So, yet another city falls, and the city has some very nice ancient architecture, which we will no doubt soon see sledgehammered. Some Palmyrans apparently thought the international “community” might protect them since they’re a great cultural site. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad. ISIS has fought well and fought smart, and came into [...]
Oy, such changety-hopety-change! You shouldn’t know from it!
So, Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel is going to be Barack Obama’s Chief Of Staff, eh? I’m sure he is a Washington outsider who has no connection to the same old politics of the past (like Joe Biden, that fresh-faced newcomer!). I’m also certain that he reflects all of Obama’s “liberal” views on the war, and since the “centrist” DLC is the most eeeeevilll organization EVAH according to our fauxgressive brethren, I’m positive that he would never touch such an organization with a ten-foot pole!
Looks like Emanuel has been working in Democratic politics since 1984. He was with Bill Clinton from 1991 (when he was the campaign’s finance director) to 1998. He is a member of the DLC, and here is his record on the war:
Oh, and remember when Jesse Jackson promised that the Zionists’s hold on American politics would be loosened? If you thought he meant AIPAC and was not being a wacked-out anti-Semite, get used to disappointment. Emanuel has already introduced Obama to AIPAC and is extremely pro-Israel. Ain’t nothin’ gonna change there either.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.
Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.
When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year — Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.
Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.
According to FOX News Jindal, Crist and Pawlenty are the frontrunners for 2012. What do they each have that Sarah doesn’t? Two things: “low single-digit support” and a penis.
Now why does a lefty-librul petulant clown care about a conservative Republican from caribou country? Because in 2012 it is virtually certain that the election for President will come down to a Democrat vs. a Republican. I would like the choice to be between the best candidate from each party.
I would love to get to pick between Hillary and Sarah in four years. I would hate having Barry and Mitt as my options. If you were picking the next GOP nominee, which potential first family would you choose?
Nov. 3 (Bloomberg)— A 13-year-old rape victim in Somalia was stoned to death last week after being accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law, Amnesty International said, citing her father and other unidentified people.
Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was killed by a group of 50 men in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayo on Oct. 27 in front of 1,000 spectators, the London-based human rights group said in an e-mailed statement on Oct. 31. Yusuf Abdi Mohamed, who witnessed the execution, told Bloomberg News on Oct. 28 that Duhulow was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery.
“She had in fact been raped by three men and had attempted to report this rape to the al-Shabaab militia, which controls Kismayo,” Amnesty said. “It was this act that resulted in her being accused of adultery and detained. None of the men she accused of rape was arrested.”
It was clear in November of 2006 that 2008 was the year that the Democrats could nominate an empty suit and beat any Republican. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what happened.
So what is the zombie meme that our in-the-tank media is trying to foist upon us? What false narrative will we hear again and again as long as Sarah Palin is in politics? This lie:
“It’s all Sarah Palin’s fault that John McCain lost!”
Forget about eight years of GOP mismanagement, crony capitalism and lawbreaking. Forget about the war in Iraq, the economy, and global warming. Forget all about the media’s enthusiastic support for Obama and the huge funding mismatch. This is why John McCain really lost:
Fox News reports that Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent and did not know the member nations of the North American Free Trade Agreement — the United States, Mexico and Canada — when she was picked for vice president.
The New York Times reports that McCain aides were outraged when Palin staffers scheduled her to speak with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, a conversation that turned out to be a radio station prank.
Newsweek reports that Palin spent far more than the previously reported $150,000 on clothes for herself and her family.
Several publications say she irked the McCain campaign by asking to make her own concession speech on election night.
Now we hear that the wanton Sarah Palin shocked and offended the puritanical sensibilities of McCain aides by appearing before them wearing nothing but a towel!:
At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys’ club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. “I’ll be just a minute,” she said.
OMG! Gasp. Horrors. We guess this means Sarah Palin really is a slut. But we knew that already because the brazen hussy wears red. Conservatives really do need to come out of the freaking 16th century. Or the sexists on the right could get together with the sexists on the left and harass and smear every single woman who dares to compete for a man’s job. Oh, wait.
Some conservatives appear to be very fearful that Sarah Palin will indeed emerge as a presidential candidate in 2012, and so they are doing their best to destroy the woman before they have to compete with the bitch for a man’s job.
Why else would professional political staffers spread these stories? This comment is unintentionally revealing:
There is one comment in particular from a McCain aide that guaranteed to heighten friction between the two camps. The angry aide described the Palin family shopping spree to Newsweek as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”
Who else got called hillbillies? Bill and Hillary! Why? Because they weren’t Washington DC insiders so they were treated with contempt by the Village idiots.
Now of course the media tries to be fair and balanced. Buried on page three of the story ABC printed Sarah’s response:
Questions followed Palin home to Alaska. She was asked about some of the accusations from anonymous sources when she landed there late Wednesday.
