Sunday, August 24, 2008
I guess this is one way to counter the "elitism" tag.
I'm not claiming that anyone running for executive office needs to be wealthy but shouldn't they and those who will assist and influence them at least know how to balance their own books before they claim they want to handle those of the country?
It turns out that Joseph Biden is the poorest member of the Senate, is 65 years old and likely has a huge negative net-worth. His net-worth is listed as From $-302,980 to $277,997 by OpenSecrets.org. He keeps dozens of lines of credit, a new one opened every couple of years and together they add up to huge sums for a guy who has had a better paying job than most for basically his entire adult life.
Biden became a senator at age 30 (5th youngest ever) and has never had to suffer a downsizing, lay-off or threat of his job moving overseas yet he can't save a dime. I don't know if I would rent the guy a house, so why would I want him for Vice-President. It also shows terrible judgment by the man who did select him, Barack Obama.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
During the forum, his struggle to please everybody by straddling the issues was plain for all to see. He showed he was willing to say and do what he believed everybody wanted to hear. When you try to find any real depth in his beliefs you quickly discover he is utterly shallow and soulless, a sloganeer instead of a missionary.
He’s just a politician on the make, trying to be all things to all people -- an empty suit proclaiming empty promises.
Being without real depth, his platform merely floats on a surface of promises categorized as “Hope” and “Change,” neither of which is clearly defined.
I wonder when we will start to see utopian socialism out there. Go Michael go!
Monday, August 18, 2008
WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have just found out "I voted for the war before I voted against it" for this political season.
But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.
WARREN: Let's deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, believe that's a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?
MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25- year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment. That's my commitment to you.
When you opponent is running ad after ad noting that you are a celebrity, an empty suit and when people from your own party are begging you to finally define HOPE™, the last thing you do is deflect true answers away by noting they are "Above your pay grade" and the ignore the question while claiming you are speaking to it "generally."
There are moral and ethical elements to this question. Clearly those moral and ethical elements are "above your pay grade." You want to lower the number of abortions but can't say why since that is "above your pay grade."
Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”Maybe Obama ought to go visit the dairy aisle for a bit.
Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”
Perhaps Obama will find some answers to these questions, and not just those his campaign posts on his website or that he reads off a teleprompter, but those that come out of his mouth when asked questions by others.
Unless answering those is above his pay grade.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Mr. Obama and his campaign have produced a 41 page rebuttal to the Corsi book. Many of the citations to refute Corsi with regard to Obama come from the books Obama himself has written about his life.
The problem, it turns out Obama has taken great literary liberty with the facts of his own life.
His memoir is, as one publisher put it, “the single most vetted book in American politics right now.” Written at a time when Mr. Obama says he was thinking less about a career in politics than about simply writing a good book, it leaves an impression of candidness and authenticity that gives it much of its power. Reporters have questioned Mr. Obama’s use of fictional techniques like composite characters, but some editors and critics say that is common in memoirs.
“The book is so literary,” said Arnold Rampersad, a professor of English at Stanford University who teaches autobiography and is the author of a recent biography of Ralph Ellison. “It is so full of clever tricks — inventions for literary effect — that I was taken aback, even astonished. But make no mistake, these are simply the tricks that art trades in, and out of these tricks is supposed to come our realization of truth.”
A bit more....
In the introduction, Mr. Obama acknowledged his use of pseudonyms, composite characters, approximated dialogue and events out of chronological order. He was writing at a time well before a recent series of publishing scandals involving fabrication in memoirs. “He was trying to be careful of people’s feelings,” said Deborah Baker, the editor on the first paperback edition of the book. “The fact is, it all had a sort of larger truth going on that you couldn’t make up.”
Finally there is this last bit and it shows why the Corsi book is a game changer even if it ends up being inaccurate on certain matters.
Reporters paw through them for insights into Mr. Obama the candidate, supplied by Mr. Obama the author.
The reporters for that oh so wonderfully biased left-wing media that donates to Democrats at a 100 to 1 ratio will now feel compelled to do some investigating of their own. At a minimum perhaps they will begin to investigate some information on Obama that doesn't come from Obama himself.
