As Bronwyn reported yesterday, my governor, Nikki Haley, endorsed Romney on Friday. This is important since our primary is the third one in the New Year. Romney was glad for it, too, saying people were “lining up outside her door” to get this coveted endorsement. Below is a good interview with Gov. Haley, conducted by Greta van Susteren (h/t Bronwyn):

Nice, right? But then things went downhill pretty quickly. Check out this sexist description of Gov. Haley in WaPo. Apparently, for this writer, Ned Martel, a woman is either Church Lady” or a “Real Housewife”:

[snip] In person, she cuts an indefatigable and glamourous figure. She eschews a Church Lady mien for something more Real Housewife: fit, attractive and encased in suits that stop just below the elbow and just above the knee. And she says often how her job is sales, selling corporate chief executives on South Carolina with many lures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Welcome to being a woman in politics in the United States.

The second story is bad (h/t to The New Agenda). It could easily be entitled, “Whistleblower Slamdunked,” but it’s headline is this: “Former N.B.A. Employee Says Sexual Harassment Concerns Were Ignored.” And why is he a “former employee”? Because he had the audacity to stand up for the women who were being sexually harassed, that’s why.

Now, I should say at the outset that I have very little respect for the N.B.A. I used to watch it, but over time, it seems to me that a number of players are just a bunch of thugs. Arrests have piled up, fights on court, all kinds of actions that have marred the game. Unfortunately, this attitude is now being evidenced in the college game, with the melee between Cincinnati and Xavier Universities recently. To label it as unsportsmanlike is a gross understatement. One of Xavier’s players, Tu Holloway, said in a press conference afterward that some Cincinnati player was calling them out before the game. He said, “We got disrespected a little bit before the game…We are grown men over there. we got a bunch of gangstas in the locker room, not thugs, but tough guys on the court…”

I beg to differ. You are a bunch of thugs, and the last ten seconds of the game showed that clearly.

Now, back to the N.B.A. Security official, Warren Glover. This is a long story, with one incident after another occurring to women who had the misfortune to work for this organization. I recommend you read the whole thing to get an idea of the depth of sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment inherent in this organization. It is truly shocking, and appalling. Here is just the beginning of it:

A former N.B.A. security official says that he repeatedly warned his superiors that women in the office were being sexually harassed or discriminated against, but that his concerns were ignored and that he was ultimately fired for his actions on the women’s behalf. He is suing the league for lost wages and damages.

Warren Glover, 50, was fired as a security director in July, after 10 years with the N.B.A., despite a glowing performance record for most of his tenure, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday morning in New York State Supreme Court. In the suit, Glover accuses senior N.B.A. security officials of creating a “hostile work environment” in which he was “demeaned,” “treated differently from other employees” and denied promotions because of his willingness to speak out.

In one instance, Glover said a senior security official made sexual advances toward a female colleague, then demeaned her publicly when she rejected his advances. In another, a different security official proposed using sexually inappropriate material as part of a presentation to N.B.A. players. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It gets much, much worse when you read the extent of the sexual harassment women to which women have been subjected there. I would like to commend Mr. Glover for doing the right thing. He is truly a stand up guy.

And now for the ugly, though the story about the “student-athletes” brawling would qualify. But this is about the OWS “protesters,” and again, they, too could qualify as thugs. In Seattle recently, not only did they try to block the ports (and really, just what the hell were they trying to accomplish with impeding the rights of workers to work???). The “protesters” were throwing paint at the police, which isn’t the worst part, except they hit a police horse with it, and that pisses me off. In addition to paint, they threw BRICKS and REBAR. You know, rebar, “reinforced steel.” Yeah, I’d say the “thug” moniker is well deserved, not to mention CRIMINAL. Enough with this crap. Throw them all in the slammer, I say. They interrupt workers? Throw them in jail. Impede traffic intentionally? Throw them in the slammer. Hurl dangerous objects at police and others? Throw their asses in jail and charge them with assault with a deadly weapon, because bricks and rebar would certainly qualify. Enough with this crap already.

Yuck, blech. With the exception of the first story, I realize this might leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. Allow me to end, then, with a little holiday cheer. This combines one of my favorite songs, and my love for “Glee”:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Whew, I feel better. Hope you do, too. Have a good weekend, everyone.

As an aside, ACORN has also been involved in the OWS movement. I am sure that is a HUGE surprise – not. And I am sure you would not be surprised to learn they were also shredding documents as fast as they could to cover that involvement up. But I digress.

Yes, former Rep. Davis admitted that the Democrats are essentially using the talking point that Voter ID disenfranchises voters because it would impede their ability to cheat (WordPress won’t allow the embed code, but here is the link to watch the video):

Top Democrats are aggressively pushing the claim that Republicans’ worries about voter fraud are an insincere excuse to suppress voting by African-Americans and Hispanics.

But former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told The Daily Caller that anti-fraud measures are needed to protect African-Americans from corrupt political bosses — many of them African-Americans themselves — who run Democratic Party machines in the South.

[snip]

“What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress,” he told TheDC.

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.” (Click here to read the rest.)

While I was fairly certain this was going on, especially after the 2008 election, for a former Democratic Representative to confirm it is startling.

And this is especially poignant here in South Carolina, where the Democrats have been screaming bloody murder about the new Voter ID law set to go into effect in January. An anchor at MSNBC claimed it would be “electoral genocide” that would disenfranchise blacks in the state. Even considering the source, that is dangerous rhetoric indeed.

ABC News reported that Voter ID lawwill be taking place in a number of other states in 2012, as well, tripling the number of states requiring a photo ID. But even in this article, the way information is presented seems a bit skewed:

[snip]A report from New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice showed that in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, all of which will enact stricter photo ID laws before the 2012 election, 3.2 million potential voters do not have the state-issued ID that will be required for them to vote.

Lawrence Norden, an author of the Brennan Center report, said he “absolutely” thinks the new ID laws could impact the outcome of the election.

“We’re not claiming that all 3.2 million, in the case of voter ID laws, are actually not going to be able to vote,” Norden said. “But what we are saying is, it’s going to make it harder for those people to vote and some portion of them are probably not going to be able to vote even though they want to.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh huh. No, they aren’t claiming that all those folks won’t get a chance to vote, but they sure do like to IMPLY it, seems to me.

Well, at least here in South Cackalacki, people who could not get to the DMV for lack of a vehicle or ride, people were given the option of getting a ride to the DMV FREE OF CHARGE. Want to know how many residents took the State up on its offer? You might want to sit down for this, if you aren’t already: 25. Yes, twenty-five people used this free service.

Here’s the thing: former Representative Davis has pulled back the curtain on the real reason there is such a brouhaha being waged by the Democrats over voter ID. It will impede Democratic Party bosses from committing rampant voter fraud, up to FIFTY PERCENT in some locales. He is absolutely right when he makes this claim:

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.”

Amen to that. I would extend that to anyone who cares about our democracy, our right to our own vote, our right to have elections that are fair and free of election shenanigans, have no business defending these individuals, or practices. Uh, yeah – not to mention that voter fraud is also ILLEGAL.

And I would take that one step further – it is immoral, and unethical, to commit voter fraud. This “Win At All Cost” mentality that has infected this nation is a blight, and must be stopped. We should guard closely, jealously, the authentic vote, otherwise our entire system is a sham. Never again should we have to question the authenticity of a vote, an election, or even a caucus, as a result of rampant fraud.

But even more, this faux outrage over the alleged disenfranchisement of blacks (and Hispanics) when this sort of fraud is being perpetrated by those claiming disenfranchisement. is insulting in the extreme, and insulting to the hard work of those who fought so hard to get their community the right to vote.

It reminds me of this woman, a Civil Rights Worker, who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and her “grief” at witnessing disenfranchisement at the hands of young black men in Indiana (4:00 mark to 6:05 mark):

Click here to view the embedded video.

It causes me grief, too, for her community, and for all Americans. As the election season heats up, every single one of us, regardless of race or ethnicity, should be able to count on our vote counting for something. Thank heavens for the courage of people like Artur Davis, for speaking truth to power, and outing the Democrats for their disingenuous claim over Voter ID. It is our right to have free, and fair elections, and anyone found to be committing voter fraud should have the full force of the law brought down upon them.

The right to vote, and the right to an honest outcome, was the American Way. And it needs to be again as we embark upon another election season. Anything less is unacceptable.

What do you think?

Seriously – how can that possibly be? And yet, that seems to be her take:

The call by some members of the black media for African Americans to support President Obama in racial solidarity is a terrible idea. Just as terrible as women supporting women only because of their sex, or any other group viewing the world solely through the narrow prism of their own experience.

If pursued and played by Obama, it would be the worst thing not only for his reelection campaign but also for the country. The man who was elected on a promise of unity — neither black nor white nor red nor blue — can’t now play the race card. Any of his supporters who play that hand will be doing a disservice to themselves and to the nation.

How did this come about?

As Obama’s approval has been slipping, some leaders in the African American media have begun calling on blacks to ignore their concerns and just vote black. Leading the pack is radio host Tom Joyner, who reaches an astonishing one in four black adults. Maybe we could just have Joyner and Rush Limbaugh wrestle each other’s ideas to the mat and skip these tedious debates, primaries and conventions.

Joyner is blunt with his 8 million listeners: “Stick together, black people.”

Again I ask – where the hell Was Ms. Parker in 2008? This is not news. This is SOP for the Obama Campaign. Just the other day, I mentioned Obama’s National Co-Chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and his threats to House members of the Black Caucus to toe the line and stand behind Obama, or face primary challengers (and then doing it anyway, even if they did stab Hillary Clinton in the back and get on board).

But wait, it gets even better with THIS claim by Ms. Parker:

Obama hasn’t played the race card overtly, though recently he did call on a mostly African American audience at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Awards dinner to kick off their bedroom slippers and put on their marching shoes. “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on,” he said. “We’ve got work to do.”

WHAT? Obama has not overtly played the race card? Is she for real? Good grief, where has she been? Did she take one of Sir Richard Branson’s flights to outer space? Has she been living in East Mongolia? Has she not been paying any attention at ALL?

I am just shaking my head in disgust at this revisionist history from Ms. Parker’s keyboard. From Obama’s depiction of John McCain’s campaign as racist (remember this quote? “”And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me…”), to attacking Geraldine Ferraro and labeling her a racist for something he himself said, forcing her to resign from the Hillary Campaign, Obama has done nothing BUT play the race card. Hell, he just called the Tea Party racist a few months ago!

Ms Parker concludes:

This country has transcended much that was hideous and painful in the course of our evolution. It would be a shame to turn back now.

That it has, but it sure ass hell hasn’t stopped the Obama Campaign,the Obama Administration, and the DNC from labeling anyone who doesn’t support Obama as racists.

For the life of me, I don’t know how Ms. Parker has missed this over the past 3 years, but perhaps you could all remind her of the many and different ways Obama and his Minions have played the race card, from the way the DOJ has handled cases (or not), the assumption of the racist Cambridge police officer, Rep. Clyburn claiming that all ofd Obama’s problems come down to “black vs. white,” and so, so many more. Have at it!

They are creating an opportunity for people who are not part of the establishment of either party to get on the presidential ballot. While I cannot profess to know much about the organization behind this movement, the idea itself is an intriguing one:

For the 68 percent of Americans who said in an ABC/Washington Post poll released Wednesday that they had a negative view of government, the possibility of having a presidential candidate free of the currently gridlocked political parties could be just a few clicks away.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Americans Elect has collected petition signatures – millions of them [1.6 million in California alone] – in all 50 states to put a “candidate of the people” on the ballot in November 2012. This candidate would be selected through an online draft and nomination process instead of through the traditional Republican and Democratic parties primary and caucus schedule.

“We are creating competition for all these folks who are politically homeless,” said Elliot Ackerman, Americans Elect’s chief operating officer. “A lot of the folks that engage with us are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and those people don’t really have a voice in our political system right now. What we’re doing is really creating an incentive structure so that those individuals will be competed for.”

I understand the sentiment. I too have felt politically homeless since I witnessed the shenanigans of Democrats in the 2008 primaries. Whether one is in favor of Hillary Clinton or not, for her to have achieved a virtual tie in delegates, lead in the popular vote and still be cast aside at the Convention as the clear loser was the final disgrace in a contest fraught with sexist hazing and character assassination. Her opponent, however, received rose petals and caresses from the media daily, coupled with a startling lack of examination for his pie-in-the-sky – and often contradictory — campaign promises.

But Hillary’s treatment – and the disgraceful treatment her 18,000,000 supporters received at the hands of the mainstream media had another effect on the populace. We saw that the media, in the name of anointing their favored candidate was not above calling millions of Americans racist to threaten and keep them in line. Not to mention fellow Democrats calling us every dirty name in the book for supporting the “ho” and not the “bro.”

When we were called “low information, dried-up Archie Bunkers” by pundits and party powerful alike, many of us for the first time stepped back from the party we stood with for many years, ostracized and rejected. For the first time we felt what it must be like to be a conservative in this country, insulted regularly by the bulk of mainstream media and by many elitists in the DNC. As someone who made hundreds of GOTV calls around the country, I found that the “backwoods hillbilly” meme the media tried to sell was a lie. The mainstream media continues to hemorrhage credibility. There are many like me, waking up from a kool-aid stupor, no longer willing to accept demagogic ranting of the left or right at face value when its sole purpose is to fill Party coffers.

