Posts with the tag 'Kook Left'
I’ve seen this, too - the accusation that McCain cheated, as explanation for why he had a superlative performance while Obama bombed at Saddleback; didn’t know, however, that Andrea Mitchell was also a kook:
…Andrea Mitchell on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” suggested the Obama campaign felt John McCain “may not have been in the cone of silence” during Saturday’s Saddleback Civil Forum, “and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were.”
Although she claimed this was being “[put] out privately” by Obama’s people, CNN is now reporting that his campaign is “not pursuing whether McCain heard any of the other questions,” and that they’re “assuming McCain had the same information they did.”
So where did Mitchell get this idea from? Might it have been a Daily Kos blog posted at 9:22 PM PDT Saturday entitled “McCain cheated? proof he knew the questions ahead of time”…
If you go to the Kos entry in question, you’ll find that the conviction is that McCain had the questions, with the only doubtful thing being whether Obama had them, too.
What seems to have flummoxed Mitchell is just how prepared McCain was - in contrast to Obama. It just will never occur to an MSMer that the GOPer might be the smarter guy…and as far as Obamessiah is concerned, the MSM can’t imagine anyone holding a candle to him, let alone beating him like a drum. I still suspect that some day the MSM and the left will realise that it is they who aren’t all that bright - you’d think that after nearly 8 years of having GW run rings around them they’d figure this out, but the level of obtuseness on the left and in the MSM is extraordinary; its like armour plate…if we can figure out how it works, we can use it to up-armour the Army’s humvees and make them really impervious.
This, though, is just a slight taste of what we can expect if McCain goes on and wins the election - the level of hatred and paranoia on the left will make the past 8 years seem like a tea party. Remember, the left is not just convinced they will win this year, but that they will win big…anything short of a massive victory will be viewed with suspicion, while an Obama loss will be considered proof that we’re living under a dictatorship.
Ed. Note: This counts as “What Media Bias? Part 121″.
Tags: Barack Obama, Daily Kos, John McCain, Kook Left, liberal lies, Saddleback Church
August 18th, 2008
The big loss to Obama in Iowa has thrown Hillary on the ropes - how does she get off them and back into the fight?
She can go heavily negative - Obama has a clean reputation, but his connections to Tony Rezko only wait someone willing to rake over that nauseating muck and show how close Obama is to the worst of Chicago politics. Given what we know of Hillary Clinton, I’m sure she has a comprehensive dossier on this issue but using it carries a huge risk - Obama is likable and an attempt by Hillary to go down and dirty might be resented among the Democratic electorate.
She can go heavily left - in my view, what did Hillary in was her refusal to comprehensively disown her 2002 vote in favor of liberating Iraq. The contest in Iowa was, in a sense, a negative contest - who was least like President George Bush? Obama proved to be the Un-Bush, and thus came out on top. The far left isn’t all of the Democratic party, but in a caucus where people self-select themselves to participate in a tedious process, it is the committed people who show up. One thing we know for certain, the far left is on fire to not just win in 2008, but entirely destroy everything associated with the Bush Administration.
These far left people will also make up a large percentage of the Democratic primary electorate - enough, I think, to ensure a Hillary defeat (this is why, all along, I thought Hillary was never going to get nominated). Hillary knows that a complete disavowal of the war would be political suicide for November (the far left is convinced otherwise - they believe that 70% of the American people back the far left position on Iraq and that only political cowardice on the part of Congressional leadership has prevented an immediate/swift end to the campaign in Iraq); but in order to regain traction against Obama, she might move far to the left and then hope she can triangulate her way back to the center (especially if there is a conservative/populist third party to split the GOP vote).
She can also just plug along and hope that money plus huge staff can just wear down the opposition and allow her to win the nomination in a long, drawn out process. And if she winds up losing? Then she saves her money and tries again in 2012.
No doubt about it, this is a bad time to be Hillary Clinton.
Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Nomination, Hillary Clinton, Iowa Caucuses, Iraq, Kook Left
January 4th, 2008
Just amazing:
MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) — President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.
A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.
“This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they’re supposed to do,” said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.
As president, Bush has visited every state except Vermont.
The town meeting, an annual exercise in which residents gather to vote on everything from fire department budgets to municipal policy, requires about 1,000 signatures to place a binding item on the agenda.
The measure asks: “Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?”
You know what I would do, if I were President Bush? On January 21st, 2009, I’d head up there to answer the charges. He can’t do it while he’s in office for a variety of reasons, but once he’s out of office, it would be a great opportunity to show what a bunch of world-class fruitcakes his critics are. President Bush couldn’t get a fair trial in Vermont, so he’d have to argue for a change of venue - to a State which voted more closely to 50/50 in either 2000 or 2004. Ohio would seem the most likely place to get an impartial jury, though if the lefties insist on a place Bush lost narrowly, we can go with Wisconsin. Once a venue and date are set, then the real fun would begin.
There is nothing of any substance to any of the criticisms levelled against President Bush - but the leftwing loons who are pushing this measure believe the whole kit and kaboodle. I’m sure they are a grab-bag collection of “truthers” who think that President Bush had a hand in 9/11, lied to get us into Iraq and has worked diliegently to suppress freedom in the United States. Can you imagine what sort of kooks would be brought forward to testify against President Bush? Heck, we might even get Joe Wilson on the stand - and wouldn’t we all love to have him cross-examined? It’d be a great media circus, and it would expose the left for what they are - screwball, blame-America-first losers.
HAT TIP: Michelle Malkin via NRO’s The Corner
Tags: impeachment, Kook Left
December 29th, 2007
I’m still betting on a late arriving Gore campaign (keeping in mind that I always have said that he’d announce late - even as late as the first week of January, 2008) - but, be that as it may, Seth Swirsky lays out a rational case for a Gore campaign:
When you really think about the crop of Democratic candidates for president, it’s clear that their best hope to win in 2008, is not even on the playing field. That current, non-candidate is Al Gore. He’s the only one who can match the experience, accomplishments and gravitas of Rudy Giuliani and yet, the left ignores him.
Do Democrats think that nostalgia for the Clinton years will propel Hillary to the presidency? More likely, when voters remember the scandal-plagued, triangulating double-talk of both Clintons, they will be less likely to want to return to those years.
Barack Obama? In a world that has become more difficult to navigate, does the left think that a not-even-one term senator is the right person for the job? Against a person with Giuliani’s credentials, it wouldn’t even be close.
John Edwards? The one-term senator known more for the price of his haircuts, couldn’t even carry his home state of North Carolina as the Vice Presidential nominee in 2004. But, somehow, in ‘08, he’s going to beat Giuliani? I don’t think so.
And then, there’s Al Gore.
He served in the House of Representatives for eight years, followed by eight years as a U.S. senator, followed by eight years as Vice President of the United States. In 2000, as the Democratic nominee for president, he won the popular vote by a plurality. Oh yeah, in 2007, his movie won an Academy Award and he also won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Seems to me, his resume is more formidable than the top three current democratic candidates combined.
Swirsky is not just a little bit right, he’s dead on. Keeping in mind that I think Gore’s political positions contemptible and his lust for fame and public affirmation disturbing, the plain fact of the matter is that the top three Democratic contenders are complete political zeros when it compared to somone like Al Gore. They are even moreso when compared with the top five GOP contenders - heck, even Ron Paul is miles ahead of the three Democrat in terms of experience and intellectual weight. If by some chance any one of the three were to get elected, then the immediate task of the GOP would be to calculate how many House and Senate seats we’d win in 2010. It is really rather sad that the Democrats are reduced - thus far - to a man with less than three years in the Senate, a man who had six years in the Senate, and a woman who is just finishing up her 7th year in the Senate; and none of these Senators has to their credit even one minor bit of national legislation. At least when Bob Dole ran in 1996, there were some accomplishments in the legislative field for him to point to.
Now, will Gore do it? Depends on how much of a slave to his own ambition he is. He would, after all, get beaten if he ran for President and secured the Democratic nomination (its my view that getting a Democrat to 270 electoral votes is a nearly impossible task unless the GOP vote is split, and there’s no sign at this point such a thing will happen) - anyone with a bit of political knowledge knows this, and that means that Gore knows it, too…but as Lincoln observed, once the Presidential grub gets in a man, its hard to get out. I’m still betting he’ll get in - as a late-entrant, “come to save the day” candidate who will wow the kook left which is actually in control of the early part of the nominating process for the Democrats.
Tags: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Democratic Nomination, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Kook Left
December 2nd, 2007
…of people who think that Joe Lieberman should be the GOP Vice Presidential candidate in 2008:
Peter Weher at NRO’s The Corner, following on Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard.
Unless someone can find someone saying this prior to mid-2005, I think I was the first person to suggest that Lieberman is the ideal candidate for Vice President on the Republican ticket in 2008 - though it might have to go through a name change on the party ID. In 1864, it was GOP Lincoln and Democrat Johnson, and I believe they called it a “Union” ticket.
The thing needed, right now, is national unity. The divisions in our nation only help our enemies, and we must show the world that the anti-war left is a marginal political ideology. Having a GOP/Democrat national unity ticket in 2008 is the best means of demonstrating that as far as the war goes, America is united in its quest for victory.
Tags: Joe Lieberman, Kook Left
November 9th, 2007
