Bloodthirsty Liberal

Half of Democrats want Obama challenged in 2010.

Sounds racist to me.

Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.

A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage, and his reelection bid is a long way off. But the findings underscore how disenchanted his party has grown heading into the congressional elections Tuesday.

The AP-KN poll has tracked a group of people and their views since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsuccessful faceoff against Obama for the 2008 nomination.

Those racist women….

Here’s why The Messiah is in trouble:

Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his reelection – essentially a tie.

Essentially a tie, eh? The Washpost calls that an essential tie??? What happened in November of 2008? Why, if memory serves, Barack Obama won in a landslide, winning roughly 53 percent of the votes. Words have slippery meanings, don’t they? Was it a landslide or was it a tie? Fifty-one percent is a tie and fifty-three is a landslide. Good to know.

Incidentally, that was a landslide, by my count. And a 51% win is also a landslide. So it looks like Obama has work to do, convincing the less moonbatty members of his coalition that he deserves a second term.

- Aggie

A picture is worth a thousand words:

From my favorite PUMA site, The Confluence, we get these thoughts:

For the past week, the media has been awash in stories about the incoming POTUS’ expensive tastes. We know he likes waffles, argugula, and $100 a pound ham, and that he shops at Whole Foods Markets, but that’s not the half of it. His obscenely expensive Inauguration celebration is going to cost about $170-$180 million.

What is Obama spending all that money on? According to ABC News,

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It’s the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

And then there is the party bill.

“We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more,” said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

Some of the biggest expenses were a Bruce Springsteen concert (cost unknown) and $700,000 to keep the Smithsonian open late, God only knows why. And who is going to pay for all this extravagant partying? With the U.S. in an economic crisis that may turn out to be worse than the Great Depression, Obama has seen fit not only to spend stunning amounts of money on a party for himself, but also to collect that money from wealthy donors, most of whom contributed $50,000 each.

I almost forgot my favorite part. This is from an Australian newspaper.

Newspapers and blogs are starting to bristle with stories that Washington is getting its pop and pizazz back.

City restaurateurs are beaming. “He had two martinis,” boasted a staffer at the Equinox restaurant, just across from the White House, where Obama and his wife, Michelle, dined with friends last Thursday. It was an early 45th birthday celebration for the next first lady….The president-elect chose salad greens with chablis poached apples and a watermelon radish as a first course. Michelle Obama had pan-fried Rappahannock oysters. And they both had grilled all-natural striploin steak for the main course.

As a young, glamorous couple known to delight in fine dining and healthy eating, their sophisticated tastes bear little relation to those of rural and working-class America, and that’s a danger for Obama.

Yep. And the Left is already excusing this by saying that no matter what happens, it is Bush’s fault. Obama can do no wrong. The Confluence is a left-wing site for sure, but they are feminists and really got burned by The One. I am a feminist but not a leftist and can only shake my head.

I want to thank Bloodthirsty Puppy for expressing everything that we all feel. The rest of us talk about vomiting on the rug; she did it.

- Aggie

College frat boys are the worst. Drunken, ill-behaved, smelly, hairy, horny—how do you women (and some men) stand it?

What’s that?

They’re not college frat boys?

The guy on the left … the one cupping Hillary Clinton’s breast on this cardboard cutout, that would be President-elect Obama’s chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau. He struck this rather intriguing pose at a party, and then, bummer for him, the photo got posted by a pal on Facebook.

Jon, I’m not even going to go after you for this, because it is just too easy. It is shooting fish in a barrel. My 1-month-old kid could look at this picture of you and say, if he could talk yet, “what a total idiot move.”

…

A Clinton spokesman described the photo as an example of just good-natured fun between former rival camps. The Post quotes Sen. Clinton’s adviser Philippe Reines as saying, quote, “Sen. Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon’s obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application.”

…

I’m sorry, but this is the same woman who, during the campaign, pointed to example after example of sexism directed at her saying that, quote, “It’s been deeply offensive to millions of women”?

Is this the same woman who pointed out the references to her cleavage or her cackle, the comments by certain pundits and the media?

The same woman who concluded, quote, “the remnants of sexism are alive and well” after someone at a rally shouted out “iron my shirt”?

She made a point of calling people out during the campaign, and for that, she became a hero to millions of women. But now, the campaign is over.

She is joining Team Obama, and, apparently, this photo of her likeness being groped by another key member of Obama’s team doesn’t bother her a bit. Just good-natured fun, or so her spokesman says.

…

Put another woman in that photo, just an average woman who supported you during the campaign. Have it be her image being degraded by a colleague of hers. Would you be OK with that?

No, she wouldn’t. But she’s okay with this because now Obama owes her even more. The State Department is going to be her private fiefdom over the next four years—probably the price of her support in the campaign. This picture just proves how smart she is—it’s like a big deposit in her political bank account—and how the Left just can’t help itself.

