Many Faces Of Barack &#187; Related Obama News and Stories

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

San Francisco’s Happy Meal Ban

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

You see, a lot of liberals have good intentions. They think that if they ban Happy Meals, then there won’t be anymore obese children. However, what they don’t realize (and what I learned on my pediatrics rotation in medical school) is that most obese children have obese parents, and consume the majority of their fatty foods at home.

Liberals also think that if they ban guns, then crime will automatically go down. However, what they don’t realize is that criminals still will find a way to get guns, and then 76 year old men will become defenseless prey to street gangs.

So therefore, it’s only natural for liberals to also think that if they can control what people, say, watch or listen to, then that will somehow stop paranoid schizophrenics from going on murder sprees. (Well, not what they say so much–just what you say. Liberals want to be able to use “target” maps and have pundits on MSNBC be able to use incendiary rhetoric–they just don’t want you to be able to do the same thing, because….well, you know, they are just so much smarter and more enlightened than you, so they can do it, but you can’t.)

Liberals always talk about wanting to help the downtrodden. Well, this tragedy in Tuscon would have presented a perfect opportunity to discuss mental illness. The other night on The O’Reilly Factor, Charles Krauthammer discussed how, since the deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals that took place in the 1960′s, many mentally ill people have been left homeless and freezing to death on the streets. John Hawkins also made similar points in an excellent column. It seems that if liberals really cared so much for the poor and the downtrodden, then they would have first mourned the victims of the shooting, and then tried to find some good in this tragedy by using it as an opportunity to provoke a national debate with regard to mental illness (i.e., how to get people the help that they need without violating anyone’s civil liberties). Instead, they used it as an opportunity to bash Sarah Palin and act like the thought police by suggesting that we should “bring back the fairness doctrine”. These actions demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the primary focus of modern liberalism is not helping the “little guy”, but bashing Sarah Palin and controlling how people live their lives.

3.) This whole Tuscon Tragedy was the big, red “Do Not Push” button for liberals.

What do I mean by the above statement? Simple. Somehow or another, liberals were able to drag Sarah Palin and the Tea Party into this story (even though they had absolutely NOTHING to do with it). Furthermore, they were able to use this tragedy to discuss gun control, as well as speech control (two ideas that are dear to their hearts). Palin, gun control and controlling conservative speech is the liberal trifecta; therefore, with regard to this story, they just couldn’t control themselves.

David Brooks (of all people) explained this phenomenon perfectly when he wrote the following:

“All of this evidence, which is easily accessible on the Internet, points to the possibility that Loughner may be suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia.

In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.

Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence. The coverage and commentary shifted to an entirely different explanation: Loughner unleashed his rampage because he was incited by the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party, the anti-immigrant movement and Sarah Palin.

Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric. Keith Olbermann demanded a Palin repudiation and the founder of the Daily Kos wrote on Twitter: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Others argued that the killing was fostered by a political climate of hate.

These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness.

Yet such is the state of things. We have a news media that is psychologically ill informed but politically inflamed, so it naturally leans toward political explanations. We have a news media with a strong distaste for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and this seemed like a golden opportunity to tarnish them. We have a segmented news media, so there is nobody in most newsrooms to stand apart from the prevailing assumptions. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons.

I have no love for Sarah Palin, and I like to think I’m committed to civil discourse. But the political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible.”

4.) Ever since Obama has come on the scene, liberals have gone overboard with their incivility and have gotten in the habit of substituting slurs, libel, personal attacks and name-calling for actual political debate.

We are all familiar with the vitriol directed at George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Now, fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary where the Clintons were accused of racism, and Chris Matthews called Hillary Clinton “witchy” (see the image below that was popular on many liberal blogs). Then, other Democrats tried to pressure Mrs. Clinton to get out of the race and accused her of wanting to have Obama assassinated (sound familiar?). And finally, Keith Olbermann got fed up and demanded that someone just kill her/beat her up. (To be specific, Olberman said that, “Someone should take her in a room and only he comes out”.)

Next, came the general election where John McCain and Sarah Palin basically faced the same sentiment from the liberal media that the Clintons faced. (That sentiment being, “How dare they actually try to beat Obama!”) To be specific, one liberal blogger captured the Left’s sentiment perfectly when he wrote that his “jaw dropped” when John McCain brought up Bill Ayers in the debate. In other words:

“How dare that mean, old fart try to actually win the debate?! Why doesn’t he just walk away and let Obama win the election already? Don’t he and his stupid supporters know that we liberals know what’s best for them and the rest of the country anyway?”

However, nothing quite prepared me to see members of the MSM calling patriotic Americans, who were private citizens exorcising their First Amendment rights, “teabaggers” (which is a vile sexual slur) night after night after night. I recoiled in horror, and thought that this was lowest that the liberal MSM could possibly sink–but I was wrong.

This past week, when liberals in the MSM accused Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and conservatives in general of being somehow complicit in a mass murder…..well, that was their bottom, which is why they are now experiencing such a strong “backlash” (to quote Peter Wehner).

The liberal MSM so badly botched the coverage of the Tuscon massacre, because–for so very long–they have been trying to throw water on that “witch” Sarah Palin, but she simply refuses to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz did.

Instead, Palin is more like Elphaba from the Broadway musical Wicked–she just keeps coming back stronger and stronger after each setback and attack, managing to fly above it all and help the Republicans win elections. (H/T to the Hillbuzz for the video.)

And now, here was finally their chance–nay, their golden opportunity–to have someone take Palin into a room and only he comes out. The liberal MSM finally thought that they could be rid of Sarah Palin once and for all. And, it was more important to them than anything else–even more important than mourning for the victims of this senseless tragedy.

So, in conclusion, if I had to get inside the mind of the average liberal journalist/elitist and translate their thoughts into liberalese, it would sound something like this:

“Why don’t these stupid racist, redneck teabaggers just sit down and shut up? Why do they even think that they have a right to participate in the political process anyway? Don’t they realize that we liberals know so much more than them? Besides, the Founding Fathers would have hated their guts. I mean, they are so crass and vulgar with their “target” maps and using phrases like, “Don’t retreat, just reload.” Sure, we use target maps, gun metaphors and incendiary rhetoric (like wishing someone would blow up Rush Limbaugh’s head with a CO2 pellet), but we are so much more educated, so it’s less offensive coming from us. And sure, we might have over-reacted with the whole “Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are accessories to murder” bit, but those teabaggers should just turn the other cheek when we attack them, because they listen to white trash like Sarah Palin and talk radio, so they kind of have it coming anyway.”

OK–well, maybe I might be a bit guilty of stereotyping liberals in that above paragraph. But hey, liberals have been stereotyping conservatives for the last two years with the whole “racist, redneck teabagger” bit. It stings a tad when someone does it back to you, huh?

So, if you lefties are really serious about the whole “new tone” thingy that you all have been whining about this entire week, might I suggest that you do two things. First off, you all really need to apologize to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and conservatives in general for implying that we were all accessories to mass murder (as well as for all of the degrading insults that you’ve thrown our way for the last two years). I mean, that was really appalling behavior and was totally beyond the pale. To quote Charles Blow (who I never thought that I’d quote):

“Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof. “

Second of all–and most importantly–you guys in the liberal MSM really owe the victims of the Tuscon shooting, their families and the American people an apology. Most Americans probably didn’t even learn the names of the victims until the president’s Wednesday night speech–four days after the shooting took place. Michelle Malkin has the victims’ names and ages on her blog, but I will list them here so that we may mourn them and pray for them–as well as for Congresswoman Giffords:

The deceased have been identified as: Judge John Roll ,63; Dorthy Murray, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; Christina Greene, 9; Phyllis Scheck, 79; and Gabriel Zimmerman, 30.

