MC Rove...OH MY GOD

I saw this clip on TV a few nights ago, and had almost convinced myself it was a dream until Marisol brought it back to reality, and I realized there was no getting away from it. It DID happen. I am not sure what the social event was (I can't be bothered trying to find out) but whatever it was, it was a major "faux pas". I mean come on here, there is no way this guy could EVER pull something like this off. It was SOOOO hard to watch and just made a very smart man’s legacy as joke. MC Rove…I really would love to know who thought this one up. On the flip side has Hip Hop/rap been around for so long that it is now main stream (I mean REALLY main stream)?? If the GOP is using it at parties, well kids it’s time to come up with something new.

Watch below, but I must caution, you can never un-see this. It will be burned in your mind forever.




Type rest of the post here
Read More......

The Enemy Within.

When I heard about and eventually and saw this I was absolutly shocked. Burning American flags and effigys of American soliders!!! WTF !!This is not Iran folks or Syria, but it could be. This happened in Portland Oregon. Although this does not represent all of the left wing views it certainly is a significant part of it and is growing in strength. We obviously need to pay more attention to the enemy within our own country. They are such pathetic individuals they have to hide their faces.


Type rest of the post here

Read More......

Hillary in Trouble??

Buried within a recent presidential-preference poll that asked voters who they would never vote for, an unexpectedly large number gave an emphatic thumbs-down to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.


It just warms my heart to read this stuff :)


A national poll of likely voters by independent pollster John Zogby found that nearly half (46 percent) said they couldn't vote for the former first lady under any circumstances. That is certainly a huge portion of the American electorate, which will no doubt feed growing doubts in her party about the New York senator's electability. But another number was even more disturbing to senior advisers in her campaign.

Zogby found that among likely Democratic voters, 18 percent said they "would never cast a vote in Clinton's favor."

That such a large percentage of overall voters would flatly express an aversion to electing her president was troubling enough to top Democratic officials. But that she appeared to be losing support within the base of her own party set off alarm bells among her high command


The 46 percent of overall voters "includes a significant number of Republicans, conservative-leaning independents, liberal anti-war people who don't trust her, plus those who don't like her for a number of reasons, including those who consider her polarizing or feel she can't win," Zogby told me last week.

"If there's 46 percent who say never, then there are the rest of the voters who can be drawn from. But when I see 33 percent who say they could never vote for Barack Obama or John Edwards, and even Al Gore has less than that, then there is a problem with her and her campaign," he said.

The 18 percent figure surprised Zogby. "That is nearly one in five Democrats. The parties are at parity, which means she's going to need 85 percent support among Democrats," he said. Losing 18 percent of the Democrats means she would fall short of the minimum support needed to clinch the presidency.

One Democratic pollster, Ed Sarpolus of Michigan's EPIC-MRA poll, said, "She's in a trouble zone."

"Typically, when a candidate loses more than 12 percent of the base, they tend to lose," he continued. "If it was 12 percent, I wouldn't be overly concerned. If it gets around 15 percent, there are enough Democrats who would hold their noses, cover their eyes and vote for Hillary on Election Day."

But beyond that number, should it continue to hold up, "it is very difficult to win," he said.

However, Zogby's poll also showed that 19 percent of the Democrats said they could never vote for Obama, her closest rival for the nomination, or for Edwards, both of whom are in the top tier.

But Clinton's problems appear to run deeper when you look at a voter and gender breakdown of the 46 percent who would never vote for her. Among men, for example, 51 percent said they would never vote for her, nor, surprisingly, would 42 percent of women," Zogby's March 7-9 poll reported

Read More......

Rudy for President?

As the pundits discuss the candidates from both parties, the big issue in Republican circles is that the candidates are not conservative enough. The problem with primaries is it invariably pushes candidates more to the extremes of their party than they would normally go. This in turn has the effect of marginalizing them come the general election. It is no stretch of the imagination that Bush is perceived to generally be too far right for the country at this time. This is mainly due to the war, but his spending would cause many liberals to blush. But my point here is the country is not ready to accept a candidate that is too far right. They certainly don't want some one too far left either but with things the way they are its more likely they could go further left than right. Of course should the war turn around all that would likely change. What conservatives need to realize here is that you can't have it you way all the time. I believe it is prudent at this time to back up a little. There are some signs of this in the grass roots, but they are uneasy about it and it bears watching. Pick you battles I say. It is important on many issues that conservatives retain the white house, most of which is the Supreme Court. Bush has been lucky to nominate what appear to be two solid conservatives (not the disaster of Souter that his father ended up with). There is a one judge majority in the conservative block, and the nomination of one more should solidify that slat for the next 20 years. Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court endures and that can have longer lasting effects. Giuliani is a moderate conservative, should he be elected he will always be right of center and his handlers will never let him stray far from that. He can be elected even in these trying times. Hopefully the grass roots can see that strategically this is the right thing to do and bite there lips. I am not endorsing him (yet) but the right needs to really take the temperature of the country and realize that it’s easier to take a lukewarm bath that a cold one. The alternative is Hilliary. God save us

