The MSM narrative over the next few days will focus on how despicable the Republicans are for heckling Obama during his healthcare speech before Congress (although it was only one Congressman, who immediately apologized).

What they won’t tell you is that a number of Democrats heckled Bush during his 2005 State Of The Union address, in a remarkably similar context: Social Security.

Time Magazine, 2005

Finally, there was the boorish and possibly unprecedented hooting of the President by Democrats during the speech.

“No! No! No!” they shouted, inaccurately, when Bush asserted that the Social Security trust fund would, in a decade or so, start paying out more money than it takes in. If nothing is done, it surely will.

At the time, Democrats thought it was a good thing:

MARYANNE MARSH (Democratic strategist): I don’t ever remember hearing it, and was very surprised. But I have to say at least the good news is the Democrats are fighting and they’re on offense. And they’re more united than they’ve ever been against George Bush and the Republicans. [FOX News, The Big Story with John Gibson, 2/3/05]

Goose, meet gander.

By now, everyone who pays any attention to the news at all is familiar with the story of Nadya Suleman, the 33 year old single unemployed mom of 6 who recently gave birth to octuplets conceived through in vitro fertilization. The outrage, particularly from the MSM and the left, has been loud and venomous. The “Octomom” has “stoked furor among many people” says MSNBC, leading to calls to regulate fertility clinics, investigate her doctor, and even death threats against the woman herself.

This reaction leaves me scratching my head. Now don’t get me wrong, the woman clearly has issues, but is this the same media that has long lectured us on the virtue of being non-judgmental and accepting of all? Is this the same liberal/elite establishment that has labored for decades to promote every deviancy, muddy the moral waters, and destroy every last vestige of tradition? Are these the same people who exhibit endless understanding and compassion for every criminal, sociopath, dictator and cop killer, and demand we do not pass judgment on them due to their “difficult background and upbringing”? That has waged a war on tradition, on religion and on anything that could possibly cramp the worship of the self above all else?

These are the people who have destroyed the very fabric of the American society, the fabric which enabled us to grow and prosper into the greatest nation to ever exist on Earth, suddenly they’re the chief critics of this hapless young woman? They have dragged society through the gutter by taking over the educational system and drumming into the young skulls full of mush that the criminal is a victim, the victim brought it on himself, the righteous are impostors, our role models are to be mindless starlets and athletes, religion is for the ignorant and gullible, and values and morality are what you say they are. They have fostered a culture which proclaims “ask not what your country can do for you, demand it”. A culture, once famous for pulling itself up by the bootstraps which now complains that it has no boots. Their handiwork is a body politic which has forgotten the meaning of personal responsibility, hard work, honor and respect and uses class envy to encourage freeloading under the guise of fairness.

We are talking about the originators of the Woodstock culture, a path of tears like no other. Astronomical divorce rates, an explosion of single parenthood and teen pregnancy and the destruction of the American family have led to boundless pain and suffering, but this does not deter the doyens of society. To them, we haven’t done enough; they require that we destroy what shred of normalcy that stubbornly persists by abolishing marriage, completing the feminization of men and societal experimentation on the backs of innocent children. So we have the people who have yet to find a lowlife low enough to hate pulling out the long knives for Nadya Suleman. If anything, she should be the poster woman for liberal angst; a single mom living on welfare, struggling to support her family. Instead she is ridiculed and persecuted. Why is that so?

The answer is obvious: her children. Large families in general are an anathema to the elites. Families blessed with an abundance of children hearken back to the days the liberals thought they had already eradicated. Such families violate the liberal code in every possible way. A large, stable family can only exist on the bedrock of selflessness and hard work. Having many kids means that the parents are willing to give up some of life’s luxuries for something greater then themselves. It means that children actually learn some of life’s lessons as they grow up, lessons such as sharing, responsibility, adversity and sacrifice instead of being pampered and spoiled while being prepared for a lifetime of self pity and psychiatry appointments.

Since they cannot attack a stable large family without revealing their true colors, they glom onto tales such as Ms. Suleman’s, using the obviously bizarre circumstances as a smokescreen for their true intentions: a further attack on the family. Now they can legitimately call for “fertility regulation” and “examining the role of the large family and the undue duress it puts on the system” without appearing as the elitist, dictatorial snobs that they are. We all remember the visceral reaction Sarah Palin invoked in these folks, and to them, Nadya Suleman is Sarah Palin on steroids. They sense a crack on the remaining wall of the American family and are determined to bust it wide open. It would behoove us to keep a sharp eye out for what’s coming.

Dear Mr. President:

I read with great interest your Op-Ed in the Washington Post today. In it you state that every day without passage of your stimulus bill leads us further and further into the abyss. You further make the extraordinary claim that if this bill fails to pass, the United States may reach the point of no return. For a nation that has bounced back from the Civil War, Great Depression and Watergate, your dire prediction is very frightening.

Therefore, as an American citizen I feel it my duty to implore you, no, demand of you: Mr. President, PASS THIS BILL NOW. You are the leader of the Democratic Party, which currently enjoys a sufficient majority in Congress to pass this bill without any Republican support. It is your duty and a fulfillment of your obligation as Chief Executive of this land to order them to do so. Now is not the time for bipartisanship, for reaching across the aisle, now is the time of getting things done, of staving off the collapse of this great nation. While you fiddle and pander for Republican votes, America burns. No Republican has threatened to filibuster the bill even as it now stands, so it must pass and it must pass now. The Speaker and the Majority Leader should be told to pass this bill TONIGHT. Nothing should stand in the way of saving these United States.

Mr. President, if we are to take you at your word, this bill is needed to stave off catastrophe. So pass it, now. It is true that this bill may fail and that you may be blamed for pushing through a useless and wasteful bill, but that is what leadership is all about, making difficult choices, choices that can come back to haunt you in the future no matter how good your intentions. So be a leader and put your authority where your mouth is. If you don’t, you will be announcing to all that you are either a coward or a liar. We are counting on you Mr. President, don’t fail us.

In continuation of their slavish devotion to their master Barack Obama, the media has not only abandoned any claim to impartiality but also any semblence of rationality. Take a look at this article and thank me for introducing some chuckles into your daily routine.

AP:

On a tough day, Obama escapes for a while

Washington (AP) – On the rockiest day of his young administration, President Barack Obama did what surely made him happy for a while.He left.

With little notice, the president and first lady Michelle Obama bolted the gated compound of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in their tank of a limousine on Tuesday. They ended up at a Washington public school, greeted by children who could not care less about the collapse of a Cabinet secretary nomination.

“We were just tired of being in the White House,” the president candidly told the gleeful second-graders at Capital City Public Charter School.

“We got out! They let us out!” Mrs. Obama said as the kids and their teachers laughed.

Get it? The Obama’s were having a hard day and were able to “escape” from the White House. The goal here is to paint The One and The Oness as different then all those stuffy Presidents and First Ladies who were “stuck” in the White House and who couldn’t just “get away” for a breather whenever they wanted to. Not so our hip new president, he’s a man about town whom nothing can hold back, not even the toughest job in the world being the President of the United Sates.

Except that the next sentence puts the lie to this whole narrative:

The White House said the Obamas’ trip had been planned, just not publicly announced.

So the trip was planned in advance, was it not? So how then could this be billed as an “escape from the White House on a tough day”? How could Obama claim to be “tired of the White House” when this trip was probably planned before he even got there?

The AP continues:

The surprise timing, though, gave the feel of two different worlds.

What surprise timing, didn’t you just say this was planned in advance?

The stop at the school underscored a promise that the Obamas made and insist they will keep: to avoid getting caught up in a White House bubble. They say they will be visible parts of the Washington community—even in the midst of a hectic day. Or a difficult one.

I ask again, how did Obama know in advance that this day would be difficult? If he didn’t, then why should we assume that the Obamas will be visible about town on “difficult days”?

To summarize, the White House schedules a trip for the Obamas that happens to occur on a rough day for the president. The media sees that as the president excercising his unparralleled ability to rise above it all and visit with the darling school children even on days of great personal difficulty. Unbelievable. To the Obama Media one plus one equals: whatever Obama wants it to be.

Much has been written about the proposed “stimulus” bill. Perhaps we should take a moment to contemplate what a trillion dollars is before it we spend it on a program which even its’ proponents aren’t sure will work.

Courtesy of the Dallas Morning News (pdf) among others:

• A Trillion Dollars could give every high school student in the US a free college education.
• A Trillion Dollars could buy 16.6 million Habitat for Humanity houses, enough for 43 million Americans.
• A Trillion Dollars is equal to the total 2007 combined revenue of Microsoft, Citibank, Wal-Mart and Exxon.
• A Trillion Dollars is enough cash for 1,000 new Cowboys Stadiums.
• A Trillion Dollars is enough to give every man, woman and child in America over $3,300.
• A Trillion Dollars could pay for a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives for the next two decades.
• A Trillion Dollars stacked up in $1,000 bills, would reach 80 miles high.
• A Trillion Dollars could buy everyone on Earth an iPod.
• A Trillion Dollars is enough money to pave the entire U.S. interstate highway system with 23.5-karat gold leaf.
• A Trillion Dollars Could be used to hire 1.9 million additional teachers.

And for you addicted shoppers, A Trillion Dollars would buy you:

8,700 Porsche 911 Turbos ($126,000 each): $1,097,940,000
New York Yankees: $1,200,000,000
New York Mets: $482,000,000
Every NFL Franchise: $8,600,000,000
Dracula’s Romanian castle: $140,000,000
1,000 60SE Lear jets ($11,595,000 each): $11,595,000,000
Denver International Airport: $4,822,000,000
10 Picasso’s (113,400,000 each): $1,134,000,000
Hard Rock Casino in Vegas: $770,000,000
Hong Kong Disneyland: $3,500,000,000
South Pacific Island of Katafanga: $38,900,000
Buy the whole world 100 cans of Coke: $650,000,000,000
Buy 50 Super bowl ads ($2,600,000 each): $130,000,000
Build 1,001 Habitat for Humanity houses (at $60,000 each): $600,060,000
Build 2,000 miles of Metro rail ($150,000,000 per a mile of track): $300,000,000,000
Build 250 hospitals in Third World nations ($41,300,000 each): $10,325,000,000
Produce your own Hollywood movie: $150,000,000
Buy the Maltese Falcon, the world’s most expensive yacht: $100,000,000
Buy 2 Napa Valley wineries ($34,000,000 each): $68,000,000
Buy 26 McDonalds’ franchises ($1,000,000 each): $26,000,000

Total: 1,000,000,000,000

And last but not least:

• Voting against A Trillion Dollars worth of pork could buy the Republicn Party the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and the White House, provided they stick to their principles and do not let themselves be bought off by A Trillion Dollars.