The Left believes by its nature it cannot be racist, sexist, anti-Semitic—anything but warm, loving, and generous. The facts? What are facts compared to feelings?

I am so angry about this I can hardly breathe. Check out today’s NY Times.

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

This is the Profession of Journalism at its best.

And here we have an image from a youtube clip of “Martin Eisenstadt”.

Mr. Gorlin said they chose the name because “all the neocons in the Bush administration had Jewish last names and Christian first names.”

Where does the NY Times break this story? In the Entertainment section. It isn’t “news”. And how did they break the story? Why, one of their “reporters” was acquainted with the individuals involved in the hoax. And that is all you need to know about journalism today.

- Aggie

From a Boston columnist

1. He wants to tax working Americans back to the Stone Age. He lies when he says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You know it’s nonsense because they can’t keep their numbers straight from hour to hour. Obama claims everyone making under $250,000 is safe, or is it $200,000 (the infomercial) or $150,000 (Joe Biden)? On Friday, Gov. Bill Richardson cut it to $120,000.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. The fact is, the wealth-spreaders have vowed to do away with the Bush tax cuts. So everybody who pays any income taxes is going to take a hit. Plus, the friends of ACORN also plan to get rid of the cap on Social Security withholding taxes. That means everyone who makes over $102,700 will be slaughtered. I don’t have room to talk about capital gains.

Let’s think about this one for a moment. FICA, the social security and medicare taxes, are set at 15% of the first $102,000 and then they go away. The employer pays half, unless you happened to be self-employed. In that case, you pay the whole thing. So, if the democrats erase the cap, that is an automatic 15% tax increase on all money earned over $102,000. There will also be the tax increase from allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. And there will be the tax increase on the “rich”, defined somewhere between $120,000 and 250,000. So, how big will these tax increases actually be? More than 15%, less than 30%? Maybe. Maybe more. Nobody knows because Congress writes the laws. And that means Pelosi and Reid.

He has four other terrific and amusing reasons. The courts, the snottiness of the Obamabots, etc. Read it all.

I borrowed this picture from my favorite PUMA site because it explains my feelings towards Obama and a picture is worth a thousand words.

- Aggie

Sarah Palin rocks

She is on stage with two women who helped write the Democratic Party Platform this year, one former governor, one former President of NOW, discussing little things like the fact that Obama pays his female staff 17% less than his male staff. She wonders why women have had the vote for 88 years, but have appeared on a major party ticket only twice. And especially how it is that Hillary got passed over for a promotion. She is just terrific.

Oh, one person at the PUMA site answered Sarah Palin’s question:

Well Sarah,
The Democratic Party felt they needed to select a candidate who was a pathological liar, meglomaniac sleaze factory, demagogue, shit head, dirty Chicago politician because they wanted to make the world a better place.

- Aggie

I get why Barack Obama appeals to women—him practically being one himself (unfair! unfunny!)—but thank God one particular woman is able to resist his charms:

“Our opponents think that they have the women’s vote all locked up, which is a little presumptuous,” Palin said. “Little presumptuous, since only our side has a woman on the ticket.”

“You’ve got to ask yourself, why was Senator Hillary Clinton not even vetted by the Obama campaign? Why did it take 24 years, an entire generation from the time Geraldine Ferraro made her pioneering bid, until the next time that a woman was asked to join a national ticket?”

…

“Women want the same opportunities as men,” she said. “And they’re entitled to the same rewards. See, the point here, the point here is that women would suffer just as much from the massive tax increase that Senator Obama proposes.”

Palin knocked Obama for supporting equal pay on the campaign trail while paying his female senate staffers, on average, lower salaries than the men in his office. Female staffers in Obama’s Senate office earn 83 cents to every dollar earned by male staffers, while McCain’s female Senate staffers, on average, earn more.

“Does he think that the women aren’t working as hard?,” Palin asked. “Does he think that they are 17 percent less productive?”

CNN helpfully intercedes here to explain that Obama doesn’t pay his women less; it’s just that they work in more menial jobs than the men. McCain, on the other hand, employs women in higher responsibility jobs—so they earn more than Obama’s cleaning ladies and charwomen.

Which is kind of the point, isn’t it fellas?

Hey, we’ll know soon enough whether sufficient numbers of women are buying “Obama’s Magic Elixir, 100% Guaranteed to Bring Hope and Change, and Increase Your Bust Size—Millions of Women (and Men!) Satisfied.”

I just wonder how many will regret it in the morning?

