► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Sarah Palin’

The GOP’s 2012 Trouble

by Phantom Ace ( 127 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Progressives, Republican Party at February 13th, 2011 - 2:25 pm

Things are looking murky in 2012 for the Republicans after a triumphant 2010 when they won the House, picked up Senate seats and decimated the Democrats at the local level. Obama’s approval ratings are back up and the media is pushing the Obama  Boom theme, that this is the best the economy can get. The Republicans have wasted in month in finally getting around to doing budget cuts. They still haven’t proposed any tax and regulatory reform to make American economically competitive again. The irony is Obama is set to win re-election in 2012 because of their surrender  in the lame duck session. It’s even at the point that Obama is calling himself the gipper, a reference to Ronald Reagan. No Republican has come out and called Obama out on this! Things are not looking for the Republicans in 2012.

Another handicap the Republicans face is their pathetic 2012 Presidential field. None of the 4 main candidates Romney, Palin, Huckabee or Gingrich are offering new ideas or proposals. Instead they speak in catchy phrases, the same stale talking points and all are politically damaged. Polls show Obama would handily defeat any of these four if the election was help today. This is due to the decimation the Republicans had in 2006 and 2008. Obama right now is sitting pretty for 2012, anemic economy and all.

WASHINGTON — Marry the movie star, or the librarian?

This year is a little different, though. Reagan is in the air, everywhere. Republicans can’t help remembering the time they nominated their boldest, sexiest choice — and he turned out to be

That was the question conservatives were puzzling over at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend in DC. In the past, Republicans have flirted with sexy but extreme candidates like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, but, being conservatives, tend to commit to safer, consensus candidates — even when those pols were so safe and mainstream (like Bob Dole and John McCain) that no one in the party (or, alas outside of it) succeeded in getting excited about them.

Everywhere you looked, there were Reagan posters, Reagan speaking from TV monitors, Reagan birthday parties. There was so much Reagan it was almost like it was the 1980s — “1984” in fact, with Big Gipper watching us everywhere we turned, threatening to disapprove. It got kind of creepy after a while.

And the party has lots of national leaders of tomorrow — baby-faced Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the lovably cantankerous New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the quietly appealing Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Louisiana’s boy wonder Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The source of the party’s unease is that it knows it doesn’t have a now leader. The unspoken hope of GOPalooza 2011 was that someone would emerge as our Obama.

No one did.

Read the rest:  The Right’s stuff

The Republican Party’s best hope is the Senate in 2012. With 23 out of 33 Senate seats in play, Republicans should easily win that chamber. In 2016, we will have probably the best presidential candidate field ever. However it maybe too late as by 2016, America will have gone through nearly 16 of a sub-par economy of low job growth and stagnant pay. Americans may well get used to diminished lifestyle and lose hope for a better tomorrow. Obama’s reckless 3rd World Liberation based foreign policy will put America in its weakest global position. 2012 is critical, but the 4 major GOP candidates are not up to the task of presenting a winning alternative to Obama’s politics of diminished returns.

Note: The Blogmocracy radio Show will now be Sundays 8:30 – 10:00 PM EST.

Blood libel? You have got to be kidding me!

by Mojambo ( 210 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Hate Speech, History, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives at January 14th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Funny how the Left which supports the genocidal Hamas, gets all upset over a Sarah Palin using the term “blood libel” claiming that it is anti Semitic.  Palin is more pro Israel then all of them combined and no group has proprietary rights on terms such as “blood libel”, “racism”, “holocaust”,  and “genocide”.  It is the Left (with its puppet master Goerge Soros) which is in the forefront (along with its Islamofascist allies) in pushing forward the agenda of delegitimizing, boycotting and ultimately working for the dissolution of the Jewish nation, therefore its anguish over a phony charge of anti-Semitism rings hollow to me.

by David Harsanyi

Wasn’t it moving to see progressive tweetdom and punditry unite in the defense of Jewry — in the Middle Ages? As a member of this most oppressed minority, I personally want to thank you.

After all, how dare she? The media are so sick and tired of Sarah Palin’s shtick (that’s one of the words we use in private) that they created a stampede to Wikipedia to quickly figure out just how divisive this “blood libel” thing, whatever it means, could be to American discourse.

Now, just for the record, we Jews haven’t been using the blood of gentile kids for our baking needs in at least a couple of decades, but in historical terms, blood libel refers to false accusations that Jews were murdering children to use their blood in religious rituals — and an excuse for anti-Semitism. It was heavily utilized in the Middle Ages by some Christians and, with a few modifications, is a regular smear in the Muslim world today.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of Israel antagonists at J Street (an outfit that USA Today accidentally referred to as “a political organization for Jews and supporters of Israel”), spoke for hundreds when he claimed that “the term ‘blood libel’ brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds” and demanded that Palin “retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.”

Really? Memory? Inflammatory? Painful echoes?

Jews, well, we can be offended like it’s 1257.

If blood libel is really a distasteful parallel, it is only because we have intimately familiarized ourselves with the idea through a History channel documentary about the crusades. And if our institutional memories make us so thin-skinned, there are far more tangible reminders of genocide when we hop into our fancy German cars (which we do a lot, because we’re in charge of everything). Or it is certainly as offensive as the heinous deeds of Sarah Palin, which include, among many other transgressions, talking.

And as Jim Geraghty of National Review helpfully noted, the term “blood libel” has been used many times by pundits and journalists from both sides of the ideological divide, including the esteemed Frank Rich of The New York Times, over the years.

[….]

Perhaps if self-proclaimed spokespeople for Jews everywhere like J Street focused on genuine anti-Semitism around the world, their little partisan cabaret would be more plausible.

Blood libel is the fiction-laden, anti-Israel Goldstone Report. Blood libel is the flotilla incident near Gaza. Blood libel is the Egyptian state media’s peddling the idea that shark attacks were the handiwork of Jews and other state-run Arab media’s blaming AIDS on Zionists.

There are plenty of genuine things to get offended about in the world if you’re Jewish.

Read the rest Blood libel?  Oy vey!

Pathetic…Liberal hypocrites never see a tragedy they won’t exploit and politicize

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 183 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Crime, Democratic Party, Hate Speech, Politics, Progressives, Tea Parties at January 11th, 2011 - 11:30 am

And of course, this surprises no one. Their phony righteous indignation of the Tucson shooting by an unstable sociopath is obviously playing politics with the deaths of six innocent people, and the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others.

Let’s start with lib sissy boy Jonathan Alter, Newsweak writer, who said: “Can Obama Turn Tragedy Into Triumph?”

W.T.F.???

Let me ask you this: What kind of sick liberal  scumbag who writes for a supposedly national news magazine, would have the audacity to actually say something like that, talking about turning the murder of six people and the wounding of 13 into a political triumph???

If there was ever proof that liberalism is a mental disorder, t Alter just proved it.

Even the idiot dimocrat Sheriff of Pima county, one Clarence Dumbnik, I mean Dupnik, did it, for which he should be not only ashamed, but, if possible, impeached, or subjected to a recall election, or voted out of office, the next time he runs for re-election.

Last I checked, the job of law enforcement, especially the chief law enforcement officer of any jurisdiction, is to investigate the shooting, NOT POLITICIZE IT, especially just a few hours after it happens, when all the facts are not known!

But he probably isn’t ashamed at all, since to most dimocrats, all that matters is to exploit the tragedy for whatever political gain can be used against conservatives and the GOP, and to hell with the victims, their families, and the truth.

And the dimocrat “leadership” obviously agrees:

“The sheriff out there in Tucson, I think he’s got it right,” Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the assistant minority whip, told “Fox News Sunday.” “Words do have consequences. And I think that we have to really — this is nothing new. I’ve been saying this for a long time now.”

“I think the sheriff was right,” said minority whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” (another show almost no one watches):

“Bob, when you and I grew up, we grew up listening to essentially three major news outlets: NBC, ABC, and of course, CBS. We listened to people like Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid, and Huntley-Brinkley, and they saw their job as to inform us of the facts and we would make a conclusion,” Hoyer said. “Far too many broadcasts now and so many outlets have the intent of inciting, and inciting people to opposition, to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral. And I think that is a context in which somebody who is mentally unbalanced can somehow feel justified in taking this kind of action. And I think we need to all take cognizance of that and be aware that what we say can, in fact, have consequences.”

Walter Cronkite? This tells us all we need to know about Hoyer. Cronkite was nothing more than yet another in a long line of liberal liars in the media who spun the news to fit his far-left agenda.

Hey Steny, ever hear the insane vitriol that comes out of the piehole of that douchebag Keith Olbermann, and on other shows just about nobody watches on MSNBC?

Here’s a short 81 second video of Dumbnik justifying Blaming Rush-

Then Megyn Kelly on Fox News asked Dumbnik about politicizing the tragedy, and when questioned about whether talk radio or anything similar had anything to do with this case, the sheriff could not support his claims, but said he has no regrets.

Of course not. Again, the ends justify the means to libturds, the truth be damned. Although why she allowed him to blame the Republicans without objecting, and even agreeing with him, bothers me. I hope she misunderstood what he said.

BTW, Dumbnik even admitted he knew the suspect in Saturday’s shooting rampage was unstable and had been known to make death threats in the past. The police had gone to the college Loughner attended five times due to concerns from his teachers and classmates that he was mentally unstable.

The libs didn’t even wait until after the shooter or his victims were identified to start exploiting this tragedy. They don’t give a Goddamn about them! They’re nothing but props to be exploited by these pathetic libturd losers.

That imbecile who writes for the New York Slimes, well, okay, almost everyone who writes for that worthless rag that no self-respecting dead fish would want to be wrapped in is an imbecile, but Paul Krugman was by far lower than whale shit.

Within two hours of the shootings, he was already posting on his NY Slimes blog fantasizing about how this could be used to hurt the GOP. I wouldn’t be surprised if the moron’s pants were around his ankles and a jar of vasoline was next to his keyboard.

The libs used the same old tired drivel they always use- Blaming Rush and talk radio, Fox News, the internet, Sarah Palin, easy access to guns, Tea Parties etc. I’m half surprised they couldn’t figure out a way to blame Bush and Cheney.

But being libs, they revert to their ages-old pathetic playbook- Blame everyone but the person responsible for shooting those people.

To libs, the perpetrator is almost never at fault, but rather a victim him or herself wronged by society. There’s always some underlying reason excuse for whatever crime they commit, be it poverty, coming from a broken home, racism, or whatever the liberal gripe du jour is.

But most outrageous, by far, was the dimocrats blaming Sarah Palin for her map “targeting” her opponents with crosshairs as causing this. That was the ultimate act of unmitigated hypocrisy, since the dimocrats used targets, rather than crosshairs, on the DLC (Dimocratic Leadership Council) website for Republicans they wanted to defeat. Scroll about half way down the page and see for yourself. Even the words they used- “The heartland strategy begins by choosing likely targets for Democratic gains.” calling it going ‘Behind enemy lines”, denotes a “war”.

And I won’t even get into the many incendiary statements made by the idiot in the White House, such as when referring to battling with Republicans Obungler said “If they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun” or “Get in their faces!”.

And finally, I doubt any conservative, moderate Republican, independent, or sensible Democrat would list the “Communist Manifesto” or “Mein Kampf” as one of their favorite books. Even the shooter’s classmates described him as “a left wing pothead”.

