I used to think brown paper bags were the answer, but they don’t hold up very well.  Clear plastic bags are completely out of the question – UGH! – so I now favor those white plastic shopping bags.  We seem to have an endless supply of them, bringing home about ten per week from the grocery stores, and I’m only using about half that many to get through the morning newspapers on a good week.  Disposing of them neatly is the tricky part.  I don’t have any Obama fans living on my street, so I can’t easily fulfill the obvious fantasy.

In fact, I haven’t really seen any Obama fans lately in my neighborhood, and that’s quite a surprise.  I mean there are definitely plenty of Democrats around here, but none of them seem to be very prosperous or enthusiastic about Obama this time around.  I wonder if there’s a connection.  Hmmm.

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for my stomach, not to mention my moods.  Watching the news coverage of the Great Pretender taking credit for the bin Laden kill all over again, then going to “Off-gone-i-ston” to rub Karzai’s face in the protection racket he’s stuck with.  And watching the False Idol crow about his great leadership to the hapless soldiers who were roused out of bed and marched into the command performance.  I think we all know how thrilled they were!

Or not.

I was rather tickled though to see the NY Post mocking Barry for spiking the football.  Grandstanding as usual on Obama’s part, but how refreshing to see some mainstream media coverage that is not carrying his water while he dances in the end zone of his imagination.

And here and there, more and more, I am starting to see more articles in traditional news sources that are slowly beginning to hint at campaign fairness.  I’m willing to admit this might just be my imagination, but I’m not so immersed in wishful thinking that I completely hallucinate news coverage to my liking.  That’s not to say I am completely free of hallucinations.  I still brake for them on the road!

Sometimes I surf around the web, looking for how the same story is handled by different news media.  It’s really startling, isn’t it?  A simple, irrefutable story can be presented in completely polar opposite ways.  Take for example the biography of Obama’s youth that is being published.  One headline might read “Obama had girlfriends?  Really?”  While another, more nausea-inducing story might read, “Barack Obama was a poetic genius…”

Urp!

Or how about the revelation that some of the passages in Obama’s own books about specific college girlfriends were in fact composites of several different women he dated.  Again, one headline might be, “More than one woman went out with him??  Really??”  While the more mainstream media headline might be “President was a ladies’ man.”

Mmggph!  Whew!  That was a close one!

I did find it amusing that one of his former girlfriends stated that he mostly spent his free time hanging out with Pakistani men.

Now that sounds more like the way I remember the Young Barry Obama!  I just love this picture!

And we also had the recent revelation that Barky ate dog meat; hence the nickname? Of course the mainstream media made the story about how those evil Republicans only brought up the dog-eating story to counter-attack the non-story of Mitt Romney giving his pet dog a free thrill ride atop the family station wagon – back in the early 1950s, I believe it was.  Every dog I’ve ever owned would have killed and eaten their own offspring for the chance to ride on top of a moving car! But not a single one of them, I can say for a certainty, would have relished being Barky’s chow!

But what’s amazing to me is that we are suddenly seeing stories about Obama that would have been completely forbidden four years ago. So something is changing out there. Not only is it possible to find a steady diet of news stories about Obama that do not induce projectile vomiting, you can actually find stories in mainstream news sources that do not present Obama as Divinity, against Whom no man shall dare blaspheme.

I found this short piece online that sums it up nicely, from the UK Telegraph, posted May 3 by Tim Stanley:

Why didn’t we know all these details four years ago – even though some of them were published in a best-selling autobiography that was sold to us as if it was a fifth gospel? And yet we knew everything there was to know about Sarah Palin, despite the fact that she was in the race for a much shorter space of time than Obama – and only running for veep.

That’s the significance of the canine and composite revelations – both of them, aside from their delightful “dish” factors, not really revelations at all. That we are only discussing them this late into Obama’s career suggests that the vetting that should have happened four years ago was unforgivably neglected. But, hey, it’s never too late to start.

Those like Matt Taibbi, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Jack Cafferty, David Schuster, Dana Milbank, Chris Cilizza, to name a few, have long enjoyed deep cover because of their supposed stance on social issues. That does not nor never should have bought them a pass. These men purport to be journalists and serious commentators. Never was their vile behavior more evident than the sexist horror show of 2008 against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Their vile, sniggering behavior continues unabated. In fact the only half-hearted apologies ever elicited from any one of these men has only come after a hand slap, a loss of ratings or advertisers…Is that the level of political discourse in this country when discussing women: She devil, bitch, Nurse Ratched, bubblehead?

Rush was forced into the same kind of apology last week. Was he sincere? Doubtful. Will he do it again? Very Likely. Has Bill Maher ever apologized for his endless litany of demeaning statements about women?

Rush Limbaugh is entitled to like or dislike whomever he wants, but if the best way he has to discredit Hillary Clinton is by saying she has “a testicle lockbox” or by calling her a “Femi-Nazi” – I’d say he’s lost the argument. And if Bill Maher likewise has to insult Hillary by saying “They fined CBS a million dollars for showing Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt,” and calls Sarah Palin a “c*nt” and a “twat” – it is pretty obvious that the cheap shot is all he is good for. It doesn’t say much for his mental capacity otherwise.

Bill Maher just made a million dollar donation to a SuperPAC with the mission of re-electing President Obama. How does that sit with the party of women’s progress? So we don’t care if you treat women like garbage – as long as your check cashes?

Limbaugh and Maher are shock jocks. That’s how they make their money. However, they also both function as commentators on different news programs. But whether they do or not, these two, along with David Letterman and Jay Leno, have powerful bully pulpits. They cannot hide behind the safety net of “comedian” or “host” when what they are selling is hate-speech. Their jokes, satire, rants, whatever you call them, have a devastating effect night after night that is just as costly as that of the vile pundits on MSNBC or CNN.

