Filed under: campaign, elections, John McCain, liberal media, media bias, MSM, politics, republicans, Sarah Palin | Tags: campaign, elections, John McCain, liberal media, media bias, MSM, republicans, Sarah Palin
I can’t quite recall a time when the MSM has gotten as agitated and panicked over a presidential running mate as they have over Sarah Palin. And why? Is she not a strong and accomplished woman? Has she not forged her own path to become the head of the largest state in the union? Does she not exemplify all of the qualities women have worked so tirelessly to cultivate over the years?
Well yes… but she’s also a conservative. She’s pro-life. She staunchly supports offshore drilling in her home state. She owns — and uses — guns. She likes to lower taxes and tackle government corruption. And so, says a leftist press, the woman must go.
Rest assured that the lib media is on the case. Their modus operendi is to relentlessly turn up the heat on Palin’s personal life until she finally bursts into tears and leaves the kitchen (a little sexist lingo there). And I have to say, after decades of observing the political scene, never have I seen the MSM spring into such swift and ruthless action in going after a V.P. candidate and their family. Throw a sickly cow into a piranha pond and you won’t see the frenzy you are witnessing here.
Of the handful of “disturbing” revelations which have surfaced, the one bit of news that opponents seem to see as Palin’s Achilles heel is the pregnancy of her teenage daughter, Bristol. After all, how can a good mom possibly manage her daughter’s crisis and be there for her while running for the second highest office in the land? And what kind of gall must the woman have to even accept McCain’s offer under such circumstances? Lib pundits breathlessly speculate that Palin’s family troubles may just cause her to sheepishly withdraw from the race by week’s end. Or as The Trentonian so tactfully put it in their caption to an AP photo:
Yesterday, the sexy mother said that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and that her mountain man hubby was busted for driving under the influence. Some think she won’t last the week as McCain’s No. 2.
Very objective journalism there Trentonian! But as John McLaughlin would say: WROOOOONG! Sarah ain’t going nowhere.
Good God, how many ways can a liberal media underestimate a situation? I can count three right off-hand — three factors that the Obama camp and their accomplices in the press aren’t taking into account:
- Palin’s resilience. Sarah is well-known in Alaska as someone who never backs down from adversity. In fact, she seems to thrive on it. If her bulldog rep is true, these attacks from the left will only energize her. Get ready for a zinger or two aimed at the press during Palin’s speech tonight.
- Hillary voter backlash. Many Hillary Clinton supporters are still fuming over what appeared to be a sexist media bias against the first female presidential candidate in history. Now that another woman has thrown her hat in the ring, questions about Palin’s readiness based merely upon the fact that she’s a mom will only fan the flames higher. Examples of this are already popping up in some of the comments sections of articles and blogs about Palin. Hillary’s peeps are NOT happy, folks.
- General voter backlash. Most of us have known a family at some time in our lives who has had to deal with a teen daughter getting pregnant. We know how freaked out a young girl can get in this situation and how essential maintaining privacy is to her and her family. The MSM’s shameless efforts to bore down on Palin’s daughter will not play well with the public… at all.
So there you have it… yet another case of the media inadvertently helping the very person they were trying to destroy. Will they ever learn? Let’s hope not.
Filed under: campaign, elections, John McCain, politics, republicans, Sarah Palin | Tags: 2008, campaign, elections, John McCain, Sarah Palin
Maybe the guy really is a maverick. Things have suddenly gotten very interesting in the presidential race as John McCain taps Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate:
McCain introduced Palin on Friday as his surprise pick on the eve of the Republican National Convention, calling her the one “who can best help me shake up Washington and make it start working again for the people who are counting on us.”
Palin is the full package — solid leader, devoted wife and mom, firebrand conservative, intelligent, attractive. And I don’t just mean attractive for a politician… I mean freakin’ beautiful. In this day and age that helps. Realclear politics provided an impresssive bio about her in a June article:
When she was leading her underdog Wasilla high school basketball team to the state championship in 1982, her teammates called her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her fierce competitiveness.
Two years later, when she won the “Miss Wasilla” beauty pageant, she was also voted “Miss Congeniality” by the other contestants.
Sarah Barracuda. Miss Congeniality. Fire and nice. A happily married mother of five who is still drop dead gorgeous. And smart to boot.
But it’s mostly because she’s been a crackerjack governor, a strong fiscal conservative and a ferocious fighter of corruption, especially in her own party.
Ms. Palin touches other conservative bases, some of which Sen. McCain has been accused of rounding. Track, her eldest son, enlisted in the Army last Sept. 11. She’s a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association who hunts, fishes and runs marathons. A regular churchgoer, she’s staunchly pro-life.
Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal said Sen. McCain should run against a corrupt, do-nothing Congress, a la Harry Truman. If he should choose to do so, Gov. Palin would make an excellent partner. “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who have crossed Sarah,” pollster Dave Dittman told the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes.
But here’s my favorite little factoid:
She was quoted as saying her favorite meal is “moose stew after a day of snowmobiling.”
YEAH baby! Politically incorrect to boot! Man, this is just too good to be true…
In addition to her conservative credentials, Palin obviously will draw some of the female vote McCain so sorely lacks and will likely help him win over more of the Hillary voters. And her presence on the ticket will provide some of the youth and vigor his campaign has been needing. VERY nice move. Give Johnny credit for some guts.
Not surprisingly the Obama camp is in quite a tizzy over the pick. They wasted no time going on the attack, citing of all things… Palin’s inexperience:
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.
What a laffer. Palin could spend 10 minutes flipping through an issue of Foreign Affairs and it would catch her up COMPLETELY with the Boy Wonder.
What really worries Dems is that a McCain victory would put a Republican woman that close to the presidency. This was supposed to be their turf.
This is starting to get fun now.
Full story below:
Filed under: barack obama, campaign, election, elections, Harriet Christian, hillary clinton, obama, politics, republican, republicans | Tags: campaign, Citizens for McCain, elections, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, politics, republican
Some may consider a partnership of John McCain and Joe Lieberman to be an unlikely alliance. But when you get right down to it, there’s not a lot of difference between the two ideologically – both are social moderates who support a strong national defense. So fond, in fact, is Lieberman of his old pal that yesterday he kicked off a grass-roots effort to build support for his presidential bid:
In the solicitation for “Citizens for McCain,” Lieberman, now an independent US senator from Connecticut, notes that he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000.
“But first and foremost, I am an American,” writes Lieberman, who has been one of McCain’s most active surrogates. “I have an obligation to do what I think is best for our nation regardless of political party. My love for this country and strong belief in John McCain’s character, judgment, and willingness to work with leaders of both parties has convinced me to support him for president.”
Does it seem odd that Joe would see the necessity for a grass-roots effort? McCain is hardly an unknown and unless Bob Barr turns out to be a factor, he already pretty much has the conservative vote in this country (for better or worse).
But Lieberman has his reasons — 18 million of them to be exact. IF Hillary doesn’t end up on Obama’s ticket, it will take little effort to persuade her angry supporters to pull the lever for McCain (think Harriet Christian… but don’t think too hard or that raspy yankee bark will stay in your head the rest of the day).
In any event, Lieberman has a firm grasp on foreign policy and national defense so he makes a good ally in that regard. And don’t think that Joe might not ALSO be courting a Veep spot here…
Filed under: democrats, global warming, GOP, John Stossel, legislation, politics, republicans | Tags: Al Gore, democrats, environment, global warming, GOP, John Stossel, legislation, Repbulicans
Hold on to your offsets… our guardians of green in Congress are bringing new new global warming legislation to the table. But there is resistance:
Senators voted 74-14 to proceed to the bill, but immediately it became clear Republican opponents were not going to make it easy. A request by Democrats to begin considering substantive changes in the bill was blocked by GOP opponents until Wednesday at the earliest.
Mean old GOP!
The Senate measure, which has wide Democratic and some Republican support, would cap U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, cutting them by 18 percent by 2020 and by two-thirds by mid-century. It would specifically target refineries, power plants, factories and transportation for 70 percent reductions and make emissions allowances available to be traded in an open market.
70 percent? Sure, no prob Congress. Just a little rebuilding of major industries from the ground up oughta do it.
I may be dating myself here but… remember a tacky little show from the late 70’s called “Carter Country”? I’m reminded of the fat mayor on that show who often would dump an impossible task on an already overworked police chief saying “Handle it, Roy!” in a lilting voice before scampering off. This is Congress. They are really good at looking like they are doing something while dumping the responsibility on others… the mess that occurs later can always be blamed on those same others.
Let’s clear one thing up. The reason a lot of us conservatives have reservations about global warming legislation is NOT – as some of you may assume – because we are uncaring about our world. We care about it deeply – deeply enough, in fact, that we refuse to stand by and allow a bunch of emotionally charged dunderheads go off half cocked and ruin the quality of life we have in this amazing country and on this beautiful blue-green marble called earth. You see, Congress tends to do that a lot, make impassioned speeches and craft bills that take away more of our freedom while forcing businesses to spend exorbitant amounts of money on “fixes”. All this based upon data that is… get ready… inconclusive.
