[This post originated as a comment on Impressive Speeches This Evening]
The Left has touted the hubris of Bush and Cheney for years now. Yet they can't see it in themselves. MSNBC was forced to see it, and kick Matthews and Olbermann to the election-coverage curb.
Obama himself has demonstrated great hubris: 143 days in office before deciding he had enough experience to be President of the United States? --I could go on, but why bother? The thing is, Media has propped up this empty suit called Barack Hussein Obama to the extent that no scrutiny was given to his past-- he was not properly vetted --and the Left bought him hook, line and sinker. There's just one problem, however: the duped masses were expecting a bob-cork and instead got the sinker.
The Obama campaign made a very serious mistake in its initial criticism of McCain's VP choice. And there has been blow-back. Lot's of it. The Left's sychophantic minions cooked up one faux scandal after another, and nothing has stuck. The Obama campaign website allowed one such "scandal" to grace its official site-- do they not have their own fact checkers? The latest, discussed at the aforementioned post of mine, is the "supposed" banning of books by then Mayor of Wasilla, AK, Sarah Palin. No amount of argument could change Dan's mind. What follows is not likely to change that.
Here's an article from Newsweek-- hardly a bastion of conservative thought:
[Newsweek, by the way, got this article from FactCheck.org]
Sliming Palin
The salient parts, i.e., book banning, are as follows:
[Palin] did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
[...]
Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.
[...]
So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken "from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board"? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as "Books banned at one time or another in the United States."
Whether or not Newsweek buys FactCheck.org's analysis of the bogus Palin 'book-banning' imbroglio isn't important. What IS important is the fact that they bothered to post it at all.
Dan will likely insist that Sarah answer the allegation anyway. But turnabout being fairplay, why should she answer obvious Democratic smears when Obama won't even address the very real questions about his associations with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, among others?
Dan doesn't see it. ER doesn't see it. But many others on the Left DO see it.... Barack has serious issues that are hurting his chances in November. Many on the left are scared of McCain's choice of Veep.
Kirsten Powers, Democrat Stategist:
How Obama Blew It
Jonathan Martin at Politico reports on the Hillary Supporters who are cautioning the Dems on their blatant sexism against Sarah Palin:
Hillary backers come to defense of Palin
And finally, from the Asia Times:
How Obama Lost the Election
Simple truth is, plenty of people on the Left are very worried about the man they knew nothing about, yet nominated nonetheless. Dan, that ever-brimming cup of optimism isn't worried. ER, the king of terse braggadocio isn't worried either. Good for them-- a McCain win in November will likely shut them both up for... a minute or two? ...before they begin trashing President McCain, and calling for impeachment proceedings for War Crimes or some other such nonsense.
No Dan and ER aren't worried, but plenty of others are.
Obama and Biden both are more than mere gaffe-machines, but Obama demonstrated and highlighted his lack of experience by choosing Biden.
On November 4th we'll see how it all pans out. But for now, Obama is hurting.
---------
A final parting shot:
Why They Hate Her
The most important thing to know about the left today is that it is centered on social issues. At root, it always has been, ever since the movement took form and received its name in the revolutionary Paris of the 1790s. In order to drive toward a vision of true human liberation, all the institutions and moral codes we associate with civilization had to be torn down. The institutions targeted in revolutionary France included the monarchy and the nobility..."
..which resulted in the era of the guillotine. Is that where the deranged Democratic Left desires to take us? Political digital beheadings? Digital LYNCHINGS?
The putrid reek of hypocrisy is almost too much to bear...
What do you mean I don't see it? Of course I do. I just don't share it. This is all just burn-off from the RNC and the sheer audacity and potential brilliance of Palin's come-from-out-of-nowhere nomination. Burn off. It will birn off.
The election will be close. The popular vote could go either way. But the electoral vote, which is all that matters, will go for Obama. The Obamamites have been quietly working the right precincts and counties, in the right states, to make it happen.
I don't *care* what the population thinks. What matters is how the right people in the right places, at the right time, vote.
McPalin is winning the poles! Obama-Biden are losing in the polls! Spread the word! LOL
There are some further thoughts in the post that should give even-handed people pause.
"While the purported list is bogus, we do know that something happened with regards to Palin and at least a question about book banning.
Time reported last week, for example, that Palin asked the Wasilla librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, about the process for banning books. Baker was reportedly "aghast" at the question. Soon after taking office, Palin, according to a New York Times report, fired Baker, and news reports from the time indicate that Palin thought Baker hadn't done enough to give her "full support" to the mayor.
Palin reversed course on Baker's dismissal after a local outcry, and later said the discussions about banning books were "rhetorical."