Friday, August 8, 2008
I'm a baller
And now, in order to complete his hypocrisy trifecta, Al Gore may now be extending his excessive consumption to the water as well. In an amazing display of conspicuous consumption, even for Al Gore, his new 100-foot houseboat that docks at the Hurricane Marina in Smithville, Tennessee is creating a critical buzz among many of his former congressional constituents. Dubbed “Bio-Solar One,” which may reflect some latent Air Force One envy, Gore has proudly strutted the small-town dock claiming that his monstrous houseboat is environmentally friendly. (Only Al Gore would name his boat B.S. One and not get the joke. Or perhaps the joke is on us?)
I don't think it can get anymore ironic and funny than this. You there, the one bicycling to school so you can save the planet. Make sure you order some fries with your lunch or else Al Gore won't be able to find some vegetable oil to fill the tanks on his 100 ft. long house boat. Thanks again for your sacrifice you will receive your reward in Utopia.
One of the biggest problems with Utopian thinking is that it is confounded by reality. The conclusion to be drawn by such a mind will be that reality is stupid or uninformed and the Utopian mind is still correct. The adjustment is ridicule, spin, denial of facts and history.
Over the past month, a foolish narrative has been abroad in the land: that this election is going to be a "referendum" on Barack Obama. This is not uncommon in presidential politics--John Kerry's consultants fantasized that the 2004 election was going to be a referendum on George W. Bush--but it is usually peddled by weak campaigns that want to avoid dealing with their own candidate's deficiencies. Presidential elections are never referendums. They are, ultimately, a choice. Two candidates stand on a stage in debate: they talk; you decide
Gee Joe, people were insane to suggest that 2004 would be a referendum on George Bush. I mean sure he was a guy who was elected by the electoral college, had the closest and most drawn out campaign ever, and of course 9/11 and a couple wars had started on his watch, but we all would be crazy to suggest that anyone would reflect on any of this in considering their vote. Instead let us just wave our hands and imagine incumbency means nothing.
Quite often, though strangely not in Kerry's case, the referendum gambit is a rationale for mudslinging. This year we have John McCain's attempt to paint Obama as aloof, messianic ... a celebrity, like Paris or Britney. The McCain ads have the slightly sordid quality of an inside joke: Oprah Winfrey called Obama "the One," and McCain's dyspeptic staffers latched on to that moniker, and now there's a sardonic ad using the messianic nickname, filled with celestial images of Obama smiling and orating grandiloquently, followed by Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea. When Obama--correctly--said that keeping your tires inflated was one way to conserve energy (and save some money), McCain distributed tire-pressure gauges stamped OBAMA'S ENERGY PLAN.
I may be missing something, but snark isn't a quality often associated with the presidency. "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant," Obama said, laughing at the McCain campaign's crash-and-burn fighter-jock puerility.
Keep laughing and keep missing. Non-Utopians can see that doing something is better than doing nothing. Non-Utopians can see that the dismissive attempts to justify the Obama gaffe by mixing up vehicle fuel economy with national oil consumption will go no where. Finally bring out the caricatures of stupidity for those who disagree with you and watch the debate get shut off and the votes get lost.
Which is why I'm almost as puzzled by Obama's debate strategy as I am by McCain's advertising. Obama's decision not to accept McCain's offer of 10 summer debates--or, at least, to negotiate a more manageable total--always seemed wrong to me. After all, Obama is supposed to be the fresh breeze, and that would have been a brand-new, high-road way to engage the public. Obama's refusal made him seem less than courageous. It played into the notion that he wasn't a very good debater and that McCain was at his best in town meetings--an argument with elements of truth but also a fair amount of mythology. Obama has command of more facts on more issues than McCain does; McCain's strength at town meetings feeds off friendly crowds who roar at the jokes he's been telling for years. Obama's demeanor will show well on the debate stage; McCain's feistiness may not. And so Obama would be wise to change course now: challenge McCain to town-hall debates on the Sunday nights after each convention--one before a military audience, another with hard-pressed Rust Belt workers. He'd be wise to make this a campaign about issues instead of ads as soon as possible. It is true that debates often turn on one-liners and flubs, but more often they turn on sustained, vivid demonstrations of character.
Here is a "crazy" suggestion. Maybe, just maybe you are puzzled because you have the facts wrong. Al Gore and John Kerry were both supposed to be running against the supposedly dim bulb George Bush. Various aptitude tests and grades, conveniently found after the elections of course, proved that ol' George was actually the better of the two in the brains department.
