Tuesday, 02 September 2008

MICHELLE MALKIN EXPOSES MEDIA BIAS REGARDING POLITICAL MOTHERS

Ken Berwitz

Leave it to Michelle Malkin to research the facts and show us how deeply bias is embedded in the everyday political stories we read.

After almost a week of attacks on Sarah Palin in which she has been accused of parental neglect, even causing her own child's Down syndrome (yes, that is revolting beyond all belief), Ms. Malkin found this:

Selective sympathy for moms in public office

By Michelle Malkin    September 2, 2008 10:29 AM

In observing the P.D.S.-induced mania about Gov. Sarah Palins work/family life, I was reminded of a very sympathetic piece in the Washington Post from last July on female politicians in Congress who have young children.

Let me give you a taste of the long, page one WaPo profile, titled Moms in the House, With Kids at Home For Congresswomen With Young Children, a Tough Balance.

Before the sun rose over their Florida home, Debbie Wasserman Schultz pulled the thermometer from the mouth of her 8-year-old daughter, Rebecca, and checked the mercury: 103 degrees.

Stay home? Or go to work? Its a dilemma familiar to millions of working mothers. But her situation is complex: The job is 1,037 miles away, in Washington.

She got on the plane and flew to a New York fundraiser and then on to Washington for her workweek as a Democratic congresswoman. She knew her husband could handle Rebeccas fever.

Still, the guilt traveled with her. It feels like someones ripping my heart out, she said. No matter how good your spouse is, kids want their mom when theyre sick.

Wasserman Schultz, who also has a son, Rebeccas twin, and a 3-year-old daughter, is part of a select group, the 10 women in Congress raising children under 13. Its probably a congressional record, although no one has kept this particular statistic.

They reside on a shaky high wire, balancing motherhood with politicking, lawmaking, fundraising and the constant shuttle between Washington and their home states.

Most of the House members live apart from their children during the week, parenting by phone, e-mail and faxes and relying on husbands, family or nannies to fill the gaps. Its a lifestyle dictated by election cycle. The four senators live with their families in Washington but wake to the daily frenzy of integrating children into unpredictable workdays that can exceed 16 hours and fray relationships.

And they all live with a reality possibly even more difficult: The public will scrutinize and judge the mothering choices these politicians make. It is this that sets them apart from other professional women and their male counterparts in Congress, and the 10 in the group are keenly sensitive to it.

Wasserman Schultz is a Democrat, by the way. So are most of the other working moms profiles, though a few Republicans are tossed in for the semblance of balance:

Several are determined to show that a woman can raise a family while serving in Congress. Nearly all say they feel compelled to use their own perspective as the tiny minority of working mothers in Congress to represent the 70 percent of mothers who have school-age children and jobs outside the home.

In the Senate Finance Committee, we were talking about higher education and I looked around the room and thought, Im the only one saving for college, said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), whose twin boys are 11. Im not professing that my colleagues with grown children are any less compassionate. Theyre just not going through it.

Often, motherhood colors the legislation they propose. Wasserman Schultz has introduced a bill to improve swimming pool safety, because accidental drownings account for the second-highest number of injury-related deaths of children under 14. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) is pushing a bill to ensure the rights of women to breast-feed in public. And Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) is trying to increase federal money for childhood cancer research.

The response from lefty and feminist blogs was positive and sympathetic. Heres an example from a liberal female blogger at Tapped:

So where are the husbands? I read the entire article, looking for husbands who had given up their careers to stay home to support the kids, but alas. In fact, there wasnt a single quote from the husbands of these women or even an indicator they were doing more to pitch in and help with the family.

It seems that women cant choose to focus on their career in public office totally or they risk being ousted by voters for being a bad mom. In many ways, the story of these congressional mothers isnt any different than the lives of regular working women. Theyre still the ones pulling the majority of the family responsibility, even though they have demanding and prestigious jobs. Instead of women having to do it all exceptionally well, when will partners start making the sacrifices that women have been making for their husbands for years? Those kinds of stories are few and far between.

