“I am cheesing my freaking balls off right now!”
Hate will make you do crazy things. Getting up to the level of hate is a tremendous task. PUMAS and their offspring have done that. Their blind alliance to everything NOT Obama is fascinating as a case study. If President Obama says that it’s Tuesday, June 2nd, they will either claim that he magically and mysteriously fixed the time (with his bat-phone to God) or that he paid someone off to make it so.
Now, I told you that I read the Confluence, because it makes a good read in the morning to give me something to write about immediately upon sitting at the keyboard. Today, as I was reading through and scanning the comments, I was struck by one of the links about GM. As I read the original WSJ link, I remembered reading a bunch of sky is falling, look what Obama did type comments, so I went back and researched and found one in particular, that was interesting, because the person has a Phd…
bostonboomer, on May 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm Said: This is horrible. This whole situation is just killing Indiana. I spent my whole life until adulthood in very small towns. Some of the richest people in the town I grew up in Indiana were the car dealers. It makes me sick that Obama is destroying what is left of this country when we had so much hope that we could reverse the damage Bush did. Obama is worse than Bush ever was.
I don’t know if this country can be saved now. We are headed for tyranny. I never really believed Bush would leave, then it seemed he would, but now we have someone who wants those dictatorial powers so much more than Bush did. I’m crying for my country tonight. Our economy is destroyed and our government is run by torturers, murderers, and thieves.
Now, the article is in regards to the auto industry and how that is hurting small towns. The author waxes poetically about how things used to be. Coupled with the comments, lets just blame Obama for this.
Obama caused the bird flu as well...
But, then a funny thing happened on the way to the keyboard. The economy is starting to show signs of light amid the darkness that has been hovering around.
The GM mess, which wasn’t Obama’s in the first place has been managed pretty well. The PUMAS usually say that HRC or JMac would have handled it better, but how would they? And more importantly how do you know without wither being in the situation or doling out a position on the issue? When looking at the future and the past of GM, this author claims that the issue was a pre-existing mess and that the President has done a good job.
When looking at quals, who do you trust? That is going to be the big issue in evaluation of the truth. Today, lets quote Mr. Paul Ingrassia in the WSJ. You might wonder what he has done. Well, he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993 for covering the last crisis at GM. I think that he probably has a better understanding of the situation at hand than commentors or frontpagers.
This fate could have been avoided with better foresight and less hubris, but by 18 months ago bankruptcy was inevitable. GM’s U.S. market share had declined to 22% from 52% in the early 1960s. There were too many brands, too much debt, a cumbersome union contract as big as a phone book, and an enormous dealer network built for the glory years of yesterday instead of the market share of today.
The question for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama was whether to stand by and watch, or instead to use the public purse to shape the bankruptcies of both Chrysler and GM to mitigate the damage to a shaky U.S. economy. They intervened, which was the unpleasant but correct decision.
By and large, Mr. Obama’s automotive task force has done its job pretty well, forcing the companies and the UAW to make difficult decisions that they should have made themselves long ago. GM will shed four of its eight U.S. brands — Saab, Saturn, Pontiac and Hummer — thousands of dealers, 11 factories, and much of its debt. It is no small irony that a Democratic administration brought in a bunch of private-equity types to impose rational management on big business.
So, Obama made the corect decision, and has managed to execute the plan pretty well. But, let’s see the left couldn’t write about that, because it doesn’t fit within their playbook of “ignore reality and focus only on the mistakes.” You can focus on the mistakes, but have the ability to be self reflective about what you wrote and what you said.
It’s not all peaches and cream and he states that we are not out of the woods yet.
That said, a couple of aspects of the GM and Chrysler bailouts could come back to haunt U.S. taxpayers and the Obama administration.
The company that controls Chrysler, Italy’s Fiat, is getting a special government incentive — a potential increase in its Chrysler ownership stake — to build a small car in America that will get 40 miles per gallon. General Motors made a similar decision to build a high-mileage small car in the U.S. of its own accord, but certainly with an eye toward current political “realities.”
Both moves fit the green agenda of Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats. They’re also egregious examples of mission creep. GM and Chrysler should get just one marching order from the government: Earn enough money so taxpayers will recover as much as their investment as possible. If the new small cars flop because gas prices drop, the result will be more losses and, potentially, Bailout II.
The other questionable call is the government’s big ownership stake in both companies — 60% of General Motors and a much smaller share of Chrysler. The rationale is reasonable. The government is providing the $50 billion of financing needed to restructure GM so taxpayers might as well get something for their money. But this relegates unsecured lenders to the back of the line behind the government and the union. More worrisome, it invokes the question famously asked before the U.S. invasion of Iraq: You can go in, but can you get out?
What they (PUMAS and other random assorted haters and Republicans) will state is that we will never be able to get out of the quagmire that is GM. We should wait and see if that will be the case, but to the ending point of BB comment above is that Obama does care and made the one move to gamble on ingenuity and hard work of American autoworkers. The one BIG issue that the romanticists fail to point out is that this is largely an issue that they created. The UAW deserves its share of the blame for the problem as well. This is one of the reasons that they stuck for…
Decades of dumb decisions helped send General Motors to a bankruptcy court yesterday, but one stands out.
The year was 1998, and the United Auto Workers was striking at two factories in Flint, Mich., that made components critical to every GM assembly plant in the country. The union was defending production quotas that workers could fill in five or six hours, after which they would get overtime pay or just, you know, go home.
What about working your eight hour shift and then going home? Or what about you taking pay for 6 hours? I mean, YES, would I want to get paid for eight hours and only have to work six? ABSOL freakin LUTELY! But, realize the external pressures that puts on the rest of the biosphere. I am sincerely hoping that the NFL and the NFLPA recognize that and don’t do anything to jeopardize what is a 7-10 billion dollar a year industry that I get great pleasure from watching every Sunday.
(not my favorite musical accompaniment, but I support the Silver and Black)
I think that you can figure out the winners
That losing is hard and losers don’t take stock in their shortcomings…
That sounds harsh, and looking back at what I typed, without some context, you would think that might be somewhat misplaced. But, as a former debate type, I come with evidence of my claims.
1) McCain support.
Some of the PUMA factions loved up John McCain, after Hillary dropped out of the race. John McCain’s sacrifices are admirable for the country, and should not be forgotten. But, as the leader of the country, I would defeintely stop short before giving him the keys to the car. But, some PUMA supporters STRONGLY PUSHED FOR HIS ELECTION.
Pat Johnson, on January 1st, 2009 at 11:05 am Said:
Most of us Dems voted McCain/Palin in protest. This was something new to the party who expected “unity” no matter what or who the candidate was or offered. This is what set us apart. We never gave in.
What you fail to realize is that not only is that NOT a protest vote, you do actually what John points out here...
Fortunately, the one who makes the biggest stink isn’t the one who wins. Just because you have a cult like belief, doesn’t make your religion the right one for everyone.
What leader would urge you to protest your vote (something that they faught long and hard for the right for all of us to do so) to vote for the side that has done the least for your cause, historically and recently?
Politico talks about the boost that McCain received from Palin nomination.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has electrified conservative activists, providing a boost of energy to the GOP nominee-in-waiting from a key constituency that previously had been lukewarm — at best — about him.
By tapping the anti-abortion and pro-gun Alaska governor just ahead of his convention, which is set to start here Monday, McCain hasn’t just won approval from a skeptical Republican base — he’s ignited a wave of elation and emotion that has led some grass-roots activists to weep with joy.
Now, dont you feel a little suspoicious about the pick? Are you so blinded about the choice that you fail to see why the choice was made? This had all feeling of a choice of conveinence and political gain. Kudos to McCain for attempting to get elected, but chosing him was a vote designed to punish your opponent. Again, for PUMAS, they live the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend…” to the fullest.
Most importantly for McCain, the two constituencies who are most energized by Palin just happen to be the twin grassroots pillars of the GOP: anti-abortion activists and pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts and sportsmen. Without these two camps making phone calls, stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors, Republican presidential candidates would severely lack for volunteers. They are critical to the health of the conservative coalition that has dominated Republican politics for a generation.
Republicans say the primary source for the passion can be found in Palin’s example and authenticity.
Not only is the 44-year-old governor opposed to abortion rights — but she carried and gave birth to a child with Down syndrome earlier this year, a profound and powerful motivating force to both opponents of abortion rights and the parents and relatives of special needs children.
Even if you think that Obama has not done all he can to get to abortion, the right wingers won with the murder of Dr. Tiller. Your reproduction rights would not have been safe.
Anti-Abortion forces win, with this murder, but isn't this (murder) what they are supposed to be against?
Here was McCain on Abortion from Time
McCain’s straightforward answer, along with his assertion that he would not have nominated any of the Supreme Court’s four liberal judges (notwithstanding that he voted to confirm all but John Paul Stevens, who was named before McCain was in the Senate), had social conservatives breathing sighs of relief. “I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” McCain said to cheers from the audience.
So, even if you think that Obama is not pro-choice enough, he is more than McCain. But, the usual story of Hillary supporters who voted for McCain make the argument that the candidate supported their views. That is a difficult one to reconcile.
2) Random Obama Hatred
Yes, he beat your choice. That happens all the time. But, this was the year that a small and vocal crowd never let up with their belief their candidate was the best one for the job and that she really won. I really would have respected a write in campaign for her, and allowed that to be the measuring stick of her power. Now, that the election is over, you don’t need to hate. Hate the ballot measures, no need to hate the man. You can go to any random post at the Confluence or other PUMA affliated sites and STILL see the pain that they face with Obama winning. They take the slogan hate the player not the game to a new level.
Sophie, on June 1st, 2009 at 7:46 am Said: The infatuation matters because Obama’s ambitions are so grand.
If only. I’m still reeling from yesterday, its history and significance. This last year has been the worst of my life and I lay it squarely at the feet of whoever this puppet master is. There really is no where for me to go politically in America. I disagree with the Republicans on 98% of the issues and I think the Democrats are too stupid to vote or govern their way out of a paper bag.Regency, on May 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm Said: I thought I was crazy for still grieving over this day. I know now that I’m not. I keep feeling robbed and it’s just hard to even see the words “President Obama” knowing that the ending should have been very different. This was the turning point if there ever was one.
Just replace Star Trek with PUMA Convention and you get the idea...
Did the message get through? Well, consider this: people who voted early went overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama; those who made up their minds during the three days after the ad was broadcast voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton.
For more than a century, American politicians have played on racial fears to divide the electorate and mobilize xenophobic parties. Blacks have been the “domestic enemy,” the eternal outsider within, who could always inspire unity among “we whites.” Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy was built on this premise, using coded language — “law and order,” “silent majority” — to destroy the alliance between blacks and white labor that had been the foundation of the Democratic Party, and to bring about the Republican ascendancy of the past several decades. The Willie Horton ad that George H. W. Bush used against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a crude manifestation of this strategy — as was the racist attack used against John McCain’s daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000.
It is possible that what I saw in the ad is different from what Mrs. Clinton and her operatives saw and intended. But as I watched it again and again I could not help but think of the sorry pass to which we may have come — that someone could be trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past that Mr. Obama has struggled to transcend.
It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.
bostonboomer, on May 5th, 2009 at 7:24 am Said: I think you’re right about the people who are using reaction formation as a defense. Many Obots voted for Obama *because* he is part African American and his skin is light brown, in order to assuage their own guilt and fear. Some of us were actually able to look at Obama’s past history and his stated policies instead of the color of his skin.Defense mechanisms are entirely unconscious, and that makes it very difficult for people to see their own behaviors and their consequences. The over-the-top reactions are the key. Overreaction that can easily be seen by others is typical of reaction formation.
Of course these Obots are also using projection–seeing their own extreme emotions in others.
The arguments being raised about Mr. Obama’s blackness — or his lack of blackness — seem positively antique at a time when Americans are moving away from the view of ancestry as a central demographic fact and toward a view that dispenses with those traditional boundaries. Even so, the complaints about Mr. Obama provide an interesting opportunity to examine the passing of the old and the rise of the new.
The claim that the candidate isn’t really black because his mother is white carries little weight under either system. It makes no sense at all to the young Americans who checked more than one box when identifying themselves by race in the last census. They subscribe to a fluid notion of race and seem perfectly willing to let people describe themselves racially any way they choose.
Nor does the charge make sense in the black community itself. That community has historically and eagerly embraced as black anyone and everyone with any African ancestry to speak of. That embrace often included interracial families, who lived in black communities long before they were accepted elsewhere. It included even blue-eyed, sandy-haired people like the civil rights leader Walter White, whose black ancestry was imperceptible to the naked eye.
The carpetbagging black Republican Alan Keyes opened up this racialist can of worms when he opposed Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate race back in 2004. Badly outmatched and reaching for any brick he could find, Mr. Keyes blurted out that Mr. Obama was not black because he was not descended from slaves. The Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch later seemed to second that view, saying that Mr. Obama had not “lived the life of a black American.”
His critics are at least right when they describe his journey as a departure from the customary stereotype. But they are fundamentally wrong when they try to argue that the journey described in his affecting 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” is somehow incompatible with blackness.
At bottom, the hue and cry over Barack Obama’s identity stems from a failure by black traditionalists to recognize multiracial versions of themselves. Soon enough, perhaps by year’s end, however, the Obama story, which seems so exotic to so many people now, will have found its place among all the other stories of the sprawling black diaspora.
Joanelle, on October 31st, 2008 at 10:43 am Said: Oh, boy, I went to an awards dinner last night and ended up being invited to sit at the “reserved” table (head table) but when I sat I found that five out of the seven of us were Obots – who carefully assured us all that Obama will be elected next week so we had nothing to worry about. The other three of us just sat there and smiled – mainly because we knew they were wrong but didn’t want to ruin their meal.
You MEANT that you HOPED that they were wrong, but they ended up being right.