In 2002 in the run-up to the war in Iraq, Democrats in Congress faced a dilemma. In the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush, realizing that kicking the Iraq can down the road was no longer an option, was determined to deal with Saddam Hussein forthwith. Public opinion was very much for the war, in even greater percentages then now support Obama (upwards of 70% according to the LA Times). On the one hand, Congressional Democrats, worried that a successful Iraqi operation would push Bush’s already high popularity rating into the stratosphere, were determined to have a piece of the action. But their increasingly kooky left-wing base, opposed to any military action especially one that could benefit US interests, was howling against the war and vowing electoral retribution on those who supported it. What resulted was a split in the Democratic Party, with conservative Democrats and those with national aspirations voting for the Iraq War resolution, while the more ideological and those with solidly leftist seats opposing it. After the public turned on the war, Democrats who supported it found their vote to be an albatross around their necks they could not overcome. Any Democrat who voted for the war was a target to the now emboldened left. Their votes on the war, more than anything else, is what cost Senators John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton the presidency. Barack Obama’s (meaningless) opposition to the war greatly enhanced his appeal to the leftist base, catapulting him over the Clinton machine first as a front runner, later as a candidate, and ultimately to the White House.

The “stimulus” bill currently under consideration in Congress will likely have the same impact on Republicans. Republicans, afraid to take on The One With The Greatest Popularity Ever, are considering voting for a bill which they know is not stimulus and is nothing more then a venting of eight years of spending frustration by the Democrats. Unlike the Iraq War however, which after major setbacks is on track to be successful, one does not need the benefit of hindsight to be absolutely certain that the “stimulus” bill will fail in its’ stated goal i.e. fixing the economy. What is more than likely is for the economy to continue to worsen for a while before it gets better, leaving us with additional trillions in debt and deficits with nothing to show for it. Every Republican who votes for it now will be scrambling to explain away their vote, and those with national aspirations will find themselves saddled with their own “stimulus deficit” which will be hard to overcome.

Republicans would also be wise to realize that there is nothing to be gained politically by supporting this bill, as all credit, real or made up will be claimed by Obama and the Democrats with the enthusiastic support of their buddies in the media.

So while there are many principled reasons to oppose this “stimulus” bill, if nothing else there is hope that enlightened self-interest will give Republicans the push they need to see past temporary, narrow political circumstance and do the right thing.

Remember before the election when Harry Ried said this?

Washington — In a move to reassert Congressional independence at the start of the new presidential administration, the vice president will be barred from joining weekly internal Senate deliberations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun.

Reid’s decision to exclude Vice President-elect Joe Biden from the Senate arena where he spent most of his adult life is intended to restore constitutional checks and balances that tilted heavily toward the executive branch during the Bush presidency.

Reid, in an interview in his Washington office last week, said Biden would not be welcome to continue this tradition after he and President-elect Barack Obama take office.

“He can come by once and a while, but he’s not going to sit in on our lunches,” Reid said. “He’s not a senator. He’s the vice president.”

It didn’t take long for that promise to go out the window:

The Hill:

Biden Returns to Caucus Lunch in First Week as VP

Vice President Joe Biden will meet with Senate Democrats during their first caucus luncheon since inauguration after both Biden and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) agreed Biden would not appear.

According to guidance issued Tuesday by the vice president’s office, Biden will attend Tuesday’s lunch — but as an invited guest.

Say what you want, but these next four years are coing to be fun…

To My Dear Friends On The Left

With regard to your request that I give our new president, Mr. Barack H. Obama, a chance to succeed in his new office, I’d like to share with you a number of things that I’ve learned in the past eight years from you and your friends.

First of all, I learned how to hate. I learned load myself to the brim with visceral hate, utter contempt, revulsion and disgust directed at a man I did not know personally. I learned how to hate him as I would my greatest personal enemy.

I learned that to contemplate a president’s assassination, in books and movies, is not beyond the pale.

I learned that to compare a president to some of the worst villains in history (i.e. Hitler and the Nazis) because of policy disagreements is the way to go.

I learned that ridiculing a man’s intelligence, looks, background and social mores make up for any lack of substantive objections.

I learned that one man’s faith is another man’s punching bag.

I learned to attribute blame where it is not due and avoid credit where it is when the president is not of my party.

I learned that divided government is essential to a healthy democracy.

I learned that to obstruct and oppose a president’s agenda is the moral duty of the loyal opposition.

I learned that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, especially in wartime.

I learned that politics does not stop at the water’s edge, indeed to criticize one’s country and president from abroad is the way to go.

I learned that good deeds done by the wrong person don’t count.

I learned to diminish the importance of advances in multi-culturism and civil rights when its’ beneficiaries didn’t share my worldview.

I learned that the ends justify the means when it comes to pushing forward an agenda.

Above all I learned the true nature of the American Left.

Now you tell me, my friend, Do you think you deserve a chance?

