Charlie Gibson Should Not Be Flattered
By Brian Lambert
ABC anchor Charlie Gibson is assuring skeptics that his two-day field trip with Sarah Palin comes with no preconditions or limitations . . . to which Gibson's skeptics are muttering, "Right Charlie, other than what you impose on yourself."
I'm not one of the Chicken Littles buying tickets for Tasmania in expectation of a McCain victory in November. As NBC's Chuck Todd said last night, analyzing the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll (that still has Obama up by two), all the fundamentals of this race continue to tilt in the Democrats' favor—the 11 million newly registered voters being just one of them. True, the catalytic effect Palin has had on a certain slice of female voters—older, blue collar, white—is impressive. But as Todd pointed out, we went through this in 1984 with Geraldine Ferraro's first week out of the box. Once reality set in, the buzz faded, and Ronald Reagan won forty-nine out of fifty states. (The wild card is that Ferraro was not an ideologue, personally guided by God, thereby mitigating any blunder she ever made.)
Having witnessed the Palin "effect" firsthand at the Xcel last week, I have to tell you the most apt comparison that crossed my mind was American Idol. Watching the Republicans react to Palin—whom 99 percent of them knew nothing about—zero—was like watching one of these massively hyped prime-time talent shows. A stranger from nowhere appears, and if she looks good and hits the right notes, she instantly becomes your emotional favorite, the vessel into which you pour all your uncritical hopes and dreams. As Americans forever treading water in a regenerating sea of mass-marketed celebrities, we've seen this pop-culture phenomenon hundreds of times before. Hell, we saw it in the run up to the "eagerly anticipated" presidential run of . . . Fred Thompson. He was the last Next Great Standard Bearer of Conservative Values, if I remember correctly.
For all the shots at Barack Obama's "messiah" status, the . . . fact . . . remains that he has been an extraordinarily visible, accessible, regularly interrogated and scrutinized public figure now for more than two years. If you "don't know anything about him," you're either lying or hopelessly clueless. No doubt there are thousands of people investing ridiculously high hopes in Obama, but at this point, his appeal has at least much to do with serious bedrock critical assessments as starstruck delusion. We know what he thinks, and how he thinks. We've seen his "judgment" tested on and off the campaign trail.
I accept the religious-like hysteria over these flaring pop idols as a wearying facet of American culture. It is worse now with the segregating partisan technology of cable news and radio frequencies, each of which can serve up precisely "the facts" its listeners choose to hear. As a result, someone like Palin can accelerate from dead-stop anonymity to wall-to-wall ubiquity literally in the course of several hours. What's wearying is, as I say, the stunning lack of critical thinking. Picking a pop idol, I don't give a damn. But vice president to a seventy-two-year-old man with a history of melanoma—I give a big damn.
Where Charlie Gibson comes in is that we expect better from the press than following the marketing cues. Or at least we did.
I don't want to go all Grand Unifying Theory and macro here, but a significant facet in the declining consumption of "mainstream" news is that, I dare say, millions of regular, serious news consumers, people who regard accurate information as a dietary staple, know they have not been served well throughout the past decade. With TV networks and newspapers caught in the death grip of "shareholder expectations," journalistic courage—of the kind that dares to call out a president with 90 percent approval ratings for a transparently misguided march to war—has not been in anything remotely like sufficient supply.
Major media's timid pursuit of what is true, accurate, and relevant, as opposed to cheap and easy blanket coverage of how spin is playing in the marketplace, gives serious, critical-thinking news consumers every reason to look elsewhere—the Internet—for relevant information.
As far as I can tell, Gibson and ABC beat out Katie Couric and CBS for the first (and quite possibly the last) interview with Palin. I see no one doubting that the McCain strategy will be to sequester her from comprehensive press inquiry as long as they can get away with it. If she "passes" the test with Gibson, there'll be no reason at all to risk her again at least until her October 8 debate with Joe Biden.
My argument last week was that this strategic parceling of someone who could be President of the United States itself rises to the level of a bona fide campaign issue. As in: What legitimate reason could there be for one of four principal candidates to be held to a completely different standard and allowed to be "presented" like a pop idol inside a controlled security bubble? More to the point, it is entirely valid for Gibson and David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Candy Crowley, and on and on to hammer this point . . . until Palin plays by the same rules as everyone else.