Continued gridlock in Washington, the refusal of either side to let productive legislation be crafted if it is contrary to the interests of politicians’ powerful backers, or partisan jockeying to prevent the other side from getting credit for a win has rendered us, for all intents and purposes, without advocates in Washington – regardless of where we fit in the progressive/conservative spectrum.

So far, the group has secured a spot on the ballot in six states, has collected the required number of signatures in four states and has about half the necessary signatures in four other states. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said the group would begin the petition process in seven more states within the week.

[snip]

The eventual nominee can be a member of either party or an independent but must chose a vice presidential running mate who is from a different party. Ackerman said he expected many of the losing GOP presidential candidates to move into the Americans Elect primary process after Republicans chose their nominee.

[snip]

“In the primaries you have to go far to the right or far to the left and tickets are having a hard time tacking back to the center,” he said. “Americans Elect allows a ticket to run authentically without having to go to extremes in the primary.”

A coalition ticket is an inviting notion although I cannot imagine who would be willing to abandon their own party in order to couple with the ‘enemy.’ A Sarah Palin perhaps…

While I am skeptical an idea like this can take hold to upend those currently in control of our two parties, its very existence, along with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street should really give those in power something to worry about. Democrats have mistakenly tried to co-opt the current disorganized (and sometimes confused) OWS protests as their own version of the more conservative Tea Party movement, yet increasingly OWS is making clear they feel President Obama has sold out to Wall Street. Republicans also worked to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with mixed results.

Congressional approval is at an all time low. President Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank. Polling also reports that Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, even the currently downward trending Gov. Rick Perry could all beat Obama next year. Even still, Republicans are not all that enthusiastic about their choices. Neither party is anxious to undo the Gordian knot of special (read big money) interests that actually do the governing in this country. The phrase “politically homeless” rings as true as it is painful. To feel like it is not possible to trust the majority of our elected officials to do the right thing leaves many feeling bound and gagged. Americans are inching closer to that pitchfork moment.

Is the Americans Elect concept a good one? If so, who would you want on such a coalition ticket? And do you think there is any hope we can get ever move past the current plutocracy? We don’t want to split the vote and keep an ineffectual incumbent in office, but in the long run would enough dissatisfaction expressed through these myriad movements around the country actually lead to reform of our system?

Only when the failing crop currently in office know they are about to lose their jobs do we have a prayer that they will finally start to do their jobs. And yet, if they are fired, as long as they can count on a ritzy “K” street paycheck or some cushy commentating gig on CNN – what muscles can we flex to keep them honest? The teat is still flowing…

Uh, yeah. That sounds about right.

Here’s something I don’t get. President Obama is trying to paint the Republicans as the ones who are trying to kick the can down the road. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t they just come to power THIS YEAR? Wasn’t it under Nancy Pelosi’s rule that they decided to not even make a budget because of the soaring debt?? Wasn’t it the Democrats solely in power for a while there, and over the entire Congress even before Obama’s ascension? So, how is this all the Republicans’ fault? That doesn’t make sense to me.

As reported in the Washington Post (and mentioned here), First Lady Betty Ford lamented the days gone by when Republicans and Democrats were friends, when, even if they didn’t see eye to eye, they were able to look past those differences.

Just this morning, I saw Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and he said much the same thing. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives back in the ’90′s. Gov. Kasich offered some advice to his former colleagues about how to deal with this whole budget/debt issue, and had something to say about civility near the end:

I think that sums it up nicely, on both fronts.

What I don’t get is, when did this polarization happen? WHY did it happen? How can we change it back to a more civil discourse, not just in Congress, but among us all? Is it just a lack of impulse control? Sense of entitlement that we can say or do whatever the hell we please? I just don’t get how our discourse has so deteriorated. Something’s gotta give. Maybe a national Miss Manners class is in order…

There’s something else I don’t get about how we treat one another. How is it, in the 21st century, we still have 2 million women battered by their partners each year, and 10 million children at risk because of domestic violence? How is it that we have not dealt with this issue, worked to change attitudes about women to the extent that their partner would never even DREAM of hitting them (or psychologically abuse them)? Or that, at least, these numbers would be greatly decreased?

I raise this because Dr. Phil, at the invitation of Senator Patrick Leahy, will be testifying on Capitol Hill today to request that an Act passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, providing funds for prosecution, requiring restitution, and other issues, be re-authorized (which it was in 2000). Isn’t it sad that in this day and age, the following holds true:

[snip] # According to the U.S. Surgeon General, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States.
# The American Medical Association estimates that their male partners assault 2 million American women each year.
# The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women.
# A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the United States. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the nation on Crime and Justice. The Data. Washington DC Office of Justice Program, US Dept. of Justice. Oct 1983)
# 35% of all emergency room calls are a result of domestic violence.
# Of those who abuse their partner, well over 65% also physically and/or sexually abuse the children.
# Each day …..4 women die as a result of abuse.
# Each day …..3 children die as a result of abuse.
# The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 32% of female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 1999.2000)
# Anywhere from 1-3 million women are battered each year by their intimate partner. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence. Washington DC, 2000.)
# In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than by any other type of assailant. (ibid.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the truly tragic aspect of the list above – that is less than a THIRD of all of the issues of violence facing women in this country. Holy shit.

And one more thing I don’t get. How is it that Quinnipiac Poll finds that Obama still holds 50% over Republican challengers? How can that possibly be? After the Stimulus that wasn’t anywhere close to one, the Obamacare Debacle that will cost us big time, Unemployment going up, housing values going down while foreclosures are going up, the number of golf trips of Obamas going up, along with the number of Executive Orders to circumvent that pesky Congress(about which we screamed bloody murder when Bush did it), and the number of lies he tells daily, including about his own mother’s insurance coverage while he was campaigning in 2008 (that one was a DOOZY – using his dying mother for political gain, and lying about it – wow, that speaks VOLUMES about the kind of person he is), and I could go on, and on, and on.

I just don’t get it. Do you?

I have a candidate or two I like, but I’m sure not in love yet.  I understand the enthusiasm some folks have for Sarah Palin, but if Hillary was too polarizing to win, Sarah is a lost cause already.  Sure, she can energize a crowd of supporters, but she can also fan the cold embers of Obama’s disillusioned followers into a raging fire of Progressive voter turnout like no other Republican.  If she runs, and that’s unknown at this writing, she probably won’t get the nomination for that very reason.  I suspect she knows this.  The opposition to her is just too damn strong.  It more than negates her vote-getting power.  Even if the Republican stalwarts turn out in droves to vote for her, the Obamites will turn out even more than they did in 2008.  But I must confess, just knowing how much they hate her makes me want her to head the Republican ticket!

