...Liberals respond to a tragedy by suggesting, nay, demanding, a new law that not only would not have prevented the tragedy, but may well lead to more.
Let me tell you something, people. I hate politicizing a tragedy. I HATE it. It strikes me as sub-human. When I look at the pictures of those students and teachers who were gunned down by a maniac in Connecticut, my reaction was tears. Liberals, apparently, loved it, and immediately thought about how to use this to further their ends.
It happens all the time. It happened after the Jared Loughner shooting. It happened after the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting. It happened after the Utah shooting. It happened after the shooting of people waiting in line on the day The Dark Knight Rises opened. It happened after the Jovan Belcher murder suicide. And this time, after I wiped the tears from my face, I wondered how long it would be before some idiot liberals started demanding stricter gun laws.
Now, here's the odd thing; argued emotionally, it makes sense to want to take guns off the street because of a tragedy. Hell, it makes sense to want to see all guns in the world destroyed. I confess; I don't like guns. I've never owned one, and I've certainly never shot one other than once as a teen shooting my grandpa's hunting rifle under tightly controlled circumstances, including the fact that I never pointed said gun at anything that moved. Even in those circumstances, I was a little afraid. I had pure respect and terror for the raw power of the object in my hands to end a life.
I can understand how someone who feels that way might want to take all guns off the street. But their thinking never goes beyond that. Those who mean well literally stop with "remove guns", believing that this will prevent gun violence. Being against gun violence is something anyone with a conscience simply must be, and it's easy to fall into the fallacy of believing that being against gun violence must also mean that you're against gun ownership.
The problem is that meaning well isn't the same as producing good results. The simple, practical, bare fact is that removing guns from the street will not reduce gun violence, and in fact will make things worse.
It's become an oft-repeated phrase that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Because the phrase is repeated so often, it's easy for liberals to dismiss it as an out-dated "old wives' tale" or something like that. But it's true. Gun violence is ALWAYS caused by people who have no regard for the law (any many had mental issues as well). And until the day comes when there's an outbreak of gun violence at a police convention, NRA meeting or gun show, you simply cannot say that gun violence is caused by people who love guns. In fact, some of the most gun-responsible people, some of those who know gun safety inside and out, are the very people I just named.
In the imagination of liberals, the more people who are allowed to own guns, the more there will be accidental shootings, or people who have always been gun-happy will simply get more so, and turn into full-fledged maniacs. They imagine a world where EVERYBODY has a gun, and therefore EVERYBODY IS SHOOTING EVERYBODY ELSE!! And these are just the ones that mean well!
The problem? Reality shows different. The areas of the United States where gun control is loosest, where nearly any citizen can be armed anywhere they choose to be, are without fail the areas where gun violence is lowest. Imagine that; a large number of gun owners does not equal a large number of trigger-happy freaks shooting each other.
For that matter, I'm not an old man but within my lifetime, gun ownership has fallen per capita, gun laws have gotten more and more strict, and yet gun violence has risen. How could that be possible, if the liberal take on this had even a grain of truth?
The fact is, gun violence has risen because criminals who would use guns for crime or violence feel more free to do so knowing that there is a very tiny chance the person they're attacking will be able to defend themselves. Hanging up a sign that says "This is a Gun Free Zone" is tantamount to telling criminals "Come here and shoot us all you like!" A person who would use a gun to hurt someone else is NOT a person who's going to care that there's a sign up.
Of course, this doesn't stop liberals from having their fantasies. I recall an episode of Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman (has there ever been a more liberal show) wherein Dr. Quinn's adopted son is elected sheriff of their town, and in the same episode an outlaw ends up shooting the town's bartender. Because of this ONE SHOOTING (I should remind everyone that this show takes place in the old west), the town votes to outlaw guns. Yup. In this case, they don't even let the sheriff himself have one. Realistic writing, there.
But it gets worse. This outlaw comes back, and is met by the sheriff in the town square. The sheriff says guns aren't allowed in their town, and that he has to turn his over, or leave. The criminal threatens to shoot him dead, and the sheriff tells him he can try, if he likes, but then he'll have to go through the entire town to do so. Seeing the angry looks of the townsfolk, who are each and every one of them inside houses, looking out of windows, the criminal mutters something like "You win this round" and then turns around and leaves!
WTF?! In real life, this criminal would mow down the sheriff and then pick off anyone who left those houses, one by one. It would be fish in a barrel. But to the liberals who run that show, that's how they envision a world where no one is allowed to have a gun; that their "moral high ground" will win. No, unfortunately it won't.
The fact is that if a criminal has a gun, and knows you don't, he won't hesitate to use it on you should he feel he needs to. Conversely, the more he believes you might have a gun, the less likely he is to risk attacking you, knowing you could shoot him just as easily.
Now, I know people are going to bring up the Trayvon Martin case, specifically that Trayvon Martin was unarmed. They see this as another case of a trigger-happy gun-owner murdering a defenseless boy. The problem is that according to EVERYONE who witnessed the event, Martin WAS the attacker, and likely attacked because he was a cocky young thug who was sure that Zimmerman either didn't have a gun or didn't have the guts to use it if he did. And he likely thought that due to the anti-gun messages he likely heard everywhere. Martin, again, according to witnesses, rushed Zimmerman, threw him to the ground, straddled him, and started banging his head against the pavement, and punching him in the face, all while yelling "You're going to die today". Zimmerman managed to reach his gun and fired in self-defense. If he had not been armed, Zimmerman would be dead, and Trayvon Martin would be a murderer (likely never caught or convicted).
But what do liberals advocate in the wake of such a thing? Make it harder for responsible, law-abiding citizens to get guns. NOT make it easier to defend themselves against people who would break the law; make it harder to do so. Why? Why do they never understand that this is where it simply must lead?
They can't even answer the question on the most basic level; how do you expect to enforce gun laws on people who don't follow the law? What makes you expect that laws against guns would actually take guns off the street? Do they also feel that laws prohibiting cocaine and heroin have successfully made those drugs impossible to get hold of?
But they don't ask those questions. All they want to talk about is how best to get rid of guns. All they can do is spit questions back at us: "Why do you NEED a gun?" "What types of firearms do you think SHOULD be banned? Automatic? Semi-automatic?" They don't want to dialogue about it; they just can't get off the train of thought that guns simply MUST be banned, and that will reduce gun violence.
Now, I've said a lot about people like this who mean well. Many of them probably do just want to end gun violence. They've latched onto a completely wrong-headed method of doing so, but at least their hearts are in the right place. But there's another level to this. When politicians start talking about banning guns, everyone should be very, very worried.
There are politicians out there who are seriously proposing anti-gun legislation. They don't want stricter gun laws; they want to outlaw guns. Oh, not for the police or military, obviously. Just private citizens. Which means, not only will criminals still have guns, but the government will now be the only ones who have fire-power to back up their stance.
Do you know what you call it when the only people who can carry guns are those directly authorized by the government to do so?
A dictatorship.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
Destroy and Replace the Media. Now.
The so-called "mainstream" media is a huge problem in America. In fact, it's THE problem. Barack Obama is not the problem. He's just a symptom. If we could somehow prove that Obama is guilty of an impeachable offense (he's guilty of several) or that the election was won by voter fraud (I'm near certain it was), it wouldn't matter. Obama would face no consequences because A) his party is behind him 110% and B) the media will cover for him and blame Republicans like nobody's business.