Asked about the Fox report that she did not know the NAFTA members or that Africa was a continent, Palin said, “If they’re an unnamed source, that says it all. I won’t comment on anyone’s gossip based on anonymous sources. That’s kind of a small of a bitter type of person who anonymously would charge that I didn’t know an answer to a question. So, until I know who’s talking about it, I won’t have a comment on a false allegation.”
Damn I wish Sarah was a liberal! I’d vote for her even though she has boobies and scary lady parts.
BTW – If you want to know who the “anonymous sources” are then see below:
Charlie Rose had a fascinating post-election wrap up with John Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek that suggests why Americans make the decisions they make based on the jounralism they get. Meacham and Thomas had the evidence in front of their faces and even admit that Obama’s cult of personality is “slightly creepy” but they are stuck in a frame of their profession and their social circle so they can’t make sense of the pieces of the puzzle they hold.
See if you agree. The really interesting stuff starts at about the 6:00 minute mark:
There are a couple of moments that make me want to slap both of them. First, they have reporters covering the campaign since the convention with all kinds of interesting information that would have been swell to know *before* the election, but they are saving it for the post-election issue. This has been a tradition since the 80’s. Well, that certainly explains Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. I’m not sure how we dodged the bullet with Bill Clinton. They also have a tape of Obama’s debate prep where he tries to figure out why he is completely failing as a debater while he flatters himself as being a great writer. This is a moment of introspection that we should have all had the privilege of seeing.
Secondly, they have some really warped perceptions about the election. They think that Obama went out of his way to make sure the election was not about race. Actually, the election had *everything* to do with race. Obama bludgeoned people with it. No one was to forget for one moment that Obama was black and he went out of his way to remind people of it on a daily basis.
He’s compared to Reagan. To many of us out here who were right about how destructive Reagan really was, that is not a compliment. They speculate that Reagan was a teflon president because his supporters made him that way and the same would hold true of Obama. The truth is that CLINTON was the teflon president. The difference is the way the press treated these presidencies. Reagan did really bad stuff and there were a lot of us who despised the reactionary idiot but the press gave him a pass so the voters let it slide. Clinton had some minor pecadillos that were blown completely out of proportion but the electorate liked him anyway. Bush also got away with murder. Probably literally. How many times have you heard some older relative say something like, “Well, Bush *can’t* be that bad, otherwise the press would be covering it.” The coverage of the press matters a great deal and they are already signalling here that they are about to give Obama a reach around.
The other thing that is baffling is their analysis of what voters were rejecting. Their conversation is typical of the Villager mindset. They are convinced that voters were rejecting “the 60’s”. I’m always really puzzled by that statement. There is a huge swath of voters today who were little children during the 60’s (moi), who only remember the 60’s vaguely. We remember things like assassinations and the walk on the moon and in the corner of our minds, we understand a little bit about the social stuff. But for us, the 60’s ushered in what was more or less the status quo. There wasn’t a huge shredding of culture. The culture was pre-shredded and settled into its present form by the time we came of age. I’m not sure what it is we are supposed to be rejecting. Are we rejecting the fact that women made enormous progress during the 60’s and 70’s? Are we supposed to be upset that African-Americans shattered their own glass ceilings with the civil rights era? I’ve always thought statements about rejecting the 60’s are “out of joint” statements made by baby boomers who know they pushed the envelope back then and then blamed themselves for the Reagan backlash. Fine, blame yourselves, guys, but what does that have to do with us?
Then there is this bizarre notion that we are a center right country. You know, I don’t really think that’s true. I think a lot of people voted for the Democrat because he wasn’t a Republican. They didn’t really like Republicans this year. Of the sane, non-Obamaphiles I talked to, they just planned to vote for the Democrat. It was a complete and utter rejection of everything that has to do with movement conservatism. In fact, they were pretty convinced that nothing could be worse than a Republican in office. I’m not sure that’s true but we shall see. Voters wanted something other than the nasty, brutish and short lifestyle that the Bushies ushered in. They want a stronger economy, better jobs, better healthcare. It remains to be seen whether they want equality for all people. I think they do but leaders have to lead and Obama shows no inclination for doing that.
They did get the “risk averse” nature of Obama right. He is going to be a very cautious, non-transformative president. They acknowledge that he owes the people who gave him the $600,000,000 to run his campaign. Meacham and Thomas are onto something here if they just bothered to step outside their box and followed up on some of what their intuition is telling them. All of the pieces are there to see Obama for what he is: a clever, manipulative person who constructed and sold his own story. He’s a man who was in control of his campaign from the beginning, so he is also responsible for its corruption. He is a cipher and doesn’t even know what he is. He is a screen onto which we project our own desires, a tofu president. And he uses his ability to appeal to many people at once to get what he wants. The question is, what does he want now that he has it all?
Meacham and Thomas do not have an answer to that question because they never bothered to ask it. And besides, Sarah Palin asked for more clothes!
So, these links are a little stale, and instead of just dropping hints I'll come out with it: There's been a bit of cancer surgery going on. Found a small bump a while back - self-exam had missed it, but it was right on the surface and found it by accident. (Even knowing it was there, I still couldn't find it with a self-exam.) The docs were e […]