Another fascinating post from my favorite PUMA site, The Confluence

She’s discussing the tactics that Obama used to end up where he is today, and what they mean for our nation:

They must be delighted that they are about to reap the benefits of the DNC pitting women against African-Americans as well, not to mention the Whole Foods Nation against the working class. But one thing we can be sure of is that after this election, the Democratic party will never be the same. Our eyes have been opened. Those of us in the Obama demographic who are women who voted for Hillary will have a hard time believing that the party has any interest in our issues. The misogynism that was allowed to be unleashed by Obama’s campaign will haunt us for generations to come if he and the DNC are not held accountable. If the most powerful woman in the nation can be taken out by a bunch of thugs, what is to stop businesses around the country from discriminating against us? What will happen to women who compete with men for jobs? What will happen to women on maternity leave coming back to work? What will happen to women suffering from domestic violence? If Obama is president, no one will be held accountable for the treatment meted out by testosterone poisoned men who have been given the green light to take what they want.

I recently spoke to a moderate Republican at a wedding who said that he thought that the reason we ended up with Obama was because the Democratic party had come together at the convention in the name of party unity. I had to dispel that notion. No, what actually happened was that the Democratic party took a little more than half of its pie and threw it away. It suppressed us and called it unity. But no unity can exist when no attempt is made to acknowledge or honor our will. Even today, 17 days before the election, the Democratic nominee has made no attempt to reach out to us and the antics of his supporters continue to push us away.

We do have other places to go. In fact, it is our obligation for us to do something other than acquiesce. As Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ If we allow ourselves to be divided, with the Whole Foods Nation in their triumph cutting the poor, working class, minorities, elderly and women out of the process to become second class citizens, we give our permission to further acts of degradation. We create a permanent underclass. And this underclass may never again have enough wherewithal to achieve adequate representation in government to achieve its goals.

Actually, it is all quite interesting. To Obama, the PUMAs are merely bitter clingers. The polls indicate that they will fall in line and vote for the Messiah on election. What a sad moment that will be for these men and women who have really thought about this, from their own perspective, and then capitulated at the end. Let’s HOPE it doesn’t happen
- Aggie

watch this 30 second spot

Terrific.

- Aggie

Why a vote against Barry proves you’re a racist and other nonsense

New Obama ad

Below, a taste of the explanation.

I have been racking my brain, and I honestly cannot come up with any way that the DNC could have screwed America any more than by nominating Barack Obama this year. The reason? He is the most cartoonish exaggeration of a far-left liberal that has ever run for President. And the rightwing narratives against liberals are all being confirmed by everything he does and says. To wit:

Liberals hate America.

Does Obama really seem like a guy who is positive about America as a country? Do I really need to go into all the statements by his wife, his associates (Wright and Ayers) and himself? There is a way to present solutions to our problems without sounding like you think America sucks. Hillary was great at it – she used the word “potential” all the time. That is why she got the Clinton Dem vote and Obama didn’t.

Liberals want to suppress free speech.

I used to think the rightwingers were crazy for saying this. But along comes Obama, whose operatives and supporters infiltrate the entire fauxgressive blogosphere and create a No-Tolerance atmosphere for anyone supporting Hillary. He bans the usage of signs at several of his campaign appearances. He and his enablers at the DNC silence the voters of Michigan and Florida by invalidating their elections, despite the fact that doing so invalidates the DNC’s own rules. He calls for a “civilian security force” as big as the current military. He creates a “Truth Squad” that threatens to use law enforcement to crack down on “lying” political ads. (The law enforcement officials involved have been forced to back off their original, incendiary statements.)

Go to the link. They have figured out that the Left really does hate America and they are shocked.

- Aggie

An African American woman explains why she is going to vote for McCain

Very funny in parts. After you listen to her, I think that you’ll agree with me that she doesn’t plan to vote for Barack Obama.

I’m pretty sure about that.

- Aggie

He pays his female staffers roughly 25% less than males in similar positions

Why am I not surprised?

Barack Obama is doing his best to demonstrate his fiscal responsibility in keeping down wasteful spending: Pay female staff members less than their male counterparts!

If you listen to Barack Obama’s speeches, he waxes poetical about equality for women in all areas. He pauses for dramatic effect as he tells you how he wants his two daughters to have the same opportunities as our sons. One Obama campaign ad takes a swipe at John McCain, saying, “Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy.”

The truth? It’s Obama who doesn’t get it. Or he does get it, and just doesn’t care: While Obama complains that women in America are paid only 77 cents for every dollar men make in the same positions, he only pays his female staff members 78% of what he pays male staff members in comparable positions.

So which are you, Obama, the pot or the kettle? Some people talk the talk… and nothing more.

Meanwhile, female staffers on John McCain’s staff earn an average of 24% more than women in comparable posts on Obama’s staff. Some people walk the walk… and THAT’S what’s needed if women want to be valued as equals.

I guess you could say Barack Obama pays his female staff members in “pocket change they can believe in.”

He is so full of it.

- Aggie