But that pushes both the envelopes of "objective journalism" and the comfort level of commercial media. There would be blowback after all. You will be accused of "sexism," not showing "deference," and "bias."
Gibson, tainted by his cliched, tendentious line of questioning in April's Obama-Clinton Pennsylvania Primary debate, was seen as the safest choice for her first foray in front of a network anchor. (Couric, smarting from not getting a moderator role during the primary season, and likely eager to assert her "tough gal" bona fides, would neutralize the "gender card" McCain's team is calculating it can play for at least two months. Reviled NBC was a non-starter, and FoxNews, the GOP house organ, would only aggravate assertions of "bubble gal." It had to be Gibson.)
The way these things usually go, the anchor interviewer actually asks most of the hot-button questions . . . and having done so declares his job done well.
But the trick—the essential key to truth seeking—is persistence, as in follow-ups to follow-ups. Tim Russert always asked good questions. But he was a captive of his well-prepared list. (That and his chumminess with every veteran D.C. politician.) Once he got an answer, no matter how ludicrously boilerplate, he too often accepted it and moved on. For the sake of his own reputation, if not an informed electorate, Charlie Gibson, knowing he may very well be American and international journalism's only chance to examine the depth of Palin's thinking on vital subjects, had better be prepared to play a significantly different game than he usually does.
The best quote of the day may be this, (drawn from a Washington Post story):
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.
"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."
For now, there appears to be little political reason to back down. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, even though his plan would actually cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has proposed eliminating income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration.
As they have for a generation, Republicans are betting enough Americans care more about their emotional "feel" for a candidate than any voting record or qualifications. And there is no question there are millions of likely voters who make crucial decisions on exactly that basis. But for those who don't— for those who still watch network news—Charlie Gibson needs to insist on an extraordinary level of truthfulness and disregard the inevitable criticism that he is being too tough, i.e. "sexist," toward a woman.
Personally, I don't believe he can do that.
The Anchorage Daily News offered a series of questions it'd like to hear Palin answer.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I think this post would offer the ideal platform from which to examine Oprah's refusal to have Palin on.
Care to take a stab?
P.S. Nice to see you worked in "bona fides".
Posted by: bertram jr on September 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM
BL: "Republicans are betting enough Americans care more about their emotional "feel" for a candidate than any voting record or qualifications".
Uh, as opposed to all the "feel" that is Obama-mania?
'Cause last time I checked, he had NO voting record or "qualifications" AT ALL.
Do you see the irony, Bri?
Do you?
Posted by: bertram jr on September 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM
By the way, Malkin sends up faux-emoter Katie Couric pretty good.....you know, what with the network anchoring all through hubby's cancer and death, with a 2 and 6 year old at home....
Nothing wrong with that, right?
Posted by: bertram jr on September 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Just a thought:
Do Republicans like all insurgents?
like the Sandinistas?
like al-qaeda?
Like Chavez?
LAMBERT: Only if they wear lipstick and say "thanks" to big pork barrel projects ... before the lights go on and they say "no thanks".
Posted by: Paul on September 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM
"A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, even though his plan would actually cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has proposed eliminating income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration."
Again, the problem is Democrats don't have any credibility on tax cuts. They consistently fight them...even to the middle class. The damage that was done by Bill Clinton reneging on his middle class tax cut promise continues to this day.
LAMBERT: You used to be smarter.
Posted by: 108 on September 10, 2008 at 3:17 PM
"Oprah's refusal to have Palin on . . ." This started when Drudge claimed from alleged sources within Oprah's company that there was a debate over whether to have Palin on, and this was immediately picked up by the reliable media and internet tools and free lance lame brains like B.Jr. None of the media who spread the story apparently bothered to check with Oprah; had they done so, they would have discovered that since the campaign began, Obama has not been on her show, Biden has not been on her show, McCain has not been on her show, and Palin will not be on her show. All of which goes to show the terrible prejudice that Palin faces from the liberal media. It is true that Oprah has endorsed Obama; I believe that as an American citizen she is allowed to prefer one candidate over another and make that preference known.
