I am often critical of people on FOX news. Many of their "stars," including Greta and sometimes Hannity, are mainly interested in getting viewers rather than providing solid information.
Notice Greta's continual comments on how this-or-that "is really going to raise your blood pressure . . . or get you angry." Frankly, raising the national blood pressure may cause more heart attacks, but it's not going to remove Obama from power. Organizing, calling our congressional representatives, donating money to conservative causes (e.g., www.sarahpac.com) are what will end the national nightmare.
For FOX or anyone else to suggest otherwise is just game-playing. Rush gave Greta a thumping the other night when she expressed her silly "hope" that Obama's Stimulus package, which she apparently knows nothing about, will work. Rush basically told her that a vague "hope" is for losers, and he's right.
As for Geraldo, who's a pro-illegals leftist with a history of grandstanding, he should not be on FOX or anything else. Anyone who spend one minute of his or her time watching "Geraldo" needs to find more productive things to do. There is not a conservative bone in Geraldo's body.
There are some great young people on FOX -- one is Patty Ann Browne on the Beck show, another is Greg Gutfield on their weekend late show, and others are Andrea Tantaros and S. E. Cupp -- but there many other big shots interested more in making millions than in winning the battle for America.
Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Obama Voters Swallow Stupid Pills
NOTE: ON SUNDAY, MONDAY, AND TUESDAY, I'LL HAVE COLUMNS THAT I HOPE WILL BE THE SIMPLEST, MOST HELPFUL PIECES AVAILABLE ON THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS -- AND HOW TO GET OUT OF IT. PLEASE VISIT. There was an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes. Prior to his current high position, Geithner was head of the Federal Reserve's New York branch, an institution with heavy responsibile for the financial crisis.
There's abundant survey evidence that most Obama voters in 2008 were not exactly valedictorian material. It may have something to do with all those homeless types and convicts registered by ACORN. As the material below (in smaller print, scroll down) from yesterday's column illustrates, tens of millions of Americans are uninformed about some of the most basic realities of life in America. They are dumber than doorknobs. [Note: If you come here often, please sign up with other "followers" on the sidebar to your right.]
As frequent readers know, this blog is not to be confused with The Complaint Department. In fact, its purpose to come up with solutions rather than to whine about the outrages of any particular day.
As you know, I'm an optimist. I believe "Low-knowledge" voters, the kind who flocked to the polls for Obama, are a problem, but perhaps not an insoluble one.
We need to figure out ways to get some basic knowledge to people who curiosity is extremely limited. Such individuals aren't going to read books about economic declines -- and they're unlikely to tune into Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. In whatever way we can we must get our message across -- or they'll continue voting for Obama types until the country is totally bankrupt and devoid of individual liberty.
During the past election, I made a lot of phone calls on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Like any good caller, I didn't argue with people hell-bent on voting for Obama. However, in one case, I violated that rule. The person I called let me know he was "totally in favor of universal health care."
I couldn't help myself. I said, "Universal health care . . . does that mean I pay for your care . . . or that you pay for mine?" The man didn't hang up, but there was an extremely long pause on his end of the line. Heretofore, he had been under the impression that he would take -- and someone else would give.
II was making a simple point, one I probably knew about age 5 or 6 The point was that nothing in life is free, NOTHING. Somebody pays for the things we receive, and usually that somebody is us.
A political slogan like "universal health care" is not a solution to problem that a service -- like health care -- is costly. In short, I may have taught the man a simple truth that he hadn't encountered in his many years on earth. Was it the beginning of wisdom for him? Probably not, but it was better than nothing, which is what he knew previously.
Above: Obama Supporters chanting "Yes We Can!" as they march confidently into a bottomless pit labeled "Hope" and "Change."
Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses.
Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."
Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.
I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.
Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgeable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.
The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are.
As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't. A majority of Obama knew that Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house." In fact, Sarah never said any such thing. The remark was made by comedienne Tina Fey.
It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Democrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority
.In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.
There's abundant survey evidence that most Obama voters in 2008 were not exactly valedictorian material. It may have something to do with all those homeless types and convicts registered by ACORN. As the material below (in smaller print, scroll down) from yesterday's column illustrates, tens of millions of Americans are uninformed about some of the most basic realities of life in America. They are dumber than doorknobs. [Note: If you come here often, please sign up with other "followers" on the sidebar to your right.]
As frequent readers know, this blog is not to be confused with The Complaint Department. In fact, its purpose to come up with solutions rather than to whine about the outrages of any particular day.
As you know, I'm an optimist. I believe "Low-knowledge" voters, the kind who flocked to the polls for Obama, are a problem, but perhaps not an insoluble one.
We need to figure out ways to get some basic knowledge to people who curiosity is extremely limited. Such individuals aren't going to read books about economic declines -- and they're unlikely to tune into Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. In whatever way we can we must get our message across -- or they'll continue voting for Obama types until the country is totally bankrupt and devoid of individual liberty.
During the past election, I made a lot of phone calls on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Like any good caller, I didn't argue with people hell-bent on voting for Obama. However, in one case, I violated that rule. The person I called let me know he was "totally in favor of universal health care."
