hillary Clinton for Vice President, even though she got 18 million votes, in favor of a MAN who got 5,000 votes.  At times, Obama called the Clinton campaign RACIST (directly suggesting Bill Clinton was making racist remarks).  There has been no sign that Obama respects Clinton AT ALL. He certainly doesn't like her.

So why is Hillary Clinton going out there to praise Obama tonight?  She is being USED.  Oh, she knows she is being USED, but she has no choice.  Think of it.  The Democratic Party, AND MSNBC, pass over and dis a MORE QUALIFIED WOMAN for President.  Then Obama passes over the same woman in faovr of a LESS QUALIFIED man, for Vice President.  And now they all want Hillary Clinton to SAVE Barack "World" Obama, and "unify" the Democratic Party.  This is after Obama did not even ask her ADVICE on the VP, or talk to her about it.

Is there any question that it is Obama that is attempting to USE Hillary Clinton in the sense that Maddow was using the word? Obviously not.  It is not McCain that is using Hillary Clinton  It is Obama.  And it really is fundamentally against her will, since she has no real choice (as women allegedly had no real choice back when they were housewives and had to please their husbands or be out on the street). 

If you don't laugh hysterically at Rachel Maddow, you have no sense of humor.  Considering how she looks, maybe the entertainment value would be worth watching her?  Nope.  Not worth the agony.  At some point, partisan stupidity stops being funny, and just grates. 

Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi and Barack "World" Obama

See the three entries in this blog since yesterday on Nancy "Total Filure" "Pope" Pelossi.

Now consider that if Obama becomes President, this woman will be one of THREE people running the country (the third being the equally stupid and scary Harrly "Dirty Oil" Reid).

If that doesn't scare you (even more than the thought that Pelosi is even now Speaker of the House), nothing will.

Nancy "Total Failure" "Pope" Pelosi: Liar or Just Plain Stupid?--Not a Catholic, Anyway

Inevitably, the Catholic Church as come out and said that Nancy Pelosi MISREPRESENTED the position of the Catholic Church when she said that the Church did not have a position on when human life begins (see earlier entry today).  One of the DECEPTIONIS, by the way, that Pelosi had used was to say that Catholic doctors had disagreed over the centuries as to when life began (SO WHAT is the proper response here, to this total DECEPTION, especially if they are doctors that are as "Catholic" as Nancy Pelosi).

 

A Catholic Church spokesman or spokesmen came forth and noted that it has been the position of the Catholic Church (then the ONLY Christian church) since the 1st Century A.D. that human life begins at conception.  That was, of curse, even before science confirmed that a genetically distinct, separate (from the mother, although growing inside her) being was formed at conception.  In case you are arithmentic challeneged, that means that the Catholic Church has had the same official position on abortion--that human life begins at conception--for almost TWO THOUSAND YEARS. 

 

This forced Pelosi to issue a statement (as she is constantly being forced to do to address one stupidity or another).  The statement said that she was raised in a "dvoted Catholic family" that did not always agree with her "pro-choice" views.  Read the previous statement that I QUOTED in my prior entry, where Pelosi asserted that her pro-abortion position is "consistent" with her "pro-choice" views.  Was she LYING in that statement?  As I have said, how can you tell with a woman this bone deep STUPID.

 

In her most recent statement, Pelosi acknowledged (as she had to, although she tried to say something different when asked about the beginning of human life on "Meet the Press") that Catholic "teaching" (DECEPTION to the very end--the correct term is Catholic DOCTRINE; that is, the OFFICIAL Catholic position to which you are supposed to conform if you are a Catholic) is that human life begins at conception. However, Pelosi went on to say that many Catholics disagree with that "teaching".  My question:  Can you really call yourself a CATHOLIC and disagree with this fundamental a position of the church to which you supposedly belong--a question to which I cannot relate to well since I am not religious).  But see that quote from Pelosi in my previous entry.  She is NOT A CATHOLIC, under any possible interpretation of that term, and whether she says she is or not.  She is saying that SHE has to make her own decisions on what she believes.  Sorry.  You are an intellectually dishonest HYPOCRITE if you claim to believe in ANY religion and take that position.  As I said, my impression is that Pelosi is really an anti-religious, and anti-Catholic BIGOT (even though her theoretical position on religion seems remarkably close to mine, as an agnostic). 

 

Was Pelosi deliberately lying on Meet the Press, or simply stupid?  I think BOTH.  I think she knew that she was being DECEPTIVE, but I don't think she was smart enough to even come up with a reasonable deception.

 

How can even a leftist support a woman like this?  Well, unfortunately, as I have said before

Leftists lie.  They lie often.  They lie routinely, as a matter of course.  They lie without guilt, in a "higher" cause than truth.  They lie for political advantage.

 

Notice that Pelosi says that "many Catholics" (again, are they then really Catholics?) "disagree" with the Catholic Church "eaching" that human life begins at conception.  But remember how this started.  It started with OBAMA's statement that he DID NOT KNOW when human life began--a statement with which Pelosi agreed in response to being asked about it by Tom Brokaw.   If Peolsi DOES NOT KNOW when human life begins, how can she say she "DISAGREES" with the Catholic Church?  At most, she merely disagrees with their CERTAINTY.  You are right, however, if you think Pelosi has not thought about it this deeply.  As I said, HER religion is leftist feminism, and abortion on demand is one of the core "faiths" of that religion.  Reason has nothing to do with it. 

 

P.S.  Nope.  I was NOT "raised" Catholic.  I was raised Presbyterian.  However, the day I do not know more abut the Catholic religion, and the history of it, than Nancy Pelosi is the day I know I have become senile.  Remember that Pelosi told Brokaw that she has made a "deep study" of this subject (Catholic position on abortion--what she really meant, of course, is that she has read up on PRO-ABORTION PROPAGANDA).  The woman is a walking embarrassment.  She had better hope that we never get to the point that people have to QUALIFY to be considered "human beings".  For her, there is no chance.