Archive for January, 2010
Jill Dorson: Disappointed Barack Obama Voter? Blame Sarah Palin!–UPDATED
Sunday, January 24th, 2010Dear Jill Dorson,
I get that you’re embarrassed that you voted for a newbie like Barack Obama. I get that you are a sucker and bought the hype. I get that you’re sorry for your stupid vote.
You should be sorry.
You made a silly, immature decision based on superficial feelings, celebrity hype and empty promises. That sort of decision-making is great for voting for things like People Magazine’s Hottest Guy, but you know, this is the leader of the free world and all and such trivial motivations should be left behind–like in High School.
But no, you voted for Barack Obama for this:
Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.
Really? He had a tough life? He had a “compelling life story”? Aw, produce a made-for-TV Lifetime movie for the man. Don’t vote for him for President.
Worse, you voted against John McCain for similarly petty Teen Beat reasons:
Before John McCain unwittingly picked a tabloid-magazine cover girl for his running mate, I was leaning toward going Republican this time around. I did the second time Bush was on the ballot and I very nearly did the first time, too. But as soon as Palin climbed out of her igloo and onto the national scene, well, there was no turning back for me.
That Igloo-dwelling woman ran a state, you silly girl. She had executive experience–which is more than can be said for Barack Obama. Seeing Barack Obama gracing every Tabloid (and yes, I include Newsweek) didn’t dismay you. Seeing a Republican, conservative woman who happened to be beautiful dismayed you.
You are a chauvinistic bigot.
You think that your ideology makes you superior. Worse, you overlooked a candidate who was exactly what you wanted–fiscal conservative and socially rather liberal–because of his vice presidential candidate?
I call bullshit.
You are trotting out your sorry excuse for your vote now, because you know that there is nothing hipper in lefty circles than hating Sarah Palin. You try to save face for an immature choice by blaming a Vice Presidential candidate who would have no bearing on the Presidency.
But hating Sarah Palin does bone up your trend-seeking cred. You can still be the cool girl in school by hating the most beautiful girl and regretting schtupping the hottest guy and finding out that he’s just a big talker.
Grow up.
This country cannot function when voters act twelve years old and make electoral choices like this:
Like many others, my view is narrow. I vote for the candidate I think will be best for me. I often define myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. But above all, I want to feel safe and I don’t want to feel that I am being ripped off. I want a president who inspires me and cares about my contribution to the fabric of the country. I want a president with experience and savvy, a Commander in Chief who puts our country and its citizens first.
Really? You voted for who was best for you? Best for you how?
Your self-esteem was stroked by voting for Barack Obama. Feel better? You are a “good person.” You voted for the first black president. You were historical. But you didn’t vote for the guy who would “keep you safe” or who had experience or someone who would put America first.
No, you voted for someone just. like. you.
Barack Obama is vapid, self-serving, believes his own hype, long on talk, short on action, he’s in over his head, he’s immature and made an art of blaming.
Just like you.
You hurt the country with your narcissism, just as President Obama has hurt the country with his narcissism and will continue to do so.
Blaming Sarah Palin for your lameness is just par for the course. Another typical, face-saving decision by a childish voter.
You have three years, Ms. Dorsan. I suggest you spend them worrying less about the Republican party and giving them advice, and more about growing up.
How will you even know a good candidate when you see one? You’re so blinded by your superficial needs that you’ll likely vote for the next feel-good dummy who comes along.
Good luck with the maturity thing. Being a grown-up is hard–just ask President Barack Obama.
Sincerely,
Melissa Clouthier
A Proud McCain Voter
P.S. John McCain wasn’t perfect. He wasn’t my favorite candidate and I probably would have loathed many of his decisions as President. But he would have been better than Barack Obama. That was obvious to anyone not swooning like a groupie.