The narrative in the United States is driven not by politicians, not by activists, not by protestors. It is driven by the media; print media, online media, televised media, big-screen media, music media, you name it. And I mean both "serious" news/journalism and entertainment. Every day, in some way or another, we are bombarded my liberal messages. Even if we're just watching TV, every TV show has a political angle, even those that would seem innocuous.
They're a huge part of the problem and we need to replace them. But in this post I'm gonna focus on tactics used primarily by today's "news" media. They claim to be objective (Except MSNBC, but most people don't really take them seriously). They claim they're just reporting the stories that "matter", that are "news-worthy". Of course, it is they, not the public, that decides what's "news-worthy." If Bush had been president when Benghazi happened, it would be the word on everyone's lips. However, hardly anyone knows about it, or even what we know happened, because the media won't talk about it. The same stories that the media wouldn't shut up about during Bush's term can't be touched by the same media during Obama's term. "Bush's war" killed some innocents in the crossfire? Horrific war crimes! Obama's drone strikes are killing innocents? Oh, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs; there's no story there. Bush "ignored" a briefing that could have prevented 9/11 (even though it could not have)? Bush is the real terrorist! Obama ignored repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi, numerous reports of terrorist activity there, and then acted as if the terrorist strike was a "spontaneous uprising" spurred by a little-seen, silly little youtube video? No story there, either, apparently.
But by now, when it comes to how Republicans are covered by the media, we all know their major tricks. They call us racists. They disparage our motives. They question our party history, apparently confusing historic Democrats for historic Republicans. Then they talk about how older Republicans of yesteryear were the true moderates, and that they wouldn't have been allowed in the party today.
But they have also begun (or could have been doing for years) lobbing a bunch of accusations or tactics against Republicans, especially those campaigning for some office or other, that just plain shouldn't work, but apparently do. These include accusations that aren't scandalous at all (or wouldn't be if it was a Democrat), or accusations of wrong-doing committed by a person not even connected to this politician. Here are just a few:
"You're rich." Code term meaning "You can't relate to the common man." The irony that most of Hollywood and the national music scene is pro-Democrat is apparently lost on any who would dare utter this ridiculous phrase. And just to show how out of touch the Democrats really are, I have heard actors, directors, singers, etc. utter those words about Republicans. Because Will Smith, Bruce Springsteen and Barbra Streisand sure can relate to the common man. Yes, sir. Of course, even just on its face that phrase is asinine. Name a governor, senator or congressman whose income is "middle class" or average. Not only aren't there any, but seven of the top ten richest members of congress are...Democrats.
"You're white." Politics has been a Whites Only club for most of America's history--on BOTH sides. It's been within my lifetime that the face of politics is changing to include more than just one or two minorities here and there, and that's a great, wonderful thing. Or, it would be, if minority politicians didn't feel the need to play racial politics with literally every issue. Issues that have nothing at all to do with race now bring accusations of racial hatred...as long as it's a REPUBLICAN politician who's talking about them. Suddenly, talking about "Chicago", "apartments", "food stamps", "work ethic", "the constitution", et al, are racial "dog whistles". And now we've reached the point where simply being white is enough to get somebody demonizing you. Again, only if it's a Republican. Allen West lost to whiter-than-white-bread Patrick Murphy. Think even once Murphy was asked about his racial motivations for running against a black man, or that his skin color was even brought up? Nope. Now, how often were Romney and Ryan accused of racism for being white men who dared run against Obama? If you answered "every time their name was brought up in the MSM", well, duh.
"You're old." Again, like there aren't any old Democrats? For some reason, 70-year-old white man Joe Biden can, with a straight face, call the Republicans the party of old, white men. This man plans to run for president in 2016. He's said so. He'll be nearly 74 years old. That's older than John McCain was during his 2008 presidential campaign. You know, the one where the press couldn't stop bringing up his advanced age? I guarantee that even if Biden runs against a man young enough to be his son, no one in the press will bring up his age. Hell, Robert Byrd was in his 90's, and no one suggested he should give up his senate seat. Some even suggested he should run for president himself. Age only seems to matter if you're a Republican.
"You're a man." Yet again, an issue that only seems to come up when the politician or public figure in question is a Republican or conservative. It's all just a way to keep saying, even though no one really believes this, that the Republican Party is the party of "old white men." There are just as many women in the Republican Party as there are in the Democratic Party, but you'd never know it from media coverage. Any time a female Republican makes the news, the media act as if they've never seen one of these before. Despite the fact that they have to act like that several times a year.
"You're a devout christian." Ask most Democrats what religion they are, and the answer you'll get is some form of Christianity. No, I'm not suggesting that there are no atheists on their side, and in fact I think most of those who answer that they are Christians are lying in order to get votes, or answering with the name of the religion they were raised in that they haven't practiced in years. BUT! I would wager the same is true for a number of Republicans. Despite that, for some reason the religion of Republicans is a Big Deal. This is because it is true that more Republicans live their professed faith than Democrats, but by no means do they all, not to mention that Democrats are never called on how they aren't living their faith. Democrats who claim Christianity, whether they live it or not, are just fine. Republicans who do EXACTLY THE SAME are dangerous because they're "devout christians" who apparently wish to institute a theocracy and take us back to the "dark ages" (that only exist in liberal nightmares) where you can go to jail for not being a christian, or where women were kept in cages and raped by husbands who bought them, or something.
"Someone in your party said or did something bad. Repudiate it, or you're just as guilty as if you said or did it yourself." This guilt by association trick can apparently only be applied to Republicans. When Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock gave ill-advised, poorly phrased and, in Akin's case, just plain wrong statements regarding their views on rape, the media reacted with their typical selective outrage. The same media that glossed over Robert Byrd's "white n----rs" comment jumped on these two men for comments that were, ultimately, just badly put versions of the following idea: "Obviously rape is a horrible thing and we can understand why a woman who is put through that might not want to keep a child that could result from such an attack, but I feel that it is commendable for a woman to allow the child to be born, so that something good like a new life can grow from something horrible and criminal." Would that have been acceptable to the pro-choice crowd? Not on your life. Would it have made it easier to take their side? Unquestionably. However, because of how stupidly phrased the responses were, many began calling for them to drop out of the race. Quite a few people, even people I know personally, and who are usually smart, actually thought Romney didn't "condemn strongly enough" those statements. Apparently calling Akin directly and telling him to drop out (which Romney did) isn't enough of a condemnation. Of course, the media didn't care if Romney repudiated those comments or not. All they cared about was linking him to them, which they successfully did. Of course, when liberals rallied in support of Anthony "Shows Underage Girls His" Weiner, no one worried that not distancing themselves from him would hurt their own careers. When the media goes after a politician demanding he say or do something to condemn a member of his own party caught doing or saying something stupid, you can bet that politician is a Republican in the midst of a campaign, and you can guarantee that if he doesn't repudiate the other politician, or doesn't do so "strongly enough", which means whatever liberals want it to mean, they will claim that he's as guilty as if he had done it himself (ergo, Romney/Ryan were "pro-rape"). However, if they DO repudiate the person to the media's satisfaction, then:
"You repudiated what someone in your party said. Your party is hopelessly divided and cannot sustain itself." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
"Someone in your party is corrupt, ergo your party is corrupt. Ergo you are corrupt. Prove us wrong." Sometimes the media takes it this far. If they can prove that a Republican, or even just a rich guy who donated to at least one Republican campaign at one time in his life (even if he also donated to Democrats), is corrupt, or dishonest, or whatever, then that one action taints the whole party--but only the Republican Party. Obama's complete campaign donor list remains a mystery. Who might we find on it if we were to ever see it? It's widely believed, even by many Democrats, that he received foreign campaign mony. But for some reason, if it is even suspected that a Republican candidate might have received foreign campaign contributions, instantly that person is called corrupt. Therefore, anyone in that party, including the man running for president, must also be corrupt. Then we are put in a position where we have to prove a negative. It's like the phrase "So, Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?" Proving a negative is almost impossible, which is why the media never puts leftist candidates in that position. Using the Anthony Weiner example again; no one in the media, at any time, asked Weiner to prove it wasn't him that sent those pictures. That would have been the first question he was asked, had he been Republican.