Furthermore, until several days after the incident, most Americans probably had no idea about Jared Lee Loughner’s obvious signs of mental illness. So therefore, the American people were denied the debate that our country deserves with regard to how to recognize the signs of mental illness, as well as what to do about it (as Benjamin Kerstein explained in his poignant column).

In other words, the media’s need to “get the witch” was so strong, that it overpowered even their need to report the basic facts of the case. Everyone was talking about Sarah Palin’s “target” map, but no one even knew the victims’ names. (And to make matters worse, Sarah Palin is now getting death threats.) Seriously, shame on you guys in the press. If you all want your “new tone”, then you need to man up, suck it up and apologize first–otherwise, all of your pleas to “end the divisive rhetoric” will sound insincere. Like Mr. Blow said, you can’t claim the moral ground while standing in quick sand. Your “by any means necessary” approach has failed. If you call out for help and reach out an arm by offering a sincere apology, then we will help pull you up. Otherwise, you can all continue to sink in the muck together. The choice is yours.

Cross-posted from Parcbench.

On Second Chances: Ted Williams vs. Michael Vick

susannah fleetwood — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:22:06 +0000

Ted Williams was all the rage these last couple of days in the blogosphere and on cable news. In case you happen to be living under a rock this past week, Ted Williams is the homeless man who was a former radio announcer with a “golden voice” who fell into trouble with drugs and alcohol. Williams lost everything in 1993 and became homeless, only to have his life change this week when a video of him demonstrating his God given talent on the side of a Columbus, Ohio highway went viral.

Well, within a couple of days of the above video getting national exposure, Mr. Williams was offered a job as an announcer for the Cleveland Cavaliers, and was even invited on The Today Show and asked to do the opening voice-over for the show.

So, why has America fallen in love with Ted Williams? Simple. Americans love the story of an underdog making good–and, we are all about giving people second chances. (See the hit movies Rocky, Braveheart, Invincible, The Pursuit of Happyness and Rudy as examples of American’s love of second chances and redemption.) In fact, America, was, literally, built by tired, huddled masses of people coming to a new land in order to get a second chance. I think that the movie Kingdom of Heaven sums up the American spirit–with regard to second chances–best (even though the film takes place in Medieval Europe/Jerusalem) when Balian’s father (Liam Neeson) tells Balian (Orlando Bloom) that, even though he’s been charged with a crime and his wife has committed suicide, he can redeem himself by going to Jerusalem to fight the Crusade. To be specific, Balian’s father said the following about Jerusalem:

“There, you are not what you were born, but what you have it in yourself to be.”

Yes, and in America, you are not what you were born–or what you might have been–but what what you have it in yourself to be. Ted Williams might have been a former drug addict and petty criminal who was cheerfully panhandling by the highway hoping to get a second chance at life (and not blaming anyone for his mistakes but himself), but today, he is a national celebrity known for his “golden voice”. He is the quintessential Prodigal Son.

Naturally, all of this talk of second chances makes one think of Michael Vick. Michael Vick was the man with with not only a golden arm, but golden legs as well (which is unusual for a quarterback). However, when he played football for the Atlanta Falcons (prior to going to prison for dog fighting), he was not exactly a model player. Vick was known as a slacker who was frequently late for practice, he was busted for pot possession at the airport, and he was even fined for flipping off the Atlanta Falcons fans. So, when Vick’s dog fighting scandal broke, it was especially shocking–particularly because he had been given so much and so many chances before. As it says in the book of Luke:

“To whom much is given, of him much will be required.”

And, Michael Vick was given a lot–a whole lot. He is gifted with an incredible talent, and was given millions of dollars in contracts and endorsements. And how did he pay back his fellow Americans who made him rich and famous by buying tickets to his games? Vick paid them back not by, say, volunteering in a homeless shelter, but by fighting, torturing and murdering dogs (i.e., man’s best friend). To quote the LA Examiner (H/T Adrienne’s Corner):

According to the prosecutor’s statement of facts in the case, between 2002 and 2007 Michael Vick and his co-conspirators Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor killed thirteen dogs by various methods including wetting one dog down and electrocuting her, hanging, drowning and shooting others and, in at least one case, by slamming a dog’s body to the ground.

Michael Vick didn’t make a mistake. He didn’t “make a bad choice.” Over a period of five years he forced dogs into deadly fights, and he personally killed, or conspired to kill, thirteen dogs. He didn’t pick a quick, painless method of killing, but instead chose a variety of means that qualify as torture. Pit Bulls are powerful dogs. Imagine how hard you would have to work to kill a Pit Bull by forcibly drowning him.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also reports, “Sometimes [the dogs] were starved to make them more vicious in the pit.”

And Michael Vick didn’t confine the abuse and killing to his own Pit Bulls.

According to a November 2008 ESPN.com news story, a report prepared by the USDA’s inspector general-investigations division revealed that Vick, Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor also put family pet dogs into the ring with trained pit bulls.

The report, dated Aug. 28, 2008, says, “Vick, Peace and Phillips thought it was funny to watch the pit bull dogs belonging to [Vick’s] Bad Newz Kennels injure or kill the other dogs.”

[Adrienne has some pictures of Michael Vick's extracurricular activities--warning, the photos are gruesome.]

On a personal note, when this story about Michael Vick’s atrocities exploded, it hit me particularly hard. My dog Molly (who was a rescue dog) had recently been diagnosed with a fibrosarcoma of her lower jaw and had to have part of her lower jaw surgically removed. Well, a few months later her cancer came back and she was given just months to live–even with chemotherapy. However, being the fighter that she was, she held on for almost two years and passed away a little over a year ago. So, when I heard about Michael Vick–a man who had been given so much–torturing and murdering healthy dogs while my dog was fighting for her life…well, let’s just say that I had very strong feelings of dislike for Mr. Vick. (Below are some pictures of Molly.)

So, when President Obama called the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles (Mr. Vick’s current team) to praise him for “giving Michael Vick a second chance”, it kind of stuck in my craw a bit (just like it did with a lot of people). I mean, Michael Vick is not exactly your average felon–i.e., someone from the wrong side of the tracks who never got a break in life or got addicted to drugs, etc. On the contrary, he’s gotten plenty of breaks in life. To quote Richard Cohen:

“Vick got a second chance not because he deserves it but because he can play football. This is the lesson we can all take from this sorry episode. It’s one thing to be sorry. It’s much better to hit your man in the end zone”.

However, the good news is that not all athletes feel the same sense of entitlement that Michael Vick seemed to feel. Some actually get the whole, “To whom much is given, much is expected” thingy. Meet Rudy Favard. Allahpundit wrote about him a couple of days ago. He is just a senior in high school and the captain of his high school football team, but already, he understands just how lucky he is to have a healthy, strong body–so he helps out a family with a disabled son by carrying him up the stairs every night, because the father is too weak from heart surgery. (Drats–why is there water on my keyboard?)

So, in conclusion, Michael Vick might not “deserve” a second chance, but this is America and he’s got a lot of talent, so he gets one anyway. But you know what, I’m not that upset that he’s getting a second chance. Heck, it might turn out quite well in the long run. Just like Balian in Kingdom of Heaven who went from a criminal to a valiant knight/defender of Jerusalem, Michael Vick might go from an animal abuser to a very strong spokesman against cruelty to animals. Maybe his redemption is sincere–that’s for God to say, not for any of us to judge. After all, as Alex Knepper recently pointed out, Chris Brown (who beat up his girlfriend Rhianna last year) already seems to be blowing his second chance by taunting victims of sexual abuse on Twitter. Hey, at least Michael Vick appears to be doing all of the right things and showing public remorse for his crimes.

So I will take a deep breath and give Michael Vick his second chance–and I will hope that he has truly seen the error of his ways. However, please don’t ask me to forgive him just yet (I hope to eventually–forgiveness is good for the soul), and please, for the love of God, don’t ask me to celebrate him. No, right now, I prefer to celebrate Ted Williams and Rudy Favard. Hearing about their stories makes me feel good. With regard to Michael Vick, I will just cross my fingers and hope for the best.

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at The Green Room, Right Wing News, The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

Sarah Palin Makes Liberals Act Like Weirdos

susannah fleetwood — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:58:47 +0000

For some odd reason, Sarah Palin causes liberal elites to rabidly foam at the mouth. Professor William Jacobson of the blog Legal Insurrection wrote an insightful piece about how conservatives seem to reflexively defend Palin, because liberals seem to be perpetually attacking her. Furthermore, not only do liberals seem to revel in finding weird reasons to attack Sarah Palin, but they also seem to only be happy when they are attacking her family as well (probably because they see them as little “spawns of Sarah”). Now, why is this? I haven’t a clue. However, I can state beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not helping them.

For example, a couple of days ago, comediennes Kathy Griffin and Margret Cho both attacked Bristol Palin as “fat”–although Cho was a little more subtle about it than Griffin was. (Robert Stacy McCain wrote an excellent piece about both incidents here.) In fact, Griffin was dumb enough to trash Bristol Palin and refer to her as “the white Precious” in front of a group of servicemen who promptly booed her.

Question–does Ms. Griffin not know her audience at all? These are not liberal elites, like Bill Maher, who think that it’s OK to call Bristol Palin a “Hillbilly Heroine”. These are US soldiers who won’t find calling someone’s twenty year old daughter “fat” at all funny.

Moreover, a few weeks ago comedienne Sandra Bernhard called Bristol Palin a “hooker” on Joy Behar’s show because she placed in the finals on Dancing With the Stars. (Ms. Behar seemed very distressed, herself, and said that “Fred and Ginger died last night”.)

Surprising to say, Behar and Bernhard weren’t the only liberals to get so wee-weed up over Bristol Palin making it to the finals on Dancing With the Stars. Washington Post columnist, Sally Quinn, wrote a long piece about how her head was about to explode because Bristol Palin made it to the finals of Dancing With the Stars. Ann Althouse best described Quinn’s disingenuous hyperventilating when she wrote the following:

And this strangely sanctimonious journalist — she’s writing in the always awful “On Faith” section of The Washington Post — condemns Palin voters for “cheating” 7 paragraphs after she confesses to doing something that is at least as much cheating as what the Palin fans are said to be doing.

“Not only that, but I vote. Under the show’s rules, you’re allowed to vote five times on one line. I have six lines at home and my cell, so I vote as many times as I can for my favorite. “

So this lady, this longtime Washington powerbroker, has 6 phone lines, and she maxes each line out, each week, voting 30 times. But that’s the show’s rules. They can’t tell how many individuals vote are voting. They can only see phone numbers. So if your family of 5 watches the show and you — you economic losers — only have one phone, you can make 5 calls. Sally Quinn happens to have 6 phone lines, so she gets 30 votes — under the rules.

“Commenters on the conservative blog Hillbuzz.org said they had figured out how to enter more votes than the rules allow by creating fake e-mail addresses. One person posting on Hillbuzz said “Lord have mercy, I voted for three hours online! I got 300 in.”

What is a “fake e-mail address”? The rules say you are allowed 5 votes from each email address, just as you are allowed 5 votes from each phone number. Some people have multiple phone numbers and some have multiple email addresses. What’s the difference? All I can think of is that you have to spend money to have multiple phone numbers, and you can get multiple email accounts free. It feels so right for rich folk to get more. I love when liberals slip up like that.

Question–hey Lefties, first of all, you have to know that calling Bristol Palin a “fat hooker” is not a good way to win friends and influence people, right? I mean, Bristol Palin probably wears a size six or a size eight–most American women wear a size ten (Marilyn Monroe wore a size twelve). Do you really think that calling the majority of American women “fat” is a winning strategy for you?

Second of all, you guys do realize that this is just a television show and that normal people don’t freak out or want to shoot the TV because Bristol Palin won, right? Full disclosure here–I’ve never seen an episode of Dancing With the Stars (I’ve watched clips on YouTube), but if one of the Obama girls happen to make it to the finals in a few years, I would be quite happy for her (even if she wasn’t that great of a dancer).

Now, having your head explode over Bristol Palin making it to the finals on Dancing With the Stars is not the only symptom of Palin Derangement Syndrome–apparently, Sarah Palin’s Facebook postings are enough to give a lot of liberals the vapors. For instance, Andrew Sullivan recently wrote a piece whining about Sarah Palin mocking Barack Obama’s famous “57 states gaffe”, and accused her of “trashy behavior” (but, he didn’t say what was “trashy” about her behavior).

[Hey Andrew, by "trashy behavior", do you mean spreading internet rumors that a woman's baby is not really her own, and is that of her teenage daughter? Because that would be you Andrew, not Sarah Palin. But, I digress.]

Well, if Sullivan had any sense of humor at all, he would have written that Palin’s Facebook post was funny and admitted that she had a point that the media tends to give Obama a pass on his gaffes, but tends to hammer everyone else on theirs (as even SNL pointed out during the Democratic primary). Normal people like people who can laugh at themselves and respond very well to self-deprecating humor.

However, Sullivan was not only upset by Sarah Palin’s recent Facebook post, but her daughter Willow’s as well (where she gets involved with trash-talk with another teenager when she defends her sister Bristol). First of all, does Sullivan realize that Willow Palin is a sixteen year old girl, and that normal Americans find it to be very strange and distasteful when grown men pick on other people’s children? Even Jon Stewart told liberals to back off and to “stop making me feel sorry for the Palins”.

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Jason Jones’ Bayonne

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Second of all, does Sullivan realize how weird it is to obsess over Sarah Palin and her family’s Facebook postings? I mean, Sarah Palin was only a vice-presidential nominee –she was never even the vice-president. You don’t see us conservatives obsessing over Joe Leiberman’s or John Edward’s Facebook postings, much less their kids Facebook postings. This is very strange behavior. I would suggest that if reading the Palin family’s Facebook postings upsets you so much, then stop reading them.

Finally, speaking of weird behavior, Charles Blow recently wrote a column about how he wasn’t going to talk about Sarah Palin anymore, but then spent the entire column writing about how much Sarah Palin sucks. Hey Charles, I thought that you said that you weren’t going to talk about Sarah Palin anymore? You see, if most people say that they aren’t going to talk about someone anymore, then they just don’t talk about them anymore–they don’t proceed to, then, write an entire column about how terrible the person is.

In fact, this column of Blow’s is almost as weird as Keith Olbermann naming Bristol Palin his “Worst Person in the World”, or Aaron Sorkin comparing Sarah Palin to Michael Vick for hunting a Caribou. (I’m sure that the millions of hunters all across America deeply appreciate that comparison.) Oh, and Keith, really???!! Bristol Palin is your “Worst Person in the World”? Not Kim Jong-Il, not Ahmadinajad, but Bristol Palin for discussing abstinence?! No, that’s not at all strange to most Americans. (Rolls eyes.)

So, in conclusion, this whole Palin Derangement Syndrome definitely hurt the Left during the past mid-term election, and is continuing to hurt them now. Why? Well, for two obvious reasons. First of all, during the last election, it appeared as if liberals were spending way too much time speaking out against the Palins (none of whom were on the ballot), and not enough time explaining why people should vote for Obama’s policies and liberal candidates. Throughout the previous election, PDS proved to be a huge distraction for the Left.

Second of all, constantly attacking someone’s children as “fat, trashy, hookers” seems, well, quite mean to normal, well-adjusted Americans who aren’t weirdos. Most Americans think that mean people suck and don’t want to vote for a party that seems to embrace nastiness. Hey, you can listen to me, or you can continue smacking around Sarah Palin and her kids. The choice is yours. However, I just have one question for you guys. How did that PDS work out for you in the last election?

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, The Minority Report, The Green Room, Hillbillypolitics and Right Wing News.

A Report From Tim Scott’s Victory Party….

susannah fleetwood — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:57:31 +0000

[The above photo is of me and Tim Scott.]

[The above picture is of me and two of Tim Scott's aides (Brandon Rowland on the left in the white shirt and Dan Asdot on the right in the blue shirt).]

As many of you are aware, Tim Scott has been campaigning hard for many months to become the US congressman to represent South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. Mr. Scott has recently endured a grueling primary battle in order to win the Republican nomination; however, there is a lot more to this man than just politics.

Mr. Scott has a very inspirational life story and has had to overcome a lot of hurdles in his life. He grew up in the projects of North Charleston and was raised by a single mother who worked two jobs to keep him and his brother off of welfare. Scott was failing out of high school until he found a mentor by the name of John Moniz (a local Chick-fil-A owner who told Tim that, “You can think your way out of poverty”). He then went on to become a successful businessman, a thirteen year member of the Charleston County Council, and a member of the SC State Legislature–all before finally running for congress in 2010.

Well, on Tuesday night, Tim Scott’s tenacity paid off because he made history by being elected the first African-American Republican US congressman to represent SC since Reconstruction.

The victory party began by Tim Scott giving a rousing speech (that I have embedded above). However, here are the high points of Mr. Scott’s speech in case you don’t have the time to listen to the whole thing.

Scott was introduced by his campaign manager, Joe McKeown, who explained that, “Tim is still the guy who calls his mama twice a day and takes his grandfather out to lunch every Sunday”.

He began his speech by excitedly telling the audience that, “It’s no longer half time” (and that June 22′nd was half time).

Scott then quoted Ephesians 3: 20-21:

“That God is able to do exceedingly and abundantly above all that we ask and even imagine.”

Scott further stated the following:

“If we remember that all things are possible and that American exceptionalism is alive and well, then we MUST go to work.”

He, then, quoted Jack Kemp (who he calls “a bleeding heart conservative”) who said that:

“It had to be done, but it wasn’t the government’s responsibility to do it–it was our responsibility.”

Next, Scott brought his mother, Frances Scott, on stage and hailed her as “a super hero who is responsible for the American dream that I am living today.” He went on to state that America needs the kind of tough love that his mother gave him.

Specifically, Scott stated the following:

“We must win back this country FOR the American people–not FROM the Democrats or the Republicans.”

[Great message!!]

Then, Mr. Scott laid out his formula for American greatness–

1.) Limit the role of the federal government.

2.) Lower taxes and encourage job creation. (“If the federal government could create jobs, then communism would have worked.”)

3.) Lastly, Scott got the audience to repeat loudly three times, “If you don’t have it, don’t spend it!!”

And finally, Mr. Scott wrapped up his stem-winder with the following remark:

“I’m amazed by the fact that the Good Lord allowed me to be born in America.”

However, Tim Scott’s uplifting speech was just the beginning of the party–there was way more fun to come. Below are some of the snapshots that were taken throughout the evening.

Above is a photo of Andrew Boucher (a Republican consultant working for the Scott campaign) and me.

Above is a picture of me and Lizzy Simmons–who is one of Tim Scott’s aides.

Above is a photo of me and Jeff Shcreiber of America’s Right (who I had the pleasure of meeting recently at Blog Con).

Above is a picture of my husband and me.

Above is another picture of me and Tim Scott. (Funny anecdote here. When I initially went up to Mr. Scott to congratulate him right before this picture was taken, I specifically said, “Congratulations Tim!”–then I caught myself and sheepishly said, “Oh, I meant Congressman Scott”. However, he patted me on the shoulder and replied, “No, it’s Tim.”)

Above is a photo of my husband, Tim Scott and me.

Above is a picture of Tim Scott’s cake.

And, above is a photo of me stuffing my face with cake.

Above is another snapshot of me and Brandon Rowland.

Above is a picture of me and Jay Henderson–who is one of Tim Scott’s aides.

And finally, above is a photo of me waiting for my husband to bring the car around. It was at this point at the end of the evening that I had the chance to ask Tim what he thought the take home message was from the recent midterm elections. He responded that he thought that, “The American people had sent a clear message, and that it was our job (Congress’) to follow their directions”.

So, in conclusion, I think that Tim Scott will be a great representative for the state of South Carolina. Why? Because for Mr. Scott it’s not all about him. He’s “in this” to serve the good people of SC and because he truly believes in American exceptionalism–not for his own personal glory. Tim Scott has truly earned the title of “Congressman”. (Barbara “call me Senator” Boxer could really learn a thing or two about humility from Congressman Scott.) Mr. Scott has overcome unbelievable obstacles to become the congressman to represent South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. I am very proud to call him “Congressman Scott”. Tuesday night, Tim Scott had a lot to celebrate–nay–we all had a lot to celebrate.

Cross-posted from The Minority Report and Right Wing News.

5 Bad Omens for the Left’s Prospects in November

susannah fleetwood — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 03:34:29 +0000

It’s become apparent as of late that the Left has a new obsession. Christine O’Donnell’s dabbling in witchcraft in high school and her 1995 stance against masturbation (when she was a conservative activist) have truly captivated her critics. Whether it’s Bill Maher, Maureen Dowd, Richard Cohen, or Frank Rich, all the Left can talk about is witchcraft and masturbation.

However, as I have noted, all of this creepy talk from the Left is actually a sign of weakness. Why? Because there is no way on earth they would be talking incessantly about witchcraft and masturbation if unemployment wasn’t so high and their poll numbers weren’t so low. If you read the tea leaves properly by really taking a look at popular culture–and even the so-called liberal media–it is painfully obvious that victory just isn’t in the cards for the Democrats this November and a few of them are slowly starting to realize it.

So, without much fanfare and ado, I would like to share with you five bad omens for the Left’s prospects in November.