I couldn't help myself. I said, "Universal health care . . . does that mean I pay for your care . . . or that you pay for mine?" The man didn't hang up, but there was an extremely long pause on his end of the line. Heretofore, he had been under the impression that he would take -- and someone else would give.
II was making a simple point, one I probably knew about age 5 or 6 The point was that nothing in life is free, NOTHING. Somebody pays for the things we receive, and usually that somebody is us.
A political slogan like "universal health care" is not a solution to problem that a service -- like health care -- is costly. In short, I may have taught the man a simple truth that he hadn't encountered in his many years on earth. Was it the beginning of wisdom for him? Probably not, but it was better than nothing, which is what he knew previously.
Above: Obama Supporters chanting "Yes We Can!" as they march confidently into a bottomless pit labeled "Hope" and "Change."
Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses.
Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."
Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.
I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.
Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgeable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.
The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are.
As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't. A majority of Obama knew that Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house." In fact, Sarah never said any such thing. The remark was made by comedienne Tina Fey.
It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Democrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority
.In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Media's Love Affairs with Obama
When Barack Obama has nightmares, this woman is usually in them.Bernard Goldberg, former CBS News reporter, has written a book about the media's deep crush on candidate Barack Obama. It's appropirately titled A Slobbering Love Affair.
Goldberg says, "The media IS his [Obama's] base."
Goldberg adds, "When he became President, Obama found the economy was in worse shape than he thought . . . so he had to lay off 17 journalists."
I heard Goldberg on "The Sean Hannity Show" Monday. is it just me, or is Hannity's show much better without the irritating presence of Alan Colmes?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sarah Must Win Dems, Indies
Sarah Palin at huge rally in Jacksonville, FL stadium . . .
Please participate in the effort to come up with a slogan for Sarah Palin to use in future campaigns. You can do so by going to: http://www.teamsarah.org/forum/topics/share-ideas-for-sarah-slogan I've give my own suggestion tomorrow.
As I've said before of the people in the Palin Movement, our goal shouldn't be to become "the nation's most congenial, PERMANENT MINORITY." In politics, there's really no such thing as a "moral victory." You either win in glory, or lose in devastation, as happened last November.
In a state like PA (and many other big ones), we need to figure out how to reach out effectively to Indies and Dems, including ones who are pro-choice. (Reading poll data carefully, it's clear that many "pro-choice" people are actually more pro-life than pro-abortion.)
At this point, we're 7 million-plus votes behind Obama, and we need to make up the difference. We can't do that by being ideological purists.
I keep saying, "We need to deal with our world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.' I spent a lot of time in the campaign working with Hillary Supporters who backed -- or leaned toward -- McCain-Palin. I didn't do it because I adored Hillary -- I do not -- but because there was no other way to win than by getting many Hillary Supporters, some of them pro-choice (strongly) and some pro-life, with most of them in the middle.
In the election, it appears we got about four million of Hillary's Supporters. We needed six million-plus, but without the four million it would have been a true landslide for Obama.
In my book, I will discuss the major feminists (Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms.; Shelley Mandel, president of the LA chapter of NOW; and, especially, Camile Paglia) who have strongly backed Sarah. There are many others in addition to the women I've named. I want them to continue their efforts, because we need such people to help us win.
I don't want to lose the social conservatives, far from it. However, Sarah Palin clearly is the best possible candidate they can get to run effectively for President. It will be challenging enough for her win -- I believe she can -- but it would be impossible for any other Republican. I don't under-estimate the ruthlessness of the Obama Campaign, which was the direct source of the smears against Sarah.
Frankly, I have zero interest in Sarah running a race she can't win, and I believe she feels the same way. She knows that millions -- tens of millions -- of her supporters are the working middle-class and even the working poor. Seeing the 10,000 people at Sarah's Beaver County rally, it became clear to me that these sure weren't your stereotypical Republicans. I estimate that at least 100 were members of the UMW, proudly wearing their "Clean Coal" hard hats.
I felt very comfortable with these people and talked to hundreds of them as they waited in line for up to four hours. One older man had been a member of the Boilermakers Union for 50 years. He bragged that he'd convinced this wife, for the first time in her life, to vote Republican (for McCain-Palin).
On Sean Hannity's radio program, a Democratic woman, an animal rights activist, was talking to Sean while, in the background, her three daughters were chanting, "Sarah Palin! Sarah Palin! SARAH PALIN!" The woman, a Sarah-backer herself, said, 'I'm afraid the neighbors are going to think I've become a Republican!"
We need that woman (and her daughters and millions like them) on our side.
As I've said before of the people in the Palin Movement, our goal shouldn't be to become "the nation's most congenial, PERMANENT MINORITY." In politics, there's really no such thing as a "moral victory." You either win in glory, or lose in devastation, as happened last November.
In a state like PA (and many other big ones), we need to figure out how to reach out effectively to Indies and Dems, including ones who are pro-choice. (Reading poll data carefully, it's clear that many "pro-choice" people are actually more pro-life than pro-abortion.)