I can understand why the McCain campaign is pushing back against a bogus list that's making the rounds. Deceptive claims are deceptive claims, no matter who the target is. But as long as McCain aides are talking about this issue, maybe they can answer a couple of additional questions, such as, "Why did Palin try to fire the librarian in the first place?" Or how about, "Why did Palin broach the subject of book-banning if she had no intention of trying to ban books?"
And didn't Barack Obama do an interview with Bill O'Reilly where they talked about William Ayers?
And finally to address your last point: Dems hate social values! I am flabbergasted at this statement. I mean. How can you look at a policy wonk like Barack Obama or read the policy focused speeches he's given and say that he's not running on practical issues of governance. Sure you don't agree with his solutions. But at least he has a grasp of the fundamentals of federal government, the scope of the problems facing America, and bullet point plans for how to address those problems.
McCain on the other hand has almost no solid policy proposals for fixing the economy, the war on terror, healthcare, or education. In his speeches he uses the word change and reform a lot. But he never says what changes or reforms he wants to enact. They are just empty buzzwords. Instead the meat of his speeches are about personality and social warfare issues.
Please expand upon this point further, because I just don't see how you can arrive at this viewpoint.
OntheIssues.org has a lengthy list of social issues championed by Democrats
Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Gay Rights... these are all social was well as moral issues for BOTH Democrats and Republicans
Even Wikipedia has somewhat to say about the Demcratic Social Issues and Philosophy.... "Democrats generally support more government spending on social services while spending less on the military. They oppose the cutting of social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various welfare programs, believing it to be harmful to efficiency and social justice. Democrats believe the benefits of social services, in monetary and non-monetary terms, are a more productive labor force and cultured population, and believe that the benefits of this are greater than any benefits that could be derived from lower taxes, especially on top earners, or cuts to social services. Furthermore, Democrats see social services as essential towards providing positive freedom, i.e. freedom derived from economic opportunity."
As to the other:
Despite FactCheck.org's analysis they've nonetheless concluded this book-banning issue is a non-started.
I'll reiterate their conclusion:
[Palin] did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
[...]
Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.
You can't point to FactCheck.org as the final arbiter in "questions of truth" surrounding Barack and others, yet disregard their decision and cite their analysis as having greater import than their statements of fact. The analysis is filled with conjecture, the above reiterated quotes are statements of truth... fact.
Finally, Ann Coulter only expresses what many on the Right are afraid to say themselves. She, like everyone else can take her comments to the extreme, but that doesn't mean we cease to appreciate them. Ann Coulter is a relevant voice to the Conservative Right. She's a straight talker. And sometimes she ends up with the taste of shoe-leather in her mouth... same as Obama, Biden, McCain, Tew, Ashley..... Everyone who expresses opinions.
Differences in get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts will probably matter in this campaign as it has in the last two presidential elections, but I think it's naive to believe that the GOP doesn't know this. I furthermore believe that Obama has probably been wasting money in states like Georgia: at the very least, he's been spending money as fast as he's been raising it, to the degree that, despite the difference in amount raised up to this point, the warchests are about even and it appears that Obama is planning to do quite a bit of fundraising even in the remaining two months of the race.
And, honestly, GOTV efforts are usually a reflection of how energized the base is, and the conservative base, myself included, has become quite energized by Palin's entry and the corresponding media overreaction. Obama might still win in November, and he might win because of voter turnout efforts, but there are plenty of reasons to suspect otherwise.
About Obama and Ayers, O'Reilly did ask Obama about the admitted and unrepentant terrorist, but Obama gave the same response he has earlier in the campaign, severely downplaying the professional relationship.
They worked together closely, and at length, on two major projects, and Obama's political career was christened in a party at Ayers' house. He still hasn't given an honest account for his relationship with Ayers -- that is, one that acknowledges that Ayers was more than a mere acquaintance.
We're not talking about limiting what can be sold in private bookstores or kept in personal collections, much less the imagery of gestapos and book-burnings. I have no problem whatsoever with a government official deciding to limit the contents of a public library, and the invocation of the phrase "book banning" is just an emotional appeal, because -- unless you really think your local library should stock the latest issues of Larry Flynn's rag and other, even more degraded instances of filth -- you support "bans," too.
There actually is a genuine free speech issue over which I retain serious concerns about a McCain presidency: so-called campaign finance reform, which curtailed political speech, precisely the type of speech that Amendment I enshrines.
