Sarah Palin’s Email Hacked

Some cretin hacked into the personal email account of Governor Sarah Palin and posted screen shots of her email on the web. The Secret Service and the FBI are investigating.

I watched the cable shows and on Greta the host asked a panel of lawyers if the person (or persons) who hacked in should go to jail if they are caught. Two of the three immediately assumed that Palin was doing state work on her personal email. They eventually discussed the issue of privacy and how wrong it was but they kept hammering on state business on the email even though none of the emails had anything to do with state business. They kept saying it to plant the seed. The issue here is that someone hacked email. If they find anything else then they can discuss it.

This would be like if someone stole Barack Obama’s checkbook and published his banking information and the panel was asked if the thieves should go to jail and they said well, Obama might have robbed the bank, they need to see. He might have robbed the bank where he has that checking account.

Let me give the answer the idiot lawyers had some trouble with. The people who did this, if they are caught, should go to jail for a minimum of 5 years and then they should be forbidden from ever using a computer again. I would feel this way if they hacked Obama’s email. This is wrong and it should be strictly punished.

I will be looking around to see how people feel. It will be interesting to see how many liberals condemn it seeing how they are so concerned with privacy (unless you are Chuck Schumer who steals Social Security numbers).

No to Patriot Act but yes to hacking Palin?…..

Big Dog

CBS Vindicates Palin On Bush Doctrine

The people on the left who have been running scared by the nomination of Sarah Palin could not wait until Charles Gibson of ABC interviewed her so they could see her exposed. The left went nuts and people like Alan Colmes said that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. People said she looked like a deer in the headlights and that she had little knowledge of a doctrine that everybody in the world should know. Turns out there is no official Bush Doctrine but that at least four things have been given that label. CBS, in a hit piece on Palin and how she will fade, unwittingly exonerated her.

The premise is that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine is and that this shows she is unqualified to be VP. Yes, Gibson had to tell her what it was because she must have been too busy putting on lipstick to pay attention. But, Gibson told her one version of the doctrine and it was from 2002. Gibson said:

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? [emphasis mine]

So that settles it. The Bush Doctrine is what Gibson laid out and any rube who does not know that should not be out in public alone. Everyone knows the doctrine except Palin, or do they? In the hit piece at CBS News, they said this:

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate. [emphasis mine]

Now, if CBS is saying that this is the Bush Doctrine we have a problem because it differs from what Gibson said and this means that not everyone is in agreement as to what the term means. The one Gibson relied on is from 2002 and the one CBS wrote about is the most current version. So, when Gibson asked Palin what she interpreted it to be and she answered “His world view”, she was pretty much in line with CBS and the current line of thinking on the topic.

One would think that CBS would have looked at the transcript (they couldn’t have if this is what they think Gibson “put to her”) so that their version would match Gibson’s. Since they decided to write “what everyone knows” they have unwittingly vindicated Palin. She demonstrated there is more than one version when she asked “in what respect?” and she demonstrated that she is current by saying “his world view.”

I think that it is funny that while CBS was trying to reassure liberals (and keep them from jumping off bridges) with a hit piece designed to diminish Palin by promising that she will fade, they actually helped her out by showing that she is not stupid, had the correct answer and that Gibson was wrong. His credibility (and theirs) took a hit.

One other thing. The CBS piece, when discussing the fact that Palin will fade, presented this gem:

This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. (Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too.)

Notice that one name is missing from the list of stars raised to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions; Barack Obama.

Obama is a media creation and CBS is right, his star is fading. It is being dwarfed by the Palin star. All we can hope is that this won’t change by election day.

If she gets one third the time he had, she will still be shining in November.

Big Dog

Obama, Not McCain, Is Stuck In The Past

The newest Obama attack ad portrays John McCain as a man who is stuck in the past. I wrote about this earlier and indicated that though the ad claims that McCain can’t use the Internet, it does not make it clear that he uses it with help. You see, John McCain knows how it all works, he just can’t use it because the North Vietnamese broke his fingers a lot so McCain can’t type. He reads his email and his wife types his responses for him.

Regardless of Obama’s obvious ignorance of this issue (his ads seem to keep demonstrating his ignorance), the ad is disingenuous, misleading and hypocritical for another reason and that is, Barack Obama is actually the one stuck in the past.

Obama has been claiming to be an agent of change and he has stated that it will not be politics as usual in DC when The One arrives to take over the place. No one with any brains believes this (given his old style Chicago tactics) but it sounds good and it makes younger liberal women wet their panties and liberal men drool. The ad is designed to show us that John McCain is stuck in the past and will not bring change to Washington.

But is that the reality? Barack Obama has been saying he is the agent of change and when he had the opportunity to demonstrate that he blew it. Barack Obama chose a running mate who has been part of the Washington DC good ole boy network for 36 years. Instead of demonstrating his conviction to change Obama showed us that he is actually the person who is stuck in the past. His selection of Biden is old school, from a time long ago, a regression rather than a progression and it is counter to all Obama claims to be. Interestingly, there is a low roar that Biden will have some previously undisclosed “illness” that will force him to withdraw. Make no mistake, if Biden leaves it is because he was forced out. Any selection of Clinton from this point on will call Obama’s decision making ability into question.

Now, how about John McCain, the guy Obama paints as being in the past? John McCain selected a running mate who is young and has not been part of the DC political scene EVER. He chose a person who works for the people and not for the government and one who took on corruption in her own state. He selected a person who is the future and not the past. The selection of Sarah Palin demonstrates forward thinking rather than the thinking of someone who is stuck in the past.

Contrast Biden with Palin and then ask yourself which of the two demonstrates change in DC. Ask yourself which presidential candidate chose a running mate that is part of the future and not part of the past.

The ad Barack Obama aired has out of style glasses, a disco ball, a clunky huge mobile phone, and an old monochrome computer. These are all links to the past but Obama left out one very important link to the past in that ad. That link would be his running mate, Joe Biden. Biden is as much a relic as the items displayed but you won’t find him on that film.

No, that relic from the past is right next to Barack Obama, the man who claims to be about the future…

Big Dog

Sarah Palin Supports Gun Control

It is well known that nearly all major media outlets are in the tank for Barack Obama. They don’t even try to hide it any more. He comes out and breathes and they swoon and talk about their tingles. The nutroots deny the media is liberal and swear that it supports the Republicans and is unfair to the Democrats. But it is undeniable that the media is part of the Obama campaign and the campaign deploys them like all other surrogates:

His aides said they were looking to the news media to debunk the image of her as a blue-collar reformer, even as they argued that her power to help Mr. McCain was overstated.

How about a little fair time (fairness doctrine stuff) and we have the media debunk Obama’s image as an agent of change. It would be helpful if they spent the same amount of effort in scrutinizing him as they have her. And no, he has not been vetted over the last 19 months, he has been assisted. The media got him the nomination.

One other troubling thing from the piece is this:

In the midst of all this, Mr. Obama had a private lunch on Thursday with someone he battled with for much of the year but who knows how to put the Republicans on the defensive: former President Bill Clinton. Discussion topics, aides said, included how Mr. Obama might handle Ms. Palin in the days ahead.

The last thing Obama needs or should pay attention to is Bill Clinton telling him how to handle a woman. I already know what Bill Clinton thinks about Sarah Palin and how that rapist would like to handle her (“I did not have sex with that woman, but I’d like to.”).

Might not be a good idea for him to try though, she is a strong advocate of gun control. Gun control as in keeping your sights on the target and hitting that at which you aim…

Source:
New York Times

Big Dog

The Sexist Attacks On Palin Continue

The Democrats are ratcheting up their attacks on Sarah Palin demonstrating just how formidable an opponent she really is. If they were not concerned with her or if they really believed America will not vote for McCain simply because of her, then why do they attack her so relentlessly? The Obama campaign was full of sexists when Hillary was running against him and the Democrats, the so called party of the people, women’s rights and all that, have continued that tact with Palin. It is amazing to see the number of women in the Democratic party who think Palin should stay home and raise her kids or that she has no business being in politics. This is from Politico [Jonathan Martin’s Blog]:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Is this really the message that women in the Democratic party want to send? Do they expect men to take them seriously when they abandon their so called beliefs in order to destroy a female opponent from the opposite party? Imagine if some Conservative in a business looked at a liberal woman applying for a job and said, “Have you ever had an abortion? If not then you will be qualified for this job.” To me this is no different than telling a woman she is unqualified if she is pregnant or has kids and must take off to attend to them. The women’s movement was supposed to be about equal rights and the idea that women were qualified to do the same jobs as men. It seems that is nothing more than talk because the women who say they are all for it actually do not have the strength to put their money where their mouth is.

I wonder what Carol Fowler would say if the South Carolina Republican Chairman said that the Democrats had chosen a presidential candidate whose primary qualification seems to be that he was not born white…

I also wonder if she realizes that she is saying you have to murder a child to be qualified to be on the ticket.

They are very afraid.

UPDATE: I just read that she is married to Don Fowler, the one who was laughing about hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans…

Big Dog