Well, Gov. Sarah Palins story is one of those stories. Her husband took a leave of absence as a North Slope oil field production operator to support his wife. But instead of extolling their choice, the leftists have morphed into ultra-social conservative women belong at home caricatures. And they are going after Palins husband now digging up dirt on a two decade-old DUI arrest and reportedly offering money to bottom-feeders for damaging info:

As Obama operatives scour records in Alaska for dirt on Gov. Sarah Palin, they are also seeking embarrassing materials about her husband. And it isnt just the Obama campaign. Several left-wing groups with ties to MoveOn.org have used their network to offer as to $5,000 for damaging employment or personal information about him.

If a Democrat mom chooses public office, shes a patriot Wonder Woman imbued with Absolute Moral Authority on childrens, health, and social welfare issues.

If a Republican mom chooses public office, shes the child-neglecting spawn of Satan who has no business debating any domestic public policy because of alleged hypocrisy.

Aint feminism grand?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


BARRY'S RESPONSE TO MY RESPONSE

Ken Berwitz

In the interests of fairness I am posting, in its entirety, Barry Sinrod's response to what I wrote about his e-mail.  You can see the original exchange by clicking here.

Make of it what you will:

You and your party are the hate mongers. Check Savage, Hannity, O Reilly, Limbaugh and find ONE that is comparable to this group. 

How convenient it was for W and Cheney to not show up at the convention anytime during the rest of the week. He is at his ranch on vacation and Cheney is in his bunker.

You think we are the party of hate mongers?  Count all the ways we have been screwed by your guys criminal acts by the Administration, undoing the constitution, ruling like a dictator, ignoring subpeonas, failure to enact and serve subpeonas by Mukasey, the war that shouldn't have happened, the deaths of soldiers for no reason, an economy that cannot be fixed for how many more years, housing crisis.

Need any more evidence. WE did not create any of these problems. And don't forget the oil drilling issue Republicans talk a good story but they have stopped the democrats 11 times from bringing it to a vote.  

Stand by for a landslide. Barack's speech on Thursday was watched by over 40 million people, more than watched the opening of the Olympic's.  One of the highest audiences ever. He laid out his plan with substance and plans.  He did not say he was for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and now says no. He is not under investigation for trying to fire his brother in law as a state trooper a clear violation of abuse of power.

Will she last beyond this week?  Family values, she can't even take care of her own children who have been exposed to the radical views of the Governor.  How in the world could the daughter get pregnant when mom says "dont talk about sex, no protection, no sex, abstinence is best"  Great mom. 

 Sara Palin is simply a moronic pick. It is not hate that I foster. It is laughter and stupidity.  Even you would agree that there are many women in the Republican Party who are more qualified than Palin. Why in the hell did he pick her? Will she get Hillary voters?  I doubt it by a mile. Here is woman who practices the most far right values of any women in the party.  No sex education in school, no condoms, no mention of sex, she opposes abortion even in the case of RAPE or INCEST. This alone is enough to not have a single Hillary voter to support her. So why did they pick her?  Now the Washington Post has asked questions that she must answer.  The kid who impregnated the daughter says on his facebook page that he doesn't want kids? Huh?  The story about Palin herself and the way she had her latest child is also beyond ridiculous and shows that she has no business to even be considered. Look at what she did in having this down syndrome baby.  She ignores science. Now science gives mothers and fathers a chance, a chance to decide whether to abort a child because science can find birth defects before a baby is born. She chose to have a down syndrome baby and that is great? But yet, she does not want anyone to have that opportunity to choose. That is plain idiotic.

Here is a sample of what the real journalists are saying from the Washington Post...

Palin's Unmarried 17-Year-Old Daughter is Pregnant

To quell persistent rumors on the Internet that Sarah Palin's new baby was really her daughter's, Palin has announced that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, is now 5 months pregnant and plans to marry the baby's father, her 18-year-old boyfriend, Levi Johnston. The rumors got started when Palin behaved in a way that raised eyebrows in April. She was in Texas for a meeting of the National Governors' Association when she began leaking amniotic fluid and having contractions. Although she knew the baby had Down syndrome and was a month premature to boot, she didn't go to a local hospital. Instead she gave her planned speech later in the day as scheduled and then caught a flight from Dallas to Seattle where she took another flight to Anchorage. Then she and her husband drove 45 minutes to a hospital in her home town where the baby was born.
Premature babies, especially those with Down syndrome, need special care. Palin could have gone to a world-class hospital in Dallas, Seattle, or Anchorage, any of which would have been fully equipped to handle eventualities. Instead she chose to fly 8 hours (without telling the airlines she was in labor) and go to a village hospital probably not equipped as well as hospitals in any of the three big cities. The rumorbarons couldn't believe that any 44-year-old mother of four children would take such a risk, so the assumption was that she wasn't pregnant. Combined with the fact that Bristol had been out of school for five months, the rumor started that Sarah was covering up for Bristol.
But the story raises other questions, for example:
  • Is it responsible for a woman in labor to fly for 8 hours with the risk of giving birth on board?
  • What should be done to reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies and are these techniques effective?
  • Is sex-ed entirely the job of the parents or do the schools and government have a role? If so, what?
  • If schools should not have a role, what do you do about parents who don't do their job properly?
For a candidate who was chosen largely for her gender and her views on family values, it is perfectly legitimate to ask about how she puts her family values into practice herself. Sarah Palin knew her daughter's pregnancy would be worldwide news if she ran for Veep. When McCain called, she could have said: "I just had a Down syndrome baby and have other family matters to deal with and my family comes first, so I cannot be your running mate." That would have been be a real demonstration of family values. That's not the choice she made and criticism of it is legitimate. Family values is not just about opposing abortion. The last word on this has not been said, but the discussion has already started. Sally Quinn has a good column on the subject.
Conservative commentators have so far focused exclusively on Bristol's decision not to have an abortion. Nothing has been said about the subject of unwed teenage mothers, personal morality, and parents' responsibilities, although many of these people have clear opinions when talking about unwed teenage mothers living in urban ghettos.
Taegan Goddard at Political Insider has observed that the McCain campaign chose Labor Day, a day when few people are paying attention to the news, to announce three potentially damaging news items: (1) Bristol Palin is pregnant, (2) Sarah Palin hired an attorney to defend herself in the Troopergate affair, (3) Todd Palin, the governor's husband, was arrested for drunk driving in 1986. He wonders what else we still don't about Sarah Palin. By picking someone new and fresh, McCain brought a lot of attention and excitement to his campaign. The downside is that there might be unpleasant things in her past that will come dribbling out in the next few weeks. All in all, the Palin rollout has not been as smooth as McCain might have liked. The LA Times has a good piece on McCain's gamble.

.

There is a lot I could say about this but I won't.  I'll let you decide how you feel. 

The only thing I will point out is that I can't find a Washington Post article with the content Barry attributes to it, only a blog called www.electoral-vote.com.  If someone can direct me to any Washington Post article with this content I will immediately make note of it in an update.


PALIN AND THE "BRIDGE TO NOWHERE"

Ken Berwitz

Remember that infamous "bridge to nowhere" that Alaska was supposed to get?  The one that would set back taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?

Well Sarah Palin supported it --- initially.  But she subsequently withdrew her support and, upon receiving the federal money, used it for other more worthy state projects.

That said, I thought you might be more than a little suprised to see who initially supported the "bridge to nowhere" and REMAINED in support of it.

Here are the particulars, from of John Powers of the Chicago Daily Observer.  Be sure to click on the link he provides, which will lead you to the Washington Post story that shows which senators did and did not support this boondoggle:

Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.

Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.

Link to votes record below.

Read More of Obama and Biden Voted for Bridge to Nowhere off-site...

If you clicked on that link you found out not only that Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden voted against the Coburn amendment (which would have taken that money away from the bridge project) but that, while both parties voted down Coburn's amendment, there were almost triple the number of Republicans in support of it as there were Democrats (11 to 4).

Whoops, there goes another attack line against Ms. Palin...........


ONE MORE DEBUNKED LIE ABOUT SARAH PALIN BEFORE DINNER

Ken Berwitz

A few days ago media were humming with the story that Sarah Palin's mother in law was going to vote for Barack Obama.

Yeah, sure.

Here, via Anne Schroeder of www.politico.com, are the actual facts:


September 02, 2008
Categories: 
Antics

Sarah Palin's mother-in-law: No question I'm going to vote for McCain/Palin ticket

Faye Palin gave an inteview to....CNN? No. Fox? Eh. MSNBC? Nada. But ... "Inside Edition." The snippets:


Palin: There is absolutely no question, Im going to vote for the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Palin: Casual conversations get turned into things taken out of context which from my experience was extremely hurtful. As newcomers to this arena thats a lesson were going to have to learn and I find that sad. To have it twisted, I find it personally offensive.

Palin: Ive supported her since Day One. Ive stood out on the parks highway in the cold waving signs, weve done fundraisers. Weve consistently supported her in her political efforts up to today and will continue to do so.

Palin also tells IE that the youngest son, Trig, who was born with Down syndrome, has only made the family closer.

Palin: Its pulled the entire family together because we have this special child.

This is rapidly descending from dishonest to idiotic to depraved. 

God they must fear Ms. Palin's candidacy.


ROBERT WEXLER'S ATTACK LI(N)E AGAINST SARAH PALIN

Ken Berwitz

Barroom bob wexler is at it again for a change.

That sobriquet is not meant to suggest wexler is a drinker.  I have no idea about his drinking habits one way or the other.  It is meant to characterize him as a barroom loudmouth type who has an ongoing propensity to open that stupid, ignorant mouth and make a complete ass of himself.

This brings us to the latest attack against Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska and John McCain's running mate.  This time it is robert wexler barfing out the claim that Ms. Palin supports a "nazi sympathizer". 

Let's start with the fact that, while I don't consider him an overt nazi sympathizer, I consider Pat Buchanan to be an anti-Semite (so did William F. Buckley when he bounced him from National Review 35 years ago) and anti-Israel.  To say the least, he is not my kind of guy.

But where is the connection between Buchanan and Palin?  Read this account from JTA, the international Jewish news agency, and see for yourself.  The bold print is mine:


The McCain camp rebuked claims by Democrats that Sarah Palin once associated with Pat Buchanan.

"Governor Palin has never worked for any effort to elect Pat Buchanan -- that assertion is completely false," Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), told ABC over the weekend in discussing Palin, the Alaska governor and vice presidential choice.

On Aug. 29, the Democratic Party issued a release quoting U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) as saying that McCain's pick was a "direct affront to all Jewish Americans" because of reports of Palin's past associations with Buchanan, who has long postulated that the pro-Israel lobby is inordinately influential and that Hitler might have been contained through peaceful means.

Wexler's comments appear based on a 1999 report that Palin wore a Buchanan button during Buchanan's visit to Wasilla, the town she then led as mayor. At that time, however, Palin had written a letter to the local paper explaining that she wore campaign buttons as a matter of courtesy when candidates came to visit the town.

Palin was an official of the campaign of Steve Forbes, who like Buchanan was contending for the Republican presidential nomination.

Buchanan said he recalls meeting Palin at a 1996 fund-raiser in Alaska, but no record of her donating or supporting Buchanan at that time has surfaced.

Pat Buchanan is a frequent guest on MSNBC's Countdown with keith olbermann and Hardball with Chris Matthews.  Are they anti-Semites too?  Is MSNBC an anti-semitic network?

Translation:  wexler's claim is idiotic, dishonest and supersedingly meanspirited.  Wearing the candidate's campaign button was a courtesy Ms. Palin extended to every candidate who came to the town she was mayor of.  In actuality she was supporting an OPPONENT of Buchanan's (Forbes).

Now that we have seen what a hot steamy load of crap wexler's attack was, let's remind ourselves of who he is supporting.

robert wexler is supporting Barack Obama, a man who spent 18 years worshipping in a church run by a USA hating, White hating Israel hating lowlife named jeremiah wright.  In all those years there is exactly no record of Mr. Obama ever condemning, criticizing or saying even one word of protest as wright referred to Israel as "an apartheid state" and "a dirty word". 

And there is no record of Mr. Obama having any problem at all when, just last year, his church's lifetime achievement award was bestowed upon louis farrakhan, or wright's adoring comment that farrakhan "epitomizes greatness"

wexler claims that Israel is a primary concern of his.  I find that hard to believe.  Why?  Because if Israel were a primary concern I do not understand how he could be so unconditionally supportive of a man who considered jeremiah wright his "spiritual mentor".  It doesn't compute.

My guess - and it is only a guess, of course - is that Mr. Obama has promised wexler a cabinet position if he wins the presidency. 

The reasoning?  wexler is an ambitious man who is dead-ended in his congressional district.  Statewide, Florida votes either for Republicans or conservative Democrats.  It does not vote for loudmouthed partisan left wingers like wexler and he knows it.

I speculate that Obama, realizing he was in big trouble with the Jewish vote, approached wexler.  In return for his support, I speculate, Mr. Obama offered wexler a chance at political advancement he could not otherwise get.

If I'm right, then let's understand that, whatever robert wexler's level of concern is for Israel, his concern for numero uno is one hell of a lot stronger. 

Then again, what would you expect?  Most barroom loudmouths are self-absorbed, aren't they?

j The Buchanan rumor is a buzz on the internet. Where there is smoke is there fire? Stay tuned..................... (09/02/08)


FROM THOSE WONDERFUL FOLKS WHO ACCUSE REPUBLICANS OF HATE

Ken Berwitz

I thought you might want to read what John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com experienced during yesterday's first day of the Republican National Convention:

The Face of Evil

The first day of the RNC was fun but muted. One group, though, wasn't deterred from pursuing its agenda by events in the Gulf. The Communist/anarchist/truther/pro-Obama protesters were out in force, committing various crimes and attempting to disrupt the proceedings.

The most shocking events are described by Jim Hoft, who was on a bus that was attacked from above when a group of protesters dropped sand bags on to the top of the bus. This is attempted murder: if the protesters had succeeded in hitting the windshield, a sand bag would have crashed through and killed the driver. The resulting accident would have killed or injured others on the bus. To my knowledge, the left-wingers/would-be murderers were not caught.

A little later, a busload of Cub Scouts were en route to the convention, where they were to present the colors to open the convention. A group of protesters--liberals, Obama supporters, or whatever--blocked the road, surrounded the bus, and attacked it, rocking the bus back and forth, denting and scratching the sides, and generally terrifying the children trapped inside. The left-wing protesters attacked a number of buses in the same way, but there is something especially despicable about attacking a group of Cub Scouts.

Among us conservatives, it's pretty much an article of faith that people of all political persuasions are good folks who should be treated with respect; we just disagree about issues of public policy. (Liberals generally don't adopt that view, although there are some honorable exceptions.) But sometimes that model doesn't apply. The liberal/anarchist/Communist/pro-Obama protesters we have seen today in St. Paul are terrible people who, in many cases, should be subject to long prison terms. Let's hope that a few of them, at least, are prosecuted.

These are the haters.  This is the sick anti-USA scum of the earth. 

Now let's see if mainstream media talk about who they are and what they are doing. 

Want to take bets?


THE CORRECT WAY TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS IN A POLITICAL FAMILY

Ken Berwitz

Given the intense efforts to destroy Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter, I thought I would repost a very short piece I wrote on July 5, 2007, a couple of days after Al Gore's son was in serious trouble with the police.  If you want to see it in full format, just click here .

If you just want to see what I said, here it is, every word:

AL GORE'S SON

Ken Berwitz

Let's get past this one real fast.

Al Gore III, the 24 year old son of Al and Tipper Gore, was arrested yesterday for drug possession, after he was stopped for speeding at something like 100MPH - in a Toyota Prius, no less.

This is far from the first such incident concerning this troubled young man.

I hope that Al Gore III is able to overcome his obvious problems. 

I also hope that his problems are not exploited as a political opportunity by his father's opponents. 

End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

I was very pleased that media, by and large, acted the way I hoped they would for Mr. Gore's son.

Wouldn't it be nice if they did the same, or anywhere near it, for Sarah Palin's daughter?

Heck, someone might even think they weren't hopelessly biased.


FACTUAL ERRORS, STUPID AND IGNORANT COMMENTS: A PUZZLE FOR YOU

Ken Berwitz

Remember those puzzles you did as a child, the ones that had a picture and asked if you could find "three frogs, two telephones, four ears of corn, 3 faces", etc.?

Well here is a column from today's Philadelphia Daily News written by one of their resident geniuses named Fatimah Ali.  An internet acquaintance who posts comments here under the name "free" brought this column to my attention.

See how many factual errrors and just plain stupid and ignorant comments you can find.  Happy hunting --- there's a treasure trove at your disposal:

Fatimah Ali: We need Obama, not 4 more years of George Bush

AMERICA is on the brink of a long, harsh and bitterly cold winter, with a looming recession that the GOP won't even admit to.