You say Obama has a better command of the facts. Maybe he doesn't and knows he doesn't and that is why he would rather run than engage. It has been noted that Obama has given access to the press for speeches and photo ops, but he almost never holds press conferences where he takes questions. In addition his interviews are fawning and when they are not, they are very short, often with the candidate himself quickly snapping that he has answered perhaps eight questions or complaining about being pressed with the attacks of another candidate.
Finally it is pretty clear that whenever Obama thinks out loud, the results are pretty disastrous. McCain may switch two names, but Obama mangles entire concepts as demonstrated with the tire pressure comment that is still being defended.
Some of us are not puzzled by this at all because many of us Republicans watched a few of the Democratic debates and noted how each time Obama was engaged, he lost a big state to Hillary Clinton. A smile, and a speech off a teleprompter won't save you when you have to engage and argue your ideas with someone else. Every supposed strength of Obama, as you noted, is played up by these interactions and also, as you noted it could and should break the campaign wide open by putting that distance between him and McCain, or putting him over the magical 50% mark. Only it never did in the Democratic primary and that was an case where policy differences were small and personality traits were magnified. In other words, he couldn't do it when the circumstances were ideal.
So instead of being puzzled, instead of questioning reality, question your biases and preconceptions. Sen. Obama does not have a better command of the facts. His positions are inconsistent. He gives a good speech, raises gobs of money and mostly hopes that the occasional biased nudges of fawning interviews, photo ops and slanted polls helps him falsely claim and attempt to maintain a momentum that doesn't exist. In both the primary and now general election campaign, surrogates have tried to argue that campaign is over very early and have attempted to magnify minuscule leads. Calling everyone who notes this clueless, or stupid as Paul Krugman does this week will not alter that reality. Sen. Obama is doing what he believes is best for him. He is running away and engaging as little as possible with any entity that will question or force a defense of his ideas, positions and plans. Those of us who understand this are not puzzled at all. Instead we are wondering why when you are scratching your head you are puzzled instead of stupid and why when we aren't scratching our heads at all because our explanation fits the facts, we are stupid instead of correct.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
It is my view that when you are calling someone ignorant, you shouldn't be displaying the very trait you are attempting to chastise.
First it wouldn't reduce our oil consumption by three to four percent. If your tires are truly grossly under-inflated, it might improve the fuel economy of your vehicle by three to four percent. However your fuel economy and the nation's oil consumption are not the same.
Thanks for making the "drilling" the point home Barack Obama.
This is also clearly another example of media bias. If a Republican were to confuse oil consumption and car fuel efficiency, we would never hear the end of it.
(CBS) Barack Obama leads John McCain 45 percent to 39 percent in the latest CBS News poll. Despite Obama's highly-publicized foreign trip and McCain's recent high-profile advertisements, the findings are unchanged since a CBS News/New York Times poll released last month. The percentage of undecided voters - 13 percent - also remains steady.Wow...it is that time of the month again when the usual suspects roll out their questionable polls to try to point the race in the direction they want so they can then justify spending even more time in reporting the race as they want claiming the "interest" is there. Of course the ratings numbers aren't there, the profits aren't there and so forth, but... on to the fun.
Total Respondents 1,034
Registered Voters 906 851
Total Republicans 317 284
Total Democrats 381 406
Total Independents 336 344
If anyone knows how to make that look better, you can chime in.
Republicans were originally the most unrepresented group of the sample at 34%. Democrats were 42% of the sample. This is pretty close to most surveys of party identification I have seen in terms of the gap. The problem is of course that when teh decide to weigh the numbers the Republicans become 33% of the sample and Democrats have to be adjusted up to...48% of the sample. This is a 15% point difference in party identification. Nothing supports it. The poll and others like it drag like a boat anchor out of the field of poll results. Republicans were he only group, that it was felt needed the be weighed down.
Interesting as usual.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
This is because Obama went on a world tour with hand picked media, ala a president. He requested locations to speak, and were reminded by foreign governments that he is not president. He calls his travel jet O Force One to try to remind us he should be president. Within this commercial it was noted that Obama keeps absconding with the presidential imagery including a faux seal.
Well it turns out Obama realizes that in another media puff piece from a few years ago, Obama noted his own vapidness.
The media keep calling Obama a rising star, a rock star, and other phrases to try to build him up. They keep trying to give him momentum and build support for him due to their own biases. When Republicans are smart enough to note the process, the media goes nuts trying to cover their own rear.
"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."