WHAT!!? What about Al Gore and his impressive Powerpoint chart on carbon dioxide levels? Great! Lets do look at that one a little closer. And in the process let’s look at what happens to respected scientists who have the nerve to question this and other data that is held out there as “proof”. I’ll let our good ol’ Libertarian friend, John Stossel walk you through it:
Get a better picture now? All we know at present is that the climate has been getting warmer. But there have been many such trends throughout history. The difference here is that libs have managed make man the villain this time around rather than… say… volcanoes or dinosaur farts. And by making arbitrary predictions suggesting that New York will become part of the Atlantic Ocean in the next 20 years, they can create panic and the sense of urgency to act: “We don’t have TIME to think! We must do something NOW… for the CHILDREN!”
Don’t get caught up in it, folks – and don’t just join the crowd to be hip. Think for yourselves, look at the data yourselves (ALL of it) and form your own opinions… it really is a liberating thing. And if you come to the conclusion that I have, pick up the phone, call the bonehead who is supposed to be representing you in Congress and make it clear that you’ll take away their job if they take away any more of your freedom.
Filed under: campaign, election, elections, Iraq, John McCain, McCain, republican, republicans, terrorism, war | Tags: 2013, Bin Laden, campaign, election, Iraq, John McCain, McCain, republican, republicans, terrorism, war
John McCain has outlined his vision of what the world will look like after he becomes President. All I can say is he’d better have plenty of Red Bull on hand if he expects to accomplish all of this in four years.
From the Boston Globe:
In the world of President John McCain, most US troops will be back home from a safer, democratic Iraq by January 2013 – the first date he has mentioned for ending the war.
Afghanistan will be more stable, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda under control and Osama bin Laden dead or captured. Iran and North Korea will no longer have nuclear programs, and the genocide will have ended in Darfur.
At home, the economy will be humming, the tax code simpler, schools better, and healthcare more affordable. The borders will be secure, illegal immigrants deported, and a guest worker program in place. The country will have weaned itself off foreign oil.
And all races and cultures will live in harmony and all vehicles will run on water.
Sorry to be skeptical — yeah McCain would be better than the… shudder… alternative — but geez, where is all this coming from? What is the plan? As we saw on the other side with John Kerry in 2004, any candidate can get up there and say anything.
As for the January 2013 promise, many are now criticizing him for specifying what would appear to be a proposed pull-out date for Iraq. McCain insists that this is not the case at all, but rather a promise to end the war — victoriously — by 2013. As in mission accomplished, get out the ticker tape.
The McCain camp later attempted to clarify that point:
“Senator McCain has always said his decisions about force levels in Iraq would be guided by two fundamental factors: conditions on the ground and the advice of military commanders,” his campaign said in a statement. “As commander in chief, Senator McCain would ensure we would prevail with honor against our enemies. He believes this can be accomplished in Iraq by 2013 – but only if we reject the course of arbitrary withdrawal following a politically motivated timeline.”
Again, that would be grand. But what is the strategy? My support for our troops and our mission overseas has never waned, but even with the best and most detailed plans in place, war is ultimately an unpredictable beast. We could accomplish our goals by next week for all I know, but for McCain to claim that he will have this — along with a dead Bin Laden, a neutered North Korea and a genocide-free Darfir — neatly wrapped up by the end of his term seems a little ambitious.
But later in the article comes a promise that, given McCain’s past record, I can believe:
Instead of officials cashing in after leaving government, McCain said he wants scores of private-sector leaders to work for his administration for $1 a year. And instead of partisan fighting, he promised to seek advice from Democrats and appoint them to high office.
Very easy to envision this. I watched this man become almost giddy a few years ago as he schmoozed with the Dems on such issues as campaign finance reform and immigration — all while appearing to take some kind of naughty delight in getting under the skin of the Prez and fellow Republicans. For a time, there were even whispers about him changing parties (he denied it, but he sure seemed to enjoy all the attention). Democrats, of course, exploited him to the hilt as did the media who christened him with his now famous “maverick” label. Do you really expect McCain’s love affair with the left to end when he becomes President? Ha! I’ve got some prime land in the Okefenokee for ya’ if you’re buyin’ into that…
But hey, I’ll give the man a chance to prove me wrong — watching hopefully but with a skeptical eye. Though I expect him to be firm in his foreign policy, I don’t expect much out of of him domestically that will cause him to be hailed as the next Reagan. The Republican party in general, with it’s increasing slide to the center, has lost much of my respect. Though I will still side with them more often than the Dems, for the most part they are complete weenies. Sorry… but thems the facts.
