Breaking – New Palin Scandal!

Impacting Hard

The political world was thrown into chaos Tuesday night as a possible devastating scandal involving Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and one of her children emerged.  The New York Times is set to report in five front page articles on Wednesday morning that Piper, the Palin’s 6-year-old daughter, has been a very naughty girl . . . THIS POST HAS MOVED.  CLICK HERE.  CHECK OUT THE EDWARDSREPORT.COM, THE RIGHT WING ONION RIP-OFF.

D’s Worried Over Republican Smears, Dirty Tricks, Spin

The Obama campaign headquarters buzzed with energy yesterday afternoon, but there was a sense of foreboding among staffers.  ”We are just waiting for the Rove/Bush spin machine to kick into high gear and turn Obama into somebody we wouldn’t recognize,” said campaign strategist Harold Scrottle, taking a break from planning a campaign ad aimed at convincing voters that John McCain, a former POW, doesn’t support America’s veterans.  ”But what keeps us up at night is the anticipation of the dirty smears, the swift-boating, that will be attempted against Obama,” worried Scrottle, who paused briefly to read an email from a 527 group asking for input on an internet effort to spread the idea that McCain has become senile.  ”We are planning to face a barrage of lies about Obama’s past statements.  They will lie and twist everything Barack has said,” lamented Scrottle, before posting a blog entry on Obama’s website accusing McCain of advocating more American casualties by wanting troops to stay in Iraq forever.   “We will have a hard time fighting back against the Republican echo chamber of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh,” Scrottle fretted before heading out the door for interviews with ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today.

In other fake election news . . .

Media Outraged Over Obama Accusations Against Obama

Media Outraged Over Obama Accusations By Obama

A media firestorm erupted Wednesday night as allegations involving drug use and religion swirled around Democrat nominee Barack Obama.  The furor started when Obama claimed that Obama had smoked marijuana and used cocaine when he was younger.  Obama then went on to accuse Obama of having a Muslim stepfather and of having grown up in Indonesia, a majority Islamic country.  “In a scurrilous new attack, Sen. Obama is the victim of discredited allegations,” Campbell Brown said as she opened CNN’s Election Center.  The New York Times is expected to editorialize tomorrow morning that “these allegations have repeatedly been proven false and are just dirty politics.”  (The editorial is expected only because it hasn’t been published yet, but was already released as a statement from the Democrat National Committee.)  As a result of these allegations against Obama by Obama, Keith Olbermann is expected to name Obama the Worst Person In The World tonight, but only if he can find his last pair of adult Depends.

Other media notes . . . In unrelated news, CNN producer Harold Scrottle inadvertently forgot to add a conservative guest to the four person political panel on tonight’s Larry King Live . . . A recent survey found that 80% of the network evening news, 65% of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and 78% of all NPR programming is actually plagiarized from that morning’s New York Times.

In other fake news: Area Liberal Scoffs At Ignorance Of Others

Breaking News: Sen. Edwards Not Gay

Denominations In Church Of Obama

Exclusive: Transcript Of Obama’s Marriage Proposal

But His Lectures Were Great . . .

In this morning’s NYT analysis of Sen. Obama’s twelve year tenure of con law at the University of Chicago Law School, several things stand out.  First, this sentence in the first paragraph is interesting, but not surprising: “While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship.” It seems Barry was as prolific a professor as he was a law review editor and is a United States senator.  Secondly, Obama commented in 1996 on President Clinton’s bipartisan overtures this way: “On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection.”  This sounds like Sens. Boxer or Kennedy, not the Great Bridge Builder, not the Uniter, not the inspiration behind the “Obamacans,” not the One who will heal our divisions.  Will a reporter perhaps ask Him about this?  Finally, the theory that Sen. Obama’s Ego developed as a result of the adulation after his speech at the Democrat convention is clearly mistaken.  The article tells of his popularity among (liberal) students, but his behavior was off-putting to even them.    “In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama’s hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. “Take Barack Obama, there’s a good-looking guy,” he would introduce a twisty legal case.”  But the real audacity is not of hope, but of narcissism:

Douglas Baird, another colleague, remembers once asking Mr. Obama to assess potential candidates for governor.

“First of all, I’m not running for governor, “ Mr. Obama told him. “But if I did, I would expect you to support me.”

He was a third-year state senator at the time.

Confidence is a positive attribute.  This is frightening.

Red, White, Blue, and Black

Those of you who follow absurd racial grievances and the liberal white people who bow before them will recall all the attention given to efforts in Portland by something known as the “Office of Neighborhood Involvement” to foster greater understanding of “gentrification.”  The Oregonian hyperventilates here, and the NYT catches up a month later here.  Gentrification is the latest academic buzzword to describe when white people move to what has been historically black neighborhoods.  Longtime black residents are understandably upset when local businesses are replaced with pretentious java shops, organic grocery stores, and outdoor apparel stores, in order to serve the growing community of over-educated, condescending, vegan, emo members of the “creative class,” i.e. unemployed coffee house musicians with a trust fund.  But, hey, it’s a free country, and I imagine if blacks started to move into white neighborhoods no one is going to justify whites’ discomfort, let alone use a government office for white people to explain their uncomfortableness with this new diversity.  The reason for this post is an article in the July 29, 2009, edition of the WSJ.  Reporter Douglas Belkin tells the story of Montana, where 200,000 newcomers “are reshaping the way this state looks, acts–and votes.  Along the way, these new Montanans have sparked a testy culture clash and, for the first time in a generation, opened the door for a Democrat presidential nominee to win the state in November.”  A long-time resident complained that the newbies, overwhelmingly Democrat-leaning, well-educated, and not familiar with the culture of the state, are turning Bozeman into “another Aspen.”  This has altered the makeup of the state so much that the state where George Bush won by 20 points in 2004 now has Sen. Obama up 5 points.  Of course, there is no hand-wringing about a loss of culture and tradition.  Instead, we have a celebration of the possible loss of another red state and their backward ways.  As a liberty lover, private property is private property.  But it struck me that the real cultural imperialists are well-educated, upper middle class Obama voters.  They are invading minority and rural areas, replacing their tradition and culture with organic arugula and bike paths.  Diversity and tolerance, to a leftist, only work if you agree and live like them.

Health Care Repair Or Unfair?

Wednesday’s NYT reports in a front page story about Sen. Obama claim that his health care plan would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.”  The story reports:

Whether Mr. Obama can deliver is a matter of considerable dispute among health analysts and economists. While there is consensus that the American health care system is bloated with waste, eliminating enough to save $2,500 per family would require simultaneous and synergistic solutions to a host of problems that have proved intractable for decades.

Even if the next president and Congress can muster the political will, analysts question whether significant savings would materialize in as little as four years, or even in 10. But as Mr. Obama confronts an electorate that is deeply unsettled by escalating health costs, he is offering a precise “chicken in every pot” guarantee based on numbers that are largely unknowable. Furthermore, it is not completely clear what he is promising.

In other words, BO is full of BS.  This is the polite way the NYT’s deals with Democrats when even the Times can’t cover their butts.

The article also gives away the truth about “free” health care “reform.”  Towards the end, the reporter sums up the views of “a number of health policy experts,” who hold that “(r)educing health care costs . . . means taking money from someone’s pocket and rationing care that Americans have come to expect . . .”  This is the story that few understand; governmentally expanded health care will hurt those who are already insured and those who are voluntarily uninsured.

I would also like to note that a Rand study claims Sen. Obama’s $2500 savings, which isn’t likely to happen at all, would not be seen for 15 years.  That would be five years longer than the Democrats claim is too long to wait for oil from new domestic drilling.

I’ll end with a prediction if this is enacted: when this government intervention in the economy fails, and it will, the market will somehow be to blame.  And the only answer, of course: even more government intervention in health care!

Discrimination By Downturn Ends

After a threatened lawsuit by the National Organization of Women because of gender bias, our possible economic recession has agreed to hurt women just as much as men, reports the NYT.

Op-ed Copout

Drudge headlined the breaking story this afternoon that the NYT editorial page editor David Shipley turned down an op-ed submitted by Sen. McCain.  The article was written in response to an op-ed published in the NYT by Sen. Obama on his shifting Iraq position.  Shipley, a former Clinton White House employee, claimed the article wasn’t what they were looking for.  This is understandable.  The McCain op-ed merely expressed the views of a man who may be the next president on one of the most important issues facing the country.  Besides, publishing the op-ed would have squeezed the space available for the latest column from Bob Herbert or Maureen Dowd.