At this point, we're 7 million-plus votes behind Obama, and we need to make up the difference. We can't do that by being ideological purists.
I keep saying, "We need to deal with our world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.' I spent a lot of time in the campaign working with Hillary Supporters who backed -- or leaned toward -- McCain-Palin. I didn't do it because I adored Hillary -- I do not -- but because there was no other way to win than by getting many Hillary Supporters, some of them pro-choice (strongly) and some pro-life, with most of them in the middle.
In the election, it appears we got about four million of Hillary's Supporters. We needed six million-plus, but without the four million it would have been a true landslide for Obama.
In my book, I will discuss the major feminists (Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms.; Shelley Mandel, president of the LA chapter of NOW; and, especially, Camile Paglia) who have strongly backed Sarah. There are many others in addition to the women I've named. I want them to continue their efforts, because we need such people to help us win.
I don't want to lose the social conservatives, far from it. However, Sarah Palin clearly is the best possible candidate they can get to run effectively for President. It will be challenging enough for her win -- I believe she can -- but it would be impossible for any other Republican. I don't under-estimate the ruthlessness of the Obama Campaign, which was the direct source of the smears against Sarah.
Frankly, I have zero interest in Sarah running a race she can't win, and I believe she feels the same way. She knows that millions -- tens of millions -- of her supporters are the working middle-class and even the working poor. Seeing the 10,000 people at Sarah's Beaver County rally, it became clear to me that these sure weren't your stereotypical Republicans. I estimate that at least 100 were members of the UMW, proudly wearing their "Clean Coal" hard hats.
I felt very comfortable with these people and talked to hundreds of them as they waited in line for up to four hours. One older man had been a member of the Boilermakers Union for 50 years. He bragged that he'd convinced this wife, for the first time in her life, to vote Republican (for McCain-Palin).
On Sean Hannity's radio program, a Democratic woman, an animal rights activist, was talking to Sean while, in the background, her three daughters were chanting, "Sarah Palin! Sarah Palin! SARAH PALIN!" The woman, a Sarah-backer herself, said, 'I'm afraid the neighbors are going to think I've become a Republican!"
We need that woman (and her daughters and millions like them) on our side.
Monday, February 25, 2008
THE CASE FOR JOHN MCCAIN
The following is today's column The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.On Eric's show, the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain.
His point seemingly was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative.The host continued to disagree.
I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group.
I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club for Growth gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for two recent years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.
Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the data show.John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX recently: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
Admittedly, McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be largely irrelevant to the nation's politics.
I told my host Eric that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.Note:
Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.)
His point seemingly was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative.The host continued to disagree.
I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group.
I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club for Growth gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for two recent years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.
Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the data show.John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX recently: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
Admittedly, McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be largely irrelevant to the nation's politics.
I told my host Eric that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.Note:
Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
OBAMA WILL BE THE OPPONENT
"It's time for Hillary Clinton to replace her speechwriter." Donna Brazille (Democratic Super-Delegate) on CNN speaking about how Mrs. Clinton had recently fired her campaign manager and her deputy campaign manager
"She [Mrs. Clinton] hasn't found her voice. She hasn't found her message. The Clinton Campaign should be fined for malpractice. . . This has become Barack Obama's race to lose." David Gergen on CNN
Imagine that, all those years we spent hoping and praying Hillary Clinton would be the nominee and now we have been deprived of the "honor" of running against her. Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, will be John McCain's opponent in November.
Of course, John McCain is one of the more conservative members of the Senate, an important fact lost on dimwits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter ("the crocodilian one"). At this moment in history, it's time we conservatives grow up and face political reality.
Talk show simplisms about "amnesty" and "the Gang of 14" are little more than forms of malevolence. Choose ye this day, my friend: McCain or the Other Guy (Obama)?
Right now, Barack Obama is the Pied Piper leading all those multitudes chanting "Yes we can!" (do something or other all the way to the voting booth in November. Frankly, Obama is looking a lot like a winner, something I'm prepared to do my best to prevent.
I hope you'll join me. Will you? He will be extremely difficult to defeat -- and that's an understatement.
"She [Mrs. Clinton] hasn't found her voice. She hasn't found her message. The Clinton Campaign should be fined for malpractice. . . This has become Barack Obama's race to lose." David Gergen on CNN
Imagine that, all those years we spent hoping and praying Hillary Clinton would be the nominee and now we have been deprived of the "honor" of running against her. Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, will be John McCain's opponent in November.
Of course, John McCain is one of the more conservative members of the Senate, an important fact lost on dimwits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter ("the crocodilian one"). At this moment in history, it's time we conservatives grow up and face political reality.
Talk show simplisms about "amnesty" and "the Gang of 14" are little more than forms of malevolence. Choose ye this day, my friend: McCain or the Other Guy (Obama)?
Right now, Barack Obama is the Pied Piper leading all those multitudes chanting "Yes we can!" (do something or other all the way to the voting booth in November. Frankly, Obama is looking a lot like a winner, something I'm prepared to do my best to prevent.
I hope you'll join me. Will you? He will be extremely difficult to defeat -- and that's an understatement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
