Sunday, October 26, 2008

this is SO great

Have you tried watching Saturday Night Live lately? Have you ever seen such Obama worship? I mean, really? Scott just looked at me and shook his head. So lame.

A friend wrote this to me, I thought it was so eloquent:

I love how the media is so concerned with Palin's wardrobe purchases but ignores Barack's 700 million zillion something price tag of the campaign he had others buy for him. Unbiased journalism and the media machine died with this election - so sad. Doesn't all that buying people eventually lead to corruption? Why won't he disclose his small donors list?

Seriously, we are being told to be more worried about a wardrobe purchase of one candidate that pales in comparison to the inane amount of money the next one spent on a campaign. We hear the media and the east and west coast celebrities whine and tell us how out of touch Republicans are and how "far back" conservatives want to take the society as a whole when no one begs to argue how "far forward" our liberal society wants to chase ahead from moral decency to satisfy itself.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry Obama fan here! Can't stand to listen to or look at Palin. I may have voted for Mccain had he picked another running mate! Sorry!

gretchen from lifenut said...

Obama spent $5.3 MILLION on his Greek theater for his 1 hour acceptance speech here in Denver...

...but $150K on clothes for Palin? That's evil. That's news.

Kristin said...

I have to say I am also an Obama voter here. I may have considered McCain if he chose another running mate also...

JATalbott said...

Sorry, there's one MAJOR difference in the 2 cases. Namely, the Palin clothing purchase by the NRC is ILLEGAL. The ironic thing is it is against the McCain-Feingold act. Yup, *that* McCain-Feingold act.

To wit, section Sec. 323
'(a) NATIONAL COMMITTEES-

'(1) IN GENERAL- A national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.

(Section 313 had already specifically listed clothing as one of those prohibited expenditures.)

The Graves Family said...

I can't help myself here -- also an Obama voter -- it is not the amount of money that is in question, it's the intent and use. Aside from the legal issue, it's the idea that Palin wants to be seen as such an average "Joe-six-pack" hockey mom who just happens to pay thousands and thousands each week for makeup and clothes. While the SNL skits have not been flattering, they have been honest, sometimes using her own words...hard to argue with that!

Anonymous said...

Yes. I can always tell when the Dems are leading in the polls or when a Republican has been routinely putting their foot in their mouth. Suddenly the whining starts about how unfair the media is. The nerve of asking a candidate about their foreign policy experience! How dare they ask a candidate what they read each day?!? The mavericks should be left alone to say what they want to say without question or reflection, you betcha!

I sure didn't hear anyone in the media rushing to report the final results of the Whitewater investigation (ie the part about an allegedly crooked land deal, not the witchhunt and breathless reporting it morphed into in accusing the Clintons of dealing drugs in Mena, AR or being accomplices to murdering Vince Foster or the sex lies and videotape impeachment joke). I didn't hear them reporting the final cost to the taxpayers when the actual Whitewater investigation resulted in total exoneration of the Clintons. Nor were they rushing to report their exoneration on Filegate, Travelgate (what, you mean they really didn't find evidence that the Clintons engaged in politically motivated firings of bureaucrats? That it was actually the Bush Republicans who did that to US Attorneys in their own party?), etc.

I haven't heard the media report a whole lot on exactly how much the war in Iraq is costing us, either. They weren't reporting on the resulting national debt and its doubling the past 8 years until the economy collapsed in ruin.

And remind me again why we are in Iraq? Oh yeah, because there are WMD's there!! Oh, there weren't any? Then ok, its because there are biological labs there on the brink of a breakthrough in killing all of us with germs!! Hmm, those weren't there either? Then, oh yeah, its to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of the Hussein regime!! Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket. What's that -- we were the ones who put Hussein in power and armed him when we were trying to topple Iran in the 1970's and 80's?? Well, then we are there for democracy in the Middle East -- let's see how that one sticks. I am sure Fox News is reporting all of the nitty gritty details on all of these changed, after the fact justifications for why we went in in 2003, too, right? Because they are just so fair and balanced and what not . . .

Seriously, I liked McCain and thought either choice would work out until he went all demogogue on us and started calling names rather than selling himself and his own qualifications for the job. And until he cynically chose an unqualified female running mate hoping to capture the mythical angry Hillary voter who was suddenly going to go GOP to spite Obama.

And we all just know how much control the Prez has over funding programs for sick kids and outlawing abortion, anyway, so I am sure if McCain was elected Roe v Wade would be abandoned and the dollars would just freely flow for programs and research for Palin's baby, right? Just like it was under Reagan and Bush and Bush, right? And we would never again instead choose to fund deregulated millionaires who have successfully privatized their wealth and socialized their losses anymore, would we? Because Bush I didn't do that for the S & L's in the 1980's and 90's and Bush II isn't doing it for the mortgage and banking industry now, is he? Because they are for small government (except when they want to tell us what to do in our own bedroom or when they want to go pick fights with our military) and against earmarks and pork barrel spending (except when the budget explodes under every GOP adminsitration -- then the Dems are the bad guys for trimming defese costs and leaving our military too weak)

There's my rant. Go Obama.

James

Mrs. Crm said...

rach, I agree with you. The media is soooo one sided. when my dad had his newspaper the dems expected him to run their ads for free, and the republicans paid. The just told him, that most people just let the cost go, says a lot about their ideals i think. Also Rush Limbaugh had a great point he other day.... all the democrats are barking about what Palin is paying for clothing, but at least she is paying for it and not expecting someone to give it to her, or like so many democratice leaders, who are hiring prostitutes. Rush said one line that cracked me up "democrats are paying women to take their clothes off and republicans are paying to put their clothes on!" Love it!!! Palin is finally someone how is not backing down on Christian values and she is hated by so many for it, but I love it!! Hope you're doing great my friend.
Hannah

Mrs Crm said...

one more thing, sorry for all the typos in my comment, not enough sleep for me this morning:)

Anonymous said...

If someone doesn't think the media is cheerleading for Obama, then there is no use trying to convince them.

I've officially given up trying to argue with people this election.

Instead, I'm busy building my business so when they are whining about corporations and the government, I'll be busy surfing or something.

Joy said...

I already voted. I voted for the candidate that votes to kill the least babies, because that is the issue that is most important to me.

Uh, James, I hate to tell you this, but you seem to have some serious politial baggage. :) Just wondering, does it affect your blood pressure? :)

Anonymous said...

Joy -- not at all. And both parties support killing. One attempts to justify it with exemptions for rape, incest, health of the mother -- none of which are the innocent life's fault and all of which devalues that life in comparison to some other consideration. And both parties support capital punishment, which presumes to judge and kill.

I abhor abortion, especially as a Christian and particularly since having our baby son who we knew would be sick and who lived a wonderful, loved and blessed life for 4 months despite what the medical community believed would happen when we chose to have him and take all measures to keep him alive. As an individual, I don't have to agree with every issue in the party platform. If I waited for a candidate or party who did that before voting, I'd never vote. I tend to agree more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party on the vast majority of issues.

My point, Joy, which I backed up with examples rather than potshots at anyone on this blog, was that everyone can see media bias that isn't there because of their own point of view. The media did a lot of cheerleading for Sarah Palin too until she started putting her foot in her mouth. I have no doubt she is smart or she wouldn't be where she is, but her words are her words.

James

Joy said...

James, I was trying to be funny. I don't think it worked. I'm sorry.

I voted for the people that did the least killing. The least. I know where candidates stand because I do a lot of research before I vote. Obviously you do, too.