So who else have they got?

Herman Cain?  Hmmm.  He’s interesting, but he does not have the credentials we need in a leader any more than Obama does, and I frankly hate the whole concept of putting forth a black candidate to take on a black incumbent just because he’s black.  It just irks me on the lack of merits.  After four years of the Race Card, I’m sick to death of it.  It should never have been an issue to start with.

And I think most of us could not be happier that Newt Gingrich self-destructed so early in the game.  Now, would somebody please tell him?

Tim Pawlenty.  Sorry, he bores me too much to bother…

Jon Huntsman is a dream candidate for many Centrists and ex-pat Democrats, so that would go a long way, it would seem, in bridging the political divide.  Unfortunately, he has taken a pacifistic approach, apparently trying to out-McCain McCain, suggesting that the election doesn’t have to be mean, low-down, and dirty.  I know Jesus admonished us to turn the other cheek, but you can bet the mortgage that the Obama camp won’t be pulling any punches.  And I don’t think he’s outspoken enough about what exactly he has to offer as President besides quiet diplomacy.  That was Obama’s schtick in 2008, and it was ridiculed then as it should be now.

I’ve heard it postulated that the Republican Party really does want to lose this election so they can run Jeb Bush in 2016.  If this is true, I hope the Mayan calendar is right.  The world should end in 2012 if that’s the case.  In fact, if Obama wins re-election, it probably will!

There is also a popular theory that the Republicans are prone to giving their old war-horses their “turn” at leading the party.  Like in 1996, it was Bob Dole’s turn.  In 2008, it was John McCain’s turn.  But I suspect that is only true when they expect to lose, or want to lose, and I strongly don’t believe they want to lose this time, nor do they have any reason to expect to lose.  Even if the polls showed Obama consistently beating a Republican rival, I’d be very suspicious of those polls for a variety of reasons.

In 2008, the election polls were very close between Obama and McCain until the financial crisis hit.  I heard from several sources that many people felt Obama and the Democrats were the better bet for dealing with the economic meltdown, that a change at the top was needed.  So, according to this theory, Independents swung to Obama and Republicans stayed home on Election Day.  If this is true, then Republicans should be very optimistic about unseating him if the economy stays like it is.

But for the Republicans to beat Obama, they have to not only get a good Republican turnout, they have to win over the Independents, and they have to hope the Democrats become as complacent as the Republicans were in 2008.  I know the conservatives want to put forward a truly conservative candidate for a number of reasons – to fire up their own kind, to offer a starkly contrasting political view, etc.. But truly conservative candidates rarely win over the Independent voters, and there are more of them now than there have been in recent memory, maybe more than ever in the USA.  So if the Republicans want to win over these Independent voters, they need a relatively Centrist candidate.  I really don’t think many Republican voters will be complacent and stay home this election like they did with McCain.  And if they want disillusioned Democrats to stay home on Election Day, they can’t risk having a staunch Conservative heading their ticket.

I believe in the truth of the old adage that “people vote their pocketbooks,” so that leads me to think the Republicans have a strong advantage in unseating Obama this election, since this economic mess shows no signs of healing itself.  I suspect that may be part of what is driving them to put Romney in front.  Economics is his strong suit.

While Conservatives may dislike him because of the Massachusetts healthcare issue, it does have a neutralizing effect on that controversy.  The Dems sure can’t throw it in his face if he doesn’t make it a campaign issue himself.  I know the Republicans made it a big deal that they were going to overturn that piece of legislation, but the reality is that’s not going to happen.  And as much as it irks Republicans, and even though the healthcare legislation was poorly written and poorly legislated, overturning an entitlement like that is a losing proposition.  It needs to be modified, of course, but I’m afraid it’s going to remain.  I really don’t see a political advantage for the Republicans to run on that hot-potato issue.

So all things considered, as it stands now, it looks like Romney is the guy to beat.  The question remains, can he beat Obama.  Most pundits seem to think the GOP needs a stronger candidate, and I agree.  But I can definitely see why Romney is the front-runner so far.

On the other hand, it reminds me of where Hillary was positioned four years ago.

Mitt best be looking over his shoulder.

[snip] AGAINST her, that is. Yep, it turns out there was some news hidden in those thousands of Palin e-mails after all. But the American media couldn’t use it against her, which is why you have to go to the British press to learn about it. The Daily Telegraph reports: “The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race. One message sent by someone in Juneau, Alaska on Sept 17, 2008 said the governor should be ’shot from one of the planes that shoot the very wolves that you ordered.’ Five days earlier an email landed in her in-box saying she ‘must be killed.’ It said: ‘She doesn’t belong to the NRA to support the right of each citizen to have weapons in an aim of self-defense, but just to support the right of every southern white citizen to shoot all non-white people legally! Sarah Palin MUST BE KILLED!’ Another emailed death threat in the same month, while Mrs Palin was on the campaign trail as John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, came from Antwerp, Belgium. It said Mrs Palin should be shot and that ‘only on that moment justice will be accomplished.’” If you think Sarah Palin deserved that, you might be a liberal. Or, at the risk of redundancy, an American journalist.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy crap. Now, I am not (that) naive, I know many leaders receive death threats, but the vitriol directed at the VP candidate, was rather shocking.

Just as it is shocking that there are very few news sources in the United States that covered this, as Jim Treacher highlighted. After doing my own search, I saw two: ABC News, which mentioned the death threats briefly, though it did highlight what a voracious reader of news Palin was (that that, Katie Couric); and Fox News, which used an AP report, also mentioning the death threats in passing (very brief statement).

Across the pond, as noted above, the Daily Telegraph (UK) has been reviewing Palin’s emails (again, a bit of a witch hunt since no other politician I can remember has had to endure this level of intrusion). The title, and subheading are telling, indeed, “Sarah Palin Emails: Enemies Sent A Series Of Death Threats; The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race.”

I continue to be amazed at all this woman has endured, and with such incredible strength, determination, and even good humor. What also amazes me is how she is depicted compared to , oh, I dunno, the Petulant Commander in Chief, who somehow got the title of being “even-keeled,” at least that’s what the NY Times said about him. It is remarkable since he seems to get so testy when someone actually asks him a question. And while Obama claimed families were off-limits, that sure never stopped the media, and liberal bloggers, from going after Palin’s then and now.