He is also a 9-11 troofer, which, again, is a kook movement owned and operated 100% by the left, since they blame the Bush administration for actually bringing down the towers to justify going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don’t Run Sarah, Don’t Run!

by Mojambo ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012 at November 21st, 2010 - 10:00 am

Before you start ripping into this, at least give me the courtesy of reading the entire column.  I particularly agree with the part where she says “The Republican nominee should be someone with vast and impressive experience in government and the private sector — and a proven record. Voters chose a novice with plenty of star power in 2008 and will be inclined to swing strongly in the other direction in 2012. Americans will be looking for sober competence, managerial skill, and maturity, not sizzle and flash.” I also forgot about S.P.’s endorsement of Tom Tancredo’s wretched campaign for governor of Colorado. By the way I met Mona Charen in person, she is no RINO and has nothing in common with Kathleen Parker, David Frum, David Brooks, and Peggy Noonan. I like Palin personally and think she is a terrific mom and wife and would be a great neighbor in addition to being  a lot of fun to hang out with, but lately all I hear is her speaking in platitudes whenever she is asked questions of substance on Fox.

by Mona Charen

By telling Barbara Walters that she thinks she can defeat President Obama, Sarah Palin has dimmed hopes cherished by sensible Republicans that she might decide against a run for the White House in 2012. Here are just some of the reasons she should not run.

[….]

After the 2008 campaign revealed her weaknesses on substance, Palin was advised by those who admire her natural gifts to bone up on policy and devote herself to governing Alaska successfully. Instead, she quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week), and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity. Now, rather than being able to highlight the accomplishments of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, we get “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” another cheesy entrant in the reality show genre. She’d so much rather be out dog sledding than in some “dull political office,” she tells the audience. File that.

She is wildly popular with a swath of the Republican electorate, it’s true. And, as a conservative woman politician told me, the consultants (who get paid the big bucks win or lose) will doubtless descend upon her with game plans showing how she can win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. Maybe. But the general election would be a problem, since 53 percent of independent voters view Palin unfavorably, according to a recent Gallup poll, along with 81 percent of Democrats.

There is no denying that Sarah Palin has been harshly, sometimes even brutally treated by the press and the news/entertainment gaggle. But any prominent Republican must expect some of that and be able to transcend it. She compares herself to Reagan. But Reagan didn’t mud wrestle with the press. Palin seems consumed and obsessed by it, as her rapid Twitter finger attests, and thus encourages the sniping. She should be presiding over meetings on oil and gas leases in the North Slope, or devising alternatives to Obamacare. Every public spat with Dave Letterman or Politico, or the “lamestream media,” or G0d help us, Levi Johnston, diminishes her.

[….]

Judgment, above all, is what voters prize in a presidential candidate. Some of Sarah Palin’s 2010 endorsements were sound and arguably helpful. Others betrayed flightiness and recklessness. Tom Tancredo, Palin’s choice for governor of Colorado, has ridden his anti-immigration hobbyhorse in a style perfectly suited to alienate Hispanic voters (describing Miami, for example, as a “Third World” city). The endorsement of Christine O’Donnell was irresponsible and damaging, losing a seat that would certainly have been a Republican pickup absent Palin’s intrusion into the race. It goes without saying that O’Donnell received an absurdly disproportionate amount of ink and attention during the race (the liberal press naturally seizes upon any opportunity to make conservatives look kooky), but again, Palin should have anticipated that. Besides, this one cannot be laid at the feet of the biased media. O’Donnell was a thoroughly unqualified candidate.

Palin has many strengths. I admire her fortitude and her commitment to principle. Her capacity to connect with a crowd is something most politicians can only dream of. I will always remember her 2008 convention speech as a rollicking star turn. She would be terrific as a talk-show host — the new Oprah.

But as a presidential candidate? Someone to convince critical independent voters that Republicans can govern successfully? Absolutely not.

Read the rest Why Sarah Palin Shouldn’t Run