Fried Rice

In her Saturday column, NYTer Gail Collins quotes Sen. Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser on our Lord and Savior‘s visit to Iraq: “. . .  I don’t think he’ll be strolling around the market in a flak jacket.”  This is a snarky reference to Sen. McCain’s visit last year where he had to wear such protection during a visit to local market.   Is it possible the reason Sen. Christ will be sans a flak jacket is because of the success of the surge implemented by President Bush, advocated by Sen. McCain, and opposed by Sen. The One?

Takedown: Jene blöden Deutschen!

Every once in a while, there is a day that the NYT op-ed page really shines.  Today was not one of those days.  Among the offerings this Thursday was a piece by Christoph Peters, a German author, giving what I’m going to guess is the mainstream view in Deutschland on Sen. Obama’s somewhat controversial coming visit.  Why is this foreign policy trip disputatious?  Barack the Christ, a presidential nominee, is planning on speaking at Brandenburg Gate, the historic gateway and one of the most well-known landmarks in Berlin.  Previously, Presidents Reagan and Kennedy gave historic addresses there.

Peters does not understand the opposition, albeit understated, of conservative Chancellor and Bush ally Angela Merkel, to the speech.  He writes “the chancellor seems to feel an instinctive sympathy, perhaps rooted in her having grown up in East Germany, for such staunchly right-wing and rather gruff figures of American politics as George W. Bush and John McCain . “  He suggests Merkel and East Europeans are more drawn to the foreign policy approach of Reagan, than the rapprochement policy of Nixon and the Left.   Engaging in psychologizing his political opposites, he claims “the fear of being threatened by the ‘evil empire’ still runs deep in those who lived under Soviet domination, and that fear may well be connected with a longing for the ‘strong, good’ leader who will provide protection. “  Ah, yes, those who personally suffered under the tyrannical rule of communism are longing (irrationally) for authoritarianism!  Or perhaps they can appreciate freedom and know which American political party embraced them and stood up to communism, instead of coddling it, or worse.

Peters goes on to criticize Merkel for supporting the war in Iraq, clearly the motivating factor in his essay (to engage in Peterian psychoanalyzing).  But more than the war in Iraq, there is a bitter hatred of Bush, expressed by this puerile and unbalanced unloading: “George W. Bush’s contempt for the rules and institutions of international politics, his revival of preventive war, with all its unforeseeable consequences, his abrogation of the rule of law in his own country, and his ignorance of every issue related to environmental conservation have become, for me and for the vast majority of Germans, synonymous with a high-handed, ugly America.”  Guter Gott! Unfortunately, this is what passes for sophisticated thought in Europe.  Where do I begin? I love being lectured on human rights and war by a German.  (That wasn’t fair.  I love Germany.  I loved my visit there.  I spent three years studying the language.  But I couldn’t resist.)  Unfortunately this is what passes for sophisticated thought in Europe.  Just check out the BBC, the Guardian, or Der Spiegel, where these “facts,” aka DNC talking points, are considered indisputable facts.  International rules broken?  Is that a reference to the U.S. repeatedly going to the UN?    As for preventive war: it’s pointless to wonder about what would have happened had some country engaged in preventive war against, say, to pick someone randomly, Adolph Hitler. (Damn, I did it again.)  As for the rule of law: Yes, in America today we have internment camps, a draft, habeas corpus suspended, newspapers shut down for opposing the government, and roving gangs of violent youths enforcing the government’s edicts.  Oh, wait, that was Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, both beloved Democrats, not Republicans and certainly not President Bush, who never instituted any policy resembling those fascist ones.  (See Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism for more.)  As for the environment:  What did Bush do?  Not sign Kyoto?  So what.  Germany did, and yet how has Deutchland done in implementing it?  How much has any signatory country achieved?  According to this report, the U.S. emissions increased significantly less than those who signed the Kyoto treaty.  He ends by claiming Germans “would be happy if emblematic pictures of Barack Obama, speaking before the gate to 100,000 flag-waving Berliners, would help him open a new chapter in the history of America’s relationship with the rest of the world.”  When St. Barack the Miraculous is done, perhaps he can cure cancer and end all war by passing gas.  

Political Dirty Pricks

And you thought American politics was a real pain in the butt.  Check out this article about sodomy charges against a Malaysian oppostion leader, that was written by a reporter based in, ahem, Bangkok, Thailand.