All things considered, though, I think this witch hunt by the media has backfired tremendously. While the MSM might be a little (too) quiet on some of the more dangerous and heinous emails Palin has received, and what she has endured, they have had to acknowledge that she was engaged, smart, not a “prima donna,” and more. I’d say the last laugh is on them.

Now, if they could please get back to doing some real journalism, perhaps investigate Obama 1/100th as much as they have Palin, or heck, even Anthony Weiner to see if he broke any laws with which he can be charged? The MSM failed mightily with Obama in 2008, allowing him to get away with all kinds of secrets and lies. They have the opportunity for a do-ver in 2012. You know, like doing some real journalism instead of this assault on one woman whose only crime as far as I can tell is being a strong, accomplished woman, and who isn’t even in the running (yet). Just saying…

Bear in mind, first and foremost, that the Obamacare program, voted into law SOLELY by Democrats, contains MASSIVE cuts to Medicare. Doctors are now limiting Medicare patients as a result. But that doesn’t stop the Democrats from railing at Ryan’s plan, acting as if he is going to unplug machines or something.

Don’t take it from me, though. FactCheck.org, a division of the Annenberg Foundation, just came out with an article highlighting the new DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s lies about this very program.

But first, astute readers may recall that the Annenberg Challenge is where Barack Obama and his good buddy, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, served on the board together. This is no conservative organization coming out with this information, but one with a liberal past.

So, what did the DNC Chair say exactly? This, according to the FactCheck article, “DNC Chair Throws Truth To The Wolves,” the headline of which says it all:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz falsely claimed that seniors with preexisting medical conditions would be denied Medicare coverage under the GOP’s plan. The House GOP plan specifically says insurance companies “must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries.”

She also repeated a false Democratic talking point that future beneficiaries — those who are now younger than 55 — would be left on their own to buy insurance in the private market. The GOP plan, as we have written before, would provide subsidies for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Wasserman Schultz, the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, made her comments May 29 on “Face the Nation.”

Wasserman Schultz, May 29: What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, “You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the — in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions. We’re going to give you ‘x’ amount of dollars and you figure it out.”

She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions.” [snip]

Not that you would know it from the attacks from Obama and his minions, but the Ryan Plan is not as Draconian as they want people to think. They are just blowing smoke to make sure no one pays attention to the cuts THEY made, which are affecting people on Medicare. But hey, why let the truth stand in your way? The Dems aren’t, that’s for sure:

The Republican plan — dubbed “Path to Prosperity” by its chief architect, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — would make no changes in Medicare for those 55 and older. But it would make significant changes to Medicare for those younger than 55 — just not as described by the Florida Democrat. The plan would provide future beneficiaries with government subsidies to purchase health insurance through a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Path to Prosperity: Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said “we stand by the statement” that the GOP plan would deny coverage to future beneficiaries with preexisting conditions. (Emphasis mine.) Sevugan provided excerpts of testimony given April 5 by Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, at a hearing of a House oversight subcommittee. But in that testimony, Cannon said that “all seniors under the chairman’s proposal, as I understand it, will be able to obtain health insurance coverage.” And those with preexisting conditions “will get larger vouchers” because payments will be “risk-adjusted so that people with severe illnesses will get larger vouchers.”

Sevugan made the point that the government subsidies — or “vouchers,” as Cannon calls them — won’t keep up with insurance premiums and, as a result, seniors would be forced to go without coverage. But that’s not what the DNC chairwoman said. She said the GOP plan would allow private insurers to “drop you for preexisting conditions,” and that’s just not true. [snip]

Lies, lies, and more lies. But what I love is that the DNC spokesman, in the face of facts to the contrary, claims that they “stand by their statements.” They are misrepresenting a plan to the American people to cast Ryan’s plan in as negative a light as possible, even if what they say is not true. Wow. That takes some chutzpah. Or complete and utter lack of ethics. You decide.

The conclusion of this article (and there is more to it, so I urge you to click here to read the rest), is this:

[snip ]It’s fair game to debate whether the subsidies are adequate to cover insurance costs. But it’s wrong to say that the GOP plan would “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage.”

When FactCheck.org is telling you you’re lying, and you keep doing it, that is disingenuous at best, and deplorable at worst. They are simply trying to gin up votes, and just like 2008, they don’t care how much they lie to do it.

Of course, Rep. Wasserman Schultz is just following Obama’s lead. He is the one who started this BS back in April, lying through his teeth, as FactCheck.org made clear. I think Rep. Paul Ryan is a bit over it, this Hill article makes clear from the meeting between Republicans and Obama on Wednesday,
“Ryan to Obama: ‘Leadership Should Come From The Top‘”. Why, yes, it should, Rep. Ryan. Yes, leadership should come from the top. But Obama isn’t a leader, he is a liar, which he has demonstrated time and time again. Why would you expect anything less than that from him, or his hand picked DNC chair?

Ahem. To his credit, Ryan stood firm:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) confronted President Obama over his attack on the Republican budget plan in the most dramatic moment of a White House meeting with the House GOP conference.

Saying he wanted to “clear the air” amid a deficit debate marred by partisan rancor, Ryan, the author of the House GOP budget, told the president he was wrong to characterize Republicans as turning their backs on children and senior citizens.

“Leadership should come from the top,” Ryan said to Obama, according to Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who described the exchange to The Hill.

Ryan also called out the president for his speech at George Washington University in April, where Obama castigated the Republican budget in harsh terms while Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sat just a few feet away.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes – Obama the picture of decorum and good manners. Not.

Both Rep. Ryan and FactCheck.org have tried to set the record straight about Ryan’s Budget plan. The Democrats will have none of it. Better to stick with the lie than the truth, especially if it will score a bunch of points, right? They are intentionally manipulating people, scaring some, and pissing off others as a result of their continued false meme. That is reprehensible.

You know, I still cannot believe that this is how the DNC has always operated, and I was just too blind to see it. But if the past 3 years is any indication, that is exactly what they were doing, I am ashamed to admit. Is it really so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the behalf of ALL AMERICANS? To not worry about who gets the most points for it? Is it really so hard to put the country first, and our worsening economic situation, over partisan sides?

Evidently. And that just makes me mad. How about you?

But that is not the point of this post, believe it or not. No, rather it is this: at the very same site, there is this article, “PROFESSOR: Sarah Palin Probably Staged A Gigantic Hoax About Being Trig’s Mother.”

I am not kidding, and it is not a tongue-in-cheek article, either. Oh, Andrew Sullivan must be SO happy that some professor at Northern Kentucky University is taking his assertion to heart. (And I am sure the parents who send their kids to school there are so happy to learn that one of the professors seems to be spending time “proving” that Sarah is not Trig’s real mother.) From what I can tell, the conclusion reached by Scharlotte was mere conjecture, but hey, that’s better than nothing, right? Ahem.

It does make me wonder one thing: just what is it this professor teaches exactly? I mean, with all this time on his hands to delve into such ground-breaking research, and all, it’s gotta be something important, no doubt. (That is snark, by the way.) Actually, he teaches journalism. Yes, journalism. Now you have a glimpse into why our media is in such bad shape, presuming this is representative of the professors in this field (he is also very upset that some “Palin Flack” is trying to squelch discussion on this critical issue facing us today. Again, not kidding.) Uh, yeah. THIS is what he is so concerned about the media not covering now, during this tumultuous time. Wow.

Oh, you’re probably wondering who IS Trig’s real mother according to Scharlotte (and Sullivan). Well, it’s Bristol, of course. C’mon, that’s as clear as the nose on your face, people!

What is really hilarious to me, though, are the comments at this article. The exact same people who demean, belittle, and attack those who would like to see Obama’s birth certificate act like this is a matter of National Security. You know, because Palin ran as the Vice Presidential candidate, so who her baby mama is matters a LOT. Hey, say what you will about Birthers, at least the desire to see an actual birth certificate is to fulfill a Constitutional requirement. And it is a requirement other presidential candidates have fulfilled, I might add.

But this has zero to do with the Constitution. This has to do with Palin Hatred veiled as outrage at a lackluster media, one that hasn’t done its job in reporting this “earth shattering” story:

[snip] He (Professor Scharlotte) concludes two things:

* First, that the “conspiracy theory” is likely true–Sarah Palin staged a huge hoax, and, second,

* The American media is pathetic for not pursuing the story more aggressively
[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes – where has the media been? You know, the one that aggressively pursued Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah Wright, or James Meeks, or his college/grad school records, or why there were ZERO paper recrods from the entire time Obama was in the IL Senate, or how he got everyone thrown off the ballot the first time he ran, or how he got the sealed divorce records of the two front-runner US Senate candidates unsealed right before the election, or any NUMBER of red flags about Barack Obama.

Oh, wait – they didn’t. But this man thinks what they SHOULD have been doing was going after Palin even more. Because the boatload of reporters who descended on Wasilla to turn over every rock they could, or the 11 reporters the AP assigned to check her book, is not the least bit aggressive in its efforts. Kinda makes you wonder how many they have assigned to “fact check” Obama’s books, huh? Yeah. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, either.

It is just comical the complete and utter hypocrisy contained within this one site on such a related issue. And the utter lack of recognition of the hypocrisy, too, is a bit comical.

Yes, by all means, let us spend lots of time and media resources on whether or not Trig is Sarah Palin’s son, because that is of the utmost importance. Never mind Obama’s real back-story – he’s only the President after all. Hey, we have to have our priorities with our media, right? Right. Budget crisis? What “budget crisis”? I need to know who is really the mother of that kid, don’t you?

If you’ll excuse me, I have to go read “People” magazine now to get the REAL news…

Update below the fold.

Of Obama campaigning. Yes, he has already started for his re-election. Blech. Oh, he just happened to show up at the Lincoln Memorial after the 11th hour agreement on the budget vote, running around, glad handing, acting like he was the one who wrote the damn thing:

Never mind that he was kicking and screaming throughout the whole process, threatening to veto an extension bill that would fund the Pentagon, thus the military, should there be a government shutdown. And never mind that the REASON we were on the verge of a government shutdown was the Democrats refusal to pass a damn budget last year when they controlled all three houses. Gee – can’t imagine why they decided not to do that, and that decision was made pretty early in the year.

And now Obama is prancing around like he did this single-handedly? Please.

It is only going to get worse from here on out. This is only the beginning of his re-election bid, which he curiously decided to launch in the midst of a boatload of serious issues facing the nation and the world (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, the budget, gas prices that have doubled – DOUBLED -under Obama, and on and on).

Just as a reminder, these are some of the “highlights” toward which I imagine we can look forward, and the mature responses of his followers:

Or this:

Or how about this memorable comment:

Here’s some campaign advice for Mr. Obama, free of charge: when you are in the middle of a campaign, and you choose to go out to be among the people, including eating in a diner, when someone dares ask you a question, answer it. That’s why you are there, right? If you want an uninterrupted waffle-eating breakfast (and was that waffle ever an indicator of things to come from Obama), stay in your hotel room. I’m just saying – you might not want to get all snappy with the people you want to vote for you when you deign to mingle among them.

That is just the beginning. That doesn’t even begin to touch the ways in which Obama takes credit for actions that were not his (the list is way too long, but think back to the last election when he claimed to be on committees he wasn’t on, or bills on which he didn’t work, etc., etc.). How much worse is it going to get now that he actually got into the White House? Geez, I shudder to think.

I wonder if, maybe the second time around, the media might actually do more of its job, and ask him some real questions, like about Rezko, for instance. Or his connections to Big Oil. Yeah, I didn’t think so…

I don’t know that I can take another 1 1/2 of Obama campaigning. The last time was one time too many, if you ask me. I think I’m going to have to spend more time watching videos like this instead of watching Obama lie like a rug, calling people racists if they disagree with him, or tilting his chin up at people in the most arrogant manner possible:

Uh, yeah. This is much better, don’t you think?

**Update** My aunt mentioned to me today that Obama had been complaining about his loss of privacy. Was he ever. I knew he had complained about this before, but wow, want a little whine with that cheese, Mr. Obama? Good grief. I guess he didn’t believe Bush when he said being president was “hard work.” Hmm – I wonder if people will give Obama as hard of a time for saying this:

“I just miss – I miss being anonymous,” he said. “I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can’t take a walk.”

His dream, he said, was to “go through Central Park and watch folks passing by … spend the day watching people – I miss that”.

Faced with simmering criticism for playing more golf than most previous occupants of the White House, he explained that the sport was simply the best way of getting away from it all.

“It’s the only excuse I have to get outside for four hours at a stretch,” he told Hearst magazines. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me. After he pulled every dirty trick in the book to get INTO the White House, from caucus fraud to vote-stealing, he’s complaining (again)? That just takes the cake…

I think this calls for another horse video, this time with a cat (this one reminds me of my Jordan playing with a teeny tiny little kitten, letting him play with his tail and everything – so cute):

The Los Angeles Times in a short piece by Andrew Malcolm, says it all in the headline,”Obama Recruits An Army Of Community Organizers To Carry His ‘Movement Forward For Years To Come.”

Holy crappy doo.

You may recall that during the 2008 Election campaign, Obama had his “Obama For America” thugs, er, troops. Once he successfully stole the nomination from Clinton, it became rebranded as “Organizing for America.” You know, the one that “thoughtfully” provided a (used) slogan for a memorial service in Tucson after Jared Loughner opened fire, “Together We Thrive.” (Photo from LA Times article.)

