Andrea Mitchell Is a Whore--and a Racist

Yes, I hae the first part of this headline continuously available on my computer--just like the mainstream media always has this headline (for 2 1/2 years) one click away (without ever acknowledging how often it has been used and abused): "Obama Focusing on Jobs". Often, of course, the Obama hedline appears after an Obama speech (always mere WORDS) just before Obama LEAVES THE COUNTRY on some trip or other. My Andrea Mitchelll headline would probably appear every day, except that I can bear to even surf MSNBC only on a limmited basis. Therefore, my Andrea Mitchell headline basically only appears EVERRY time I happen to surf by her program (with a few exceptions when I happen to surf by when she is talking aoubt essentially nothing). Obviously, the first part of my headline refers to a "journalistic" whore, rather than to a literal whore. I would hate to have you believe that I am intending to insult honest whores. I am using "whore" in the figurative sesnse that Jerry Brown and his wife discussed about Meg Whitman.


Yep, I happened to surf by Andrea Mitchell yesterday for a few seconds. She was at the end of discussing the Republican Presidential field/debate with some Republican. The person was saying that all seven Republicans would be a better President than Barack Obama. An obviusly incredulous Mitchell (MSNBC, after all, being the offical spokes-network for the Obama Administration), and asked (with obvious disbelief): "Do yout include Ron Paul, Herman Cain and (author draws a blank on the third name, or maybe there were only two) in that statement." The guest assured Andrea, in her journalistic whore role, that he did mean all 7.


But why does that make Andrea Mitchell a RACIST? Sure, we know she is a whore. However, there is nothing obviously racis about her question. Well, here I admit that I am using MSNBC standards rather than my own. By my standards, that was not a racist question. By MSNBC sstandards, however, it was. "Barack Obama is the food stamp President." Yes, Newt Gingrich said that. Therre is nothing obviously racist about it. The statement merely tries to make the point that a record 47 million Americans (or whatever the number is--40% of El Paso, by the way) are on food stamps in this Obama Presidency because of the failure of Obama politcies. But the RACISTS at MSNBC and NBC (David Gregory) insisted on assserting that Gingrich's statement has a "racial tinge"--I guess on the RACIST assumption that food stamps are asssociated with African-Americans (something that had never occurred to me before).


Yes, Herman Cain is BLACK. Andrea Mitchell picked out the BLACK MAN (with a covering "white" or two) for her condescending comment. Q.E.D. By MSNBC standards, Andrea Mitchell is a racist.


Woul I vote for all seven Republican announced candidates against Obama? Almost. And I would not--unlike racist Andrea Mitchell--pick out the BLACK MAN. I am obviusly with a lot of company among Republicans. After his GREAT performance in the first Repubican debate (on Fox), Herman Cain jumped all of the way to SSECOND (in polls among Repubicans) among the ANNOUNCED candidates. And I would have no hesitancy in voting for him against Obama. I toyed with the idea of supporting him against EVERYBODY. He is impressive. But his obvious lack of experience in political office and plitics, and a sort of "wearing off" of the freshness", caused me to drop Cain SLIGHTLY down the list. But I would vote for him against Obama, and still would put him well above the bottom of the field. The one I would NOT vote for, even against Obama, is Newt Gingrich. Yes, with my usual foresight, I have said this for YEARS (all of the way back to 2008)--well before Gingrich imploded in this campaign. Thre is no way I could vote for Gingrich, even against Obama.


What about Ron Paul? Yes, I would vote for Ron Paul against Obama, reluctantlly, even though I am confident I will not be put to that choice (as I am confident I will not have to choose between Gingrich and Obama). Iactually LIKE Ron Paul. He is the only person, of any signfificance, who I have ever heard who would dismantle MORE of the Federal Government than I would,. But Paul is a fervent ISOLATIONIST. It is true that is a long-standing strain of Republicanism and consrevatism, but I think it was DISCREDITED at Pearl Harbor (well before 9/11). Stil, I think enough of Paul, in terms of being the ONE candidate whose principles on LIMITED GOVERNMENT are beyon questiion, that I would vote for him against Barack Obama.


Even as to UNANNOUNCED Repubican candidates, I know of only one I would DEFINITELY not vote for: John Huntsman. I have qualms about my governor, Rick Perry (not a principled conservative, whatever the mainstream media may tell you), but would almost surely vote for him against Obama. I would probably even vote for Rudy Giuliani against Obama (with reluctance, again). In other words, I am much more flexicble in putting the interest of my country ahead of my disagreement on individaul issues than.....say.....Dhishonest Jack Cafferty (see previous article).


Yes, I would continue to be enthusiastic about Sarah Palin, but would continue to advise her not to run (this time). Michelle Bockman is an adequate substitute, although the mainstream media long knives are laready out for her, with clips of every (irrelevant) verbal gaffe she has ever made. I have yet to see the repeated clips of BARACK OBAMA mangling (probably deliberately) the words of the Declaration of Independence, or repeated clips of Obama referring to all 57 states, or.....oh, why go on You know the drill. The mainstream media pick out EVERY coonservative gaffe, while they smile indulgently about Joe Biden referring to FDR going on television to explain the stock market crash (TV not yet invented, and FDR not President when the stock market crashed). Biden actually said that in the 20008 campaign, and the mainstream media virtually ignored it. "Lexington and Concord" indeed!!!


P.S. As usual, no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).