"Your campaign has gone negative, and is being unfair and hateful." I can see this one, actually. After all, Romney accused Obama of giving a woman cancer, of out-sourcing jobs, and of not paying his taxes. Paul Ryan accused Joe Biden of wanting to kill grannies, and later, while speaking with a feigned southern accent, told a group of African Americans that the Obama campaign "gonna put y'all back in chains!" The Romney campaign accused Obama of waging a "war on women" due to their stance on the religious freedom of groups who were anti-contraception...oh, wait. I accidentally switched the names. All those actions were committed by the Obama campaign against the Romney campaign. But which campaign was accused by the media of "going negative?" That's right; Romney's. Romney was up against one of the most angry, divisive, negative campaigns the USA has ever seen, but when he called the Obama campaign out about this behavior, the media called him, yes, angry, divisive and negative. Oh, the irony.
"You're a minority, but still a member of this party. This means you're out of touch with racial issues, and the country itself." Woe betide any woman or visible minority who dares be a Republican. This statement is an obvious attempt to shame such people away from the party, or at least the public eye. Again, irony of ironies, despite the fact that the Republican party has done nothing--not one thing--that could be considered racist, other than exist, which is bad enough, apparently, they are repeatedly accused of racism (and sexism). So how to explain why we have women and minorities in our party? These people have some sort of Stockholm syndrome, apparently, or just refuse to see the racial and gender issues plaguing this country, caused by evil Republicans. I've said lots about this before, and I won't go over it all again, but it just seems odd that no one has picked up on this; first they try and scare women and minorities away from us, then they accuse us of not doing enough to reach out to these groups. Even scarier; a lot of Republicans are falling for it.
"You've spent a ton of money on this campaign. You must be trying to buy the election." Politicians spend money to win elections. That's a fact, sure as water is wet. Obama out-spent McCain in 2008, and he won. But not one word was said about him "buying" the election. This time, despite how much attention was focused on Romney's campaign spending, not one outlet reported that, although it was a narrower margin, ultimately Obama spent more than Romney. So who really bought this election?
"You are playing politics with serious issues." This whole statement, from beginning to end, is surely facetious. Surely there's no one out there who truly believes the party most guilty of "playing politics" (which is another ambiguous term that means whatever the left wants it to mean) is the Republicans. Surely not. We're talking about a party who killed the Keystone pipeline, which would have improved international relations AND created jobs, because their green-energy backers might get mad.
"You are far too focused on social issues." This is hilarious, because Romney was accused of this just as much as Bush or any other right-wing politician ever was. What was the focus of the Romney campaign? Jobs and the economy. What was the focus of the Obama campaign? Well, winning, and at any cost, which included bombarding Romney and Ryan with repeated questions about their stances on rape, abortion, contraception or gay marriage. Neither man had much to say about them because they understood that America's economy was in the toilet and that was what was important. So who was focused on social issues?
"You have aligned yourself with protestors, which makes you dangerous and unstable." This is true if you're a Republican and have in any way been associated with the Tea Party. This is NOT true if you're a Democrat and have openly supported the Occupy movement.
The narrative in the United States is driven not by politicians, not by activists, not by protestors. It is driven by the media; print media, online media, televised media, big-screen media, music media, you name it. And I mean both "serious" news/journalism and entertainment. Every day, in some way or another, we are bombarded my liberal messages. Even if we're just watching TV, every TV show has a political angle, even those that would seem innocuous.
They're a huge part of the problem and we need to replace them. But in this post I'm gonna focus on tactics used primarily by today's "news" media. They claim to be objective (Except MSNBC, but most people don't really take them seriously). They claim they're just reporting the stories that "matter", that are "news-worthy". Of course, it is they, not the public, that decides what's "news-worthy." If Bush had been president when Benghazi happened, it would be the word on everyone's lips. However, hardly anyone knows about it, or even what we know happened, because the media won't talk about it. The same stories that the media wouldn't shut up about during Bush's term can't be touched by the same media during Obama's term. "Bush's war" killed some innocents in the crossfire? Horrific war crimes! Obama's drone strikes are killing innocents? Oh, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs; there's no story there. Bush "ignored" a briefing that could have prevented 9/11 (even though it could not have)? Bush is the real terrorist! Obama ignored repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi, numerous reports of terrorist activity there, and then acted as if the terrorist strike was a "spontaneous uprising" spurred by a little-seen, silly little youtube video? No story there, either, apparently.
But by now, when it comes to how Republicans are covered by the media, we all know their major tricks. They call us racists. They disparage our motives. They question our party history, apparently confusing historic Democrats for historic Republicans. Then they talk about how older Republicans of yesteryear were the true moderates, and that they wouldn't have been allowed in the party today.
But they have also begun (or could have been doing for years) lobbing a bunch of accusations or tactics against Republicans, especially those campaigning for some office or other, that just plain shouldn't work, but apparently do. These include accusations that aren't scandalous at all (or wouldn't be if it was a Democrat), or accusations of wrong-doing committed by a person not even connected to this politician. Here are just a few:
"You're rich." Code term meaning "You can't relate to the common man." The irony that most of Hollywood and the national music scene is pro-Democrat is apparently lost on any who would dare utter this ridiculous phrase. And just to show how out of touch the Democrats really are, I have heard actors, directors, singers, etc. utter those words about Republicans. Because Will Smith, Bruce Springsteen and Barbra Streisand sure can relate to the common man. Yes, sir. Of course, even just on its face that phrase is asinine. Name a governor, senator or congressman whose income is "middle class" or average. Not only aren't there any, but seven of the top ten richest members of congress are...Democrats.
"You're white." Politics has been a Whites Only club for most of America's history--on BOTH sides. It's been within my lifetime that the face of politics is changing to include more than just one or two minorities here and there, and that's a great, wonderful thing. Or, it would be, if minority politicians didn't feel the need to play racial politics with literally every issue. Issues that have nothing at all to do with race now bring accusations of racial hatred...as long as it's a REPUBLICAN politician who's talking about them. Suddenly, talking about "Chicago", "apartments", "food stamps", "work ethic", "the constitution", et al, are racial "dog whistles". And now we've reached the point where simply being white is enough to get somebody demonizing you. Again, only if it's a Republican. Allen West lost to whiter-than-white-bread Patrick Murphy. Think even once Murphy was asked about his racial motivations for running against a black man, or that his skin color was even brought up? Nope. Now, how often were Romney and Ryan accused of racism for being white men who dared run against Obama? If you answered "every time their name was brought up in the MSM", well, duh.