Democrats and liberals whine non-stop about Guantanamo Bay, torture, Abu-Ghraib, human rights, international law yada, yada, yada. They have made it a priority for the Obama administration to correct the “war crimes” of the President Bush and are pushing for legal action against those involved in the War on Terror. The next time any Democrat launches into their cliched, naive rant about “terrorist rights”, they should take a good look at this picture:

This is a photo of Moshe Holtzberg, a two year old child whose parents were brutally murdered this week by terrorist scum in Mumbai. This toddler will never see his parents again, never know the comfort of a mother or the strength of a father because of these murderous vermin, these pieces of inhuman debris who call themselves Islamists. These are the type of people, the kindred spirits, of those currently populating Gitmo. These are the animals in human flesh whom the liberals lose sleep over, desperately trying to get them full legal rights accorded to decent human beings.

The liberals are right: Gitmo should be closed. Three square meals and a roof over their heads is much more then they deserve. Being strung from the nearest lamppost while their houses are demolished and possessions confiscated, now that’s a start.

The pundits on our side (the conservative side) are outdoing each other, attempting to pin the tail on how the donkey resoundingly stomped all over the elephant these past two election cycles. They are missing the huge forest for the minor trees.

For every supposed Republican wrongdoing, there is a Democratic sin of equal or greater proportion. You say too far to the right, I say too far to the left. You say culture war doesn’t work, I say ballot measures prove otherwise. You say 27% approval of Bush, I say 9% approval of Pelosi and Reid. You say Duke Cunningham, I say William Jefferson. You say Jack Abramoff, I say Tony Rezko. You say Mark Foley, I say John Edwards and Tim Mahoney. You say Iraq war, I say Iraq war is an obvious success. You say Enron, I say Fannie & Freddie. You say bungled Katrina response, I say bungled Wall St. response. You say Karl Rove, I say David Axlerod. You say Sarah Palin, I say Barack Obama. Etc. etc.

So why did we lose? Why do we get hit, time and time again, while the Democrats emerge smelling like roses? Simple, the same reason the New York Giants would never win a game if they started off down 21-0. No matter how strong our ideas, how principled our leaders, how corrupt and incompetent our opponents, we will continue to lose (or eke out miserly, temporary wins) as long as we don’t figure out how to deal with the media.

Let me repeat myself; we lost in 2006 and this year BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA. Are we perfect? No. Did we stray from the conservative path? Absolutely. Do we need leadership? Definitely. But that is not why we lost and will continue to lose in the near future. I have no doubt that with all our flaws, were the media fair and balanced, the center-right makeup of this country would still be reflected in the makeup of our elected representatives in Washington DC. That it isn’t is a direct result of the media and the media alone. As touched on above, there is no fault attributed to us that cannot be thrown right back in the liberals/Democrats faces by a fair referee. But the media is not fair and has never been. Thus, the media creation known as Barack Obama was made possible directly on top of the the media-created foundation of a “ruined and disastrous” Bush presidency.

Rush Limbaugh is an amazing talent and the most influential conservative alive. But there is one area where he is gravely mistaken. The mainstream media, while shrinking in size and under financial siege, is not losing as much influence as he believes. That is because it still has a lock on two important media objectives: Access and Credibility.

Access: Professional conservative media types spend their time immersed in a sea of news/politics. While they realize the difference between junkies like themselves and your average Joe, they fail to grasp the enormity of that difference. Your average person is extremely busy and overworked. They spend their time trying to take care of themselves and their families, whatever time left over is used mainly for personal activities and R & R. Their interest in news is relegated to headlines and sound bites. Here is where the MSM really shines. Every time average Joe opens his Yahoo email, his Google homepage or MSN portal, he’s accosted by AP/Reuters news headlines, featuring the MSM message. He turns on his radio to listen to some music, traffic & weather, or even to Rush, he gets the headline news, often multiple times an hour. He’s watching his favorite comedy and the commercials feature snippets from the upcoming news program. So every American, from the most disinterested to the most conservative, is under the constant barrage of MSM/Democrat talking points. And as both Lenin and Geobbels have said, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

A case in point: Even conservatives, who honestly believe President Bush to be a decent man and a good president, will hesitate to say so in public for fear of being laughed out of the room. After all, “everybody knows”, he’s the worst president since Hoover, maybe of all time. This is the crux of the matter. The media has retained their ability to create the conventional wisdom, the “everybody knows” factor, which once created, assumes a life of its own. Marketing professionals would kill for a fraction of the access the MSM has in the lives of Americans on a daily basis.

So while many people are turning to alternative media sources, the media has not lost its ability to drum into our heads whatever it wants, nonstop, and as Evan Thomas once said, that power is worth at least 10-15% on Election Day.

Credibility: The rise of the alternative media has been phenomenal and explosive, but without one key component: credibility. Fair or not (not), the public still accepts everything the MSM peddles as true, while being naturally suspicious of information picked up over the internet, even if from reliable, established sources. It is enough to quote a MSM source to establish the bona fides of a story, while an alternative media report, heavily investigated and sourced, does not get its legs until being declared kosher by at least one MSM rabbi. This is an undeniable fact, as evidenced by the McCain campaign, which moments after ripping the NYT as “150% in the tank for Obama”, proceeded to quote the Times in an ad attacking him.

Access and credibility are a lethal combination when it comes to elections. Obama’s $600 million is chump change in comparison. Were elections about specific issues, conservatives would perpetually have the upper hand. Americans know what they want when asked specifically; Tuesday’s ballot initiatives prove that. Electing politicians and parties is much trickier. If the MSM can get away with saying left is right and blue is red day in and day out, out ability to get our message out is almost completely destroyed. We end up finding ourselves in an endless battle defending against the latest MSM Known Fact ™.

I for one, am tired of it. Not of the media, but rather of our side. I’m tired of conservative pundits and politicians who, while constantly complaining about media bias, refuse to do anything about it. They continue to go on the same shows, talk to the same reporters, smile at the camera while the MSM stabs them in the back. I’m tired of conservatives giving liberals a finger in the hopes of saving the hand, which never works. We’ll give them, Gingrich, Delay, Lott, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Estrada, Rogers-Brown etc. The result? A Reid & Pelosi congress. Okay, we’ll throw Bush & Cheney under the bus; let’s just focus on conservative issues. The direct result? President-elect Obama.

Liberals however, have no such constraints. Make their life a bit difficult and they’ll throw you off the plane, file lawsuits, ban stations and get personal. I don’t want to hear “we don’t want to sink to their level”. That’s utter nonsense; if the diamond is in the mud, you’re gonna have to get dirty to pick it up. I am more then willing to fight for the conservative cause, promote its ideals, elevate it leaders in a fair fight. But I will not participate in a rigged match. Every day I see lies, half-truths, distortions and bias directed at my side and my side alone. My blood pressure rises, my blood boils and it takes all I’ve got to prevent myself from screaming at the top of my lungs (that’s why Savage is so popular, he screams for you). I refuse to continue to put myself through this while the people who can do something about it sit on their hands. To paint like Picasso is a futile effort if your audience is wearing blinders. So Conservative Leaders, give me (and the many who feel the same as I do) a call when you have an effective media strategy. Until then I’ll engage in more productive endeavors such as playing minesweeper on my computer. At least that game is not rigged.

1) McCain is Bush

McCain, till his dying day, will never be able to figure out how the very same journalists he conspired with to block President Bush’s path at every turn, promptly turned on him and labeled him “Bush 44”. Poor guy, you’d think that after a quarter century in politics he’d know better.

2) McCain’s campaign was the nastiest in history.

A laughable joke even Axlerod can’t believe he got away with. McCain’s campaign was probably the nicest, hands-off campaign in history; who else wouldn’t mention Wright, Rezko, infanticide etc. Even they are beginning to admit it now.

3) This election is not about race.

As post-election media celebrations prove, this election was very much about race.

4) The economic disaster is Bush and the Republican’s fault.

Even if you were to blame the current crisis on deregulation instead of Fannie and Freddie, the said deregulation happened under President Clinton not Bush. But hey, don’t confuse them with facts.

5) Obama never heard Wright make any of his anti-American, anti-Semitic remarks.

This has been done to death (by our side, the media hasn’t touched it), I just want to bring up one point I haven’t seen mentioned much. Even if we accept Obama’s claim of not having directly heard these remarks, there is no way he didn’t hear about them. Nothing flies swifter down the grapevine than a pastor/clergyman who suddenly, out of the blue, begins to make crazy political commentary from the podium. If my normally apolitical rabbi suddenly begins to rant from the lectern that all Arabs should be thrown out of Israel and that Jerusalem nuke Teheran, everybody remotely connected to the synagogue would hear about it in a New York minute. Unless it’s not news at all, because his views were already well known, which makes Obama either the most clueless congregant or the most spineless.

6) Ayers was just someone from the neighborhood.

No attempt whatsoever to verify. Obama says so, so it is written.

7) Obama is amazingly even-tempered and cool under pressure.

What pressure was he ever under? He led the entire time (except for a few days in Aug, when he wasn’t cool at all, remember “get in their face”?), he had every possible advantage i.e. a fawning media, eight years of Bush etc. This man has never faced adversity in elections or governing. Let’s see how his “cool” holds up now with the economy collapsing all around him.

Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

There aren’t that many Americans that pay income taxes.

9) Sarah Palin did not kill the Bridge to Nowhere.

Everybody at the time, including Democrats, agreed that she did. Once she was picked, however it became necessary to deny her involvement in order to tarnish her reformer credentials. Repeat after me, two legs bad, four legs good.

10) Palin’s take on Russia is that she can see it from her house.

A vicious, baseless, mindless smear. As the transcript shows, Palin gave a detailed and informed answer on the whole Russia-Georgia situation. When Gibson mentioned the proximity of Alaska to Russia, she reinforced his point on how close it actually is with an interesting detail which not many people are familiar with.

Feel free to add your own.

AP:

Even after nearly two years in the spotlight, little is understood about the 47-year-old first-term senator’s approach to leadership. His resume: community organizer, eight years as state legislator, and less than four as U.S. senator.

As a lawmaker, he has displayed a knack for working with Republicans on a handful of favorite issues. But he has devoted most of his time in the Senate to running for president. Unlike the past seven presidents, he was never a governor or vice president. And unlike John F. Kennedy, the last senator to move directly to the presidency, Obama has not commanded troops in wartime.

Ms. Loven don’t you think the public would have been better served had you made these points BEFORE the election? Isn’t it a story, a big story that a presidential candidate is “little understood” when it comes to leadership?

Here’s the kicker:

Personally, he’s a bit of an enigma, too.

Conservatives and Republican can argue until they’re blue in the face on what direction to take now, but to me there’s one overriding concern: as long as the MSM is so pro-Democrat and anti-Republican, our work is ten times harder then it should be. The first priority of our leadership should be to figure out a media strategy. If they don’t, then all their other efforts will go to waste.

Barack Obama constantly impresses on us the need to be “my brother’s keeper, my sister’s keeper”. Never mind that he fails to practice as he preaches in his personal life. But then again, Obama has never been about reality, rather an idea, a utopian mirage his supporters cannot seem to get out of their heads.

John McCain, however is a real person, with real accomplishments, real warts and real humanity. And this story highlights that reality.

Conservative bastion Slate.com:

The Great McCain Story You’ve Probably Forgotten

What an old anecdote about Mo Udall in the hospital reveals about McCain’s character.

For the past few years, Udall has lain ill with Parkinson’s disease in a veterans hospital in Northeast Washington, which is where we were heading. Every few weeks, McCain drives over to pay his respects. These days the trip is a ceremony, like going to church, only less pleasant. Udall is seldom conscious, and even then he shows no sign of recognition. McCain brings with him a stack of newspaper clips on Udall’s favorite subjects: local politics in Arizona, environmental legislation, Native American land disputes, subjects in which McCain initially had no particular interest himself. Now, when the Republican senator from Arizona takes the floor on behalf of Native Americans, or when he writes an op-ed piece arguing that the Republican Party embrace environmentalism, or when the polls show once again that he is Arizona’s most popular politician, he remains aware of his debt to Arizona’s most influential Democrat.

One wall of Udall’s hospital room was cluttered with photos of his family back in Arizona; another bore a single photograph of Udall during his season with the Denver Nuggets, dribbling a basketball. Aside from a congressional seal glued to a door jamb, there was no indication what the man in the bed had done for his living. Beneath a torn gray blanket on a narrow hospital cot, Udall lay twisted and disfigured. No matter how many times McCain tapped him on the shoulder and called his name, his eyes remained shut.

A nurse entered and seemed surprised to find anyone there, and it wasn’t long before I found out why: Almost no one visits anymore. In his time, which was not very long ago, Mo Udall was one of the most-sought-after men in the Democratic Party. Yet as he dies in a veterans hospital a few miles from the Capitol, he is visited regularly only by a single old political friend, John McCain. “He’s not going to wake up this time,” McCain said.

This from the days when the media still believed John McCain to be of human descent, not a clone of Darth Vader. Have you ever seen a similar story about Barack Obama? Obama the Man? No. Obama the idea? Perhaps, but don’t bet on it. (h/t instapundit)

Philly.com (h/t The Corner)

I interviewed two plumbing-company owners in Pittsburgh recently about Barack Obama’s economic proposals for small businesses. One has 15 workers and 12 trucks, the other 52 and 34 trucks.

It’s Joe the Plumber, writ large.

Both had the same reaction to Obama’s proposed new taxes and mandates. To not have their bottom lines reduced by government fiat, both said they’d be forced to lay off employees.

Read the entire article, it’s worth it. Obama’s plans make no sense to anybody who has taken the time to examine them, even a little. But we can always hope

There are people out there who don’t support or “believe” in Barack Obama but intend on voting for him anyway. Why? To punish the Republicans. Some of their grievances are legitimate, others are a result of MSM misinformation. Regardless of the cause their feeling is the team has failed, time to get rid of the coach. As a New Yorker, I am familiar with that feeling.

The Yankees, despite have gone to the playoffs for 12 straight years under Joe Torre, were sick and tired of being knocked out in the first round. The solution? Fire Joe Torre. Never mind if he was the cause of their failure or not, Torre had got to go. How did that work out for the Yankees? Not great. They missed the payoffs for the first time in over a decade, and didn’t even get to play meaningful games in September. Joe Torre? Don’t worry about him; HE did go to the playoffs, with the LA Dodgers, a team that was not expected to make the cut.

We also have the case of Willie Randolph, manager of the Mets. After the Mets’ historic collapse in 2007 and subsequent sluggish start to the 2008 season, calls for Randolph’s head grew to such proportions that he was basically sacked in middle of the night. His replacement, Jerry Manuel, got the Mets rolling again, but with the same result. They collapsed once again, unable to win the one game, at home, that they needed to in order to advance on to the postseason.

In both cases, the fans felt better, but the result was the same or worse. So to you, the Republicans-need-to-be-punished crowd out there, take a look at the above and you might realize one essential fact. Sending the Republicans packing might make you feel good for the short term, but you might want to examine the possible negative effects of an Obama administration on innocent bystanders – yourselves.

I took some time to check out Obama’s tax cut calculator and was shocked at what I found.

The largest Obama tax cut goes to a couple, filing jointly, making only 30,000 with 3+ dependents, over 65, saving for retirement, with child care expenses and a million dollar mortgage. $297 a month.

Tax cut = $3,565

This is an extreme case (obviously), by no means the middle class in America today, and this is the extent of his tax cut on which he hopes to win the presidency. $3,565.

Now let’s check out some more normal circumstances.

Individuals:

• An individual making $20,000 – $75,00:

No mortgage or expenses = $500. With mortgage = $1,300 (or approximately $100 a month.)

• An individual making $75,000 – $100,00

No mortgage or expenses = $250. With mortgage = $1,050 ($85 a month)

• An individual making $100,000+

No mortgage or expenses = $0. With mortgage = $800 ($65 a month)

Now for married and filing jointly (single filer head of households get even less):

• Making $50,000 – $150,000 (remember this is for two incomes)

3+ dependents, childcare, saving for retirement and a mortgage = $1,800 ($150 a month). No expenses = $1,000 ($80 a month)

• Making $20,000 – $40,000 (again two incomes)

$2,955 – $3,565 (Maximum $300 a month, and these people don’t pay income taxes)

To sum it up, the poor will get some more money (not much), but the middle class will get screwed. The most middle class families will get back under Obama’s tax plan is $150 a month. This is going to save the middle class? This is the change the middle class is hoping for? And at what expense? Raising all kind of taxes and killing the economy in the process?

Now don’t get me wrong, as a “middle classer” myself, any money I get back in taxes is great. But do I think this will solve all my problems? No, not even close. Obama has conned many in the middle class that he will be their savior, but the numbers on his own website prove that the most he will give them is the equivalent of the shopping carts liberals love to give to the homeless. Government cannot support everybody as much as we may want it to, the best government can do is get out of the way and allow us, the people, to create the best possible future for ourselves.

I took some time to check out Obama’s tax cut calculator and was shocked at what I found.

The largest Obama tax cut goes to a couple, filing jointly, making only 30,000 with 3+ dependents, over 65, saving for retirement, with child care expenses and a million dollar mortgage. $297 a month.

Tax cut = $3,565

This is an extreme case (obviously), by no means the middle class in America today, and this is the extent of his tax cut on which he hopes to win the presidency. $3,565.

Now let’s check out some more normal circumstances.

Individuals:

• An individual making $20,000 – $75,00:

No mortgage or expenses = $500. With mortgage = $1,300 (or approximately $100 a month.)

• An individual making $75,000 – $100,00

No mortgage or expenses = $250. With mortgage = $1,050 ($85 a month)

• An individual making $100,000+

No mortgage or expenses = $0. With mortgage = $800 ($65 a month)

Now for married and filing jointly (single filer head of households get even less):

• Making $50,000 – $150,000 (remember this is for two incomes)

3+ dependents, childcare, saving for retirement and a mortgage = $1,800 ($150 a month). No expenses = $1,000 ($80 a month)

• Making $20,000 – $40,000 (again two incomes)

$2,955 – $3,565 (Maximum $300 a month, and these people don’t pay income taxes)

To sum it up, the poor will get some more money (not much), but the middle class will get screwed. The most middle class families will get back under Obama’s tax plan is $150 a month. This is going to save the middle class? This is the change the middle class is hoping for? And at what expense? Raising all kind of taxes and killing the economy in the process?

Now don’t get me wrong, as a “middle classer” myself, any money I get back in taxes is great. But do I think this will solve all my problems? No, not even close. Obama has conned many in the middle class that he will be their savior, but the numbers on his own website prove that the most he will give them is the equivalent of the shopping carts liberals love to give to the homeless. Government cannot support everybody as much as we may want it to, the best government can do is get out of the way and allow us, the people, to create the best possible future for ourselves.

I read Jake Tapper’s blog, Political Punch, as I (used) to consider him the closest thing to a “balanced journalist” out there in MSM land. He’s probably 60%-40% in the tank for Obama, which makes him pretty much from the fairest ones out there.

But this post is so childish and indefensible that it makes my head explode.

First he starts with the current MSM meme that Sarah Palin is out to destroy McCain. Then he says this:

And some Republicans are starting to now say they should have seen this coming, since Palin has a reputation for making friends who can help her and then screwing them over.

His evidence to back up such a serious charge? Read on.

The list is long:

Former Wasilla Mayor John Stein says he mentored Palin during her 1994 run for City Council. Then she decided to challenge him and run for Mayor. “Things got very ugly,’ Naomi Tigner, a friend of the Steins, told Salon.com. “Sarah became very mean-spirited.” Palin allies suggested she would he “Wasilla’s first Christian mayor,” even though Stein is Protestant. Palin allies also whispered that Stein and his wife – who hadn’t taken his name – were not legally wed. “We actually had to produce our marriage certificate,’ Stein said. His wife died in 2005 without ever reconciling with Palin. “I had a hand in creating Sarah, but in the end she blew me out of the water,” Stein told Salon. “Sarah’s on a mission, she’s an opportunist.”

Really, Stein himself says all that? And his friends agree? My, my, that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Next “eyewitness account”:

Former City Councilman Nick Carney also helped mentor Palin in her first city council run. They later had a falling out when Palin accused him of corruptly advocating that the city use his trash hauling business. “The episode might serve as a compelling, if small-bore, example of Palin’s reformer instincts,” the New Republic reported. Except that, according to those who were present, Carney wasn’t quite the crooked trash magnate Palin makes him out to be. For one thing, Carney couldn’t have proposed the ordinance because he’d recused himself from the matter. The council, in fact, had asked him to appear as a kind of expert witness on the relevant rules and regulations.

