Infuriation nation

Posted by: ST on October 1, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Here are some things that have infuriated the heck out of me over the last week or so, in no particular order (warning: strong language ahead):

—– Even though McCain is keeping it close in some national polls, as I noted earlier the all-important swing states are turning towards Obama, and he is leading now in FL, OH, PA, and several other battlegrounds. In response to that, I think to myself, “WTF?” Jay Nordlinger expands here on a point I’ve been hinting around about the last couple of weeks as it relates to certain segments of voters and what they know and don’t know about Barack Obama.

It really makes you wonder: If the voters now leaning towards Obama thanks to his “performance” in the Friday debate knew more about his close association with an unrepentant domestic terrorist, his 20 year relationship with a black liberation theology pastor who hates whites and America, his race-card playing, his penchant for attempting to squelch speech he doesn’t like, the fact that he and members of his own party played a significant role in enabling the current economic crisis, who is not who/what he claims he is (more on that here), etc – would they really want to elect him as president? Or … do they know this and still think he’s suitable for the presidency? I have to think that either these voters don’t know all of the above or do know some are all of it and just think it’s all overhyped. I lean towards “don’t know all of the above” because I refuse to believe that a majority of the American people would knowingly vote for someone with the character and policy deficiencies I mentioned.

—– I blame the ignorance of those particular voters, in part, on the mainstream media. Yes, the information on Obama is there for all to see if one just takes the time to look it up, but the media have a duty and obligation to give the public the full story, not just their spin on the candidates. Since that’s where a lot of average voters get their knowledge on the candidates, it would make all the difference in the world if the media would stop taking their turns at bat on behalf of The One. I’m not holding my breath, tho.

—– Jay Cost gets to what I think is the heart of the matter on why McCain is taking a hit in the polls as it relates to the economy:

I think McCain has suffered a deterioration in his poll position for a simple reason: he’s the Republican. George W. Bush is the President of the United States. He is responsible for the state of the nation. He’s not held in good esteem right now, and he’s a Republican. From a public opinion perspective, it does not matter so much that the Democrats control Congress. The buck stops with Bush; Bush is a Republican; McCain is a Republican; McCain suffers.

Sadly, he’s right on the money. Obama and the Democrats are being credited for being able to fix an economy they helped run into the skids, while McCain and other Republicans are sliding in swing state polling even though it was Republicans – including Bush himself – who took a stand on this issue before it became the “popular” thing to do. They say ignorance is “bliss,” but I think it’s dangerous – especially in this day and time.

—– Negativity schmegativity: I’m supposed to throw in the towel because Gov. Palin can’t wow Katie Couric? Here’s a memo to the nailbiters and handwringers: I like Gov. Palin specifically because she’s a plainspoken woman who is at her best when she is talking directly to the people. The fact that she’s not justified herself to a hostile mainstream press/liberal punditocracy who would still dis her as a podunk hick with an accent (ever notice how the MSM emphasizes her accent in their reporting?) even if she could rattle of the names of the leaders of Obscure Country Island makes me like her all the more. Do I wish she could handle herself a little better in front of the mediots? Yeah, I wouldn’t mind, but it’s certainly not a disqualifier that she communicates better when she’s speaking directly to average Joes.

—– As the Senate prepares to vote on the bailout bill, let me just say this: I am sick and tired of seeing Senator Dodd try to take a leadership position on this issue when he was one of the main culprits who helped us get into this mess in the first place. Furthermore, I’m even sicker and more tired of the Republicans in the Senate who are heaping praise on this windbag! People say “now is not the time to lay blame”? Like hell it’s not! Tell that to Barack Obama and his campaign, who have spent the last several weeks blaming the world’s ills – including our economy – on John McCain and the Republicans in Congress and, of course, W. I’m tired of Republicans being blamed for everything … and I’m especially tired of casual voters automatically believing it just because The Media Says So.

—– What a surprise: Gwen Ifill plays the race card in response to questions about whether or not she can be impartial at tomorrow night’s debate. Four words: Get a clue, lady.

—– Here we go again I: The far left continues its McCain Senility Watch.