"You're old." Again, like there aren't any old Democrats? For some reason, 70-year-old white man Joe Biden can, with a straight face, call the Republicans the party of old, white men. This man plans to run for president in 2016. He's said so. He'll be nearly 74 years old. That's older than John McCain was during his 2008 presidential campaign. You know, the one where the press couldn't stop bringing up his advanced age? I guarantee that even if Biden runs against a man young enough to be his son, no one in the press will bring up his age. Hell, Robert Byrd was in his 90's, and no one suggested he should give up his senate seat. Some even suggested he should run for president himself. Age only seems to matter if you're a Republican.
"You're a man." Yet again, an issue that only seems to come up when the politician or public figure in question is a Republican or conservative. It's all just a way to keep saying, even though no one really believes this, that the Republican Party is the party of "old white men." There are just as many women in the Republican Party as there are in the Democratic Party, but you'd never know it from media coverage. Any time a female Republican makes the news, the media act as if they've never seen one of these before. Despite the fact that they have to act like that several times a year.
"You're a devout christian." Ask most Democrats what religion they are, and the answer you'll get is some form of Christianity. No, I'm not suggesting that there are no atheists on their side, and in fact I think most of those who answer that they are Christians are lying in order to get votes, or answering with the name of the religion they were raised in that they haven't practiced in years. BUT! I would wager the same is true for a number of Republicans. Despite that, for some reason the religion of Republicans is a Big Deal. This is because it is true that more Republicans live their professed faith than Democrats, but by no means do they all, not to mention that Democrats are never called on how they aren't living their faith. Democrats who claim Christianity, whether they live it or not, are just fine. Republicans who do EXACTLY THE SAME are dangerous because they're "devout christians" who apparently wish to institute a theocracy and take us back to the "dark ages" (that only exist in liberal nightmares) where you can go to jail for not being a christian, or where women were kept in cages and raped by husbands who bought them, or something.
"Someone in your party said or did something bad. Repudiate it, or you're just as guilty as if you said or did it yourself." This guilt by association trick can apparently only be applied to Republicans. When Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock gave ill-advised, poorly phrased and, in Akin's case, just plain wrong statements regarding their views on rape, the media reacted with their typical selective outrage. The same media that glossed over Robert Byrd's "white n----rs" comment jumped on these two men for comments that were, ultimately, just badly put versions of the following idea: "Obviously rape is a horrible thing and we can understand why a woman who is put through that might not want to keep a child that could result from such an attack, but I feel that it is commendable for a woman to allow the child to be born, so that something good like a new life can grow from something horrible and criminal." Would that have been acceptable to the pro-choice crowd? Not on your life. Would it have made it easier to take their side? Unquestionably. However, because of how stupidly phrased the responses were, many began calling for them to drop out of the race. Quite a few people, even people I know personally, and who are usually smart, actually thought Romney didn't "condemn strongly enough" those statements. Apparently calling Akin directly and telling him to drop out (which Romney did) isn't enough of a condemnation. Of course, the media didn't care if Romney repudiated those comments or not. All they cared about was linking him to them, which they successfully did. Of course, when liberals rallied in support of Anthony "Shows Underage Girls His" Weiner, no one worried that not distancing themselves from him would hurt their own careers. When the media goes after a politician demanding he say or do something to condemn a member of his own party caught doing or saying something stupid, you can bet that politician is a Republican in the midst of a campaign, and you can guarantee that if he doesn't repudiate the other politician, or doesn't do so "strongly enough", which means whatever liberals want it to mean, they will claim that he's as guilty as if he had done it himself (ergo, Romney/Ryan were "pro-rape"). However, if they DO repudiate the person to the media's satisfaction, then:
"You repudiated what someone in your party said. Your party is hopelessly divided and cannot sustain itself." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
"Someone in your party is corrupt, ergo your party is corrupt. Ergo you are corrupt. Prove us wrong." Sometimes the media takes it this far. If they can prove that a Republican, or even just a rich guy who donated to at least one Republican campaign at one time in his life (even if he also donated to Democrats), is corrupt, or dishonest, or whatever, then that one action taints the whole party--but only the Republican Party. Obama's complete campaign donor list remains a mystery. Who might we find on it if we were to ever see it? It's widely believed, even by many Democrats, that he received foreign campaign mony. But for some reason, if it is even suspected that a Republican candidate might have received foreign campaign contributions, instantly that person is called corrupt. Therefore, anyone in that party, including the man running for president, must also be corrupt. Then we are put in a position where we have to prove a negative. It's like the phrase "So, Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?" Proving a negative is almost impossible, which is why the media never puts leftist candidates in that position. Using the Anthony Weiner example again; no one in the media, at any time, asked Weiner to prove it wasn't him that sent those pictures. That would have been the first question he was asked, had he been Republican.
"Your campaign has gone negative, and is being unfair and hateful." I can see this one, actually. After all, Romney accused Obama of giving a woman cancer, of out-sourcing jobs, and of not paying his taxes. Paul Ryan accused Joe Biden of wanting to kill grannies, and later, while speaking with a feigned southern accent, told a group of African Americans that the Obama campaign "gonna put y'all back in chains!" The Romney campaign accused Obama of waging a "war on women" due to their stance on the religious freedom of groups who were anti-contraception...oh, wait. I accidentally switched the names. All those actions were committed by the Obama campaign against the Romney campaign. But which campaign was accused by the media of "going negative?" That's right; Romney's. Romney was up against one of the most angry, divisive, negative campaigns the USA has ever seen, but when he called the Obama campaign out about this behavior, the media called him, yes, angry, divisive and negative. Oh, the irony.
"You're a minority, but still a member of this party. This means you're out of touch with racial issues, and the country itself." Woe betide any woman or visible minority who dares be a Republican. This statement is an obvious attempt to shame such people away from the party, or at least the public eye. Again, irony of ironies, despite the fact that the Republican party has done nothing--not one thing--that could be considered racist, other than exist, which is bad enough, apparently, they are repeatedly accused of racism (and sexism). So how to explain why we have women and minorities in our party? These people have some sort of Stockholm syndrome, apparently, or just refuse to see the racial and gender issues plaguing this country, caused by evil Republicans. I've said lots about this before, and I won't go over it all again, but it just seems odd that no one has picked up on this; first they try and scare women and minorities away from us, then they accuse us of not doing enough to reach out to these groups. Even scarier; a lot of Republicans are falling for it.
"You've spent a ton of money on this campaign. You must be trying to buy the election." Politicians spend money to win elections. That's a fact, sure as water is wet. Obama out-spent McCain in 2008, and he won. But not one word was said about him "buying" the election. This time, despite how much attention was focused on Romney's campaign spending, not one outlet reported that, although it was a narrower margin, ultimately Obama spent more than Romney. So who really bought this election?
"You are playing politics with serious issues." This whole statement, from beginning to end, is surely facetious. Surely there's no one out there who truly believes the party most guilty of "playing politics" (which is another ambiguous term that means whatever the left wants it to mean) is the Republicans. Surely not. We're talking about a party who killed the Keystone pipeline, which would have improved international relations AND created jobs, because their green-energy backers might get mad.
