It was the late film critic Pauline Kael who famously reacted with amazement to the 1972 Nixon landslide by saying “I don’t know anybody who voted for him.” I think about that comment a lot lately. Every time I hear one of the dino-media gasbags expressing their mystification over recent polls, some of which actually show John McCain leading! How can this be? Here’s one of the latest articles expressing shock at Obama’s position in the polls. I don’t put a lot of stock in these polls, but I understand that you media weasels do. They are usually used to manufacture whatever agenda-driven point of the day is in the fax from the democrat party. I get it, but as you all know, I am here to serve humanity, so let me save you guys some hand-wringing. It’s really not that complicated: you look at He Who Walks on Water and see someone who is “charismatic,” “likeable,” “articulate” and “brilliant.” Many of us look at Mr. 143 days in the Senate and different words spring to mind, words like “arrogant,” “condescending,” “phony” and “TelePrompTer-dependent.” We look at him and see that the suit–as nice as his fancy suits are–has no emperor.

In another of those stunning reports that demonstrate why we would be lost without the dino-media, we were informed that members of the media contribute to democrats by a ratio of 100:1. When I say “informed” I am using the word in the same way it could be used in the following sentence: Ellen Degeneris informed the world that she’s gay on the cover of Time magazine.

It’s hilarious to hear the clueless occupants of their little MSM alternate universe compare Barack Hussein Obama to Ronald Reagan in 1980, as in “1980 was a referendum on Ronald Reagan. Was the country ready for Reagan? They were really unhappy with Jimmy Carter, but they weren’t really sure about Reagan.” Larry King trotted out David Gergen on his show last night, and that’s what he said. To that, I say “as if,” as in “as if the country today is in the same situation it was in in 1979 and 1980, when the King of the Useful Idiots Jimmy Carter was running around appeasing the Soviet Union, crashing helicopters in the desert while American hostages rotted in Iran, and showing up on tv wearing a cardigan sweater talking about “malaise,” and “as if Ronald Reagan were not a former governor of the largest state in the country, who had spent years touring the nation articulating his ideas, but instead was a guy who thinks the greatest resume enhancements he can have is that he was a “community organizer” (paid leftist troublemaker who did ZERO to improve the lives of the mascots he claimed to be helping) and that his Marxist beatnik old lady was a single mother on food stamps.

In any sane universe, this pompous pantload Obama would be pontificating on some college campus where he belongs instead of competing to be the first affirmative-action beneficiary whose prize is the presidency.

Trackback URL

The hysterical response of Barack Obama and his always amusing band of slobbering media flacks over President Bush’s speech to the Knesset yesterday was not surprising. I’ll take that back. OF COURSE, they were apoplectic when the president spoke of “the false comfort of appeasement.” The blatant use of the “a” word to accurately characterize what they like to call “remaking America’s image in the world” sends them into orbit. It is yet another example of the undeniable truth: if you want to enrage a liberal, don’t lie about them. They spend enough time lying about themselves for it to have any impact. No, if you want to enrage a liberal, tell the truth about them. Still, even for this bunch, this was over the top.

Predictable or not, I found it hilarious to watch democrat apparatchiks, along with the democrats who haven’t run for office (that would be Obama’s MSM cult) express their anger over the president’s “deeply offensive comparison” (Hillary), which was “outrageous,” “ridiculous” “bull***t and “malarkey” (Joe Biden) which was a “probable swipe at Barack Obama” (that news hag on MS-NBC whose dad was Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy guru, which should disqualify anyone in the family from being taken seriously about anything if you ask me). The real side-splitting stuff came when a couple of these pinheads suggested that this statement by the president was a gift to the Obama campaign because it “elevated” him to the level of having a foreign policy debate with President Bush, which they characterized as roughly equivalent to being invited to challenge Michael Moore to a situp contest. Victory is assured. This “Bush the idiot stepped in it again!” was the most humorous part. That and listening to MS-NBC’s David Schuster pronounce Neville Chamberlain “ne-VILL’ Chamberlain.”

Mr. Not Ready for Prime Time himself expressed his sadness over the “false political attack” launched against him by the president. Don’t you love it when people try to cop that whole “I’m far too dignified and hyper-intelligent to ever allow a mentally-challenged ignoramus to upset me. I just feel sad and sorry for the poor chump” routine? I watched the speech a few times, and maybe I missed something, but I didn’t hear the president mention Wonderboy. Of course, I can understand why he and anyone else might get that impression given that BHO has consistently expressed his desire to play patty-cake with every America-hating dictator he can find. Sen. Obama (D-Hamas) loves the image of the International Man of Peace, who will follow in the footsteps of his democrat predecessor, the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter, figuratively and literally, if he becomes president, surrendering to our enemies in the hope that they will love us, going hat in hand to visit our enemies, who will no doubt struggle to stifle their laughter while listening to him try to reason with them. There is the possibility that the pompous gasbag could bore them to death, but I don’t think we should hold out hope for that.

