Now that the Obama presidency is nearing the 60-day mark, it’s time to thank those fastidious scribes on the left and the right who worked so hard to warn us against Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, and the dire things that would surely occur if she ever got close to executive power.
How right they were to insist that she was unfit for high office. Let’s just imagine what she might have done:
As president, she might have caused the stock market to plunge over 2,000 points in the six weeks after she assumed office, left important posts in the Treasury unfilled for two months, been described by insiders as ‘overwhelmed’ by the office, and then gone on to diss the British Prime Minister on his first state visit, giving him, as one head of state to another, a set of DVDs plucked from the aisles of Wal Mart, a tasteful gift, even if they can’t be played on a TV in Britain. (Note, the Prime Minister, who is losing his eyesight, may even be blind in one eye).
As vice president, she might have told Katie Couric that when the stock market crashed in 1929, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on TV to reassure a terrified nation. Or on her first trip abroad as Secretary of State, she might have, as the AP reported, “raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe...when she mispronounced her “EU counterparts names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe’s,” then gave the Russian minister a gag “reset” button, on which the word “reset” was translated incorrectly.
What a good thing that Palin, whom Christopher Buckley called “an embarrassment, and a dangerous one,” wasn’t in office to cause such debacles, and that we have Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton instead.
The same way we were united in 2000 and 2004, and the same way California is united right now over Prop 8. But don't let reality intrude on a good story:
It's all kind of confusing: 46 percent of the country voted against Obama. You would think that people in business might want to avoid potentially antagonizing such a big chunk of consumers.
A free and healthy democracy cannot function when it has no way to determine reality. We have our corrupt, degenerate, dangerous mass media to thank for this situation. The solution is simple: Destroy them. Don’t read them, buy them, or support them in any way. As somebody else said, “Let them die. I’ll dance on their graves.”
Whatever replaces our current media cannot possibly be any worse, and most likely will be better. More transparent, at least.
I've felt a lot better since I've just been ignoring them altogether and filtering my news through trusted sources.
Barack Obama has been on the national stage a shorter period of time than John Edwards, who managed to win only one Senate race and no national contests. Obama at least won his party’s nomination for President, but has two fewer years than Edwards in office at the national level. What exactly is the “Age of Obama” if Obama loses in November? And how would that impact Ifill’s sales?
I say it again: to hell with the media. I'll let Jeff Goldstein explain:
Freedom of the press only works when the press is truly representative of divergent opinions. But like many disciplines in the academy, the mainstream press has become nothing more than another “progressive” advocacy group — desirous of teaching the rubes whatever “lessons” are deemed necessary to get voters to think “correctly.” From there, it is but a small step toward convincing oneself that, as a “reporter,” the methods by which you achieve that end are subordinate to the end itself — and so certain literary license or a particular “framing” is perfectly acceptable, given that what is important is how people interpret. Give them what they need to make the “right” reading and you’ve done the nation a service.
Our press, conceived of in such a way and protected by the First Amendment and a mythology of its commitment to “objectivity,” is nowadays an embarrassment, frankly. And while the Palin feeding frenzy (based entirely on lies and sensationalism), when juxtaposed against the desire on the part of the press to bury unflattering stories about, say, John Edwards or Barack Obama (no matter how true they happen to be, or in Obama’s case, by refusing to do anything but the most cursory of “investigations” — be it into the Rezko connection, the Ayers / CAC connection and administration, etc.) clearly points to an almost in-your-face bias on the party of the mainstream press, unfortunately, the only people who know so are those that follow the news closely and skeptically.
if you think expanding a program by $3.9 million instead of $5 million counts as cutting funds, you’re qualified to work for one of America’s most esteemed newspapers.
Assholes. They'd be worthy of respect if they were only open about their ideology. As it stands, the media is worthy only of contempt.
According to a commenter (and why should I check?), Kos is claiming the smear didn't originate with him, but with "Alaska Republicans on the radio."
Ah. Yes, that's why we spent the weekend talking about it. Because we were all glued to our radios listening to Alaskan talk radio. We all got this from Rush's cousin, Slush Limbaugh, and his radio show, Slush Limbaugh's Right-Wing Agent Provocateur Gothic Fake Pregnancy Krazy Konspiracy Kavalcade & Professional Toboggan Fantasy League Report.
Hardly any comment is necessary on the bold portion of this article:
Jerome Corsi's anti-Obama book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president. The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama—that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface.