Just imagine the equivalent comment being made by any one of these guys toward President Obama? What is the equivalent comment to calling a man a slut, a whore, a c*nt, a twat, a moron, a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, saying that a particular woman “reads copy with a big set of hairy balls in her mouth” (that was from Taibbi)…What if you made a slur against a Jewish person? A Muslim? Juan Williams made a general comment voicing his nervousness about Muslims traveling in traditional garb on airplanes and NPR fired him.

I have no objection to anyone taking a female candidate or a woman making statements in the public sphere to task on the merits. But let’s stick to the issues, shall we?

Why is it necessary for these men (or the complicit women who egg them on) to call women by the most denigrating names possible – as if their very gender was at the root of their crime.

Moral relativism is not acceptable. The source of these comments does not matter, nor the target. This is hate speech, not free speech. If it were not hate speech, what else accounts for all the violence against women in this country and around the world? Clearly, there still exists some sort of sick need to put women in their place, either with words or by violent means. My fear is that men who control the air waves or use ink by the barrel influence society in negative ways when it comes to how we view women. They decide what a woman is worth and influence how they should be treated by speaking of them so disrespectfully.

If the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Mahers and Keith Olbermanns of the world cannot find a more intelligent way to take issue with a female subject than resorting to acting like bullying twelve year olds, then maybe they are not up to the job.

We are so busy in this country protecting every group under the sun from offense. Yet women are still graded and degraded on the basis of appearance, age, sexuality, vocal quality – anything that will allow them to be cleaved into body parts and then disempowered. It is up to women on both sides of the aisle to stop themselves from being used and manipulated in this debate and express a zero tolerance policy. It is up to men on both sides of the aisle to stop grading on a curve when it comes to their own transgressions or those of their brothers.

While it was only fitting that Rush Limbaugh apologize for his behavior, he should not be singled out or used politically as a distraction from the larger debate. If politicians are only coming to the defense of women when they need our votes, it is up to us to say ‘you can do better.’

President Obama called Ms. Fluke to express his support. But if he really wants to support her – then he must return Bill Maher’s million dollar donation to his re-election campaign, since Maher, like Limbaugh is a horrid culprit in this debate and a regular purveyor of sexist attacks upon women of both parties.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama have two beautiful daughters. I know they would never want Sasha and Malia to be on the receiving end of the sexist commentary made by the likes of a Limbaugh or a Maher. Given that a newscaster by the name of David Shuster referred to the Clintons as pimps and their daughter Chelsea a whore by inference, nothing is outside the realm of possibility any longer. Propriety is a thing of the past. No insult to any woman is off limits it seems.

The President has the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. Rejecting Mr. Maher’s money would go a long way toward proving that this zero tolerance policy starts at the top, and is not just about politics.

****************
Anita Finlay is the author of the soon to be released book, Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary supporter’s rude awakening.

Oh, wait. No, not really. None of those things have really happened. I was shocked to see The Hill, a site I read regularly for its impartiality, and whose Associate Editor, A.B. Stoddard, I have admired for her intellect. The premise of the article by Peter Schroeder is this:

President Obama, with his electoral fate tied to the economy, must be pleased with the momentum he’s getting.

Just months ago, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded and Democrats worried Obama was following in the footsteps of one-term President Jimmy Carter. Maybe he will, but reports in the last week suggest manufacturing and construction are humming, and Thanksgiving saw record-setting shopping by consumers.

The icing on the cake? A jobs report Friday shaved nearly half a point off the unemployment rate. The 8.6 percent rate was down from 9 percent in October and is the lowest unemployment has stood in two and a half years. (Emphasis mine.)

“Democrats have a very good chance in 2012 and if the economy gets better that’ll help us,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.). “Things are looking a lot better. A lot better.”

“The icing on the cake?” Really? He is promoting this false meme that the artificially reduced Unemployment numbers put forth by the Obama Administration (and which Larry Johnson thoroughly debunks in this post, “Delusional America“)? Is it really good news for Obama that over 300,000 people have given up hope of ever finding a job again? That’s a GOOD thing? In what universe? ObamaMedia World? Evidently. I was just appalled to see a site like The Hill pushing this crock of BS for Obama and the Democrats. This wasn’t an opinion piece, after all, it was allegedly “reporting.” Reporting Democratic talking points, maybe, but not the facts, or reality. At the very BEST, the number is now at 8.9%, and even that is pushing it (according to Eric Bolling on “The Five”).

These kinds of machinations by the Democrats are really mind boggling. It wasn’t so long ago that I would have bought this crap they are selling, being a dyed in the wool Dem and all. But no longer. I simply cannot understand how the Party that claims to be SO compassionate is CELEBRATING people giving up out of despair. How is that good in ANYONE’S world?

This does seem to be the Democrats’ MO, though. This kind of hoodwinking, that is. This instance has to do with the economy, riding a wave of glee on the backs of those who have given up. My good friend, CindyIndie, sent me an article about an issue in Texas that highlights more of this double-speaking machination that seems to be SOP. This one deals with their “concern” for minority presence and leadership in politics. The title gives a hint, “Opportunity Lost To End The White-Guy Streak.” Yes, and that opportunity was lost due to an appeal by the Democrats:

For a while there, before a three-judge federal panel did some three-judge federal paneling, the good and progressive people of Travis County (long self-congratulatory about their goodness and progressivity) seemed en route to ballot-box ethnic history.

[...]

This, of course, was all about Republican self-interest and had nothing to do with wanting to break the white-man streak in Travis County. But facts are facts, and regardless of why it happened (largely to stick it to longtime U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, a longtime white man), the map offered a solid possibility of electing an African American and two Hispanics to a five-person (up from the current three) Travis County U.S. House delegation.

To jack with Doggett, the GOP drew a Hispanic-heavy San Antonio-Austin district in which state Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, had a solid shot at beating Doggett in the Democratic primary. The map also brought into Travis County a multicounty, northward meandering district now represented by Republican Bill Flores of Waco.

The Travis County map also included a greatly rejiggered multicounty district in which former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, a black Republican, had a solid chance of winning. The other districts in the county (also multicounty districts) most likely would have continued to have been represented by Republicans Michael McCaul of Austin and Lamar Smith of San Antonio, who self-identify as white men.

So Travis County could have wound up with two white guys, two Hispanic guys and a black guy. Sure, only one of them (McCaul) now lives in the county, but hey, ethnic history is ethnic history — even if the black guy (Williams) and one of the Hispanics (Flores) are Republicans (a concept that irks some of the local good and progressive.) (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, of course it is obvious why the Democrats claimed this would affect minority representation – because we all know that Black Republicans aren’t really black, and I assume that extends to Hispanic Republicans, too. Much better to have a paternalist White Guy represent your interests – they do so well with that. Just look at Women’s Issues and how well our Congress has handled that (e.g., equal pay is still a dream).

Honestly, I don’t know how in the world the Democrats could have even made this argument to the Panel with straight faces. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe there were lots of winks, guffaws, and “dontcha knows” thrown in there. Beats me. But apparently, it is a mindset that allows them to say these things, much like this pronouncement from The Hill’s “Signs” article:

[snip] Democrats have felt the swing in momentum.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said the president’s chances for reelection have “improved” with the economy, while Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) says voters will see the president has things moving in the right direction.

“The economy is not where we want it to be, but it’s at least stable and slowly but surely going in the right direction,” Cummings told The Hill. (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah, just keep telling yourselves that. I suppose these folks also still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which they are presumably counting on to help ease our massive debt, which is now 100% of our GDP. Yeah, sure, the economy is doing GREAT! Just peachy! Just tell all of those folks who are first time filers for Unemployment, those who dropped out, and those who have lost their homes. I am so certain they will all agree with Levin and Cummings, aren’t you? Cough, cough. Uh huh. Maybe it is time for them to take off their rose colored glasses, and try looking at reality for a change. Just a thought. What do you think?

And that would be Obamacare. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a major part of the unread-before-passed-bill. You might know it better as the “Death Panels.” From The Daily Caller:

[snip]Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

[...]

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here — and most people missed this,” Roe told TheDC then. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling — and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed — and it’s the real death panel.”

Isn’t that pretty much what we had been saying? But wait, there is more:

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in March. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

According to Diane Cohen, the conservative Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney covering Obamacare, IPAB is the “most notorious” of all the bureaucracies the health care law created because it hands Medicare payment decisions over to an unelected board. (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t this incredible? I guess it should be no surprise given the numerous czars Obama has put in place making major decisions for us. They aren’t elected, either. Hell, they aren’t even vetted by anyone! But that the Democrats, and it was SOLELY the Democrats, voted to make this the law of the land is telling indeed.

Too bad Rep. Frank didn’t make this decision two years, and maybe states wouldn’t be saddled with fighting the Constitutionality of Obamacare. They wouldn’t have to be spending so much time and treasure trying to protect their citizens from the unilateral move of one party against all of the objections of its citizenry. Party Before Country rules the day far too often, as I have said, and this was no exemption. But maybe, just MAYBE, these people will finally start caring more about the country than whatever perks they might get for selling their souls for the benefit of the Party leaders.

And speaking of money, given all of the brouhaha paid to mere whispers of allegations over Herman Cain 24/7, you may be surprised to learn that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton backstabbing opportunist, is under investigation for a regarding allegations of paying off his mistress. Oh, yes, and it was not a small sum of money, either, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson’s close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson’s administration and campaigns.

[...]

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor’s mansion—Mr. Richardson couldn’t run again because of term limits—and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the U.S. Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

New Mexico Republicans benefited in the last election from grand-jury investigations related to the departing Richardson administration, said Brian Sanderoff, president of an independent polling firm in Albuquerque. If an indictment rekindles memories of alleged Democratic corruption, “it sure won’t help” Democrats in 2012, he said.

Uh, yeah – I imagine that won’t be too helpful to the Democrats in New Mexico. And now for that number:

[snip]The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson’s inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson’s political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman’s identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed. (Click here to read the rest.)

The article goes on, and I recommend you read the rest. You may recall, as I mentioned above, that Richardson threw Hillary Clinton under the bus so fast when he thought he was going to get some plumb assignment in Obama’s Circle that the bus didn’t even have a chance to leave skid marks (Commerce Secretary was the post for which he was being considered). So, if you wondered why he never showed up with all of Obama’s Chicago Thugs Cronies, it was a question related to contributions for his presidential run, and the possibility of links to some contracts he made. You know, just like Obama has done with our money to places like Solyndra, and a whole HOST of jobs in his Administration.

Doesn’t that kind of beg the question of if it kept Richardson OUT of Obama’s Administration to have even the question of a possible link between donors and contracts, why is it okay for Obama to have filled his White House with donors, or give our money to companies owned by his donors? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Well, I will sure be interested to see how things shake out now that Barney has joined in to fight against the IPAB. Perhaps this is just the push we need to get this horrible law off the books, and do it RIGHT the next time, with thoughtful consideration, no handouts to Big Pharma, and the support of the majority of the people.

As for Richardson, couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, if you ask me. Sure would be nice if the media bothered to report on this the way they couldn’t WAIT to throw out mere rumors around Herman Cain, but I guess that is just too much to ask these days. Kinda like how they are gleeful over the new Unemployment numbers, until you read further down and find out WHY the numbers are lower. Even The Hill is guilty of that (and Eric Bolling said this morning that the new number is TOO low considering jobs created and files for unemployment, which I thought, too. It should be closer to 8.9%, not 8.6%.). Oh,and in case you missed why, it is because a big bunch of people just dropped out. They gave up. They just gave up trying to find work. THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians stopped playing politics with people’s lives? Yeah, though I am not going to hold my breath for that day. Anyway, consider this an Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

There is a reason why I am mentioning this. I just have to share what one of the owners of the development said while we were chatting. She said she didn’t know where we stood politically, but that for their purposes, they were really glad Obama was president. Why? Because a whole bunch of Americans are buying property down there. People are upset that they may be taxed up to (and above?) half of their income. The developer went on to say that she wasn’t just talking about people who were wealthy, but like a plumber who had worked hard all of his life, and saved his money for his retirement.

I told her that I am okay with being taxed up to 30% (which she thought was exorbitant), but any more than that seemed excessive, especially when there are so many corporate loopholes that need to be plugged, not to mention those who commit tax evasion (like Charlie Rangel and Timmy Geithner, to name two). Since we are regular donors to a number of worthy causes of OUR choice, we want to be able to continue giving to those organizations rather than the government taking half (or more) of our income.

Anyway, I thought that was pretty interesting to hear from her, and telling, too.

Seems those OWSers are still hanging around. Yawn. Glad Philly arrested a bunch of them. How they have gotten so much ink and air time on so vague a message is beyond me, but that’s our media. Go figure.

It’s kinda like the AP story I saw today highlighting the debate flubs of the Republican candidates, “Fact Check: GOP Field Flubs, Big And Small.” I am not suggesting that the media NOT cover these things, of course they should. But if they are going to highlight the GOP flubs, they sure as hell better highlight the DNC flubs, too. Obama easily has as many malapropisms as Bush, though you’d never know it from the MSM. And while this article is focusing on Civics, one could easily focus on Obama’s claim that if Congress won’t act, he will independently of them. Talk about a blatant disregard for the Constitution at best, and ignorance of the three branches at worse. Never mind the Great Lakes in Oregon, or the 57 states, or any number of malapropisms from Obama. Only the GOP flubs are fodder for the media. Whatever.

And one last thing I want to mention, speaking of the media. If you have already heard about this while I was gone, my apologies. But get this – Holder is telling The Daily Caller to stop reporting on the calls for him to resign. I am not kidding. But what is WORSE is that those in the media whose job it is to be watchdogs for this kind of thing are just ignoring Holder’s attempt at censorship. Huh? From The Daily Caller:

[snip] The groups’ silence contrasts with their vigorous defense against Republican critics of the news media, and contrasts with the praise given to the media’s aggressive coverage of decisions by officials in George W. Bush’s presidency.

The media watchdogs’ silence comes as President Barack Obama’s administration faces political peril with public approval having fallen to the level held by President Jimmy Carter. A Holder resignation would likely add to the administration’s immediate problems, and increase the GOP’s 2012 momentum.

Attorney General John Ashcroft “never asked a reporter to stop reporting on a subject, no matter how uncomfortable it may have been,” said Mark Corallo, who served as Ashcroft’s press secretary during his 2001 to 2005 term, when many media articles painted Ashcroft as a proponent of excessive police powers after 9/11.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. … We understood that we would take a lot of heat,” he said. “Freedom of speech and of the press — our wonderful First Amendment — allowed the media to cover things that made us uncomfortable.”

The controversy began on Nov. 29, when TheDC’s reporter asked Holder about congressional calls for his resignation. The question prompted the nation’s top law enforcement official to point his finger at the reporter and demand that “you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

“I don’t recall [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales ever talking with a reporter like that — ever,” said a former department official. In 2007, Gonzales was subject to numerous critical articles following Democratic legislators’ investigations into the administration’s decision to fire several district attorneys, all of whom had earlier been hired for political slots by the same administration. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, which includes specifics about just what the media “watchdogs” did report on after this attempt to silence The DC.)

Uh, yeah, no. And believe you me, I was all over anything negative (IMO) the Bush Administration did, and Gonzales in particular. But I don’t recall Ashcroft or Gonzales trying to silence factual reports of their activities, or calls for resignations, either.

Okay, that’s it for me for now. Too many interruptions with the tree guys here and the fence being delivered, etc., etc. So, it is up to you now. What’s on your minds?

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…

And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?

First there is the massive upset in New York City when a Republican, Bob Turner, took Anthony Weiner’s seat, the first time a Republican has gotten the District 9 seat in almost 90 years. Holy cow. It Every report I have seen claims this is most definitely a referendum on Obama:

[snip] Republicans sought to turn the race into a referendum on President Obama, tying Weprin to the surprisingly unpopular commander-in-chief at every turn. (Obama’s approval rating was at 43 percent in the district, according to a survey conducted by Siena Research Institute).

Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cast the result as a rebuke of Obama’s new jobs plan.

Obama’s position on Israel became, fairly or not, an effective wedge against Weprin. The Democratic candidate tried to distance himself from Obama’s assertion that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders but Turner effectively linked that position, deeply unpopular in the district’s Jewish community, to his Democratic rival.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner and explained that a victory by the Republican would be the best way for Democrats to send a message to the President. [snip]

You might want to check out the rest of that Washington Post article. The author could not have worked herself into more circles trying to claim why this was NOT a referendum on Obama and the Democrats. It is almost comical, if this wasn’t supposed to be a REPORT, and not an opinion piece.

Meanwhile, there was also a special election in Nevada. This one wasn’t anywhere near close (and the Turner v. Weprin was not exactly a squeaker).Republican Mark Amodei beat Democrat Kate Marshall by at least a 20 point spread (hey, it’s Nevada – you have to talk in betting terms, right?). Not even close. Yeah, apparently the Democrats are getting a bit worried about 2012.

In Obama’s usual tone deaf manner, and despite the Solyndra debacle that is costing us over half a billion dollars, he is pushing on with his agenda for “green jobs.” Now, you know I am all for doing work that helps preserve the environment, and would certainly support viable alternatives to foreign oil, like wave power, for instance, or geothermal energy, things of that nature. But Obama just doesn’t seem to get how his agenda fails to hit the mark:

[snip] More recently, approximately 500 Texans lost their jobs Monday because of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the energy industry.

And the president has offered no specific regulatory relief, other than a single ozone regulatory proposal he nullified a few weeks ago.

Former Sen. Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the former ranking member of a “green jobs” Senate subcommittee, told The Daily Caller he has warned the administration and the American people about the perils of agenda-driven green jobs programs before, to no avail.

“This was a very important subject when we raised it in the spring of 2009, and again in the summer of 2010, but people didn’t really catch on,” Bond told TheDC. “Now, I’m watching the regular news media; even CNBC has figured it out.”

While in the Senate, Bond authored a report just after Obama took office predicting much of what has happened with the “green jobs” agenda. Promised technologies have not panned out economically, and few new U.S. jobs have resulted.

“As we talk about stimulus, people might want to dig deeply into the green jobs initiatives, even high speed rail, to make sure we don’t spend money in very wasteful, unproductive ways,” Bond said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Speaking of Solyndra, seems there is more afoot than the Administration wants us to know. Apparently, some pesky little emails are making their way out to the light of day. Yep, seems there was some concern about Solyndra , but someone – as in the White House – pushed for the loan for Solyndra. Check that, they RUSHED the loan through:

[snip] One e-mail from an OMB official referred to “the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra.” Another complained, “There isn’t time to negotiate.”

“We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),” one official wrote. That Aug. 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.” (Click here for the rest.)

See, this is why I think Congress should read bills before passing them, like Obamacare, and Obama’s Newest Stimulus bill. Because rushing things through without due diligence is just a tad problematic, especially for the taxpayers of this country.

Just out of curiosity, just what does it take to impeach a president? I’m just wondering since there seems to be one damn thing after another coming out about Obama and his ways. Oh, dangit – I reckon that is going to get me a mention on Obama’s new Watch list. And the Democrats don’t have a problem with this? Wait, that’s right – Obama did this in 2008, too – rat people out who might disagree with him even when the truth backed them up. Can’t have that, after all, can we? (I am purposely not linking to this because, well, I don’t wanna. Ahem. However, Helenk, did provide the link, bless her heart.) Somehow, that isn’t sounding particularly American, is it?

Good grief. After all of this, I feel the need for a metaphorical shower. I imagine you might, too, so I want to share with you the incredible story, also from Nevada, about a principal in Las Vegas, Sherrie Gahn:

Click here to view the embedded video.

How amazing is Ms. Gahn? Just in case you were wondering, she was on the Ellen Show, and Target not only gave her school $100,000, but provided backpacks filled with books, pens, paper, etc. Go, Target – always did like that store. Anyway, Ms. Gahn is an amazing example of how much just one person can accomplish. I tip my hat to her. (For those who have a hard time accessing videos, here is a link about this incredible woman.)

What other stories are on your mind today?

As many of you know, Keith Olbermann left his 6:00pm slot there for any number of reasons many of us would be willing to suggest were the true reasons. Regardless, he has been gone for a number of months now (though not off the tv – he found another cable channel to take him).

You will never believe who they found to replace him.

But before I make the big reveal, it seemed that Olbemann’s likely successor was Cenk Uygur, of “Young Turk” fame. Indeed, he was on the path. Or so he thought. But then something strange happened, according to Mr. Uygur (h/t to Harp2 for this video):

For those of you who may not have internet service that supports videos, suffice it to say, Mr. Uygur was told that he would not be stepping into Olbermann’s shoes because some in Washington didn’t like his “tone,” according to Mr. Uygur in this NY Times article (which also highlights the NY Times incredible bias):

[snip] Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

MSNBC is home to many hosts who criticize President Obama and other Democrats from a progressive point of view, but at times Mr. Uygur could be especially harsh.

[...]

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”

“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added. [snip]

Of course he didn’t. That’s why Uygur claimed that the head of MSNBC met with him, and told him that they were Washington Insiders.

Just as I am so sure the White House had nothing to do with MSNBC indefinitely suspending the editor of Newsweek, Mark Halperin, for a comment he made on “Morning Joe.” Oh, wait. Yes they did. (Now, I do not think it was appropriate for Halperin to use the language he did about a sitting president, but honestly – the things people said about Bush and Clinton were pretty harsh, but I don’t think either one of those presidents had their toadies call the network and insist the person be let go. We do have an amendment about what people can say, after all, whether they like it or not.)

Okay. So, it is not going to be Cenk, since he has the unmitigated gall to actually question what Obama does once in a while. No sirree, can’t have THAT on MSNBO.

Wanna guess who it’s going to be? Oh, you won’t – this is just so freakin’ glaringly biased for Obama, you would never believe that an alleged news channel would hire this man for such a prime slot. But you would be wrong.

It’s the Reverend Al Sharpton. I swear. It isn’t official as of this writing, but it is “Imminent,” according to the New York Times:

[snip] Mr. Sharpton’s imminent hiring, which was acknowledged by three people at the channel on condition of anonymity because the contract had not been signed, is significant in part because MSNBC and other news channels have been criticized for a paucity of minority hosts in prominent time slots. Mr. Sharpton, who is black and is a well-known civil rights activist and radio host, has been guest hosting in the 6 p.m. time slot for the last three weeks.

There had been uncertainty about the 6 p.m. slot ever since the channel’s marquee anchor, Keith Olbermann, departed in January, prompting Ed Schultz to be moved to 10 p.m. from 6. Suddenly Mr. Uygur, who had been made a paid contributor to MSNBC months earlier, was handed 6 p.m., a big coup given that he had earlier campaigned to have his progressive Web show “The Young Turks” picked up by MSNBC. [snip]

Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton is now going to have one of the plum, prime, slots on MSNBC. He is SO impartial, so even handed, in his outlook and statements. And I trust you know that it total and complete snark on my part. Of course, he is wildly partisan, taking offense where there is none, taking on causes that have little merit, and on and on Io could go. One thing is for certain about the good reverend – he loves to be on the tee-vee, so no doubt, this is a dream come true for him.

As for MSNBO, come on already, make it official. Go ahead and change your logo to this:

Seriously, I think we would all have more respect for you if you were honest about who and what you are. As a bonus, my partner, who created this for me, said you can even have it for free.

Until then, I imagine you will keep pretending to be a “news” source with the likes of Al Sharpton as your prime time host. And I imagine a lot of us will be laughing at you for it…

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

[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…

It made me mad. It is just more of the media’s continued unfounded, politically motivated, assault on Sarah Palin. They have attacked her mercilessly for three years, and now claim, after the constant harassment, that she has “darker tendencies”? Are you kidding me with this circular logic crapola??

And so, I was compelled to write this letter to the editor of the Post and Courier. I have no illusions they will actually publish it:

I read Molly Ball’s article on Gov. Palin. The emails requested back in 2008 from sites such as Mother Jones are proving to be a bit of a disappointment to all those who wanted to get dirt on the former governor. Turns out that she was – gasp – hardworking, warm, engaging, and dedicated to her state. Shocking!

But here’s the thing – to qualify Palin now as exhibiting her “darker tendencies” is disingenuous at best. The only reason these emails are even available was the desire to take down this qualified woman 3 years ago by the media when they filed their FOIA requests. They have hounded her, and her family, on a daily basis, flat out making crap up (like that she, personally, shot wolves from the air, which your newspaper has already dispelled). They have accused her husband of incest, claimed her baby was not her own, used despicable language to attack her, and her family, sent numerous reporters to Wasilla to dig up dirt on her, and AP reporters to “factcheck” her book. And now, Ms. Ball is claiming that Palin is a divisive figure. If she is, it is only because the media has MADE her a divisive figure.

Even more, why has the media never spent anywhere NEAR this much time investigating Barack Obama? He claimed he had no records, not even a datebook, of his time as an IL Senator. How is that even possible?? The media failed miserably in ferreting out why the two front runners for the IL US Senate seat both, mysteriously, had their SEALED divorce records unsealed just a few short months before the election, forcing them both to drop out, allowing Obama, once again, to run basically unopposed as he did when he ran for office the first time (he got everyone else thrown off the ballot – look it up).

Where has the media been in looking at his connections to Khalid Rashidi, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright? They could not be bothered to research the presidential candidate, or his methods for becoming the candidate, much less his associates, any one of whom would have brought down any other candidate. (How many people know about the rampant caucus fraud perpetrated by the Obama camp? There were complaints made to the DNC by a number of people, including Hillary Clinton, but the DNC turned a blind eye. Even worse, they took lawfully cast and certified votes for Hillary Clinton and GAVE them to Obama. That was the day this Yellow Dog Dem became an Independent.)

But to the VP candidate from Alaska the media managed to devote all kinds of resources. Lo, and behold – there is nothing there. Of course, that doesn’t stop Ms. Ball from making gratuitous, unfounded, slights against Palin, thus demonstrating her very clear bias even as she was tasked with acknowledging there was nothing there.

This isn’t journalism, this is tabloid writing. And you put it on the front page.

While I am at it, I would like to highlight something else from these emails that was in my local paper – and listen up all of you who made this salacious claim – SARAH PALIN DID NOT SHOOT WOLVES FROM THE AIR, AND WAS OPPOSED TO IT. Got it? Seriously. Oh, and the emails highlighted how much of a conservationist she really is. I bet that will stick in some folk’s craw…

Good grief.

Clearly, despite there being nothing there to attack Palin over, these rags will continue to make the kinds of gratuitous smears Ms. Ball did. They just cannot stand that this woman is exactly who she said she is and has demonstrated herself to be. I guess in the face of Obama’s failures, this must really get to them, so they have redoubled their efforts to go after her, not him. Pathetic. Be big enough people to admit you were duped, you were snookered, you were fooled, and you were wrong. Give it a shot.

And now, for our musical moment to take a break from this continued media folly, I leave you with this:

Before I go on with the duties of the position, I have to ask: media sites filed FOIAs for Palin’s email back in 2008? Yes, indeed they did. From the very beginning, they set out to dig up anything they could possibly find on the very popular Governor of Alaska. Apparently, because Palin is just a girl, think that the First Dude was the one doing all of the work. Sexist pigs, the lot of them.

Oh, if only they had bothered to do the same with the man sitting in the White House (unless he is out on the golf course), making a wreck of the country but no – it is much more fun to try and destroy someone for no other reason than sheer derangement syndrome, which overcame these sites very quickly, I must say. (Isn’t there some kind of vaccination for that kind of lunacy? Just wondering.)

Okay, back to the NY Times job description:

[snip] We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

What you will see when you click on the link is that the title REALLY is, “Help Us INVESTIGATE the Sarah Palin Email Records.”

Not to be outdone is the Washington Post:

[snip] Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governorSarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday. That’s a lot of e-mail for us to review so we’re looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.

We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection.

If you need inspiration before getting started, take a look at what to expect from the e-mail drop. For micro-updates as tomorrow unfolds, check out our new Twitter feed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here we are, with a shitty economy, people losing jobs, REAL scandals in people like Weiner (a little more on that in a minute), high gas prices, high food prices, illicit war being waged in Libya, Obama inviting the likes of Ali Bongo from Gabon to the WHITE HOUSE (hint: Bongo’s family’s theft of money from the nation of Gabon makes Mubarrak look like Mother Teresa), and two of the biggest papers in the country are still going after PALIN?? They are seriously screwed up.

You might like to take a look at the comments at both papers. A number of people are calling them out on their sexism toward Palin, and their inability to do their own damn jobs. Rightly so, too. What a bunch of jackwagons.

And in a major Screw You to at least two of the Big Ten (that would be Commandments), the people in Weiner’s district don’t give a damn that he is an adulterer, liar, predator, sick, twisted, misogynist. Yep, 56% of those polled think he should stay in his position. Wow. That is amazing. And incredibly disturbing. It isn’t like he is even all that great at his job. He is considered more of a show horse than work horse, so WHY would the people in his district support a man who has demonstrated such horrible judgment, such misogyny, such twisted sexual proclivities, and who is a downright liar? I’d love to know.

Blech. Okay, that’s enough crapola for one day. Time for a metaphorical shower:

TGIF…

No, Anthony Weiner has no one but himself to blame for the mess he is in. His long time friend (and for a brief period, girlfriend), Kirsten Powers, came out with a scathing post about Weiner on Wednesday, June 7th. She has been friends with him for years, and unknowingly carried his water on “Hannity” in defense of Weiner. She is not carrying it any more, as this post highlights:

[snip] Narcissism doesn’t begin to describe this kind of behavior. It seems there was nobody he didn’t lie to. The New York Times reported this morning that he told donors a week ago that the scandal was the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that “everything [would] be fine.” We also learned after his press conference that he coached a former porn star with whom he had communicated online on how to lie to the media.

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women…

[...]

A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and believe me, it is well worth your time.)

Again, Powers’ post is well worth your time – there are some things in there to support her charge of misogyny, and she is right on the money.

Unlike Chris Matthews, whose sexist, boorish behavior have been on display for a number of years. You may recall that even Media Matters took him to task for his sexism toward Hillary Clinton, though his expression of such seems to have only scratched the surface:

[snip] One young conservative female guest who appeared several times on Matthews’ show told TheDC that bizarre comments toward women were part of his off air banter as well.

“During one appearance, during the commercial break, Matthews informed me he loves it when women wear baby doll dresses,” she said. “It’s his favorite thing to see women wear.”

[...]

Liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos have hit Matthews hard for his poorly chosen, even misogynistic words toward liberal women.

Media Matters noted Matthews’ poor math in trying to figure out how many women governors there were in 2008.

“Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don’t exist,” Matthews said of the potential for a future female presidential candidate.

Media Matters subsequently pointed out that in 2008 there were in fact many female governors with populations comparable to the big name former governor presidential candidates, such as Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.[snip]

Holy crappydoo. Seriously?? “Babydoll” clothes? Unaware that there are a number of women governors??

Yeah, this guy is a lunatic:

[snip] His emotional rants have become commonplace on “Hardball,” and made his show must-watch TV for the likes of Mediate, NewsBusters, Real Clear Politics and even The Daily Caller — all waiting with bated breath for Matthews to inevitably say something “insane.”

When asked by TheDC why he watches so religiously, Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics video editor, did not mince words.

“‘Hardball’ is a reminder that I am sane,” said Schwartz. “Chris Matthews is more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden and the ignorance of his sexism and bigotry makes the show entertaining to watch.”

“He’s a freak show” said another media reporter. [snip]

You got that right, for so, so many reasons.

But you know who one of his favorite targets is:

[snip] Sarah Palin is another of Matthews’ punching bags. He has called the former Alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee “profoundly stupid,” “a dolt,” and an “empty head.”

“He’s a known sexist pig. It’s not misogyny based on political party,” Amy Siskind, president of the women’s advocacy group The New Agenda, wrote at TheDC. “No, Matthews has a familiar pattern: he purposefully strikes out at any woman who is rising in power.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest. I have just scratched the surface of this outstanding article.)

Matthews thinks Palin is “profoundly stupid” and a “dolt”? Wow. This is just yet another uninformed opinion put forth by this brain trust.

I will allow Gov. Palin herself to dispel the biased, sexist attack by Chris Matthews in this synopsis of her recent bus tour:

Just WHO is “profoundly stupid,” Mr. Matthews? I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Gov. Palin.

Good grief.

Yes, that is the problem – that Weiner’s “privacy” has been violated, not that he has disgraced his office, his wife, and himself, with very little contrition for what he actually DID. No, his tears were over being CAUGHT, not that he is a freakin’ pervert, engaging in sexting with women around the country, and apparently, made phone calls to some of these women from his House office. There is no doubt that not only did he act unprofessionally, but unethically, compounded by his vast number of lies upon lies.

But as Jennifer Rubin pointed out in her Washington Post piece, “Anthony Weiner, Wronged Man? Not Quite,” some are taking the Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz approach, claiming this is a “private matter.” They are wrong. Rubin specifically mentions Ezra Klein and Richard Cohen:

I’ve been a bit amazed at the post-bizzaro press conference insistence by some on the left that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a wronged man. Ezra Klein via Twitter professes to be puzzled how this can be a big deal. Richard Cohen writes:

We are doing a terrible thing here — we hypocrites of the press, especially of the blogosphere. Every man lives a bit in a fantasy world, maybe women, too, but I know nothing of them. Every man is a boy, either in mind or in deed. Much of this is harmless. There are no bodies. There is no crime. This is the case with Weiner. No damsel was in distress, and no one was rescued.

This is the place for me to condemn Weiner. Consider it done. He’s a liar and a creep, although how one can be the latter without being the former is beyond me. (Still, lying is impermissible.) But I would also like to condemn those who made it their business to destroy him, who deputized themselves to invade someone’s private life, his fantasy life, and hold him up to ridicule.

Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. [snip]

So let me make sure I understand Mr. Cohen’s point – he thinks the press is doing the wrong thing by REPORTING THE NEWS??? I am just shaking my head in disbelief at these men. Oh, no, check that – I am shaking my head in DISGUST at these men, and their willingness to use their professions as “journalists” to try and protect this pervert.

Jennifer Rubin’s response was very good, I thought:

[snip] Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. (As for the comment, “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian in this case is a Jew,” I am dumbfounded and dismayed that Weiner’s religion should enter into the discussion.)

As for the “I just don’t get it” response of some young liberal men out there, I can only imagine that ideology so dominates their lives that they fail to see the harm in a public figure’s not-at-all-private conduct. Or perhaps they too see the Tweets as a harmless pastime. Maybe, for all the “sexual harassment” training we’ve gotten, we’ve forgotten some essential training in ethics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t get it, either, Ms. Rubin, except to say that this mindset is incredibly disturbing. (Ms. Rubin goes on to note that the Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on Rep. Weiner’s behavior and judgment, and I encourage you to either finish reading her piece, or read the WSJ piece here.)

The next piece of news also deals with a Democratic Representative, Earl Blumenauer. Seems Rep. Blumenauer is upset at the effort put forth by the Parks Department for doing anything that might amount to educating Gov. Palin about American history. Yes, he is upset that money is being spent to give the governor an education at our historic sites and monuments, presumably because it is making her smarter than many in the press (I refer you to the ridiculous recent brouhaha over Paul Revere) in which journalists by and large failed to factcheck before jumping on their condescending “gotcha” bandwagon).

Yes, this representative, Earl Blumenenaur, has some “serious concerns” over the money spent thus far on Palin and her bus tour:

[snip] “Many of the press accounts of stops included in this tour, which provided personal and political benefits to former Gov. Palin, suggest that National Park Service resources were made available to an extent beyond that which an average American family would receive,” Blumenauer wrote.

He cited media reports of Palin and her family receiving a private guided tour of Mount Vernon, early admission to the National Archives and a 10-person escort involving park rangers and New York City police officers at the Statue of Liberty.

“For cases in which the Park Service did not have additional personnel on duty as a result of the tour, was manpower diverted from regularly-scheduled services to accommodate the Palin family’s visits and is this a routine practice for visiting celebrities?” Blumenauer added.

National Park Service spokesman Jeffrey Olson said his understanding is that Palin received customary treatment for a visiting celebrity and that the costs of her visits were nominal at best.

“We see celebrities on a regular basis, it’s something that we’re used to,” Olson said. “We give them a tour but we also try to not make it a bug hoo-ha for all the other visitors. So it’s kind of standard fare if there’s a celebrity or two that show up we do a special program for them.”

That usually involves rangers and interpreters that are on the job regardless. “That’s why it’s not an extra cost for us,” Olson said. “We just try to make sure everybody has a good experience at a national park.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Maybe that’s what is getting Rep. Blumenaur’s goat – that Palin is seen as, and treated like, a celebrity. Oh, but the best part? Palin was not the one who requested the Park Police provide an escort while she was at the Statue of Liberty. Rather, it was one of the officers in charge who did that. Oops – so much for this little “gotcha” attempt by Rep. Blumenaur.

One of the commenters at this Politico.com article was kind enough to post a video of another “celebrity” getting a private tour at the Statue of Liberty. I wonder if Rep. Blumenaur was so quick to investigate the money spent on THIS tour:

I am going to guess, no, Rep. Blumenaur did NOT demand an accounting from the Parks Service for Rep. Weiner being able to go where people had not been able to go since 9/11. But, hey – that’s different, right? Yeah, sure, right.

And in an incredible twist of irony, Rep. Weiner called President Clinton to apologize to him for this whole sexting scandal. President Clinton officiated at Weiner and Huma Abedin’s wedding.

Gee, I wonder what the conversations are like between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin?

Blech. This whole thing is making me ill – support for this immoral, unethical piece of work (Weiner), and attempts to take down someone as a result of PDS. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I am just sick of it.

How about you? Feel free to talk about the issues above, or anything else on your mind today.