Uh, thanks, Allah. Almost lost my breakfast.
That was really funny, Terry Tate, did you think that up all by yourself? Or did you have to have Sandra Bernhardt in on a brainstorming session with you?
Well, Allah gives some background on this joker who apparently has some fans, although I personally can’t imagine what sort of humans could find this remotely amusing. “Unfunny” doesn’t even begin to describe how vile and disturbing not only this piece is, but anyone who could like it.
So let me review this again: there’s Madonna telling an audience of thousands how she is going to kick Sarah Palin’s person, Sarah Bernhardt raging-fantasising about Palin being gang raped, an artist’s depiction of Sarah Palin’s faced being punched so hard a tooth is knocked out and the glasses fly right off her face, and a mock up of someone pointing a gun at Palin’s head. And now this joker with his own twisted damp dream acted out to the framework of an already perverted Reebok commercial spot. How long ’til this becomes mainstream?
It’s not an unreasonable question given how there has been such a small amount of outroar coming from the press–if any at all. And why? Because they don’t like Palin’s political positions? Isn’t this supposed to be a country in which people can openly speak and tell their ideas–protected by the First Amendment? Since when do we go around perpetuating violence against those we disagree with? Of course there have always been “hits” on political figures, i.e. assassinations and attempts, and while not getting into any discussion on the merits of those, what I’m looking at here is the alarming phenomenon of public and private figures promoting and almost advocating physical aggression and violence–because they don’t like what someone said.
What happened to the days when you just didn’t vote for them?
We all know about schoolyard bullies and the routine theories re: how insecure they are, etc. Could these otherwise ordinary (word use relatively in some cases) beings be so threatened that killing or severely harming Palin makes them feel better about themselves and their insecurities? There’s an imbalance in this description, because “insecurity” seems too small a word to stand parallel and in partnership with the violence being promoted these days.
I also have to wonder: “Why Palin?” No, I’m not saying that in consideration of why Hillary wasn’t the object of such attacks. (Although Clinton did endure some abuse coming from self-hating idiots.) No, what I’m thinking about is that surely some of these people dislike John McCain as much as they do Sarah Palin. So how come nobody’s making the moves against McCain? Not that I am asking for it to happen, of course; it would be just as despicable. But the fact that he is a man can’t stop itself from crossing my mind, and the horrible consideration that even amongst the female population, violence against women not only is still acceptable, but also can be considered funny, especially when the intended target is someone who disagrees with them.
This is perhaps nowhere better reflected than in some of the video responses at the YouTube site itself, such as:
Maaan, she deserved that! Hilarious.
pretty sure dr. king would find this pretty lol-worthy
Get used to having a black president, you racist moron. Obama is going to win. And he’s the better candidate too.
Not only were there few comments that directly objected to the depiction of a large man crashing into a small female (what in real would have killed her), but there were ones such as the last (above) that justified it with the implication that she had it coming because of the alleged racism inherent in the McCain campaign and its supporters. In fact, the first reply I quoted above comes out and says, “[S]he deserved that!” And in failing to recognise their own out-of-control behavior and irrational ways of, erm, thinking, there even is the assertion that Martin Luther King would have approved.
By the way, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was Joe Biden’s baby. Why isn’t he speaking up against this monstrous trend?
With the Obama scare measures against freedom of speech already happening, a bunch of pre-pubes dressing up in fatigues to worship their candidate, children being indoctrinated to sing love songs to him, the proposal of some sort of civilian gang (funding same as the actual military’s) and now tacit approval of violence against Obama critics, I’m not only still wondering how far this will go, as I wrote last time, but also when the American Cultural Revolution starts.
Oh yeah: The media are spreading fears about “Republican anger” on election night. Snort.
First we have one reporter claiming he heard a supporter at a McCain/Palin rally shout out, “Kill him!” when Obama’s name came up. Based on only that word, newspapers around the US reported the story and hyperventilated about how concerned they are supporters of the right are “gripped by insane rage.” There were accusations and statements about Sarah Palin whipping supporters into a frenzy and crowds getting out of control.
Nevermind that for the past eight years threats, calls of death wished on Bush and others, and all manner of insults and extreme statements have been openly uttered without any whinging from the MSM.
OK, let’s review for a moment: One reporter claims he heard something, newspapers and commentators across the country pick it up with no questions asked, and the left is “outraged.” When questions are asked and no evidence is found, the left remains “outraged” and the editor only has something to say about “facts reported [being] true.” My question is this: What facts?