They don't even realize that one of the reasons McCain has gone negative is because it will finally yield some coverage that they have been refusing to give him. They won't cover him in front of a podium speaking about his energy plan. However they will cover whether an attack on their beloved messiah is "fair" or not by their own reasoning. The McCain ad was given loads of free air play so that the talking heads could discuss how mean or unfair McCain was afterwards.
So McCain has the choice of continuing to just run as a candidate, where he gets no coverage due to bias, or he can attack and finally have that attack covered while the biased media ponders how someone had the guile to question their messianic, once in a generation, change agent.
I say get to attacking. It's better to be heard than to be ignored.
Monday, August 4, 2008
McCain has whittled down the Obama to 2.3 points which is basically nothing in a year where Democrats have everything going for them. McCain hasn't even run an effective campaign yet but Obama just can't stop shooting himself in the foot.
Well get ready for the craziness and if you know some lefties it is already starting. They have been dreaming of a Democratic president for eight years and on top of it, while they may have liked Kerry, they absolutely adore Obama. He is their intellectual leader. He is the once in a generation change agent who can do-no-wrong and will lead them to the promised land.
Only so far, it appears he isn't doing this. In fact so far, it appears that he is having to spend more to get a vote per capita than almost any candidate in history. He is below where Democrats are polling generically. He is vunerable in several swing states. Each time a poll is run the numbers come closer together. By liberal reasoning, what is happening right now is supposed to be completely impossible.
So when the impossible begins happening, grab a life jacket because these folks will come completely off their rocker. They are going to completely lose it and become the deranged, cursing, screaming, bitterly insane folks underneath who are now facing up to their fears like a caged animal.
Worse still, they own bias created the cage. It will be fun to watch.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Not surprisingly, the McCain ad generates significantly different perceptions along racial and ethnic lines. Most African-American voters—58%--saw the McCain ad as racist. Just 18% of white voters and 14% of all other voters shared that view. To watch the ad, click HERE.
As for Obama’s comment, 53% of white voters saw it as racist, as did 44% of African-Americans and 61% of all other voters.
Something I have to ask about some of these figures is does anyone remember what racist is anymore? It seems we have defined the bar for racism down to a mere difference in perception of offense among different groups.
This is almost as bad as those reports out of the UK whereby toddlers were being labeled racist if they didn't respond favorably to ethnic food selections.
The John McCain Celebrity Ad shows Obama amidst two celebrities who appear to have questionable talent and have proven to be more famous for being famous than anything else.
How does linking Obama to vapid empty white female celebrities somehow make one racist?
It doesn't according to the majorities within those polls but my point is to remind whomever thinks it is, that racism has a definition. It means intentionally discriminating or showing preference for one because of skin color and also believing yourself superior because of that skin color.
Instead it appears racism is increasingly being defined in authoritarian terms whereby those who are considered to rule their race can dictate and negotiate terms with other races and thus give them guilt-free indulgences on being a racist. This is the modus operandi for the the environmental cause as well.
So if you hire, associate with, give proper respect to, and of course dollars to race brokered legitimized causes, you are safe from being a racist. If you don't then it really does not matter how obscure, insane or impossibly unrelated the degrees of reference, you can be labeled as a racist.
So Jesse Jackson, who fathered a love child and paid of the mother, called New York Hymietown and also wanted Obama's.... well let us just say he desired a little retribution for Obama not addressing his causes well, can never be a racist. His associations, organizations, accusations, etc all are based on race but he is never a racist. He is also never considered to have taken the low road despite all these actions occurring. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright never took the low road when questioning the motivations of whites, only when he questioned the motivations of Obama.
Meanwhile the McCain campaign keeps putting up ads in which Obama is not only seen in a flattering light, but the light is considered too flattering. The people chant his name, the cameras flash, the best possible pose and picture of Obama is put forward.
Pointing out the best traits is not a negative trait. The pictures they put forward are those Obama puts forward. The positions are his and the words are quoted from him. This isn't a surrogate pulling him down or someone intentionally misstating his position. When Obama runs as a personal change agent, not as a provider of a plan, and you use his personal image and statements against him, that is not racist. It is also not taking "the low road."
It is not the low road to show someone in a flattering light while simply asking questions about their own words and positions. This is all John McCain has done and it is stirring up trouble because the utopian socialists on the left do not allow dogma to be questioned. It is heresy and the low road by their reasoning. If you question how a person is not a plan, how checking our tire pressure will not solve our energy problems, and how our safety is not kept by tearing down invisible walls, that is the high road.
