GJFlash's Blog

Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster

By IowaHawk

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don't care whether you are a conservative or a liberal -- when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation's highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.  

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let's not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.

Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country's top job -- which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn't mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.

It's also heartening to realize that as president Mr. Obama will soon be working hand-in-hand with a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard like Senator Robert Byrd to craft the incoherent and destructive programs that will plunge the American economy into a nightmare of full-blown sustained depression. As Vice President-Elect Joe Biden has repeatedly warned, there will be difficult times ahead and the programs will not always be popular, or even sane. But as we look out over the wreckage of bankrupt coal companies, nationalized banks, and hyperinflation, we can always look back with sustained pride on the great National Reconciliation of 2008. Call me an optimist, but I like to think when America's breadlines erupt into riots it will be because of our shared starvation, not the differences in our color.

It's obvious that this newfound pride is not confined to Americans alone. All across the world, Mr. Obama's election has helped mend America's tattered image as a racist, violent cowboy, willing to retaliate with bombs at the slightest provocation. The huge outpouring of international support following the election shows that America can still win new friendships while rebuilding its old ones, and provides Mr. Obama with unprecedented diplomatic leverage over our remaining enemies. When Russian tanks start pouring into eastern Europe and Iranian missiles begin raining down on Jerusalem, their leaders will know they will be facing a man who not only conquered America's racial divide but the hearts of the entire Cannes film community. And those Al Qaeda terrorists plotting a dirty nuke or chemical attack on San Francisco face a stark new reality: while they may no longer need to worry about US Marines, they are looking down the barrel of a strongly worded diplomatic condemnation by a Europe fully united in their deep sympathy for surviving Americans.

So for now, let's put politics aside and celebrate this historic milestone. In his famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago, Dr. King said "I have a dream that one day my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Let us now take pride that Tuesday we Americans proved that neither thing matters anymore.

 

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/electi
on-analysis-america-can-take-pride-in-this-historic-ins
pirational-disaster.html

The Polls Are Wrong, And They've Been Wrong Before

 

Note the date of this article.  Also note the fact that the MSM had picked a "clear" winner days (if not weeks) before the election.

Where the Polls Went Wrong

By HP-Time.com;  John F. Stacks

Monday, Dec. 01, 1980

 

Reagan's landslide challenges the pulse-taker profession

For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was "too close to call." A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote—a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-l avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

After being so right for so long about presidential elections—the pollsters' findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years—how could the surveys have been so wrong? The question is far more than technical. The spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.

With such responsibilities thrust on them, the pollsters have a lot to answer for, and they know it. Their problems with the Carter-Reagan race have touched off the most skeptical examination of public opinion polling since 1948, when the surveyers made Thomas Dewey a sure winner over Harry Truman. In response, the experts have been explaining, qualifying, clarifying—and rationalizing. Simultaneously, they are privately embroiled in as much backbiting, mudslinging and mutual criticism as the tight-knit little profession has ever known. The public and private pollsters are criticizing their competition's judgment, methodology, reliability and even honesty.

At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened. Three weeks before the election, for example, TIME'S polling firm, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, produced a survey of 1,632 registered voters showing the race almost dead even, as did a private survey by Caddell. Two weeks later, a survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed about the same situation.

Some pollsters at that time, however, were getting results that showed a slight Reagan lead. ABC News-Harris surveys, for example, consistently gave Reagan a lead of a few points until the climactic last week of October.

The single exception to these general findings was the judgment drawn by the Reagan campaign's own elaborate polling operation, run by Richard Wirthlin, who claims that Reagan had a consistent five-to seven-point lead throughout the last two weeks of the campaign.

For more visit : http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,92454
1,00.html

 

Ignore the polls, folks, they are being manipulated just like the American voters are.  This race is a lot closer than the MSM would like anyone to believe.

The manipulators in question are trying to shoehorn B. Hussein into the White House, and we mustn't let them decide the future of our Nation for us.

Get out and vote.  Vote for McCain, our future depends on it.

