Just when I thought it was safe to assume Keith Olbermann was completely nuts, he tops himself. This is what the pride of the left wing had to say about John McCain’s recent ad featuring two hot young celebs:
KEITH OLBERMANN: What about when it backfires? Because it seems like the celebrity ad continues to echo. And Bob Herbert of the New York Times was on this network pointing out something I don’t know that anybody noticed before this morning. That not only in that McCain ad where there two underdressed blondes mixed with the black guy in the ad, but there were also images of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Washington Monument, and the Victory Column in Berlin — as Bob Herbert put it, “phallic symbols.” Three phallic symbols, two blondes and Barack Obama. So this is not just a sexist ad anymore. This is what they used to called “miscegenation,” isn’t it? This is what they used against Harold Ford.
JONATHAN ALTER, NEWSWEEK: Well, to suggest that somehow, you know, Obama’s going to-
OLBERMANN: He’s going to wind up dating those women-
ALTER: Yeah.
OLBERMANN: That’s the idea.
ALTER: That’s the oldest and deepest racist, you know, canard in American history, really, is that, you know, the slave is going to come after the wife of the plantation owner. I can’t, sort of, dissect and decode these ads that way. I just, somehow maybe my media literacy is lacking. I didn’t read that out of those ads, but I can see how some people would. And the larger issue, I think, is clear, which is they’re trying to portray him as being uppity. Now, is that racist? I’m not sure, you know.
Wow.
Simply, WOW.
That folks, is beyond nuts. That’s certifiable. There is a word for people who go around seeing a penis in every pointed object. The word is not racist, it’s delusionary. Ithyphallophobia to be more exact. Then, to take Paris Hilton and the Washington Monument and turn it into a black man with a large penis doing plantation owners’ wives that look like Paris Hilton is just amazing. ( Clue here, most plantation owners’ wives never looked like Paris Hilton. )
Now, this is where it gets political instead of space ( as in psychology ). This ad did not really do much for me. I never had any interest in watching it. Now, to say the least, I do. I want to try to follow the imagery that would morph my focus of a boring aging white guy into a black man with a large penis doing plantation owners’ wives that look like Paris Hilton. I really do. So, this ad I’m sure will get a LOT more airplay than it originally did thanks to Keith Olbermann’s fixation with penises.
Barack Obama’s having a rough week.
First, he did the very odd thing of stating very publicly he liked President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative so much he wanted to expand it. That drew the ire of the Reverend Jesse Jackson:
Now, I don’t think the reverend was terribly upset that Obama wanted to expand the opportunities for religious social programs to do good, I think it was because he did the unthinkable and supported a wildly conservative President’s idea. Luckily for Obama, people have focused more on his nuts and not on the fact that it was spoken by a wildly liberal, race baiting African American. This is the core of Obama’s support ( wildly liberal, not necessarily African American ).
Then to further antagonize the wildliy liberal Russ Feingold offered this piece of advice for Obama:
To which Obama’s immediate reaction to Feingold was:
| Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea |
Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea |
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay |
Now, even the ACLU condemned this piece of legislation. So, we’ve got Rev. Jesse Jackson, ACLU, And Russ Feingold condemning Obama in about a week. That’s pretty tough for any candidate. Now, all of them have said they’re still hot for Obama. But, it seems a little more shallow now than it did last week to me. Even the wildly liberal DailyKos couldn’t find it in their soul to look for an upside to this. He did however, remarkably find a way to blame it on Republicans and media. ( Clue here Kos guys, Obama did the deed because he’s scared to death about an issue. How often will he capitulate on other conservative issues like, oh, let’s say, Faith Based Initiatives? )
Bottom line, this has been a rather disastrous week for Obama. Is he dead in the water? No way. He’s fresh, he’s enthusiastic, and he’s got Hollywood and main stream media completely in his pocket. However, the more he panders to the issues he’s staked his career by opposing to this point, the less enthusiastic his core will become. And, if he thinks by pandering to the conservatives will make them forget his previous history, he’ll learn a very powerful message in politics: Convservative voters never forget. Liberal voters generally tend to be a lot more flexible. However, it was Bush’s pandering to the “center” early in his presidency that cost him his unfettered support of his core. And, for the next eight years, he’s had only tepid support since. It was only the incredibly inept candidacy of John Kerry that kept him in office. The problem for Obama in my opinion, is John McCain is no John Kerry.
