It's all Palin's fault

Donald Trump says some dumb things.  He lacks a filter.  He lacks tact.  And he sometimes shifts blame to others, but one would tend not to assume a two-term president would be so juvenile -

According to Obama, Sarah Palin is responsible for everything, including Trump.

I see him, actually, as the start of the line - a man who had zero experience doing anything, and even the community organizing was ... very limited ... who had no experience foreign, no experience domestic, was a part time legislator in Illinois, had been there for a short time before he decided to run for US Senate with no experience, and then within months decided to run for president - with no experience doing anything other than smoking pot, writing for a Harvard Law Journal, and attending an extremist church ... no experience, but a lot of pride and ego ....

Hillary, the wife of a man who has molested more women than some men in prison for molestation.  A man who had sexual relations with THAT woman and many others, in the Oval Office - while HILLARY was nearby.  And she is a defender of women?  In what dimension.  She enabled, supported, defended, protected a serial womanizing dick.  That's what she has done.  Lied to congress, to the American people about everything from the mystery files showing up on a White House sofa to ... well, almost everything she has ever said contains part truth and part lie.

But it's all Sarah Palin's fault!

If that helps you sleep better.

Media: Palin versus Biden or Obama

Robert Shaffer

- FOXNews.com
- November 17, 2009



AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'


Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the Associated Press' treatment of Palin's book seems an unprecedented move at the wire service

Sarah Palin is no normal politician, and at the Associated Press, apparently "Going Rogue" is no normal book.

When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.

The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin's motives for writing "Going Rogue: An American Life," stating as fact that the book "has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto."

Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled "Really? Still Making Things Up?"

"Imagine that," the post read. "11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."

The AP, an organization with over 4,000 employees and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, wouldn't comment on their own reporting for this story.

Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the treatment Palin's book received appears to be something new for the AP. The organization did not review for accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then-Sen. Joe Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton. The AP did more traditional news stories on those books.

The attraction to Palin doesn't appear to be partisan, since AP didn't fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

The AP, however, regularly writes "fact checks" for major political speeches, such as a September health care speech by President Obama.

Doug Underwood, a University of Washington journalism professor who covered Washington politics in the late 1970s for Gannett, said Palin brings some negative attention on herself with a history of bad interviews and misstatements. In addition, the press cannot ever be perfectly consistent or fair, he said.

[EXCEPT Mr. Underwood, Joseph Biden is notorious for making up things, outright creating his own version of history and facts, which I would surmise is much prefered to a 'bad interview' or misstatement.  Rather, I surmise it is her attack on the left and the media that fuel the vigorous investigation into every word she has in her book, but with Biden or Obama, men with similar outlooks on life as the media, you look with a squint and a wink.]

Still, the media treated Biden and Palin differently, he said.

Biden's book "Promises to Keep" became an instant best-seller when he was chosen to be Obama's running mate, but was not fact-checked by the AP and only received passing interest. In a story last year on Biden's Vietnam War draft deferments due to asthma, the reporter notes Biden didn't mention the malady in his book.

Palin is not the standard presidential possibility for 2012, Underwood said.

"She's a figure who's a politician, but also a part of popular culture," he said.

Palin supporters believe 11 reporters poring over every word of her book is excessive- and further proof of the media's obsession and maltreatment of the hockey mom from Wasilla.

"They're obsessed with trying to discredit her," said Adrienne Ross, New York state organizer for the 2012 Draft Sarah Committee. "Because she's a conservative woman, they make fun of her accent, comment about her looks. She doesn't come in the package they want her to come in."



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
easter bunny

Sarah Palin - God this and God that and God will and God won't

God will do this and God will do that, and pray that God saves us and pray that God ...

What if Sarah Palin said or wrote words similar to the above. What would the response be?

I can tell you with absolute certainty - SNL would mock her, news broadcasts on cable news would mock her, academics would mock her, the media would mock her in an ever so condescending manner ...



"Gird your loins, we're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride."




The funny thing is, it wasn't Sarah Palin. It was Joe Biden.




Obama



Biden



God

Biden: Don't let facts get in the way - Just Make Up Stuff.

The transcript from the Biden / Palin debate - part of it:

IFILL (Moderator) in icky color

Biden (Democrat) in blue

Palin (Republican) in red

My comments are in GREEN

IFILL: The House of Representatives this week passed a bill, a big bailout bill -- or didn't pass it, I should say. The Senate decided to pass it, and the House is wrestling with it still tonight.
As America watches these things happen on Capitol Hill, Sen. Biden, was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?




BIDEN: Let me begin by thanking you, Gwen, for hosting this.
And, Governor, it's a pleasure to meet you, and it's a pleasure to be with you.
I think it's neither the best or worst of Washington, but it's evidence of the fact that the economic policies of the last eight years have been the worst economic policies we've ever had. As a consequence, you've seen what's happened on Wall Street.

Biden, don't let facts get in the way of a good story. And better yet, say it with such a straight face, people actually believe you. Very simply - the mortgage issue began this fiasco, banks involved in the process or having bought out securities based upon subprime, lost money, those banks collapsed, leading to further economic distress, credit tightening, further collapse ... Freddie and Fanny ... none of it had to do with THIS administration. Freddie and Fannie held 1.5 trillion worth of mortgages, nearly half of all mortgages in this country - Freddie and Fanny were government created entities, BY THE DEMOCRATS, for their constituents. It was not this administration that benefited Mr. Biden. Republicans attempted to reign in Freddie and Fanny - Democrats (like Frank and Waters - howled to the moon to not mess with it if it isn't broken). It was seriously broken and Democrats refused to fix it.

If you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild, I don't think you needed any more evidence than what you see now.

So the Congress has been put -- Democrats and Republicans have been put in a very difficult spot. But Barack Obama laid out four basic criteria for any kind of rescue plan here.
He, first of all, said there has to be oversight. We're not going to write any check to anybody unless there's oversight for the -- of the secretary of Treasury.

Republicans wanted oversight of Freddie and Fanny to reign in the hundreds of billions, and hold someone accountable. You, Mr. Biden refused that oversight.

He secondly said you have to focus on homeowners and folks on Main Street.
Thirdly, he said that you have to treat the taxpayers like investors in this case.
And, lastly, what you have to do is make sure that CEOs don't benefit from this, because this could end up, in the long run, people making money off of this rescue plan.
And so, as a consequence of that, it brings us back to maybe the fundamental disagreement between Gov. Palin and me and Sen. McCain and Barack Obama, and that is that the -- we're going to fundamentally change the focus of the economic policy.
We're going to focus on the middle class, because it's -- when the middle class is growing, the economy grows and everybody does well, not just focus on the wealthy and corporate America.

If it was all about the middle class Mr. Biden, why were democrats so eager to net everyone, able or not, and give them a mortgage, guaranteed through the federal government?




IFILL: Thank you, Senator.
Gov. Palin?



PALIN: Thank you, Gwen. And I thank the commission, also. I appreciate this privilege of being able to be here and speak with Americans.
You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy, is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, "How are you feeling about the economy?"
And I'll bet you, you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market. Did we just take a major hit with those investments?
Fear about, how are we going to afford to send our kids to college? A fear, as small-business owners, perhaps, how we're going to borrow any money to increase inventory or hire more people.
The barometer there, I think, is going to be resounding that our economy is hurting and the federal government has not provided the sound oversight that we need and that we deserve, and we need reform to that end.
Now, John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.
People in the Senate with him, his colleagues, didn't want to listen to him and wouldn't go towards that reform that was needed then. I think that the alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight, again thanks to John McCain's bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first.

Blah blah blah ... listening to her may hurt my ears, which it does, BUT she doesn't lie. I prefer truth to lies, even if the truth hurts my ears.

IFILL: You both would like to be vice president. Sen. Biden, how, as vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight?


BIDEN: Well, that's what I've done my whole career, Gwen, on very, very controversial issues, from dealing with violence against women, to putting 100,000 police officers on the street, to trying to get something done about the genocide in -- that was going on in Bosnia.

Mr. Biden, someone should call you on this. 100,000 police officers were never put on the street. Do you figure no one can find the 1990s newspapers to prove this? It was less than 10,000 nationwide. In Bosnia? genocide? Amazing how morally sturdy you are - where the fuck were you when Rwanda was happening? Don't talk about Bosnia when you have enough blood on your hands with Rwanda (and I am not ignoring McCain and the blood he would have for failing to act). We should be proud of you in Bosnia ... and pretend you weren't around for Rwanda. At least McCain doesn't pretend - he just doesn't say anything.


And I -- I have been able to reach across the aisle. I think it's fair to say that I have almost as many friends on the Republican side of the aisle as I do the Democratic side of the aisle.
But am I able to respond to -- are we able to stay on the -- on the topic?

You don't cross the aisle Mr. Biden, you don't. You have friends on the other side, but you don't cross over on most issues. A few, yes. But then again, so have very nearly every Senator, but for Obama.



IFILL: You may, if you like.



BIDEN: Yes, well, you know, until two weeks ago -- it was two Mondays ago John McCain said at 9 o'clock in the morning that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Two weeks before that, he said George -- we've made great economic progress under George Bush's policies.
Nine o'clock, the economy was strong. Eleven o'clock that same day, two Mondays ago, John McCain said that we have an economic crisis.
That doesn't make John McCain a bad guy, but it does point out he's out of touch. Those folks on the sidelines knew that two months ago.


Biden, you are a dipshit. During their last debate, McCain AND OBAMESSIAH BOTH said that our economy will recover and neither doubts it will again be strong - they both expressed confidence in it. And you know why? Because the fundamentals are good Senator. They are and you know they are, but you must continue playing up the weaknesses to get voter support. As soon as you (if elected) get elected, suddenly, you would talk about how strong the economy is .... It is all politics Biden, and you know it, but you count on voters being morons.



IFILL: Gov. Palin, you may respond.



PALIN: John McCain, in referring to the fundamental of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the American workforce. And the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce.
That's a positive. That's encouragement. And that's what John McCain meant.
Now, what I've done as a governor and as a mayor is (inaudible) I've had that track record of reform. And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks with John McCain, also, with his track record of reform, where we're known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done.
Now, Barack Obama, of course, he's pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line, not having that proof for the American people to know that his commitment, too, is, you know, put the partisanship, put the special interests aside, and get down to getting business done for the people of America.
We're tired of the old politics as usual. And that's why, with all due respect, I do respect your years in the U.S. Senate, but I think Americans are craving something new and different and that new energy and that new commitment that's going to come with reform.
I think that's why we need to send the maverick from the Senate and put him in the White House, and I'm happy to join him there.


Blah blah blah blah. yes, she does raise a few good issues, but she keeps on that whole maverick and reform and change thing ... hurts my ears.



IFILL: Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president. I'm going to come back to that...
... throughout the evening to try to see if we can look forward, as well.
Now, let's talk about -- the next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown.
Who do you think was at fault? I start with you, Gov. Palin. Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?



PALIN: Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that. Again, John McCain and I, that commitment that we have made, and we're going to follow through on that, getting rid of that corruption.




PALIN: One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this. It's not the American peoples fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of.



IFILL: Senator?



BIDEN: Well Gwen, two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis.

LIAR. he did not. We have the letter McCain sent two years ago Mr. Biden. And whats his name wasn't on the letter. No democrat wanted oversight or reform, least of all not Obama.

John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub prime mortgage problem. John McCain while Barack Obama was warning about what we had to do was literally giving an interview to The Wall Street Journal saying that I'm always for cutting regulations. We let Wall Street run wild. John McCain and he's a good man, but John McCain thought the answer is that tried and true Republican response, deregulate, deregulate.
So what you had is you had overwhelming "deregulation." You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself. And while Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation.

Again, not so. We have McCain's letter Mr. Biden, calling for investigations and regulations. I assume you believe if you say this enough people will believe you and not check, because you are Biden.


As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry.
So deregulation was the promise. And guess what? Those people who say don't go into debt, they can barely pay to fill up their gas tank. I was recently at my local gas station and asked a guy named Joey Danco (ph). I said Joey, how much did it cost to fill your tank? You know what his answer was? He said I don't know, Joe. I never have enough money to do it. The middle class needs relief, tax relief. They need it now. They need help now. The focus will change with Barack Obama.




IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Sen. McCain's comments about health care?


PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases. We can speak in agreement here that darn right we need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here. Now, Barack Obama and Sen. Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times.
Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy. We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce. Government is going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less if that's what it takes to reign in the government growth that we've seen today. But we do need tax relief and Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.

Generally accurate. She does not have the ego Biden does that forces him to make shit up as he goes, so she doesn't fabricate - she just conflates issues.



IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote.

Ha. ha. yes, And for many people, the way the Senate votes is so confusing, like the House.
I propose a bill - to raise taxes on lightbulbs.


Democrats in BLUE and Republicans in RED

Bill To Raise Taxes on Lightbulbs.

Motion to Open debate: Y Y
Debate Y N
Motion to close debate. Y N
Motion to modify the bill (if any changes were advanced) Y Y
Motion to open debate Y Y
Debate Y N
Motion to cloe debate Y N
Motion to vote on amended bill Y Y
Vote on bill to raise taxes on lightbulbs Y N

Now, did a Republican and a Democrat vote YES on the motion concerning raising taxes? Yes, they did, but NOT on the actual motion to raise taxes, just on the PROCEDURES - as Biden stated, but he counts on all of us not understanding the difference, and it is complicated. the above is not an actual outline of the process, but reasonably close for purposes of my example.




John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It's a bogus standard it but if you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble.

Yes, McCain did if you count up all those Y votes even if they are not related to the actual vote on RAISING TAXES, just the procedures.



IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?


PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also. As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax. We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though. Look at the tobacco industry. Look at campaign finance reform.


Bla blah blah ... generally accurate, but annoying none the less.

Thats the extent of what I can do with that interview. The rest is about the same. Biden carefully walks a line, but the truth is never as clear as he makes it, and Palin is just not equipped to out maneuver Joe Biden, who, as Palin said, was doing this when she was in second grade.

Biden

Fibs

Obamessiah - The Media Orgy v. Palin

No evidence to support this but what I remember -

Obama drew large crowds. One was very large 50,000 - 70,000.

As I recall the reporting on that crowd, it went something like;
- tens of thousands waited to hear Obama speak
- thousands were cheering
- the crowd was ecstatic
- the crowd was young and jubilant


Then contrast that with the 60,000 who showed up for Palin in Florida:

The Villages, a vast, upscale planned community [CODE WORD FOR OLD] north of Orlando, has about 70,000 mostly adult residents -- many of them military retirees ...



Hmmm.







Media

Palin v Charlie: Charlie gets caught in his own net!

Apparently even the experts are not certain it is one idea, as Charlie assumed.

EVEN those who were part of the process do not define it as neatly as Charlie.


"Sorry Charlie."





13 Sep 2008
The Washington Post
By Michael Abramowitz

Many Versions of ‘Bush Doctrine’
Palin’s Confusion in Interview Understandable, experts say.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the “Bush doctrine.” “In what respect, Charlie?” she replied. Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea — enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document — that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.

Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president’s second-term “freedom agenda”; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a “coalition of the willing” if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about — the doctrine of preemptive war.

“If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it’s one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine,” said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. “But in fact it’s not the only one.”

This debate may ordinarily be little more than cocktail chatter for the foreign policy establishment, but political blogs were buzzing yesterday over Palin’s entire interview with Gibson, including the confusion about the doctrine. Liberals said it was yet another case of Palin’s thin grasp on foreign policy, while conservatives replied that she handled herself well by putting the question back on Gibson.

After she asked Gibson to clarify what he meant, the anchor pressed Palin on whether the United States has “a right to make a preemptive strike against another country if we feel that country might strike us.”

“Charlie,” Palin replied, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

The campaign of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama directed reporters to online commentary about the exchange. “What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues,” journalist James Fallows wrote on TheAtlantic.com. “Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the ‘ Bush Doctrine’ exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.”

Conservatives ridiculed such reasoning. “What a bunch of nonsense,” Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on National Review Online. “Peanut gallery denizens like me, who don’t have states to run and who follow this stuff very closely, disagree intensely among ourselves about what the Bush Doctrine is.”

Outside foreign policy experts offered different reads on the question. Richard C. Holbrooke, who served key posts in both the Clinton and Carter administrations, said he saw the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House as the critical statement of a Bush doctrine. (The White House staff member who helped draft the 2002 document, Stephen E. Biegun, now serves as Palin’s foreign policy adviser.)

The strategy document itself articulates the principle as follows: “The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

According to Holbrooke, “the core point is that the Bush people were extremely proud of it and they presented it as a historical breakthrough.”

But one of the drafters of that document demurred at investing the statement with too much weight. “I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who later served as State Department counselor under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration’s policies than they deserve.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he thought there was no “single piece of paper” that represents the Bush doctrine, but said several ideas collectively make up the doctrine, including the endorsement of preventive war and the idea that there is such a thing as a “war on terror.”

“There are many elements to the Bush doctrine,” he said.

In an interview, Bush press secretary Dana Perino said that “the Bush doctrine is commonly used to describe key elements of the president’s overall strategy for dealing with threats from terrorists.” She laid out three elements:
“The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists. . . . We will confront grave threats before they fully materialize and will fight the terrorists abroad so we don’t have to face them at home. . . . We will counter the hateful ideology of the terrorist by promoting the hopeful alternative of human freedom.”

Bush, she added, “is comfortable with the way I just described it.”

Pig in Lipstick

So Palin is a pig with lipstick according to Obama.

And he is a change?

He is different?

Was he different when he accepted over $100,000 from the Freddie/Fanny Mac lobbyists?

Different when he slurred Palin with his very mean statement about lipstick and pigs?

He is not different, he is petty.





Obama

Convention Viewership

September 5, 2008 7:19 AM
McCain TV Ratings Beat Obama in Preliminary Numbers
By Andrew Krukowski

Presidential candidate John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention drew more television viewers than his rival Barack Obama attracted at the Democratic party's event last week, according to preliminary ratings from Nielsen Media Research.

Across all broadcast networks Thursday, Sen. McCain’s speech ended the night with a 4.8 rating/7 share, compared to Sen. Obama’s 4.3/7 average, according to overnight numbers from metered households in 55 U.S. markets measured by Nielsen. These ratings are preliminary, however, and are subject to change.

NBC’s coverage of Sen. McCain’s speech started directly at the tail end of the opening game of NFL season, with the speech pulling in a 6.3 rating/10 share, topping Sen. Obama’s speech last week by 26%. That lead-in may have boosted audiences who last night turned out in droves to watch Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin introduce herself to the country.

ABC’s showing of the McCain speech averaged a 4.5/7, down 2% from the same night of the Democratic convention last week, while CBS’ coverage took in a 3.4/5, an increase of 3%.

***************************************

- and the previous night, Palin blew Obama away.



If numbers of viewers is an indication - Obama is in trouble.
(Note: Numbers of viewers is NOT an indication.)

However, when you consider the Biden/Obama statements about trying Bush from crimes - even before anyone has considered the ramifications of accusing the President of the United States of crimes - was intended solely for the left wing of the Democratic party, to raise money.

It shows desperation. It really does. Likewise - the fact he refuses to say he was wrong about the surge, YET he does say the surge worked, beyond any expectations shows a man unable to admit mistakes.

Obama has talked of crossing the aisle and working together and uniting America, but his actions all point to just the opposite. Never, while in the Senate, for the few years, did he cross the aisle, but on one bill (ethics) which didn't cross the aisle, but was widely embraced by Republicans trying to clean their woodshed. He has never crossed the asile. He and Biden have accused Bush of crimes, vague and unclear as to what crimes, but crimes none the less - that will create a permananet divide in this country that NO ONE WILL BE ABLE to bridge for decades.

His words and actions contradict his stated intentions.

He says one thing and does another. He is not a uniter.









Obama




US elections

Obama and Palin: A Study in Contrasts

We all make mistakes. We are all human. Humans occasionally make bad choices, even mistakes.

Christian Conservatives do not judge the person. Christians do not judge the mistake.

The judgment is on what the person does after they have made the mistake or shown a lapse in judgment. The sign of someone who possesses character is how they deal with the mistake or poor judgement.

The left does not understand this. The left believe the Christian right is always judging, which is not true. How people deal with their actions is measurable, the mistake or lapse is not, for we are all failed beings.

The left does not understand why the Right / Christian Conservatives have not abandoned Governor Palin.

They do not live on the same planet, and it shows how wrong the media is - every headline that claims the right is turning on Palin or problems are brewing for the right - reinforces the fact the left is operating without a clue.

It is not that a person gets pregnant that is the defining issue - it is how they deal with the mistake (assuming it is not planned and chosen) that determines the persons character.

Some people will turn to abortion, to prevent the person from making more mistakes, to allow them to live their life without the stress and burden of a baby.

Other people embrace the child, accept the pregnancy, and do the right thing - to get married and keep the child.

For the left - this defies logic. They see hypocrisy and contradictions galore. For Conservatives - there is no contradiction, for the issue is not the pregnancy, but how you deal with it - whether you stand up and accept responsibility or not.

Obama has said he would take his daughter to get an abortion if she ended up pregnant, rather than making two mistakes.

Palin / daughter have accepted responsibility, and will get married and keep their child.

It isn't about sex. The left always wants to turn it into sex. It is about responsibility - in whatever form or manner that may take - including sex.

But we are all human, and we all err. That does not define who we are, but our actions in response to the mistakes do.







Obama




Palin

The Hateful Left: Palin

I just arrived home, opened the sliding doors and a couple windows and turned the outside fan on to circulate air. What wafted in from outside was a fragrance I had smelled many times when I was much younger - someone was smoking something within a reasonably close proximity to my back door - or there was just a lot of it and it was further away.

Got me to thinking about the left hate and conspiracy minded loons residing at Daily Kos and other loony left fringe pots (the connection between where the left are located - in fringe POTs and what was wafting in from outside - the stuff being smoked within close proximity to my back yard. Which is not too difficult to understand given the small yards.).

First, sort a few issues out quickly on the right side:
-Obama did attend a madrassa. There is no question about that. Doesn't mean he was Muslim, just that he attended it.
-Some people in the village/city he lived in believed him to be a Muslim based upon his fathers background and the madrassa he attended. They are wrong according to Obama.
-Obama does know Rezko and did receive assistance in the purchase of his home, from Rezko.

The above are facts. We know they are because the evidence exists and no one disputes the details.

Where the right-wing takes the above - becomes spurious.



Where the left wingers go - we know:

Sunday, August 31, 2008
Lefty Bloggers Go After Palin's Daughter
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 5:47 PM

The lefty blogosphere hasn't stopped perpetuating the rumor Sarah Palin "faked" her last pregnancy and are now humiliating her daughter Bristol on the blatantly incorrect suspicion she is the real mother of baby Trig.

"Sarah Palin is NOT the Mother" is the title of this DailyKos blog that accuses Bristol, a completely fit looking adolescent teen, of having a "baby bump" in a photo they allege was taken March 9th of this year. "Sarah, I'm calling you a liar" wrote blogger ArcXIX. "And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better. "

Not only is the DailyKos disgustingly inspecting Bristol's midriff with all the fervor of LA paparrazzi examining J-Lo's or Jennifer Aniston's washboard stomachs for evidence of a "bump" DailyKos is is wrong on when the photo was taken. It was taken, and published, by the Anchorage Daily News in 2006.

Baby Trig, a Down's Syndrome child, was born on April 18, 2008. That's a long time for a teen girl to be carrying a "bump" which looks nothing more than the curve of a tight sweater. Shortly after Palin was announced McCain's VP, bloggers at the Kos started ginning up the rumor Palin faked her pregnancy, allegedly to cover for an illegitimate grandchiled, because she looked so fit and trim in a photo taken a few months before giving birth.

This is only the latest in outrageous attacks against Palin's mothering ability.

[Spelling errors belong to the writer of the above]

Disgusting.

I am often told and reminded that we all love our country, that we are all patriots, that we are all Americans.

I do not love a country that fosters that insidious hatred. I will not align myself with any self-designated patriot who would malign a person as they have in such a hateful manner.

I will not call myself an American if to be American we behave worse to each other than al qaida would treat us were we in their custody.

No - some people may be American by birth or citizenship but they do not represent America nor any American, for we are more than scum sucking lowlifes (the perpetrator of the pernicious attack on Palin and her family).

Ignorant and hateful people.






Liberals



losercrats

Palin versus Obama

In a head to head race - Obama would have more experience, by a year or two. A little more legislative experience, but not by much.

This is not an Obama versus Palin race. This is Obama versus McCain, and Palin versus Biden.

If the Democrats had nominated Biden and Obama was the VP, the race would be more equal.

Why is it a fair statement to argue Obama doesn't have experience, and it doesn't matter Palin doesn't?

Because McCain does have the experience and he will be in charge. Palin will learn working beside McCain.

It does not work the other way around. The President needs to be able to step into the job and cannot do on the job training.



Obama




Palin