But that’s not the end of it. While the hypocritical left stand by and watch all this, and watch their messiah all but advocate tearing down the life of a man who dared to complain about his tax policies–
–they make sure the world knows about an incident in which a pair of young men at a Palin rally were “beaten up” by a couple of 65-year-old women a few days ago.
I would be included in those who normally condemn such, ehem, atrocities given I don’t condone violent actions to get a point across. Truth be told, however, I’m not having a great deal of sympathy with people who seem to be “ignorant” to the facts regarding repeated attacks, physical and verbal, on McCain/Palin supporters and their property. Property? Some may find it absurd I am making a case out of this, but the truth is that for many this sort of thing too often has been the precursor for what is yet to come: worse. Sarah Bernhardt on gleefully about Sarah Palin being gang raped, Madonna telling a concert audience she would kick Sarah Palin’s person; it’s not surprising their fans and leftie supporters, who tend to be one and the same, follow their despicable examples, or take it upon themselves to show the world their own insane rage:
*Obama supporters in Philadelphia sported “Sarah Parah is a [disgusting vulgarism referring to female genitalia]” t-shirts and yelled “Let’s stone her, old school” over the weekend.
*An Internet artist has designated Palin an “M.I.L.P” – “Mother I’d Like to Punch” – and published a drawing of a man’s fist knocking a tooth out of the Alaska governor’s mouth and the glasses off her face.
*“ABORT Palin” grafitti has sprouted on the sidewalks of Seattle and “Abort Sarah Palin” bumper stickers are spreading on Web stores.
*Sarah Palin-bashing Madonna performs before an audience of thousands, screeching and threatening to “kick her a**.”
*Getty Images publishes a photo of a man pointing a fake gun at the head of a cardboard cutout of Palin on display at the Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition building.
And no one blinks. Not a peep from the Obamedia.
But when Sarah Palin simply spotlights Obama’s longtime relationship with Weather Underground bombing terrorist Bill “We Didn’t Do Enough” Ayers?
“Inciting violence,” frets NBC reporter Ron Allen. “Concerned…for Senator Obama’s safety,” agonizes ABC reporter Terry Moran. “Beyond the pale,” cries Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. As if the no-holds-barred Obama campaign has ever had a rhetorical pale to stake.
All the world’s a Kabuki stage for the selectively outraged over rage.
So where were they all this time when this was going on?
And how about a month ago when a female McCain supporter was beaten over the head with the stick from a sign by a leftie who had this to say of his actions:
“It’s just those signs, and this election, it has me so upset.”
What has happened to a country in which the most powerful newspapers look completely the other way when women are beaten up by the supporters of their candidate, the one they are so in the tank for that they fail the people of the United States by neglecting to report the most important details about Barack Obama but send out the cavalry and get the vapors because a plumber in Ohio, who dared ask The One a question, goes by his middle name? (Breathlessly they report, “And his name isn’t even Joe, it’s Samuel! Joe is his middle name!”)
About two months ago I thought I was being chicken shit and not living up to my duties as a responsible citizen by proclaiming my support not only for McCain, but also Palin, of whom I am a constituent and supporter. I was concerned my car would get keyed or broken into, neither of which I can afford as the single parent of a small child. But now, though they remain concerns, they appear to be the least of them. With such escalation of violent acts that go unpunished–nay even unreported–I can’t help but wonder: Will I be hurt? Will my child? These people seem to have no reservations about doctoring pictures of an eleven-year-old, spreading nastiness about an infant and his mother, mutilating property and drawing obscene scenes of abject violence–it’s so commonplace and accepted by so many on the left that I can no longer use ordinarily reliable measurements of decency to predict where it will end.
I’m so relieved the chance of me getting a j-o-b-s next summer seems a bit more realistic now that Joe the Plumber has done a little eye-opening for the nation. That is to say, if McCain gets elected, taxes won’t go up, businesses won’t go down, bosses will still be hiring.
And as always that bit of relief was provided by the Gaffemeister Joe Biden, whose experimental-level invented spelling gives us new reason to trust our own instincts against a guy whose knowledge of television history is apparently no better than Katie Couric’s. (Reminder: Couric is a televison anchor who doesn’t seem to know when the medium was invented.)
OK, let’s give credit where credit due. Biden at least tries to know when to keep his mouth shut.
I’ve been able to perk up thanks to Dr. Jim. Of course his job was made easier by the fact that I don’t have TV, but the advice to “get outta here” was well heeded. I fell asleep and when I came to there was no Joe anywhere. In fact, thinking back on it, I hadn’t heard about him for days. Was it because he is hidden away, or has the debate simply taken over the waves? Whatever the reason, he’s gone. And I sort of miss him.
Remember the days when Teresa Heinz Kerry used to say things like “shove it” and pass judgments about what constitutes a “real” job? Now we have Michelle Obama providing the entertainment as she reminds us how her husband will rescue us from our pathetic lives–although she, too, has been kept under wraps for a while. And the Obama campaign has been relying on the media toxicity Treacher references to do us in while we have nothing to diffuse it–no Teresa, no Joe, no Michelle. For awhile we had Alaskan weaponry that kept the infection at bay, but then it renewed its attack with every bit of determined-to-decimate power it had, and the one by one went inhabitants of the blogosphere and real life in some sort of Malthusian population control probably viewed by those on the left as providential. Not only were they ruthless, but also delighted.
Biden had been providing the standup to get us through those trying moments, but they may have realized he was the unwitting antidote because then suddenly he was gone. We were left flailing and sinking until someone finally said, “Get a grip.” And enter Joe the Plumber, who questioned the Dear Leader without flinching an eye; he may be the subject of folk songs currently being written, and things seem to be looking up. Ace seems to be making a nice recovery (while not getting giddy) and although I had my doubts about Allah, he appears to be trying.
Of course, the real answer will come 4 November and until then Joe’s cape design will be on hold since the left will be obliged to go through his trash, but I can safely say that even if the polls don’t read as I’d like them to, I have good reasons to believe they won’t result in the onset of buboes: 1) lies anyway; 2) PUMAs; and 3) that cold turkey bit was a godsend.
In the meantime, I’m hoping they’ll slip up and send the Gaffemeister out again, perhaps deluded by some idea they usually have that the debate for them was a smashing success and nationwide recognition of the racism inherent in every single word coming from our mouths (fingertips) only discredits us. Since they perceive ordinary Americans to be very stupid, they probably don’t believe that “95% of taxpayers” eventually starts to ring bells with these people, sort of in the same way as when an agency claims “100%” results. Even a five year old recognizes on some level that homogenous thought is not natural: a few days ago, while engaging in gross exaggeration I said something about “everybody” parading around in love with Obama; overhearing me my son replied, “Well, not everybody.”
Well, if McCain wins, I suppose we have liberal rage to look forward to–you know, Susan Sarandon-type attacks, more whinging about “stolen” states and of course there probably will always be those only too willing to disgrace themselves in public via their intellectual “wit.” (Think black shirts with neon green letters.) I wonder if Joe will be toddling along for the ride or still chasing after people with his idiotic, fomenting spit. Och well, no worries. It was medicinal while it was needed, but hopefully I can move on to missing his charm about as much as I miss what-I-probably-am-not-allowed-to-say-because-it-is-racist.
Sarah Palin doesn’t know enough about constitutional law or Supreme Court cases to suit some people, who seem to think this dearth of knowledge comes from her having failed to travel to as many countries as they believe she ought to have done.
Perhaps Chris Matthews should have been required to travel to Rangoon before being awarded his degree in journalism, or even his job. If he had, surely he would not soon forget it is the capital of Burma, aka Myanmar. Sure, Rangoon is now known, thanks to the thugs who run this southeast Asian country, as Yangon, but who cares about details?
I do! If Chris Mathews is going to go around posing as a journalist, a person whose job it is to say the news, then I expect him to know the news and where the places he is talking about actually are. I mean really, he did know there was a big storm there, didn’t he?
And perhaps actually what the new is. Matthews, who could barely keep his moaning in check, trilled, “An African-American, someone whose father came from Kenya, has been chosen by the American voters to succeed George W. Bush”? Um, excuse me? When did this happen and where was I on voting day?
A moment later the “journalist” compares this news to the opening of the Berlin Wall and the all-race voting in South Africa, “and it could be just as positive,” he croons, “depending on your politics.”
Ah, now I see. He has one for “Barack Hussein Obama,” which by the way is now virtually illegal to say. But I guess Matthews could get away with it back then, and maybe now too if Obama saw him standing up. “An un-Bush. David, he is the un-Bush! [Spittle flies out.] He’s sort of a gift from the world to us in so many ways.”
Ah, another insight. A gift from the world to us? Well, yeah, it must be true after all. *Sigh* The world hates us.
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.
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.