"You are far too focused on social issues." This is hilarious, because Romney was accused of this just as much as Bush or any other right-wing politician ever was. What was the focus of the Romney campaign? Jobs and the economy. What was the focus of the Obama campaign? Well, winning, and at any cost, which included bombarding Romney and Ryan with repeated questions about their stances on rape, abortion, contraception or gay marriage. Neither man had much to say about them because they understood that America's economy was in the toilet and that was what was important. So who was focused on social issues?
"You have aligned yourself with protestors, which makes you dangerous and unstable." This is true if you're a Republican and have in any way been associated with the Tea Party. This is NOT true if you're a Democrat and have openly supported the Occupy movement.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
One Day More...
Could it be that by this time Wednesday morning I will be celebrating the victory of President-Elect Romney? Or will I be bemoaning another four years of the Marxist-in-Chief?
Call me optimistic, but I think it'll be the former. My real fear at this point is that Obama will do something to halt Romney's victory, not that Romney won't actually win. Obama apparently has teams of lawyers poised across the country ready to challenge any result other than an Obama win.
So, essentially, Mitt's gotta get not just a win, but a decisive one, or we could be here all week just waiting for O's lawyers to somehow conjure enough fake votes to total a win.
If it sounds like I think that most Americans have turned away from Obama, that's because I do. Romney may not have been their number one choice to replace Obama. He certainly wasn't mine. But my fear of his campaign; that he would be soft, capitulating and unwilling to fight, like McCain, have proven to be ungrounded. Romney/Ryan have run a very good campaign. If they'd run a fantastic one, like Allen West or others who didn't run probably would have, there would be no one questioning Obama's loss. The race would already have been called for the Republicans. As it stands, Mitt could still end up with a comfortable victory. America is sick and tired of Obama, and it's only uncertainty that Romney can be trusted more that keeps him from slaughtering Obama in the polls.
How can I say that when the polls either show a tied race or show Obama slightly ahead? Simple; most, if not all, of the polls that say that are following the electoral model from 2008, and in many cases juicing it up even moreso.
The Dems enjoyed a D+7 electorate in 2008. They've never had a turn-out like that, and it's not too hard to see what brought them out; they weren't just voting for a president but for the first black president, who was made out by the media (and his own campaign) to be the second coming.
Nobody thinks this electorate is really gonna be D+7. For one thing, the 2010 gubernatorial and congressional electorate was D+0 (even), and we shellacked the Dems' hold on Congress and our state governments, which should say something. Anger toward the left has only risen since then. Disgust with the current administration has climbed and climbed. Bottom line, though, is that Republican turnout is predicted by many pollsters to be MUCH higher tomorrow than in 2008, and that's very easy to believe since even these juiced polls are recording that Romney is leading Obama by double-digits among independents, and enthusiasm among those voting for Romney is a good 15% higher than among those voting for Obama. So how do these polls still manage to call Obama the winner, or at worst, say they're tied or it's too close to call?
Simple; because all these polls are over-sampling Democrats. Some of these polls have gone as wingnut-crazy left as to deliver a D+11 or even D+13 sample! That's insane. No one, not even these pollsters, honestly believe that's the electorate we're gonna get. But they keep touting it. Nate Silver, former Kos blogger (bias? surely not), is deliberately using the 2008 model to predict, uh, predictably, a comfortable Obama win. Huff 'n Puff Post and MostlySaysNothingButCrap can't stop chatting up Silver's predictions and the handful of juiced polls, mostly from Reuters, AP, CNN, CBS and other news outlets that couldn't be more obviously hoping for an Obama victory, just certain that because these polls, along with Public Policy Polling and Marist, both run by left wing think tanks like Media Matters for America, show victory for their side, that they simply can't lose.
They also tout the assurance of Joe Biden, David Axelrod, Stephanie Cutter, Jen Psaki, et al, that they feel confident of victory, as if that means something. What else are campaign officials going to say? Oh, we're so scared, we think we might lose?
Meanwhile, Gallup polls and Rasmussen polls, neither of whom over-sampled Democrats, show a pretty clear Romney victory. Michael Barone, a pundit who predicts polls as part of his job and is rarely wrong, predicts a landslide Romney victory. Ditto George Will, Karl Rove (say what you will, he predicted Obama's 2008 win), Joe Scarborough (he's never liked Romney) and numerous others, many of whom have no horse in this race, and some who were even saying they want Obama to win but have to be realistic. Those saying just as surely that they think Obama's going to win? The anchors from MostlySaysNothingButCrap. Bias? Surely not.
Right now, the "battleground" states are New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Colorado (9) and Nevada (6).
Now, of these "battleground" states, Romney is leading or tied (according to those Dem-heavy polls) in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Colorado. 80% of Coloradans have already voted, and the state is looking decisively Romney-red, so I'm giving it to him. Again, those Dem-heavy polls have Obama just squeaking by with a narrow victory in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Nevada. Some polls put him behind in Iowa and ALL polls show Romney leading independents there. Personally I think Obama will lose Iowa.
I also think that the evangelical vote, which a lot of pollsters have ignored, will swing widely in Mitt's favor, thanks to Obamacare's contraception mandate, which could easily deliver Ohio and Iowa to Romney. Obama's hold on New Hampshire is tenuous enough that it could easily slip through his grasp, as many are predicting.
So of those "battleground" states, the smart money is on Mitt taking all of those states with the possible exceptions of Pennsylvania and Nevada. HOWEVER! New polling, plus the fact that the Obama campaign sees the need to still campaign and run ads in Pennsylvania, as well as (I'm not kidding), Michigan, Wisconson and MINNESOTA (again, not kidding!) shows that those states are in play as well! Romney/Ryan are campaigning and running ads in those states, which they would not do if they didn't see those states as being in play. Even realclearpolitics.com lists them as toss-ups, even if some pollsters won't go that far. Mitt leads independents in all these states comfortably, plus Wisconsin's recall vote last year went to Scott Walker, when most polls showed him behind, says that Wisconsin may be going more red than we've previously thought. Could Mitt take those states as well? I'm not counting on it, but he could take one or two of them.
But let's be generous. Let's just say that all the states currently leaning O's way (even though his lead in all of them is less than 5 points, or he's losing or tied, even in the juiced polls) will go to him. Let's just give him Pennsylvania, Nevada, and the Northern Firewall of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. That still leaves 146 electoral votes up for grabs and Mitt seems to be heading toward winning 72 of them, while Obama has 30 of them within his grasp. 18 of them are still genuinely up for grabs, and whoever wins them, wins the election. For those keeping count, I've just awarded Obama 257 electoral votes and Mitt 263. If O takes Ohio, he'll win with 275 electoral votes. If Mitt does, he wins with 281. Hell, let's be super-generous and give Iowa to Obama. Still it all comes down to who wins Ohio.
And Mitt is easily in a place where he could.
