In last night's post-debate analysis on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, James Carville proclaimed that Barack Obama will be the slam dunk winner of the election in November. However, he followed up by hinting at riots if Obama were to lose. Here is the transcript of the discussion. First David Gergen keeps bringing up the race factor as an excuse for a possible Obama loss (emphasis mine):
Although the New York Times circulation has been plummeting like a lot of other newspapers due to readers switching to the Internet for their news as well as being turned off by the extreme liberal bias at that newspaper, the ultimate failure of that periodical might be due to another reason according to an article in New York magazine. Sulzberger stupidity. And based on what New York has to say, we aren't talking about the ordinary garden style variety stupidity here.
Sulberger stupidity comes on a massive scale of unerringly poor judgement in almost every major business decision. The prime culprit of Sulzberger stupidity is the Times heir, Arthur Ochs ("Pinch") Sulzberger Jr. although it seems that lack of judgement is also a trademark with the other branches of the extended family, which includes the Goldens and the Cohens, to the extent that there is a good chance that the 27 members of the fifth generation of the Ochs-Sulzberger family (founded by Adoph Simon Ochs) could well be the last generation of that clan to profit from the Times.
SARAH PALIN! Sloooowly I turned...step by step...inch by inch...
Tony Norman in his Pittsburgh Post-Gazette column sounded like he was performing an old routine from an Abbott and Costello movie only instead of "Pokomoko," the words that set him off were, "Sarah Palin." It's hard to get upset with Tony because his complaints about Palin are so exaggerated with no relation to reality that he comes off as clownish. So let us now observe the Tony Norman PDS comedy show (my emphasis):
Those of us with vivid memories of middle school have seen Gov. Sarah Palin's type before. She was the girl who was always the first to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the last to stop instigating fights in the cafeteria.
Slowly I turned...step by step... Oops! Sorry for cutting in on your routine Tony. You're on a roll so please continue:
The mainstream media are currently excusing Barack Obama's friendship with unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, in a couple of ways. They either claim that Ayers was just a "neighborhood friend" of Obama and/or that Ayers was merely some benign 60s radical while conveniently avoiding mention of his terrorist activities in the Weather Underground.
The first point that Ayers was just some neighborhood friend of Obama is undercut by the working relationship between the two as we saw in yesterday's NewsBusters blog by Clay Waters quoting Ed Morrissey of Hot Air:
Remember that Canadian Broadcast Corportation (CBC) columnist, Heather Mallick, who wrote a story chock full of Palin Derangement Syndrome on September 5? Her hateful rantings against Sarah Palin were so over the edge that the CBC was forced to issue an apology:
"Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan. And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site."
Well, guess what? According to the New York Times, Mallick was just "joking." Ian Austen, writing in the Times, provides the "joking"excuse in his story (emphasis mine):
Mirror, mirror, on the wall; who's the kookiest HuffPo blogger of them all?
Until today, I would have declared former Al Gore fashion consultant, Naomi Wolf, the hands down winner in the flat out nuts department over at the Huffington Post. I thought there was no way anybody over there could exceed Wolf's insanity. Here are some Naomi Wolf gems that any contender for the kooky crown would have to exceed:
..I believe the Rove-Cheney cabal is using Sarah Palin as a stalking horse, an Evita figure, to put a popular, populist face on the coming police state and be the talk show hostess for the end of elections as we know them. If McCain-Palin get in, this will be the last true American election.
Hey, all you people who planned on voting for McCain/Palin. Give up, now! You have no chance of winning because Barack Obama is going to swamp your ticket so badly that even solidly Republican Nebraska has now become a battleground state. Or at least the split electoral district centered around Omaha. That is the not so hidden message of this Washington Post article written by Peter Slevin:
In early September, even as it was shifting resources out of other traditionally Republican states to key electoral battlegrounds, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign sent 15 paid staffers to Nebraska, a state that has backed a Democrat for president just once since 1936.
Despite Nebraska's consistent preference for a Republican in the Oval Office, Obama and the national mood are forcing Sen. John McCain to focus more on the state's biggest city and most urban congressional district.
Both camps have their eyes on the same reward: a single electoral vote that could prove pivotal in determining the next president.
Fresh on the heels of slamming Sarah Palin, film documentarian Ken Burns is now upset at John McCain. Why? Because McCain is being too aggressive in waging his campaign and not politely allowing Obama to ride over him to victory in November. Burns begins his New Hampshire Union Leader Op-Ed piece moaning that this is not the John McCain he used to know, the one who would happily allow Obama to defeat him:
WHAT HAPPENED to John McCain? What happened to the man so many of us in New Hampshire have admired and respected for so long? The fierce bipartisan warrior, the straight talker, the maverick whose ideas nearly everyone found some common ground with now seems missing in action. He seems to have betrayed the very attributes that originally commended him to us and earned our earlier trust and support.
Your humble correspondent, as diligent as ever, carefully checked out much of the post-debate analysis and spin last evening. Perhaps the highlight of all such activity, chock full of drama, was this heated exchange between Dick Morris and Alan Colmes on FOX News. The first part of this video shows Morris giving effusive praise of Sarah Palin's performance in last night's debate. The sparks begin to fly soon after the two-minute mark when Colmes cuts in to robotically attempt to run through his list of obvious talking points which Morris took great offense to (emphasis mine):
SEAN HANNITY: The author New York Times best seller, "Fleeced," starring Dick Morris. Why do I know this is probably going to be the debate we agree on here? What did you think?
In some ways, this video is even more disturbing than the video of the children singing a tribute to Barack Obama. In this case, we see a bunch of kids dressed in paramilitary uniforms ritualistically shouting out their praise for Obama. Yes, according to the chants, these kids are supposedly inspired to enter various professions all thanks to a certain Chicago Machine politician. This is reminiscent of North Korean kids chanting out their praises for the "Dear Leader." And is this performance by students of Urban Community Leadership Academy of Kansas City, MO even legal?
Call it The Palin Witch Project. A really poor parody of The Blair Witch Project that has such bad acting on the part of Rap music star, Diddy, that we laugh at him, not with him, because of the campy clumsiness of his failed attempt at humor. The ABC News site discusses this Diddy video as well as the attitudes of other celebs towards Sarah Palin:
With the first vice presidential debate imminent and Nov. 4 around the corner, Hollywood is refusing to hold its tongue about Sarah Palin.
Stars' comments about her are getting downright bizarre. Rap music/reality TV/fashion mogul Diddy (real name: Sean Combs) posted a video blog about Palin on his YouTube page today entitled "Sarah Palin Scares Me!!" (Guess which candidate he's supporting?)
It is still a ways to go until Christmas but the lyrics certain song from that season will ring through your head while reading this Essence magazine article authored by Gwen Ifill: "Oh Come Let Us Adore Him!" The "Him" in this case being Barack Obama. You have probably heard how the PBS moderator of tonight's vice-presidential debate, Ifill, appears to have a big conflict of interest due to her book, with the publication date of January 20, 2009, titled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." An obvious conflict of interest since her interest here is an Obama victory to boost her book sales. However you probably don't know about her adulatory Essence magazine article which serves to reinforce just how much she is in the tank for Obama. Here is the introduction to that saccharine laced story:
Lou Dobbs, along with Glenn Beck, are probably the only two CNN hosts who are not completely in the tank for Barack Obama. So it is interesting to see this report by Dobbs about early voting in Ohio which allows people to register to vote and cast an absentee ballot at the same time. This opens up a great opportunity for election fraud as this report demonstrates. A check on Google News shows absolutely no MSM coverage, other than this story by Dobbs, on the topic of potential vote fraud in Ohio due to the relaxed rules instituted by the highly partisan Democrat Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, who changed the voting rules by directive (emphasis mine):
LOU DOBBS: A presidential election now 35 days away. Election fraud still posing a dangerous threat to this democracy. Perhaps even worsening. Early voting began today in Ohio.
Your humble correspondent realizes that a lot of celebrities are in the tank for Barack Obama but he is especially disappointed to learn that Homer Simpson appears to be numbered among them. The November 2 (just two days before the election) episode of the Simpsons will include this clip of Homer casting his vote for John McCain then changing his mind and attempting to vote for Barack Obama numerous times to no avail. Each Obama vote that Homer casts is registered as another vote for McCain. When Homer finally accuses the voting machine of being rigged...well, you'll have to see his fate in the video. The video itself is actually pretty funny as you can see and it might end up helping McCain since it will cause extreme leftwing paranoia should the race be tight by election day. That could be very counterproductive for the Democrats since the voting public could be turned off by their paranoid antics.
The New Republic associate editor, Eve Fairbanks, needs to send a royalty payment to her senior editor, Michelle Cottle. Actually, Fairbanks might as well bypass Cottle and send the payment directly to your humble correspondent since The New Republic senior editor ripped me off when she wrote that the Washington Post compared Todd Palin to Hillary Clinton just a half hour after I made the same suggestion. Since the Washington Post story never mentioned Hillary, where do you think Cottle got her story idea from? The following update to my September 22 blog post explains:
The Los Angeles Times seems to have taken a sudden new interest in biblical study. No, they haven't become religious or anything close to that. Instead, they are microanalyzing the Bible for passages that they think they can use to slam Sarah Palin for running for vice-president. They are also searching the countryside to dig up the very few strongly religious Christians they can find who think Palin is wrong to run for public office. Let us now join Times reporter, Teresa Watanabe, as she begins her biblical studies in her story with an ulterior motive (emphasis mine):
In a white-steepled church along a stretch in picturesque canyon country, the preacher laid out the basic blueprint of a godly marriage: Husbands lead, wives submit.
See where this is going right from the get-go? The reporter is going to use the Bible to suggest to believers that Sarah Palin is violating the "basic blueprint of a godly marriage."
Remember all the doom and gloom warnings that if the $700 billion bailout bill did not pass yesterday that we would be facing an immediate financial collapse? Well, the bailout bill didn't pass yesterday thanks in large part to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan rantings in that chamber. So today comes and instead of financial collapse and panic, the stocks surge as you can see in this Associated Press story. However, the fact that the economic sky did not fall hasn't kept the AP Chicken Littles from continuing to plug for that bailout bill (emphasis mine):
Good news for Alex Jones and his fellow 9/11 Truthers. They will finally have a television outlet in which to spew their absurd theories about how "9/11 was an inside job." The reason is that Jesse Ventura has been named as the host of a TruTV mystery show about conspiracy theories. Here is the report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune announcing the show that is sure to light up the tinfoil hats of conspiracists in dark basements all across the land:
Jesse Ventura may or may not have a "judge" show in his future, but one thing's for sure: He's definitely going to be searching for justice.
The former governor will host a new program for TruTV (formerly Court TV) in which he'll travel the country, exploring modern-day conspiracies and getting input from believers and skeptics.
"I've been a mayor; I've been a governor. Now I get to be a detective and seek the truth," he said in a news release.
What is it with the American mainstream media when we have to turn to Britain to get a more accurate analysis of our political scene than we can get here? First we had my previous post in which the UK Times provided a much better analysis of how Nancy Pelosi's partisan rant caused the bailout bill to fail in Congress while the New York Times basically provided cover for the House Speaker. And now we have this column by Dominic Lawson in the UK Independent that gives us a clear picture of how utterly unqualified Joe Biden is to become vice-president. Yes, while the Amercan MSM remains obsessed with pointing out how Sarah Palin might not be familiar with every last detail of political policy (including the "Bush Doctrine" which almost nobody knew about until Charlie Gibson sprung it as a gotcha question) they continue to overlook not just gaffes but astounding gaps in Biden's basic wisdom. So let us allow Lawson to now go where the American MSM fears to tread (emphasis mine):
This is a tale of two Times. One Times, the one in New York, pretty much provided cover for Nancy Pelosi's highly partisan speech as a cause for the failure of the bailout bill to pass in Congress. The other Times, the one in London, gave an accurate analysis on how Pelosi's partisan rant caused the bailout bill to fail. First we have the New York Times, in an article written by Jackie Calmes, placing most of the blame for the bill's failure to pass on "evil" Republicans (emphasis mine):
From the White House to Congress to the presidential campaign trail, the principal players did not rally the votes they needed in the House. They appeared not to comprehend or address in a convincing way an intense strain of opposition to the deal among voters. They allowed partisan politics to flare at sensitive moments.
If there was any doubt that President Bush had been left politically impotent by his travails over the last few years and his lame-duck status, it was erased on Monday when, despite his personal pleas, more than two-thirds of the Republicans in the House abandoned the plan.
