Crunchy ConTuesday October 7, 2008 @10:44pm

Obama vs. McCain = Clinton vs. Dole

By: Rod Dreher

I cannot believe that this country is in the critical condition that it's in, and these are the politicians we're asked to choose from as our next leader. Neither McCain nor Obama spoke with any credibility or seriousness about our situation. When asked what sacrifices they would ask the American people to make in light of the crisis and its likely fallout, they punted. It made me so angry! I have no use for either of those pandering mannequins.

McCain is the conservative in the race, though, and he gave no reason at all to give conservative ideas a hearing. He was at times not quite coherent, while Obama came across as smooth, warm and reassuring (even when he was talking shite). Obama won this dull, worthless "debate," for what that's worth, and he's going to win the election. Nothing McCain did tonight changed a thing. He's done. This race is now the 2008 version of Clinton vs. Dole. And you know how well that turned out for the Republicans.

The silver lining: Obama and the Democrats are going to own this godawful mess. And the conservative movement can clear the deadwood out of the way, and start to rebuild itself into a credible force.

Comments (49)

Filed Under: casting stones, McCain, Obama

Permalink Email This Add to:

Reformed Chicks BlabbingTuesday October 7, 2008 @ 9:28pm

SNL Skit: Washington Approves the Bailout is back...

By: Michele McGinty

So, as you are probably aware, NBC pulled the skit from Hulu and their website due to problems with a caption under Herbert and Marion Sandler who rooked Wachovia into paying $26 billion for sub prime mortgages valued at $19 billion at the time.

NBC sources say the objection has to do with the caption underneath the two mortgage-backed securities investors who made off with billions, which reads: "People who should be shot." The same sources say the video will be edited to remove that language and returned to the website.

Here's the edited video:

See the forbidden screen shot and learn all about the Sandlers here.

Comments (1)

Filed Under: bailout, casting stones, Democrats, House, Sandler, Senate, SNL, video

Permalink Email This Add to:

Reformed Chicks BlabbingTuesday October 7, 2008 @ 7:24pm

CNN exposes Obama's connection to Ayers

By: Michele McGinty

Whoa! This is CNN, not Fox! How amazing is that?

(via)

I guess by now you've heard that Obama claims he didn't know Ayers was a terrorist (it's amazing how many times Obama doesn't know what's going on -- he expects us to believe that he's pretty clueless). How believable is that? Not very I guess because here's his spokesman admitting that Obama knew and was still friends with Ayers:

According to Axelrod, he at least knew before Obama worked with him on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

(via)

Comments (9)

Filed Under: Bill Ayers, casting stones, CNN, Democrats, MSM, Obama, presidential election, terrorism, unrepentant terrorist

Permalink Email This Add to:

Crunchy ConTuesday October 7, 2008 @ 5:59pm

Could Democrats reduce abortions more?

By: Rod Dreher

Steve Waldman makes the case that a Democratic plan to reduce abortions could do more than the typical Republican strategy -- but that Barack Obama is not on board with this plan. Read Steve's entire post and let us know whether it makes sense to you. Basically, it's about increasing sex education, birth control and welfare incentives to encourage women to keep their unborn children instead of aborting them.

It's obvious why many Catholic and other Christian pro-life activists can't endorse sex ed and birth control distribution, but on the welfare incentives question ... well, let me ask: how did welfare reform affect abortion rates? I honestly don't know. I'd be willing to pay higher taxes to subsidize irresponsible, immoral behavior on the part of single mothers. Better that than that they kill their unborn children. But I know that is not a position many Republicans would take.

One thing Steve writes has always struck me as embarrassingly true about the pro-life movement:

By the way, if you have a hard time believing that the pro-life community, like the pro-choice community, routinely compromises its principles for reasons of political tactics and coalition-building consider this: while they oppose stem cell research, they have not campaigned against fertility treatments which cause the creation and destruction of most human embryos. Why not? Because too many pro-life people have had fertility treatments or because they know that opposing it would turn public opinion against pro life movement.