The Prologue: Where do they go from here?
If I was the Confluence, I would stop the label of PUMA. It was a funny, off the cuff quip that has lost its flavor like a piece of gum that that has been chewed for an hour. It’s stale and the rhetoric is stale around the Confluence house. Change the diapers of the baby!
You have some things that are defientely worth saving. Most of the people there are not ignorant, in fact they are mostly very bright individuals who are so tied up into their cause, they reject others with ad-homs. Gotta build bridges, not continue to build trenches around your position. If you have beliefes, don’t shy away from debate.
The tradition in the blog-o-sphere is to aviod debate and limit discussion of various topics if they are opposite than yours. It should be exaclty the opposite. If someone has a different view, invite them to debate. Facts will stand at the end of the debate. You should never feel the need to ban discussion or commentors unless they can only go to ad-homs, which some frontpagers are great at. (You know who…lol)
Here is what I am going to do…you should too…
Here is the nomination for the next justice of the Supreme Court.
The honorable Sonia Sotomayor was chosen by President Obama to potentially serve on the highest court of the land, pending nomination. Now, I thought and still think that she was a good, and clearly somewhat safe pick. I don’t mind the fact that the pick is safe, since there will be others during the Obama presidency. ( I am going out on a limb and claim that he will be a two term president and he will make at least one more nomination)
What gets me is how fast the tide has changed against this pick. One of the somewhat liberal sites I read for fun is the Confluence. I disagree with a lot of what transpired over there post election, since their movement has seemingly coalesced into a pity party. It’s funny that with some frontpagers, they have no problem posting my comments, but a certain clown (his words not mine) is obviously intimidated into answering the call to actually have a spirited forum debate on issues that he posts on.
One of the current topics is on the nomination and the insidious behavior of our President to cheat, lie and steal from everyone. When the nomination was not known, here is a sample of the comments. This one is in regard to comments about her (being Sotomayor) looks
cwaltz, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm Said: There is alot of pressure on women to appear a particular way. It doesn’t help that many women are just as guilty as men at judging a book by its proverbial cover.
Personally, Judge Sotomayer looks perfectly fine to me. Even more important is the fact that she has opinions and isn’t afraid to be vocal regarding those opinions. I can’t believe anyone would consider that a detriment, particularly in a judge. Isn’t the idea to argue or debate an idea on their merits? I was always under that impression perhaps since the courts themselves take the time to issue opinions and dissenting opinions.
The reason why this is so funny that they are up in arms now is that this flies against the PUMA provision of 51 percent. One of the reasons I get their funny form of of temporary time-out is that I bring up the notion of Identity Politics into the discussion. Synthesizing women down to just gender becomes defeatist to many of the movements that they (and sometimes I) find valuable.
But, Sonia Sotomayor should be right up their particular alley. She is a woman and if you listen to some of the commentators, thats all that matters. Here is a former frontpager expressing that thought…
I would like the New Agenda to gather with other like-minded groups to form a large voting bloc, made of women and men who understand that it is time for women to be first. I would like this voting bloc to demand of both Parties that at least 30% of the candidates put forth in 2010, and every election cycle going forward, be women. I would like this bloc to withhold its votes, time and money from both parties until this is done. I would also like this voting bloc to demand that the ERA be re-passed and ratified by 2012, and to withhold its votes, time and money from both parties until this is done. Other ways we can make her voices heard are boycotts of press outlets and companies that promote misogyny; demanding that history books include and honor the contributions of women; coordinate work stoppages in companies that practice sexism against their employees; and so on. There are so many possibilities, if we will only band together and act as one.
This viewpoint was furthered in another post earlier this week on why Males rule the world and what they can do about it
What are the key pieces of a strategic plan to challenge and dispel these errant legitimizing myths? I propose that there are three prongs to the approach:
- Support (supporting women in their quests for leadership)
- Education (providing information and education to society about the inaccuracies of legitimizing myths, the benefits of female leadership, and promoting the positive role models that can impact and change cultural stereotypes about women in leadership)
- Recruitment (active recruitment of women for political leadership)
If it comes down to a question of what comes first, women or ideologies, what should we choose? If we choose ideologies, we are potentially promoting continued male social dominance since males control the message at the moment. If we choose women first, and we can successfully erode male social dominance, we will then be in control of the message. I say choose women first.
The problem is, when that is the choice, you still are never satisfied. Maybe the post should be about just killing all the men. HelenK seems to love that solution, or at least the Lorena Bobbitt approach.
So, this strategy of course backfires when you have a woman against another woman, as I pointed out, or doesn’t work out so well when the only woman doesn’t support your (somewhat narrow and myopic) point of view. Now, instead of being happy that the stated goal of appointing as many women as possible to positions of power, they can only ATTEMPT TO SPECULATE that she will not be friendly to abortion issues and use that as a wedge. Or, JUST LIKE THE OTHER WOMAN THEY CRITIQUE, THEY TEAR DOWN A WOMAN! I thought that the post just said…well forget about it…
bostonboomer, on May 28th, 2009 at 12:51 am Said: I always knew Obama would find a way to appoint an anti-choice person to the court. That he would find a woman to do the dirty work doesn’t surprise me one bit. I feel the same way. Young women don’t seem to appreciate what women fought for back in the 70s. Now they are going to find out what it was like back when I was a young woman and we didn’t have access to birth control or safe abortions. Good luck to all those young women who voted for this nightmare we have in the WH now.
Well, Dr. BostonBoomer (since the front page indicated she finished her defense) you got what you wanted in the “elect a woman” (since gender is first) issue. Maybe you should wait until she actually rules on the issue (or at least wait for conformation hearings) before you tear her apart.
What is clear is the inability to be rational on the nomination and on President Obama ( I know that part must just kill you) and his policies. Just like you accuse anyone who supports Obama of drinking the kool-aid, (which is racist, since everyone knows that minorities drink kool-aid and other sugar water drinks, which are part of the hidden white agenda to kill blacks with diseases that are self inflicted…)
but it seems to have the reverse effect. Any choice by Obama, is a bad choice, cloaked by a political two-step designed to deny precisely those who failed to vote for him. Your blinders prevent you from seeing the benefits of political action of Obama. The one that is the chip shot gimme is your own HRC. Without Obama, there is no her.
But, of course, with conspiracy theories, you have to have someone spreading the theories that people follow.
Prolix, on November 20th, 2008 at 7:42 am Said:
Morning Riverdaughter — another wonderful product of your hypergraphia.
Here are two theories:
1. Obama wants to have as many well-known and respected souls on board as possible when the ship is state is floundering in order to deflect and defend his stolen turn at the helm.
2. He was trying to put a knife in the back of Hillary and Bill by leaking the SoS in order to eventually leak they had “failed” his conflicts vetting. The CDS of the press would have accepted it without question and chewed on it for weeks thereby politically neutering them to some extent. He forgot Hillary and Bill wrote the manual on close-in knife fights.
Well, of course, fail to give credit to Obama for crossing the aisle and extending a hand to make the best cabinet possible, in the land of the Confluence, the mere mention of Obama sends you to the spam filter. That is how powerful some people dislike him. And really?? Why didn’t she use it like Lorena Bobbitt when Bill was spreading his “message” on the blue dress?
But, she is considered strong for her ability to forgive an unpardonable sin in a marriage. The point here is the PUMAS are able to overlook that sin, but they roast Barack for “perceived sexism”, especially acts that are not his own.
BUT, THE BIGGEST SEXIST ACT A PERSON CAN DO TO THEIR PARTNER, they just seemingly sweep it under the rug. (Just wait…at least once a day, someone will mention Bill Clinton and make some snide comment about Barack. Does anyone but me remember Bill fucking Clinton sitting on his hands when a little issue named Rwanda sprung up on his watch? I voted for the man, but let’s no act like he was Jesus or something.
But it is not just the liberal section attacking her, the Conservatives are on the prowl as well.
Court Watch: As GOP Hangs Back, Conservatives Attack Sotomayor
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Only one Republican senator, Pat Roberts of Kansas, has come out so far and said he’ll vote against Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, but conservative pundits and interest groups are already working overtime to make her nomination a subject of controversy. Radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House speaker Newt Gingrich have both dubbed her a “racist” for her views on the impact of difference on judicial decision-making within a diverse society, while interest groups and even one potential GOP presidential candidate are using her nomination to raise funds.That’s the story moving online today.
So, while I get banned for suggesting that Identity Politics are the key to helping building coalitions between groups to get actual change, PUMAS are essentially joining their conservative doppelgangers to attempt to oust Sotomayor or spread the rumor that she was a smokescreen in deference to minority groups, so he can get his true hidden candidate on board. (I stated on the Confluence that I wanted — Leah Ward Sears, (chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, African American woman). Emory JD, 1980; Univ. of Virginia, LL.M, 1995) as the pick, but that Sotomayor would be another good choice. There is always some sinister method, some smoke arising that we should be concerned with. But they were ready to jump into the sack with McCain/Palin.
Here is the racism argument that they are so worried about and the reason why the answer she gave is the one that we should want.
No! No! No! and No! While these problems and many more have continued for decades, without nary a peep from these fine gentlemen, what is it that has finally shaken them to their core and made them realize racism is a serious moral problem worth speaking out and fighting against? It is a single comment made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor explaining that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The nerve! How could she?
Let’s look at those words one more time. She did not say a wise Latina woman WOULD reach a better conclusion. She tentatively HOPED; and HOPED that someone with this kind of experience might make a better decision not ALL THE TIME, simply MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
If no one is happy, that means, deep down, everyone was happy. You may not have gotten what you wanted, but wait to see if it was what you NEEDED. The fact that both sides are up in arms gives me hope that this was a good pick.
UPDATED: Here is another thing that gets me. If she was good enough for Bill, why isn’t she good enough now?
She knows what the eff she’s doing. The Princeton and Yale grad has served under the Bush senior and Clinton administrations, and her supporters contend this appointment was a long time coming.
As CNN points out…
Sonia Sotomayor, who is on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and was elevated to her current seat by President Bill Clinton.
Your BIG DAWG put her in the position to be selected. Can we blame Bill if it falls apart?
This is where the blog first took it’s turn as a step away from the childish toys of our youth, but not quite towards our fathers Vitalis…
The Maxim Top 100 is a list of the most beautiful women that have caught our eye. The First Lady has managed to crack the list with a grace and beauty that captivated the masses.
She broke on the list in position #93…
The First Lady is No. 93. according to Philly.com.
Yesterday, Maxim magazine released the first 10 names on its annual “eyeball-searing, fantasy-fulfilling, brain-exploding” Hot 100, and there, between an “awesome Aussie” TV star and a “mind-blowingly sexy” supermodel was Michelle Obama.
Yes, the one in the White House.
What’s she doing in such a “stimulus package”?
Well, Maxim says its knows a “political bombshell” when it sees one, pledging its allegience to “the hottest First Lady in the history of these United States. (Sorry, Martha Washington!)”
This is a lot better than all the discussion Michelle’s footwear has brought. This is what the LA Times is speculating on, instead of worrying about their financial future
First Lady Michelle Obama, who’s become quite the fashion role model with her J.Crew wear and buff-arm-spotlighting sleeveless frocks, is under scrutiny for what she wore on her feet the other day.
They’re trendy Lanvin sneakers. Which look really nice and comfy and all. Trouble is, they cost $540. If you can find a pair anywhere.
And, of course, if you’ve got $540, plus — what? — 9 or 10% tax in some places. Which seems like a lot for two shoes not guaranteed to benefit your jump shot.
So, if she was a basketball player, her footwear would be okay? She can spend that on a pair of Jordans, but no other brand? Do you know how much a nice pair of comfortable dress shoes cost for men? Exactly… People need to get over themselves. Shoes are not an issue and this post further proves that. While we would disagree on Palin’s (more to me Republican issue of spending campaign contributions on fashion, not that she wore any one thing) clothes and MO’s clothes, this shouldn’t be an issue
The other trouble is that — wait for it — she wore them to a poverty event, a Capitol Area Food Bank for Feeding America to provide much appreciated help and publicity to benefit the food bank.
Mrs. Obama also has gone to serve a lunch hour at soup kitchens in Washington, where an unidentified presumably homeless person showed up with a camera cellphone to capture Mrs. Obama, who kindly posed for the man.
We have a video review below of Michelle Obama’s first 100 days too.
The sharp-eyed Amy Diluna was first to spot the first lady footwear contradiction here.
Sharp-memoried politics readers will recall all the positive attention Mrs. Obama garnered during the presidential campaign for her everyday, every-woman $150 dresses from Black & White Market.
While Cindy McCain, John’s wealthy wife, and some woman from Alaska both attracted negative attention for their expensive clothing, some of it reputedly borrowed.
(FYI, Michelle Obama is a Democrat. The other two women are Republicans. But what could that have to do with anything?)
Diluna also notes about Mrs. Obama: “A week ago, she shoveled dirt at a tree planting while wearing the line’s chiffon tank. Dresses and strappy pumps cost upward of $1,500, while tops go for $400 to $1,000.” An online poll by the N.Y. Daily news finds 59% think the shoe choice was in poor taste for a poverty event.
Now, the video below.
How many of them actually voted? So, the lady goes to help out at a soup kitchen and you are worried about what shoes she is wearing? This is trying too hard, or as my kids in Richmond used to say, “You are doing too much….”
– Andrew Malcolm
Just behind Obama at 94 was Yvonne Strahovski, the Down Under actress who costars in NBC’s Chuck.
Who knew that some show nobody watches would get me shine?
And just ahead at 92 was “blonde and Polish” supermodel Joanna Krupa, star of some sizzling PETA ads.
I am bald down below because I hate FUR!
The countdown continues today, with numbers 81 to 90, at Maxim.com.
Do you know who this guy is…?
No, I am not one of the many AIG execs getting ridiculed...
Neither did I until I started into the lunacy of the many PUMA supporters, and people who are regular posters at the CON-fluence and Ignorant Blues. Here is one of the many comments that got me laughing and the fingers typing.
Carol Says:
March 20, 2009 at 1:43 pmgary – please don’t use the words President and Obama in the same sentence!
CAROL HAKA
First, Carol, respectfully the man is YOUR President, as well as mine. Whether or not you voted for him, the man won. He was sworn in and leads the charge of the U.S. That would be tantamount to me saying, “Hey people, don’t use intelligent and CAROL in the same sentence…”, whether I thought that or not. So, you sites that proclaim Hillary is 44 is up there with this
Carol Says:
March 20, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Good News. Greta has disclosed that her husband is advising Sarah Palin.
Hillary, you better be prepared to kick his ass to the curb in 2 years or Sarah will be the next President in 2012!
CAROL HAKA
What don’t YOU losers get? YOU LOST. I mean, I understand why you wait and hope for (wait for it…) PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA to fail, but I am amused at your attempts to cut off your nose in the futile hope that you spite your face. (Go for it, it’s a better look for you PUMAS… that way you would be easily identified for a lack of intelligence.) Before you get up in arms, I don’t really want you to cut off your nose. I want you to be able to smell the roses of winners…
Out of many funny things to talk about, here are the ones that immediately come to mind
1) YOUR CHOICE, Hillary Clinton, chose to ride with my man Barry Soweto Hussein Obama, instead of staying in the senate and raising HELL there.
2) You cant have it both ways. After the appointment, you were overjoyed with her being the Secretary of State, because you said that she would go a long way and become the “FOREIGN POLICY” President. That would seem to help PRESIDENT OBAMA and further his chances of being re-elected. (Forgetting the fact that he beat her once and will be the incumbent and the incumbent wins 95% of re-election races)
So, either she does well and helps Obama, or she does horribly ( which I would never wish) and she has some of the stink on her as well. Are you really saying that you think that she is going to run again, after she stated that she was not going to run again? Or, are you saying that she needs to quit so Sarah can win? (I won’t go into why would she quit in two years, when presidents are decided every four years? Midterms I guess might be an answer, but she resigned from the senate…logic confounds PUMAS…)
Regardless, she (being Sarah Barracuda) can’t win and whoever advises her is not going to get the job done either. Remember when you talked about the victory that Hillary was going to get over YOUR President? What about the victory over McLame and Barracuda? He served them like a 12 course meal from here…
You talked about the states that were going to go to McLame and that never materialized in a series of PUMAS just being wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day, a PUMA never… here is the answer to the question at the top of the post… (all credit goes to http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/john-p-coale.htm for this infomation…)
John Coale: Coale, a well-known Washington lawyer and the husband of Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, drew national media attention when he endorsed Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid in protest of the way in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he backed in the primary, was treated. Coale, in an interview with the Fix, described himself simply as a “friend” of the Alaska governor but acknowledged that he suggested she start a leadership PAC and helped her navigate through some of the questions surrounding her family that lingered after the campaign. Others familiar with Palin’s political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on — essentially helping to run Sarah PAC….
So Congrats PUMAS, you have found another unethical person to lead your charges. Unlike the PUMA contingent, I like to throw my charges around with a bunch of evidence.
Can you say conflict of interest? Conflict of interest defined…
A situation in which someone, such as an attorney or public official, has professional, personal, or financial interests or obligations and cannot take on certain new business because the prior interest or obligation would make it difficult for that person to fulfill his duties fairly. …
www.millerlawinc.com/CM/Custom/Legal-Definitions.asp
While Greta is spouting her Pro-Sarah rhetoric, her husband is quietly building the political action committee designed to take her to the top? Seems somewhat suspect to me. One thing that I learned early is the “avoidance” of impropriety is key, even if you have nothing to hide. Maybe they have nothing to hide, but why wouldn’t Greta at least mention this in her constant skewering of President Obama? She wouldn’t want to reveal this little nugget of information, because then people could/would paint her with the partisan brush other news organizations or people have been labeled with. This would have an effect on ratings…
Now back to the picture. Again, that is a picture of John Coale, the husband of Greta and a Wahington lawyer. Look at the hi-jinks that they are up to…This is something that I totally find funny. The hubby and wife team of Coale and Van Susteren were found guilty of ambulance chasing: (From http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/john-p-coale.htm
http://www.lawyersgunsandmoney.com/coale.htm
“As of April 1996, Coale, his wife Greta Van Susteren – who is also his partner in a law firm, and the law firm were all the subject of serious bar disciplinary proceedings in West Virginia, whose state bar’s discipline board was seeking to suspend their right to practice law in West Virginia for a year as a result of soliciting prospective clients in ways prohibited by bar rules, generally referred to by the public as “ambulance-chasing”; in Coale’s case, the term seems particularly appropriate because one of the incidents that landed him in trouble was his law firm’s employee allegedly trying to chat up a severely-burned man in an intensive-care unit.”
Damn… that is low. Dude is burned to a crisp and you are trying to solicite business? Were you just waiting in the ICU during Greta’s plastic surgery? No, so you had no business there…
Before and After...she must of had a helleva good doctor to correct that crooked mouth that she had, similar to the JOKER. I thought that she talked out of the side of her mouth before, now with her husband, she still can!
“By the end of 1996, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had ruled that Coale and his wife were both guilty of professional misconduct in such solicitations, stating:
‘Accordingly, we find that respondents Allen, Coale, and Van Susteren engaged in professional misconduct by inducing others to initiate the improper telephone solicitations which we found violative of Rules 7.3(a) and 7.3(b)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.’”
So, someone who has been FOUND to behave in an unethical way is going to be the quarterback of the Sarah Palin campaign? That sounds like good news for Obama supporters, especially since they were sloppy enough to be caught…
To have a pre-empt for people who will argue that they were never charged, the real issue was a question of jurisdiction…remember this is one of the same rationales that the Court gave in the Dred Scott decision.
http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/TopSep96.htm The ruling against the odd couple:
Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Phillip B. Allen, John P.
Coale, and Greta Van Susteren, No. 22700 (W. Va., November 15, 1996)(Albright, J.): ___ W. Va. ___, 479 S.E.2d 317 Reluctantly dismissing ethics charges against out-of-state lawyers for improper solicitation of clients in West Virginia, the Court held that while the evidence clearly supported the Disciplinary Board’s finding that the respondents’ conduct violated the Rules 7.1(c), 7.3(a), 7.3(b)(1), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court did not have jurisdiction to discipline them because the misconduct occurred at a time when only persons “regularly engaged in the practice of law” in West Virginia were subject to professional discipline under Article VI, 4 of the West Virginia State Bar Constitution and By-Laws.
So, because they were not REGULAR practitioners or the criminal behavior, the Court didn’t have the ability to levy an adequate punishment…
Finally Coale *likes* to be called an ambulance chaser:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9510/public.html “I am a pirate,” Mr. Coale said proudly. “I have been described as an ambulance chaser, and I don’t disagree.”
I am okay with it personally… in the words of Michael Jordan, “You reach, and I teach…”
One of my favorite movies is the Princess Bride. There are a lot of funny moments that turn into life lessons.
The Courtship…
The Prince
Princess Buttercup... not bad 22 years later...
[Buttercup] “I’ll never love you.”
[Humperdinck] “I wouldn’t want it if I had it.”
“Then by all means let us marry.”
That seems like the issue in a lot of marriages… They are established for convenience, not because of love. Even when you think that you have love, it can be either lust, or deep like….they can fool you really easy since they look alike.. Bristol and Levi may just have discovered that they liked each other, but not enough to actually get married and stuff…
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston split
Pregnancy announcement followed by promise they’d marry, but outcome is a typical one
When last we left the Palin family, teenage daughter Bristol had given birth to a child and was planning a summer wedding with the child’s father, the strapping, hockey-playing Levi Johnston.
But now the engagement that nearly knocked the Republican National Convention off its platform is kaput, and a voyeuristic nation is again tuned in to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s soap-opera-esque life.
And yet after the announcement during the presidential race that Palin had a pregnant teenage daughter, the McCain-Palin campaign was quick to assure everyone that the two would be married and the Palins released a statement saying the couple “will have the love and support of our entire family.”
- “The Prince and I have never from the beginning lied to each other. He knows I do not love him.”
“Are not capable of love is what you mean.”
“I’m very capable of love,” Buttercup said.
“Hold your tongue, I think.”
“I have loved more deeply than a killer like you can possibly imagine.”
He slapped her.
- “I loved once,” Buttercup said after a moment. “It worked out badly.”
“Another rich man? Yes, and he left you for a richer woman.”
“No. Poor. Poor and it killed him.”
“Were you sorry? Did you feel pain? Admit that you felt nothing -”
“Do not mock my grief! I died that day.”
- While he was watching the ships, Buttercup shoved him with all her strength remaining…down went the man in black…”You can die too for all I care,” she said, and then she turned away.
Words followed her. Whispered from afar, weak and warm and familiar. “As…you…wish…”
While the news of the pregnancy brought cries of hypocrisy from the left, with liberals quick to note her mother’s support of abstinence, it drew many conservatives to Palin’s side, eager to defend her. This, after all, was a family like any other, a family with problems, and the presence of a pregnant teen seemed to humanize Palin.
Far be it from me to be hypocritical and suggest that they used him for his rugged good looks and to be the face of the convention. Okay, I am hypocritical and I will say that they used him to quell the fires of discontent that had started creeping up. People were questioning whether McCain fully vetted his choice and her family. Ultimately, it was a good move and it made her a little more likable and made it seem like a nuclear family would rise from the ashes.
They brought Johnston to the convention, dressed in suit and tie, smiling and seated next to Bristol. In an interview with The Associated Press in October, he said, “We both love each other. We both want to marry each other. And that’s what we are going to do.”But the deck was stacked against them. Many pregnant teens are optimistic about the chances of marrying the father of their child. Albert said one-third of unmarried teen mothers say they’re “certain” they’ll marry the biological father, while an additional 23 percent say their chances of marrying are “good.
see… that is why you have to keep the shotgun on him until the words have been spoken. They will always get away if left to their own devices…
“The notion that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston’s experience here is in any way unique couldn’t be further from the truth,” Albert said. “Marriage and birth patterns in teens have changed over time, shifting from a general trend of marrying before pregnancy to marrying as a result of pregnancy to becoming pregnant and not marrying.”
And those who do marry don’t fare well. Teen marriages are twice as likely to fail as marriages in which the woman is at least 25 years old.
Perhaps as predictable as this high-profile breakup is the reaction from gawkers on both sides of the political fence.
“Within her base, I think this will just increase sympathy and support,” said Gary Alan Fine, a Northwestern University sociology professor who studies political reputations. “It will make her seem more like a person who has to confront the challenges of life, and this is one of them. If you’re a fundamentalist or a devout Christian, you don’t believe you’re living in a world without sin, you don’t believe people don’t make mistakes.”
And for those who love to hate Palin, this is another arrow in their quiver.
“It just adds a kind of frisson of joy, a little pleasure,” Fine posited. “It confirms the kind of Beverly Hillbillies aspect, the lower-middle-class qualities that people saw in Sarah Palin.”
During the campaign, Barack Obama made clear that Palin’s family was off-limits, and the McCain campaign excoriated the media for even asking questions about Bristol’s pregnancy. So it’s unlikely that much political hay will be made of this latest chapter.
“You really can’t make too much out of it,” said Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, a faculty fellow at Northwestern’s Institute for Policy Research. “I think Palin’s going to take advantage of this boundary that exists to deflect any negative attention, and then she’s going to frame it as a mother having unconditional love for her baby girl.”
And leave everyone waiting to see what happens next.
They are clapping for entirely two different reasons… She is clapping because she thinks she has a husband AND baby daddy and he is clapping because of all the other box he can score… get it? He is a hockey player and his job is to put the biscuit in the basket…
This is what marriage is all about…
Lois Griffin: Oh, what about this, Meg? A pink baby-tee that says “Little Slut.” That seems pretty hip.
Meg Griffin: I don’t know if that’s really me, Mom.
Lois Griffin: Well, they’ve got one that says “Porn Star” and another that says “Sperm Dumpster.” And they’re all written in glitter.
Meg Griffin: All right, all right. Give me “Sperm Dumpster.”
Lois Griffin: That’s the spirit.If Meg only looked this good...Mila Kunis from that 70's show is the voice of Meg Griffin
Family Guy is always good for a laugh and is good for a non-biased look at society at large. Looking back at the Alfie Patten scenario and the circus that is surrounding that nightmare, comes another youngster who is making smart statements, albeit, after the fact.
My sentiment exactly...
I am not sure why Bristol Palin is getting more airtime than anyone in the Too Old crew, but in interviews, she has been preaching the folly of abstinence only sexual policies.
Teen pregnancy? Not really a good idea.
Stopping teen sex? Ain’t gonna happen.
So says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, who told Fox News‘ Greta Van Susteren Monday night that the abstinence her mom preaches is “not realistic at all.”
Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, revealed shortly after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate, shook up the last presidential campaign.
Bristol Palin, who gave birth in late December, described the rigors of being a teen mom, and while she wouldn’t go into detail why it isn’t realistic for guys and gals her age not to have sex, she did say it isn’t smart to get knocked up.
Let me help Bristol out here. It is not realistic for boys and girls (in whatever partnership arrangement that they wish…) not to have sex, because, well…it feels damn good. There I said it. I know that you were thinking it, but I had the strength to say it.
Lois Griffin: Glenn, thank you so much for helping me tear up my carpet.
Glenn Quagmire: Well you know, Lois, I… I gotta confess, uh, when you called me, I sort of misunderstood what you were asking for. That’s why I rushed over, but uh… it’s fine, it’s fine, whatever. I’m happy to help.
“Everyone should wait 10 years,” Palin said. “I hope people learn from my story.
“It’s so much easier if you’re married, have a house and career. It’s not a situation you want to strive for.”
She denied that her mother’s anti-abortion views were the reason she went ahead with the pregnancy.
“It was my choice to have the baby,” she said. “It doesn’t matter what my mom’s views are on it. It was my decision.”
But telling her mom that she and her hockey hunk boyfriend, Levi Johnston, were to be parents was tough, she admitted.
“Harder than labor,” she said.
There was no way that any of us would be able to “just say no” when we were in high school. Hell, I couldn’t say that in junior high school…I just have more sense than Chantelle and Alfie and the rest of the crew.
Bill Clinton: Hey, you up for a little NAFTA?
Lois Griffin: What’s that?
Bill Clinton: ‘Nother Afternoon F**king That Ass! [chuckles]
Corky could still be yours too….
Some people are just haters. I love haters and personally we love them here at Too Old. But, our standard for hating is that you have a point, you can defend your point and then be able to articulate what you are hating on.
We make fun of this other blog, the Confluence. They are filled with hate over the fact that Obama won the election. It keeps me warm at night knowing that they are still steamed and are going to be devastated in four years with a re-election. You should have read their blog. It was as if someone very close to them had suddenly died. They might have been the only ones not to read the tea leaves to see that beatdown happening. The only thing that they have going for them is that they don’t hate for the color of his skin, they just hate the game and that’s okay. But, occasionally, they need to be reigned in on their haterade drinking. I hate liberals who talk out both sides of their mouth. They will espouse freedoms for all and then censor a comment, since they got played. (Ed. note we dont have a need to censor your comments. We are funnier than most of you, like 99.9% and will have fun answering your comments)
The most recent hate comes from Angie, who is a frequent commenter on the blog, but usually has little to say of substance. If you are pro-Obama, to her, you must be an idiot. First, a pre-empt, since I already know where you are going…
Their favorite argument is, “What has Obama done?” The Huffington Post crushes this argument out
No doubt, Watson — and anyone acting as an Obama campaign surrogate — should be able to rapidly list the important issues that the Illinois Senator has championed. This includes the Lugar-Obama legislation that has helped decrease the threat of old nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon in the former Soviet Union and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which Obama co-authored and that led to USAspending.gov, which keeps Americans better informed on government spending.
So, the Confluence would act like this piece of legislation never happened.
Obama has also been very active in legislation to end the Iraq war and the much-heralded Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which passed in July of 2007 and addressed the hideous treatment received by Veterans under the Bush administration, began its legislative life as the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, introduced by Obama earlier in the year.
I would challenge the Confluence to point to legislation that Hillary Clinton got passed during the same two years that they were in the Senate. The HRC definitely has some age and more “time” in the Senate, but this is an important piece of bi-partisan legislation. So, don’t act like he hasn’t done anything in his three years in the Senate. They also act like he isn’t educated, but please. Among the top of the class in law school, lecturer at a law school, enough said, especially considering the Ivy connection. The rest of the article slays this tired line that the Confluence and other haters attempt to roll with
But here’s the thing that any person going on television to represent Obama should repeat without end — and that should also be a part of the Obama campaign’s standard playbook: No Democrat, including Senator Hillary Clinton has been able to do one hell of a lot that meets the accomplishment benchmark of “passed legislation” in a time of unending, record-setting Republican obstructionism.
Obama has been in the Senate for three years, two of which were spent with a Republican majority that would not even let legislation sponsored by Democrats reach the floor for a vote and, on the few occasions where Bill Frist granted such a luxury, Republicans shot down most Democratic initiatives with extreme prejudice.
In the current (110th) Congress, the Republican minority has blocked everything but the Senate chaplain’s morning prayer and is on pace by a wide margin to filibuster more legislation than any Senate in U.S. history.
Game, set, match…
Their hatred doesn’t only cause them to talk reckless about Barack, they drag their haterade and throw in Michelle’s way.
Recently, they hate on the story of Michelle getting Lobster and caviar. They talk about calling her bougsie (short for Bourgeoisie (RP /ˌbʊ.ʒwɑːˈzi/ or /ˌbɔː.ʒwɑːˈzi/, GA /ˌbʊ(r).ʒwɑˈzi/) [1] is a classification used in analyzing human societies to describe a social class of people. The bourgeoisie are members of the upper or merchant class, whose status or power comes from employment, education, and wealth. They are distinguished from those whose power comes from being born into an aristocratic family.
Anytime you see brotha and sistas climb the ladder and get some shine, you hate on them. Biggie had it right, Mo Money, Mo Problems…
Again, the problem is that the story is not true. There have been several retractions of the story. The NY Post is one of the places that the retraction happened.
October 21, 2008 –
THE source who told us last week about Michelle
Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.
Now, the issue is the ring. The 30K ring that is awesome. It might not be for all, but you can’t hate on the ring. Maybe they are mad that no one is dropping skrilla on them like that, but, I digress. Lets look at some of the comments from totally ignorant, sexist when it suits them fools.
Without question that ring is straight fire! Look for it to be the next new hot item for rappers to floss with! Platinum is so played out compared to this!
FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama won’t get pricey ring
1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Looks like Michelle Obama won’t be setting aside her fake pearls in favor of a $30,000 thank you ring from her husband.
London tabloids reported that President-elect Barack Obama was buying a pricey rhodium ring from Italian designer Giovanni Bosco for his wife. But there’s no truth to the report, said Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer.
The rumor began overseas and made the rounds of American blogs, including the Drudge Report.
The office of Giovanni Bosco, reached in northern Italy, also said the reports were incorrect.
angienc, on December 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm Said:
Briana — FACT CHECK my @ss — I expected these bs denials just like they did with the caviar & lobster story at the Waldorf — I fully believe he bought that ring, just like I fully believe MEchelle ate that lunch. I don’t care what FACT CHECK denials are issued. The press will pretend he didn’t buy the ring just like they pretended their wasn’t any fraud or voter intimidation during the primary.
Here is the problem AngieNC, you don’t get to have it both ways. Do you believe the media, or not believe the media?
1) Why believe the media now? The ring story is continued in cyberspace by blogs and Drudge. So, you are saying you agree with him now that it is convenient since its against a sworn enemy? You hate on Drudge all the time, why stop now?
2) Both the designer who was alleged to have crafted the ring and the Obamas deny the story. It doesn’t fit with the carefully crafted narrative that we have been exposed to. Why break ranks now?
3) Angie, why believe the caviar and lobster story when MOST in the blogsphere don’t believe that story. Is it just hate that drives these beliefs or actual facts?
It’s okay to hate the game, and even hate the player, but at least admit its hate and not facts that drive the engine
Finally, the money that was spent in the election and the Palin wardrobe situation is the same thing that I saw you rail against, but you seemingly have no problem using it against the Obama crowd. It seems that the 30% solution that is espoused is only (and again this is just my perspective that I gathered over the last couple of days with the Condy Rice and some of the vitriol spewed there) that is only women that are white. I know that this isn’t the case, but that is how it has sounded the last few days.
When you take shots at women and what they wear or what they look like, then you take away from what is important, which is what they stand for and what they are about are the questions you should concern yourself with. Like Palin campaigning for Chambliss and the fact that people and PUMAS are willing to overlook her governance for her gender…
Sarah Palin on October 18th at a campaign rally in Lancaster, Pennsylvania:
Hulk, you got nothing on me! Palinmanics are going to run wild on you!
Your pythons still need some work girl…
Game Over... You are crushed out!
campaigning for Chambliss Dec 1st
Damn, I love this coat! Q: Do you think that they will miss it it I keep it? A: Yes, we will...
Now, if I start talking about the fact that she seemingly lied when she and the campaign said that all the clothes went back to the designers or the stores, (or donated…to Gov. Palins closet, her favorite place to shop…) would she be lying then, or now?
McCain: 1/3 Palin Clothes Already Returned
WATERLOO, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2008
(CBS/AP) Republican John McCain said Sunday that one-third of the $150,000 that the GOP spent on clothing and accessories for his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her family, “is given back.”
McCain strategist Mark Salter said “about a third of it was returned immediately” because they were the wrong size, or for other reasons.
Salter’s explanation was the first time the campaign has said any of the items had been returned.
Last week after the purchases at such high-end department stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus appeared in campaign spending reports filed with the government, McCain and his aides repeatedly said the clothes would be donated to charity after the election.
News of such expensive clothes offered a stark contrast to Palin’s image as an average “hockey mom.”
Tracey Schmitt, Palin’s campaign spokeswoman, said some of the clothing was returned after the Republican National Convention in September. The governor generally wears her own outfits on the campaign trail, Schmitt said.
“A third was returned post-convention,” she said. “Many of the remaining clothes have never been worn.”
Schmitt said Palin intended to donate the items she has worn to charity.
“Regardless, what wasn’t returned will go to charity after Election Day,” said Schmitt.
Asked about Palin as he was interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” McCain rejected the notion that Palin is unqualified to be president and that she is hurting is campaign for the presidency. He also was questioned about the clothing purchases.
“Look, she lives a frugal life. She and her family are not wealthy. She and her family were thrust into this, and there was some – and some third of that money is given back, the rest will be donated to charity,” he said.
“Americans right now care about whether they’re going to stay in their homes, whether they’re going to have a job, whether they’re going to be able to keep their health insurance, if we’re going to come out of this ditch that we’re in,” McCain added. “They want change. They want reform. She is a role model to millions and millions and millions of Americans.”
Meanwhile, on the trail in Florida on Sunday, Palin had a pointed message for Barack Obama: This thing isn’t over yet.
Speaking in Tampa, Fla., Palin sharply criticized Obama for acting as if he’s already won the election.
Palin mentioned reports that the Democratic presidential nominee, who is leading in the polls, has already written his inaugural speech. That drew boos from the crowd of more than 5,000 gathered for a rally at the Tampa convention center.
Palin said Obama’s campaign “thinks this whole election thing is just a formality.”
With just nine days to go before the Nov. 4 election, Palin was making another push in the swing state of Florida, where most polls show Obama leading McCain.
Oh, Sarah? It was a mere formality. You were just a bug on the Obama train windshield. Thanks for playing. You are done here….
Forget Country First, I need my diaper changed and a little blue pill
Well, well, well… you have been on the wrong side of history yet again. Why did you attach your hopes and dreams to a loser? A serial loser at that, who if we are to believe you now, was hated by his own party?
What delirium effected you when you thought that McCain/Palin could win? Almost 6 million people at this point and time (AND YES, NOT ALL THE VOTES HAVE BEEN COUNTED, so it could be bigger) totally disagree with you. Now, we know is that almost 8 million people agree that Barack Obama was the better choice.
Simply put, this was an issue of black and white. Not along the color barrier, but of choice. Regardless of who you supported at the primary level, barring some legal challenge that never materialized, you are left with two main party choices, and a few third party choices. The real option was choosing between Barack Obama and John McCain. You chose the war hero that finished at the bottom of his naval class, versus the guy who was among the top of his law school class. This isn’t the case of Bush getting in legacy style and have a sub 2.0 gpa, but someone of substance, who lectured and was editor of the Law Review. But, you still questioned his intelligence. I went to the Confluence to see what they had to say about the election. Riverdaughter was measured with her comments and wrote an optimistic piece for her constituency. If it was up to them, she would have been stoned, or lit on fire. Some people were so mad, they were talking about staying away from the site.
To them, I say, take a deep breath and relax. You should have known that this day was coming. What about the polls did you not believe? I am impressed by some of the dedication of the followers (And if you really thing that the Obama campaign are just blind followers, then look internally to the PUMAS, who are willing to follow a women, regardless of her qualifications, or lack thereof)
Now before you think that I am anti-women, I love women, to quote Redman when he noticed he was failing womens studies in How High. My point until I got the boot (They are big on censorship, so no one is able to penetrate their balloon of naivety on the subject matter) First, Hillary lost. I know that is upsetting to you when your candidate is out of the race. This is not an indictment of all women, just that Hillary wasn’t the right one. She jumped on the winning team and campaigned for the choice she thought was best. When faced with TWO choices, she clearly chose the lesser of two evils.
Here is where I am willing to get labeled a sexist, when I criticize the selection of Sarah Palin. The Confluence loves her to death and blame Obama for all the negative attacks on her. One astute reader pointed out, “What if I THINK that she is not that smart, why does that make me a sexist?” They love to tear down Barack and not call him smart, but they gloss over Princeton, Harvard Law School with the editor of the Law Review. That is also to ignore the issue of being a lecturer at University of Chicago. I wont rehash what they censored at the Confluence, but do a comparison of Obama and McCain/Palin and its a crush. McCain gets a clear pass, as he was serving the country. But the Confluence has labeled Palin as smarter than Obama. The only thing to say about that is… c’mon now, REALLY?
Lets go to wikipedia and she what they have to say
In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester. She transferred to North Idaho community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters.[11][12] During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant,[13][14] then finished third in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant,[15][16] at which she won a college scholarship and the “Miss Congeniality” award.[8] Afterwards, Palin attended the Matanuska-Susitna community college in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.[11][12]
Now, I don’t think that you have to go to an IVY to get a good education, but you are really challenging who is more intelligent? Palin can never win the Presidency since she doesnt have the right connections anymore. In twenty years are you still going to be on the wrong side of History? IF/When things go well for the country, will you still be consumed by your hatred of President (get used to the title) Barack Obama? Chose a woman that can actually win and has some qualifications. Palin was not it, and will never be. She doesn’t have the right connections to make it work.
cant wait to see what media controls when we start writing the history books to inculcate Americas youth. If President O is so powerful, what makes you think that the PUMAS (Looks like we had enough party unity without you) can bring him down?
