This is a web ad appearing on every yahoo news page right now advertising the Gibson interview of Sarah Palin.
Now tell me this isn’t framing the entire interview as revealing that Palin believes Iraq is a ‘Holy War’? Meaning that Palin is a radical fundamentalist Christian radical who wants to kill muslims.
Gibson’s gotcha question is baseless however because Palin doesn’t reveal any such opinion of the Iraq war. HotAir and JustOneMinute adequately debunk this strawman.
You can literally smell the desperation. Bidinetto Blog says Obama is rattled.
The lipstick-on-a-pig comments are obviously aimed at Palin. Crazy.
The crowd apparently took the “lipstick” line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: “lipstick.”
UPDATE: The McCain campaign is now saying Obama called Palin a pig, which he didn’t. The Obama campaign notes that “lipstick on a pig” is a fairly common idiom Obama often uses, as in a recent Washington Post interview. McCain has also used the phrase.
Though on a day when Obama’s surrogates were joking that Palin’s record can’t be concealed with lipstick, it was hard for those following the campaign not to hear the echo. ~politico.com
What’s more though is the trainwreck that is the Obama campaign. Obama’s pick of Biden for Veep is great for McCain because we can be assured of gaffe after gaffe coming from Biden throughout the rest of this campaign. Nothing could have been better for the prospects of a McCain landslide in November.
Biden goes directly after Palin by basically saying he cares more for her ‘special needs’ baby because of his policy positions. But then isn’t that liberalism in a nutshell? Caring through government is always valued more than actual caring.
“If you care about (children with developmental disabilities), why don’t you support stem cell research?” ~thepage.time.com
What??? No, he said what???
Massive government control:
It will take massive government action across the world to halt global warming. To allow for economic growth in poor countries and some population growth, we have to cut CO2 emissions in rich countries by at least 80 per cent. ~independent.co.uk
There is no area of your life that would not fall under the absolute control of our government masters in order to “save the earth” from global warming. Since everything we do has a ‘carbon footprint’, meaning that everything we do is destroying the earth, then everything we do is subject to regulation in order to combat/reverse global warming.
Governments could ban all flights inside Europe and build new fast rail lines. Tickets could be subsidised, and booked on the internet so the trains are full. Trains travelling at 125mph, like the ones in the UK now, could go from London to Istanbul in 24 hours and London to Delhi in 48. But mainstream politicians keep telling us that stopping global warming will cost too much. They say ordinary people will never stand for sacrifice.
…One answer is abolish business class so we all sit cramped together. But more important, we need rationing. Back in the Second World War, the government rationed food. Working-class people went along with it, because they believed they were fighting for something and everyone had the same ration. The average British child ate better than ever before and grew taller. ~independent.co.uk
Get that? “But more important, we need rationing.” Can’t you just hear the left salivating for rationing everything? The idea of forcing everyone to ‘sacrifice’ is a wet dream for liberals.
Dick Durbin’s prophecy upon the DailyKos democrats:
O’DONNELL: Can I ask you, too, about what Maureen Dowd wrote in today’s New York Times about the Republicans targeting Michelle Obama. She wrote: “It’s good news for Obama that Hillary’s out of the race. But it’s also bad news. Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of ‘Kill the witch.’” What’s your reaction to that?
DURBIN: Well, I know Michelle. She has been my friend and a friend of my wife for many, many years. She can take it. She can handle herself. She is a very accomplished person. But I will tell you this: the hottest ring in Hell is reserved for those in politics who attack their opponents’ families. And if there are some Republican strategists that think that’s the way to win the election, I think they are wrong.
O’DONNELL: Wow, well, there you have it. That’s a line. Senator Durbin, very interesting, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it. ~huffingtonpost.com
Did they get the idea from Ayers or some other communist afficianado?
When asked during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, whether he would “pursue the violations that have been made against our Constitution by the present administration”, Biden answered in the affirmative.
“We will not be stopped from pursuing any criminal offence that’s occurred,” he continued, going on to praise congressional committees for the deliberate pace of their inquiries into alleged Bush administration misdeeds.
Members of Congress are “doing the right thing, they’re not making false accusations about anything … they’re collecting data, subpoenaing records, they’re building a file”, Biden said.
“If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued – not out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president — no one is above the law.”
Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible “genuine crimes” and “really bad policies”.
“[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News. “You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.” ~guardian.co.uk
Wow.
Oh, Dean-o. I wonder if he’s noticed that as the chairman he is whitey?
Howard Dean Calls the GOP – A “WHITE” Party
“If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican party.”
Pedestrian.
Not too sure of the evidence here but both Obama and the news story are predictable.
Obama tacks away from his left-wing base
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is shifting to the center after months of battling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the hearts of the Democratic Party’s liberal base.
His recent strategy of political triangulation has already sparked a fight with MoveOn.org, a powerful liberal advocacy group.
…More evidence of Obama’s ideological trajectory is a television advertisement emphasizing patriotism, personal accountability and tax cuts in Republican strongholds such as Alaska and Montana.
Obama’s campaign is fighting Republican efforts to portray him as an out-of-touch liberal. ~thehill.com
How far can he really run from himself anyway? Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
“His record is liberal, and his rhetoric is moderate,” explained Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. ~examiner.com
Meaning that he’s never actually moderate but wants to appear moderate. Is this the ‘new politician’? Is this the lauded ‘change’?