You cannot be for fertility treatments and against abortion. Well, you can, but you cannot be morally consistent.

Comments (38)

Filed Under: Abortion, casting stones, Democrats, Republicans

Permalink Email This Add to:

Crunchy ConTuesday October 7, 2008 @11:37am

Obama's bad judgment

By: Rod Dreher

David Plouffe can claim that Barack Obama didn't know Bill Ayers, but it's simply not true. Drew Griffin's CNN report makes it perfectly clear that Obama and Ayers -- the Sixties domestic terrorist whose only stated regret was that he didn't bomb more things to stop the Vietnam war -- go way back. Astonishingly, Griffin quotes the Illinois state senator who was Obama's mentor saying that it was Ayers, not she, who organized Obama's political coming out party in Hyde Park. Check out this report:

Now, I don't think this election should turn on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, but Obama is quite plainly lying about his relationship with Bill Ayers. That he would work so closely with an unrepentant and violent political radical in Ayers, and be so spiritually close to a racialist radical in Wright, does raise serious concerns about his judgment. What kind of men and women would President Obama surround himself with? What kind of men and women would President Obama appoint to the federal bureaucracy? Those are fair questions.

"Keating Five! Keating Five!" you say. Yes, but John McCain has spent his entire subsequent career atoning for his role in that debacle, openly so. When will Obama so much as acknowledge Bill Ayers?

Comments (103)

Filed Under: Ayers, casting stones, Obama, Wright

Permalink Email This Add to:

Reformed Chicks BlabbingTuesday October 7, 2008 @ 8:55am

Dobson's nonendorsement endorsement of McCain

By: Michele McGinty

So, Dobson finally endorsed as much as he legally could McCain on his radio program:

A clear go-ahead signal to millions of evangelicals across the country from Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of FocDr James Dobson founder and chairman of Focus on the Family who radio program and newsletters reach millions of evangelicals approves a vote for the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palinus on the Family, to vote for the GOP ticket. It couldn't have come at a better time given more polls showing a Democratic lead on the eve of the next presidential debate, tomorrow night in Nashville.

[...]

"It's probably obvious which of the two major candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview," Dobson said.

"While I will not endorse either candidate this year, (in fact, I've only endorsed one presidential nominee in my life) I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency."

(via)

Comments (14)

Filed Under: casting stones, Democrats, Dobson, Evangelicals, McCain, presidential election, Republicans

Permalink Email This Add to:

Reformed Chicks BlabbingMonday October 6, 2008 @ 5:42pm

Warner: Christians, NRA members. prolifers and homeschoolers are a threat to America

By: Michele McGinty

Is it a macaca moment? No of course! The MSM will studiously ignore it:

BTW, it doesn't sound very post-partisan of him, does it? So much for the outreach to pro-lifers Obama is attempting. For you pro-lifers who think you'll be welcome into the fold, you are about as accepted in the party as infidels are tolerated in Islam (welcome to Dhimmitude, baby!). Thanks for the window into the soul of the Democrat party, Warner. Your honesty is refreshing :-)

(via)

Comments (15)

Filed Under: casting stones, Christians, homeschooling, MSM, NRA, Senate, video, Virginia, Warner

Permalink Email This Add to:

Crunchy ConMonday October 6, 2008 @12:44pm

Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Jack Squat

By: Rod Dreher

All along I have believed, and have said in this space, that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright matters. As far as we can tell, no single person had a greater influence on Barack Obama's thinking than did the radical, race-baiting Wright. To a far lesser but still significant degree, the unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers matters; as someone brought up the other day, if John McCain's political career had been launched in the home of an abortion clinic bomber who was not sorry he did it, there's no question but that the media would have made a huge deal about it.