The McCain campaigned objected that the media had not show Palin respect and deference; presumably they expect Gibson to show sufficient deference; maybe he could lick her boots while asking his questions. Oh for the good old days; when Kruschev came to the U.S. Walt Kelly did some savage Pogo strips which some papers refused to print because they ridiculed a political leader; to which Kelly replied, "What are political leaders for?" It's amazing the number of chest thumping alleged freedom loving Americans who have the souls of serfs. They use the word "freedom" so much and mean it so little.
LAMBERT: You probably weren't around when bertram got his marching orders from Hugh Hewitt Ingraham Hannity Limbaugh and started hyper-ventilating "the fact" that Guatemalan illegals set the big California fires last year. No evidence other than his gurus told him so. Oh, and Rick Santorum knows where the WMD are.
Posted by: john sherman on September 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I see Bertram, Jr.'s got his own contest going to see if he can out self-parody himself. What's the prize, a gift certificate to an oxygen bar?
LAMBERT: Maybe I should stage a "Can You Out bertram-bertram" contest? But that would just encourage him.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on September 10, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Well, you can put lipstick on a pig...
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on September 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM
This feels like what was happening to Hillary early in the Dem race. Obama was hot and getting the coverage, Hillary was the also ran in the eyes of the media (even SNL picked up on it).
So Hillary throws in the towel and does an interview on O'Reilly (she did a nice job) looking for attention.
Funny thing is we now see Obama show up on O'Reilly and making noise about the media not being fair. (By the way, the O'Reilly/Obama interview was excellent and Obama comes across as much tougher than I've seen him before. They even argued real issues)
But back to my point. We are giving the American people way too much credit. It is no longer about the issues, it's about the cool and hip factor. That is what got Obama rolling past Hillary and now Palin has taken the baton. The question is if the Republicans can drag this out until the election.
Sadly the media has turned into bandwagon jumpers that cheer on the perceived leader. What should be happening is throwing out the facts and letting the voters decide.
LAMBERT: Based on last night's national TV news cycle I'd "the media" is aware that this was fake foul bulls**t and that they're being watched for their level of complicity in keeping it alive.
Posted by: Dave on September 10, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Okay, last week I reserved pre-judging Palin and her 'character', but since Rick Davis has thrown this into a character instead of issue based election, he has asked us to judge her character.
Since then, I have read she fired her director of public safety because he did not fire her brother-in-law when she wanted it.
And that she fired a 30 year friend from her staff when he was going through a divorce and was found to be dating a woman in a relationship she did not approve of.
And she fired a librarian when she wanted to ban a couple library books and the librarian did not agree.
This is not the character of a statesman on the world stage, this is not the character of a leader of a complex country in a complex world, and frankly, this is the boss none of us would ever want to work for, to say nothing of willingly VOTE for to lead us.
Yes, it turns out she is a hockey mom after all, that hockey mom at the end of the rink that screams at the refs relentlessly and makes even the players mad to have to put up with that bullshit when they are just trying to play the game.
If character is the measure--Palin, and thus McCain who selected her as his first big public presidential decision, does not measure up.
Is that clear enough, even for BJ?
LAMBERT: To your last question , no.
Posted by: The Other Mike on September 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I stayed up all night praying for Charlie Gibson. Still, the quality of his questions is God's will, so too Mrs. Palin's answers.
LAMBERT: You know, you're much more spiritual than I've given you credit for.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on September 11, 2008 at 9:57 AM
OM: Since then, I have read she fired her director of public safety because he did not fire her brother-in-law when she wanted it.
To the degree this is true, theres some mitigating factors, and it wont have legs.
OM: And that she fired a 30 year friend from her staff when he was going through a divorce and was found to be dating a woman in a relationship she did not approve of.
Havent heard it, must be new.
OM: And she fired a librarian when she wanted to ban a couple library books and the librarian did not agree.
This is demonstrably false and not true. Use the google, sir.
LAMBERT: Palin "inquired" about the library's policy of removing books from the shelf. The librarian told her nothing of the sort was going to cut it. Some time later Palin fired the librarian. A community outcry restored the librarian to her job. Later she quit, citing the difficult work environment.
And yes, we're talking about a hissy fit directed toward a librarian ... in the context of someone presented as qualified to take over the presidency of the United States.
Posted by: 108 on September 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
McCain took his stewardess fantasy a step too far. Reminds me of Jesse the Grappler's confidence in Christine Jax, the double-D educator. My God, weren't those good times?
