Tag Archives: john mccain

A really bad weekend for Palin-haters

Update: Instead of finding evidence for her alleged stupidity, a writing analysis confirmed that she is anything but: Turns out she writes like most CEOs —  and at a higher level than a language expert who admits he wishes she would have come across as illiterate.  It was a huge backfire for the haters, but will they admit their years of mistakes?

Just a couple days ago Huffington Post followers and many other Palin-haters were practically in pants-wetting mode over the release of 24,000 pages of her emails. Oh, if only they had shown such passion for investigating the domestic terrorist connections and other issues with the Community Organizer they elected President!

So how many links does the HuffPo main page have on the emails as of this writing (June 12)? Precisely zero. Why is that? Probably because of this: Palin emails show engaged leader who sought VP nod.

There are no bombshells, no “gotcha” moments.

The emails of Sarah Palin — more than 24,000 pages of them released Friday by the state of Alaska from her first two years as governor — paint a picture of an image-conscious, driven leader, closely involved with the day-to-day duties of running the state and riding herd on the signature issues of her administration.

She angled for the vice presidential nomination months before John McCain picked her — and hinted at presidential aspirations.

Eek! A politician angling for a greater role? That’s never happened before.

The messages give a behind-the-scenes look at a politician who burst onto the national stage after serving as Wasilla mayor and less than two years as Alaska governor. They show a woman striving to balance work and home, fiercely protective of her family and highly sensitive to media coverage. She expressed a sometimes mothering side with aides but also was quick to demand answers or accountability.

Here’s a shocker: A politician who didn’t want to use state resources for political purposes. Yet people like Janeane Garafalo think that “rationale” people should support Anthony Weiner despite what he has done.

Palin’s scheduler sent her a note June 21, 2007, saying Gov. Mitt Romney — who was running for president — wanted to schedule a call to “catch up on things.” The aide said Mike Tibbles, her former chief of staff, said she probably wouldn’t be interested, and wondered how she should proceed.

“What is his number? Since it may be partisan, I should do this without state assistance. Thanks!” Palin replied.

. . .

Her supporters encouraged everyone to read the messages. “The emails detail a Governor hard at work,” said Tim Crawford, the treasurer of her political action committee, Sarah PAC, in a prepared statement.

Oh, and there were a bunch of death threats from her loving and tolerant critics.

Palin was the most popular governor in the country, she fought corruption in her own party, she took on oil company executives, she speaks plainly and isn’t an elitist, and more. Oh, and she was pro-life, having the audacity to bring a Down Syndrome child into the world. So the Palin-haters decided that she must be destroyed. The mainstream media was literally 18-to-1 negative on her. Unless you consume a balance of conservative and liberal media it is highly unlikely that you would think favorably of her.

Off the charts Palin Derangement Syndrome

See Explosive e-mail revelation: Palin, staff were excited when McCain named her to the ticket « Hot Air.  The Left is going predictably nuts over the release of Sarah Palin’s emails.

A few questions: Why didn’t they expend this energy researching the Community Organizer they elected President — especially his known ties to domestic terrorists?  Maybe we wouldn’t such a moral and economic failure leading the country.

Would they marshal their resources in the same way to pour through the emails of Liberal politicians — say, hypothetically, Anthony Weiner?  Are they mad at Weiner because he got caught, or because he’s a super-creep who has no marketable skills outside of being a Congressman? (Meditate on that: This guy governs you but isn’t fit for any other employment.)

Do they realize how much power they give Palin by doing this?  (Oops!  I’ve said too much!)

Roundup

My sort-of Facebook policy: I keep the comments generally light and leave the politics and heavier stuff to my blog links.  I love the banter of my kids, who are very funny.  If I want to follow the play-by-play action of a sports team I’ll use my iPhone ESPN app, so I definitely don’t need the details of plays and commentary for teams I don’t follow.

Those Pesky, Irrational, Woman-Hating Traditional Family Values – great post by Roxanne about family values.
This is a matter of life and death — good post and video about death

Deceived by ‘The God Delusion’ Former Christian Student Commits Suicide – worldviews and facts matter.

John McCain was not my first choice for President (or second, or third . . .), but I much preferred him over Barack Obama.  I’m really surprised that some people think that things would be no better under a McCain administration.  Are you kidding me?!  For starters, he would have spent $1 trillion less and would have put qualified judges on the Supreme Court.  Those alone would have positively impacted the country for decades. Decades! People get so caught up in irrelevant political details and ignore the major things that impact most people.

The Fiorina surge is on – Can Carly beat Barbara Boxer?  I hope so.  I had mixed feelings about Fiorina when she was at HP.  She was tough as nails.  Pushing the Compaq / HP merger through was an amazing feat, and she was relentless consistent in keeping her vision in front of people.

Why doesn’t the church address the issue of modesty? – Great question and answers by Randy Alcorn.  Read it all.

I’m all for sex and I think it’s great for a woman to be sexy with one person—her husband. The irony is there are cases where women have gotten so used to appearing sexy in public yet actually have no sexual relationship with their own husbands. So we have two issues going on related to the issue of modesty—modesty in public, and modesty when the Body of Christ is assembled. And this latter one is huge.

. . .

As for the part of the question asking why this is not being addressed like it should be in churches, I believe the answer is fear. I think there are many pastors and church leaders, who, like many husbands and fathers, are afraid to speak up for fear of offending women who are fashion-conscious. Some women think that to be fashionable, you have to have outfits that are sexy—including the split skirts, the very tight skirts and pants, and low-cut tops. All of these things send a message to men, and pastors are very self-conscious about speaking up because they think,There are women who will think I am a pervert for even mentioning this. “Oh, is that what the pastor is thinking about when he’s up front?”

It’s a difficult situation, but it’s an issue I believe male leaders of the home and church need the courage to speak up about and address directly. We also need godly women (especially godly women who can be reasonably fashionable and attractive in the right sense of attractive—not sexually attractive) who will lovingly challenge other women and let them know they are sending a wrong message. And if they don’t care about the message they’re sending, then something’s really wrong and they need to repent. We need open, clear discussions about this so women can become aware and understand the issue.

. . .

Nancy Leigh DeMoss has excellent material on modesty and purity. She has a wonderful booklet titled The Look: Does God Really Care What I Wear? as well as several resources about the freedom of modesty at her ministry’s website,www.reviveourhearts.com.

Coming soon to a country near you: Greek Health System Opts for Amputation as Money-Saver (Hat tip: The way the Ball bounces)

Teacher unions block volunteers from working in school libraries

 

 

 

Arizona & common sense

Read Arizona: The Fourth Reich? : The Other McCain for some facts you won’t get from the mainstream media.

Let’s begin by invoking what I call the Sonny Bono Principle. The California Republican lawmaker (the brainier half of “Sonny and Cher”) was once asked to debate illegal immigration and memorably responded, “What’s to debate? It’s illegal.”

. . .

Yet we are constantly told that the anybody who calls for stricter enforcement our Ted Kennedy-sponsored liberal immigration laws is a dangerous right-wing extremist — and probably a racist, to boot. (This phenomenon gave rise to what has become known as The Peter Brimelow Rule, which defines racist as “anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.”) All of which is nonsense, of course, and utterly ignores the horrifying impact that non-enforcement has on states like Arizona, which has been nearly overwhelmed by a tsunami of illegal immigration.

. . .

Every time Americans have gotten a chance at an up-or-down vote on immigration, they’ve supported stricter enforcement, and yet politicians — especially Republican politicians — have gone out of their way to avoid framing the issue of illegal immigration in the kind of clear terms that would allow voters a chance to vote for what the majority really want: Strict enforcement of current law, enhanced border security, and aggressive measures to deport those now here illegally.

Predictably, false teacher Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and the Sojourners bunch can’t even bring themselves to accurately note that this is illegal immigration.  Using their logic, India and China could send boatload after boatload of people to the U.S. and we’d be obligated to take them all in, no questions asked, and provide food, clothes, education, health care, etc.  If Jim & Co. care that much about these people, I wonder how much of their own money they send to these poor countries now?

John McCain had a good response (though he’s waaaay late in offering it).  He and too many other Republicans have been too soft on this issue.

“If the president doesn’t like what the Arizona Legislature and governor may be doing, then I call on the president to immediately call for the dispatch of 3,000 National Guard troops to our border and mandate that 3,000 additional Border Patrol [officers] be sent to our border as well,” McCain said at a news conference Friday in downtown Phoenix, according to a report in the Arizona Republic.

“And that way, then the state of Arizona will not have to enact legislation which they have to do because of the federal government’s failure to carry out its responsibilities, which is to secure the borders.”