Hard to believe it can get worse than that headline, but it does (depending upon your perspective, that is):

[snip] Strengthening “our democracy” presumably has something to do with reelecting the revered leader in 2012.

However, the Organizing for America recruiting message says nothing about politics or election campaigns and strangely talks in military terms of “a grassroots program that aims to put boots on the ground and help foster a new generation of leaders — not just to help win elections but to strengthen our democracy in communities across the country.”

The same Obama campaign group was reported involved in fomenting and facilitating the ongoing Wisconsin protests against Gov. Scott Walker’s budget plans.

The message about what it calls the “Summer Organizing Fellowship” adds: “Effective organizing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It takes commitment, time, and hard work to build a movement around a cause.” It does not specify what the “cause” is, other than promoting Obama and his agenda.[snip]

Again I say, holy crappydoo.

Is this scaring the shit out of anyone else but me?

Well, if that part above didn’t, maybe this will:

[snip] The cadres “will be assigned to a specific community,” the message informs, “where they’ll work to organize supporters street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood.”

Hey, friends – I will be out of town starting 2/26 – 3/6, and unable to check in here. As always, I recommend visits to No Quarter, Uppity Woman’s blog, Stray Yellar Dawg’s site, and Logistics Monster’s site, to name a few. There are links to each one in the Blogroll. I hope you all have an excellent week. I know I am planning on doing the same!

Their job will involve recruiting additional Obama workers, running Obama-related events, knocking on doors to talk of Obama “and lay new groundwork to carry this movement forward for years to come.”

“In the end,” the Obama campaign appeal says of the community organizer corps, “their work will take our grassroots power to an impressive new level.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

How about now? Recruiting members, knocking on doors, all to spread the Good Word Of Obama, and implement his will for “years to come”?

And just what does it mean to “take our grassroots power to an impressive new level“? I don’t think I want to know.

How about you, what do you think?

Don’t take my word for it – here’s the man himself blathering on – AGAIN – about Egypt:

Oh, where to begin, where to begin? How about with Barack Obama getting everyone thrown off the ballot for his first run for the IL Senate in 1996, including his mentor, Alice Palmer, so he could run unopposed? You’ll love this bit from the Chicago Tribune about Obama’s first run:

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

[...]

“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Honor” is not exactly a word I would associate with Barack Obama, like, ever.

How about this – fast forward to 2008 and the Primaries – for “fair and free” elections, Mr. President:

Just for starters, there, Obama. You are the last person on the face of the planet who should be lecturing ANYONE on elections. There are so, so many more examples of the ways in which Obama, his campaign, and the DNC subverted a “free and fair election” in the Primaries, and in the Election (New Black Panthers, anyone?).

You know I could go on about this, and list example after example, but I would rather you take this one. Feel free to share your favorite example of how Obama has subverted the process, or how he is inserting himself in the overthrow of one of our allies, or forcing his policies down our throats no matter what we say. Have at it!

Or anything else that is on your mind. Consider this an Open Thread.

And she said it to President Obama. But she wasn't talking about taxes per se. Not too long ago, the incoming governors had the opportunity to meet with President Obama.

During the course of the meeting, Governor-Elect Nikki Haley had a little chat with Obama on the issue of the new health care law (which, after Monday's ruling that parts of it were un-Constitutional may make this a moot argument). In this article, Obama Opens Door For S.C. Opt-Out, Haley Says, Haley lays out her argument to President Obama:

Haley said she told Obama that South Carolina could not afford the health care mandate, and that it would cripple small businesses.

"I respectfully asked him to consider repealing the bill," she said, to which he clearly stated he would not. "I pushed him further and said if that's the case, because of states' rights, would you at least consider South Carolina opting out of the program?"

Obama told her he would consider letting South Carolina opt out, she said, if the state could find its own solution that included a state exchange, preventing companies from bumping people for pre-existing conditions and allowing insurance pooling. [snip]

That is an important concession, is it not? And again, it may end up being meaningless, should the current health care law be struck down.

But then there was this:

[snip]Haley said she also asked the president if he would honor the federal government’s commitment on developing a nuclear waste repository. When he said he would not revisit opening Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, “I said, ‘Then give us our money back.’ ”

The site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was proposed to house more than 4,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste from South Carolina’s Savannah River Site. The state and Washington have sued over Obama’s attempt to kill plans for the storage site after decades of study.

“SRS has done a good job, but that was a temporary solution. It was never meant to be a permanent solution,” Haley said she told him. “The federal government has reneged on its promise, and the people of South Carolina want their money back.” [snip]

Oh, SNAP!!! My immediate response when I read this? “Dang!” And that was meant in the most positive way possible. I was impressed by her commitment to the state, but also her gumption in making such a statement to the President of the United States (even if it is Obama) upon her first meeting. Holy smokes.

Oh, and Obama’s response? Very Obama-like:

[snip]She said Obama pledged that he would have Energy secretary Steven Chu call her promptly. (The state has shelled out over $1 billion for the Yucca study.)

“I will wait for that phone call, and if I don’t get it, I will be calling, but I feel he was being genuine,” she said.

Haley described the tone as respectful and said she appreciated that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden allowed for open dialogue with the governors-elect, with no topic off-limits.

“It was a level of communication where we felt like we were being heard,” she said. [snip]

I am glad she felt that the incoming governors were being heard. But I also love that she is going to hold Obama’s feet to the fire in waiting for that phone call. For a state that continues to have double-digit unemployment, over a billion bucks would come in mighty handy about now.

Haley raises a good point. If the government is not going to make use of a program it has spent billions on, then hell to the yes, it should be returning our money.

As you may recall, Governor-Elect Nikki Haley was endorsed by Governor Sarah Palin. Haley was asked if she would endorse a candidate for president, to which she responded:

[snip] Haley said she will endorse a Republican candidate at some point before the first-in-the-South primary for the 2012 White House race.

“Absolutely!” she said. “But only after every one of them has had the opportunity to go out and meet with the constituents of South Carolina and hear their concerns. … What I want to do is let the people of South Carolina see them without any sort of emphasis on who I think is right.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that will sure be interesting. I wonder if Sarah Palin runs, if Governor-Elect Haley will return the favor?

Governor-Elect Haley continues to impress with her cabinet choices, and on Monday, hosted a meeting of state leaders, including both US Senators, and US Rep. Jim Clyburn. Not only is Haley capable of speaking out for her state, she is also capable of diplomacy:

[snip]“There were no egos in that room,” Haley said at a post-meeting news conference with the delegation. “It was a group of people that understood South Carolina needed to come first and it was very much one of great spirit — great energy — in how we are going to get things done.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This kind of interaction does give me hope for this state, I have to say. And while Haley’s query to President Obama regarding the funds spent on Yucca Mountain clearly was state-specific, it very well may set a precedent. If she is able to get money returned to the state of South Carolina, surely other states can follow.

I must say, I am impressed with our Governor-Elect. Her strength and dedication will certainly pay off for this state, but hopefully, will be an asset for all governors in the country as they work together.

Oh, and President Obama? I’m with Nikki Haley – give us our money back, please.

You may have heard that Barbara Walters included Sarah Palin as one of the “Top 10 Most Fascinating People.” And after the taping, Walters made condescending comments about Palin to Robin Roberts on Good Morning America after Palin had the grace to sit down with her. If I was Gov. Palin, I would add Walters to the list with Katie Couric. But that’s just me.

Now Richard Wolffe, the MSNBC toady, I mean, analyst, has had some smack to say about Palin from that very interview. About what does he make fun of her for saying? That she reads C.S. Lewis.

Huh?

You may recall back during the 2008 election, liberals were upset with Palin for her conservative faith. Heck, even the Washington Post was writing about her “pastor problem.” Palin’s pastor problem – because, well, you know, Obama didn’t have one. Ahem (and the JournoListers made damn sure many people didn’t know he had one).

Yes, Richard Wolffe made fun of Palin for saying she reads C.S. Lewis for “divine inspiration.” Oh, yes he did:

[snip] Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Wolffe expressed incredulity, noting that Lewis wrote “a series of kids’ books.”

Matthews interrupted Wolffe: “I wouldn’t put down C.S. Lewis.”

“I’m not putting him down,” Wollfe responded. “But you know divine inspiration? There are things she could’ve said to divine inspiration. Choosing C.S. Lewis is an interesting one.”

Aside from authoring popular children’s books like the “Chronicles of Narnia,” Lewis was known as a Christian apologist who authored a number of books on religion, like “Mere Christianity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, you know it is bad when even Tweety jumps in there at Wolffe’s statement. But Matthews has a point. C.S. Lewis was a well-regarded scholar, erudite, intelligent, and a prolific writer of books on Christianity. One would think after criticizing her for being too conservative that her choice of this scholar, contemporary of, and friends with, J.R.R. Tolkien would have gotten her a bit of a break. But no.

Wolffe, in his PDS state can only make fun of her, apparently assuming she was referring to the “Chronicles of Narnia,” the children’s series. That is but one part of the numerous books Lewis wrote about Christianity. Perhaps, since Wolffe is apparently unfamiliar with the author, he doesn’t even have to look it up. He can watch “Shadowlands” and learn all about the life and works of C.S. Lewis. That will only take him a couple of hours. Shoot, I bet he can stream it from NetFlix.

No, it is just so much more fun to put Palin down for ANYTHING she says. I swear to the goddess, if she lived during the time Jesus walked the earth, she could say she
sat down and talked with him for divine inspiration. No doubt, Wolffe would find a way to put her down for that. He might say something like she hung out with blue collar carpenter whose friends were a bunch of fishermen, and – GASP – women! What a joke!

This is the same crap they did to Hillary time and time again. It is so, so tiresome to see this “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” mentality ever present with those in the media. I’m sick of it.

And I am sick of the constant “gotcha” mentality of the media toward Palin (and Clinton) ever present. Why did Palin even mention reading C.S. Lewis? Because Barbara Walters, a la Couric, asked her what she read. I kid you not. Oh, and she also said to Palin, “Many find the idea of you as president ‘scary.’” Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s just rude.

Unfortunately, I am sure this is far from over, especially as 2012 approaches. I mean, really – when reading C.S. Lewis becomes fodder for put downs, well, that says it all, doesn’t it?

While Obama is be-bopping about (getting out of Dodge after the Mid-term Election), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on her own trip. First, she went to New Zealand, where the Prime Minister referred to her as “President Clinton.” Secretary of State Clinton also made a visit to Papua, New Guinea, a ‘filip” for that country. In Cambodia, she was in the midst of a group hug of young women who were human trafficking victims.

And Secretary Clinton visited Australia, where she discussed a number of important issues, highlighting the US-Australia alliance over China. But the highlight has to be this interview with comedians Hamish and Andy:

That is the Hillary we know and love, the Hillary we so needed to take the reins of this country, especially in these difficult times.

Unbelievably, Chris Matthews who shoved Obama down our throats on MSNBC(O), and constantly belittled and demeaned Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries said this about her appearance with Hamish and Andy: “Had you seen this Hillary Clinton in 2008, she might be president.” Spare me, Mr. Matthews. You, personally, did so much to tarnish Hillary Clinton during the primaries that even Media Matters came after you for it. WE knew this is who we would get, but you and your network were hellbent on pushing Obama on us despite his thin resume. Just freakin’ spare me already.

Instead, we got Obama (thanks, Chris), much to the dismay of many of us, including SC State Senator, Robert Ford. Turns out, back in 2007, State Senator Ford, an African American, took some heat for his prophetic (as it turns out) statement that if Obama was elected, he would pull down the entire Democratic Party. Huh. Well, whaddya know. He was right, as the Mid-Terms have made abundantly clear.

And no, Obama, it isn’t your “failure to communicate“:

Um, no, it was your policies.

But Mr. Ford is not done with his projections, no sirree, as this Post and Courier article indicates:

[snip] Ford, a Charleston Democrat, said U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, should step out of a leadership role next year, or the whole party will go down in defeat. Ford said the same goes for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Clyburn and Pelosi have offered themselves for leadership positions in next year’s Congress, when the Democrats fall back to the minority party. Clyburn will run for House minority whip and Pelosi will run for the role as minority leader.

“If they elect Nancy Pelosi or Jim Clyburn to leadership, the Democratic Party will be taken off life support,” Ford said. “That will be the end of the Democratic Party. They’re bad news right now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Tell us how you really feel, Senator Ford! Well, you know, he was right once about Obama, and my bet is he’ll be right again should Pelosi and Clyburn prevail (Clyburn is now in a race with Steny Hoyer as the two battle for the Minority whip position).

Should it come to be that for Pelosi and Clyburn to keep leadership positions does take down the Democratic Party as Senator Ford fears, then Secretary Clinton may feel free to embrace other opportunities. Like a move to Australia, for instance. Hey, if she gets wind that the people of Australia would appreciate and welcome her leadership, she just might take them up on it.

And if that happens, I’m outta here. Australia, here I come, to the land of koala bears, kangaroos, and didgeridoos. Hey, I’m all set. Check it out: “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!” Here, we can all practice together: