Archive for 8th September 2008

Somehow, I’m Not Surprised

Preparing for a possible Democratic win.

Gun sales are going boom around the country as gun owners and gun advocates brace for a potential Democrat in the White House for the first time in almost 10 years.

This is funny, though.

Democrats, meanwhile, say there’s no reason to worry that presidential hopeful Barack Obama would attempt to curtail access to most guns, though that hasn’t stopped the buying spree.

Except, of course, that of the few bills he actually voted on (as opposed to present), he voted for every gun-control bill that came down the line.

Don’t Democrats know we can look at voting records? I couldn’t care less what Obama (or any other candidate) says, not when I can look at his record.

I guess not, because here’s Obama, lying through his teeth about his record.

Get Your

Palin interviews right here!

P.S. She does interviews devastatingly well. Poised, confident, straightfoward, and gracious.

Byron York pointed to the CSPAN video of her 2006 gubernatorial debate with Murkowski, but I went there and saw no video (he said she eviscerated them). I did email him to ask. If he replies and I find it, I’ll either link to it or embed it.

The Drugs Are Wearing Off

And reality is dawning. From Jules, who reads HuffPo so you don’t have to, this moonbat slowly raises his head, blinks his eyes, and feels the hammer drop.

We’re going to frickin’ lose this thing.

Why yes, yes you are. Had you asked me, I could have told you that as soon as it became apparent Barack the Naked Emperor Obama would be the nominee. Did you really think a snooty, effete academic who whines about the price of arugula, sneers at Americans, shops at Whole Foods, and rides a bicycle around with one of those wussy helmets on his head could get elected? Against a war hero and a tough as nails, ordinary as they get, citizen reformer?

It’s a bit early, but you may even lose by a whole lot. America’s got a fevah, and it ain’t Obama.

There’s A Line

Socialism: if you build it, they will leave.

Speaking of, Judd has a collection of good ones on Palin from the press, such as:

When she was announced as John McCain’s running mate, I told my wife that the governor had no idea what was about to hit her. By the time she was done speaking, I realized the reverse was precisely true as well.

She was a huge hit in the room and beyond. Ms. Palin, a woman who clearly understands the power of words, had a way of pronouncing media — “MEE-de-ah” — that made it sound like something legless and slithering.

Teh Funny!

The funniest thing I’ve seen for a long time.

  1. Read the title.
  2. Look at the image.
  3. Read the caption.

If you haven’t seen Office Space, you won’t get it. Sorry. (And if you haven’t, rent it. Now! It’s one of those movies you watch over and over and over again, and it’s as funny the thousandth time you’ve seen it as it was the first.)

Link.

Nix That

They’re having serious problems on the other end, apparently. I’ll check it later, but if nothing else, I can watch it afterwards (and the sound is barely audible, so maybe they’ll fix that).

Oh. I almost forgot.

Rasmussen:

Forty-one percent (41%) of voters say that they are certain they will cast their ballot for McCain and will not change their mind before November. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say the same about Obama. Overall, McCain is now viewed favorably by 60% of the nation’s voters while Obama earns positive reviews from 55%.

But that’s not all. That’s not even the best candy. Gallup:

In the new survey, more voters call themselves Republicans. Now 48% say they’re Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party; 47% say they’re Republicans or lean to the GOP.

Not since February 2005, right after Bush’s second inauguration, have Republicans been within a single point of Democrats in party identification.

What’s more, voters by 48%-45% support the Democratic candidate in their congressional district, the party’s narrowest advantage this year.

Are your souls cheered yet?

In other news, hell hath officially frozen over. Two — count them, two — liberal papers ran positive stores on Palin today. Seriously. The NYT ran one on how she balances her family and work. Here’s a sample, because you’re not going to take my word for it (I wouldn’t):

Before her son was born, Ms. Palin went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that his arrival would not compromise her work. She hid the pregnancy. She traveled to Texas a month before her due date to give an important speech, delivering it even though her amniotic fluid was leaking. Three days after giving birth, she returned to work.

But with Trig in her arms, Ms. Palin has risen higher than ever. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, says he selected her as his running mate because of her image as a reformer, but she is also making motherhood an explicit part of her appeal, running as a self-proclaimed hockey mom. In just a few months, she has gone from hiding her pregnancy from those closest to her to toting her infant on stage at the Republican National Convention.

No one has ever tried to combine presidential politics and motherhood in quite the way Ms. Palin is doing, and it is no simple task. In the last week, the criticism she feared in Alaska has exploded into a national debate. On blogs and at PTA meetings, voters alternately cheer and fault her balancing act, and although many are thrilled to see a child with special needs in the spotlight, some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain.

