One Man’s Smear Campaign…
Sep 1, 2008 Political
…Is Another Man’s Modern Political Warfare
The left is in disarray after John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. The Obama campaign was ready to attack all the other people mentioned as potential mates but missed out on Palin because, like the other women in politics, the left dismissed her as unimportant.
This does not mean the smear campaign did not go out in full swing. The immediate response from the Obama campaign was a dismissal of her qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. The candidates were a bit more professional later in the day but their surrogates on the left were ready to take up arms. The Democratic Underground is circulating a rumor that Palin’s fifth child, Trig, is not hers but her daughter’s and that the father of the child is the girl’s father. The story is unbelievable and unsubstantiated but that did not stop the left from admitting that it was false but that the rumors were a necessary part of modern political campaigns. This is from a post that has since been removed (quote thanks to Atlas Shrugs):
NoodleyAppendage (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-30-08 10:26
122. What many here don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH.
The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet:
Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
If people start to think that there might be something fishy with Palin’s last kid (if hers), then that’s FINE. One more doubt (whether tied to reality or not) is another hesitation at the ballot box.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE. The “rising above it” bullshit has served us so well in the past, hasn’t it?
If you have problems with the story, then STFU and get out of the way of Dems who are engaged in MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE. Go tend your garden or some other pedestrian task, because the “concern trolls” are not helping shape the message. [bold emphasis mine]
It is important to repeat anything and raise FALSE concern. In other words, keep telling lies over and over until people believe them. To them it is important to shape the message even if the message is false. These are the same people who foam at the mouth every time someone mentions Obama and Muslim in the same sentence. When people called Obama a Muslim or showed him in Muslim garb (some of which were sent by the Clinton campaign) the same people did not call this modern political warfare. Instead, they called it a smear campaign.
Obama’s reaction to the truthful ad (at the bottom of my sidebar) was to try to use the legal system to shut down free speech. He certainly did not call it modern political warfare. The discussions about Wright, Rezko and Ayers were never viewed as anything more than distractions and dirty politics manufactured by the Republicans (and Hillary’s people in the primary). I never recall these same political warriors calling it modern political warfare.
The American people are well within their right to properly explore Sarah Palin to ensure she is worthy of the office of Vice President just as they have a right to ensure Obama is worthy of the Presidency. However, they deserve to have accurate and truthful information on which to base their opinions about the candidates.
The immediate attacks on Palin clearly demonstrate that the left is worried about her as part of the ticket. They have tried to find anything of substance that they can use to attack her and have come up empty handed so they are resorting to fabricating stories in order to further their agenda and ensure a win in November.
These people will do anything to win. They laugh at the misery of those along the Gulf Coast (particularly New Orleans) because they think the disaster will help them. These are truly pathetic people who should never be allowed in office.
Well moonbats, take your best shot because Sarahcuda is a force to be reckoned with and those who have underestimated her in the past were left scratching their heads trying to figure out how they lost.
Why is it that strong women threaten the Democrats?
Tags: attacks, democratic underground, distortions, lies, sarah palin
Obama’s Acceptance Speech; My Thoughts
Aug 29, 2008 Political
Let me start off by saying I think Barack Obama gave a great speech tonight. I don’t mean that he told the truth or answered the nagging questions voters still have. What I mean is he had great delivery and he knows how to effectively communicate. I get the impression that, much like Bill Clinton, Obama could sound great reading the phone book.
His speech content though, lacked a few items. He tried to address what his change was by giving us a laundry list of things he would do. He will end oil dependence in 10 years. If he gets elected twice he will only be in office for 8 so how will he do this. The list was nothing more than the basic Democratic talking points that we hear at every convention. He told us what he would do but failed to say how, considering that we have been told this before, he would do it. I would not expect details in an acceptance speech but if he says that he will tell me how he will effect change I expect the how, not the what.
I noticed that he addressed the attacks from John McCain. He did a good job of striking back but by doing so he presented himself as a typical politician and not an agent of change. He explained that Republicans used fear to sway voters and then told us all the horrors we face and how we would get more of them if we elected McCain. Sounded like fear mongering.
He tried to smooth over the debacle of his abortion answers by saying that we can disagree on abortion but all agree that we should reduce unwanted pregnancies. Obama is not qualified to discuss abortion or to disagree with anything. He made it clear that the determination of when life begins is above his pay grade. If he cannot determine when life begins he cannot argue abortion. How will he know when you can and when you cannot if he does not know when life begins. At least abortion supporters will say life begins at birth. They have a foundation upon which to base their position. Obama lacks that because it is above his pay grade.
Obama also said we could disagree on guns but that we could uphold the Second Amendment by allowing guns in rural areas while keeping AK 47s off the violent streets of Chicago. First of all, it is illegal to own an AK 47 without a special license because it is an automatic weapon. Criminals who are killing with AK 47s are breaking the law and the Second Amendment is a moot point. They are not allowed to possess that weapon (or any weapon because they are criminals). The second thing I want to know is why Chicago has so much gun violence. The city has one of the toughest gun laws in the country so, if gun control works, there should be little to no gun violence. How about we uphold the Second Amendment for law abiding citizens, the ones who do not use guns to murder?
Obama also said that the average annual income in the US has gone down over $2000 under Bush’s administration. The fact is it did go down after 9/11 but it has been up and this year it was a little over $700 above the 2000 level. This is not great but it is not a $2000 loss.
The speech was well delivered but it lacked a lot of truth (like Obama was raised by his mother or that he came from a meager background. Granny was able to put him in private school). It lacked substance and was designed to allow him to hit back at McCain and try to revive his image as an agent of change.
At one point he said that politicians had been promising something (I think oil independence) for 30 years, and by the way McCain was there for 26 of them. He did fail to mention that Joe Biden was there for all 30 and then some. I imagine that might have taken away from the attack and negated the entire agent of change thing he had going on.
John McCain, Obama said, wants to privatize Social Security. He wants to gamble with your money. Obama plans to raise SS taxes (though he failed to mention that he would raise taxes, he just said he would fix it) in order to rescue it. My question is, if government is not a gamble why does SS need to be rescued.
I will say this. John McCain has his work cut out for him next week. There are a lot of people in this country who pick style over substance and one thing is for sure; McCain is no match for Obama on style. McCain lacks the communication skills that Obama exhibits so effortlessly. McCain had better have writers working overtime to produce something dynamic or he might add more to the expected Obama bounce. The one thing McCain has going is that debates are not scripted and there are no teleprompters. Speaking f debates, Barry said that if McCain wanted to debate who had the temperament to be Commander in Chief, that is one debate he was willing to have. McCain invited Obama to 10 Town Hall debates over the Summer and Obama declined and has ducked the issue (no teleprompter). Part of McCain’s speech should be a challenge to that debate within 10 days and in a Town Hall format. Then we will see how willing the Sainted One really is.
Nice speech Barry. Next time try adding a little truth and some detail.
I wonder if the Broncos will be able to play football there anymore? The One was in the middle of the field and 85,000 smelly liberals infested the place. Denver will probably go 6-10 this year because of this curse…
As if We Needed Further Proof About Democrats and Islam
Jul 27, 2008 Political
Two items today in the news that serve only as a reminder of that which is already known by thinking people but denied by those who live with the disease of liberalism.
The first is a story that reports an Islamic group has claimed responsibility for the terror attacks in India:
An obscure Islamic group claimed responsibility for a series of synchronized explosions that killed at least 45 people in western India, warning of “the terror of Death” in an e-mail sent to several television stations minutes before the blasts. My Way News
Most terror attacks are by Islamic groups, obscure or otherwise. Sure, there have been acts of terror committed by individuals not associated with any group much less Islam. These people are the exception rather than the rule. When one hears of a terror attack Islam is the first thought because the majority of terror attacks have been committed by that cult. The fact that an Islamic group is taking credit for the India terror attacks should come as no surprise. CAIR might try to convince us that Islam is not a violent cult but CAIR supports terror and defends terrorism.
The second item is conformation of an item that everyone with a brain already knows but that Clinton supporters have been denying for years. Anytime someone mentions that Clinton’s inaction and cowardice led to 9/11 there is always an outcry that it is a tactic to just blame things on Clinton and that it was not true especially since it happened on Bush’s watch. Well, now bin Laden’s driver has confirmed that Clinton is to blame for 9/11:
The United States could have killed bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, before he moved to Afghanistan in 1996, Hamdan told his interrogators. They could have killed him after al Qaida’s 1998 twin bombings at the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Or after the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, at the port of Aden in Yemen, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead.
Instead, ”Bin Laden was emboldened.” So he struck with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leaving nearly 3,000 dead. McClatchy
This information will only come as a surprise to those who still think Clinton handled things wonderfully and that he was a great president. People who saw nothing wrong with what Sandy Berger did will still defend the pervert in chief and will claim it is a lie and a distortion of the truth. The Clinton folks, including Bubba himself, had a cow over the movie The Path to 9/11. Clinton called it “lies” even though it was accurate and supported by the facts. ABC backed down and changed part of the movie. Now we have bin Laden’s driver confirming that it was all true.
Bill Clinton’s cowardice and refusal to get bin Laden caused 9/11. Remember this in November. We tried the Democrat’s plan for national security and it gave us an attack on our soil that killed 3000.
If you value your life, don’t vote Democrat.
Tags: attacks, bill clinton, Democrats, islam, terror
Obama is a Uniter, not a Divider…not Quite
Jun 23, 2008 Political
One of John McCain’s advisers made the comment that another terrorist attack on the United States would be helpful to the Republican Party. While this is completely true it is also tasteless and in bad form. Having said that, I don’t think the guy, Charlie Black, meant that he wanted to see one so Republicans could reap a benefit. I can’t speak for him but any person who wishes we get attackd again should be sent to Gitmo, oh wait, the SCOTUS said we had to release people from there. I never wish for us to get attacked but if we do I hope it is in an area where people are anti war and protest our troops, like say Berkeley.
After the comment was made a spokesperson for Barry O Bam Bam chimed in:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The fact that John McCain’s top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al-Qaida.” My Way News
Barry will turn the page on divisive politics. Let’s see, Barry accused the Republican Party of being racists who will launch racist attacks on him, his people claimed that people in West Virginia did not vote for him because they are racists, he did not allow Muslim women with scarves in a photo of him, and he was dismissive of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. Add to that his endless line of anti American associates (you can find them under the bus) and it is hard to see exactly how he is turning a page on divisive politics. Hopey can talk a real good game (if he has a teleprompter) but he is not new, he is not fresh and he is not some revolutionary figure. He is a political hack who has schemed for his next office as soon as he was elected. He is inexperienced and offers a resume so short it could be a fortune cookie (you have hope and change, lucky numbers 2008).
I am absolutely certain that Charlie Black does not want America to be attacked again even though he is correct that such an attack would shine a lot of light on the inadequacy of the Democrats with regard to national security. However, thanks to the job that George Bush has done here at home and our troops have done overseas, we have not been attacked and it is unlikely we will during the rest of his term. Muslims all over the world are endorsing Barry O Bam Bam and they want a man they consider a brother to be elected. They have to know another attack here would all but wipe that chance out.
No, we don’t have to worry about America being attacked in the short term, but if next year we are using the words “President Obama”, we will need to worry and worry a lot.
Tags: attacks, charlie black, devisive, Obama, Terrorism
Media Gets Tough with Obama
Mar 4, 2008 Political
Ever since Barack Obama came on the scene he stole the thunder from Hillary Clinton. The Clintons had experienced great media coverage for years with the media holding or burying stories harmful to the clan. That all stopped when Obama became the new darling of the media. They have fawned over him and a parody on Saturday Night Live was not far off considering how he has not drawn tough questions (until the last debate) or close scrutiny even though he says a lot about absolutely nothing. It is really bad when even Democrats who doted on the Clintons for years have turned against them, media or otherwise.
Perhaps the portrayal of the media as Obama’s toadies on SNL sparked a fire under them because the party seems to be over and it would appear that Obama has been stung by the unexpected attacks. At a speech Obama took questions and the media zinged him right off the bat asking him about the secret meeting with the Canadians that he originally denied but later acknowledged. He said the standard stump answer about not knowing or going with the information he had but it gave the appearance that he lied.
Then the media began with the Tony Rezko questions. Rezko is a friend of Obama who happened to buy a piece of property right next to him on the very same day. Rezko bought the property that Obama did not want (the seller required it to be part of the purchase) for $625,000 and then sold part of it to Obama so he could enlarge his yard. This political favor coincidence has significance because Rezko’s trial for corruption started today and Obama’s name is likely to come up. The fact that Rezko is involved in corruption and has been close to Obama is not happenstance. Obama is from Illinois and is a member of the Democratic Party that has been so corrupt that it has received its own name, Chicago Style Politics.
Obama has benefited from Chicago Style Politics and that is why, as a first term Senator, he is on top the political world. He has given the appearance of impropriety with regard to Rezko and the Canadians. Even if Obama turns out to be squeaky clean, he has acted in a fashion that appears improper and for many, perception is reality. A man who claims not to be part of the old political system and who claims to be looking to the future (which all presidential candidates say, by the way) does himself no good by looking like a politician of old. He is part of the Daley political scene and that makes him part of the past, a past that is rife with corruption.
It is nice to see the media finally stop drinking the Kool Aid and start asking tough questions.
Sources:
Daily News
Daily News 2
Washington Post
Loading ...
Loading...