I'll be honest; I think I'm being too generous to Obama. I don't think he'll take Iowa OR Ohio. I also think he stands to lose Wisconsin and New Hampshire. His lead in NH, even with juiced polls, is too slim, and anecdotal evidence like crowd size at speeches, number of Romney/Ryan signs vs. Obama/Biden signs, lead among independents, and other stuff it's hard to totally calculate, we could potentially be looking at a Romney landslide. For that matter, knowing how juiced the polls are in Obama's favor, if we give Romney every state where Obama's lead is less than 5 points, Mitt wins with 337 electoral votes! Some pundits are even predicting it WILL happen.
I won't go that far. I'll stick to a Romney win with 281 electoral votes, 275 at minimum, with minimum 53% of the popular vote. But I know if the vote is any closer than that, Obama will contest it. He will not go quietly.
Four years ago, I started blogging because I was angry that America could have fallen so far that we would willingly vote in a man so obviously hateful of America and all she stands for, just because he was black. Wednesday morning, when I type either a large "YES!" I will probably stop blogging, or slow down significantly. Life just keeps getting in the way of blogging. I'm getting married, I have children, and I have a career. But if O keeps his stranglehold on America, I will not give up the fight. If anything, my blogging will increase.
I will leave you with one thought; Right up to the day of voting, the 1980 race was dubbed "too close to call". Reagan won 485 electoral votes. In 1984 the media speculated that he might have more of a challenge, and lose some states. He won again, this time with 524. George W. Bush, who was neck and neck with Gore, won with 285 electoral votes. The media suggested he would be trounced by Kerry, but he won again with 292. Every time a Republican wins, it's to the surprise of the media, who insisted the polls proved a Democrat win, or at least a toss-up.
We'll see you back here Wednesday morning with the results.
Call me optimistic, but I think it'll be the former. My real fear at this point is that Obama will do something to halt Romney's victory, not that Romney won't actually win. Obama apparently has teams of lawyers poised across the country ready to challenge any result other than an Obama win.
So, essentially, Mitt's gotta get not just a win, but a decisive one, or we could be here all week just waiting for O's lawyers to somehow conjure enough fake votes to total a win.
If it sounds like I think that most Americans have turned away from Obama, that's because I do. Romney may not have been their number one choice to replace Obama. He certainly wasn't mine. But my fear of his campaign; that he would be soft, capitulating and unwilling to fight, like McCain, have proven to be ungrounded. Romney/Ryan have run a very good campaign. If they'd run a fantastic one, like Allen West or others who didn't run probably would have, there would be no one questioning Obama's loss. The race would already have been called for the Republicans. As it stands, Mitt could still end up with a comfortable victory. America is sick and tired of Obama, and it's only uncertainty that Romney can be trusted more that keeps him from slaughtering Obama in the polls.
How can I say that when the polls either show a tied race or show Obama slightly ahead? Simple; most, if not all, of the polls that say that are following the electoral model from 2008, and in many cases juicing it up even moreso.
The Dems enjoyed a D+7 electorate in 2008. They've never had a turn-out like that, and it's not too hard to see what brought them out; they weren't just voting for a president but for the first black president, who was made out by the media (and his own campaign) to be the second coming.
Nobody thinks this electorate is really gonna be D+7. For one thing, the 2010 gubernatorial and congressional electorate was D+0 (even), and we shellacked the Dems' hold on Congress and our state governments, which should say something. Anger toward the left has only risen since then. Disgust with the current administration has climbed and climbed. Bottom line, though, is that Republican turnout is predicted by many pollsters to be MUCH higher tomorrow than in 2008, and that's very easy to believe since even these juiced polls are recording that Romney is leading Obama by double-digits among independents, and enthusiasm among those voting for Romney is a good 15% higher than among those voting for Obama. So how do these polls still manage to call Obama the winner, or at worst, say they're tied or it's too close to call?
Simple; because all these polls are over-sampling Democrats. Some of these polls have gone as wingnut-crazy left as to deliver a D+11 or even D+13 sample! That's insane. No one, not even these pollsters, honestly believe that's the electorate we're gonna get. But they keep touting it. Nate Silver, former Kos blogger (bias? surely not), is deliberately using the 2008 model to predict, uh, predictably, a comfortable Obama win. Huff 'n Puff Post and MostlySaysNothingButCrap can't stop chatting up Silver's predictions and the handful of juiced polls, mostly from Reuters, AP, CNN, CBS and other news outlets that couldn't be more obviously hoping for an Obama victory, just certain that because these polls, along with Public Policy Polling and Marist, both run by left wing think tanks like Media Matters for America, show victory for their side, that they simply can't lose.
They also tout the assurance of Joe Biden, David Axelrod, Stephanie Cutter, Jen Psaki, et al, that they feel confident of victory, as if that means something. What else are campaign officials going to say? Oh, we're so scared, we think we might lose?
Meanwhile, Gallup polls and Rasmussen polls, neither of whom over-sampled Democrats, show a pretty clear Romney victory. Michael Barone, a pundit who predicts polls as part of his job and is rarely wrong, predicts a landslide Romney victory. Ditto George Will, Karl Rove (say what you will, he predicted Obama's 2008 win), Joe Scarborough (he's never liked Romney) and numerous others, many of whom have no horse in this race, and some who were even saying they want Obama to win but have to be realistic. Those saying just as surely that they think Obama's going to win? The anchors from MostlySaysNothingButCrap. Bias? Surely not.
Right now, the "battleground" states are New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Colorado (9) and Nevada (6).
Now, of these "battleground" states, Romney is leading or tied (according to those Dem-heavy polls) in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Colorado. 80% of Coloradans have already voted, and the state is looking decisively Romney-red, so I'm giving it to him. Again, those Dem-heavy polls have Obama just squeaking by with a narrow victory in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Nevada. Some polls put him behind in Iowa and ALL polls show Romney leading independents there. Personally I think Obama will lose Iowa.
I also think that the evangelical vote, which a lot of pollsters have ignored, will swing widely in Mitt's favor, thanks to Obamacare's contraception mandate, which could easily deliver Ohio and Iowa to Romney. Obama's hold on New Hampshire is tenuous enough that it could easily slip through his grasp, as many are predicting.
So of those "battleground" states, the smart money is on Mitt taking all of those states with the possible exceptions of Pennsylvania and Nevada. HOWEVER! New polling, plus the fact that the Obama campaign sees the need to still campaign and run ads in Pennsylvania, as well as (I'm not kidding), Michigan, Wisconson and MINNESOTA (again, not kidding!) shows that those states are in play as well! Romney/Ryan are campaigning and running ads in those states, which they would not do if they didn't see those states as being in play. Even realclearpolitics.com lists them as toss-ups, even if some pollsters won't go that far. Mitt leads independents in all these states comfortably, plus Wisconsin's recall vote last year went to Scott Walker, when most polls showed him behind, says that Wisconsin may be going more red than we've previously thought. Could Mitt take those states as well? I'm not counting on it, but he could take one or two of them.
But let's be generous. Let's just say that all the states currently leaning O's way (even though his lead in all of them is less than 5 points, or he's losing or tied, even in the juiced polls) will go to him. Let's just give him Pennsylvania, Nevada, and the Northern Firewall of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. That still leaves 146 electoral votes up for grabs and Mitt seems to be heading toward winning 72 of them, while Obama has 30 of them within his grasp. 18 of them are still genuinely up for grabs, and whoever wins them, wins the election. For those keeping count, I've just awarded Obama 257 electoral votes and Mitt 263. If O takes Ohio, he'll win with 275 electoral votes. If Mitt does, he wins with 281. Hell, let's be super-generous and give Iowa to Obama. Still it all comes down to who wins Ohio.