The policies of the current White House have brutalized our economy, yet the wealthiest think that everything is fine.

Rich Republicans just don't understand that millions are suffering. But many of their working class do, and they're beginning to abandon their own party.

When lifelong Republican Barney Smith told the Democratic convention that he'd vote for Barack Obama for president, he gave pause to even the most conservative members of his party.

Smith, like many disgruntled working-class Republicans, is ready to turn his back on his party because he's having such a hard time providing for his family. Like others, Smith fell victim to the loss of 3.2 million American jobs as factories closed or their work was outsourced to cheap labor markets overseas.

Poet Langston Hughes once wrote, "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, Life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly, Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams go, life is a barren field, frozen with snow."

Many wealthy folks live in a dream state and ignore people like Smith, whose tale of personal woe preceded Obama's acceptance speech.

He opposes John McCain because, he says, America can't afford another four years of failed GOP policies that have extended $200 billion in tax cuts to big corporations but not to the nation's 100 million families.

Our national debt has soared from $5.6 trillion to $9.6 trillion under Bush. The Republicans have overstayed their welcome and dragged us into a nightmare that must end soon, or this nation may be headed for chaos.

Obama tugged on the nation's heartstrings when he challenged McCain's tough talk and told the truth about the current policies.

Critics of the GOP believe that a four-year extension of the Bush administration will be disastrous. People are struggling, and the privileged are so out of touch they pretend it's OK that children go hungry.

Over the last eight years, we've lost 3.2 million jobs, and started a war that's cost trillions. The lies and deceit that got us into Iraq in the first place are just the tip of the iceberg and have ruined America's reputation across the globe.

Meanwhile, our economy continues to crumble, while crime, homelessness and poverty continue to soar.

Despite the fact that thousands of immigrants risk their safety to come here because this country may offer them better opportunities, the truth is that poverty lives right here in our own backyard.

Suffering is widespread as the gap between rich and poor widens. The Bush administration doesn't get it and neither does McCain. He is so out of touch that he hasn't a clue how many homes he owns, while the working class struggles to hold on to one.

The Democrats desperately need many more voters like Smith to cross party lines in order to secure the White House. Obama says electing him to the nation's highest office will not only help restore America's moral standing globally, but will lift the nation's low morale and improve our declining economy.

He promises to cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers and ease the burden for millions of families. And I believe him, although his critics say he's out of touch with the working class and blast him for not having a lineage that includes slavery.

But just because his ancestors never wore shackles, and he has paid off the student loans from his elite education doesn't mean he doesn't have compassion. Or that he doesn't understand the pain of those who live in dire poverty, who've lost their homes, who want yet can't afford college, and who lack health insurance.

His acceptance speech indicated that, unlike McCain, Obama gets it because hard times aren't so far behind him that his memory's been erased.

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!

Plenty of Americans would rather stay in their dream state than to recognize the poverty sweeping across the country, right here, right now.

Obama understands that people are suffering. Every week, prices go up at the supermarket, and people are unable to feed their families. It already is dark and stormy for millions, who can't even afford pencils, book bags and lunch money for their children.

But when Obama wins the White House, we may just see a revolution that can turn the tide and improve this nation for everyone, not just a select few.

And I expect him to keep his word.*


MORE OBAMA BS

Ken Berwitz

What do you do when you are a major party presidential candidate with no rsum, and the opposition party selects a vice presidential candidate who a) is being assailed as too inexperienced but b) has more experience than you do?

You start tossing BS, that's what you do.  And it is coming thick and fast from Barack Obama.

Here, courtesy of Ed Hornick at CNN, is what I'm talking about:

September 1, 2008
Posted: 07:10 PM ET

From
Anderson Cooper interviewed Barack Obama Monday.
Anderson Cooper interviewed Barack Obama Monday.

(CNN) Barack Obama defended his experience in dealing with natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, and took a swipe at newly minted GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

In an interview on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, Obama was asked about whether his experience in the U.S. Senate dealing with weather-related situations compares to Palins executive experience running the state of Alaska and as the small town mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

My understanding is that Gov. Palins town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year we have a budget of about three times that just for the month, Obama responded.

Our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the past couple of years and certainly in terms of the legislation Ive passed in the past couple of years, post-Katrina.