UPDATED:
Seems I’m not the only one irritated with Ms. Dorson. Another Black Conservative says:
Well, Ms. Dobson, apology not accepted. Instead I offer you a big fat “F*ck you”! Your colossal stupidity has doomed millions of Americans, who were ten times smarter than you, to the same fate of unemployment you now endure. You and your ilk run around pretending you are the smartest things on two feet, yet you could not see a dime store con artist standing right before you!
You knock Sarah Palin as being a dumb soccer mom, but had you had three functioning brain cells, you would have noticed that Sarah Palin predicted exactly what Obama was going to be all about during her convention speech. How is it a supposed mental giant like you could not plainly see what poor rube Sarah Palin figured out in 5 seconds flat?
You admit that your first impression of George W Bush was incorrect. You admit that your first impression of Barack Obama was incorrect. You admit that your first impression of what an Obama administration would entail is incorrect. And then you spend an amazing amount of precious apology time revisiting your unfavorable first impression of THAT WOMAN. Have you considered following the trend line, there?
While we’re on the subject: you are aware that THAT WOMAN made many of the same objections about Obama’s experience and future plans, yes? I mean, really: there was no reason for anybody to be surprised at what happened.
NASA: No Increase In CO2, Global Warming A Sham
Friday, January 22nd, 2010AJ Strata has made an amazing find and I want to share it with you:
The email is from Reto Ruedy at GISS, one of Hansen’s top analysts. It is a headline worthy admission. There is no evidence of CO2 driven global warming in any of the US temp data – even though we are accused of being the CO2 generating capitol of the world. What’s more, they do not expect to see any evidence of AGW in the US for 2-4 more decades! I think we could afford to wait a little longer to see if this theory holds up.
And yet, without ANY evidence of AGW active in the US, Americans are supposed to cripple our economy and shell out billions in tax dollars? How could AGW be evident everywhere else but not here in the great CO2 producing center of all human kind? These “NASA” scientists are admitting they have never yet measured any global warming in the US outside natural causes.
Go read the whole thing. Global Warming is utter b.s. The evidence keeps piling up and yet we hear nothing in the press.
Podcast 81: Scott Brown, Health Care, Liberal Angst with John Hawkins
Thursday, January 21st, 2010Oops! Forgot to post this earlier. John was right… and yes, I was too pessimistic. I was scared of placing too high of hopes on this race, just in case we lost.
John Hawkins joins Melissa to discuss the election in Massachusetts and what it means to health care reform and the democratic party in 2010.
Download MP3
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
Christiane Amanpour Gets Tortured With Enhanced Truth From Marc Theissen
Thursday, January 21st, 2010One of the more interesting parts of the Scott Brown campaign was his defense of enhanced interrogation techniques. The Massachusetts voters approve of them, and him. Says Andy McCarthy:
It was health care that nationalized the special election for what we now know is the people’s Senate seat. But it was national security that put real distance between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. “People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review’s Robert Costa, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.” There is a powerful lesson here for Republicans, and here’s hoping they learn it.
One of the great frustrations of the Bush years was the fact that the administration had strong national-defense and counterterrorism policies that it shied away from defending. On enhanced-interrogation tactics, for example, President Bush’s position resonates with most Americans: When the nation is under siege, nothing is more important than getting life-saving intelligence. And, particularly when we are dealing with terrorists who are trained to resist interrogation and exploit our legal system, we must aggressively interrogate them and keep them out of our legal system. The opposing position, espoused most prominently by Sen. John McCain, was counterfactual and incoherent. Senator McCain pronounced both that enhanced interrogation (which he called “torture”) never works (which is patently untrue) and that an interrogator might at most use it in a ticking-bomb situation (the last situation in which you’d want to use it if, in fact, it never works).
It seems that the American people are getting an opportunity to compare and contrast the “keep America safe” techniques of President Bush and President Obama. President Obama is found wanting. And hypocritical. And ineffectual.