And Mitt is easily in a place where he could.
I'll be honest; I think I'm being too generous to Obama. I don't think he'll take Iowa OR Ohio. I also think he stands to lose Wisconsin and New Hampshire. His lead in NH, even with juiced polls, is too slim, and anecdotal evidence like crowd size at speeches, number of Romney/Ryan signs vs. Obama/Biden signs, lead among independents, and other stuff it's hard to totally calculate, we could potentially be looking at a Romney landslide. For that matter, knowing how juiced the polls are in Obama's favor, if we give Romney every state where Obama's lead is less than 5 points, Mitt wins with 337 electoral votes! Some pundits are even predicting it WILL happen.
I won't go that far. I'll stick to a Romney win with 281 electoral votes, 275 at minimum, with minimum 53% of the popular vote. But I know if the vote is any closer than that, Obama will contest it. He will not go quietly.
Four years ago, I started blogging because I was angry that America could have fallen so far that we would willingly vote in a man so obviously hateful of America and all she stands for, just because he was black. Wednesday morning, when I type either a large "YES!" I will probably stop blogging, or slow down significantly. Life just keeps getting in the way of blogging. I'm getting married, I have children, and I have a career. But if O keeps his stranglehold on America, I will not give up the fight. If anything, my blogging will increase.
I will leave you with one thought; Right up to the day of voting, the 1980 race was dubbed "too close to call". Reagan won 485 electoral votes. In 1984 the media speculated that he might have more of a challenge, and lose some states. He won again, this time with 524. George W. Bush, who was neck and neck with Gore, won with 285 electoral votes. The media suggested he would be trounced by Kerry, but he won again with 292. Every time a Republican wins, it's to the surprise of the media, who insisted the polls proved a Democrat win, or at least a toss-up.
We'll see you back here Wednesday morning with the results.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
What Will Happen When Our Problems Don't Vanish Upon Romney's Election?
John Hawkins's latest article. Read it. Then read this.
Hawkins isn't wrong, and it's not entirely unthinkable that Romney won't solve these problems. It's reasonable to assume that once he's in power, he may even ignore some of these problems.
But I am confident that no matter what he does in regards to the issues Hawkins points out, Romney will do a better job handling any of them and all of them, than will Barack Obama.
Why? Because the last four years have shown that Obama won't do ANYTHING to solve them, but the liberal media will ignore them for his sake. So, if he gets another term, we can count on all those problems to get worse, we can count on the president ignoring them, and we can count on the media ignoring the president ignoring them.
But the article also serves as a nice preemptive strike when it comes to what's going to happen should it be Romney who's victorious on Tuesday.
That is, the media will finally start acknowledging that these problems exist, and begin hand-wringing that Romney isn't the man to take care of them. And if these problems haven't disappeared on day one of Romney's presidency (and they won't), then the media will immediately call him a failed president who did not live up to the job.
Remember how often leftists demanded we leave Obama alone during his first 100 days in office during the early part of next year. At this point, I believe Romney has a very strong chance of winning (though nothing is set in stone), and if he does, I firmly believe that he will be excoriated strongly by the very same people who called us racist, angry, violent, dangerous people because Obama had only just taken office, so we couldn't judge him.
Think they'll show the same courtesy and respect they demanded we show then? Not hardly. Romney will become the punching bag for all the problems still facing the USA. These issues won't go away overnight. No, I don't think it takes more than a single term to turn them around and I think if Romney can't get us on the path to significant change by the middle of his first term, then there's a problem. But because these issues are many, and hard to solve, I know, I don't just think, that the same media, and the same rank-and-file Obama supporters, who are currently pretending things are good, or at least better, will suddenly realize all these problems exist and begin wailing that they're unsolvable, or at least, that Romney hasn't waved a wand and solved them overnight.
You watch and see.
Personally I really think conservatives aught to take advantage of the fact that so many common Americans are starting to self-identify as conservatives and Republicans again, and do something about this corrupt media. Protests might work, but massive campaigns promoting conservatives to become journalists, writers, etc. and find other ways to enter the media, and promote the media they make, will have a more lasting effect. Something's gotta be done about these bastards. They more than anything are what's harming America today.
Hawkins isn't wrong, and it's not entirely unthinkable that Romney won't solve these problems. It's reasonable to assume that once he's in power, he may even ignore some of these problems.
But I am confident that no matter what he does in regards to the issues Hawkins points out, Romney will do a better job handling any of them and all of them, than will Barack Obama.
Why? Because the last four years have shown that Obama won't do ANYTHING to solve them, but the liberal media will ignore them for his sake. So, if he gets another term, we can count on all those problems to get worse, we can count on the president ignoring them, and we can count on the media ignoring the president ignoring them.
But the article also serves as a nice preemptive strike when it comes to what's going to happen should it be Romney who's victorious on Tuesday.
That is, the media will finally start acknowledging that these problems exist, and begin hand-wringing that Romney isn't the man to take care of them. And if these problems haven't disappeared on day one of Romney's presidency (and they won't), then the media will immediately call him a failed president who did not live up to the job.
Remember how often leftists demanded we leave Obama alone during his first 100 days in office during the early part of next year. At this point, I believe Romney has a very strong chance of winning (though nothing is set in stone), and if he does, I firmly believe that he will be excoriated strongly by the very same people who called us racist, angry, violent, dangerous people because Obama had only just taken office, so we couldn't judge him.
Think they'll show the same courtesy and respect they demanded we show then? Not hardly. Romney will become the punching bag for all the problems still facing the USA. These issues won't go away overnight. No, I don't think it takes more than a single term to turn them around and I think if Romney can't get us on the path to significant change by the middle of his first term, then there's a problem. But because these issues are many, and hard to solve, I know, I don't just think, that the same media, and the same rank-and-file Obama supporters, who are currently pretending things are good, or at least better, will suddenly realize all these problems exist and begin wailing that they're unsolvable, or at least, that Romney hasn't waved a wand and solved them overnight.
You watch and see.
Personally I really think conservatives aught to take advantage of the fact that so many common Americans are starting to self-identify as conservatives and Republicans again, and do something about this corrupt media. Protests might work, but massive campaigns promoting conservatives to become journalists, writers, etc. and find other ways to enter the media, and promote the media they make, will have a more lasting effect. Something's gotta be done about these bastards. They more than anything are what's harming America today.
Friday, October 12, 2012
VP Debate 2012: Mr. Smith vs. Leslie Neilsen
A while back, I said that we need a candidate willing to get onstage and laugh at the Obama administration. Apparently Joe Biden read that and decided to get the jump on it by laughing at his opponent. But he got it wrong.
Joe, I wasn't suggesting that you laugh when your opponent talks about YOUR ADMINISTRATION's response to a terrorist attack. See, if you laugh at the other guy's absurd claims about his own record, or bizarre claims of racism from your side, that's one thing. Laughing about dead people? Not cool. Not cool at all.
Joe Biden, even to his own party, came off as dismissive, arrogant, jerkish, and un-serious. While Paul Ryan looked like an honest, open, earnest, serious young Mr. Smith (of Mr. Smith goes to Washington), Biden looked like Leslie Neilsen at his most obnoxious. This wasn't Leslie Neilsen in Airplane!. This was Neilsen in Spy Hard.