An article today pointed to the fact that not all National Rifle Association members are against Obama. Heck, Obama even has the support of the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Hey, since it has the words “hunter” and “shooter” in its title, it’s got to be about guys who like to shoot things with guns, and therefore a competitor to NRA. Right?
Not so fast.
This is not the Hunter’s Shooter Association. That’s where the buck drops. For that matter, it’s not about shooting guns at all. It’s about protecting the places where a person might hunt. And, it’s about hunting without guns, since they are very vocal anti-gun activists, while stating very publicly otherwise. The damning evidence to me personally is this statement:
Today, Justice Scalia confirms what AHSA has long advocated: Americans enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that right is not unlimited. As Justice Scalia wrote:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…
They crop off the rest. The rest is more important legally than the part they quote. It defines the limitations. And, those limitations are very distinct and clear. It does not limit a person’s ability to OBTAIN a firearm, it defines what conditions a person might LOSE that firearm. It also defines what might be considered “unusual weapons”. This folks, is about as deceptive as you can get while quoting the Supreme Court.
They then go on to support the FBI’s ability to screen gun applicants. Now, that sounds fine and good, but, that puts control over who does, and does not have, the right to bear a firearm directly in the hands of the federal government. Which is EXACTLY what Heller vs DC decided, of which they quoted Judge Scalia. The right to bear arms is unlimited, the right to KEEP arms is limited. So, which is it AHSA?
Basically, this bunch strikes me as being a front for a bunch of elitist gun control activists. They have their guns, but want the ability to make sure some people can’t have theirs. And, they think it’s just as important that hunters be kept OFF as much hunting terrain in the US as possible. And, of course, felons, mentally handicapped, and other undesirables just can’t have any guns at all.
That folks, just ain’t how it works. Either the Second Amendment guarantees the right to milita or not. It doesn’t fudge that issue. It is damned impossible to form a militia if the average citizen does not have a firearm. Granted there can be limitations to what a “firearm” is. But, in the day the authors wrote the Constitution, it would have either been a rifle or pistol. Those two in my opinion are off the table for debate. Now, in my perfect world even a felon could have the gun of their choice. Since they were in prison, it wouldn’t do them much good. Mentally handicapped people having guns has never been an issue. It just made political sense since most of them can’t vote the bastards out. So, what is the point of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which is not the Hunters and Shooters Association, and does not advocate the rights of shooters?
My guess?
“Our party will never be the choice of the NRA and I’m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA,” “Courage means standing up for gun safety, not retreating from the issue out of political fear.” – John Kerry, September 2, 2003
The Democrats were tired of being beaten to death by the NRA. So, wanna guess who this mysterious American Hunters and Shooters Association is endorsng?
Of course, in the article, Schoenke refuses to name how many members he has or how many states he plans to target. But, he will raise a million bucks to support the candidate with a proven history of supporting gun control laws against the candidate with a history of opposing gun control. The logic he uses to base this support for Obama? The fact that McCain supported background checks on gun-show sales. Which, is exactly what they want and what upsets NRA. That folks, merits a multi-million dollar all-out blitz for the candidate who has supported NUMEROUS total gun bans and lives in a community, happily, that bans personal handguns in the home.
This couldn’t get any weirder if I tried to make it up.
Bottom line, this is the bizarro-NRA that CNN and others is using as evidence that the pro-gun crowd is split between Obama and McCain:
And as long as people just look and say “Hey, gun owners love Obama too!”, the media will once again tell you how to think if you don’t fact-check what they are saying. And if you refuse to do so, don’t come whining to me about big brother.
At this point in time, McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush. That doesn’t surprise me too much. However, we have Obama running with Bush’s Faith Based Initiative while touting McCain as “four more years of Bush“.
What makes that situation even more fun is if you Google “Obama four more years of Bush”, you get “Obama FOR more years of Bush”. Even the internets can’t keep it straight apparently.
23
Jun
I LOVE this!
As he points out, the current tax incentives and such are a confused mesh that don’t make much sense. In the case of the car buyer, they are somewhat useless since it’s rather difficult to buy a decent hybrid, especially one that’s practical in rural areas. McCain is proposing solving the problem in the most Republican concept I’ve heard in years. Make it purely capitalist driven. Dangling a $300 million carrot will get people’s attention real quick. Not only that, but if they win that $300 million, they should have the capital it takes to ramp up production immediately. 100% private sector, 100% smaller government, 100% perfect. And, where is that $300 million going to come from you say? Well, if it works, it’ll come from what we’re sending to OPEC in a couple of days. And, given that US automakers are already seeing the writing on the wall, seems to me they’re poised to go after that $300 million right now.
This rocks every way I look at it.
Saudi Arabia has announced it’s increasing production by 200,000 barrels a day. There are some thoughts I have about the article.
- “Saudi Arabia is concerned that sustained high oil prices will eventually slacken the world’s appetite for oil, affecting the kingdom in the long run.” I wonder what gave them that idea? Could it have been the announcement of the 230 mpg car? Or, maybe Volkswagon’s hydrogen car? OR GM’s announcement it was ceasing production of most of its SUV’s? Or, possibly the Swiftfuel biomass ethanol that would completely eliminate the need for gas? Or, possibly the legislation being proposed by the Republicans to mandate usage of other fuels, open ANWR, and other drilling to develope very rapidly our own supply? Basically the Saudis got the message I”ve always said we needed to be sending. If send a signal we don’t need their product any more, the price will magically come down. Now, my concern has been our history of reactions to cheaper gas. Will we forget this current crisis again? Hopefully it’s seared in our memories and we’ll keep up the frantic pace of developing alternative means of transportation. Regardless of the price, I don’t like our dependence on a product from people who don’t really like us very much. There’s already an overwhelming lack of concern over what happened in 2001. My fear is if gas returns to $2.00 a gallon, the entire event will have been forgotten. And, along with that, forgotten will be who they were, and why they did it. I don’t think some of them hate us any less. If we as a nation can’t remember who wants to kill us, then shutting off their financial ability to do so is the next best thing we can do.
- “The king believes that the current are abnormally high, and he is ready to restore prices to their appropriate levels,” SPA quoted Ban as telling reporters in Jiddah. The report carried by SPA was in Arabic, and it did not say what language Ban spoke in. - Can someone clue me in to what difference it makes what language Ban spoke in? It never ceases to amaze me how media can toss in something completely irrelevent to the facts of the story that gives idiots an out to make an issue over something that has no bearing on the world’s events. Just report the facts Fox, we’ll interpret what they mean. If you don’t know what languare someone spoke in, it’s not news.
- The current president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Chakib Khelil, has said that the cartel will make no new decision on production levels until its Sept. 9 meeting in Vienna. OPEC ministers often follow the lead of the Saudis when discussing whether to increase production to take the pressure off rising prices. - The Saudis are just one of many members of OPEC. If those other members see OPEC making more money than they are, they follow suit. I expect the other members to increase production as well. That’s a good thing. However, I find it kind of curious in the timing. The Sauds have expressed an interest in seeing Obama be the next POTUS. The worst thing that could possibly happen to Obama is the price of oil to bottom out right before the election. If OPEC ramps up production before and around September, by November we’ll be seeing it at the pumps. If that happens, the anti-Bush/McCain economic angle Obama has is shot as the rest of the economy has held up surprisingly well given the 200% rise in fuel.
Yeah, I find this announcement interesting in a lot of ways. I don’t like paying $4.00 a gallon. I don’t like being dependent on OPEC. I am finally seeing a serious push towards alternative energies. And, just like the previous two gas crisis, the price of oil is suddenly being addressed by OPEC. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see it bottom out well under $100. The big question is will we forget what we’re going through right now if it does?
A lot is being made of the momentum the Democrats are on. They’ve picked up quite a few seats in Congress over the last couple of years. They are starting to get their agenda, to some degree, passed. And, Nancy Pelosi has pretty much taken over as the queen of all things Congress. However, this is the result:
As wretched as things were for the Republicans leading to the Democrat revolution of 2006, things have only gotten much, much worse since. At this point, Nancy’s charges are enjoying an 18% approval rating.
18%?
One in eight people approve of the job of the Democrat leadership.
Now, to me, where bad gets worse is since 2005, more people are decided in their opinion.
Which leads me to wonder how this is going to affect November. Both Obama and McCain ( yeah, I’m writing off Hillary ) are members of the Senate. If Hillary does strong-arm Obama into taking her as her running mate, that’s another member of the Senate. My guess is McCain’s partner will not be a Senator. Just a gut feeling with no evidence to support it. As such, the ONLY non-Congress person running would be McCain’s partner. Given both lead candidates will be running on their records contributing to only one in eight people approving of the over-all job, that leaves the only true face of “change” being possibly McCain’s mate. And, given these torrid numbers, apparently getting worse as the price of gas goes up, I see a profoundly negative campaign unfolding over the summer. Neither candidate will be able to point to anything that’s happened as much of a success, since everyone pretty much disapproves of the job that’s been done. Especially for Obama, who’s only been in the Senate during this period of approval free-fall. McCain can point to past days of glory at least. But, I’ve never been one to believe that a candidate’s history impresses people beyond about one year. So, this ain’t lookin pretty to me any way you cut it.
I really think this election is not going to go the way the media wants it to.
13
May
I received this email from a politician I know well and respect. So, I take it as being sincere:
There are less than eight months until the election, an election that will decide the next President of the United States. The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans. To show our solidarity as Americans, let’s all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice.
It’s time that we all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike.
If you support the policies and character of John McCain, please drive with your headlights ON during the day. If you support Obama or Hillary, please drive with your headlights OFF at night.
Not sure about you all, but I feel it is my patriotic obligation to do this. Urge all your friends who love their country to do this too!
I think about everyone who’s watched the Clintons for the last sixteen years or so have seen this coming a mile away and a long time comin.
The message here is obvious: Your children are at risk unless you vote for the experienced candidate. You do love your children don’t you? Well, then ya gotta vote for the most experienced candidate who’s been around long enough to see this ( whatever it is ) coming and done nothing to stop it. So, being the pragmatic type, I took a look-see to see who Hillary is suggesting:
- John McCain is 71 years old. He served in the military from approximately 1958 until 1981. Hillary Clinton is 60 years old. She never served in the military. Barack Obama is 46 years old. He never served in the military. Advantage military would have to go McCain.
- John McCain’s career was military, retiring in 1981 from the Navy. Clinton’s career is legal. Obama’s career is legal. Both Clinton and Obama spent a good part of those legal careers “defending” civil rights. To a lot of people, including myself, protecting the “civil rights” of the unknown masses is what opened the door for illegal immigrants to come into the country and assimilate very easily while planning the attacks which led to 9/11. It is these same “civil rights” lawyers at this time trying to gut what little is left of the Patriot Act. The US Navy, on the other hand, is trained to protect those masses from attack. Their strategy is different in that they are trained to kill, mame, destroy, or annihilate whatever the threat may be with the use of large guns, missiles, torpedoes, jets, bombs, or whatever tool they may have. When dealing with terrorists and rogue nations, I give the Navy more credit in keeping us safe than I do the ACLU. Clear advantage goes to McCain.
- John McCain whetted his political appetite in 1981 for sure. Obama got into it in 1997. Hillary wins this one by being actively involved since 1969.
So, the message is clear. If you want a person who’s got the most experience protecting the country at various levels, you HAVE to vote for McCain or your children will die.
That is such a very strange message for Hillary to be giving at this time.
What makes it even stranger is that for about a year now, Clinton and Obama have duked it out over who would bring the most change to the office. Now, apparently, that change only matters when it’s winning, which then is trumped by experience when it’s not, but only so long as she has more asserted experience than the person at hand, which I assume would be dismissed if she has to face a person with more experience, which then would make “change” more important? Sheez, those Clintons wear my soul out. Let’s just listen to a good tune and see how this ad pans out:
28
Feb
A lot is suddenly being made over a New York Times article that questions whether John McCain qualifies for President. It seems he was born in Panama. Some people are taking the Times to task since they endorsed McCain a long time ago and “suddenly” realized a critical piece of his biography. Now, to the very conspiracy minded, you could easily think they were setting up the Republican Party to lose. Push someone you know has to be disqualified on a technicality to knock the others out first.
However, some people are quite put out with the new York Times for not doing any research apparently. However, if they had done some, they would have realized a technicality that nullifies the entire issue. Best I can tell, John McCain was born on a military base in Panama. Panama was a United States sovereign territory from 1903 to 1979. A little better definition of Panama’s status at that time from Wiki:
Territories of the United States are one type of political division of the United States, administered by the U.S. government but not any part of a U.S. state. These territories were created to govern newly acquired land while the borders of the United States were still evolving.
What the Times is citing is:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
John McCain was born a natural born citizen. He just wasn’t born in anything that is now a state.
Case closed.
You’d think the New York Times could have figured that out.