The press, though, continue to pound this “torture” meme. For once, Christiane Amanpour is stopped by Marc Theissen, author of the book Courting Disaster: How The CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting The Next Attack. Here’s the clip:
The American people are very sensible. They don’t want people randomly waterboarded. They also know that the government has water boarded precisely three (3) terrorists and none have been water boarded at Guantanemo Bay.
It is atrocious that the Crotchbomber in Michigan never got questioned. I watched the testimony on the hill from America’s leading defenders–Janet Napolitano, and the DHS and the rest of the defense guys and was appalled. I thought Jeff Sessions was going to have a heart attack, he was so angry. And rightly so.
The American people don’t need a news anchor telling them that the Khemer Rouge is the same as the CIA with three confirmed terrorists. The moral equivalence is appalling.
Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams On Government Pay
Thursday, January 21st, 2010Why are Federal and State workers getting pay raises when the private sector has lost 7 million jobs? Michael Williams, the Texas Railroad Commissioner refused to take a $45,000/year raise and refused wage increases for his state employees. He says, “we should all be in this together.”
Kay Bailey Hutcheson has said that she’d step down to run for Texas Governor leaving the race open for Michael Williams. I think she thought that she’d be a shoe-in, but Rick Perry ran again and has a 10 point lead on her. For what it’s worth, I think Perry is laying the groundwork for a Presidential run in 2012. I think KBH would like to run for President herself after getting some executive experience.
Back to Michael Williams. He’s the real deal. I’m very much hopeful that he’ll get elected to national office. He’s just a great politician and the kind of guy we need in office.
John Edwards Admits Rielle Hunter’s Kid “Quinn” Is His, News Media Shocked!–UPDATED
Thursday, January 21st, 2010
So John Edwards is the baby’s father. Shocking! Not. From Fox:
In a statement released to NBC News, Edwards said, “I am Quinn’s father. … It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me.”
Friends of the family said that Edwards and wife, Elizabeth, have separated, NBC reported.
Here’s the video of the news report:
This is more a story about the lack of curiosity about Dem problems. This man campaigned as a devoted husband, they renewed vows on the trail, etc. This guy was running for President. I find it difficult imaging that he’d do a worse job than Barack Obama, but imagine if he had gotten the nomination and this came out? It’d be Clinton II.
I wonder if Edwards will end up with Rielle. Rumor has it that he’s been prowling the local bars.
UPDATED:
From long time reader President Friedman over at Right Wing News, this comment is so good, it needs to be elevated:
What really gets me about this story is that according to the accounts I’ve read, during the campaign one of Edward’s aids stepped forward and publicly claimed paternity of this poor child.
Wasn’t there another politician during the campaign who was accused of doing something similar? Was it perhaps a woman from Alaska who was accused of misrepresenting the maternity of her own child, forcing one of her own children to be complicit in the lie, all for the sake of political expediency? Wasn’t that presented to us as being the most lowbrow, trailer trashy, Judge Judy-drama-inducing thing a person could possibly do?
And of course, in her case it wasn’t true.
But when John Edwards does it (and even uses campaign funds to keep everything hush-hush), not a word from Excitable Andy and his compatriots.
I’m lukewarm on Sarah Palin as politician, but as a martyr who continually exposes the hypocrisy and venom of the left, her story is unparallelled.
President Obama’s Very Bad No Good Horrible Year
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010Let’s a list of the sadness:
Stimulus
Freddie And Fanny
Olympics
Government Motors
Copenhagen
Climategate
Crotchbomber
Economy
And Creigh Deeds, John Corzine and now, Coakley.
It’s been a sad year. Not all of it has been in his control, but a huge part of it has been directly under President Obama’s control.
And now President Obama is talking about doubling down.
The problem the Democrats have, of course, is that their policies are so left-wing and extreme that they don’t resonate with the American people. And so they write stupid stuff like this: “Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate” and the author, Roy Edroso concludes, “The lesson, as always, is that when Democrats win, they lose, and when they lose, they are obliterated.”
Um. That’s the lesson?