Keep taking the high road John McCain. Do not let the looters on the left condemn you with a moral code they do not hold for themselves. Do not let them prosecute you with feelings with no basis in reality. Hold their feet to the fire. Run an ad where the lights are shown going out not just on the House of Congress, but on our American future as well. Flashbulbs and change platitudes will not give us a future. Knocking Obama out of his elitist tower (we can't say ivory lest we be accused of racially subconscious thoughts) and force him to get into the nuts and bolts of his governance. You propose drilling, clean coal and nuclear power, he proposes checking his profile and checking our tire air pressure. Noting this is the high road and you need to stick to it.
McCain may be a bit a late convert to the taxation cause and still may not embrace it as well as others may like. I ask those of you reading this the following question, if sin taxes discourage the particular behavior they are levied on, smoking, drinking, junk food, etc. then how do taxes on income, investment, and dividends not discourage those actions?
Obama's "high road" involves cutting us imaginary checks from the "windfall profits" of oil companies. These are the same companies that are now supposed to go and somehow find even more oil even though there is no profit in those actions. If you double the tax on cigarette smoking you hope fewer people will smoke cigarettes and at confiscatory levels this does happen. Do the same on oil and gas production and it isn't the low road to wonder why no one will desire to engage in that action. The government already takes three cents for ever cent of profit the gas companies make. Questioning this is not the low road but the high road.
The fact that one campaign believes it can ignore these facts because it has a transcendent messianic change agent who they believe will nullify all the concerns with his dazzling persona and you point this out is also not the low road. We do have religions where the lion is claimed to lay with the lamb. If you want to believe or question those religions it is not considered the low road to have that discussion. Likewise when one side of the political spectrum has taken certain people and certain perspectives and given them religious language and beliefs, questioning that is not heresy or the low road. It is what every intelligent, enlightened person ought to do.
Barack Obama has a serious problem coming up in the fall election schedule. People are going to ask him to define what HOPE™ and CHANGE™ mean and so far when he has done this, it drops him lower in the polls and always comes off sounding like a gaffe.
The reality is that it isnt a gaffe, this nonsense, the style without substance is what he happens to believe folks. He will fly around in Barack One while chastizing you to ensure your tires are properly filled to solve our energy crisis.
There are a number of pretensions that Mr. Obama has adopted while no longer advocating any real change. He was going to be a candidate who took public funds but now would rather try to buy your vote. Union money was "special interest" money until it began to flow to him. Townhalls and debates were great things and he pondered a series of them with John McCain and engaged in a series of them with Hillary Clinton, but a funny thing happened along the way, he came out worse for wear each time went up against Hillary and so now he is ducking McCain.
You know McCain, too old to think, to scarred from war injuries and age to be photogenic, easy to anger and set off in a tantrum or fight, John McCain is someone the left claims will be easy to knock down, yet they duck the opportunities.
If you are a Republican thinking in terms of images, could you imagine anything worse than 6'1" Barack Obama standing next to 5'7" John McCain and having one look all young and handsome, and the other look every one of his 71 years old. Mr. Charisma versus Mr. Melanoma makes a terrible one-sided picture so why would John McCain want to order up ten or more sessions of this painful picture?
It is because although John McCain is old and even though he may not use the internet much, he has heard of these moving pictures with sound we call television and he knows that when Obama does not control the imagery, he comes off very badly. The number of uh's rolls out faster than the rise in price of gas.
You can also watch him have to come down off his pedastal and become a regular politician.
When Obama becomes just a regular politician, just a typical politician, he loses. He is supposed to be a trascendent change agent who is above the process. By forcing him into the process you de-deify him. This is important because his statements, his campaign platform, and his actions all suggest that he does not run a campaign on a plan, but on a person. Obama does not have a better plan than the next guy, he claims to be a better person than the next guy.
The reason the celebrity ad has struck so hard is because all of us as consumers of entertainment have seen what train wrecks these celebrities are when they don't have lines written for them, handlers to make sure they promote the right film or are left to their own devices. The problem isn't that they are terrible people, rather that instead of someone you want to watch they come off very... ordinary and that is very bad for the celebrity business.
Obama comes off very badly when he comes off as ordinary and this is why he refuses to engage in a discussion of ideas and plans. I'm sure if he had his way he would duck even the three presidential debates. He wants nothing that removes him from loud applauding crowds (who showed up for the spectacle and free rock concerts as well.) He wants to deliver his lines, amidst a sea of Obama signs and backers and then move on to governing.