Ok, let's cut straight to the chase:

1) How nice of Mr. Obama to restrict his commentary to Ms. Palin's multi-term mayoralty of Wassila.  But isn't she currently the Governor of the entire state?  How many employees does the state of Alaska have, Senator Obama?  How many billions of dollars does Ms. Palin administer?  How deeply does she deal with major industries such as oil, commercial fishing, etc - areas a senator has no hands-on dealing with at all?  How many national guard troops are under her command?   Do you think that is comparable to running a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN?  If so you need a dose of basic reality.  Make it a triple.

2)  Next, let's talk about the claim that you are"running" your campaign.  You AREN'T running it.  You have a campaign manager named David Plouffe.  HE is running the campaign.  You are not running anything.  He is.  Got it?

3) And now that we're warmed up, let's discuss this legislation that you say "I've passed" over the last couple of years.  WHAT legislation?  This is a deliberative body of 100 people and legislation is voted on there.  No one PERSONALLY passes anything, not even Saint Barack.  Governors sign things through into law.  Senators don't.  The sorry truth is that you are barely ever at the U.S. Senate anyway.  You are too busy running for higher office and BS'ing about the accomplishments you don't have.

In terms of overall qualifications, I will repeat what I said the other day, because it is just as true now:

As a former Mayor and current Governor, Sarah Palin has MORE EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE than Barack Obama.  As a working mother with five children, a union-member husband in a blue collar business (he's a member of the Steelworker's union) and a son about to deploy to Iraq, Ms. Palin has MORE REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE than Barack Obama.  And as someone with no foreign policy background or responsibilities, Ms. Palin has AS MUCH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE as Barack Obama.

All the Obama BS in creation isn't about to change that. 


ANOTHER LIE ABOUT SARAH PALIN IS DEBUNKED

Ken Berwitz

This is getting tiresome.  They lie, I debunk.  They lie again.  I debunk again.  My fingers are starting to hurt.

The latest is that Sarah Palin belonged to a political party that advocated the secession of Alaska from the United States (I kid you not, that is being floated by the same left wing hate groups that float so much of the other vomit you've been seeing these past few days).

Here are the facts, straight from the Associated Press.  I've bold-printed several key passages:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials.

Questions about a third-party link to John McCain's new running mate emerged Tuesday as the latest issue facing the McCain campaign in the midst of the Republican National Convention.

Questions had swirled about Sarah Palin's affiliation with the Independence Party and with former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. Voter registration records and past news reports, however, show Palin never registered as a member of the Independence Party, and backed Steve Forbes' presidential campaign in 2000, not Buchanan.

"Supporters of Barack Obama are engaged in an unfortunate and nasty smear campaign," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, specifically citing issues related to Palin's politics.

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, said Todd Palin twice registered under the Alaskan Independence Party in 1995 and 2000. Some members of the party have advocated secession from the United States, though that is not a goal listed in the party's platform.

Voter registration records show Sarah Palin registered in May 1982 as a member of the Republican Party and has not changed her affiliation. Todd Palin has been registered undeclared since 2002, Fenumiai said.

Palin did address the Alaskan Independence Party's state convention by video earlier this year, welcoming the party to Fairbanks.

"Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said in the video, which is posted on the party's Web site. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton objected to Rogers's accusation of a smear. He pointed to comments by Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, who told ABC News that Palin and her husband, Todd, belonged to the party in 1994.

Obama advisers and surrogates have linked Palin to conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. An Associated Press story from Alaska, dated July 17, 1999, stated that Palin, then the mayor of the small town of Wasilla, was wearing a Buchanan button during a Buchanan visit to Alaska.

But in a letter to the Anchorage Daily News a week later, Palin wrote: "When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. ... The article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla."

A week after that, the Associated Press reported that Palin would serve as a co-chair of Forbes' campaign.

Still, the Miami Herald this week quoted an e-mail from Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski that stated: "Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer."

The continual lying about Ms. Palin is bad enough,  But when do media start publishing articles like this AP piece, that show what lies they are?

I read that tomorrow's New York Times is slated to have three - count 'em - three front page articles on Sarah Palin's daughter.  I won't comment on this further until I see it with my own eyes.  But if this is true, what does that tell you about the bias level at the Times?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!