Sunday, September 14, 2008

There's something perversely funny......

About Raising Kaine, or any left-winger, actually quoting Karl Rove.

Of course, in the RK case, they actually lie about what Karl Rove said. (There's something simply perverse about lying in a post where you are trying to say someone else is lying).

See, Karl Rove and John McCain are not really that friendly, but the left loves to pretend Rove works for McCain. Of course, in 2000 the left loved to talk about how Rove treated McCain so badly, and how great McCain was and how bad Rove was).

So today, when Rove makes the perfectly rational observation (which I wish more pundits would make) that political advertising is going too far, that hardly seems like big news. But Raising Kaine somehow thinks that is the same as calling McCain a liar. Of course, Rove did say both campaigns went too far.

And Rove gave an example -- Obama falsely attacking McCain for being stuck in the 1980's technologically. Oddly, Rove did not provide any specific examples of McCain lying about Obama. And he didn't give a specific example of where McCain went too far, but I think the whole "lipstick on a pig" would be a great example.

The media is going to work for the Democrats. So the Democrats can make up things about Republicans, and will only get called on it when they are so out to lunch that it offends the sensibilities -- like the whole "Trig is Bristol's child" story.

But the media loves to jump on anything a Republican does wrong -- so Republicans DO have to be better, and we should be. There was no reason for McCain to push the "Obama is insensitive to women. Hillary Clinton's supporters are doing a great job of it, and everybody who wanted to believe Obama's "pig" was Palin already believed it.

The rest of of knew that Obama was calling Palin "lipstick", meaning she was just a pretty face, not to be taken seriously. Which itself would have been a great message, but not after you tried to pretend he called her a pig.

So, which is worse. Obama lying about Palin when he failed to note she had been a Governor (thus misleading people into thinking she was simply a former mayor), or McCain saying Obama called Palin a pig? I don't know.

But I do know that when the liberal democrats start lying about what Karl Rove said in order to make their points, something has gone seriously wrong in liberal-land.


Anonymous said...

I have just instructed my minions in the press to report that John McCain believes that the American economy is fundamentally strong. We all know that the statement is a lie, but the liberal media is obliged to follow our instructions and print the stories, nevertheless.

Tomorrow, I'll tell them to report that McCain collaberated with the enemy while he was a POW and gave information that was damaging to other American military personnel. They will, as usual, run with my story.

Perhaps you should contact Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Bill O'Reilly and have them set the record straight.

Charles said...

I'm sorry, do you think there is something fundamentally weak about our economy?

I suppose you have been out of work and in a bread line for the past 8 years?

BTW, if we are going to start following the Obama Campaign's lead and quote HALF-SENTENCES, I'll start with Barack Obama: "My Muslim Faith".

I've never seen the media so in the tank for a candidate that they let the candidate get away with quoting half sentences from the opponent.

But you have to like McCain. The Obama campaign just spent millions of dollars arguing that McCain was tied to the Bush/Rove cabal.

And now McCain has them spending their own money to prove that McCain has nothing to do with Rove.

I'm wondering how many independents, having been told that Rove was secretly running the McCain campaign, will wonder why Obama now says Rove is attacking McCain for how that campaign is run.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, do you think there is something fundamentally weak about our economy?

1. Unsustainable deficit spending.

2. Heavy reliance upon borrowed funds from China.

3. Overinflated housing market, followed by dramatic crash, causing some 1,250,000 home foreclosures.

4. Heavy reliance upon foreign sources of oil.

5. Inability of American auto industry to compete in market.

6. Dramatic fluctuations in stock market, causing instability in investors' personal lives and creating uncertainty on the part of retirees.

7. Greater concentration of wealth in hands of fewer citizens.

8. Growing lack of confidence in financial services firms, such as banks, stock brokers and insurance companies.

How's that for a start?

Charles said...

Those are all issues. On many of those issues, McCain is on the right side, and Obama is not.

McCain has been vocal in his opposition to the free-mortgage policies instituted by Clinton and run through the Democratic-run Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac, which precipitated much of this "crisis".

But "fundamentally weak"? No.

Looking around the world, I don't see an economy I'd rather have. We have problems, but we can fix them.

We can solve our oil problem by developing new technologies, building nuclear plants, and drilling our oil. We have the ability, our economy is plenty strong enough to achieve this goal. Not weak.

China has our money because we have money. They had stuff. We bought their stuff. Frankly, if it turns out we did so with money we borrowed from them, that puts them in a precarious situation as well. In fact, the world economy teeters on the brink of disaster. And I bet there are few informed people in other countries who wouldn't rather be sitting in OUR economy during this troubled time. Not weak. Just troubled.

A world-class sprinter may have eaten too much, may have pulled a muscle, may have gotten too big for his britches, may have trained a little to little. but "Fundamentally weak"? no. Just needs work.

Our fundamental economy is strong. A vast number of our workers are actually working. Our wages are not declining, our economy actually grew even while our houses devalued.

The 1.25 million foreclosures is a difficult thing. But that's 1.25 million people who, if we hadn't screwed up, wouldn't have even OWNED a home, because they would not have qualified. Remember, people aren't in foreclosure because they all lost their money.

Some are, but most are in foreclosure because they never COULD afford the house they bought, but the forced lending laws gave them access to money anyway. So for a couple years these people got to live in a nice house, often with mortgage payments less than their rent. And now they go back to renting, and who loses? You and I, because of federal bailouts, and the people who lent them the money.

Bad? Sure.. Fundamentally weak? no way. My house is still worth almost twice what i paid for it in 1996. Anybody who could afford their mortgage suffers only because of a loss of principle in their house. FOr some, that's just a loss of "gains" that never were real, just part of the bubble. For those who bought high, it's difficult.

But not fundamentally weak.

Most people are not waking up tomorrow to bread lines. The market will drop some more, but at some point it will steady, and go up. We survived 9/11 because our economy, our people, are fundamentally STRONG.

But if Obama and Biden want to argue that America is fundamentally weak, I'm sure that's an argument McCain will love to have.

At the 9/11 forum, the questioners were INCREDULOUS that McCain would say we were an "exceptional" country. I don't know how Obama feels, but I believe in American Exceptionalism, I believe we are a strong country, not a weak country, and I believe that our economy will survive even this crisis of credit.

Malaise is for the Democrats. Morning in America is our motto.