Posted by: Pierce County Politician on September 11, 2008 at 10:29 AM
The Other Mike is a pitch perfect example of the Palin-induced fear gripping the liberals.
He picks incessantly at invisible nits, trying desparately to find a flaw in the flawless candidate, the veritable yin to McCain's yang.
And he, like his liberal media elitist co-conspirators, ends up looking like the simple minded drooling fools that they are.
Lambert already belched out 1,000 words trying to blow up Charles Gibson, for god's sake.
Get over it, kids, this race is over and Palin is the anti-Obama kryptonite that did it.
LAMBERT: "trying desparately to find a flaw in the flawless candidate" ...
Posted by: bertram jr on September 11, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Well, if it's aimed at Charlie's female demographic I'm sure it will be hard-hitting and focused heavily on policy with the odd makeup tip and perhaps a question or two on how the candidate stays looking so hot, the origins of her signature hair style and how she thinks things are going for britney.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on September 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM
BL: "And yes, we're talking about a hissy fit directed toward a librarian ... in the context of someone presented as qualified to take over the presidency of the United States".
Rezcko, Rev, Wright, and that bomber guy in Chicago...
And you want to stand there with the librarian story!
It's truly, deeply, remarkable in it's futile infantilism.
Posted by: bertram jr on September 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Here's today's reading for The Other Mike, Robb, Leinfelder and Mssr. Lambert.
Instead of your continuous and boring ad hominem attacks, faux-elitist snark and infantile lies and annoying whining, I suggest you all gather in a circle, take off your turbans and caftans, and read this veryyyyyy sloooowowwwly....
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/10/barbara-kay-sarah-palin-a-feminist-revolution-without-the-feminists.aspx
Posted by: bertram jr on September 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM
She dismissed everyone. Kind of like when Bill Clinton dismissed all the US attorneys in what - oh, a hissy fit describes it well I suppose. But it sure seems to have not been directed capriciously.
Rezkogate is worse. If thats no big deal (and I'm not saying it is), than this is quite small.
LAMBERT: You don't understand that every president replaces US attorneys at the start of their term, do you? Like I say, for a while there I took you for brighter.
Posted by: 108 on September 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Yes, Bri, 108 and I, guys like us are, well, just dumb ol' boys, ain't we?
Knuckledraggers. Troglodytes.
But your guys just took a major Palinoscopy.
"How does it feel"?
LAMBERT: What was Forrest Gump's line? And not the one about chocolates.
Posted by: bertram jr on September 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM
In BJ's remarks, I now see the wisdom in the founding fathers in setting up the Electoral College to do the true voting for President.
At one point, I would have argued for general election votes deciding the president, no more, given people's inability to stay away from the campaign kool-aid, the founding fathers have never been more insightful.
Maybe it is time for the EC to take over the entire process and free up our media to cover sports and celebrities even closer to give them what they really want--fantasy life.
LAMBERT: Fantasy candidates, fantasy qualifications and fantasy outrage. Damn near toxic.
Posted by: The Other Mike on September 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM
dumb ol' boys... Knuckledraggers... Troglodytes...
You said before we did. Just trying to remain polite but since you are the master of ad hominem attacks it was bound to happen that we'd catch you chewing off your own ankle BJr. A victim of your own words.
Posted by: Robb on September 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Bertram, Jr., just what sort of thinly-veiled insult is that meant to be to Gov. Palin? I am outraged.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on September 11, 2008 at 1:03 PM
"Palin's mockery tickled Obama's worrisome polyps of swollen self-regard..."
Good gawd, man, talk about disgusting imagery. This woman has Palin coming at Obama wearing a latex glove and you and the rest of your bleeeting herd of sheep are still trying to peddle the "pig with lipstick" charade?
You people are the Marianas Trench of political rhetoric.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on September 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Comparing yourself to low-IQ, knuckledragging, troglodytes bertrum jr. is NOT fair to troglodytes and casts a deprecating gloom over an entire class of men.
Dumb knuckledragging, troglodytes have real feelings and I am sure they do not want to be associated with the mental capacity of people like yourself.
Posted by: Robb on September 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Results, not unicorns.
Posted by: bertram jr on September 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Should I be outraged? Maybe I'll just remain resigned to the fact that tiger's don't change their stripes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
Posted by: HuaGung on September 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Brian I'm with you on examining Palin carefully. Her history is fair game. Her even considering banning books is very troubling (and wrong).
But where I get lost in your logic is how you rip Palin for firing a librarian but at the same time ignoring Obama sitting in a church pew all those years listening to Wright? Yes -- I do find Wright offensive along with his agenda.
For experience, Obama was an attorney/teacher joined the Illinois senate in 1997, US Senator for a couple of years and then started his campaign for president. So while I get people taking shots at Palin's experience, Obama doesn't have much of a resume either. Doesn't mean Obama can't be a good leader, but then the same goes for Palin.
Now if your argument is more that you disagree with Palin's politics, that makes sense. She is way too socially conservative for me.
LAMBERT: Look Dave, consider the source, obviously. But if this "experience" argument -- Obama's two years in the Senate and her two years as governor is meant -- as I think it is -- to establish equivalency in their qualitative preparation for national leadership, I'm not even close to buying it. As I've said over and ... and over and over ... the judgment factor, the ability to define issues and elucidate courses of action, which involves my sense of a person's fundamental intelligence, means far more to me than how many years they sat behind a desk. To put a finer point on it, Sarah Palin is clearly pretending to be something that Obama is, almost genetically.
Posted by: Dave on September 11, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I've become familiar with the category "low information voter," what we used to call ignoramus, but B.Jr. Is a high misinformation voter, otherwise known as a McCain supporter. While we're at it, when Palin was mayor, she fired the chief of police for not being on her team and replaced him with a guy who, uniquely in Alaska, made rape victims pay for the evidence kit. On the other hand, the Public Safety Commissioner she fired was widely respected for taking seriously the abuse of women and children. Feminism with a conservative face.
LAMBERT: "High misinformation voter". That's good. I hadn't heard that one. You could dress it up a bit by referring to him as, "implausibly proud of being a high misinformation voter."
Posted by: john sherman on September 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM
"We've seen the enemy and it is US"
Thanks, Brian, for the insightful post. Its amazing what's happening here with Perilous Palin. Seriously, for this entire campaign I can't help but think what the GOP would be saying, along with the media (let alone BJr. here!), if Obama:
*picked a running mate with no experience who was a religous extremist
*picked someone who has continuously lied about her record
*picked someone who has serious abuse of power/office issues and allegations
*had a running mate that was chosen for purely cynical, hypocritical and irresponsible reasons.
Can you imagine??
LAMBERT: I'm having a hard time imagining anything beyond Sarah Palin one-on-one with Vladimir Putin.
Posted by: essar1 on September 11, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Bertram, you talk of the fear gripping the Dems....and yes, you would be right. I as a woman, have a very STRONG fear of a vice presidential candidate that is (quoting a recent summary I saw)"to date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears." I also fear a candidate that says the Iraq war is a "task from God"----because yeah, God, he loves killing and maiming people, he loves destroying families, he likes seeing people in pain. Sarah Palin is the pin up girl of the month for the GOP....it is just going to be sad when they don't win and they pin it all on her.
Posted by: Biotech Nerd Girl on September 12, 2008 at 7:58 AM
For those of you who may criticize Mrs. Palin's responses to the unusually brutish Charlie Gibson as being rehearsed and warmed-over versions of McCain-speak, not once did she call him "my friends".
LAMBERT: She was, however, dangerously over-quota on her use of "hell-bent".
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on September 12, 2008 at 8:46 AM
BL: "the judgment factor, the ability to define issues and elucidate courses of action, which involves my sense of a person's fundamental intelligence, means far more to me than how many years they sat behind a desk. To put a finer point on it, Sarah Palin is clearly pretending to be something that Obama is, almost genetically."
Oh my, I'm literally on the floor now....let's just mention once again - Reczko, Wright and that guy that bombed the CAPITOL....
Surely you must see the ironic implausibility of your own "belief" system?
Liberalism is, truly, a mental disease.
Palin hits it out of the park tonight at 9pm.
Another 7 points by Sunday.
You read it here first.
LAMBERT: "that guy who bombed the capitol ... " ... oh, never mind.
Posted by: bertram jr on September 12, 2008 at 9:01 AM
This is dead on, and very relevant to the desperately despicable faux elitist "liberal, "inclusive" posters on this blog and elsewhere:
According to many in the media, we truly have discovered someone worse than Hitler — and it's Sarah Palin.
