Sun 19 Aug 2007
This Morning, Democrat Apparatchik Masquerades as Moderator
Posted by Teri under Conservative Warrior WisdomOf course, I refer to George Stephanopolis, who presided over the dems’ debate this morning on ABC. I can’t wait until Karl Rove gets a gig like George’s after he leaves the White House!
I’ll probably have more to say about this unintentional laugh riot later, but here are some initial impressions:
In response to a question regarding Hillary Clinton’s high negatives, Barack Hussein Obama said “If you believe that part of the problem is the failed politics of Washington and the conventional thinking of Washington, if you’re tired of the back biting and the score keeping and special interest driven politics of Washington, if you want somebody who can bring the country together around a common purpose and rally us around a common destiny, then I’m you’re guy.” What he’s not telling everyone is that he plans to replace “special interest-driven politics of Washington” with the ward heeling, horse trading, Tony Rezkofied politics of Chicago. Oh, yeah, that would be a HUGE improvement.
In response to a question about the power of prayer and whether it could have prevented or reduced the devastation of disasters like Katrina and the Minneapolis bridge collapse, He Who Walks on Water replied in part, “Part of what I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to act on those things that I can control and that is what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government. We’ve got to express those values through our government and not just through our religious institutions.”
Wait a second—“express those values through our government?” What about separation of church and state, Puggle? As you know, the ACLU finds only one sort of expression of religious values through government acceptable, and that involves installing foot baths for Muslims in public buildings at taxpayer expense. Come to think of it, maybe that’s what B. Hussein Obama is talking about.
This prayer question was the same one that elicited this brilliant response from Mike “Is it Senility or Just Plain Insanity?” Gravel: “I was always struck by the fact that many of the people who pray are the ones who want to go to war, who want to kill fellow human beings.” If he were talking about a certain subset of members of a world religion that involves praying 5 times a day while facing a certain Middle Eastern city, I’ve been struck by the same thing. Fortunately for me, I don’t Sen. Gravel was thinking of the same people as me, so I’ve got that going for me.
John Edwards was talking tough. He said “My belief is that you have to take these people on and beat them to bring change. You can’t sit at a table and negotiate with them.” Right on, Senator! Fight our terrorist enemy! Bring them to their knees! Unconditional surrender or nothing! Oh, I’m sorry, you weren’t talking about al Qaeda and their various related wackjob affiliates and affiliate wannabes with an affinity for beheading and mass murder of anonymous innocents. You were talking about your favorite opponents, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Death to Pfizer! You repeated that line about the impossibility of sitting down at a table and negotiating when you talked about lobbyists, and how “we have to take their power away from them.” Right, take it away. Sort of like the way those poor schmoes, Katrina victims, who lost their homes in foreclosure to a company in which you’ve invested $16 million had their homes taken away.
I refer to George Stephanopolis, Karl Rove, Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, special interest, Chicago, Katrina, Minneapolis bridge collapse, ACLU, foot baths for Muslims, John Edwards, al Qaeda, beheading, Pfizer, lobbyists
One Response to “This Morning, Democrat Apparatchik Masquerades as Moderator”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.






August 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Bill Richardson, while commenting about withdrawing the troops from Iraq made an interesting observation.
“My point is that by taking them all out, all our troops are no longer targets. And then Al Qaida and the insurgents, both that see American troops as their prey, will now turn on each other.”
Gee, I thought the presence of American troops was the cause of the violence in Iraq, at least according to the Democrats. But more than that, is this a way to bring stability to Iraq, by letting the insurgents and al Qaida fight it out? What happens if al Qaida wins? Then we will have a terrorist state in place of the terrorist state we took down. Like it or not, even before 9/11, Iraq was considered a state sponsor of terrorism.