R8R_H8R and The Lone Citizen : Cowards

 

A couple of gutless cowards feel the need to spout ignorant hyperbole on these pages without allowing other users to discuss their uninformed views.

If I want biased information force-fed to me I'll watch MSNBC or MyFox.

Allow folks to discuss your topic in open forum, please. 

Otherwise, your points are mute to everyone but you.

Please, Ladies and Gentlemen, if you do not believe in the strength of your convictions enough to allow polite discourse, then perhaps you should keep your observations to yourself until you are comfortable debating them.

Please, Ladies and Gentlemen, if you are afraid of the things (anonymous) people might type in reference to your observations, don't be.  MAN UP.

Everyone has their opinion, and it probably won't match yours.  Other bloggers can't hurt you (sticks and stones and such).

Be MEN, H8R and Lone_Racist_Citizen.  You're an embarassment to manhood.

Please feel free to comment on the posts these two gutless ignorami put up.  I won't delete them.

Common Sense : B. Hussein's Plans Will Cost Jobs

If you're not a fully brainwashed ObamaZombie by this point, you should probably read the following article and gain a bit of wisdom before election day...

 

By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, November 3, 2008

I interviewed two plumbing company owners over the weekend about Barack Obama's economic proposals for small business.

One has 15 employees and 12 trucks. The other has 52 employees and 34 trucks. They're Joe the Plumber, writ large.

Both owners had the same reaction to Obama's proposed new taxes and mandates. To not have their bottom lines reduced by government fiat, both said they'd be forced to lay off employees.

Specifically, here's what the owner of the larger firm said regarding six of Obama's key proposals for the small-business sector: The average wage at his company, figuring the 52 paychecks of his office staff, installers and service workers, is $31,200, $15 an hour.

First, "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year," states the Obama campaign's Web site. "I give three paid sick days," explained the business owner. His extra cost for this one new regulation would be $24,960 (4 extra days, 52 employees, at an average of $120 per day). "That's one of the women in the office," he said. "I can make up that cost by letting one of the office people go."

Second, Obama states that employers will be required to pay 100 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums for 100 percent of their employees or face a tax penalty. "I pay 75 percent of their coverage," explained the owner. "The family policy is about $11,000. For single guys, it's about $5,000." At an average annual cost of $7,000 per policy, his additional cost for 52 employees to cover the 25 percent of the premiums that he currently doesn't pay is $91,000. "That's the price of three installers," he said. "Just to stay even with where I am, I'd have to fire three more people or raise some prices and fire two."

The result is more unemployment or more inflation, or both.

Third, with the estate tax, Obama is calling for a top tax rate of 45 percent on estates valued above $3.5 million, producing an estimated "death tax" of $675,000 on an estate of $5 million. "You're kidding," he said. "They took half my income on the way up and now they want another half when I die?" He estimated that his business is already valued at more than $3 million, in addition to the value of his home and investments. "Why," he asked, "would I want to grow to 100 employees? What'll stop them from changing it to 75 percent?"

The cost in jobs that will never be created in the U.S. economy because of this single disincentive to growth? Incalculable.

Fourth, Obama's economic plan calls for a hike in the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour within three years. The business owner's reaction? "That's bad for two reasons. I don't have anyone at minimum, but raise the bottom by $3 and a guy making $15 wants $18. Plus it's bad for productivity when people think their pay raises are coming from government instead of from their own individual effort."

Fifth, saying he'll "play offense for organized labor," Obama is proposing that workers should be denied the right to a private ballot at work in deciding whether to unionize. "That'll never be," said the plumbing entrepreneur. "I'm in business because I'm independent, not to take orders from a grievance chairman. I'd shut down."

Sixth, the increase in taxes on this small business owner from Obama's proposed hike in the income tax rate from 36% to 39.8% on incomes above $200,000 and the proposed increase in Social Security taxes comes to $32,000 per year. "That's another employee," he said, referring to the termination of another installer in order to just stay even.

And the jobless plumbers? They can be re-socialized to work for ACORN.