In my utopian world, I would wake up after election day to find that Ron Paul has pulled the upset of the Millennium. Or Bob Barr. Or even Alan Keyes (yes he is actually running). None of them perfect, but all with a much better grasp on the Constitution and the values that our Founders envisioned — that of smaller government and greater individual liberty. Or if it’s too late for that, I’ll even take Ayn Rand’s version of utopia in Atlas Shrugged — the one where the producers of society go into hiding and form their own perfect capitalist system, leaving the whiners of the dependency class to fend for themselves.
Alright, not very realistic — but it’s a wonderful thought. And why not? Who’s to say it can’t work? Who’s John Galt?
Filed under: conservative, conservatives, democrats, happiness, inequality, liberal, liberals, republicans, survey
This is something I’ve always suspected. Very interesting story from FOXNews about liberals, conservatives and happiness:
Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.
Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found.
Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person’s tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
Couldn’t have said it better.
If your beliefs don’t justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted both a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.
“Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives,” the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, “apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light.”
Bingo. But these are just the results of one study, right? Not quite…
The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as “very happy,” while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.
Not a bit surprising from what I have observed over the years. I’ve met only a couple of liberals in my lifetime who I would say are pleasant, calm, rational people. The rest , by and large, I have found to be bitter, cynical, sarcastic, unhappy folks who absolutely live to be offended. They actively seek inequality and injustice so that they can further confirm to themselves that the deck is stacked against them. Now that I think of it, they’re not a lot unlike those cavemen we see in those GEICO commercials. Constantly offended. If you’re reading this and are one of the “happy” few who are both happy AND liberal, then congrats. You are a rarity.
That is why Obama’s campaign has done so well with his promise of “change”. Change to what? Liberals don’t know or care. They just know that they are unhappy, are sure that Bush has something to do with it, and will not rest until their valiant knight comes galloping in to make things right. Not able to find happiness in front of their eyes, they embrace any candidate who peddles the all-magical “change” — even if they have no idea what that change will be.
So what about us conservatives? Aren’t we always angry? Nope. Don’t we always rant and rave in blogs or talk radio? Sometimes. But we’re not chronically angry people. We leave it on the desk when we go home. We have the ability to enjoy life outside of politics and enjoy the company of others in social situations regardless of their beliefs. Basically, anger is not a way of life for us and — here’s a deep dark secret — even when we are ranting and raving we are actually having a lot more fun than you may realize.
But don’t us conservatives get mad or unhappy at things going on around us? Sure we do. It’s just that we have a better ability to put things in perspective and get on with our lives. We don’t believe that our happiness or quality of life depends upon government. We don’t rest our hopes and dreams upon who takes office in 2008. We don’t take every bit of unsavory news as evidence that the world is going down in flames. We don’t lug our anger around like an albatross and — most importantly — we don’t look outside of ourselves for our own happiness.
And therein lies the heart of the matter — only YOU have the ability to make yourself happy. No person, place or thing can do it. No politician, political party, musician, activist, artist sage or guru can ever bring it to you. Infinitely wiser folks than I have recognized that happiness comes from within.
So why then do “happy” conservatives like myself become active in politics? Because liberals are becoming too powerful in society. We recognize the happiness that we inherently enjoy may someday be snuffed out as our freedoms become increasingly scarce due to social conditioning, consumer activism, political correctness and this unending quest to “level the playing field” (translation: if that guy next to you is miserable then YOU have to be miserable too). We recognize it and we do our part in speaking out against it so that our children will enjoy the same freedoms we had.
And in speaking out we offer an alternative: find your own happiness. The Founding Fathers called it a “pursuit” and it is this RIGHT to that pursuit of happiness that truly makes us all equal.
That’s the truth as I know it and I am HAPPY to report it to you.
“What are you smiling at?”
Filed under: conservative, conservatives, news, political, politics, republican, republicans
Yawwwwwwwn. That was one heck of a hibernation.
It’s been a while since I’ve posted. Those who still remember me might recall that my blog previously resided at another service. I moved to wordpress because of technical problems that I was unable to resolve at the other service and also because I like some of the features offered here. I will not attempt here to summarize or recap the last three years. This is a just post to say I’m back — for whatever a rabbit in a baroque wig being back is worth.
As for why I have been absent for so long, I guess the phrase others might use would be life took over. Problem is I hate that weenie phrase. Its a cop-out used by people who give up on their dreams too early. Life never really takes over. We just don’t know how to organize our time. You can make time for anything if you have a passion for it. So here I am and that’s that.
I’ll be working on the site more in the future and you may see some tweaks in the header or layout from time to time. Thanks for stopping by and by all means bookmark me, create a feed, etc… I welcome you all to this corner of the brier patch. Be looking for more posts soon. It’s good to be Bach.