Now, I won't say that Paul Ryan did a 100% job. He gave a couple of weak answers here and there. Nothing approaching Obama's non-performance at last week's debate, but a couple of blunders. Light stuff. I could point out that it was his first debate ever and that Biden was an old hand at this, but I won't make any excuses, and besides, he doesn't need them. Weak moments aside, I saw a man that, at 42, is already more ready to be president than Obama was at 47. I can tell you right now, after watching this debate, that 2020 has a VERY promising incumbent VP Presidential candidate.
Joe, I wasn't suggesting that you laugh when your opponent talks about YOUR ADMINISTRATION's response to a terrorist attack. See, if you laugh at the other guy's absurd claims about his own record, or bizarre claims of racism from your side, that's one thing. Laughing about dead people? Not cool. Not cool at all.
Joe Biden, even to his own party, came off as dismissive, arrogant, jerkish, and un-serious. While Paul Ryan looked like an honest, open, earnest, serious young Mr. Smith (of Mr. Smith goes to Washington), Biden looked like Leslie Neilsen at his most obnoxious. This wasn't Leslie Neilsen in Airplane!. This was Neilsen in Spy Hard.
Now, I won't say that Paul Ryan did a 100% job. He gave a couple of weak answers here and there. Nothing approaching Obama's non-performance at last week's debate, but a couple of blunders. Light stuff. I could point out that it was his first debate ever and that Biden was an old hand at this, but I won't make any excuses, and besides, he doesn't need them. Weak moments aside, I saw a man that, at 42, is already more ready to be president than Obama was at 47. I can tell you right now, after watching this debate, that 2020 has a VERY promising incumbent VP Presidential candidate.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Just Show Up and You'll Win: Obama Believes His Own Bullshit
Obama has declared before "You know, I actually believe my own bullshit".
Anyone who hears this story will find out that the president wasn't just kidding. He actually does believe his own bullshit.
Ever see a pre-schooler at a T-ball hit three strikes but walk from the plate smiling because he just hit the ball three times? You know, the ball that's sitting there right in front of him, on a poll, not moving? Well, that's Obama after last Wednesday's debate.
Apparently he believed all he had to do was show up, and he'd win. Worse yet, he still believed that after he strode from the podium, not seeing the fresh, steaming helping of his own ass that Romney had just handed him.
I can just hear it now "Oh, yeah, I'm the man. All I have to do is be here, and I've wrapped up this whole election. I rule. I RULE! Another four years! Heck, maybe during my fifth year I can get someone to lobby to overturn the 22nd amendment. And because I want it, I know it will happen. I'm the king, baby. Hail to the king."
This pic is funny, but apparently not accurate. It would be, if Obama lived in the same reality that everyone else does.
Even Obama's staunchest supporters immediately declared that the debate was a drubbing. Mitt Romney ate Obama's lunch, and watching guys like Chris Matthews or Andrew Sullivan melt down over it has been hilarious. Remember how Obama was "sort of God", or that he gave Chris Matthews a "thrill up his leg", so much so that he "forgot [Obama] was black"?
That's the effect you get when Obama is placed in a setting where he can hold court; where no one can challenge what he says, and when everything he wants to say is on a teleprompter. I also think it's funny that some of his supporters are now arguing that teleprompters should be allowed during debates. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. This is how mindless liberals are.
For the last four years, Obama has enjoyed as president the same environment he has enjoyed his whole life; the environment where he will always be reassured that he's the smartest person in the room. Everything is handed to him; he got every "job" he's held because of how he was able to cultivate this image of a smart young black man. In interviews, no one asks him tough questions, and in the one interview he granted FOX news, he was visibly irritated that he wasn't allowed to just quote platitudes and get off lightly. That's what he was used to, and that's what he expected.
Notice that the more openly controversial his decisions became, the more he held "press conferences" where he refused to take questions, even from the liberal media? Obama can't handle being challenged.
He also carries with him the innate belief that he'll always win because he is who he is. This was clear to those non-racists who saw past his skin-color from the get-go, but now it's becoming clear to all Americans.
I'm gonna close with some advice for the brilliant Paul Ryan (who probably doesn't need it): don't believe the anecdotes that tomorrow night will be a walk in the park for you. Don't believe that all you have to do is show up to win. Yes, Joe Biden is an idiot, but he's a folksy idiot who can lie on his feet while smiling. Call him out, and call out the media for allowing him to get away with it for four years. Bring your A-game, because we know the best game Biden's got is a B minus. But don't feel like you can bring your C-game and win, like Obama clearly thought was the case.
Anyone who hears this story will find out that the president wasn't just kidding. He actually does believe his own bullshit.
Ever see a pre-schooler at a T-ball hit three strikes but walk from the plate smiling because he just hit the ball three times? You know, the ball that's sitting there right in front of him, on a poll, not moving? Well, that's Obama after last Wednesday's debate.
Apparently he believed all he had to do was show up, and he'd win. Worse yet, he still believed that after he strode from the podium, not seeing the fresh, steaming helping of his own ass that Romney had just handed him.
I can just hear it now "Oh, yeah, I'm the man. All I have to do is be here, and I've wrapped up this whole election. I rule. I RULE! Another four years! Heck, maybe during my fifth year I can get someone to lobby to overturn the 22nd amendment. And because I want it, I know it will happen. I'm the king, baby. Hail to the king."
Even Obama's staunchest supporters immediately declared that the debate was a drubbing. Mitt Romney ate Obama's lunch, and watching guys like Chris Matthews or Andrew Sullivan melt down over it has been hilarious. Remember how Obama was "sort of God", or that he gave Chris Matthews a "thrill up his leg", so much so that he "forgot [Obama] was black"?
That's the effect you get when Obama is placed in a setting where he can hold court; where no one can challenge what he says, and when everything he wants to say is on a teleprompter. I also think it's funny that some of his supporters are now arguing that teleprompters should be allowed during debates. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. This is how mindless liberals are.
For the last four years, Obama has enjoyed as president the same environment he has enjoyed his whole life; the environment where he will always be reassured that he's the smartest person in the room. Everything is handed to him; he got every "job" he's held because of how he was able to cultivate this image of a smart young black man. In interviews, no one asks him tough questions, and in the one interview he granted FOX news, he was visibly irritated that he wasn't allowed to just quote platitudes and get off lightly. That's what he was used to, and that's what he expected.
Notice that the more openly controversial his decisions became, the more he held "press conferences" where he refused to take questions, even from the liberal media? Obama can't handle being challenged.
He also carries with him the innate belief that he'll always win because he is who he is. This was clear to those non-racists who saw past his skin-color from the get-go, but now it's becoming clear to all Americans.
I'm gonna close with some advice for the brilliant Paul Ryan (who probably doesn't need it): don't believe the anecdotes that tomorrow night will be a walk in the park for you. Don't believe that all you have to do is show up to win. Yes, Joe Biden is an idiot, but he's a folksy idiot who can lie on his feet while smiling. Call him out, and call out the media for allowing him to get away with it for four years. Bring your A-game, because we know the best game Biden's got is a B minus. But don't feel like you can bring your C-game and win, like Obama clearly thought was the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)