As Obama explained in July: "We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

As "well funded" as our Armed Forces personnel comes to $119 billion per year in paychecks for "community activism," a lot of money for registering dead voters, caulking windows, making sure that all the guns are locked up at the municipal buildings, and monitoring the airways to make sure that conservatives don't have too many talk shows.

Bottom line, Obama's economic plan doesn't hold water. Neither will our pipes.

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur.

 

 

As I said, common sense.  You don't have to be very smart to understand the big picture of Obama's socialist agenda.

Wake up, America.  Before it's too late.

Have you voted yet?  Have you made up your mind?  Either way, you should take five minutes to watch this important video.

Put down the Kool-Aid, take off the rose-colored glasses, and try to look at things with an open mind.  It may be the best five minutes you've ever given to your Nation.

Your children, and grandchildren, will thank you for it.

 

"

 

Thank you, Arky, for finding this poignant clip.

'I Would Make A Bad President,' Obama Says In Huge Campaign Blunder
October 28, 2008 | Issue 44•44


Obama makes a slight gaffe when, instead of saying "Hello, Tallahassee," he says "John McCain is clearly the better candidate."


TALLAHASSEE, FL—In a campaign gaffe that could potentially jeopardize Sen. Barack Obama's White House bid, the Democratic presidential nominee told nearly 8,000 supporters Tuesday that, if elected, he would be a terrible president.

The blunder, captured by all major media outlets and broadcast live on CNN, occurred when the typically polished Obama fielded a question about his health care policy. Obama answered by saying he would give small business owners a tax credit to help them provide health care for their employees, and then added, "Now, I'm not completely certain that my plan would work because, overall, I think I would make a bad president."

According to sources, before those on hand could fully process what Obama had said, the Illinois senator continued to stumble, claiming that, were he to win the general election, he'd have absolutely no idea what to do.

"My youth and inexperience would definitely make me an awful president," said Obama, whose seven-minute misstep was further exacerbated when he called himself "no expert" on the economy. "To be perfectly honest, I'd be worried about putting me in charge of the most powerful military in the world because I'm not any good when it comes to making important decisions. Also, I'm not sure how much I care about keeping this great nation of ours safe."

"I'm an elitist, I hate Israel, and I want to lose the war in Iraq," Obama concluded, and then, seemingly unaware of the magnitude of his blunder, smiled, gave a thumbs-up to the stunned crowd, and urged his supporters to get out and vote on Nov. 4.

Immediately following the speech, Obama campaign officials released a written statement alleging that their candidate's comments had been taken out of context. In addition, Obama's top adviser David Axelrod claimed that the senator was quoting former president Abraham Lincoln when he said, "I am not the guy to head the executive branch of the United States government. Trust me. I'm really not."

Beltway observers agreed that the gaffe could come back to haunt Obama on Election Day.

"This might very well be the sound bite voters have in their heads when they step inside that booth on Tuesday," ABC political analyst George Stephanopoulos said. "It's just not the message you want to send to voters when you are up in the polls. Saying that you would make a bad president, especially when your entire campaign has been built around the idea that you would make a good president, doesn't play well with independent and undecided voters."

"Also, swing states like Ohio and Florida have historically leaned toward the nominee who thinks he'd be a good president, rather than the nominee who thinks he'd 'probably just screw everything up worse,'" Stephanopoulos added.

An analysis of historical documents supports Stephanopoulos' claim, and confirms that the past 55 winning presidential candidates—with the exception of a dying Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944—all strongly maintained they would be good or great presidents throughout their campaigns, and never hinted otherwise.

"I think Sen. Obama may have opened up a slight window for John McCain here," New York Times reporter David Sanger said during Wednesday's taping of Charlie Rose. "If the McCain camp can find some way to exploit this miscue, it could have the potential to be a real game-changer."

However, a CNN poll taken moments after Obama's speech revealed that the candidate's misstep may have simply gotten lost amid the 24-hour news cycle. Though most citizens said they would prefer a candidate who thinks he'd be a good president, 23 percent said they would still vote for someone who thinks he would make an okay president. Furthermore, 35 percent of citizens said they would vote for a nominee who promised to be a serviceable, or even a so-so, president.

Forty-two percent of citizens polled said that, at this point, a "just plain bad" president would also be good enough.

"I am more certain than ever that I will vote for Obama," Windham, NH resident James Kilner said. "This is the first time I have really connected with a candidate, mainly because I think I would make a pretty bad president, too."

Note: A very, very beautiful and dear friend turned me on to a great site, StopTheACLU.com ("Beating them with their own sickle an hammer"  hahaha).  It should be required reading for every voting American...

 

84% of Americans oppose the redistribution of wealth. 

Clearly, this is an issue that crosses party lines.

So why isn't B. Hussein down by 60-70 points in the polls?  What flavor of kool-aid are these morons drinking?

This is a radio interview from a few years back, when B. Hussein spelled out his plan for an end to the American way of life:

 

 

If you prefer the printed word, here's what B. Hussein had to say IN HIS OWN WORDS:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

 

Does anyone actually believe that the founders and framers really had "redistribution" in mind?

WAKE UP, OBAMAZOMBIES!  Your brain has been washed and run through the spin cycle, and it's about to be hung out to dry.

 

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audi
o-obama-the-marxist/

Obama has claimed during his campaign, over and over, that his tax policy will only affect "The Rich".

 

Meet Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio.  The Obama Machine landed in Ohio last weekend, and made a trip through Joe's neighborhood.  Joe the plumber (and the rest of us average Joes) got a first-hand description of Obama's Socialist agenda:

 

 

 "Spread your wealth around".   Let me explain what that means:

 

 YOU can't be trusted to spend your money properly, so you will be forced to give it to Barry Hussein and he will distribute it as HE sees fit.  That's called Socialism, folks, and if that doesn't scare the living hell out of you, you need to go back to social studies class.

 

Barry Hussein and his political machine are trying very, very hard to make the voters forget who and what they are...tax and spend liberals.  It seems to be working, apparently many voters need to go back to history class also. 

 

The liberals aren't going to just tax "The Rich", just ask Joe the Plumber.  

Obama's taxes are going to punish every working, tax-paying, red-blooded American...

...which is just what B. Hussein's terrorist friends, racist allies, communist mentors, and hateful wife want.

 

Wake up, America,

before it's too late.

A Sinking Ship?

 

If I had said "rats deserting a sinking ship", rats may have found it offensive.

Let the defections (the public ones, anyway) begin.

 

Prominent Democrat Fundraiser to Support McCain

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

Forester is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world. She is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Forester is a member of the DNC’s Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York.

 

The part that had me laughing at loud was this: 

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, found Barack Obama to be an elitist. 

Lady Lynn was introduced to her husband by Henry Kissinger at a Bilderberg conference, an elite invite-only event held at luxury resorts around the world. 

Henry Kissinger? The Bilderbergs? 

This Lady lives in a frickin' CASTLE, and she found OBAMA to be an elitist.  WOW.

 

Way to come over to the good side, Lady Lynn.  Now, if you could ask your rich banker husband to bail out our banks, that would be very cool.

 

Palin fires back in Troopergate, releases memos showing insubordination

by Ed Morrissey

September 16, 2008

 

Sarah Palin issued a response to the Troopergate investigation yesterday by releasing internal memoranda that show Walt Monegan got fired for insubordination on budget matters and not because of his refusal to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law. Monegan went behind Palin’s back to attempt to revive a project Palin had vetoed, which “stunned” the Office of Management and Budget Director. On another occasion, Monegan held a press conference with Hollis French to dissent from Palin’s budget priorities — the same Hollis French pushing the ethics complaint against Palin:

Walt Monegan lost his job as public safety director because he resisted Gov. Sarah Palin’s budget policies and showed “outright insubordination,” say papers the governor’s lawyer filed Monday with the state Personnel Board.

It was Palin’s strongest effort yet to snuff allegations she sacked Monegan because he refused to fire a state trooper involved in an ugly divorce with the governor’s sister.