Where did Palin ever accuse him of proposing the ordinance? She said he advocated for it. Which I’m sure never happened. A longtime city councilman’s business was being considered purely coincidentally. He had nothing to with it. Nothing I tell you! Oh and the New Republic, they’re an objective source.

” Carney endorsed Stein in the 1996 mayoral race against Palin, and news reports say she subsequently as mayor refused to call on him.*

Huh? So what?

Carney told Salon that Palin – without council authorization — spent more than $50,000 in city funds to redecorate her office. “I braced her about it,” he said. “I told her it was against the law to make such a large expenditure without the council taking a vote. She said, ‘I’m the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can’t.”

This charge is easily verifiable, isn’t it, Jake? There should be receipts, expense reports, council minutes etc. Did you bother to fact check any of this or did you just report what Carney said like a parrot.

State Senate President Lyda Green from Wasilla, is a fellow conservative and was an ally of Palin’s throughout the 1990s. “If you had looked at our résumés, as far as being pro-life, pro-N.R.A., pro-family, pro-parental control, saving taxpayer dollars, keeping government out of our lives, we would have been identical,” Green told the New Yorker. “She traces the chill in their relationship to her decision not to endorse Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial primary. (She stayed neutral.)…

Ah, good old Lyda Green. Jake, how do you know that Lyda Green was a “Palin ally” throughout the 90′s? Because Green says so? Because they’re both from Wasilla and both conservative? Pretty flimsy evidence, don’t you think? If Green was such a Palin ally, wouldn’t she have some specifics on how she helped Palin? I don’t see any in your story.

Also, why didn’t she endorse Palin in 2006 if she was such an “ally”. No reason is given in your story, Jake. Aren’t you even curious about that small point? But then again, if she says she was an ally of Palin, it must be true.

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski made Palin the chair of a state commission overseeing oil and gas drilling. Four years later she challenged him – and beat him – for governor.

So realizing that your mentor is corrupt and bringing him down is now a crime, Jake? I’d have thought it laudable. In fact, I’d call Sarah Palin an authentic whistle-blower.

Prominent Alaska conservative talk radio host Dan Fagan was a longtime friend. But he found himself on the outs after he criticized her for raising taxes on oil companies. “He found himself branded a ‘hater,’” the New York Times reported. “It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as ‘bad people who are anti-Alaska.

Check out the Times link. The proof that Mr. Fagan was branded a hater? He says so.

Here’s the kicker:

Now, I don’t know what happened with all of these former allies. Certainly Murkowski was much-criticized. And certainly Palin views all these publications as left-leaning and hostile to her views.

So Jake, you admit you don’t know what happened with all these former allies. You don’t even present evidence that they were allies at all. For you to indict Sarah Palin as someone who uses people, it is enough to quote people who are clearly and vocally against Palin. No attempt is made to dig deeper into possible motives or agendas, or even verify their claims factually. They report, you decide.

Now I wouldn’t lose my head over one silly blog piece, but this has been the type of embarrassing “journalism” directed at McCain and Palin for the entire length of this campaign. Tapper and his fellow travelers are disgrace to a once noble profession.

I have nothing to add to this, just read the whole thing:

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates. The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling.

A look at a potential Obama Administration:

Secretary of State – Jeremiah Wright (“God D*mn America” resonates well overseas)

Secretary of the Treasury – Barney Frank

Secretary of Defense – Jack Murtha (would put an immediate halt to US troops air raiding villages)

Attorney General – Tony Rezko

Secretary of the Interior – Sheryl Crowe (has the right ideas on interior policy.)

Secretary of Agriculture – Jesse Jackson (peculiar affinity for nuts)

Secretary of Commerce – Emil Jones (former Illinois House Speaker) Promised it to him in 1997.

Secretary of Labor – to be replaced with Administrator of Abortion Services (see below)

Secretary of Health and Human Services – Andrew Sullivan (either his (mental) health is suspect, or he’s lost his humanity)

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – Franklin Raines

Secretary of Transportation – Lance Armstrong (Undersecretary of Tire Gauging to be added)

Secretary of Energy – King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (“We agree on all important issues, mainly no US domestic drilling” – Obama)

Secretary of Education – William Ayers

Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Al Sharpton (Gotta give him a job SOMEWHERE, he’s also a veteran of many street wars)

Secretary of Homeland Security – To be renamed Secretary of Home Lenders Security – Larry Johnson

White House Chief of Staff Chris Matthews (Imagine the tingle now!)

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency – Al Gore

Director of the Office of Management and Budget – Charlie Rangel

Director of the National Drug Control Policy – Obama himself (experience matters)

United States Trade Representative – Abolished (no trading allowed)

Press Secretary – The entire AP (Hey, it was their idea, not mine!)

Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System – Bernie Sanders (socialist)

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration – Madonna (she is in touch with elder issues and is obviously one of them)

Director of National Intelligence – Obama himself (THE “National Intelligence”)

Cabinet-level positions to be added:

Administrator of Abortion Services – Kim Gandy

Secretary of Women’s Rights – Sandra Bernhard

Feel free to add your own.