Stanley Kurtz wrote an excellent piece about what Obama's association with both men and their milieu reveals about the man who would be president. In short, it reveals that Obama is a by-the-books leftist who is rather comfortable moving among people who strike most Americans as radical. I anticipated that the Wright-Ayers stuff would be a significant part of this fall's election. I am troubled by what Obama's connection to these men says about the kind of man he is, and the way he would govern.

And yet, this week, with the economy in free fall -- the Down's down over 500 points as I write this -- and the economic crisis threatening to bring down the entire global finance system, and with McCain and Palin having run a crap campaign to this point ... well, I confess that I don't care much about Wright and Ayers at this point. If McCain and Palin are going to try to make this campaign about one or both of those fools, with the massive crisis now before us, a crisis unprecedented in the lifetimes of most Americans -- well, they deserve to lose, and lose badly. If banging on Wright and Ayers is the best conservatism has to offer at this critical moment, then it truly is intellectually bankrupt.

Comments (88)

Filed Under: Ayers, casting stones, Democrats, McCain, Obama, Palin, Republicans, Wright

Permalink Email This Add to:

Reformed Chicks BlabbingMonday October 6, 2008 @10:19am

Man bites dog story

By: Michele McGinty

We interrupt the public stoning of Sarah Palin to bring you this:

American Beauty star Bening tells Fox News: "We really want to hear her views ... She's obviously a very accomplished woman. I'm a Democrat, I'm a supporter of Barack Obama but she certainly deserves our respect."

(http://www.3news.co.nz/News/EntertainmentNews/Annette-Bening-defends-Sarah-Palin/tabid/418/articleID/74594/cat/55/Default.aspx">via)

And here's a blast from the past to put this all in perspective. Every presidential election cycle I turn my attention to something else because I can't stand the suspense and the MSM's droning on and on about how my candidate has lost the election. This year I can't do that because of the blog, so I have to weather the storm. McCain very well may lose this thing (it's really looking like it) but then again this election cycle has stumped the pundits throughout. Who would have thought Obama come from nowhere and unseat Hillary as the anointed candidate? Who would have thought McCain would be able to resurrect his campaign and gain the nomination? Who would have predicted he'd select a conservative and women and energize his base and some of the Hillary supporters? So, I'm not ready to write McCain off yet, despite the polls (though, I'm preparing myself for an Obama presidency).

(via)

Comments (32)

Filed Under: casting stones, celebrities, McCain, Palin, presidential election, Republicans, vice president, VP

Permalink Email This Add to:

Windows & DoorsMonday October 6, 2008 @10:00am

Who You Callin' a Maverick? Why the NY Times Should Apologize

By: Brad Hirschfield

There's that word again: maverick. Used in Thursday's Vice-Presidential debate, by Gov. Sarah Palin six times to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, who she described as "the consummate maverick." But where does the term come from and what does it mean?

According to John Schwartz' New York Times article, it's a name that belongs t0 a family with proud progressive political roots that date back to the 1600's in Boston, and to the 1800's in Texas, where the family now lives. And apparently one member of the Maverick family, Terralitta Maverick is pretty disgusted that John McCain and Sarah Palin keep referring to themselves as mavericks. But the joke is on her. And the Times should apologize to its readers for allowing this very interesting editorial to pass for news.

Turns out that Ms. Maverick's great-grandfather was a Texas rancher who refused to brand his cattle, and it became common practice to refer to all unbranded animals as mavericks. Now Terralitta is upset because she claims that McCain has violated the family tradition by appropriating the term even though he has branded himself a Republican.

"It's just incredible -- the nerve! -- to suggest that he's not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, 'Oh, my God, he said it again.' He's a Republican," she said. "He's branded."

And she is not?

» Continue Reading This Post

Comments (21)

Filed Under: bridging gaps, casting stones, john mccain, john schwartz, maverick, new york times, sarah palin, terralitta maverick, vice presidential debate, what's a maverick

Permalink Email This Add to: