The multi-tasking bastard who is attempting in Alaska to dismantle the Constitution got me really worked up the other day. Well, in reality it wasn’t just him, but also my knowledge of the next day’s headlines screaming, “Palin abused power.”
I’m pretty new at this so I am not giving myself a lot of credit when I say I think the bloggers have made a huge difference in this campaign. Often we think of other countries when we talk about how hard it is to contain the Internet and getting the word out there: think Saudi blogger. (He has since been released.)
But now our very own MSM has tried and remains trying to disguise their cult-like adoration of all things Obama, despite the unimaginable damage he seems set to do to this country. It’s so unreal I often stop myself, thinking I am acting like a conspiracy theorist. But it’s all there, at first buried under the layers of cable, now coming out and being exposed more and more each day. I can only hope the citizens of this great nation, who stand on the shoulders of giants, I hope they have gotten the message in time.
While we wait–in my opinion it will be a nail-biting few weeks–we keep blogging and chatting and talking and praying and arguing, screaming at radios and shaking fists at televisions. In the midst of all that are some absolutely wonderful bloggers whose sense of humor is absolutely capital, humor that at times has helped me keep some perspective.
Over at Ace‘s page there’s an entry where a few people have been letting off some steam in a creative way: haiku. There’s at least one troller as well (and working pretty hard at it) but they’re taking it with humor. It’s perhaps the funniest entry I’ve seen ever, and my favorite post within it I think is this one:
If Obama wins
I will buy guns and hide them
Posted by: Scott
Don’t let the bastards get you down…VOTE on 4 November!
Could it really be true? Or is it just such an out there fantasy that knowing it is pierces my eye sockets with a dull beam like the one that will be in my interrogation room when I get arrested for writing this shit?
Is it really a possibility that Obama might be days away from an indictment? When it happens, just remember you read it here…second. I’m still trying to digest exactly what it is PUMA is talking about. I don’t know most of these thugs and if the time line isn’t set up in particular rows on paper, it’s hard for me to grasp. So while you read that (and don’t forget the comment) I’m going to engage in some escapism and recall a time when my biggest worry was how someone with such an awesome voice could wear such a horrid shirt.
If you’ve already read it, feel free to watch above, and I wouldn’t mind an explanation and reassurance that Rezko can sing half as good.
First reports coming from the Eddie Burke Show say the legislative report from the Tasergate investigation shows Sarah Palin was within her rights to fire Monegan and did not abuse her power, although she did violate an ethics law. This may refer to what appears to be Monegan’s statements that Palin started to speak to him about Trooper Wooten; Monegan warned her against this and she never spoke of it again.
There was, however, also criticism re: her lack of acting upon her husband’s failure to stop speaking about the incident.
Fox news is also reporting this incorrectly as saying the council found her to have abused her powers; currently it is being discussed on Eddie Burke’s show at KBYR, a locally-owned Alaska radio station.
Update to follow.
Update: AP is hyperventilating in their crusade against Palin and they have reported incorrectly of her guilt.
Glen Biegel of KBYR is having a conniption fit over Hollis French who is the one who is guilty of abuse of power and anybody telling Todd Palin he is not entitled to utilise his First Amendment rights. Steve Branchflower, it should be noted, made his recommendations in his report and Biegel is enraged, accusing Branchflower of being “judge, jury and executioner.”
Local Anchorage news is also reporting she abused her power, despite a state senator having just discussed this on live radio.
Whatever the case may be, there’s something seriously amiss when an Alaska resident can’t get straight news about the Alaska governor.
OK, freak out moment over when someone here finally admits to self that reading and listening [add: and type] can’t be done simultaneously. At least not by her.
Steve Branchflower, as I’m sure you know by now, has released his report saying that, as Allahpundit sums it up, “Palin abused power but had the right to fire Monegan.” That’s very reassuring. Um, no.
You know what’s going to get gobbled up by the country starting tomorrow? Three big, fat, phat for Obama, words:
Palin abused power.
As you can see here, “independent and unbiased” Steve Branchflower, who was paid $100,000 to perform this investigation, writes:
Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
The AP was so delirious with joy they could hardly write:
A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state’s public safety commissioner.
You could have put the winning lottery numbers in at any point after that but none of the other 49 states would have any winners because nobody would see past that, the first sentence in their minuscule piece that acts as a ginormous shout of triumph. Alaska would have no winners because we have no lottery. But Alaska has no winners anyway, because Branchflower was paid to act as a judge, jury and executioner–just as Biegel states–and even he didn’t have to wear the black bag over his head. Sarah Palin didn’t get to face her accusers; what she did experience is people such as Hollis French foaming at the mouth about how there may be an “October surprise” (oh that’s very subtle, isn’t it) and Todd Palin was basically put on notice that because he occupies an unusual position in the state–husband of the governor–he is supposed to keep his mouth shut. He is not allowed to register any kind of complaint. As far as whether Sarah aided him by allowing access to government–that’s been viewed and ruled upon by Branchflower, the multi-tasker. Exactly what kind of government do we have here in Alaska?
And what kind of police do we have on this land? Officer Wooten still has his job, after five days lost work for tasering a child, drinking in his patrol car and poaching moose. And a radio host who gave out phone numbers on a press release received the same suspension–five days. I realise these are different agencies administering the punishments, but it still stands as a major disgrace that a radio show host is held to a higher standard than a state trooper.
How many people will come to know the crucial details of this farce? That Monegan wasn’t even fired, for starters? That he was re-assigned, declined the offer and quit? That Wooten threatened to kill Chuck Heath, Palin’s father? That even this started before Palin became governor? That not a few Alaskans wouldn’t stop for Wooten if he tried to pull them over? Will people across the country ever know these and other details and, especially if they are pathetic sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome, will they ever care that Wooten is still walking around Alaska with a gun? While Barack Obama has tea with terrorists and plays semantics to excuse his proposed visits to the rogue leader of a nation whose government is intent on destroying us? Maybe they won’t have to because if this crap keeps piling higher every day, as it seems to be, pretty soon we will bury ourselves.
Oh yeah: I should add this very important part of Branchflower’s report, which is buried on pages 80-81. This I don’t really fault him for, but rather the MSM who are too lazy to look any further than the first sentence that “confirms” the answers they want to hear, and can’t be bothered to read on:
In this case there has been much said about the level of frustration that existed on the part of Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath who filed the original complaint against Trooper Michael Wooten, and on the part of Sarah and Todd Palin, who attempted to learn the status of the investigation only to be told by Colonel Grimes that the matter was confidential by reason of AS 39.25.080. I believe their frustration was real as was their skepticism about whether their complaints were being zealously investigated…[T]he law prevented the troopers from giving them any feedback whatsoever.
When a citizen files a complaint against a peace officer, there should be a balance in our law that on the one hand seeks to protect the confidentiality of the investigative process, but on the other recognizes that someone may have been aggrieved. At the very least, the law should provide for the release of some information to the complainant regarding the status of the case. When citizens are told no information can be released, it has the potential of engendering skepticism about whether the complaint was taken seriously. There is likewise a great potential that the confidence we need to have in our law enforcement agencies will be undermined, and respect for those institutions will be eroded. This is especially so because in most instances, as was the case here, the officer is an employee of the very same agency that was conducts [sic] the investigation.
What do you suppose the chances are the MSM will admit Todd Palin had a right to doubt the claims were being investigated and felt he had to pursue it as strongly as he did?
I’ll probably win the Alaska State Lottery before that happens.
While I have been busy learning about the brain’s language map and all the things any six-month old knows about communication, the blogging world has gone on merrily without me and I’ve missed some of the best and funniest blog entries of All Time. Although I probably needed the break anyway–my brain is oversoaked with Ayers these last days, uffff–I was planning to read a few more entries before I fell on the floor. I couldn’t do any writing tonight.
And then I saw one entry that made my spine stiffen:
There has been a nasty rumor going on that during Palin’s tenure as mayor of Wassila, female rape victims were required to pay for their own rape kits. It was supposed to be another example on how Palin was really a man and hated women and wanted them all to stay home barefoot and pregnant.
Imagine my surprise when you find out that this is not true.
In reality, and had any journalist in the MSM outlets bothered to do their job instead of working for the Obama campaign 24/7, there was a state law forbidding charging victims of rape for their rape kits since 2000. As for where it all came from, the chief of Police( chief of police, not Palin) in Wasilla wanted to have the Insurance companies(Insurance companies, not the victims) to pay for them, with the intention of billing it ultimately to the rapists eventually. However, there isn’t a single piece of record that shows that a single victim’s insurance was ever billed for it. If this practice still seems creepy or exclusive to macho,
rough-and-tumble Alaska, well, it happens to be the practice in other
states, too, like North Carolina (until recently) and … Illinois.
And can you guess who co-sponsored that bill in Illinois?
Can you say Barack Obama?
Have a nice day!
I realise this is an old story, so far as the whole rape kit thingie goes. But the Illinois statute is news to me. My only consolation for the fact that an Egyptian blogger had the better sense than me to find this is that I know I’m not alone. (OK, cold comfort, but I haven’t seen this exactly sprung all over the blogs here either.) I wonder how many citizens of Illinois are aware of this?
To be honest, this is also an example of how numbers bandied about in debates sway people, regardless of how accurate they are or are not. For example, Joe “Come with me to Katie’s” Biden frequently pulls numbers from the air that only a few people know off the tops of their heads are outright fabrications. But how many average citizens will actually have the wherewithal not only to question the assertions–how would they reckon he is lying about McCain’s votes?–but to go look all these up? They are like statistics in a way: people have a feeling for them that is a combination of reverence and fear, and they think the ones who can spout the best must know the most.
So it is here: although rape is more common than reported, there still are people who are untouched by the experience and if they are not presented with the fact that Obama is more dirtied by the accusations than Sarah Palin ever could come close to being, they may always go on erroneously believing she is bad for women. And that is the real point, not that Sandmonkey failed in his reading of the Frontiersman article. At worst he may have failed to tell us that he knows what any (truthful) Alaskan will concede: that the practice in fact happened in other cities besides Wasilla. Not to mention other US cities.
If current Police Chief Long’s information is correct, then Mayor Palin didn’t know that rape victims were charged for rape kits, because none were.
and that person who commented in reply to Sandmonkey’s post never bothered to read this, even when it was provided to him by said Sandmonkey via direct link.
It’s more astroturfing to get the Internet dish out in the same way MSM and other goons have been up here in Alaska rifling through people’s trash in their desperate attempts to have some new and dirty scandal to spin on CNN to get their Oprah moment. If any of them had a shred of intellectual honesty they would stop yammering about Palin’s lipstick and start looking for the truth. Really, if this is this is all trained journalists can find on Palin and much of this can be caught by bloggers of all levels (including yours truly, a newcomer), then maybe I’m studying language awareness of the wrong group of people. The sandbox set are as forthright as you can get and the media have built the Tower of Babble.
Do you believe you know Barack Obama well enough to vote for him because you have heard his speeches?
Are you apolitical? Do you not care about politics? Do you wish to stay neutral? Are you planning to vote Independent? If so, what do you think will happen to that vote? What do you think will happen if you don’t vote, or cast your vote for him thinking it’s just one of millions?
Barack Obama’s connections and ideology are not in line with the traditions and standards that have made this great nation successful and a sought-after destination, for immigrants as well as visitors and investors. His economic plans are fiscally unsound, he wants to meet with a dangerous Holocaust denier (and lies about Henry Kissinger giving him the thumbs up on this), and the ways he campaigns are reminiscent of Hitler Youth and Cultural Revolution-era thugs.
If you don’t know Barack Obama, get to know him. Neither party is going to have all the right answers, but Barack Obama’s is the only one that seeks to impose his “solutions” on others, whether they are willing or not.
A flattering earthy shade of brown, perhaps?
“For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”–John F. Kennedy
Jennifer Joyce, a high-profile prosecuting attorney, is one of two who will be “reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than 250K$ a year.”
The video above repeats what I have previously said: this is impossible given the fact that not everyone even pays income taxes.
Aside from that, I want to know why people in Missouri or any state should tolerate prosecuters proseletysing for the Barack Obama campaign or go after ads that are “misleading”–subjective to begin with–or false, especially when Obama himself not only has lied but been caught at it.