But attacking McCain-Feingold will be difficult for the Dems to do with any sort of philosophical consistency (not that that would stop them) because opposition to McCain-Feingold came almost entirely from the right. McCain and Bush sided with the Democrats to pass the bill: Dems in the Senate voted for the bill almost unanimously, 48-2, while most Republican Senators opposed it: GOP support for the bill was minor, 11-38.
And any qualms about McCain when it comes to free speech is more than overshadowed by the Dems' support for the "fairness doctrine" and the thuggish behavior the Obama campaign has exhibited in trying to smear and silence Stanley Kurtz while Kurtz is doing nothing more than investigating the public records regarding Obama and Ayers.
My suspicion is that the "book banning" story is being played up because it reinforces a negative stereotype of the so-called Religious Right. Because Palin is an admitted evangelical, the Left wants to smear her as a Puritanical theocrat, and the attempt smacks of religious bigotry.
Preach on! The more the GOP and its adherents make claims like this, the better for Obama.
I have no problem whatsoever with a government official deciding to limit the contents of a public library
Perhaps that's because there wasn't a period after the word "library." Instead, there was a comma, which indicates that the sentence isn't finished. It wasn't, and I had much more to say even in this one sentence, explaining my position and my subsequent belief that my position is firmly in the mainstream.
I have no problem whatsoever with a government official deciding to limit the contents of a public library, and the invocation of the phrase "book banning" is just an emotional appeal, because -- unless you really think your local library should stock the latest issues of Larry Flynn's [sic] rag and other, even more degraded instances of filth -- you support "bans," too.
If you're going to quote me, and if you are also going to whine quite persistently about your being misunderstood, you should take pains at least to quote an entire sentence rather than rip a clause out of its most immediate context.
In light of the entire sentence I wrote, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your "Preach on!" nonsense.
Do you oppose a government having any limits on the material it stores in its public libraries, so that even the most depraved pornography should be permitted in the shelves of a public library, funded by taxpayer money? If you do oppose even such reasonable limits, then I don't think your libertine position is quite the electoral winner you think it is.
But if you support such limits, then you're really being quite hypocritical to pretend otherwise, to pretend that such limits are so ghastly and unreasonable that they'll turn off the masses, and to attempt such a charade in a transparent attempt to score cheap political points.
I strongly suggest that you start reading through the arguments being made by those with whom you disagree, and start thinking through the nonsense you're spouting in response. As it stands right now, your juvenile comments are so easily ripped to shreds that you look extremely foolish in making them.
I have no problems at all with libraries setting reasonable limitations on what they keep on the shelves.
So, by all means, IF Palin asked about removing some books, let us know what horrible books she wanted to see removed. IF she tried removing pornography or Terrorism Recruiting Methods, or some such, the People would understand.
IF, on the other hand (and knowing the faith tradition she comes from this seems more likely), she was asking about removing "Heather has Two Mommies" or "Harry Potter," well, she should be forthcoming about that, as well.
There is a big difference between the two types of oversight and most librarians are pretty responsible that way - that's why we hire them to run the libraries, not easily offended and quick to purge religious zealots.
And your comment here validates my suspicion that this entire brouhaha is based on religious bigotry.
You think that, "knowing the faith tradition she comes from," it's more likely that Palin is a religious zealot who wants to "purge" from libraries all material that she finds the least bit offensive.
That is the attitude of a hateful, intolerant bigot.
I could almost find it ironic that such prejudice would originate from a Christian and be directed to another Christian, but I believe that Chrisitianity is only your religious affiliation. Your guiding philosophy is informed far, far more by the socialism, androgyny, and hatred of the West that is so foundational to the radical Left, and your prejudice against theologically conservative evangelicals is precisely consistent with your leftist philosophy.
And, for what it's worth, it's entirely implausible that Palin wanted Harry Potter removed from the shelves, because it hadn't even been published yet. But let's not let your half-truths and outright lies get in the way of your cheerleading for Barack Obama's politics of real change.
Ha! Add it on, brother. Prove your ignorance, shout it to the world. It only goes to help further marginalize you and your philosophies, and by extension, Republicans, conservatism and, unfortunately, Christianity.
It is that last part that saddens me, but hopefully most people can see that your twisting of the truths represent YOUR personal philosophy and not Christ or Christ’s teachings.
As to the Harry Potter thing, that is just the TYPE of book that fundamentalists have tried to get removed from libraries, not specifically that book.
Isolate? "Make look dumb"?
At any rate, I stand by my position that you're displaying religious bigotry. It's rather cut-and-dried: you believe that particular behavior on Palin's part is more likely for no other reason than "the faith tradition she comes from."
That is quintessential prejudice.
As is often the case, you should be and apparently refuse to be ashamed of your behavior.