Head to any left-wing blog or even CNN for that matter and you'll find the zaniest of conspiracies -- froth that even a dude with rabies would find unseemly.
So how can one person create so much bile among folks who claim to be the most tolerant in the universe? I mean, liberals are the good people: They're open-minded, caring and of course, fair.
But somehow, a Republican lady in her 40s is exempt from this treatment. Perhaps, she truly is the devil in a dress, a ghoul that eats children and pollutes the planet and possibly beats Barack Obama, the patron saint of every customer buying wheat germ in bulk at GNC.
But I know the real reason why every single elitist media type is terrified of her. They've never met her. And by "her," I don't mean Sarah Palin. I mean "her", an actual normal woman with a bunch of kids, an average husband and no desire to watch "The L Word."
She's scary to these folks the way Wal-Mart is scary to them: Both are alien to someone who blogs about their chakras. They won't go there, because they've never been there.
Related
To them, hating Sarah Palin is a symptom of larger bigotry against the rest of us, the normal. If they saw her at a party, they would wonder how she got in. She's the anti-Obama, the anti-New York Times, the anti-everything that Tim Robbins loves, which is why I love her — and you should too.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.
Greg Gutfeld hosts "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" weekdays at 3 a.m. ET. Send your comments to: redeye@foxnews.com
LAMBERT: Does FoxNews have an assembly line somewhere for these robots?
Posted by: bertram jr on September 12, 2008 at 9:07 AM
William Ayres, non repentant bomber of the Capitol, and launcher of the Obamasiah as political candidate.
Is it possible you can just admit that these are bullseyes instead of the "auto-snark" that you belch forth?
_______________________________________________
Hope and Change in the Land of Oz
By Mark Alexander
“You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”
Who said it?
Ah, yes, more words of wisdom from that holy man of hypocrisy, the high priest of Hopenchange, Barack Hussein Obama.
This particular barb was aimed at Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Obama knows that “Mayor Palin” is far more qualified for the presidency than he is. However, anyone with any insight into humanity has already discerned that Gov. Palin puts forward no facade, charades or pretense. With Mrs. Palin, what you see is what you get.
Obama, on the other hand, has spent the last four years under the tutelage of his mentors John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, and more recently among a few thousand political hacks and handlers, endeavoring to make stuff up and recreate and reinvent himself on the bet that a majority of American voters are stupid.
Pray it ain’t so.
To differentiate between Obama and his facade, the logical place to start is his record of legislative accomplishments. But Barack Obama has no such record. So, we resort to that old English proverb, “You can judge a man by the company he keeps.”
On the short list of ignoble Leftist radicals and hoodlums with whom Obama has maintained more than a passing acquaintance (aside from Kennedy and Kerry) would be Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, the ACORN crowd, Richard Daley, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Jimmy Carter, Rashid Khalidi and, who am I leaving out... oh, yeah, that radical in the red dress, Michelle Obama.
There are many others, of course, but a few of his colleagues from this list should give all Americans pause. Obama’s close association with Marxist mentors and convicted terrorists like Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn is reason enough to disqualify him from ever receiving any security clearance, much less holding public office. And his 20-year spiritual mentorship under the racist reverend Jeremiah “G-D America” Wright defines Obama to his core.
Barack and Michelle Obama often quote the radical Saul Alinsky, who is considered to be the patron saint of “community organizers.” Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, proclaims, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”
(For more details on Obama, link to “No ObamaNation”.)
Considering the company Obama keeps, one must ponder the question, “Has the Democrat Party ever fielded, in its entire history, a candidate more ill-suited for the office of president?”
Fortunately, although Obama has succeeded in fooling some of the people all of the time, there appears to have been an avalanche of defectors from the moderate ranks of his supporters. For example, in the last two weeks, his eight-point lead over McCain among white female voters (those who elected Bill Clinton—twice) is now a 12-point lead for McCain/Palin, which explains why most of Obama’s attacks have been aimed at Gov. Palin.
Indeed, conventional wisdom suggests that Obama’s latest reversal of fortune is the result of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin joining the McCain presidential ticket. But there is more going on here than just the Palin bounce.
It seems that McCain’s character-rich speech at the convention enlightened a lot of folks who were, hitherto, unenlightened. That enlightenment has finally prompted moderates and independents to take a critical look at Obama’s character. And many, as evidenced by increasing support for McCain, are repulsed by what they see.
