Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Don't miss these: 10/28/08

Here are some highlights for the day; the emphases are mine:
  • Oops, there he goes again. Looks like Joe Biden got some questions he didn't like again — and once again, banned the station. Sadder aftermath: rather than commending their reporters, the station reportedly chewed them out. Now, these clips don't show enough to form a judgment. But the impression is the same as in the incident with Barbara West. Biden didn't receive the softball treatment he expects from the MSM wing of the Obama campaign.
  • (BTW, on O'Reilly last night, West said she asked similarly tough questions of McCain, who chuckled and simply responded; no reports of campaign outrage and banning afterwards.)
  • Similarly, regarding Obama's 2001 statements favoring wealth-redistribution, the Obama campaign has furiously lashed back, blaming — who? Blaming Obama for his statements and philosophy? Well, of course not. Blaming whoever released the tape? No. No, the would-be leaders of the free world blame... Fox News. See THIS and THIS. Of course, liberals see Fox News as terribly biased, because Fox (unlike the others) occasionally provides perspective on stories. So from that perspective, anything to the right of the far-left edge is right-wing extremism.
  • Say, you know what? That's yet another thing Obama has in common with his old ally, Bill Ayers. Hunh!
  • If I knew an open-minded Obama supporter (which isn't the same as an Obama supporter who says he's open-minded), among the dozen questions I'd like to ask is, "If the campaign reacts this way to inconvenient questions before election, how do you think the Obama administration would deal with dissent and public accountability?"
  • Tangentially, I'm minded of what Dennis Miller has said: "I only think the race issue is out there because Barack Obama brought it up. All I see is an inexperienced guy that constantly reminds me it’s about race. For me it has nothing to do with the color of Barack Obama’s skin and everything to do with the thinness of it."
  • Note William Bennett's distinction (on his radio show today) between what we have and the socialistic engineering that Obama advocates. Obama wants to rob Peter to pay Paul in the name of "fairness" (i.e. spreading misery). The ideal is that Peter takes from Paul to provide services common to both Peter and Paul.
  • Robert Alt, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, teases out some of the alarming, radical implications of Obama's 2001 revelation.
  • Leave it to a girl to say it straight. The problem with recent GOPish turncoats isn't that they're too moderate. It's that they're wimps.
  • Palin-hater? I'll pray for you, but I can't help you. Open-minded? In addition to about a dozen similar links I've already provided, here's more first-hand affirmation of what most of us have already seen: Sarah Palin's a Brainiac, by former Ms. Magazine editor Elaine Lafferty. She observes that Palin has "a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a 'quick study'; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her 'confidence' is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is."
  • Here's another thoughtful piece by a woman who observes that Palin is not given the respect she deserves and has earned. To pull one quotation: McCain "chose a governor of a state critical to our energy crisis. She is a very popular governor with an 80-percent approval rate. She was elected on her own merit without previous political ties. She is her own political creation, not the wife, daughter, sister or mistress of a politician."
  • Ready for a real surprise? Even some of Hollywood is repelled by the Palin-bashing, and repulsed by MSNBC. A sub-surprise? That news was reported by al-Reuters. And one more...
  • Surprise! The LA Times wing of the Obama campaign is reportedly sitting on a tape that might be damaging to their candidate.
  • From the political to the Biblical: archeology is once again sticking a trowel in the heart of liberal, toss-the-Bible-aside reconstructions. This time the findings concern the Solomonic era, as well as Biblical role of the Edomites. (Thanks to Wyatt Roberts for giving me a heads-up on this.)


Mike Westfall said...

Another excellent crop of news-scrapings, sir!
Keep up the good work.

Is it just me, or did the "subscribe' link disappear?

DJP said...

I see it. I don't understand it, but I see it.

Mike Westfall said...

The subscribe link showed up after I submitted the posting.
Never mind.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

she asked similarly tough questions of McCain

Did you actually watch her interview of McCain? It was softballs that I coulda hit outta the park. I loved the one about Joe and the tax plan. He didn't deny that Joe would do better under Barack's plan. McCain said all that matters is whether Joe thinks he would be worse off. So poor Joe will now vote for a guy who WILL make it harder for Joe to buy the business he can't afford anyway.

As an aside, I'm pretty disappointed today. I was supposed to go see Sarah Palin today but the rally was cancelled so she could go to Pennsylvania with McCain. What are they doing up there? My state is a swing state that will decide the election. McCain can't win without Florida. He is down double digits in every poll in Pennsylvania. He should be here. I'm going to hear Barack Obama and Bill Clinton tomorrow near Orlando.

DJP said...

Well, Lieutenant, perhaps you're a very smart person, to be so sure of yourself. Though I didn't watch the interview, I read the article, and I heard the summary, and I disagree with you.

I think this is an equally-confrontive question:
"There are reports now on in-fighting between her staff and your staff and that she's now stepping away from your campaign's talking points this close to the election. Is that indicative that she believes your ticket is not going to win, that she's positioning herself for the future?"

And this:
"The presidency is the top executive job in the land. How can you convince the American public that you are ready to lead when the thing you're in charge in, your campaign, appears to be lacking the same fine tuned coordination as Senator Obama's?"

The difference is McCain didn't harumph, storm off, and ban the station for the effrontery.

Oh, wait - I already said that. But it is kind of sweet how you want to protect Biden from the real world. Kind of.

And of course, Joe would not be better if (as he asked) he bought a business that made more than $250K. Of course Obama's plan punishes achievement. Of course McCain hit him dead on the nose when he asked, "Who would want to raise taxes in this economy?"

But a genuinely open-minded person would already know all that.

I'm sure we're all equally in suspense over what you'll make of Obama.

Chris H said...

I just realised that the sound of dripping sarcasm is very specific, and not at all like a dripping faucet...

...and I like it.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Of course McCain hit him dead on the nose when he asked, "Who would want to raise taxes in this economy?"

The answer is John McCain. He just isn't admitting it upfront. I did some calculations and found out that I will pay less taxes under Obama than under Mccain. But since I'm over 65 and have a pretty good pension I'm not all that worried about my taxes. We need taxes to fund the military, build roads and bridges, and bailout banks and other greedy companies. So I'm more concerned with where my tax dollars go than how much they are. The $80 a month in my pocket under Obama vs. the $65 a month under Mccain won't be the tipping point for my vote.

We'll just have to disargee about those questions. I thought they were simplistic. What they should have asked him is why transfering $700 billion of taxpayer money that he approved isn't socialism. Or why he claims Barack Obama's tax credit plan is socialistic but his own $5000 tax credit for healthcare isn't. Those would be tough questions. The questions you thought were tough McCain answered in one sentence. No truly tough question can be answered that briefly.

Mike Westfall said...

The election is already over. Dewey Beats Truman, here in New Mexico at least.

I guess I don't need to bother voting.

DJP said...

You should vote, Mike.

Tell your Dem neighbors that they don't need to, though.

CR said...

Or at least tell them to make sure to vote on election day, "Nov 5."

candy said...

Sorry to be nit-picky but the teacher grammar police is coming out in me.

Lt. Pratt said: pay less taxes under Obama than under Mccain.

Fewer taxes. Fewer taxes! Fewer is used with measurable units, not less.

Sorry. You can all resume now.

Kate said...

The liberal leaning alternative newspaper ended by imploring its readers to get out and vote, “even if we did spoil the ending for you.”

Now that's funny.

As far as the grammar police... oh man, if I were to correct every grammar & spelling error I saw on the internet I would NEVER get any sleep. Candy, I feel your pain.

CR said...

Candy: Fewer taxes. Fewer taxes! Fewer is used with measurable units, not less.

That depends Candy. The term "taxes" can mean more than just "amount" of taxes, it can also mean, types of taxes (death tax) so in that case it would be grammatically correct to use "less" taxes. But it looks like Justin meant to use it in amounts.

CR said...

Lt. Pratt: . He is down double digits in every poll in Pennsylvania. He should be here. I'm going to hear Barack Obama and Bill Clinton tomorrow near Orlando.

So, why do you think that Obama spent time there today in PA in a couple of rally stops and why do you think Bill Clinton will be going to a few rallies there tomorrow, and why do you think that Biden is going on Thursday?

Becky Schell said...

If Obama and Biden can't handle a few tough questions from the press, how are they going handle it if they win and something really tough happens, like, another 9/11...or a really big storm...or a war? Will they just tell the terrorists that they aren't accepting any more bombs for the rest of the term, refuse to grant an interview to the storm, and gather up all of their troops and go home? Oh, wait, that last one has already been established.