Type rest of the post here

Read More......

Hillary 1984

Hmmm youtube, the new face of politics?? Very clever video and i do think it will open the flood gates. It is a brave new world.



Type rest of the post here

Read More......

To-the-Left Guest Blogger Alert!!!

In reply to your comments on the previous blog, I felt compelled to guest-blog some food-for-thought. I am neither 'White, Rich, or Elitist' - and I still thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the programming on NPR. To clarify, I am only speaking about National Public RADIO - not PBS television as I don't have TV.

Firstly, allow me to point out that they do not, as you insinuate, just cover 'opera and foreign films'. There are a variety of programs - again - not 24/7 bashing of right-wing conservatives - on the air: such as "Fresh Air" (a SPLENDID program), "Day to Day", "Talk of the Nation" and "World Cafe" (which covers music from all over the world.) Why just last week I sat in my car and CRIED hearing an interview with African-American bass singer who is releasing a CD of old slavery Spirituals. I am not black, I don't have slavery in my family history - but I can appreciate the pain and beauty and HOPE that resonated in his gorgeous, rich singing voice and eloquent answers to interviewer, Terry Gross. And just today they did a fine segment on Irish music and country music - neither of which I am too familiar with, but found enlightening. So, no: it's not just about a bunch of white-haired old people shoving opera down our throats.

I've also been engrossed by interviews with novelists, fine film makers and actors. I am not talking about Lindsay Lohan and the "American Pie" director-types. But award-winning and thought-provoking artists. It is fascinating and a wonderful learning tool to hear the thought-process of these artists talk about their crafts.

Or what about the perhaps life-changing findings heard on the "Health and Science" program. This week I sent a link to my sister who has an Autistic child about the ground-breaking findings of geneticist, Jonathon Sabat, that suggest that what triggers autism occurs long before birth.

I think one of the things I like best about NPR is the calm and eloquent presentation of their views in all their programming. I've watched Fox News and everyone is so irate and angry and pious all the time - even talking over the opposing-view guests to the point where everyone looks like fools and I've even seen you laugh, enjoying it! Passion is a good thing but when it turns to self-righteous anger and deliberate humiliation of the opposing view it really turns me off...

One last thing before the lions den opens up on me for publishing this: I am not even a complete liberal. In fact, I am registered as an Independent. I think that extremists on either side is unhealthy. But my point is that NPR is not simply a group of old, white, hippies. There is a lot to be learned about, just as I have the open-mind to sit through some FOX programs.

And if you are concerned about your tax dollars going to it, then might I suggest getting your bucks' worth and trying to listen to some of the programming - if not the News segments. I know for a fact, that you would find interesting the segments aired this week on your native Ireland (in lieu of St. Patty's Day). Give it a try before you denounce it.

So...Is that 'relevant' enough to be published?? :)

Read More......

What we all knew already..Media Bias

To most conservatives the idea of a media bias to the left is a no brainier. It is well known the many journalists are at best left of center and for the most part quite left. The New York Times is a classic example of being one step away from a certified liberal, secular progressive, propaganda machine. It is sad that we are at the point where journalism has lost most of its objectivity. This recent Zogby poll shows that most Americans believe just that, with two thirds believing the media swings left. and an astonishing 1 in 5 democrats believing this also. Fox news, I would agree leans right, they are they only Channel that does, and even then liberals are irate at its existence. What is the ratio of right to left 1:6? The liberal agenda is even bolstered with tax payer dollars heavily supplementing NPR. When the liberal crowd talks free speech I have to laugh. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy here??

Released: March 14, 2007
Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real

Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet/Zogby Poll shows American voters are skeptical political motivation may be behind blogs run by mainstream news organizations


The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well – 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn’t take political sides, a recent IPDI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.


The Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet is based at George Washington University in Washington D.C.


Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches. The survey, which focuses on perceptions of the “old” and “new” media, will be released today at the PoliticsOnline Conference 2007 at GWU. It is also featured in the March issue of Zogby’s Real America newsletter, now available on www.zogby.com.




Fritz Wenzel, Zogby’s Director of Communications, will also discuss with conference–goers the results of the first interactive survey to include video clips from presidential candidates. The video poll is the latest step in Zogby’s cutting–edge leadership in online polling, and revealed important respondent sentiment toward the candidates after viewing clips online of recent speeches and interviews. Zogby International’s Jonathan Zogby, Director of Domestic Business Development, has also published an article in the conference magazine about the emergence of Internet polling as an important survey research tool, particularly in light of the increasing difficulty of telephone polling.


The IPDI PoliticsOnline conference is one of the most important annual national conferences focusing on how the Internet has affected American politics.


While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a conservative bias. Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the left.


The Zogby Interactive survey of 1,757 likely voters nationwide was conducted Feb. 20-26, 2007, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.


As the influence of blogs has risen, mainstream news organizations have attempted to get in on the action by creating their own blogs to counter those run by private citizens and those not in the news business. But American voters remain skeptical of major news outlets diving in to the blog pool – 26% speculated that the reason news organizations are placing blogs on their Web sites is that “blogs give news organizations a chance to promote a political agenda they could not promote in their regular broadcasts, cablecasts, or publications.”

This month’s Zogby’s Real America newsletter also explores Americans’ divided views on how to fix the U.S. health care system – how the nation’s health care compares to other counties, whether Americans should seek a radical change and what type of health care system would benefit the most Americans.

For detailed methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
www.zogby.com

Read More......

Help Wanted-Apply within

I am toying with the idea of allowing other individuals to contribute writings on topics that interest them, and feel that a healthy debate is warranted. You certainly don’t need to be conservative and are more than welcome even if you are hoping for a Hillary presidency and listen to Air America.:) I think this would be a great way for other people to contribute some of their ideas with out having to manage an individual blog. As long as you are respectful to others views and are committed to healthy debate then I would welcome your participation. Basically I would give you access to post blogs when you feel you have a topic of interest. It does not necessarily need to be political in nature but it should be a valid topic. You get the picture.

Anyway, if interested contact me even if you think you would contribute only once in a while. You can even remain anonymous.


Type rest of the post here

Read More......

Fox news and Air America

I came across this article today regarding the attitudes of some people to Fox News. Just to be clear I watch Fox News a lot, and I am certainly not averse to watching other networks, and frequently do, but to see the reaction of others towards Fox is amazing. You can read the below article and see the point. Liberals are only tolerant of people with their views. Yes some conservative groups are not tolerant either, but its not like they try to sell them selves as such and therein lies the hypocrisy of the left. It also reminds me of a date I went on a few years ago. I was just having a quiet drink with someone and everything was fine until I mentioned I watched Fox News. The other person became absolutely irate. In addition she also tried to sell herself as really a moderate. Yeah right, so the date was over. I have met many people and have many friends who listen to NPR and other liberal leaning networks. I am pretty ideological on politics as you can imagine, but I don’t go nuts when someone mentions which news or opinion outlets they listen to. But then again I have to admit I do smirk a little when someone mentions Air America (are they still broadcasting??). So this brings me to my final point. Why have right leaning talk shows flourished all over the country, literally for decades as Air America flounders right out of the gate? Even with big money and big names to back it. Now I don’t want to sound mean here, but I think a really big reason Air America failed so miserably is largely demographics. People who vote conservative tend to be more sophisticated. Not that some liberals are not, BUT lets face it, a large portion of people who vote democrat do so because they want taken care of and are unable or uninterested in dealing or debating policy issues. If they did Air America would have made it. So to counter this threat of free speech, Democrats are now proposing legislation that any political view must be balanced. What does that mean?? If there is not an opposing view from the other side then they can’t say it( I must find the article on this) It’s a clear shot at shutting down the free speech of talk radio because the left is unable to compete in the arena of ideas.

I would be interested in hearing form someone who knows more about this than me.


Mar. 10, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!


Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

Advertisement




But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

Read More......

Ann Coulter!!!!

Well Ann put her foot in her mouth and indirectly called Edwards a “faggot”. I don’t know where she was going with this but as they say she fucked up. There is no other way to spin this. Not too many conservatives are pleased with her including myself. Apart from being a refreshingly cute alternative to the usual middle aged white conservative commentators and liberal battle axes she has taken a step down and probably will never fully recover. I have to hand it to her she was never one to back down during a debate and went toe to toe with some pretty forceful liberals. She had something to contribute but sadly that has been compromised. Edwards has many reasons to be shunned and criticized for his record, why did she have to pick this??. I can’t but help think that if Hillary and Barack eventually rip each other to pieces ( as you know if Hillary gets anymore vulnerable its going to get crazy and I am already buying my ringside tickets)that he just might be the last man standing. But to also be fair Ann has been called way worse and of course there is a double standard when a liberal versus a conservative is insulted. Bill Maher on HBO was mildly (if at all) criticized for his comments. This is a snippet of the dialogue
Frank earned applause when he quoted bloggers saying the bomb was wasted when it missed Cheney. Maher asked the panelists whether it was wrong for blog host Arianna Huffington to remove the comments.
Quoting the blog, Maher said, "I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow."
Asked by Frank if Maher believed that sentiment, the host replied, "I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact."
I don’t agree with both people. Ann put herself at the level of Maher.


Type rest of the post here

Read More......

Al I talk the talk but won't walk very far Gore

Well I certainly could not let this one slide by. Gore has been a champion for the green cause for quite some time, and as I said before I don’t begrudge him for that at all. But the guy is just so patronizing, sitting on his high horse, criticizing most of the population for their life style choices. The word Gore and the environment have been synomous for a long time and here is just a classic example of a person saying the right thing, but where reality is very much different. Of course how you live and not what you say is ultimately more important. Did they not teach you that in church Al? Below is a follow on story to the scandalous revelation of how much energy Gore consumes compared to most of the people on the planet, and as a direct comparison to G. W Bush. Nobody associates Bush and the environment together, but the reality is very much different. It’s just an example of somebody quietly living and doing the right thing, unlike Gore.

I love the last sentence “They always make an exception for themselves because what they're doing is so important." It sums up so much what the Clintons, Gore and many democrats stand for.

Enjoy

Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's


(CNSNews.com) - George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election.

Bush's "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, has been praised as "an eco-friendly haven" while the former vice-president's home in Nashville, Tennessee was criticized this week for heavy power consumption.

"In politics, people don't always practice what they preach," Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.

Bush has been criticized harshly by environmentalists for his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory cuts on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.

By contrast, Gore on Sunday won an Academy Award for his documentary focusing on the impact of climate change. He recently announced a series of music concerts on seven continents in July to drew further attention to the cause.

"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."

"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."

In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.

David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist, Wednesday criticized the analysis by the TCPR, which he described as an "attack group from Tennessee."

The center's report had been "thrown together purely for the purpose of attacking Al Gore after the Oscars," Roberts told Cybercast News Service.

It was unfair, he said, to compare Gore's electrical consumption to the national average, which "includes apartments and trailer homes and is an average across all climatic zones, some of which are quite temperate."

Gore and his wife, Tipper, "both work out of their house" and "have special security measures for an ex-vice president, all of which naturally increases the electricity use in the home," Roberts added.

Moreover, Gore "pays almost a 50 percent premium to buy the 'green power' offered from his electrical company," which generates its voltage from hydroelectric and nuclear power rather than coal, he said.

"If every national leader did as much as Al Gore does to ameliorate their impact on the climate, the world would be a much better place."

Nevertheless, Roberts conceded that the energy efficiency of the president's home in Crawford is "fantastic."

"I wish that George Bush would back public policy that is in line with what he does on his ranch," he said.

'Elitist'

Johnson of the TCPR defended his group's report against criticism from Gore's supporters.

He acknowledged that the information was obtained from the National Electric Service the day after Gore won his Oscar, but argued that "it is fair to compare Gore's [energy] use to what most Americans are used to."

"All of the niceties he may have and all the extra people he may have running in and out of his house still shouldn't mean that the person leading this environmental charge should have 20 times the electrical consumption of the average American," Johnson charged.

The CEI's Lewis said the disparity between Gore's message on global warming and his power consumption reflected an "elitist mentality."

"The average soccer mom can't afford to plant trees in the rainforest in order to remain carbon neutral," he said.

"All these jet-setters' lives consist of going to conferences in other countries by burning jet fuel and staying in posh hotels where they keep the lights on all day and so on in order to tut-tut about how wasteful the rest of us are in our use of energy," he stated.

"They always make an exception for themselves because what they're doing is so important."

Read More......