As those who self-identify as “Democrats” learn more about their party’s anointed candidate for the most powerful office in the world, perhaps they will consider a line from the Wizard of Oz—a quote which has metaphorical applications far beyond the movie.
“I am the great and powerful Oz!” thunders the Wizard to Dorothy and her friends. “Do you presume to criticize the great and powerful Oz? You ungrateful creatures!”
Alas, even as Dorothy’s tiny dog Toto tugs on the curtain to reveal a petty little man behind the thundering voice, the Wizard attempts to continue the ruse, orchestrating a booming declaration, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
Between now and 4 November, those who choose to ignore the petty little man behind the curtain orchestrating all that rolling rhetoric about “hope and change” do so at great peril to our nation, and to generations to come.
Quote of the week
“The more Obama has to explain why being a community organizer—or a state legislator, or a one-term senator with few accomplishments under his belt—is better preparation for the presidency than being a mayor or governor, the more he volunteers his own shortcomings when compared with McCain. Besides, on paper, Obama doesn’t stand up very well against Palin. All of the mythic themes of Obama’s political narrative—the ethics reformer, the bipartisan, the new kind of politician—all look like press-release material next to Palin’s accomplishments. Obama voted the Democratic Party line more often (97%) than McCain voted in accord with President Bush (90%). In Washington, Obama’s supposedly ‘sweeping’ ethics reform—which forces congressmen to eat lobbyist-provided meals standing up instead of sitting down—and his feckless reforms in Illinois make him look the Bambi to Palin’s Godzilla.” —Jonah Goldberg
Good day, sirs.
Posted by: bertram jr on September 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
BJ = 'Good day, sirs"
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you once again BJ...it is not a good day sir.
You blather about lefty liberals, mister labelmaker, but where are the true Republicans in this election?
In the past, they would have swallowed hard, voted straight GOP, gone home to find a good scotch and drink in hope.
--I don't see that happening this time.
Why? Because of the issues being too large to entrust to a McCain-Palin ticket that insists on running away from them.
Their diminished and further diminishing character will not overcome the issues that they have no answers for on a campaign featuring four more years of the same policies that have destroyed our economy.
All the conservatives are afraid of the crashed dollar and economy, hell they even recognize they will never be able to spend to offset the loss of the middle class, and they have no hope of 'change' coming from McCain.
All the libertarians are fed-up with being jerked around by Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Healthcare, and the Military/Industrial cash cow...stealing the treasury and setting prices at levels unreachable but for the richest/luckiest of society, forcing the rest to rely on the hated 'dole' to keep them upright.
Only the looniest of the Religious Right loons have been speaking up lately about how good McCain-Palin will be. The rest are going to follow the Chuck Hagels and Michael Bloombergs lead--to quietly vote elsewhere and hope like hell to restore their lost REPUBLICAN party between now and the mid-terms of 2010.
As for me, I do not consider myself labeled--I am independent, so independent that I will never be a member of the Independent Party. Save your labelmaker for your golf clubs.
I will vote this year in hope that Obama is as good as he looks, already knowing he is a better man than McCain. Even more though, I know the real solution is not found in him, it is found in re-establishing a working Congress. Obama seems better positioned to lead our country to extinguish the partisanship that you, your dittohead friends, and 30 years of McCain represent.
Then, in 2010 I'll vote and work against the incumbents who continue the partisan divide that defeats genuine progress for our country, and again in 2012, and again in 2014, and hopefully even you are seeing the pattern here dear BJ.
Posted by: The Other Mike on September 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
TOM: "I will vote this year in hope that Obama is as good as he looks, already knowing he is a better man than McCain."
You, sir, are a blight on America, a man I would have no hesitation to dismiss as I would a buzzing insect, should I have the misfortune to encounter you in the flesh.
Truly astounding.
Posted by: bertram jr on September 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Pardon my disappearance, I have been visiting another planet in search of signs of intelligent life. I never found anything close to BJr.
Until now I never believed in reincarntation. In a moment of clarity it finally came to me.
BJr is Joe McCarthy reincarnated. I suggest that he keep a careful watch, there will be communists, dressed as liberals, at his door.
LAMBERT: bertram seems more zealot wehrmacht to me than Old Joe.
Posted by: Mister Monster on September 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM