The Dems Said Fox Was Dishonest?
Nov 29, 2007 Political
Not to long ago the Democratic candidates all decided to cancel a debate sponsored by Fox. They made their claim that Fox was biased to the right and that they would not conduct a fair and open debate. The Democrats were more comfortable with the 70% left leaning “unbiased” MSM so that is the route they went. Republicans have not canceled any debates based upon distrust of a network though it appears they should have.
CNN hosted last night’s debate and I wrote a post informing that the gay general who asked the question about gays in the military was affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and had endorsed her. Now it seems that this guy was not the only “undecided” voter who already supported a Democratic candidate. At least three other people who asked questions have endorsed a Democrat. Two of them for Edwards and one for Obama. The abortion girl Journey even posted a video about her response to the answers to her question while she was wearing her John Edwards T Shirt. The mom with the lead paint toy question is a union manager for a union that has endorsed Edwards and her video is displayed on the union’s website.
So somebody tell me again why the Democrats were worried about Fox but not concerned about CNN. Oh, because CNN seems to be in the tank for the left. There is no way that someone at CNN could not have known about these people. Perhaps they figured they would not get caught.
The Democrats canceled the Fox debate because they wanted fair. How fair is it that the gay general got more time to speak than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter? For that matter, he got longer than any candidate for a single response. They were limited to 90 seconds and 30 seconds for a follow up. The gay general got 2 minutes to talk about his lifestyle.
Michelle Malkin has quite a bit of detail.
Tags: abortion, cnn, democratic candidate, Democrats, distrust, fox, gay, gays in the military, hillary clinton campaign, John Edwards, lead paint, michelle malkin, Obama, tancredo
Bill Clinton Again Rewriting History
Nov 28, 2007 Political
Bill Clinton asserted that he was opposed to the war in Iraq from the very beginning though his remarks at the time were much more tempered and did not portray a person who was absolutely opposed to the action. He indicated that it would not have been proper for him to have more open statements at the time because he was not the president. He did however, have no problem with expressing that the weapons inspectors should be given more time. Fourteen years of folly was not enough for Clinton.
I believe that Clinton now expresses that he was absolutely opposed because Obama, his wife’s opponent, is the only candidate who can say he was against the war from the beginning and not have to prove it. The others have their pesky votes to show what they actually did. John Edwards says he was wrong to vote that way and Hillary stated she was misled by president Bush. Once again, it is someone else’s fault. If this is the smartest woman in the world and she was misled by President bush, a man many on the left believe to be an idiot, how was she so easily misled?
Clinton was on the campaign trail trying to raise support for his wife who has seen her numbers drop over the past few weeks. He mentioned himself more times than he mentioned her but that might be the point because he is more liked than she is so people get the impression that he is the one they are electing. He also told the audience how Hillary has experience and has not forgotten what it is like to “be like you.” Read this as even though she is rich she has not forgotten what it is like to be one of the little people. Of course, she failed to give a tip at a diner. I am not saying that it was deliberate but wouldn’t one of “us” remember to so that?
Clinton also played this phony concern for the military while lying about tax cuts. He was lamenting the Republican tax cut for the rich and how he, as a rich guy, is not paying money that could go tot he troops. First of all tax cuts were not “for the rich” they were for everyone. They have helped the middle class and poor (those who ACTUALLY pay any taxes) and they have helped produce a strong economy. The rich still pay a higher marginal tax rate than anyone else and they also pay most of the taxes in this country. Of course they will get more money back because they pay a hell of a lot more in. Secondly, the treasury will take donations to the government and I am sure Bill is aware of this. if he is so concerned that he is not paying his fair share then he is certainly free to donate money to the treasury.
Obviously, this is more of the Clinton feel good talk and double speak. A lot of people will believe him when he says he wants to pay more but few will know that he could if he wanted to. They will assume this poor schmuck is just dying to give more money back if only those mean Republicans would take it.
Mr. Clinton, I call on you to either make a donation to the treasury for what you think you should be paying or shut your mouth about the issue. People deserve better than to be misled by a snake oil salesman.
Fact 1: We pay too much in taxes even after tax cuts.
Fact 2: The government takes in huge sums of money. The real problem is uncontrolled spending.
Fact 3: We could take even more in tax cuts if the Congress would stop spending BILLIONS in pork projects.
Source:
Yahoo News
UPDATE: Bill supported it before he was opposed to it. I guess these people think we don’t read…
Others with similar stories:
Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: bill clinton, campaign trail, folly, Hillary, John Edwards, phony, president bush, tax cut
Why is the Media Good to Hillary?
Nov 13, 2007 Political
When a politician is named Clinton he can usually be assured of good press, or no press at all if there is something bad going on. The same press that can’t wait to run to press with our nation’s secrets is much more respecting of the wishes of the Clintons. The press does not want to do anything that will upset the darling couple. The MSM sat on the Monica/Bill story and only released it after Drudge had made it public. I believe that the liberals in the MSM will do anything to get the Clintons elected but I also now think they are afraid of Hillary. She does not like them and has treated them badly in the past. Additionally, she has alienated them since about 1993 but they do not seem to go after her and the reason boils down to one word; FEAR.
Members of the media are afraid of Hillary and her mean spirited ways. They are afraid of being left out, should her majesty be elected. Hillary was able to stop a recent GQ article by threatening an unrelated article that dealt with Bill. It is easy, play ball the way the Clintons want or you do not get to play.
If grumbling about a basketball story seems excessive, it’s also typical of the Clinton media machine. Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record–“They’re too smart,” one furtively confides. “They’ll figure out who I am”–privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary’s aides don’t hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters’ jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. “They’re frightening!” says one reporter who has covered Clinton. “They don’t see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game.” The New Republic
The Clinton camp does not view it as healthy and Hillary has a disdain for the media after the way they treated her husband in 1992. Evidently, Hillary took exception to the fact that her husband was treated just like any other skirt chasing, sex abusing rapist. It is obvious that the media is lacking in the tenacity required to go after someone like the Hildabeast. it is just amazing to me that a person like Hillary could inspire fear in anyone especially reporters. In the real world it is the politicians who should be afraid of the media but the MSM of today has sat back and had Obama and Edwards do the attacking for them. I am certain that if Obama or Edwards had broken campaign laws and it was caught on tape they would have been attacked relentlessly in order to prop up the Hill. If it were a Republican they would be calling for a head on a platter.
Do we want a person as president who has so much control over the media? The Clintons got away with quite a bit of crime the last time they were in the WH. Imagine what they could do with the media covering for them even more than it did back then.
Say no to Satan.
Others posting similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pet’s Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, DragonLady’s World, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: clinton story, drudge, Hillary, John Edwards, Obama, political journalists, relevant answers, something bad
Edwards Hears Boos at Mellencamp Concert
Nov 11, 2007 Political
John Edwards was booed at a John Mellencamp concert after the singer paused the show to allow Edwards to come up and speak. He said a few cheesy words and there were tons of boos. Edwards made short work of the interruption and walked to a darkened corner of the stage and stayed there until the show started back up.
What a dolt. Haven’t these politicians and activist singers figured out yet that people, regardless of which political party the belong to, do not want to pay to hear the music at a concert and get an earful of politics. Politicians should pay people to listen to them, not the other way around.
Of course, given the size of John Edwards’ home, maybe he thought the song “Small Town” was about his residence.
Source:
The Politico
Tags: cheesy, interruption, John Edwards, john mellencamp concert, political party, politicians, politico, singers
Let’s Hear it for the Girl, uh, Candidate
Nov 5, 2007 Political
As has been posted, Hillary Rodham was terrible in the last debate and she managed to take several positions on the same issue over a span of two minutes. She has finally come out in favor of allowing ILLEGALS to have driver’s licenses. It took her about twelve hours to formulate an opinion which means she had to see how her position played with various groups and then select the one that would do the least amount of harm. Hillary left the debate acting like a victim and her campaign talked about all the boys ganging up on the girl. This has gotten the attention of one feminist [Kate Michelman] who is aligned with John Edwards:
“When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her political elevation into the ‘boys club,’ ” Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote in a posting on a blog of the liberal group Open Left.
“But when she’s challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules,” Michelman said. “It’s trying to have it both ways.” LA Times
Interestingly, as soon as Hillary and her campaign became painfully aware that the picking on a woman card was not playing well, they changed positions and said that she was being attacked because she is the front runner. That should have been the position all along but they made it about her sex and probably thought that would play considering their past success with such a ploy. however, when B. Hussein Obama said that he never complained that he was being picked on because he was black it took the wind out of Clinton’s sails.
Hillary, of course, is really trying to play it both ways. She is trying to appear as a strong woman, able to mix it up with the guys, but using the victim status to appeal to women. She recently said she felt comfortable in the kitchen (as opposed to not wanting to stay home and bake cookies) and now she is telling folks to bring their mops, vacuum cleaners, and brushes [ABC] because the woman will have to clean up the mess left by President Bush. Any mess they find will not equal the stains that her hubby left behind when he was in the White House. Now that, was a mess that needed cleaning.
In any event, here she is playing to the women as if only a woman can clean up the mess but also subliminally saying that cleaning up after men is a woman’s task. This is the way she quietly plays both sides of the issue and it is what Michelman is, in part, talking about. Hillary wants to be one of the guys but she wants to appeal to the June Cleaver’s of the world as in little Hillary Homemaker. Hillary could not keep her own house clean when she was in there the first time so what makes her qualified to clean it up now? If she gets back in there and Bill has unfettered access to interns all the mops in the world will not help.
Clinton stumbled in the last debate because she was unable to answer a question that she should certainly have had an answer to. If she could not answer it, it would have been wiser to say she had not looked at it and did not want to comment. When she waffled around and took several positions, she looked anything but presidential.
Hillary has terrible ideas for this country. They are ideas based on government doing everything for people at the expense of those who earn the money in this country. She is a socialist and wants socialism for us but she cannot say that. She must appear as if she is mainstream America.
That is, until she wins. Then she can do what she wants and we will be powerless to stop her. It is all about winning and the power. Once she has that, our country will never be the same.
Others discussing similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Midnight Sun, , A Blog For All, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Phastidio.net, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Nuke’s, DragonLady’s World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: , front runner, Hillary, illegals, John Edwards, kate michelman, liberal group, Obama, socialism, strong woman, victim status