Tagsacorn barack obama Bitter campaign 08 climate change CNN communism debate democrat fannie mae fascism financial crisis email@example.com global warming healthcare reform hillary clinton huffington post joe biden john mccain left liar liberal liberal facism liberal fascism liberalism liberalism is a mental disorder liberal media bias marxism mccain media bias Michelle Obama MSM msnbc nazi new news obama Politics propaganda racism Sarah Palin SEIU socialism socialized medicine townhall
May 2013 M T W T F S S « Oct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
- 25,432 hits
Tag Archives: new
They say charity begins at home, but not for liberals like Joe Biden as we have seen below and certainly not for Barack Obama. Maybe for the price of a cup of coffee a day we can help Barack Obama’s brother move out of his shanty.
Charlie Rangel is the gift that keeps on giving, and now he attempt to eat his whole foot with this gem:
ASTONISHING: Rep. Rangel Calls Palin ‘Disabled’
Embattled Politician: It’s Laughable That GOP VP Nominee Bases Foreign Policy On Being Able To See Russia
Republicans Infuriated; Rep. King Blasts Rangel
NEW YORK (CBS) ― Already under fire for his tax troubles, Manhattan Congressman Charles Rangel really put his foot in his mouth on Friday.
In a CBS 2 HD exclusive interview, Rep. Rangel called Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin “disabled.”
The question was simple: Why are the Democrats so afraid of Palin and her popularity?
The answer was astonishing.
“You got to be kind to the disabled,” Rangel said.
That’s right. The chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee called Palin disabled — even when CBS 2 HD called him on it.
CBS 2 HD: “You got to be kind to the disabled?”
CBS 2 HD: “She’s disabled?”
Rangel: “There’s no question about it politically. It’s a nightmare to think that a person’s foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live.
Republicans think Rangel’s comments are insulting as well as shocking.
“Charlie Rangel’s comments are clearly disgraceful,” Rep. Peter King, R-Long Island, said. “This is just another liberal Democrat who can’t accept an independent woman running for president.”
King, who is co-chair of the McCain-Palin campaign in New York, watched Rangel’s comments with CBS 2 HD. He was particularly upset because Palin’s 4-month-old son, Trig, is disabled. He has Down’s syndrome.
“We should be sensitive to her or any woman who has a child or family member who has any affliction at all,” King said. “And so to use the word disabled in the context of a female candidate for vice president who has a child who is disabled really is wrong. Charlie owes her and the entire disabled community and apology.”
Advocates for the disabled are also upset.
“It makes me feel as if he’s trying to put her down, trying to say she’s not good for the presidency or the vice presidency,” said Michael Imperiale of Disabled In Action Of Metropolitan N.Y.
“A disabled president ran this country. He was disabled. His name was Roosevelt.”
A spokesman for the McCain-Palin campaign also piled on, saying that this kind of rhetoric has no place in politics.
I love me some Charlie!
McCain rips Babs in an old SNL skit, good stuff:
A little humor while global financial markets melt
The heels that strike fear into the hearts democrats
I admit that I know many people as well, but I don’t think I know one that “struck a blow against the man”. I guess Barack Obama runs in better circles:
I have marveled at the nutroots reaction to the Hillary-Barack debate. Cruise by DailyKos, DU, or the Huffpost and all the weenies are apoplectic over the questions from Gibson and Hairdoo. Hillary being a congential liar and having no shame was not as ruffled by the questioning as Barack who was clearly rattled. The basic difference between the two is that Hillary will say or do anything to get elected whereas I think Barack has a moral compass and would like to be true to himself and his beliefs. Going mainstream is not comensurate with the core of Hope 08.
Going back to the visceral and vitriolic reaction from the left Peter Wehner says is best over at Commentary:
04.18.2008 – 11:45 AM–
In an article today, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post cites various media figures–from Tom Shales of the Post to Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher to Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann–who are outraged at the performance of George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson during Wednesday’s Democratic debate. The ABC News duo’s performance, we are told, was “despicable,” “shameful,” and “disgraced democracy itself.”
And what did Stephanopoulos and Gibson do to earn this scorn? Why, they asked Barack Obama some probing questions, including one about his past relationships with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and a former leader of the Weather Underground, William Ayers.
Consider this thought experiment: Assume that a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination spent two decades at a church whose senior pastor was a white supremacist who uttered ugly racial (as well as anti-American) epithets from the pulpit. Assume, too, that this minister wasn’t just the candidate’s pastor but also a close friend, the man who married the candidate and his wife, baptized his two daughters, and inspired the title of his best-selling book.
In addition, assume that this GOP candidate, in preparing for his entry into politics, attended an early organizing meeting at the home of a man who, years before, was involved in blowing up multiple abortion clinics and today was unrepentant, stating his wish that he had bombed even more clinics. And let’s say that the GOP candidate’s press spokesman described the relationship between the two men as “friendly.”
Do you think that if those moderating a debate asked the GOP candidate about these relationships for the first time, after 22 previous debates had been held, that other journalists would become apoplectic at the moderators for merely asking about the relationships? Not only would there be a near-universal consensus that those questions should be asked; there would be a moral urgency in pressing for answers. We would, I predict, be seeing an unprecedented media “feeding frenzy.”
The truth is that a close relationship with a white supremacist pastor and a friendly relationship with an abortion clinic bomber would, by themselves, torpedo a conservative candidate running for president. There is an enormous double standard at play here, one rooted in the fawning regard many journalists have for Barack Obama. They have a deep, even emotional, investment in his candidacy. And, as we are seeing, they will turn on anyone, even their colleagues, who dare raise appropriate and searching questions–the kind journalists are supposed to ask. The reaction to Stephanopoulos and Gibson is a revealing and depressing glimpse into the state of modern journalism.