Along with the papers filed Monday were a slew of e-mails from the governor’s office purporting to show Monegan’s “rogue mentality” as a member of Palin’s Cabinet.

In one message, the governor’s budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote that she was “stunned and amazed” that Monegan appeared to be working with a powerful state legislator, Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, to seek funding for a project Palin previously had vetoed.

According to the papers filed by Palin’s legal team, that was not the only instance of insubordination from Monegan:

• 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
• 1/29/08: Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
• February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
• June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

From this presentation, it looks like Monegan had decided from the start to be a loose cannon in the Palin administration.  The wonder of this isn’t that he got fired — it’s how he managed to hang onto his job as long as he did.  The response calls Monegan’s trip to Washington the “final straw”, and it’s not difficult to see why.   Monegan even admitted it in his valedictory e-mail to his colleagues, saying that he “had waited too long outside her door for her to believe that I supported her.”  Nor did Monegan file an ethics complaint, as the law would have required him to do, if he felt his termination violated state ethics laws.  (Palin filed the complaint herself to argue the case.)

As the filing states, Monegan served as a political appointee, at the pleasure of the Governor.  Obviously, Monegan didn’t act to support Palin’s budget initiatives, often acting in opposition to them.  In anyone’s administration, that will result in dismissal.  Monegan kicked himself out of the job through his own acts.

Beating Up On Women

 

Charles Gibson's attack on Sarah Palin

 

 

Back in the good old days, when the Democrats were adversaries worthy of respect, they claimed to represent the interests of women and minorities.  After the shameful way they turned on one of their own (Hillary), it didn't seem possible that they could sink much lower.

Then came Sarah Palin. 

Like mindless attack dogs, the liberals and their pet media attacked Governor Palin's children with a ferocity that left many, many voters in America disgusted.

While the Obama campaign (and their pet media) has toned down their attacks on children, pregnant teens, working mothers, and children with special needs, that has not stopped them from attacking Governor Palin with one-sided interviews filled with loaded questions.  If you saw Charles "Don't call me Chuckles" Gibson's interview with Governor Palin, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I had planned on writing a thorough, fact-filled dissertation of Gibson's attack, but a much smarter person than myself beat me to it.  It's filled with actual facts for those of you who like to get the facts for yourself...as opposed to having them spoon-fed to you by some network hairdo.

 

Fact check on Sarah vs. Charlie

By: John Andrews — 9/13/2008

Charlie Gibson's dishonest effort to trap, embarrass, and belittle Gov. Sarah Palin in his lengthy ABC interview with the Republican VP nominee is unmasked by the network's own transcripts and, in one case, by actual video of Palin addressing her church.

If you like your news unfiltered, a few clicks will illustrate what I mean.

On Sarah's allegedly clueless answer to the Bush Doctrine question, here's Charles Krauthammer in National Review.

On the caricature of her as a scary theocrat and holy warrior against Iraq, here's James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal.

Finally, with a reprise of these topics plus the canard of Palin the warmonger spoiling for a fight with Russia, here's PJ Gladnick on Newsbusters.

Once again, we Republicans owe a vote of thanks to the ham-handed Obama partisans in the MSM for elevating and martyring McCain's everywoman running mate while eroding -- still further -- their own credibility. Keep it up guys, there are barely 50 days until this thing wraps up.

-John Andrews, Former Colorado State Senate President

Get the facts for yourself.  Even an interview with an actual candidate can be very biased, depending on the questions you ask and how you frame them (e.g.- "do you still beat your wife?").

Think for yourself, folks.  Don't let idiots like Gibson do your thinking for you, when it is obvious that he can barely think for himself.

The media is trying very, very hard to decide this election for us. 

 

We can't, we musn't, WE WON'T let them. 

 

I think I just felt a thrill run up my leg...

 

MSNBC Demotes Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews

 

Responding to criticism that their bias swings WAY too far to the left, the New York Times has reported that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews have been relegated by MSNBC to "analyst" duty for the remainder of the election season.  

Primary anchor duties will be assumed by David Gregory, longtime White House correspondent for NBC.

Olbermann was the subject of a great deal of criticism after he apologized on air for the Republicans after their airing of a 9/11 tribute video at the RNC (watch the clip, his sad excuse for commentary follows).

Matthews, now famous for his "Obama sends a thrill up my leg" comment, has never pretended to be a fair and balanced journalist (or heterosexual, for that matter).

Both had given up trying to be respectable journalists for some time, instead taking on the role of attack dogs for the Democratic Party (poodles make for poor attack dogs).

When Governor Sarah Palin complained about media bias during her acceptance of the VP nomination, convention attendees were heard to chant “N-B-C, N-B-C.” The McCain campaign reportedly filed complaints to the NBC news division regarding their coverage. 

Tens of thousands of viewers also complained, as did a large number of advertisers. 

NBC listened, and has made a huge leap forward as a respectable news outlet as a result.

MSNBC had tried to emulate the success of Fox by offering a more provocative commentary, but failed miserably in their efforts to produce actual facts and intelligent perspective.

Is fair, unbiased, accurate, unspun truth even possible anymore, in this brave new world of mass media and high-stake corporate interests?  Should the media even TRY to pretend to be neutral anymore?

So, good work, NBC.  Put your talent (to use the term loosely) where it belongs.  On that note, tell Olbermann to make mine black, no sugar.

 

 

Here's another video worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMevMJLdtE

Ever heard the phrase "silver tongued devil"?  I would think that the devil would have a gift for soothing dialogue, for how else would he be able to seduce a thinking man into eternal damnation?

Ruminate on that while I throw another phrase at you..."Freudian slip"...

 

 

From The Washington Times:

Obama's Verbal Slip Fuels his Critics

Christina Bellantoni
Sunday, September 7, 2008

 

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - Sen. Barack Obama's foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, "my Muslim faith."

The three words -- immediately corrected -- were during an exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," when he was trying to criticize the quiet smear campaign suggesting he is a Muslim.

But illustrating the difficulty of preventing false rumors about his faith from spreading, anti-Obama groups within one hour of the interview had sliced it out of context and were sending it around via email. They also were blogging about it.

Mr. Obama, who is a Christian and often proudly speaks about how his faith has influenced his public service, said he finds it "deeply offensive" that there are efforts "coming out of the Republican camp to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith."

The exchange came after Mr. Obama said that Republicans are attempting to scare voters by suggesting he is not Christian, which McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said was "cynical."

Asked about it on ABC, Mr. Obama said, "These guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand."

"The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections," said Mr. Stephanopoulos, who repeatedly interrupted Mr. Obama during the interview.

"I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks," Mr Obama responded, and Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted: "But John McCain said that's wrong."

Mr. Obama noted that when Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin "was forced" to talk about her pregnant 17-year-old daughter, he issued a forceful statement to reporters that the line of inquiry was "off limits." But he said the McCain campaign tried to tie him to "liberal blogs that support Obama" and are "attacking Governor Palin."

"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."

Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted with, "Christian faith."

"My Christian faith," Mr. Obama said quickly. "Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time."

 

How many O's in oooooops?

"there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith...

 

Well, considering the fact that you just said you're a Muslim, Senator Obama, we'll just stop suggesting otherwise.

Hey Karl, I see you've turned your comments off.  Is that because you're too chickenspit to debate your ignorant ramblings, or because you feel the intellectual authority to lecture people? 

It doesn't matter, we'll just comment on it (and you) here.

McCains Speesh

Sep 05, 2008 | 09:49 AM PST
Category: Political Report This Post

    I listened to McCain give his speech last evening, I waited to hear a plan come out of the speech.

    I guess I didn't hear a plan because he don't have one. more of the same.

    McCain said "change" 10 times but not once said how he would change anything.

   A man without a plan is not a man

I'm not a big fan of newspaper editorials, and I'm not usually a big fan of "cut and paste" bLog posts.  That being said, today's Rocky had a pretty good article today that discusses which candidate would actually be best for the workers.

 

Who's best for workers?

A Labor Day analysis of the two candidates' positions

 Rocky Mountain News

Monday, September 1, 2008

A presidential election is just two months away. So this Labor Day weekend, rather than reflect on the state of the work force, let's instead consider how working people are likely to fare under several of the policies of the two nominees, Barack Obama and John McCain.

The very concept of "working people" is fairly slippery, of course. Politicians who use the term clearly mean to exclude some Americans who do in fact work long hours but who earn too much money, in politicians' eyes, to qualify for consideration. So we'll define working people as those whose household income is at or below $75,000 (the median household income, reported last week by the Census Bureau, is $50,233 a year).

* Income taxes. Both candidates promise tax cuts, with Obama claiming Thursday that his would benefit 95 percent of "all working families." Moreover, McCain would make the Bush tax cuts permanent and double the dependent child credit from $3,500 to $7,000.

Obama has not been clear about whether he would let all the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 - if so, marginal rates would rise for everyone who files a 1040. He would, however, give a $500- per-worker tax credit for every household earning less than $150,000 and provide families a $4,000 credit for each college student.

Advantage: Obama for unmarried heads of household and (slightly) families with kids in college; McCain for everyone else - and a big edge to McCain should Obama let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

* Energy. Both candidates back a cap-and-trade proposal on greenhouse gases that would amount to a massive tax increase on fossil fuels, particularly coal. Consumers will pay higher energy bills.

Obama has promised a one-time, $1,000 energy "rebate" per household "for working families" that would be paid for with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. If the experience of the early 1980s is any guide, the tax would depress domestic energy production, boosting prices to everyone long after the rebate checks had been spent.

In McCain's favor, he opposes ethanol subsidies and mandates, which have caused corn prices to rise. Obama backs them.

Advantage: McCain.

* Health care. Obama would build on the current mix of employment-based health insurance and government programs. He would cover more of the uninsured by forcing big employers to insure all workers and expanding government subsidies. In the view of some prominent health-care economists, this plan could push companies to lay off low-wage workers, or at least not hire as many. That's no bargain. Whether it would save money for workers who are already insured is another matter. Obama is predicting a large reduction in annual premiums, but that seems extremely unlikely.

McCain, by contrast, would end the tax benefits for employer-provided health insurance and give individuals income-tax credits to buy coverage. He would also let people shop nationwide for insurance and let nonemployer membership groups like AARP and unions sell group policies. McCain's plan would end a major tax distortion that has boosted medical costs. But we need a lot more details.

Advantage: Unsure. Perhaps Obama, if he is correct about a reduction in premiums - a very big if. The more likely advantage is to McCain.

* Jobs. For most workers, the basic questions are: If you have a job, can you keep it? If you're looking for work, can you find it?

McCain's proposals would encourage growth and job creation; Obama's might in some cases - he said Thursday night, for example, that he'd eliminate the capital gains tax on startup companies, however he defines them. But some of his other proposals reduce incentives for capital formation and investment. For example, he favors a higher capital gains tax in most cases as well as higher taxes on dividends - meaning higher taxes on investment at a time when entrepreneurs (who provide jobs) need a boost.

The Democratic candidate repeatedly says he would create 5 million "green collar" jobs - but he means through subsidies. Those would not be 5 million net new jobs.

McCain would cut the U.S. corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, which is closer to the international norm. He also backs cuts in taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Advantage: McCain (clearly).

No president operates in a policy vacuum. Congress always has the prerogative to adopt, amend or reject a president's agenda.

Some would argue, for that matter, that Obama's promise to "end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas" would also help working families, but it's unclear how he intends to do this. Moreover, companies that invest abroad often end up expanding their operations here, contrary to the popular stereotype. In addition, one reason that U.S. companies invest abroad is because of the lower corporate tax rates they often find there. If Obama wants to keep more jobs in America he should follow McCain's lead and endorse a lower domestic rate, too.