The president’s statement was simply a mirror that forced the democrats to face the hideous reality that is their collective white-flag waving puss. I’m not surprised that they recognized themselves.

Trackback URL

While watching yesterday’s “Meet the Press” telecast, I almost felt sorry for Howdy Doody lookalike, NBC’s David Gregory, who was filling in for the regular host, former Mario Cuomo errand boy Tim Russert.

He was interviewing Karl Rove, and my bottom line review is “Hey David, pick up your jock!” Here’s how it went. Gregory recites a threadbare, lefty cliché, no doubt culled by one of his producers from the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and smugly waits for a response. Karl Rove clearly and articulately responds with the surefire antidote, the crucifix to the MSM vampire, facts, facts and more facts. Consider the following exchange, which occurred after Gregory robotically recited the litany of hackneyed hooey about the liberation of Iraq (say it along with me: no WMD, the cost of the war was ‘misestimated,’ the level of sectarian violence was wrong, Iraqi war revenues would be used to pay for the war).

MR. GREGORY: But, Karl, I’m asking you a specific question about whether misjudgments were made and whether you acknowledge those.

MR. ROVE: I understand. I understand, but I want to deal with each one of these because I want to acknowledge, I want to acknowledge the reality behind each one of them. You say, for example, you make the assertion that oil revenues are not being used to pay for reconstruction. You’re absolutely wrong.

MR. GREGORY: The predication was they would pay for the war.

MR. ROVE: The Iraqi—let me finish—the Iraqi government has a capacity $41 billion budget, $10 billion, most of which comes from oil revenues, $10 billion of which goes to reconstruction. And so are they using their own resources to reconstruct the country? You bet. But, look, it’s one thing to rattle off all of these, and it’s a nice tactic. I appreciate—I applaud you for doing so. But if you take a moment and look at each one of these you’ll find that in each one of these there is a reasonable—you know, look, was everything done perfectly? No. But it—was this the right thing to do? You bet. And has the policy worked out exactly as people planned? Look, Napoleon said that your battle plan doesn’t survive the first contact with the enemy, but you still have to have a plan. And did everything work out like people expected and hoped? No. But is it the right thing to do and is it vital for the security interests of the United States? If we were to leave Iraq with the job undone, we would be running the risk of seeing the entire region plunge into violence. We would see Iran emboldened. We would see Hezbollah, Hamas and the al-Qaeda emboldened. We could see a terrorist state emerge in the heart of the Middle East. Not in Afghanistan with no natural resources, but in the very heart of the Middle East with the third largest oil reserves in the world. And we could see an increasing danger for our friends and allies in the region from Turkey to Lebanon to Jordan to Israel to Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.”

David, did you get the license number? Was Howdy Doody’s smirk an attempt to conceal his realization that he had just had his head handed to him, or am I giving him too much credit? (I can go either way on that one. Based on watching DG over the years, I lean toward the latter.)

The only discouraging thing about watching Karl Rove slice and dice this blowdried bonehead is the realization that most of the time, our candidates don’t make similar confident, forceful response to the endless stream of liberal blather on these talking head shows. I am demanding that every Republican candidate watch this Rove appearance and every speech Newt Gingrich has made over the last 15 years until they understand how easy it is to demolish liberal lies.

Gregory also took the opportunity to repeat what is obviously the latest subject of a fax from democrat HQ to all their media friends, the apparently heart-stopping revelation (no pun intended) that on April 15, 1994, Dick Cheney said it would have been a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein. What are the libs going to discover next? The hot new band Nirvana?

What Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and the afore-mentioned Gregory don’t get is that, as they bleat on and on and continue replaying a tape from 1994, they simply reinforce what intelligent observers already know: they are completely clueless about history, and are blissfully unaware that the world changed on 9/11, which is why they can’t be trusted with national security. Of course, Karl Rove knocked the big juicy one over the plate out of the park.

Trackback URL

I think we were all shocked when we heard about fired WMAQ television reporter Amy Jacobson’s friendly little visit with Craig Stebic, whose still-missing wife Lisa mysteriously vanished on April 30 in the midst of an acrimonious divorce. Not. Acutally, we all said “What the heck was she thinking?”