1.) “Saturday Night Live” is finally mocking the Obama Administration.

It’s no secret that late night comics have been terrified to mock Barack Obama since day one. In fact, Maureen Dowd even wrote the following in a column titled, May We Mock, Barack?–

Many of the late-night comics and their writers — nearly all white — now admit to The New York Times’s Bill Carter that because of race and because there is nothing “buffoonish” about Obama — and because many in their audiences are intoxicated by him and resistant to seeing him skewered — he has not been flayed by the sort of ridicule that diminished Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

“There’s a weird reverse racism going on,” Jimmy Kimmel said.

Furthermore, “Saturday Night Live” repeatedly mocked everyone under the sun during the 2008 presidential election–including Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George W. Bush, and even Todd Palin–except Barack Obama. Take that back. SNL attempted to mock Obama last February, but instead, they chickened out and wound up making fun of George W. Bush and Joe Biden (who everyone knows is not really in Obama’s inner circle). Lame.

Not to mention, SNL spoofed Christine O’Donnell recently, and they have even gone so far as to make fun of the Tea Party (see the video embedded below). However, Obama’s off limits? Seriously??!

This not mocking Barack thing is a such a big deal, because other past presidents have been repeatedly spoofed on SNL by comedic icons. Who could forget Dana Carvey impersonating George H. W. Bush (“Wouldn’t be prudent”), Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond spoofing Bill Clinton (“You gonna eat all of them fries?”), and Will Ferrell impersonating George W. Bush (“Strategery”)?

(By the way, does anyone know what “catch phrase” Fred Armisen uses when he impersonates Barack Obama? Oh yeah, I forgot. Armisen doesn’t use a catch phrase, because Obama’s character is poorly developed due to the fact that SNL is intent on giving him the kid glove treatment. But, I digress.)

This past Saturday night, SNL broke with tradition and mocked Rahm Emanuel’s goodbye ceremony at the White House. OK, they didn’t exactly come at Obama, himself, like a spider monkey, but they did mock his administration–and in particular, Rahm Emanuel (who has been his right hand man for the last two years)–pretty intensely. To be specific, SNL portrayed Mr. Emanuel as an “abrasive” jerk who “uses ugly strong arm methods”, and portrayed Pete Rouse as a weak future chief of staff who is signing up for a job that no one wants anyway. And finally, Andy Samberg (who brilliantly played Rahm Emanuel) ended the skit by wishing Pete Rouse good luck with “the new angry Republican majorities in Congress.”

So, when you have SNL basically admitting that there are going to be large Republican majorities in Congress come November–when they have bent over backwards not to give Obama the same treatment that they’ve given to other past presidents–then that’s a pretty bad omen for the Left’s midterm election prospects.

2.) Charles “Minstrel Show” Blow says that the Tea Party might not be so dumb after all.

Most of you probably know Charles Blow as the nasty New York Times columnist who referred to the Dallas Tea Party as “a political minstrel show” and “a bizarre spoof of a Benetton ad,” simply because they had African-American and minority speakers on stage. Oh, but that’s not all. Blow also wrote a column where he accused the Tea Party of being a “Frankenstein movement” motivated by “racism.” And in an earlier column, Blow called the Obamacare town hall protesters “hooligans” who were “hooting and hollering” and “terrorizing legislators.”

(My, that Charles Blow sure is quick to resort to name-calling and incendiary language. However, I confess to having a lot of fun at Chuckie Blow’s expense in the past, but I digress.)

So, when a guy who has previously referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of “racist hooligans who are terrorizing legislators and putting on a minstrel show” now says that the Tea Party might not be so dumb after all, it kind of makes one stand up and take notice. To be specific, Blow wrote the following this past weekend with regard to the Tea Party:

Big-city liberals and their blogging buddies love to paint Tea Partiers as yokels with incoherent candidates and language-mauling signs. (Some have even dubbed their misspellings and grammatical gaffes “Teabonics.”) On some level, this may be true. But there is also a certain hypocrisy to these taunts.

The unpleasant fact that these liberals rarely mention, and may not know, is that large swaths of the Democratic base, groups they need to vote in droves next month — blacks, Hispanics and young people — are far less civically literate than their conservative counterparts.

Therein lies the hurdle for the Democrats: How can they excite this part of the base that is not engaged and knowledgeable in an off-year election? How can they motivate these voters to help Democrats maintain their Congressional majorities when, according to a poll released this week by the Pew Research Center, 42 percent of blacks, 42 percent of Hispanics and 35 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 years old don’t even know that Democrats have a majority in the House? It’s sad. Pathetic, really. But it’s a political reality. (Only 71 percent of Democrats overall knew that Democrats had a majority in the House. By comparison, 82 percent of Republicans knew it.)

Instead of focusing like a laser on this problem, part of the White House’s new strategy appears to be to pick a fight with the left’s ivory tower intelligentsia.

Vice President Joe Biden said at a fund-raiser on Monday that the Democratic base should “stop whining.” The “professional left” may be whining, but underengaged Democrats are simply wandering. And, by the way, many Democrats don’t even know who the vice president is. In the Pew poll, 64 percent of Hispanics, 51 percent of young adults and 45 percent of blacks could not name Biden as the vice president. (Only 35 percent of Republicans got it wrong.)

Now, if you want to see actual proof that Blow is right, one need to look no further than the Jaywalking video below where Jay Leno asks a bunch of young people, as well as a college instructor, (in other words, people who are part of Obama’s base) at a park in California some basic questions about our nation’s history. Only “Grandpa” knew the correct answers.

Please, allow me to put this in another light. Can any of you even imagine the outcome if Jay Leno were to ask those exact same questions to a bunch of people at a Tea Party or at a Glenn Beck rally? I would bet you dollars to donuts that almost every one of those “crazy teabaggers” in their tri-cornered hats would know who we fought to get our nation’s independence, who George Washington was, and why he crossed the Delaware River. Enough said.

Anywho, reading the above excerpt from Blow’s column reminds me of a line from The Devil Went Down to Georgia where Charlie Daniels says, “The Devil bowed his head because he knew that he’d been beat.” And no, I am not comparing Charles Blow to the Devil. I am simply pointing out that, well, he knows that he and the rest of Obama’s base are about to be soundly beaten come November. So, better to be beaten by people who are somewhat knowledgeable, than by a bunch of “racist, hooting and hollering hooligans” (because that would be really embarrassing).

Put it this way–Charles Blow would rather shave his head with a cheese grater than say anything nice about the Tea Party. So, the fact that he is backtracking on what a bunch of dumb dumbs they are is another really bad omen for the Left’s electoral prospects in November.

3.) Jon Stewart seems to think that the Democrats kind of suck.

This one really should be somewhat self-explanatory. Jon Stewart has always been a well-known staunch progressive and a vocal Obama supporter/Republican lampooner. Stewart is most famous for telling Fox News to “Go F**k yourself”, and then hilariously setting it to music. So, when he starts turning on Barack Obama and the Democrats, it’s quite an attention getter.

For example, last July during the Shirley Sherrod brouhaha, Jon Stewart let the White House have it with regard to her firing. He also pointed out just how quick Obama and his cronies are to throw people under the bus. Furthermore, Stewart refused to buy the leftist talking point that Fox News was somehow responsible for Sherrod’s firing and laid all of the blame at the feet of the Obama administration.

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Lost in Race

Political Humor

Rally to Restore Sanity

Then this past week, Stewart went on a tear about Barack Obama’s elitism, Joe Biden’s boorishness (in telling the Democrats to “stop whining”), and the Democrats’ overall incompetence when it comes to passing no-brainer bills, like middle class tax cuts.

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Indecision 2010 – Democratic Campaign Woes

Political Humor

Rally to Restore Sanity

So, when the guy who is most famous for telling Fox News to “Go F themselves” is saying that the Democrats’ motto should be “We came, we saw, we sucked,” then that’s a really bad omen for the Left’s mid-term electoral prospects.

4.) Bill Maher and the liberal MSM are still talking about witchcraft and masturbation non-stop.

Last Friday night, Bill Maher played a new video of Christine O’Donnell saying the same old stuff that everyone already knows–you know, that she experimented with witchcraft, Buddhism and other alternative religions in high school before she found Christianity (language warning for the video, but like you needed me to tell you that). (Oh, and then later in the show he called Republicans “a deadly enemy.” Do you smell the fear yet?)

Now, why is this a bad omen for the Left’s November prospects, you ask? Well, first of all, because it shows that they are totally out of ammo as far as Christine O’Donnell is concerned. I mean, if Maher had something else on O’Donnell besides the fact that she wasn’t always a Christian, don’t you think that he would have played it by now, instead of continuing to recycle his “Burn the witch!” tapes (or saying that he’s “afraid that she’s going to try to pass anti-masturbation legislation when she gets into the Senate”)?

(“Next up on Live News at Five–many people who are now Christians didn’t start off as Christians. That story will be followed by a story about a dog biting a man.”)

Second of all, as I have previously written about in great detail, the Left’s obsession with witchcraft and masturbation demonstrates extreme weakness, because it reveals that they have nothing else to run on. I mean, what else are they going to run on–Obama’s long list of great achievements?! Don’t make me laugh.

Furthermore, as Vodkapundit pointed out in his hilarious column, Christine O’Donnell is not a perfect candidate, but nobody really much cares about her lack of experience or Evangelical past in the nineties promoting abstinence (like she was in the Mafia or something). People just want someone in the Senate to vote against the Democrats and the Obama agenda. Period. (Oh, and it doesn’t exactly hurt that O’Donnell’s opponent, Chris Coons, is a borderline Marxist who never met a tax hike he didn’t like.) The only hope the Democrats have is to “otherize” their opponents as “crazy witches.” (It’s really right out of the Alinsky playbook if you think about it. You know, the whole “pick a target, personalize it, polarize it, ridicule it” business?)

And finally, the Left’s whole “Burn the witch!” strategy is a really bad omen not only for their November prospects, but also for their future prospects in general, because it’s potentially going to wind up alienating them from a whole lot of voters–including their own base. In other words, whether or not Christine O’Donnell wins or loses, this whole witch-hunt the Left is on is not a wise move and reeks of utter desperation.

Have any of you all ever ventured onto the Daily Kos out of sheer curiosity? They have a very large Wiccan community that blogs there. In fact, they even have weekly Wiccan updates. Moreover, one of their most popular bloggers goes by the handle “Irishwitch”, and she describes herself thusly:

Two master’s degrees–Communications and library science; librarian in inner city schools and in 2 public library systems; published author of fantasy and erotica–and a bellydancer. And the World’s Oldest Living Goth. World’s Worst Typist.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. In fact, I welcome all Wiccans into the conservative ranks as long as they are for low taxes and smaller government. See, unlike the Left, we conservatives aren’t judgmental and believe in a big tent party.

Anywho, my point is that I fail to see how demonizing Christine O’Donnell as some crazy witch, because she was a Wiccan for a short time in high school, is going to endear the Left to their own supporters. How is making fun of your own base a good campaign tactic?

What’s more, the Left already had a “witch” problem long before Christine O’Donnell came around. I have written in great detail about how ever since Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, the Left has been demonizing every woman who has managed to get in Obama’s way as a “witch.” (Hillbuzz has several pictures of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin depicted as witches, but I have pasted several additional pictures below of the Left depicting women as witches.)

Above is an image of Hillary Clinton that was very popular on all of the so-called liberal blogs during the 2008 Democratic primary.

Above is a picture of Sarah Palin that was very popular on all of the Leftist blogs during the 2008 general election.

Above is a picture of Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, that is still very popular on all of the so-called liberal blogs.

And finally, of course, you could all guess that the Left would make Minnesota congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, into a witch–and this picture is still very popular on many of the leftist blogs.

Whoa! That’s some pretty damning evidence against the Left … but, I’m not finished.

Oh, looky what I found! Below is a picture of Christine O’Donnell depicted as a witch that is very popular on the leftist blogs.

And, below is a picture of Christine O’Donnell from none other than MSNBC being depicted as a witch.

Now, MSNBC admitted that the witch picture of O’Donnell might have been a bit much. Oh really??! You think so, Sparky?! Because not only did it make MSNBC–and the Left in general–look like a bunch of flaming, sexist asses, it also made them look childish (like a little kid who doesn’t like his teacher, so he paints a picture of her as a witch). Could any of you even imagine Brit Hume acting the fool like that (or the fallout from the Left if Fox had done something like that)?! No, you couldn’t because Hume’s not a loudmouth idiot like Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews, who routinely depict women as witches. I rest my case.

Oh, and another reason why the Left’s whole witch-hunt is a bad idea for them in the long haul, is because a lot of voters out there weren’t always Christians. Many dabbled in other religions, and then had a “come to Jesus moment” (hence, the term “born-again Christian”). Furthermore, a lot of Americans have non-Christian friends and family members. For instance, I have a Hindu sister-in-law, and Obama has a Buddhist sister. I fail to see how mocking millions of Americans is a good long term get out the vote strategy.

And finally, here is the dirty little secret about Bill Maher–as well as many on the Left. Maher isn’t bothered by the fact that Christine O’Donnell dabbled in alternative religions in high school. He is bothered by the fact that she is, now, a devout Christian. (Hence, his repeated statements that he’s “afraid of O’Donnell introducing anti-masturbation legislation”…rolls eyes.) You see, Bill Maher is a bigot who hates pretty much all religious people, and he thinks that they are “stupid” and “crazy.” See the video below for yourself if you need convincing, because after viewing it, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind where Maher stands with regard to respecting people’s individual religious beliefs.

“Vote for the Democrats–we will call all women that we don’t like witches and mock your religion, but we’re the tolerant party” is a terrible slogan. The only possible reason why they are using it now is because of sheer desperation. (I don’t recall Obama running on the witchcraft and masturbation platform in 2008.) They are figuratively burning the whole village in an attempt to burn one “witch.” In other words, when wealthy, urban leftists realize that their policies aren’t popular with most Americans, they get bitter, and cling to witchcraft, sexism, masturbation, atheism and antipathy towards people who aren’t like them–which is a really bad omen for their November election prospects.

5.) Many Obama apologists in the MSM seem to be already making excuses for him or bailing on him altogether.

For example, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert recently wrote the following with regard to the Democrats and their election prospects:

The Democrats are trying to put the best possible face on this terrible economic reality, imploring voters to give them a little credit for preventing matters from becoming much worse. No matter how valid, that’s a tough case to make to families whose properties are being plastered with foreclosure notices. Or to the breadwinners whose 99 weeks of unemployment insurance have been exhausted without anything in the way of a decent job materializing. Or the former middle managers now working for peanuts at Home Depot or Wal-Mart.

And New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently wrote this about Barack Obama’s inability to connect with voters (after she wrote a lot about witchcraft and masturbation, of course):

He has never shaken off that slight patronizing attitude toward the working-class voters he is losing now, the ones he dubbed “bitter” during his campaign. There is no premium in trying to save people’s jobs and lift them up and give them health care if they feel that you can’t relate to them.

Dowd also wrote the following about her Republican sister, Peggy, who voted for Obama but has now grown weary of him:

He hasn’t saved the economy, and now he’s admitting he’s made very little progress. You can’t for four years blame the person who used to be president. Obama tries to compromise too much, and he doesn’t look like a strong leader. I don’t watch him anymore. I’m turned off by him. I think he’s an elitist. He went down to the gulf, telling everyone to take a vacation down there, and then he goes to Martha’s Vineyard. He does what he wants but then he tells us to do other things.

And finally, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan (who used to be a relentless Obama shill and Palin basher) recently wrote this about Barack Obama’s reaction to Velma Hart’s question:

He got that look public figures adopt when they know they just took one right in the chops on national TV and cannot show their dismay. He could have responded with an engagement and conviction equal to the moment. But this was our president—calm, detached, even-keeled to the point of insensate. He offered a recital of his administration’s achievements: tuition assistance, health care. It seemed so off point. Like his first two years.

There is a similar theme running through all of their writing–”Barack Obama is a detached elitist.” In fact, he is almost a stranger. As a nation, we thought that we were electing a moderate when we elected Obama; however, he has turned out to be anything but. As Americans, we don’t really know who Obama is anymore, but we do know two things for sure. We don’t like Obama’s policies and we don’t think that he feels our pain. Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff summed it up perfectly when he wrote the following:

The answer is that nobody likes him as much as they did, or as much as they thought they would, or even as much as they thought they should.

At this moment, we have a largely unrecognizable figure in the White House. The weirdly continuing questions about his birth place and religion may be not so much a slur as a demented metaphor for his real lack of identity—and friends.

There’s a guilty sense, too. People are edging away from him because they now feel they got it so wrong. It’s buyer’s remorse with recrimination—self-recrimination.

How did everybody get it so wrong is a question many people seem to be asking themselves—not least of all these people slinking out of the White House.

It is not just that he has turned out to be something different. In fact, reasonably, he isn’t that different. The more powerful sense of remorse or at least sheepishness may come from people now asking themselves how and why they came to think of him as different than he was. More confounding, they may not really now be able to remember just who exactly they thought he was.

So to refocus the story: Some mass misperception put Barack Obama in the White House and now nobody knows what to do with him.

Can there be a more awkward situation?

No, there really isn’t a more awkward situation than to have the majority of the American public looking at Barack Obama like he’s the wrong entree that a waiter brought by mistake. The majority of Americans are looking at the Democrats right now and shouting, “This isn’t what I ordered!” which is an extremely bad omen for their election prospects come November.

So, in conclusion, the majority of the Left right now is similar to the Roman Emperor Nero. They are fiddling while the economy is burning, all the while indulging themselves in a bacchanal of witchcraft and masturbation. However, many of them are blissfully unaware that there are barbarians at the gate. While they have been busy on a witch-hunt, we on the Right have been preparing for battle. And, because they have let their hatred of conservative women blind them so much, much of the Left has been unable to read the tea leaves, or really see the bad omens that foreshadow the disaster that awaits them. They will be caught somewhat unaware in November–they are anticipating some losses, but not epic war. They will be soundly defeated in the midterms, but they won’t have ever seen it coming.

P.S. I think that Robert Stacy McCain is right–Bill Maher is going to cry come November.

Cross-posted from NewsReal and The Minority Report.

6 New Rules to Fight the Left: Maher’s Attacks on O’Donnell Bring Out the Mama Grizzly

susannah fleetwood — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:18:41 +0000

Most people who don’t live in a cave are probably somewhat familiar with the left’s recent attacks on Christine O’Donnell. First, it was that she was against masturbation in 1995, now it’s that she dabbled in witchcraft when she was in high school. (No, seriously, I’m not making this stuff up–these people are just that pathetic.)

Now, granted, Bill Maher (the man who first engaged in this attack on O’Donnell) is obviously trying to paint Christine O’Donnell as crazy or out of the mainstream, by implying that she’s some sort of a secret witch. (Wait–I’m confused. First she was a radical Christian who was against masturbation, and now, she’s a witch? Which one is it?) However, Bill Maher is one to talk about others being out of the mainstream. First of all, this guy is perpetually surrounded by a coterie of skanks, and his look is free-clinic chic, to say the least. Second of all, Maher dressed up as the Crocodile Hunter for Halloween, after the guy had tragically died from a stingray piercing his heart. To say that was “in bad taste” is the understatement of the millennium. And finally, Maher referred to Bristol Palin as a “Hillbilly Heroine” on his TV show (see embed below).

So, my response to people who say that we should take Bill Maher’s accusations of witchcraft seriously: really? We should listen to this degenerate with regard to which candidates we support?! (No I’m not shouting–I’m growling.)

However, this story has now gotten a lot bigger than Bill Maher or Christine O’Donnell–and if you will all bear with me, I will explain exactly what I’m talking about.

Robert Stacy McCain recently wrote a hilarious blog post where he quipped–

“We knew they were desperate, but no one suspected the Left would turn this into a literal witch-hunt.”

However, The Hillbuzz later explained that the Left has a history of painting women who run against Obama as witches (and, they have the pictures of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin depicted as witches to prove it). Could this possibly be true, you ask? Well, this column prompted me to do some digging of my own to see if those images in the Hillbuzz link were the only images out there on Leftist blogs. They’re not.

Above is an image of Hillary Clinton that was very popular on all of the so-called liberal blogs during the 2008 Democratic primary.

Above is a picture of Sarah Palin that was very popular on all of the Leftist blogs during the 2008 general election.

Above is a picture of Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, that is still very popular on all of the so-called liberal blogs.

And finally, of course, you could all guess that the Left would make Minnesota congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann, into a witch–and this picture is still very popular on many of the Leftist blogs.

Whoa! That’s some pretty damning evidence against the Left…but, I’m not finished.

What’s more, the progressive blog Jezebel wrote about Chris Matthew’s obsession with painting Hillary Clinton as a witch. To be specific, they wrote the following–

“Some of the names Matthews has called Ms. Clinton? “She Devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” “Madame Defarge.” (You know, the haggy, knitting, plotting character in A Tale Of Two Cities noted for being a ruthless villain?) It doesn’t end there, though.

Matthews has also spouted that Clinton is “witchy,” “anti-male” and “uppity.” And he was one of the first to mock Ms. Clinton’s laugh, saying “what do you make of the cackle?” In his eyes, she’s Maleficent, a full-on Disney witch.”

OK–I think that I’ve demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that, according to the Left, if you are a woman who is challenging The One in any way, then their response is, “Burn the witch!” Therefore, Bill Maher’s pathetic attempt to paint Christine O’Donnell as a witch is really straight out of the progressive playbook. (In fact, Richard Cohen just wrote a column yesterday playing the witch/masturbation card on Christine O’Donnell).

Now, on to my second point about the Left vs. women who challenge Obama.

It is a stone-cold fact that the Left attempts to sexualize women–in very perverted and misogynistic ways–that get in Barack Obama’s way. This is so easy to prove that it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. First you had the Hillary Clinton nutcrackers, Representative Steve Cohen comparing Clinton to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, and Chris Matthews calling her “Nurse Ratched” (which most definitely implies that she’s some sort of a “ball-buster.”) (You even had Keith Olbermann imply that someone should beat up Hillary. But remember, the Left is all about women’s rights and feminism. Rolls eyes.)

However, the Left was just getting warmed up with Hillary Clinton. She was their appetizer–Sarah Palin was their main course. Remember how on the the day after John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, CNN started repeating sick Daily Kos rumors about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. (To this day, Andrew Sullivan is still playing the roll of amateur gynecologist and demanding see Sarah Palin’s medical records.) Furthermore, interns and volunteers for Obama PROUDLY photographed themselves wearing disgusting, vulgar T-shirts about Sarah Palin, and then put the pictures on the internet. (Hey now, remember, the libs are all about women’s advancement. Rolls eyes.) Next, came Rick Sanchez asking on live TV if Sarah Palin was stepping down as AK governor, because “she was pregnant again”. Oh, and who could forget David Letterman making disgusting jokes about Sarah Palin’s fourteen year old daughter “getting knocked up by Alex Rodriguez” (Caleb Howe asks if Letterman has ever had a visit from Chris Hansen). And finally, there has been the recent Vanity Fair by Michael Gross where he grossly asks strangers about the Palin’s sex life, and then delves into the details of Sarah Palin’s undergarments.

And now, we are up to Christine O’Donnell and masturbation. So, as to the charge that the Left loves to sexualize and demonize women who get in Obama’s way–I confidently rest my case. Bill Maher isn’t an anomaly–he is quite mainstream in his misogyny, as far as progressives go.

[By the way, if any of you still aren't convinced that so-called liberals love to sexualize women who get in Obama's way--I present to you the "Hate-f**k" column from Playboy where the author fantasizes about which conservative woman he'd most like to violate. Game, set, match.]

Now, after all of the evidence that I have presented, I think that one thing is painfully obvious (besides the fact that the Left is composed of a lot of pervs who would rather talk about witchcraft and masturbation than the economy and jobs)–we are playing the game by their rules, not our own. And guess what? This game is rigged against us. Simply put, the rules of this game are to call any woman who challenges Obama and his agenda a “witch”, or say perverted things about her and her family. And, if we complain about these Chicago tactics and don’t take ‘the high road”, then we are “Raaaaacists!!” (that’s five A’s). Well, in the spirit of Bill Maher, I’ve decided that it’s time for us conservatives to make some “New Rules”.

New Rule: It is time for us to start engaging in Chicago politics as well.

I think that it is time for us to start taking our inspiration–figuratively speaking, of course–from Sean Connery’s character (Sargent Malone) in The Untouchables.

“They bring a knife, you bring a gun. That’s the Chicago way!”

For too long, we’ve been showing up to knife fights with Wiffle ball bats. That’s got to change.

For example, when Sarah Palin was running for President, so-called liberals had no problem bringing up her daughter’s youthful indiscretion. Not to mention, as The Hillbuzz points out, the Left had no problem pointing out Scott Brown’s youthful indiscretion of posing in Cosmopolitan as a centerfold, and they tried to paint him as “a former nude model”. (By the way, The Hillbuzz must be commended for coming up with the term “Hottie McAwesome” for Scott Brown, because that totally took the wind out of the left’s sails with regard to attacking him.) And now, the Left is bringing up Christine O’Donnell’s youthful indiscretions of dabbling in witchcraft–in high school–and of promoting an anti-wanking policy, back in 1995, when she was a conservative activist.

Now, I ask you, why aren’t we allowed to bring up Barack Obama’s youthful indiscretions–like for instance, “dabbling in cocaine”, and then writing about it–in a book? I mean, we all remember Bill Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” moment, and reporters spreading rumors about George W. Bush doing cocaine. No one at the time thought it was “distasteful” to bring up their youthful indiscretions/drug dabbling–and neither one of them wrote about their drug use in a book! However, then someone changed the rules and said that it was “beyond the pale” to bring up Obama’s past drug use. Who made that rule anyway? Oh yeah–it was the Obama campaign (and the MSM–same thing).

It’s time to change the rules back in our favor. The next time that I hear anyone bring up Christine O’Donnell’s youthful indiscretions (that the last time I checked, she wasn’t running on–Obama was, in part, running on his book), I am going to say the following–

“OK–so Christine O’Donnell may have dabbled in witchcraft in high school. Barack Obama dabbled in booger sugar as an adult (in college). Oh, and the last time that I checked, being “master of your domain”, or being a Wiccan, is not against the law–cocaine is. So tell me, why are Obama’s youthful indiscretions off limits, but Christine O’Donnell’s aren’t?”

[Hey Lefties, I hope that you like this song (see below), because every time that one of you trolls here and mentions Christine O'Donnell's youthful indiscretions, I'm going to mention Obama's--and then I'm going to play this song--]

Oh, and just for the record–I’m not a big fan of bringing up youthful indiscretions, because I, you know, think that it’s possible for people to grow up in twenty or so years. However, I refuse to be lambs to the slaughter anymore. So, if the Left is going to hit us, then we have to be prepared to hit back–hard.

New Rule: Reverend Wright is, now, back in vogue.

This is really common sense. If the Left is going to attempt to “otherize” Christine O’Donnell as some sort of crazy Wiccan–because of something she dabbled in when she was in high school–well, you know where this is heading. It is, then, only fair to bring up the fact that Obama sat in the “God Damn America/I hate the Jews/Italians have garlic noses” church for twenty years. Oh, and he wrote about it–in a book! (See, the Left has never grasped the whole “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” bit.) I think that Mark Steyn put it best when he wrote the following–

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright thinks that, given their treatment by white America, black Americans have no reason to sing “God Bless America.” “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America,” he told his congregation. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”

I’m not a believer in guilt by association, or the campaign vaudeville of rival politicians insisting this or that candidate disassociate himself from remarks by some fellow he had a 30-second grip’n’greet with a decade ago. But Jeremiah Wright is not exactly peripheral to Barack Obama’s life. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Those of us who made the mistake of buying the senator’s last book, The Audacity of Hope, and assumed the title was an ingeniously parodic distillation of the great sonorous banality of an entire genre of blandly uplifting political writing discovered circa page 127 that in fact the phrase comes from one of the Reverend Wright’s sermons. Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years — in other words, pretty much the senator’s entire adult life. Did Obama consider God Damn America as a title for his book but it didn’t focus-group so well?”

I freely admit to being a tad bit bored with the whole Reverend Wright brouhaha. However, if the Left wants to play “the wacky religion game”, then I say–let’s tussle.

New Rule: The race card is maxed out.

Because of the previous New Rule that it’s now in vogue to bring up Reverend Wright whenever the Left brings up witchcraft, with regard to Christine O’Donnell (they really brought this on themselves), the Left will now cry, pout, stomp their feet, accuse you of “spreading the poison”, and finally, call you a “racist”. Let them. Then, play this video–and explain to them real slowly that even Jon Stewart, now, understands that the race card is maxed out.

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Race Card Is Maxed Out