—– Here we go again II: PDS gets even more disgusting.

Feel free to add to the list. I may do so later tonight.

Update – 9:15 PM: Here’s another infuriating fact: How Obama is getting away with questionable under-$200 donations. Where the flip is the mainstream media on this issue?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 Responses to “Infuriation nation”

Comments

  1. Steven W. says:

    The McCain / Palin campaign is not helping themselves, though. sheparding the bailout bill instead of calling it for what it is and getting a good bill through rather than letting Obama stand by and take credit. The comparisons in mind here are Bush #41 + Quayle vs. Dukakis and 4 years later vs. Clinton / Gore. In 1988 many of the same principles applied as do today and there was – it’s hard to remember how bad – Reagan fatigue amongst the masses. But GHWB took it to Dukakis – brutally, endlessly. Then, four years later, they behaved much like McCain team is this year and yet nearly still won if it weren’t for Perot (Clinton never received a majority vote in either 92/96 election).

  2. Great White Rat says:

    Regarding Obama’s fishy campaign donations from overseas, notice this line from the item ST linked above:

    Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

    When the Clintonistas can truthfully say they’re more ethical than the Dalai Bama’s cultists, you know there’s a problem. You wanna know where the MSM crowd is on this? Competing to see who has a bigger thrill up their leg, that’s where.

  3. Joe says:

    I predict the media will hold Obama under increasing scrutiny-AFTER the election. In 1996, the media did actually publicize Clinton fundraising scandals within a month of the election, but it was too little, too late for Bob Dole. They are desperate to elect Obama, and if the latest poll numbers are any indication, they will once again succeed, just as Howard Beale said. Yes, I blame the media for dereliction of duty, but I also blame ignorant, and in some cases just plain stupid, voters for thinking that Obama can save the economy, even though he has demonstrated no ability to do so. I also blame voters for thinking that it’s the only thing that matters (anyone remember a thing called 9/11 ?). And furthermore, two words: Supreme Court. If McCain really wants to win, he’d better make that an issue.

  4. Brian says:

    Oh, they’ll scrutinize Obama for the first six months or so, just to try and re-establish some kind of credibility. They did the same thing with Clinton when he took office in ’92. They tore him a new one for his first six months or so, just so they could prove how “unbiased” they were.

    Of course, they then started building him right back up again, esp. after the 1994 mid-terms. They’ll do the same with the Obamessiah, trust me.

  5. omapian says:

    Tonight’s debate has the POTENTIAL to be a fair indicator of public outrage. McCain- Palin draw well while campaigning together. Obama – McCain debate did not draw a record number of viewers, despite all the hype. If the Biden – Palin debate draws a record number of viewers, one may conclude Governor Palin has greater appeal than any of the three members of the Senate who embraced political correctness and ignored the truth.
    Don’t expect the MSM to offer this analysis- they are too busy advancing their own agenda – advancing socialism. When the American people voiced their outrage to their representatives, the advocates for change simply shifted focus from protecting Wall Street to protecting Main Street. Putting lipstick on the bailout, doesn’t change the fact it is still a bailout.

  6. Leslie says:

    The reasons why none of the issues that Nostra Blogatora Suprema has laid out so cogently resonate with the public are many. I’ll touch on only a few here.

    First of all, as I’ve been saying for some time, this election isn’t my base can beat your base (and of course the Obamabase careth not a fig about the issues ST raised here), but an appeal to the center.

    And as always, it’s the economy stupid. And the Republican administration is getting the blame. This always happens. The arguments that the Democrats are as responsible for this fine mess may be so, but the center doesn’t want to hear it.

    And with the economy topping everything, the center doesn’t want to hear about Rev. Wright, or Ayers, or the daily cascade of right wing talking points generated by what the left calls (and not entirely without justice) “the right wing noise machine.” (The right really, really needs to get out of the bubble and look around.)

    Anyway, this is what the center is saying: “We know; we don’t care about the past. Obama’s not an old fool like Wright or Ayers. This is about now!”

    And then there’s McCain. He foolishly did his big imitation of a would-be superhero who thought he was going to parachute (yes, I know that is an MSM word, but it’s apt)in to Washington and umm, bail us out of our economics woes.

    That worked well, didn’t it?

    Anyway, at this point it appears that if Obama is elected he’ll get to the White House on the merits, not because of some vast MSM conspiracy.

    But who knows what fresh hells are around the bend?

    :-?

  7. Great White Rat says:

    Leslie, most of what you’re saying here rings true. Absent another national security crisis – and by that I mean something on the 9/11 scale or worse – the average swing voter’s attention will be fixed on the financial problems and how it might affect his wallet. And as long as Bush is president, he, and by extension the GOP, will be blamed, and the fact that this whole mess is largely due to Democrat social engineering schemes will be just so much background noise. To that extent, I think your analysis is sound.

    Here’s where I take issue with you:

    And with the economy topping everything, the center doesn’t want to hear about Rev. Wright, or Ayers, or the daily cascade of right wing talking points generated by what the left calls (and not entirely without justice) “the right wing noise machine.” (The right really, really needs to get out of the bubble and look around.)

    The American experiment is built on limited government, respect for freedom, and good old-fashioned capitalism. It’s the most profoundly successful experiment in the history of mankind. It has withstood far, far greater tests over the last 232 years – think Civil War and the Great Depression, just to name two that dwarf the current financial mess in scope and danger. The centrist voter you’re describing isn’t using that frame of reference. He’s thinking no further than whether his next paycheck drawn on First National Subprime Bank will clear.

    But many of us on the right do focus on the long term, and nothing is more important to us than preserving the foundation of what makes this country the envy of the world (hint: it ain’t bailing out subprime mortgages).

    We see a strong likelihood that the next president will be someone who happily goes along with racists who want America destroyed and is totally comfortable cooperating with terrorists who think they didn’t plant enough bombs in their youth.

    We see every America-hating despot and terror group around the world gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation of what they’ll be able to get away with once he’s in office. Almost all of them have already given him their endorsement. Significantly, he’s repudiated none of these.

    We see his followers lining up to commit unparalleled vote fraud in Ohio, sue anyone who dares to air a public protest in Missouri, and program their children to sing a modern day version of “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” in California.

    In short, we see our likely next president as someone whose every political thought from his earliest years has been opposed to those principles – limited government, individual freedom, capitalism – that have made us the richest, strongest, and most dynamic nation in history.

    And it scares the hell out of us. The idea of an administration that would make the Clinton gang appear ethical and selfless should scare you too, unless you’ve become so jaded by the rampant partisanship in DC that you’re no longer capable of being shocked.

    So our only recourse is to speak, as often as possible, and as loudly as possible, in the hope that enough of those centrists heed the message. Call it a “noise machine” if you want. Sometimes you need to make noise. Sometimes it’s even irresponsible to hold your tongue. I’m glad Thomas Jefferson made noise. I’m glad John Adams made noise. I’m glad Patrick Henry didn’t stop declaring his “talking points” about choosing between liberty and death. I’m very glad that Paul Revere – a noise machine if there ever was one – didn’t stop in the middle of his ride and say “Wait, I need to get out of my bubble and look around. Maybe the threat from the redcoats isn’t all that important. I have bills to pay.”

    Of course, if the media were paying attention, the conservative blogosphere wouldn’t need to stay on this. But you and I both know that has zero chance of happening in the next five weeks. So while ST and others continue to sound the alarm, I support them. If the kind of misgovernment Obama promises comes to pass, no one can look at ST and say, “You didn’t warn us.”

    Also, you say this:

    it appears that if Obama is elected he’ll get to the White House on the merits, not because of some vast MSM conspiracy.

    I know you’re level-headed, not some loon who’s on loan from dKos, so I’m wondering what you mean by “on the merits”. Surely you can’t mean because of better plans or ideas. If you mean because of a better campaign, then I’d concur in part.

  8. Leslie says:

    GWR,

    Thank you for your thoughtful response (and for calling me level-headed–a great compliment from you). I prefer to let what I said originally speak for itself, and let it go at that. But let me make clear that, yes, by “on the merits” I am talking about running a better campaign.

    :)