She appeared to be hanging out on a hot summer day at a friend’s pool in her bikini top with her two young sons, rather than investigating a hot story. What is up with these babes? Did she think it would seem better because she had her kids with her, perhaps eliminating any suggestion that she, unlike her fellow NBC-owed station reporter Mirthala Salinas, was banging the guy at the center of the story? Speaking of which, Amy Jacobson has got to be wondering why her swimsuit-clad romp got her canned, while Mirthala Salinas’ getting even closer to the story only got her suspended. Reverse ethnic discrimination perhaps? But back to the original question: what’s up with these so-called “reporters?” In the grand scheme of things, Ms. Jacobsen’s lapse in judgment pales in contrast with Ms. Salinas’ affair with Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, or her WMAQ colleague Marion Brooks’ four-year “relationship” with the mayor of Atlanta, where she was then an anchor.

The answer to the question is that Amy Jacobsen was thinking what all these infosluts seem to be thinking: anything goes in the pursuit of becoming the next Bob Woodward, whether it’s making things up like Dan “Fake But Accurate” Rather or cozying up to a person of interest. Is there any doubt as to the objective of these people? Is it the pursuit of the truth or the pursuit of personal glory, wealth and fame? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame anyone for being ambitious. What I do have a problem with is when they pretend that they are the essential guardians of the First Amendment, noble, selfless crusaders with only the public interest at heart.

As for Amy Jacobsen and these other news girls, here’s a couple of suggestions free of charge from me. Unless you’re a lifeguard, a bathing suit is not appropriate attire for work, and unless you’re working for someone like the D.C. Madam, you can’t go wrong keeping your pants on while on the job.

Trackback URL

Yesterday Forbes.com ran an article about the “Most Creepy Candidates.” Newt Gingrich, who last time I checked isn’t a candidate for president, came in first among the Republicans. For the democrats, it was Hillary Clinton. That’s not a surprise to me. What is a surprise is that she achieved this dubious distinction BEFORE her campaign’s latest attempt to “humanize” the senator. (If you feel depressed today, think about the fact that chances are no one has ever suggested that, unlike Mrs. Bill Clinton, you need consultants to persuade people that you are in fact human, so you’ve got that going for you.)

If you haven’t seen it, it’s a take off on “The Sopranos” finale, and you can find it here. The spot opens with a shot of a diner. Then Hillary walks through the door first, and on cue, Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’” starts playing. She sits down and alternately leafs through the pages of the jukebox as the camera focuses on some of the songs that were possible choices for her campaign theme song, and looks at the door in anticipation. Eventually Bubba walks through the door, sits down, and HRC says “I ordered for the table,” as the waiter places a basket of carrot sticks between them. “What no onion rings?” asks a disappointed Bill. “I’m looking out for you,” she says. She asks Bill “Where’s Chelsey?” He replies “Parallel parking.” He asks her how the campaign is going, and she says “Like you always say “focus on the good times.” Meanwhile, we see a menancing looking guy at the counter glancing at Bill and Hil (the real Johnny Sack from “The Sopranos”). He eventually walks past their booth and glares at them as he leaves the restaurant. The both look at each other as if to say “What the hell was that?” Then Bill says “So what’s the winning song? Everybody in America wants to know how it’s going to end.” She says “Ready?” and the screen goes black.

OK, so let me get this straight. In this scenario, Hillary is Tony Soprano?

Is that really the idea image makeover for her? It hasn’t escaped the notice of some that over the course of their careers they seem to have more than a few friends and associates turn up dead. I’m not saying they killed these people. What I am saying is that presenting herself as a mob boss with a number of whacks under his belt might not be the best imaging.

Second, if this spoof is supposed to be true to the original, Hillary is the husband and Bill is the wife. What’s that all about?

Finally, what about the ominous looking guy? Are they suggesting that Clintons going to get whacked? After watching “The Sopranos” finale twice, I’m convinced that The Members Only Guy killed Tony when the screen went black.

What do you suppose the Clinton campaign and their liberal buddies would have said if a conservative group had done this parody, depicting the Clintons as members of the mob, with Hillary deserving of and about to receive her just desserts (and I’m not talking about apple pie and coffee) while her “wife” watched? We’d all be subjected to the screeching about the evil vast right wing conspiracy, with the kooks who produced “The Clinton Chronicles” in the lead.

Perhaps this ill-conceived video was an attempt to compete with the equally-unfortunate “Obamagirl” bit last week. Is this what we’ve come to now? I realize that both Mrs. Clinton and He Who Walks on Water, Barack Hussein Obama, don’t want to talk about their plans to appease our enemies and confiscate our incomes, but must we be subjected to this cutesy-wootsie crap for the next year and a half?