How about the American people are not radical socialists? The American people had an entirely different notion of “remake America”. They thought that hope and change would be some helpful tweaking..and transparency, and no hidden taxes, and well, you know what they thought.
The Democrats, however, do not know what the American people think. Or maybe they do, they just thought that they could lie long enough to deceive them into their “framework” for their statist impulses. It’s not working.
In fact, the American people are not too happy with all this and are in no mood to talk.
That’s one thing President Obama has been really good at this last year…talking. But no one believes him about anything.
2010 does not look to be a better year for the young, tired President.
The Scott Brown Election Is A Referendum On The Establishment
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010
Lest the Republicans get too smug as they look toward the 2010 midterms, I’d suggest a strong dash of humility. The Democrats seem incapable of humility so I’ll spare my breath.
Scott Brown ran against Obamacare, yes. He ran against stupid DOJ policies toward terrorists, yes. Most of all, her ran against an entitled, tyrannical establishment that has been telling the American people, for far too long, that they know better than you.
Scott Brown knew the people were sick of it. He summed up the sentiment in these words:
“With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrats seat. It’s the people’s seat.”
In short, “The ungovernable country just told those governing to go to hell.” — Erick Erickson
Indeed.
So, this year, the people aren’t going to support just any Republican or any Democrat or any “chosen” candidate because he or she is self-funded. Guess what? The people will fund the candidates they choose. The people will be the “big” money.
Scott Brown was down by 30 points in December. 30. And the people rallied to him. A couple of weeks ago, I was stunned. Who is this guy? I was starting to the emails and Direct Messages and the pleas for help to get the word out.
I was skeptical. Kennedy’s seat. Massachusetts. Yada, yada.
Well, guess what? The people did speak. And they put their money where their mouths were, too. Money poured into Brown’s campaign in the final days and the average donation was between $50 and $75. Patrick Ruffini accurately predicted this was a good risk to take. And there were those of us who cheerfully promoted the money bomb–go for a cool million, I said–and guess what? It happened.
Imagine this happening race by race as the people choose their candidates. Imagine politicians across the spectrum who actually represent their constituents and act responsively to their desires, too.
Well, that’s a lot to ask, I know, but there are hopeful signs already.
Lorie Byrd reports that Barney Frank is backing away from health care reform. She says:
They have seen what the voters in even Massachusetts think about it and they don’t want to go down in flames over it. They want some bipartisan cover. This win gives them an “out.”
Well, the President is going to turn to “jobs, jobs, jobs.” You know what? I think it’s too little, too late.
The American people are outraged. They have seen the House, Senate and the President wrap themselves up in what they rightly see as a huge, vast new entitlement and they see the country as broke. What the hell are these people thinking, Americans wonder. While American citizens have tightened their belts, Washington, D.C. has loosened theirs, with “our” money.
And Democrats want a new stimulus package. And Democrats want to “double down” on health care.
I’m not sure that even the Republicans understand the vehemence here. There are some who still pooh-pooh the Tea Party movement even as hundreds of thousands marched in Washington, D.C. on their doorstep.
That’s some disconnect.
The people are choosing. They are sick of being told by their “betters” what’s good for them. Any candidate that condescends, takes for granted, turns a deaf ear and ignores the will of the people will go down like Martha Coakley. Every seat will be contested if the constituents are discontented.
She lost because she talked, acted, and sounded like just another out-of-touch, know-it-all. She’d go to Washington and tell the people how it was going to be.
The people are kinda sick of listening. There’s a new boss in town and it’s the voter.
It’s time public servants get back to the art of service and pay attention to the boss.
Well, What Do You Know, Al Franken’s Vote Getter Marc Elias Has Set Up Shop In Massachusetts
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010Just great. Dan Riehl reports:
Coakley attorney Marc Elias speaking now, claiming spoiled ballots … Elias is Al Franken’s former campaign attorney. Yep.
Meanwhile, Mary Katherine Hamm has this screen grab from Coakley’s campaign yesterday, claiming fraud yesterday:
