And they still call her "stupid"....

And they still call the petulant man-child of a president "smart":

          After listening to the President’s press conference today, let’s keep in mind the following:

This is the same president who proposed an absurdly irresponsible budget that would increase our debt by trillions of dollars, and whose party failed to even put forward a budget in over 800 days! This is the same president who is pushing our country to the brink because of his reckless spending on things like the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” boondoggle. This is the same president who ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations and demonized the voices of fiscal sanity who proposed responsible plans to reform our entitlement programs and rein in our dangerous debt trajectory. This is the same president who wanted to push through an increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include any cuts in government spending! This is the same president who wants to slam Americans with tax hikes to cover his reckless spending, but has threatened to veto a bill proposing a balanced budget amendment. This is the same president who hasn’t put forward a responsible plan himself, but has rejected reasonable proposals that would tackle our debt. This is the same president who still refuses to understand that the American electorate rejected his big government agenda last November. As I said in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Tax Day Tea Party rally, “We don’t want it. We can’t afford it. And we are unwilling to pay for it.”

Now the President is outraged because the GOP House leadership called his bluff and ended discussions with him because they deemed him an obstruction to any real solution to the debt crisis. 

He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.

His foreign policy strategy has been described as “leading from behind.” Well, that’s his domestic policy strategy as well. Why should he be surprised that he’s been left behind in the negotiations when he’s been leading from behind on this debt crisis?

Thank you, GOP House leaders. Please don’t get wobbly on us now.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

I couldn't have said it better myself. How does it feel for the Demunists to be "pwned" by a snowbilly?

But I must also give credit to House Speaker John Boehner for standing firm and not going wobbly. I think he has *finally* figured out that the last time he tried to negotiate in good faith with the Obamunist and the Commiecrats, he got boned over the FY2011 budget.

Remember that fiasco? Cutting a relatively trivial $100 billion from a budget with $1.5 trillion of deficit spending wouldn’t have been particularly impressive, but John Boehner let himself be bargained down to $38 billion, and then had the Congressional Budget Office estimate that those “unprecedented” and even “draconian” cuts actually amounted to a mere $352 million.

For the Demunist Commiecrats, racking up massive debt is a feature, not a bug, in their social(ist) (computer) programs. it justifies more confiscatory taxation and accordingly more nanny state control over us kulaks and petty bourgeois.

The choice tomorrow

...boils down to this. McAmnesty / McClimateFraud / McMaverick still has character, even when he is wrong.

Given the unpopularity of Bush, you would think Obama would have a landslide lead. But he doesn't. Why not?

Meanwhile, the cheerleading media won't ask the hard questions, and instead focuses entirely on the Republican Veep, even when the Democrat Veep makes some amazing gaffes.

Election Pre-Mortem

Sadly, it looks like we are about to get the most leftist President in recent history, which, coupled with the most leftist Speaker Of The House and Senate Majority Leader in recent history, means a shift toward socialism in the USA, even as the ashes of the Soviet Empire grow cold.

First, let us understand what the Obama campaign did that worked. The Obamunists:

1. Raised huge sums of money, all the while demonizing "fat cat donors" who apparently didn't take that rhetoric seriously. Perhaps this is because, like General Electric, they intend to be the beneficiaries of "green jobs" government spending, "high speed rails" (choo choo!) and "stem cell research" (California has been at it for four years and we are still waiting....)
2. Understood that there was no reason for Obama to be available to the lamestream media, who would fawn all over him anyway.
3. Responded to all efforts to probe Obama's past with claims of "racism", and relied on the lamestream media in #2 above to cover up, which they did.
4. Targeted Southeastern Atlantic Coast states like VA, NC, GA, and FL, which are not as solidly Republican as believed.
5. Had no harmful leaks.
6. For the most part, kept open communists like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers out of the spotlight.
7. Managed to find a way to win without having to owe anything to the Clintons.

What the Obama campaign did that didn't work:

1. Picked Joe Biden, who hasn't really helped them at all.
2. Failed to build popular support for all the leftist policies Obama intends to implement after the election. Expect a major Congressional reversal in 2010.

And now, let us think about what the McCain campaign did that worked:

1. Made some very entertaining ads ("The One" and Paris Hilton).
2. Had a reasonably successful convention, mending fences with rivals and at least papering over differences in the GOP.
3. Brought Sarah Palin, a potential future star, into the national spotlight.

What the McCain campaign did that didn't work:

1. Failed to recognize that the Left would try to destroy Palin, and that any damage to Palin would also hurt McCain.
2. Failed to stop campaign officials from leaking to the press.
3. Were cowed by bogus "racism" charges from the liberal media, and did not consistently go after Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal.
4. Completely mishandled the economic crisis.  McCain should have opposed the bailout.
5. Did not recognize until very late that the voters care more about domestic policy than foreign policy.
6. Did not articulate a persuasive economic argument.
7. Failed to understand that the lamestream media only liked him when he was a useful tool to get at George W. Bush, and with him gone, the lamestream media turned on McCain with a vengeance.

Turning to Election Day, it is clear that for all of John McCain's alleged "maverick" differences with the Bushyrovies, essentially under John McCain many of the Bushyrovie policies, particularly on immigration, will remain the same. But at least McCain's policies are undeniably pro-growth, pro-military, and pro-American.

Obama's record is that of a hard-core sleazy Chicago politician and communist "community organizer". Since the general election began, however, Obama has tried to sound more like a moderate conservative on economic and foreign policy issues. The man who has never voted to eliminate wasteful spending now says he'll "go through the budget line by line and eliminate programs that don't work" as well as "give tax relief to the 'middle class." The man who has opposed every major military weapons program now claims he'll "modernize our military," too!

So who's the real Barack Obama? The one who wants America to emerge stronger from this economic crisis, or the one who wants to "bankrupt the coal industry"? Maybe we should ask people who've known him since he kicked off his political career. Does anyone have Bill Ayers's e-mail address?

Sarah Palin continues to be the bright spot in the McCain campaign (which explains why the lamestream has been ambushing her while letting Joe "Gaffe Machine" Biden slide), and she'll be a force in the conservative movement for years to come. It was sadly predictable that John McCain used precious time and energy Saturday night courting the media elite by appearing in an Saturday Night Live skit ridiculing Palin.

If McCain loses, we will remember this truth: He's always been more comfortable blasting Republicans and conservatives than his liberal friends. And in the homestretch of this campaign, he chose to give a wink to those who spent the past several weeks working overtime to destroy a good woman. So if McCain loses, it is time for the GOP to send him out to pasture.

The media apparatchiks are bemoaning the "ugliness" of the campaign in its final hours. (Translation: McCain and his supporters are finally telling us what we need to know about Obama, and it's not pretty.)

The Obama cheerleaders at NBC have been giddy about the prospect of an Obama presidency all along. But today NBC hit an all time low when its goateed political director Chuck Todd came out and declared the race over. In front of his magic electoral map, he said McCain had "zero percent" chance of winning the election.

It was this sort of thing that had Carter supporters crying foul in 1980, and if in 2012 Obama is the one on the ropes and even some of the liberal media are writing off his chances, the Obamunist supporters will cry foul and charge "voter suppression".

Veep double standards...

What have we learned?

1. Objectivity is gone

2. "Feminism" is a fraud

3. Joe Biden can basically say *anything* and not get called on it.

This is not surprising. President Bush is soon not going to be the President. Who will the desperate Democrats and their leftist base have to displace/project all that rage? Who will they have to focus their own inadequacies and unacceptable feelings onto?? In anticipation of that dreadful day, they have had to find a substitute for him so they can make the upcoming election all about that person, instead of answering any questions about their ideal, blemish-free Messiah (who they project all their fantasies of perfection onto).

Sarah Palin is perfect for the part because--as in the case with Bush--her very existence is an affront to all they believe about themselves and the world. In other words, she fits their psychological needs perfectly and can become the projective vessel for all their displaced and unacceptable emotions. Obama is the probably the most unqualified person ever to run for the office of President from a major party, and Veep Joe Biden's gaffes are legendary, but Democrats in droves (and a few Republicans) have accepted the idea that somehow it is Sarah Palin's "inexperience" that is a threat.

And so is her sexuality. I don't have to recount all the insanity and utterly ridiculous assertions that have been directed her way because she happens to be a female who doesn't follow the leftist script for women and has dared to think and behave independently of their victimhood rules. But there is more to it than just that.

You see, sexuality is the ONLY thing that is really sacred to liberals. Their entire platform goes back to the deification of sex - people should be able to have as much as they want, where they want, with no moral judgment and especially no consequences. They believe we are all just rutting pigs ruled by our genitalia, and that the only true happiness of humans is in the flesh. Any attempt to place any moral judgment or legal restrictions on the consequences of unlimited sex is the ultimate threat to them. "Punished with a baby"? You betcha. That's EXACTLY how liberals look at it. Spending billions on AIDS research and drug subsidies? Of course! The public should have to share the cost of their unbridled, unclean homosexual practices, so "there isn't any moral judgment." Sex education for five year olds? Of course! The sooner they start praying to the god of their genitalia, the better!

Surely you all know that the main reason Democrats are pushing so hard for nationalized health care is so that taxpayers will pay for abortions and AIDS treatment. It has nothing to do with all those poor uninsured families.

Hey Katie, answer this!

So Katie Couric wants to have ambush questions for Sarah Palin?

Dennis Prager has some questions for her.

Remember that a Couric is two and a half pounds of excrement.

Why the "Feminists" hate Sarah Palin

Because they are statist communists. Drop the "Femi" and add a "Commu". That's what they are really about:

In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."

This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career....and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

Of course the idea of a wife depending on a husband makes the Demunist dykes and Commiecrat cunts angry, never mind that in any successful marriage partnership the dependency goes both ways.

The Demunist Commiecrat Leftist "womyn" don't really want to make ordinary women liberated from dependency on men. They want to make ordinary women dependent upon THEM, dependent upon a socialist nanny state that they see themselves running and controlling. This explains their anger at Sarah Palin. They believe

that feminism must demand support for women from the government. In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional (SOCIALIST) day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not. Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames on discrimination) is feminist. Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."

The article author, Cathy Young, concludes:

I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.

Of course, being a feminist role model is not part of the vice president's job description, and there are legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin's qualifications. And yet, like millions of American women -- and men -- I find her can-do feminism infinitely more liberated than the what-can-the-government-do-for-me brand espoused by the sisterhood.

Sarah Palin and the Library Smear

The Commiecrats just don't give up, do they? *Nowhere* in any news article does it indicate that *any* book was actually banned. Nor does any banning *ever* appear on the City of Wasilla records. (Thanks to Confederate Yankee).

What the facts *do* indicate is that Mayor Palin, approached with petitions to take something off the library list, turned to the city librarian and asked “What is the procedure for these sort of complaints?” That’s hardly the same as actually taking action to ban anything. Asking for a clarification on “how we deal with complaints” is hardly the same as banning anything. The truth about this story is also between the lines in the Alaska local Wasilla paper, and the Anchorage Daily News, although the headlines are the usual sensational bias.

I can just imagine the flip side of this—what if something horrid like kiddie porn was smuggled into the library and Mayor Palin didn’t inquire about it. Then the media would be claiming “MAYOR PALIN SUPPORTS KIDDIE PORN IN LIBRARIES!” Why do I suspect a set-up?
The Anchorage Daily News asks: “Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.”

Meanwhile, Blogress Jessamyn West, a Vermont librarian, states that “there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.”

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons (now Baker), was not fired but instead resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted into her second term.

You don’t like her stance on abortion? Fine. But this story has no substance to it.

The book-banner tale seems to have originated in a widely circulated Aug. 31 email from Anne Kilkenny, who is not a "South Park" character but a Wasilla resident and harsh Palin critic.

On Sept. 2, Time magazine repeated the tale, attributing it to John Stein, Palin's predecessor as mayor, whom she defeated in the 1996 election.

Some asshat named Andrew AuCoin then posted "the list of books Palin tried to have banned"--90 of them in all. But another reader noticed that the list actually seemed to originate at this page--where it appears under the headline "Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States."

But the phony list was already making its way around the Internet. The myth that Sarah Palin is a "book banner" has taken hold, at least on the left. It shows up, for instance, in two Salon articles (here and here) today.

There is also the issue of -- horrors! -- Praying for our troops! (shudder)

Blogger Jim Lindgren notes another example, a CNN report from yesterday:

[Palin] also talked to church members about "being saved" at the Assembly of God and suggested to them that the war in Iraq is a mission from God. Palin said, "our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

But this quote turns out to be out of context, which seems to be usual nowadays. Here's what Palin actually said:

"Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Track] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country--that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

"I find it hard to believe that Anderson Cooper does not understand the difference between praying for something you hope is true and stating that it is true," Lindgren writes. (The article with the misleading quote actually is written by a correspondent for Cooper's show, not Cooper himself.) It's all too easy, however, to believe that journalists would be sloppy at best when reporting stories that fit their stereotypes about Palin in particular and conservative Christians in general.

On PBS's "Washington Week in Review" Friday, hostess Gwen Ifill reported encountering hostility on the floor of the Republican Convention: "There was a genuine grievance underneath all of that, this idea that she had been a victim and a victim of sexism and a victim of media bias." Jeanne Cummings of Politico disagreed:

"Well, I don't have any sympathy for them. I don't think there is any grievance that matters. John McCain put this woman--and she accepted--in a position to become president of the United States in the next 60 days. We don't have enough time to mess around with this. We need to know a lot more about this woman. And it's our job to find out everything we can about her, so the voters can make an educated decision about whether they want her that close to the presidency."

Even if "this woman" has nothing to complain about, don't readers and viewers have a right to expect that journalists report what they "find out" only if it is true?

The latest Sarah Palin smear

I think I can update this DAILY if I really want to....the Stupid Nonsense Of The Day Is:

What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick

"A theocrat is a theocrat, whether Muslim or Christian."

I admit I occassionally find something thoughtful from Slate, rare for a lefty website, but this recycled Xtian boogyman nonsense, dating from the early Reagan years, is tiresome.

Juan Cole's moral equivalency crap is eviscerated by Jeff "Protein Wisdom" Goldstein.

Q: What’s the difference between Dr Juan Cole and a pitbull?
A: You don’t generally point and laugh at a pitbull.
(...)
Rhetorically, Cole’s trick is to ascribe to Palin motives that he knows his readership, who’ve been conditioned to believe that Christian boogymen are out to replace the Constitution with the New Testament, will believe uncritically.

Sarah Palin Smear Fest

I knew this was coming, the lamestream media was in the tank for the Obamunist, but it is sickening:

You must understand printing lies about Republican candidates is OK. It’s called “vetting.” Printing the truth about liberals - that’s called “swift-boating.” From career MSNBC jock sniffer Keith Olbermann to Barney Frank’s favorite publisher Jann Wenner, the verdict on Palin is unanimous.

Victor Davis Hanson does some comparing and contrasting.

Truly sickening:

[L]ast week's media torpor and this week's journalistic wilding are part of the same phenomenon: the media's uncontainable passion to elect Mr. Obama.

I say this having mentally stacked the questions the media have already asked Mrs. Palin in two days of intrusive and pointless questions against the glaringly obvious questions the media have never asked Mr. Obama in two years. Mr. Schmidt noted that "the media is asking more questions about Palin's pregnant daughter" than about Tony Rezko, the Chicago fixer and Obama patron who was recently convicted on corruption charges. But that's just the first item on a long list of passes the media have given Mr. Obama — passes on vital matters of character, judgment and political belief.

These range from the media's protective hesitation on his long-term relationship with former Weather Underground leader William Ayers, to their near-total absence of interest in his recent campaign choice for Muslim outreach, a young man with affiliations to not one, but four organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood....

But no one, and I mean no one, is taking the bait. And certainly not now. Not when a
conservative Republican woman's amniotic fluid is in the water.

Sarah Palin and the Commiecrat Smear Machine

So Sarah Palin is the Veep nominee--and the Demunist Media is already looking for her scalp.

Palin-hatred is an artifact of who she is rather than anything she's done. Joe Biden famously rose from the working class to the U.S. Senate. Palin became governor of Alaska, but never left the working class — with her old-fashioned beehive hairdo and librarian eyeglasses, with a husband who is a commercial fisherman and works on a North Shore oil field, and with her hobbies of fishing and hunting.

As such, she's the object of the cultural disdain of a left that loves the working class in theory, but is mystified or offended by its lifestyle and conservative values in reality. If there's ever been an exemplar of the rural America that, in Barack Obama's telling, "bitterly" clings to its guns and religion, it's Sarah Palin.

It's her misfortune to be a pioneer with the wrong ideology. So much bile was directed at Clarence Thomas because he was the "wrong" kind of black man. Pro-life, pro-gun and a down-the-line, if populist, conservative, Palin is a traitor to her gender and thus encounters the sort of fury always directed at apostates.

A popular liberal talk-radio host calls her a "bimbo," a Washington Post columnist compares her to Caligula's horse, and the left-wing blogosphere goes on a demented jag about how her fifth son, Trig, is really the son of her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol. The lunacy forced the Palins to issue a statement that Bristol is pregnant, setting off a feeding frenzy from the same press that went out of its way to protect the privacy of John Edwards.

In a less-poisonous atmosphere, Palin might have diminished the intensity of the "mommy wars." Here were traditionalist conservatives hailing a very busy working mom with five kids, including a handicapped 4-month-old. But the same feminists who ordinarily dismiss stay-at-home moms as benighted betrayers of the sisterhood now question whether Palin can juggle her family and political responsibilities. Washington doyenne Sally Quinn worries about putting "the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy."

A lot of Palin-hatred is couched in terms of her lack of experience. Fair enough, but there's a tone of contemptuous dismissiveness about the experience that she does have — fueled no doubt by her career in "fly-over country" so remote no one really flies over it. The Obama campaign is loath to admit that she's governor of Alaska, pretending instead she's still mayor of tiny Wasilla, and the outraged commentary in the press makes it sound like the vice presidency is an office of such import that it would be better if the newcomer were at the top of the ticket and the wizened pro at the bottom — just like the Democrats.

And how about that alleged lack of experience? Governor of Alaska carries more clout than a Junior Senator of just a few short years. Consider the following factors:

• Gov. Palin has spent much of her adult life dealing with matters long central to the Alaskan experience and now of surpassing importance to the nation as a whole - namely, energy security and how we can provide for it. Having managed her state's department responsible for oil and gas exploration and exploitation, having negotiated a long-delayed natural gas pipeline through Canada to the Lower 48 and having been married for nearly two decades to a blue-collar worker in Alaska's North Slope oil fields, she knows more about the subject than all three of the others on the two parties' tickets put together.
  If Gov. Palin can bring to bear her insights into the need for expanded, yet environmentally sensitive drilling, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) - together with an appreciation of the need to introduce fuel-choice in our transportation sector, the object of the bipartisan Open Fuel Standard Act introduced in both the House and Senate shortly before the August recess - she will demonstrate unsurpassed leadership in what is, arguably, the single most important national security challenge of our time.
• Napoleon is said to have declared that "Geography is destiny." That certainly is true of Gov. Palin. Her state is adjacent to Russia, a nation that has in recent years demonstrated a rising aggressiveness towards its neighbors. The targets are not just the relatively weak and formerly enslaved countries on its littoral like Georgia - the scene of a bloody invasion last month aimed at toppling the elected government there. Moscow has also conducted simulated strategic bombing runs with Soviet-era long-range, nuclear-capable aircraft. These offensive missions are designed to penetrate U.S. northern air defenses in a manner reminiscent of the most provocative of Kremlin behavior during the Cold War.
• As it happens, the best of those defenses - including a squadron of America's state-of-the-art interceptors, the F-22 Raptor - are stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base near Anchorage. Governor Palin would not only be intimately familiar with that facilities' vital role in protecting U.S. territory. She would also appreciate its importance in the projection of American power in Asia and beyond as much of the nation's long-range transport aircraft supplying our military operations around the world transit through Elmendorf. Every Commander-in-Chief should have such insights.
• Speaking of geography, Alaskan territory is also along the trajectory of ballistic missiles launched eastward out of Stalinist North Korea. For that reason, among others, Alaska's Fort Greely was selected as the site for the principal U.S. ground-based defense against such missiles. As that state's governor, Sarah Palin would know more by osmosis - if nothing else - about the necessity for U.S. anti-missile systems than either Messrs. Obama or Biden. In fact, the Democrats have reflexively opposed such defenses and promise to starve them of funds if elected. Opinion polls suggest that the support missile defense enjoys among Gov. Palin's Alaskans is shared by strong majorities of their countrymen elsewhere. Her judgment versus Sen. Biden's on the question of whether America should be protected against present and growing missile-delivered threats will be one of the highlights of the vice presidential nominees' debate.

But hey, a Tina Fey impersonation declaring "I can see Russia from my front porch", and all that experience counts for naught. But that is all part of the plan. Governor Palin is an up and coming Republican, so the
lamestream media and the Democrat Party (but I repeat myself) will spare no expense to trip her up. They have made it their mission to destroy and up and coming Republican candidate.