Joyce says, “[W]e’re here to respond to any character attacks, to set the record straight,” and prosecutor Bob McColloch declares: “If they’re not going to tell the truth, then somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘Wait a minute, that’s not true, this is the truth.'” So what happens when Obama’s own campaign lies? Is this the kind of oppressive rule he intends to force of the American people?
The people of the United States have the right to hear from both parties and make determinations on their own. Not only is Obama’s technique another step towards a nanny state–deciding what is good for us–but also is a reprehensible and flagrant violation of our right to information, free speech and freedom to assemble.
Is this the beginning of the “national security force” he proposes to establish?
More and more every day, each time Barack Obama opens his mouth I am reminded of two scary words: Cultural Revolution. Mao had people getting in the faces and business of those he didn’t like and going after people who made critical discussions on the actions of the state. He had bands of people running around engaging in “keeping order” as well. Now Obama is advocating that his minions get in people’s faces and form a group called the “truth squad” to silence his opponents by shouting them down and attempting to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.
So how long until he asks for criticisms and recommendations and then gulags those who respond? When comes the day in which some of us will be required to publicly account for our sins and beg for the holy status of rehabilitated?
I’d like to believe all of this is as absurd as it sounds. Fear mongering is never an effective strategy, nor is a hyperventilating kind of activism. However, questions as addressed above, extreme as they appear on the surface, should give pause to those who like or dislike Obama and consider the effects of such behavior on the part of the Illinois senator, even if no one actually is jailed or prosecuted for their dissenting views.
As Allahpundit at Hot Air writes:
[N]o one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearingof David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he?
It’s stated well and I agree, but there also should be the caution to those who will silence or be silenced on the basis of fear.
We have seen time and again how Barack Obama ridicules John McCain’s policies and tries to duck when people ask him questions. In fact, he never really answers, but instead maneuvers the conversation over to what he thinks his opponent is doing wrong.
In the 2008 presidential debate aired Friday, Senator Obama checked off a series of proposals to protect taxpayers, including his assertion that “we’ve got to make sure we’re helping homeowners because the root problem here has to do with foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.” He went on to blame the current crisis on “eight years of economic policies promoted by George Bush and supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says we can shred regulations and consumer protections.”
Now I have a couple of questions about this. Exactly which homeowners is Senator Obama trying to help? The ones who can’t afford houses they should have never been approved to buy in the first place? Or are we talking here about the homeowners whose tax dollars may go to covering the cost of illegal immigrant and other homeowners whose subprime loans went into foreclosure?
And which regulations and consumer protections is he talking about when he accuses Bush and McCain of shredding them? Perhaps those of the Community Re-investment Act, which triggered lawsuits against banks that didn’t loan to people with bad credit or too-low income? And did the “consumer protections” he referenced include the charges of racism levelled at those who did not meet the CRA standards and quotas for loans to guarantee “affordable housing”?
It’s not that difficult to see a lack of substance in the speeches and panderings of Barack Obama, and in this reply he did not answer the question at all. His points (which were stretched to create more of them, by the way) were mere echoes of what the public has been critisising and not at all close to what he has been calling for in the past. His call for “oversight,” for example, is nothing more than posturing. Where was he when McCain was speaking out against these practises? The Democrats struck down McCain’s proposal in favor of “affordable housing,” but all Obama can do is repeat ad nauseum “Wall Street and Main Street” while he attacks the alleged “shredding” by Senator McCain.
The following video goes into great detail about how this current crisis came to pass. Please note it moves a bit fast and you should hover over the pause button to click when you want to read something before it moves to the next frame.
Reverse Spin has a lot more about how the MSM has essentially become Barack Obama’s press agent.
Not having TV (by choice) I’ve had to rely on the radio for this debate–the feed was about a minute off real time and the break up was slightly annoying, so I chose to forego that as well. It was a bit of a disadvantage since I’m a very visual person, but I was trying to pay close attention for audible squirms, and Obama provided me with many.
First of all, as Ed Morrissey points out below, what’s with this “John” business? Senator McCain is many years Obama’s senior in age as well as experience and the reference by first name really put me off. I am aware this doesn’t matter to some people who don’t believe being an elder can actually mean something, so I will grant that and move on.
Next, Obama was at a clear disadvantage when it came to Georgia–which he wouldn’t be if knew what he was talking about…or maybe if he hadn’t spoken first. He spoke in very general terms about Aggressor Russia with phrases and logic any high schooler could have posted on a chat forum. (No offense to high schoolers.) I wasn’t really sure what to expect from McCain, but when the hits came they were sure and swift. Point after point he hammered into Obama’s holes and I could practically hear the sweat poring from the Obama pores. When the Illinois senator began to speak, he seemed to borrow some of his newfound knowledge to make some talking points. If he thinks he gained any momentum it’s because he used what McCain had said to do a quick study.
Obama also seemed in the attack mode with his frequent interruptions, which McCain was tactful enough to indulge. Perhaps he knew he didn’t need to win the “I can talk louder than you” game because his victory would come later when people talked about how insecure Obama was with all that jumping into McCain’s points. It’s a bit of a shame I couldn’t see what the facial expressions were that each wore, but I did hear how secure and authoritative were the words of McCain, whereas Obama–especially in the latter half of the debate–stammered relentlessly. Clearly he had lost his cool. It seemed perhaps most apparent when he couldn’t remember the name of the serviceman whose mother had given him a bracelet, and I believe this will not be forgotten by the American people. There simply are too many who have contact with the military, whether they be families and friends, or neighbors, civilian-military contacts or even passing encounters in stores, fairs, parent-teacher meetings and so on. Over a year ago a Fort Richardson soldier tore a patch right off his shoulder and gave it to my son (now five). Children remember lots, of course–parents complain about it all the time. But at that age they also prioritise their memories, just as we do. Nevertheless, even more than one year later my son still recalls the soldier’s name and rank, as well as many of the details about that night at the airport. And he is not a United States senator. In my estimation it is shameful, degrading and disrespectful that of all names Senator Obama could not remember off the top of his head, it would be this one.
I also was incensed that Barack Obama claimed to have all along been saying Iran is a danger. (Note the date references in upper left corner of video below.)
This is an appalling claim to make given not only what he said, but also what he didn’t say. He didn’t bother to show up at the New York rally to demonstrate against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said nothing about how Sarah Palin was so shamelessly disinvited because the left considers partisan politics more important that defending the United States against a madman who can stand on our own soil and plan our destruction. Melanie Morgan wrote about how Obama has campaign connections as well to a group who brags about having met with Ahmadinejad, thinking they are actually achieving somethings besides putting this country at risk.
“Obama recently put his seal of approval on Evans’ attempt to storm the stage during the acceptance speech of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when he welcomed her to his two Hollywood fundraisers last week, the exclusive $28,500 per person event and the $2500 per person event Barbra Streisand sang at the same evening.”
I’m sure others will have many more things to say about this than I did, and I await them all. Now on to Debate # 1 wrap up.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the presidential debate tonight, I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have had to fly more than they expected in the last couple of days, and neither got a chance to focus on preparation, at least not to the extent they planned. I figured we’d see at least one major gaffe or breakdown from one of the candidates, and honestly, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing it.
However, I think both men did better than I expected. Neither seemed to show any effects from the hectic pace of the past week, and both appeared ready and relaxed at the start of tonight’s debate. I’d also include Jim Lehrer in that description, even though he had to rewrite part of his script to accommodate the economic crisis. Lehrer gave the debate a light touch as moderator, allowing the candidates plenty of space to talk and encouraging dialogue rather than speechmaking. It was perhaps one of the best presidential debates I’ve seen in this cycle, maybe the best.
With that said, McCain clearly got the best of Obama tonight. After a shaky couple of minutes to start the first question, McCain jabbed at Obama all night long — and he got Obama obviously flustered. While McCain kept his equanimity and never raised his tone or pitch, Obama got visibly upset, his voice pitched higher when responding to McCain, and Obama interrupted more. Obama also kept calling McCain “John” while McCain used the more proper “Senator Obama”, a difference that grated as the evening wore on.
Substantially, McCain also bested Obama on both economics and foreign policy. On the former, it was most apparent when Lehrer asked both candidates what they would cut as President after the bailout package passes. Obama could not bring himself to commit to one single cut, and instead talked about all of the funding he wanted to create for pet programs. McCain noted that he has long championed spending reductions and proposed a spending freeze on all but the most vital programs. When challenged on this point, Obama refused to say whether he would accept a freeze.
I did have a moment of frustration with McCain on the first question, a round I think Obama won. He never challenged Obama’s assumptions that the current credit crisis came from too little regulation. I kept expecting McCain to talk about the disaster of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the mandates from Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encourage bad lending by buying up bad paper. Instead, he tried to out-populist Obama, and Obama sounds more authentic as a populist.
On foreign policy, Obama did better than expected, but still fell short. I think his response on the decision to go into Iraq was quite good (even if I disagree with it), but he kept trying to argue that he didn’t demand a precipitous withdrawal in 2007 when the record clearly shows he did — and he beat Hillary to death with it in the primaries. McCain drew blood when he pointed out that for all of Obama’s talk about the priority of Afghanistan, he never once bothered to visit that front until last July, even though his Senate subcommittee has jurisdiction on NATO issues. Obama spluttered in response but never did explain why such an important theater wasn’t worth a single visit from him.
On Georgia, Russia, and eastern Europe, McCain proved himself the master of detailed foreign-policy thinking. While Obama talked briefly about the potential for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and pledged to “rebuild Georgia’s economy”, McCain explained the geopolitical realities of the entire region, and Russia’s intentions for it.
If Obama expected the old man to be too tired to debate properly, he is surely disappointed tonight. McCain kept Obama on defense all night long, made Obama lose his composure, and maintained his own in a very presidential performance. This one is a clear win for McCain.
September 26, 2008 6:17 PM
The Obama campaign is circulating a YouTube clip of Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. — the No. 2 House Republican — talking about the role of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at the disastrous White House meeting, on MSNBC today.
In the Obama campaign clip, Blunt says of McCain: “Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing.”
Said Obama spox Bill Burton: “Congressman Blunt just confirmed what’s been clear since John McCain rode into Washington at the eleventh hour -– Sen. McCain’s political theatrics succeeded only in stopping a bipartisan deal. During the most serious economic crisis of our time, we don’t need erratic posturing, we need steady leadership to protect American taxpayers and put our economy back on track.”
But that’s not the full quote. What Blunt actually said is quite different.
REP. ROY BLUNT: I do think that John McCain was very helpful in what he did. I saw him this morning, we’ve been talking with his staff. Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing that no House Republican in my view would have been for, which means it wouldn’t have probably passed the House. Now, Democrats are in the majority. They can pass anything they want to without a singe Republican vote, but they don’t seem to be willing to do that. I’m please we can have negotiations now that get us back towards things that we think can protect the taxpayers better, create more options, and frankly be better understood in the country than the plan—the path we were on a couple of days ago.
Lars Larson, conservative radio talk show host, interviewed NYT columnist Roger Cohen, who mocked Sarah Palin for not having had a passport until last year, not enough credentials for being “a heartbeat away from the presidency,” and “overuse” of the word exceptional.
Larson asked Cohen what Obama has done that could be considered significant and Cohen, after an uncertain pause, had to know he was hard pressed. Eventually he stammered, “He’s a guy who was born into pretty simple circumstances in Hawaii…and in 47 years he’s achieved a fair amount.”
Larson pushed Cohen on this: “What has he achieved? Name a significant achievement of Barack Hussein Obama”
“A significant achievement?”
“Well, I think he’s put himself in very close range of, uh, of the White House.”
“So his achievement has been–”
“He’s spoken out on issues…”
Dear readers, I cannot go on. It pains me that someone who is supposed to have some intellectual base can only come up with these “qualifications” for handing someone the keys to the White House. Oh there was something about two bills he has passed, bills that, as Larson says, “don’t require a lot of heavy lifting” because everyone agrees on it.
But there you have it, the same thing time after time after time after time after time…ad nauseum. Someone is asked what Obama has ever done that is worthy and if they can come up with anything at all, it is something as lame and insignificant as, “He spoke out.” If they can stop stammering and acting like they are trying to convince their mother they were at the library and not smoking under the railway bridge.