Hmm... Since your humble correspondent was the first to coin the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Dueling Columnists with the highly accurate monicker of "Dulling Columnists," perhaps I would be justified in charging a royalty payment from Daily Pulp writer, John de Groot, for titling his recent column, "Dulling Columnists Score Major Snore." Here is what I wrote about the Dulling Columnists, Stephen Goldstein and Kingsley Guy, on the Ides of March:
Following the controversy over the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate can be a bit confusing with all its detailed analysis. Your humble correspondent will leave that up to the experts. However, in response to the charge that Barack Obama is not an American citizen, Obama's Fight the Smears website, quoting FactCheck.Org, has made a bombshell admission...Barack Obama was once a citizen of Kenya. You read that right, Obama had Kenyan citizenship until 1982. Here is the startling admission published in Fight the Smears (emphasis mine):
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
Chicago Tribune correspondent, Howard Witt, seems to have found the villain to blame in case Barack Obama loses in November: elderly prejudiced white people. However, such "prejudice" is not their fault, Witt "generously" allows, since they suffer from atrophied frontal brain lobes. Witt's article claims that such people will be more likely to vote against Obama due to the prejudice induced by these diseased frontal lobes (emphasis mine):
As your humble correspondent noted earlier today, one needs to have some training in reading liberal tea leaves in order to determine which candidate actually wins presidential debates. In the case of this Newsweek article, written by associate editor Andrew Romano, absolutely no such training is needed. The title flat out tells us: "McCain Won." However there is also one highly laughable caveat added on: "But Will It Matter?" First Romano tells us why he thinks McCain won (emphasis mine):
Tonight, John McCain was the more effective combatant.
Julia Roberts might not be too happy when she finds out that the woman she portrayed in a movie of the same name, Erin Brockovich, is currently praising Sarah Palin. This is considered an act of treason by the left. And that is not the only "heresy" committed by Erin Brockovich who, until recently, was considered to be a "progressive." An article by John Vidal in the UK Guardian details Brockovich's "thought crimes" (emphasis mine):
...Although she rates herself as a leading environmentalist, she is extremely keen on Sarah Palin, the huntin', shootin' Alaskan governor running for vice president with the Republican candidate John McCain.
Environmentalists have painted Palin as the arch-enemy, to the right of Bush, because until last week she was denying climate change had anything to do with man, thought polar bears could go live on land and wants to see the Arctic drilled to within a quart of its oil.
Your humble correspondent is of the opinion that, without even knowing who wins the election in November, one can easily determine the winner by simply looking at the screen shots of liberal members of the MSM on the day after the election. Are the faces of Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. mournful? That will pretty much tell you who won the election the previous day. Likewise, simply by reading an analysis of last night's debate in Oxford, Mississippi in liberal publications, one can determine who won that debate without even watching it. It is called reading the liberal tea leaves and, since the NewsBusters Eye of Sauron has been upon them lately, The New Republic has been chosen as an example.
The first story chosen for this liberal tea leaf reading is titled, "They Both Lost." This was way too easy. What the title really tells you, without even having to read the story, is "McCain Won." The article itself merely confirms what was pretty much shouted out in the title (emphasis mine):
The New Republic has come up with a new way to drag conservatism through the mud---Simply describe racists as "racially conservative." Get it? They are implying that if you are a conservative then you must somehow be a racist. Your humble correspondent caught them using this term in a story headlined on The New Republic front page as: "Are People Who Hang Up On Pollsters More Racist Than Those Who Don't?" The story itself pretty much goes nowhere since no voting trend by people who refuse to talk to pollsters can be discerned. However, the story does link conservatism with racism (emphasis mine):
This is a story that could only happen in Berkeley---militant tree sitters accused of racism. And the funniest part is that the Berkeley Daily Planet reported this story with a completely straight face as if tree sitters are some sort of a legitimate group like Teamsters or Ruthenian-Americans (Tom Selleck is one). It seems that the tree sitters (union or non-union?) have been living up in the Berkeley trees for almost two years protesting the construction of a high-tech gym at the UC Berkeley campus. You can see a video of the "wonderful" life of these tree sitters in the upper right.
This is probably an article that the New York Times wishes it didn't have in its archives because it reveals the true culprits behind the current Fannie Mae meltdown. You will find "uncomfortable" truths in this September 30, 1999 article by Steven A. Holmes starting with the title, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," that you won't find in current editions of the New York Times (emphasis mine):
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.