So I say do whatever it takes along this celebrity theme to knock him off his pedestal. Maybe send along some faux paparazzi to his campaign sites. Maybe craft several videos of awards shows where Obama wins all the Academy Awards for negative political catagories. Hit until he comes down and engages in more than selling a man, and instead has to talk about his plan.
He won't do that because that is what will make him lose.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
I guess the media has noticed they are too biased and have begun to spin their own bias using inane and insane rationalizations.Newsbusters rips into just such an article by the Washington Post.
The numbers themselves are pretty inexcuseable, but that doesn't mean they don't try.
So, why this disparity? Howell has some excuses... er, I mean explanations.After all the platitudes and rationalizations... the WP confesses...
* Obama is photogenicThere you go, Debbroah. That's what I like, making a strike for serious investigation like that.
* He is an historical candidate
* His backgrounds are more photogenic
* He smiles more
But these kinds of discrepancies feed distrust on the part of readers, especially conservative ones, who already complain that The Post is all for Obama.Hey the conservatives actually did perceive reality correctly and aren't insane.
The conclusion... it rocks.
Here I'd like to suggest a reason why Obama gets such favorable photos. I'd like to suggest that, contrary to Howell's claims to the contrary, there is bias in his favor indeed. Even if we take Howell's excuse that the photos that come from stringers and wire service shooters tend to give a bit of cover to the paper, it is still bias influencing those shots. Those wire service guys are all going for the Obama as Messiah shots of which we've become so boringly familiar. They are looking for, competing for, those "artistic shots" of Obama looking beneficent, surround in light, sporting a halo even. And the papers eat these photos up and then clamor for more. And it's all driven by the photographer's personal bias and excitement for Obama on one hand, and their assumptions that their editors back in the office similarly want the newest and most Obamarific photo and will pay handsomely for them.There is the bias right there. Its endemic in the entire process from star-struck photog, to moon-eyed photo editor, to sycophantic page editor, to the printer and out the door to a unsuspecting public.It isn't our fault we discovered we were totally in the tank for Obama. (BTW I am now including 20% more in the tank references just to be new and improved) Sure the entire process reflects this from beginning to end, but it isn't our fault. It's John McCain's fault for not smiling enough.:lol:
Howell next says she is going to tackle the actual stories to see if there were more Obamaholic writers than those intoxicated by McCain's story. I am curious who she will blame this time? If it is the wire service photographer's fault for the overwhelming disparity in Obama photos, maybe Howell will blame the Obamasized dictionary writers who surely gave them too many Barackable words to use?
Damn you John McCain for not smiling and being photogenic enough! You've now revealed the bias of those "journalists" who were only giving to Obama at 100 to 1 ratio.
The third excerpt is actually the best in my view. I'll link to the first two as well which are called, "Why Liberals Prefer Raising Dogs over Children," and "Conservatives are Greedy, Liberals Just Want to Get Rich."For today though it is that intelligence question which turns out, like most things liberals say, to be presumed and unfounded.
This liberal assumption that a candidate can be just too darn smart to win a presidential election in this country goes back to Adlai Stevenson.What proof was there of Gore’s alleged gravitas? How exactly did the media know that Gore was so smart and Bush so dumb? In fact, the record did not indicate any of this was true. It was often alleged, probably with reason, that Bush only got into Yale because his father had gone there and his grandfather had been a Connecticut senator. Yet Gore, with high school Bs and Cs (his only As were in art), got into Harvard in part because (like other politicians’ sons, including a raft of Kennedys) his father was a famous senator. At Harvard, Gore’s grades did not improve. In his sophomore year he earned a D, a C-minus, two Cs, two C-pluses and one B-minus. He was in the bottom fifth of his class his first two years in school. Later he flunked out of divinity school (failing five of his eight classes) and dropped out of Vanderbilt University Law School. Gore was once asked (after having served in the U.S. Senate for several years) to name his favourite president. “President Knox,” he replied.
Howell Raines, former executive editor of The New York Times, explained during the election that it was quite obvious that Bush was a dim bulb in contrast to Kerry: “Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I’m sure the candidates’ SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.”
Fact checking was apparently not necessary for Raines. Though at the time, of course, no one could actually check because Kerry kept refusing to release his transcripts from Yale, or any information about intelligence tests that he would have taken as a Navy officer............
I've had to save the best for last of course...
Then a Navy veteran named Sam Sewell noticed something on the Kerry campaign Web site. In one of the documents posted on the Web page, an obscure military report offered a cryptic score that was actually the result of an IQ-like qualifying test Kerry had taken in 1966. As it happened, George W. Bush had taken the same test just a few years later. Columnist Steve Sailer determined that Bush’s score put him in the 95th percentile, giving him an IQ in the 120s. Kerry’s score was slightly lower, putting him in the 91st percentile...................
After Bush won re-election, it became clear why Kerry hadn’t wanted to release his college records. The Boston Globe discovered that Bush actually had higher grades at Yale and also had higher SAT scores. (Bush’s scores were also higher than those of Senator Bill Bradley, another liberal often described as learned and brilliant.)
Professor Bruce Fleming, a self-professed liberal, explains this liberal attitude perfectly. “All of us are ignorant of many things. It’s just that the liberal here thinkss he knows what the conservative is ignorant of.”
This sublime confidence in their own superiority leads to a closed-minded insistence that liberals know what is right. Scholars at Stanford, the University of Illinois and Williams conducted four studies on the subject of “asymmetric insight.” Basically, this is the notion that some people claim to know more than others. Surveys were conducted with hundreds of students. Among their findings: Liberals are much more likely to believe that their knowledge of conservatives and their arguments surpasses that of conservatives themselves. The results were similar when it came to the abortion issue. Abortion rights advocates claimed to have greater knowledge and insight than those who are pro-life.Liberals claim to know your information better than you, and your own motivations better than you. They claim to know where and how you got your information, what you are going to do with it, and why you read it in the first place.
As usual, it turns out they are wrong. The pedestal is really not even a stair step and might even the cellar thanks to their own closed minded insistence on ignoring reality. When their closed minds lead to bad conclusions, election losses and the always popular unintended consequences it is always because of "dirty tricks." Any investigation into these tricks often turn up evidence of wrong doing, but it is the liberals doing it. They are the ones handing out crack or cigarettes, slashing van tires, or raising the dead to vote.
So for my liberal friends, when I encounter this attitude from you yet again, I'll try not to feel to bad for you. Your cognitive bias due to your illusion of asymmetric insight is actually a handicap that should earn my pity. It must be hard being so wrong and then in the end being so paranoid and conspiratorial to explain away the false conclusions.
So I'll bare with you. I'll be forgiving of your tantrums and profanity laced tirades. You probably can't help yourself since you are saddled with the inability to see beyond your own nose while believing you have better than average eyesight.
I'll be there to wipe away your tears.
Yesterday our Democratic lawmakers in the US House decided they were due for a break. With abysmal approval numbers and a “pro-US energy” bill looming, Nancy Pelosi decided it was just time to go. She shut off the lights. She shut off CSPAN. She shut off the mics. Where in the world could there be a more perfect symbol of Democrat energy policy than this “shutting off the lights?” The double entendres alone are worth millions in available political capital. Time to capitalise, friends. It’s days like this I wish I had 15 people with film and graphic design degrees on staff.
This screams for a commercial. People paying at the gas station. The elderly couple looking over their home heating oil bill. Pictures of the “little people” that the liberals claim to care about ad nauseam. Mix in there sound bites from Nancy and her DNC friends about how much they care for these “little people being hurt.” And then we need a picture of a woman in a suit putting up the “out to lunch” sign on her office door and turning out the lights... as the faces of these “little people” fade out in series. To me this could not be better served up to us by the Speaker if it were directly downloaded from the brain of Karl Rove.
The Pelosi “Shutting off the lights” series of ads would rock the DNC to its core.
Another angle on this would be another part of the figurative meaning... the Democrats saying “lights out” to clean coil, oil shale, nuclear power, refineries, offshore drilling, ANWR, et al. We need to start pointing out that there IS NO “good” energy for the Democrats, or at least one they do like that is presently viable. Coal?: too dirty, and (!) carbon. Oil?: too dirty, and (!!!) carbon. Nuclear?: The China Syndrome. We end that commercial with the tag line “Lights out in the US Congress means lights out on the US economy” or maybe a series of factories going dark from lack of energy, in series with the floor of the US House dimmed or darkened. Go right at those “bitter clingers” in the rust belt with the message of what a lack of energy does. “Let’s turn out lights in Democrat congressional offices across the nation.”
Yet another part of this campaign would be to lampoon Obama’s asinine comments on inflating our tires and getting tune ups as the answer. “Turning out the lights, Madame Speaker, may save you some electricity in DC and face back home in San Francisco, but the American people cannot afford it. We cannot conserve our way out of this as a standalone solution. Turning out the lights on the floor of the US House, inflating our tires, and getting a tune up are not going to cut it. The American people are living right on top of the solution... the very energy beneath our feet. Hear our voices... give us an up or down vote on energy independence...”
The “Lights Out” Democratic party and Pelosi need to feel the heat from this. And this is heat we can generate ourselves, Madame Speaker.
Friday, August 1, 2008
If that was silly, Senator Obama's verbal crackback at his opponent's criticism was more troubling. Campaigning in Missouri, he said: "So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'He doesn't look like all those other Presidents on the dollar bills.'"The Obama camp says the reference to dollar-bill portraits wasn't meant to suggest that all of them are white and he is black. We might give him the benefit of the doubt on this were it not that it's the second time Mr. Obama has used this device. In late June in Florida he said: "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'"
I want to give Senator Obama the benefit of the doubt and so I am going to ask you, my fellow politicos and also the Obama supporters out there to help clarify his statement. I've given you a picture of the various currencies. Can you help find the non-racial attribute that Senator Obama must have been referring to when making that statement?
Also, doesn't his phrasing once again presume he is already president? He doesn't look like all those OTHER presidents.
Help me out. Clarify his statement for him.
The above has been repeated by Obama's supporters ad nauseam. Yet it is the biggest lie of the Obama campaign. While Obama and his supporters talk about a post-racial America, he is running around saying that McCain is making race an issue. There is a term for this: Race baiting.
Democrat Barack Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, says John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.
The fact is McCain has never made reference to anything like this. However, Obama has made multiple references to race. His campaign went ballistic over the Clinton "fairy tale" comment. They reacted similarly to Ferraro's comments. In the past, he's made reference to the fact that he's black being a big disadvantage. He and his campaign are quick to condemn "racists" at every turn, evev when those "racists" are merely questioning Obama's policies and positions.
Obama is, of course, a hypocrite. His campaign is anything but post-racial. On the contrary, Obama has created at atmosphere of guilt-based voting. You see, one must vote for Obama if he's not racist and if he's interested in a post-racial America. And be careful...don't be fooled! McCain and his cohorts will do everything possible to tell you Obama is BLACK!
Now, who is running a post-racial candidacy, exactly?
Barack Obama wrote his senior thesis at Columbia University on Soviet nuclear disarmament. Inquiring people have sought a copy of this thesis to no avail. Columbia says it cannot be found; Barack Obama says he lost it.NY Times
Mr. Obama, now the junior senator from Illinois and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, spent 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. Most aspiring politicians do not dwell in the halls of academia, and few promising young legal thinkers toil in state legislatures. Mr. Obama planted a foot in each, splitting his weeks between an elite law school and the far less rarefied atmosphere of the Illinois Senate...........NY Times
Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any. He was too busy, but also, Mr. Epstein believes, he was unwilling to put his name to anything that could haunt him politically, as Ms. Guinier’s writings had hurt her. “He figured out, you lay low,” Mr. Epstein said.
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.It is one thing for people to spin that someone is an empty suit and another thing all together to discover he is in fact an empty suit.
The 130 present votes I'm sure will be dismissed by those with their Obama blinders on, but how do you dismiss the other two. I've never heard of a person being offered tenure the second they were hired who had never published a single paper while teaching for 12 years.
Am I going to believe that a thesis is the end all be all of anything related to Barack Obama? Not at all, but again, it bothers me when it can't be found at all to even look at for whatever curiosity I might have about the subject.
I have no doubt it will suddenly be found if there is ever a Barack Obama ever has a presidential library.
I'm told when we analyze your voting record and the National Journal notes you are the most liberal, it really isn't a fair comparison because you were penalized for missing so many votes. The spin notes that McCain missed votes as well because he is running for president as well.
It doesn't appear however that Mr McCain has been running for president for life. I could go back years ago and find how he voted and note it isn't present. We can dig into his navy record or even academic records (bad as they were) because they haven't been lost and he didn't somehow work in a job where he wrote an entire book about his life, but never researched or put his name on anything expected or common for his field.
So what happens when you try to look beneath the platitudes and discover... nothing.