In fact, Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
It appears that our reporter has never heard of Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Black Liberation Theology, neither of which are either moderate, or arguably even Christian.
I forget who it was who noted this, but it's a brilliant point. During WWII, Japan's government and media always claimed Japan was winning every single battle. But careful listeners could divine the way the War in the Pacific was really going by noting the locations of each of these "victories" -- each of these "victories" seemed to be occurring closer and closer to the Japanese mainland.
In a near-exact reversal of that situation, the American media laments each and every American "defeat"... but careful readers will note that the "Zone of Quagmire" seems to be radiating farther and farther out from US power centers and closer and closer to the heart of Al Qaeda/insurgent/Sadrist control.
We began by losing in Fallujah so badly our troops now say there are weeks that go by without hearing a gun shot. It's quiet there -- too quiet.
We then lost Baghdad catastrophically. You can tell we lost because there are so few reports of mortar attacks hitting the Green Zone. The enemy won there by moving further and further out from the city. You know -- surrounding us.
We then lost in Basra so dreadfully it apparently simply vanished from the map entirely, perhaps sucked into another dimension through an interplanar vortex.
Next up we lost in Sadr's last bastion of power -- the slum he's named for -- which you can see by fact that the Iraqi Army is now patrolling the streets and conducts house-to-house searches for weapons. But we lost, because two concessions were made to the Sadrists -- "light weapons" (pistols, rifles) could be kept, one per person, and no US troops would accompany the IA. That last point really stung us, because you know our boys are heartbroken that the IA gets the glamor duty of patrolling this slum. Glory denied.
And now we're losing in Mosul, of course.
If we lose in Iraq, it's going to be because the left decided that they wanted to.
The most rewarding thing about a day like today, when some liberal’s in trouble and anxious to save his own ass, is watching the worst, most predictable, most embarrassing hacks on the other side go face-first into the tank, exactly as you’d expect they would. Sullivan? Check. Matthews? Check. The New York Times College of Cardinals? Checkity check check.
The problem with many liberals is that while they say they espouse tolerance, love for your fellow man, and discussing problems instead of resorting to fisticuffs, when they’re actually expected to “walk the walk,” things get ugly. To them, just listening to conservative ideas is akin to Dracula finding out about a nationwide tainted blood supply. It’s painful when liberals realize that not everyone thinks the way that they do: that there are unenlightened souls out there who don’t recycle, who go to church once in a while, who respect our military, and who don’t think that the sun shines out of Barack Obama’s nether regions. So, being the enlightened, progressive types that they are, instead of listening respectfully to what the other side has to say — and possibly learning something new — they stick their fingers in their ears, chant “I can’t hear you,” and complain to the person in charge about how awful the experience was.
It’s sort of like the people who believe that vandalizing and bombing military recruiting stations is a great way to get their message of peace out to the masses.
In a move that is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning, Rolling Stone magazine has joined the media choir to sing the glorious praises of the holy one, Obama! And as a delightful bonus, they've created this creepy, semi-fascist looking image of the Chosen One emitting what appears to be force-lightning from between his shoulder blades.
Basking in the warm afterglow of what must have been an especially satisfying session of endorsement writing, the genius copywriters at our premier journal of crap had this to say about our new political messiah:
Illinois senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama graces the cover of the new issue of Rolling Stone, which hits newsstands today. Having galvanized an exciting new movement and shattered the conventions of typical beltway politics, Obama has sparked a social revolution the likes of which haven’t been seen since the 1960s.
Really? You mean that chanting "hope" and "change" while channeling Walter Mondale's politics is all it takes to start a revolution? Damn. Too bad Walter Mondale didn't catch on to that.
To the staff of Rolling Stone, each and every one of you record and movie industry pimps and pushers, I say: Welcome to the cult of the Obamentarians.
I think that's Jann Wenner on the podium.
Who does Rolling Stone think Obama is? Via Ace, a commentary from The Onion:
Based on their latest cover, here's a short list of who Rolling Stone thinks Barack Obama is:
Jesus
Superman
The totally awesome, glowing, superhero/savior spawn of Jesus and Superman
The radioactive president of America's dreams
A dewy Venus, majestically stepping forth from a serene ocean mist, but, like also a guy who's running for president.
The late-90s sitcom character, Teen Angel.
Not just the president of the ShinySuit 3000 Club For Men, but also a client.