But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers. And on Wednesday in St. Paul, she proclaimed herself a guardian of the nation’s disabled children.

Believe it or not, that’s about as negative as the negative gets. Then, the WaPo — not the news, mind, but the editorial page — praised Palin for delivering on the oil pipeline in Alaska.

Ms. Palin’s predecessor as governor, Republican Frank H. Murkowski, attempted to negotiate a deal with the three oil companies that control the North Slope gas, Exxon Mobil, BP and Conoco Phillips. His plan would have awarded the companies a long-term tax freeze in return for relatively weak commitments to actually build the pipeline. But even though Vice President Cheney and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) lobbied hard for Mr. Murkowski’s approach, Alaska’s public and legislature balked, viewing the proposal as stacked in favor of the Big Three oil companies. Ms. Palin rode criticism of Mr. Murkowski’s deal to victory over him in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary and then to the governor’s office later that year. She reversed Mr. Murkowski’s strategy, asking the legislature to pass a law setting criteria for a deal, then throwing the project open to companies other than the Big Three. The result was a commitment by an experienced pipeline company, TransCanada, to build the project, which may take 10 years, in return for $500 million in state seed money derived from Alaska’s recent oil windfall.

I don’t want to ruin the good cheer by being cynical, but being a grumpy old man, I have to wonder if the NYT and WaPo are figuring out that their easily debunked smears were helping to drive Palin’s popularity, and are backing off.

Eh. Maybe. But that would require intelligence, wouldn’t it? And speaking of, we have our daily news of the st00pid, Joe Biden steps in a great, big, steaming cow pie — and right before his new bishop is about to be installed. Remember about a month ago when Pelosi spewed that drivel about the Church’s position on abortion on Meet the Press? Bishop after bishop responded, then the whole conference of bishops, and then, her own bishop has called her in to talk with him about it. You’d think, wouldn’t you, that after all that, Biden, since he’s on the ticket, would tread softly on the Church’s position on abortion, right?

Wrong.

Again, where is the evidence that Obama is intelligent? He picked the biggest motormouth in the Senate, who has next to no actual foreign policy experience other than sitting on committees and making idiotic suggestions like bribing Iran in response to 9/11, and says something incredibly st00pid almost every time he opens his mouth as his VP? What in the name of God was the logic behind that? What was he thinking? And don’t you think he might have at least asked Hillary to be his VP? (Yes, I realize he didn’t want her on the ticket, and she probably would have told him exactly where to go, but I’m thinking about the voters here.) Wouldn’t you have, had you been Obama? Is he trying to really piss off Democrats? Does he want to head up the Idiot Ticket? And don’t you think he’d eventually figure out that demonstrating what a whiny, weak little panty-waist he is won’t get him elected?

Okay, now let me see if that video is streaming now . . .

Video

The McCain campaign is streaming the video of the rally in Lee’s Summit, MO in, uh, four minutes. This is my notebook. No, I can’t watch it and blog. 100% CPU and all that.

So I’ll be back in an hour, with a couple of things that should cheer your souls.

Really.

Original Mavericks

I Remember Now

Why I don’t watch news channels much, that is. I recorded Weekend Live yesterday, thinking they may be carrying the rally, but no, it was just talking heads. I just don’t like listening to talking heads. I got so sick of it during the convention I recorded the last night on CSPAN.

Just shut up and show us the convention. Or the rally. Or whatever.

54-44

That’s McCain’s lead among likely voters in the most recent Gallup poll. That’s five more points than the largest reported convention bounce Obama got.

And yes, it’s partly convention bounce. It’s also partly Palinmania. And the poll was begun before the convention was over.

That’s That

Eh, not so much” becomes “Hell, no.

Although she is 60 and unlikely to have another shot at the White House, Clinton is apparently concerned that she would appear ungenerous to the Republicans’ first female vice-presidential candidate if she were to go after her.

It is a rationale that will fuel the belief - lingering among Democrats since Al Gore’s failed 2000 presidential run - that the Clintons always put themselves before their party.

[ . . . ]

Her refusal to roll up her sleeves against Palin, who describes herself as “a pit bull with lipstick”, has already come under questioning by Democratic apparatchiks. “The strategic imperative right now is to do something about Palin and prevent her cutting through the race,” said Democratic strategist Tad Devine.

And why should she? The man’s running for President, ferchrissakes, and he doesn’t have the cojones to stand up to Sarah Palin? It doesn’t say much for how well he’ll handle international conflicts, now, does it. It’s amazing anyone wants this castrated panty-waist in the White House.

Wow. Did I just defend Hillary? Strange times.

Wow.

This is the NYT, so before you get excited, wait until a reliable source verifies it, but Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have been fired from election coverage.