Trackback URL

People say daytime TV is an intellectual wasteland, a slough of ignorance which perfectly illustrates the old adage that ‘empty barrels make the most noise.’ I must admit I have feared the loss of precious IQ points from watching “The View,” something that I can’t guarantee hasn’t happened, but I did learn something yesterday on daytime TV, something that could save lives, on the “Oprah” show. It involves keeping guns out of the hands of mental defectives, something that gun grabbing Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and the NRA agree on.

No less an authority than He Who Walks on Water himself thinks that’s a good idea.

After the Virginia Tech shootings, Barack Hussein Obama said “If we know that he got mental health services, then there should be some way of preventing somebody like that from buying any kind of weapon.” I think that by “he” Barack the Hack was referring to the Virginia Tech murderer, Mr. Cho, and as usual, when he’s spewing his trademark rhetorical vomit, he hasn’t bothered to think through the implications of what he’s saying. This is a guy who opposes violating the so-called privacy rights of foreign terrorists by listening to their phone calls or allowing the FBI to discover that they’re checking out the Anarchist’s Cookbook from the local library. He’s so adamant about preserving the “right of privacy” that guarantees “a woman’s right to choose” that while he was in the Illinois Senate, he voted “present” on a law that mandated medical treatment for an infant lucky enough to survive a botched abortion. Now he wants the government to put everyone who got treatment for mental illness on some sort of watch list? This is the sort of idea that will send his buds at the ACLU to their computers to send out hysterical press releases promising a slide down a slippery slope ending with involuntary lobotomies for anyone who does anything the least disturbing like or skulking around the neighborhood without saying hello to the neighbors, or watching “Dancing with the Stars.”

The other problem with Dazzling Deception’s test is that there’s a huge and potentially very dangerous loophole here. He wants to stop the nutcases who got treatment from getting guns. What about the ones who don’t but who obviously desperately need it? Consider the following profile: a hopelessly narcissistic, lying charmer with delusions of grandeur. He leads a double life, one in which he was sometimes a happily married family man with a beautiful wife and a two-year old daughter and another in which he engaged in anonymous gay sex at rest stops. This secretive sociopathic creep is eventually exposed when he is sued for sexual harassment and is forced to come clean, or as closed to clean as possible for a sleazeball like this character. He holds a nauseating press conference to confess and reinvent himself as a victim/”gay American,” with his stunned wife standing beside him, a sickly smile pasted on her face.

She claims that she was shocked find out that what she thought was a storybook life was a lie, even though in retrospect there were more red flags than May Day in Havana. She never went to his parent’s home, even though they lived only 5 miles away, and he forbade her having any contact with his daughter from his first marriage. By now, you probably recognize that I’m talking about Jim McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey. Congresswoman McCarthy, you really need to make sure that this guy doesn’t get his hands on a gun, don’t you think? No, he’s not a mental patient—yet. Trust me, if his loved ones have the sense that God gave geese, they’ll see that he gets some help STAT.
Speaking of McGreevey, is it my imagination, or do more of these sociopathic goofballs have a “D” after their names? Whether it’s Rest Stop Jimmy, Gavin Newsome, Mel “did I win the lottery? Reynolds, or the man who pardoned Mel Reynolds, the Sociopath-in-Chief, Bill Clinton, so many times we learn that democrat “rising stars” are not what they seem. MMM …a rising star who is not what he seems …who does that sound like?

Trackback URL

Wasn’t it just a week ago that Steve Capas, President of NBC News, was subjecting everyone to sanctimonious, self-congratulatory statements about his decision to fire Don Imus for his unfortunate comment about the Rutgers women’s basketball team? At the time, he said “When people who work for me come to me and say ‘this could be my daughter,’ I have to do something.” Too bad none of the parents of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre work for NBC because if they had, perhaps Mr. Capas would have made the responsible decision not to air the multi-media manifesto of the mass murderer, Seung-Hui Cho. Instead, this neutered, ratings-obsessed weasel not only decided that Mr. Cho’s insane ravings should get wall-to-wall coverage on his network, but also that he should cop the same pompous attitude about his disgraceful decision.

So proud of yourself, aren’t you, Mr. Kapas? Pathetic.

We made a decision not to air any of the audio from the Cho manifesto on the show tonight. It’s bad enough that we aired Andy Rooney’s incomprehensible babbling a couple of weeks ago, and John Kerry’s bizarre stream of consciousness brain dump about global warming last week. Enough is enough.

This guy had to be removed from MS-NBC for his offensive words.

NBC can’t get enough of this mentally defective murderer

Seriously, shame on NBC and shame on Steve Capas.

Trackback URL