-
Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment
May 22, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Obama’s Far Left Hand
May 15, 2013 | 133 comments
-
The Left’s Captive Mind
May 8, 2013 | 85 comments
-
A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian
May 1, 2013 | 291 comments
-
The Price of Obama’s Islamophilia
April 24, 2013 | 196 comments
Political Hay
The Day After
D.C. celebrates “the end of an error” and the beginning of a new one.
“This is the network of the 21st century,” declared MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. “This is the network that has opened its heart to change.”
Matthews’ declaration of high and redemptive purpose didn’t stop him from referring to the departing Bushes as the “Romanoffs,” the last members of which were shot and bayoneted by Bolsheviks.
The broadcasting slobber of MSNBC was something to behold. As George Bush Senior hobbled into the inaugural celebration, Matthews shared that it was “the first time I have seen him looking so old.” As a grim-faced Rosalynn Carter entered it, Matthews resorted to flat-out heckling: “Come on, Rosalynn, smile.”
Meanwhile, Matthews’ colleagues, gazing at George Bush Senior, mused over Jeb Bush’s future. “It is the family business,” Rachel Maddow chipped in. “There is no more Arbusto.”
Dick Cheney, reduced to a wheelchair after throwing out his back, was a metaphor for the “lowness” of the Bush presidency, said Matthews. I’m surprised the trio — Matthews, Maddox, and Keith Olbermann — didn’t refer to the wheelchair-bound Cheney as Mr. Potter.
Not long after this cheap gibbering, a “hey, hey, goodbye” chant could be heard as George Bush Jr. walked onto the inaugural stage. Olbermann and others thought that inappropriate and then fell into a possibly guilty silence.
On Tuesday, D.C. celebrated the “end of an error” and the beginning of a new one. The media strained hard to define the epoch-making significance of it at all. Were Barack Obama a black conservative, it is hard to imagine the same level of enthusiasm, or any at all. Was Clarence Thomas a “step forward for humanity” in their estimation? Had any of the black Republican presidential candidates of the past ever won, they would have been dismayed.
The media purred over Obama’s summons to a new “era of responsibility.” But responsibility implies an objective truth to which one must respond. Under liberalism, no such truth exists; right and wrong are subjective. Hence no need to be responsible to anything outside of oneself.
This is the era of irresponsibility and it won’t be ending anytime soon. The relativism that underpins it has never been more well-fortified. If responding to something “greater than oneself” means anything, it means accepting the Democratic agenda. In the coming days, “sacrifice,” as one pundit approvingly put it, will mean accepting reduced Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Under Obama’s liberalism, “progress” is largely defined by irresponsibility: not by a more perfect application of the natural moral law but by a blithe and proud independence from it. Old injustices are replaced by newer and more ambitious ones.
Over the inaugural weekend, Obama spoke more accurately than he realized when he called for a “new” Declaration of Independence. If the old one rested on objective morality, the new one rests on its disappearance. It is that independence which makes abortion and gay marriage liberalism’s chief marks of progress.
In his invocation, Rick Warren said that history is God’s story. Not anymore. It is man’s; he calls the shots. Modern liberalism is an emancipation proclamation from God. After all, man is independent enough from God to kill unborn babies, and with gay marriage modern man happily puts asunder what God has joined together.
Obama made reference to the “blood” shed during previous generations. What about ours? It is bathed in blood. He spoke of hope, but what true hope exists in a nation if a person can’t be born into it without an attempt on his life?
The moral philosophy behind his eloquent words render them at best meaningless, at worst menacing: “peace” and “freedom” grow atop graves of the unborn, “rights” devour each other, and “unity” derives from the rejection of one truth.
Even what is good in his election is imperiled by the relativism beneath it. The concept of civil rights is itself a reflection of the natural moral law. But if no such law exists, what is to prevent a return to racial injustice? America doesn’t need a “new” Declaration of Independence,” but deeper respect for the old one, which in its grounding in God provides the only immutable index of hope.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (103) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/21/the-day-after
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jason | 1.21.09 @ 7:00AM
This is the beginning of a new age, the age of self-righteous moral slobs.
http://www.rightklik.net/
Bill| 1.21.09 @ 7:11AM
Just want to add a Amen to your thoughts.
Michigan-Matt| 1.21.09 @ 7:34AM
Chris Matthews is such a self-serving political hack and snake oil salesman, he'd put his former boss and mentor, TipTenTonONeill to shame.
Matthews "commentary" yesterday proved he belongs in the US Senate. It's the perfect venue for these types.
WilliamInWien| 1.21.09 @ 7:37AM
When Tim Russert passed away, a common praise for the man from all sorts of "newsmen" was his professionalism, his preparedness and his demeanor. I wodered at the time about these praises, why did not other s adopt the Russert "method"? Maybe they will teach about Russert in journalism school, but I do not see any coming increase in civility, with or without Mr. Obama as president.
John| 1.21.09 @ 7:47AM
The Left controls the mass media; not just news, but movies, fiction, non-fiction, television, and music. It controls the schools. It also controls the bureaucracy.
History is re-written to suit. Current events are edited and often presented to be the opposite of what they are.
My 15 year old son, who loves history and reads voraciously, gave himself a challenge this past summer.
During the run up to the party conventions he had completed his self-assignment and was prepared to talk about it with me.
I asked him what happened in the books.
"Dad, in the end the pigs ruled, and Winston Smith gave up."
I asked him what message he should take from those endings....
He cataloged a list of things about various things, and then said...
"I guess that the pigs were always going to rule, and Smith was doomed to be a serf, like everyone else."
A new college degree in Newspeak would not be a surprise at this time.
Cheery day to you all... :-/
John
It therefore
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 7:59AM
So, George, this is what you said:
"Under Obama's liberalism, "progress" is largely defined by irresponsibility"
How can you be more irresponsible than George Bush? You are funny... And moral relativism is clearly more responsible than religious absolutism since the former actually recognizes the validity of the beliefs of others and the latter wishes to convert the world with absolutely no respect.
Keep your religious extremism out of the public square -- please...
P. Aaron| 1.21.09 @ 8:12AM
Bob, why don't you leave this site? We are here because we enjoy the OPINION posted here. I don't go to the KOS or HUFF-PO and crank on them. So butt out!
To Neumayr: I say "10-04 good buddy".
John| 1.21.09 @ 8:17AM
Ah to be declared an "unperson".
What a wonderful way to display the liberal method of debate.... Call someone a name or label him as something antithetical to the current order, and dismiss him from the conversation for holding an actual principled epistemology.
Hate is Love
Peace is War
Or is that Love is hate and war, peace? No matter the relationships are changed as the need suits.
Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman....
John
Steve| 1.21.09 @ 8:19AM
Hello, Bob, my naive friend and believer in government of the "better sorts" (if I recall correctly a post of yours from days gone by).
Here's how moral relativism works with the Left, Bob: if they are out of power, then political/economic things are relative. Once in power, however, their political/economic beliefs become religious absolutism (certain political/economic beliefs being the religion of the Left). Your faith in the reasonableness of the Left is touchingly humorous and horrifyingly misplaced. Let's stand back and watch the train wreck together.
frost| 1.21.09 @ 8:36AM
Keith, Rachel and Cris? Who watches that silly excuse for a "network?" Or maybe it's part of George's job description, a duty to perform?
That said, almost as might be expected, George gets in a little dig about abortion and gay crap... Have no idea why, unless he was again establishing his credentials - - seemed quite unnecessary. Blasting the aforementioned three nutcases was sufficient.
Brian| 1.21.09 @ 8:51AM
"This is the beginning of a new age, the age of self-righteous moral slobs."
Absolutely. The SUV is beezlebub and the cult of global warming is the religion.
These people are grimmer than a Calvinist when they get on their rants about gay marriage.
These libs were insufferable bores prior to the election, now they'll really be on a mission.
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 8:56AM
Steve, you are an example of religious absolutism -- there is good and evil and right and wrong and nothing is questionable.
I just don't see the world that way. I see a range of morality. There are so many issues that require discussion and debate, even within highly religious people. A few Christian sects believe that gay marriage is fine and right. Who is right? It depends upon who is speaking.
You may be surprised, but I agree that the absolutists of the left are as unreasonable as the absolutists on the right. Yes, I have faith in reason because that is truly a universal language. The reality is that most progress is made in the big middle ground where the great bulk of our population stands.
Isn't it ironic that the best example of family we have at the top is Obama -- a Democrat? He has certainly been far more moral in his marriage, raising his kids, etc., than McCain and Palin. Hmmmm....
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 9:25AM
Blow Bob, get lost and screwed elsewhere. Have a job. And have a shower, too, please! You have no faith in reason beacause you're a liberal from the Babble Belt and we don't have to debate with you or your... partners (yeach!) We despise you and we won't even bury you.
Sometimes it takes a leftist piece of shit to publish the truth
http://img21.xooimage.com/files/2/f/e/obama-new-yorker-4ddb2c.jpg
Man, they were pissed!
Pete| 1.21.09 @ 9:44AM
Bob, absolutists correctly believe that truth only exists when the mind of man agrees with reality. The Right thinks the Left's perception of reality is unenlightened and wrong, while the Left thinks the Right's perceptions are evil and must be silenced, but "you people" who believe in "a range of morality" are lost in a nightmare of ambiguity. For instance, your twisted morality posits that Sarah Palin and her daughter should have aborted their pregnancies to be as "progressive" as the icons you worship.
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 9:57AM
All you need to know about Bob is that he speaks out in favor of moral relativism like a good commie. Take a look at societies that were told to believe that and you have the most miserable people that have ever lived on the face of the earth. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro etc all did not believe in right or wrong, just the power of the State in controlling their subjects lives with no individual dignity whatsoever. How did the French revolution turn out when the leaders of it decided there was no God only reason? An orgy of blood, intolerance, repression and hatred of fellow man which will always be the end result of any society that completely rejects God and standards of right and wrong.
You are pathetic Bob, take your moral relativism somewhere else.
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 10:03AM
Seriously guys, let's get the trio of jerks (Matthews, Maddox, and Keith Olbermann) fired once and for all. We just have to Email the corporations fat cats who advertise on their shows, that we'll never by anything advertised or endorsed by these punks.
Have you slapped a liberal today?
oldschorz| 1.21.09 @ 10:19AM
Another frightening phrase in the speech was the reference to science, which basically accepted the whole junk science agenda of the left. Now that is scary.
The MSNBC three stooges and the piles of trash left on the mall by the slobbering Obamaniacs are unfortunately apt metaphors of what we can expect for the next 4 years.
Jean-Robert Gourmond| 1.21.09 @ 10:20AM
as a frenchman who happens to read this blog, let me tell you with all due respect,because i know this is no ne of my business, that we just donot know why America committed suicide last November. french are known to elect clowns,crooks,loonies because we donot take politics seriously enough,but you Americans why??Our own msm made us vote for the ultimate megalomaniac crook: nicolas sarkozy, who gave everybody hope for change.alas Nicoleon as we call him now did just shortchange us.you got the same kind of président, a lawyer from an immigrant promuslim background with overconfidence in government.at least you can vote him out in 2012,not us because he owns the press and the média.next time be more careful who you vote for!May God bless you all!
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 10:53AM
Pete, I never talked about a Palin abortion -- but Obama has never aborted a child either. Palin became pregnant prior to marriage just like her daughter. Is that moral?
Let me give you an example of "relativism". Some say Libby should be pardoned because he didn't commit the original crime and therefore his lies under oath were irrelevant. Some say that if you lie under oath it undermines our legal system. We know for a fact that he did, indeed, lie. This is an example of moral relativism.
But then again, since you can't seem to understand reason and logic, you wouldn't understand this either.
MIX396| 1.21.09 @ 10:56AM
It will be only a matter of days until all "irresponsible" gun owners will have to start registering, of course, for the children's sake.
Growing up with guns I certainly never went around shooting others. Hmmm, maybe morals had something to do with it?
Once the Chris Matthews types get God removed completely from our country, They themselves, will become godlike. (in their minds anyway)
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 11:21AM
You may be well schooled in the art of sophistry Bob but you don't fool anyone on this site. Yeah, that Scooter Libby is a real threat to society not like Marc Rich and the terrorists pardoned by Bill Clinton with the approval of our new AG Holder.
How exactly do you know how moral Obama is? This is a guy that had no problem getting high all the time in his high school and college years with assorted drugs yet you tell us he is some great moral example. Only because the bar is set so low for Democratic Presidents for moral standards like JFK and Bill Clinton does Obama look moral in comparison.
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 11:44AM
Todd, get rid of your hatred -- it is not good for your health...
I happen to agree with you on Marc Rich and Bill Clinton. But as the saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right".
Regarding Obama morality, I only know what has been reported and verified. How drunk did George Bush get when he was younger? Only Democrat presidents? Really?
McCain cheated on his first wife and Palin got pregnant before she was married. I can't understand where you are going on this. Which is worse -- having a joint when you were in college or getting pregnant when you aren't married or cheating on your wife?????
Dave| 1.21.09 @ 11:46AM
Bob:
True - Obama never aborted a child, but he did say "If one of my daughters became pregnant, I would not want them have to bear the burden of motherhood"
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 12:07PM
I hate liars and deceivers Bob and I am perfectly fine with that. What is with you talking about how Sarah Palin being pregnant before she was married? I don't believe there is any evidence for that and it is very hypocritical for someone like yourself who has no problem against abortion to attack her morals.
Tell me Bob what Republican President you know of that was a serial adulterer like JFK and Clinton (and FDR I should add)? I am coming up blank on that, I have never heard of anything like that with Ike, Nixon, Reagan or the Bush's. Nixon certainly had his moral failings but he did have a very good family whatever you may say about him. And Obama did more than just smoke a joint, he admitted to using crack cocaine which is no joke unlike the invented stories about Bush.
Stan redmond| 1.21.09 @ 12:20PM
There's a lot of spent Kleenex and sloppy chins to clean up today. Yesterday was an embarassment and a childish scary worship of a cult leader by many in the media. In any sane world Obama would have been relegated to the likes of Louis Farakhan or Eldridge Cleaver. I pray this era of insanity ends soon never to be repeated. Obamas resemblence to Castro and Mao is frightening.
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 12:24PM
Todd -- regarding Sarah Palin, take a look at her bio -- it was not well publicized. She was married to Todd in a civil ceremony without even telling her parents ahead of time. Her first child was born 8 months later and was not premature. Here's an article about it:
http://www.theinsider.com/news/1160144_Governor_Palin_Pregnant_before_marriage_or_not
I did not get it from reading an article -- it was from one of the bios done on a news channel. They did not say anything about this, but I counted the months....
You can come to your own conclusions.
Regarding Presidents and adultery, the only recent Republican president I've heard that may have had an affair was Ike. We believe that Lincoln had an affair but much of the personal lives of the earlier presidents were not well reported.
frost| 1.21.09 @ 12:36PM
Bob, I fear you've hit yet another in a never-ending series of now "lows." If digging at Governor Palin in that matter gives you a terrific case of the jollies, great -- glad for you.....
My guess is that 60-70-80% of the wives have married under similar citcumstances - - but what concern is it of yours to judge?
Please -- go away.....
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 1:01PM
Mr Neumayr --
First, this is I, the real Jeremiah, unrepentant liberal and last of the good guys.
Your complaints about MSNBC are fair but a little strange to me because that network has been highly partisan for years -- just as Fox has been a ludicrously partisan.
I don't see any problem with either network, IF you use them for entertainment purposes.
Everyone should seek out multiple sources of news. Print media (liberal or conservative) tends to be the most informative. Unfortunately, the best broadcast news is liberal (I'm speaking of Lehrer's Newshour, which apparently even President Bush thought highly of).
I would cavil with one point you made. Your assertion that liberalism is somehow a belief that right and wrong are "subjective" is an absurd cliche. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, I assure you, were liberal and were not men who believed right and wrong were relative.
No liberal I know believes these qualities are "subjective" or relative.
Where this notion got its start is beyond me; I suspect people continue to associate liberalism as a political tendency with the "liberalism" of the social movements of the 60s.
With the election of Obama, we are, at long last, putting the politics and cultural assumptions of the baby boomers and their cantankerous sanctimony behind us.
Good riddance, too. Good riddance to Bush and Clinton, Michael More and Rush Limbaugh.
I feel today as though our country has the opportunity to return to sanity, rationality, civil dispute, and a renewed sense of trust in public institutions -- or at least that is what I earnestly hope we can achieve. I also insist, unlike some on the left, that conservatives and Republicans have a crucial role to play in our recovery from two decades of irresponsible, selfish, and childish governance.
JoshFranklin| 1.21.09 @ 1:04PM
I found it humorous how Obama, the self-styled Uniter-in-Chief, laced his inaugural address with smug jabs at the outgoing President. If even a small segment of the media can find it in themselves to hold this guy up to the standards that have been set by his predecessors, this inexperienced blowhard is in for quite a come-down.
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 1:08PM
Frost is right about you Bob, you are nothing but a big hypocrite to make that judgment especially coming from someone who is a moral relativist and says there is no right or wrong.
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 1:35PM
Josh Franklin --
While I'm happy you were "amused," let me remind you that our last president (the "uniter," not the "divider") himself uttered some pretty sharp jabs at outgoing President Clinton in 2001.
And remember, Bush entered office without the popular vote and made these jabs against a president with an job-approval rating consistently over 65%.
Maybe Obama could have softened the critique he leveled against the Bush administration. But I think he was respectful and gracious to Bush personally, and did what he had to do as a president inheriting one hell of a mess.
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 1:38PM
I must admit you make for good comedy (liberal) Jeremiah unlike Bob. I always laugh how people like you say Fox and MSNBC are no different in their partisanship. You can compare Hannity and Olbermann sure in partisanship (though Olby lies constantly and is a freak) but Fox do not use Hannity as a news anchor, big difference Jeremiah. Watching Olby and Matthews slobber all over Obama is just plain embarrassing and is journalistic malpractice at its worse. At least with them is has become very apparent and they don't give the false pretense of being unbiased like you find at the other news networks since that is more insidious and deceitful in my opinion.
Good riddance to the Clinton's? I wish it were so Jeremiah but their grubby hands are all over this administration and I think your lofty hopes and ideals will be crushed when the reality becomes known though the MSM will do their very best to keep it from the light of day. They have a vested interest in protecting Obama from criticism as they feel very proud of themselves for getting him elected.
Rush Limbaugh will not be going anywhere I assure you Jeremiah though of course there you go again with the moral equivalence comparison to the propagandist Michael Moore. You may disagree with Limbaugh on everything but he is not a liar and a propagandist like Moore.
Nick| 1.21.09 @ 1:51PM
Bob...Bob ....Bob,
You state as fact: " Obama has never aborted a child either." How would you know? Are you Michelle's ob/gyn? Has he even been asked that question? I thought you were all about the facts? The accurate statement would be: "As far as we know Obama has never been involved with an abortion." The one fact we know for sure is he certainly has no problem with killing babies inside or outside the womb.
Then you state as fact: "Her first child was born 8 months later and was not premature." Again, how would you know? Were you Sara Palin's ob/gyn too? What was her due date? Then you link to "the Insider". Why not quote the National Inquire also?
Then you state as fact that Libby lied. Really? Just because he was convicted does not make it fact. Innocent people get convicted all the time. The man was asked which reporters he spoke to a year and half after the fact. Unless you have a photographic memory, who could remember such things? Not I. There were alot of other funny things about that trial I won't go into.
And then for good measure you libel presidents Lincoln and Eisenhower based on hearsay.
Way to stick to the facts there Bob.
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 2:35PM
Great comment Nick, we both know facts really do not mean anything to Bob. He tells me not to hate while at the same time he spews his hatred towards Palin without any regard to truth, his capacity for hypocrisy is astounding.
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 2:36PM
Todd --
I can't agree with you about Fox and MSNBC. They're both shallow and silly: the partisanship doesn't really bother me. It's the low level of discourse, the shouting and self-importance. Again, there's no arguing for taste, and if it makes you happy, watch Fox. I care not.
You're right, of course, that Hillary Clinton has a major role in the Obama administration. S. of State is no small potatoes. But Robert Gates has an important role too, as does, for that matter, Bush's man on AIDS in Africa (I'm forgetting his name).
Obama is smart enough to use H. Clinton's considerable knowledge of world affairs while at the same time keeping her in a position in which she is completely responsible to him and powerless to make policy. S. of State has a kind of power -- but these people don't carry weapons, literally or figuratively, and that's important.
Obama is no Clintonian. While righties have spent the day whining about Obama's criticism of Bush in his address, they've overlooked the fact that Obama's sharpest criticisms were of a political culture that goes back more than a decade. Obama's not stupid, and he knows that the "childish things" to be put aside are not Bush or Cheney or even conservatism. Obama always goes after big game, and in that address he was taking issue with a toleration of mediocrity and selfishness and irresponsibility that has permeated our polity for decades.
Truth to Power| 1.21.09 @ 2:56PM
"Obama is smart enough to use H. Clinton's considerable knowledge of world affairs ..."
Jeremiah shoudn't project his shallowness onto others.
Michele San Pietro| 1.21.09 @ 3:06PM
I agree with you. Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Judge, Colin Powell as Defense Secretary, and Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State represented more important breakthroughs for the advancement of blacks than Obama's election to the White House. However, they were "bad Republicans" instead of being "good Democrats", therefore... it's not true racism has ended in America: quite unfortunately, racism against Republicans is alive and well.
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 3:07PM
Actually, Nick, we know the date of Palin's marriage and we know the birth date of her first child. There is nothing in any of her bio's that says her first child is premature. Those are the facts. Personally, I don't care, but let's be fair in talking about both sides here. Please find evidence to the contrary -- I'll be glad to see it. Anyway, why would she elope without telling her parents in a civil ceremony? The pieces do fit.
With regard to Libby telling lies -- he was found guilty. That is just a fact. Perhaps we should let all murderers go because some people are convicted wrongly. We must believe the courts unless proved otherwise.
With regard to Lincoln and Ike, I encourage you to read their biographies by noted historians. The affair with Kay Summersby is fairly well documented and noted by her as well. So is Lincoln's affair with Ann Ruthledge. However, I wouldn't put them in the crass (whoops, I mean class) of Clinton and JFK who evidently did it just for the sex. But this was just to refute a point made earlier. Please read some of the noted biographies.
So, you and Todd need to learn to deal with facts -- something sorely missing from this site.
Marc Jeric| 1.21.09 @ 3:09PM
I feel sorry for Chris Matthews; he must be very tired after repeated ejaculations seeing his President Abu Hussein from Kenya take power.
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 3:14PM
I am just pointing out the real differences between Fox and MSNBC Jeremiah, anyone who watch those networks with any real objectivity knows MSNBC is completely biased towards Obama and the Democratic party. There is no actual debate on MSNBC, just pure propaganda. There is plenty of debate on Fox and many liberals are given the opportunity to present their views. It is a ridiculous assertion to say Fox is a puppet of the Republican Party, they just allow conservatives to have their views known and debated unlike the other networks and that is why they have much better ratings because all the other networks are the same. Murdoch is not some arch-conservative like he is made out to be and he actually let it be known he supported Obama, he is just a businessman serving an under-served market. O'Reilly is not a conservative by the way and openly despises Limbaugh, probably because Limbaugh makes much more money than he does.
There are many other people from the Clinton administration that will be in Obama's like our socialist Energy Czar Carol Browner and our AG Eric Holder, the same Eric Holder that approved the pardons of Marc Rich and the FALN terrorists which is an absolute disgrace of justice.
I have no idea what nonsense you are talking about with Hillary having a kind of power but not carrying weapons, did you even think when you typed that? The numerous conflicts of interest the Clinton's have due to their foundation and taking money from all kinds of questionable people should disqualify her, at least I know it would if a Republican had that same situation. A Secretary of State sure has much more power than does the Vice President, that is where he should have put her if he really wanted to neutralize her and prevent her from causing havoc.
I will be waiting very patiently Jeremiah to see exactly what programs Obama will eliminate because they do not work. The only one I can specifically think of that he mentioned is our missile defense system which has actually been shown to work. I have a good investment in Nigeria for you if you actually believe that crap from Obama, just another of many lies to come and covered over by the MSM.
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 3:35PM
Todd --
There's clearly nothing I could say that could persuade you that Obama is anyting but a demon incarnate.
I guess all I can say is that it's going to be a long eight years for you.
Peace, comrade.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.09 @ 3:37PM
Jeremiah cant help it, Todd, being demented witless lose (not lozel) cad. and only libs can be cynical, not us.
they can bury us in minutae, waste our time here when they could be posting on lib sites.
poor Jeremiah, he cant help being a phony lib, a fake pwogwessive.
oh and Palin; palin, palin. you'd think she was the poetic sleazebucket Blagojevich, they way libtards squeak.
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 3:51PM
Alan, I know about Jeremiah but it is kind of fun to expose his logic where he has to fall back on something like he can't persuade me otherwise that Obama is a demon incarnate. I never said anything like that, just said Obama is clearly lying when he says he will eliminate programs that "don't work". But to someone like Obama, anything that expands the power of the government "works".
I thought the article today Obama vs James Madison was excellent in making that point, "Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question." Obama has never given that a thought and could care less what James Madison or our Founding Fathers actually thought. He is more interested in stupid symbolism like his riding the train stunt because that is what Lincoln did, how pathetic was that?
Btw Jeremiah, are you trying to be funny with your "comrade" or do you actually refer to people like that in seriousness like a good commie would?
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 4:01PM
Mr. Jeric, your post was disgusting--but hilarious. I can't believe you posted that, but considering you said it about Chris Matthews, it's plausible.
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 4:07PM
Bob, you arrogant arse; how do you know that Michelle Obama didn't have an abortion, or multiple abortions? For such a smarty pants you sure make dumb assumptions. Arrogance. Also, what is it with you and Palin's love life? It's sickening that you have carefully counted her months of marriage before the birth of her first child. Creepy and stalker-like, actually. There is something wrong with you.
Thom| 1.21.09 @ 4:23PM
Bob said, "Let me give you an example of "relativism". Some say Libby should be pardoned because he didn't commit the original crime and therefore his lies under oath were irrelevant. Some say that if you lie under oath it undermines our legal system. We know for a fact that he did, indeed, lie. This is an example of moral relativism. "
Actually Bob, you undermine the legal system when you sentence a person to a long prison term for the same crime another is convicted of (impeached) and not sentenced for because they are considered too important to be held accountable for lying under oath (twice) on National TV. Who do you think is the better off for lying under oath, Bill Clinton or Libby? Had Libby been the source of the leak and lied to protect himself or someone else I wouldn’t even bring this up but that actual reason for the investigation was moot even before Libby was questioned. Bill Clinton lied to protect himself in a matter where he was the target of the investigation. That undermines the legal system far more than anything I can rationalize Libby stood to gain. We know what Clinton gained.
Bob| 1.21.09 @ 4:37PM
Thom, I absolutely agree with you. However, the judge in the Jones case did not deem Clinton to have committed perjury and in the Starr case it was not technically perjury due to the definition of "sexual relations". If Clinton were found guilty of perjury, like Libby, then he should have gone to jail. One was convicted and the other was not -- that is a big difference. But my example of moral relativism of Libby still holds -- and you are letting someone who actually was found guilty of perjury get away with it. That is the textbook definition of moral relativism. Welcome to the party.
Ruth, I don't know if Michelle Obama had an abortion, but no evidence exists of even support that contention. There is significant real evidence that Palin became pregnant prior to marriage -- and I think you are able to count to 9, aren't you? You really need to get some perspective...
Todd| 1.21.09 @ 4:51PM
I am sure it wasn't widely reported Bob about Palin being pregnant before being married because the media just could not be bothered about it, are you that delusional? Give it a break Bob and go get some therapy or develop a hobby for yourself and keep your nonsense to yourself.
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 5:07PM
Bob, considering Obama's radical view on abortion I could easily conclude that Michelle may have had abortion(s). Abortion is private-why would you have evidence? They are huge supporters of abortion on demand. You must know this. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. Don't you know women in your family who have gotten pregnant before marriage? Your mother perhaps? I do. So what? You are such a prig about some things. I admire the Palins for giving birth to these children and loving them after they are born. It's a win-win to me. Your obsession is most unseemly and I don't understand why you can't see that.
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 5:09PM
Bob, it's not about being ABLE to count to nine, the question is why would you want to? Strange.
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 5:21PM
Jeremiah is here to inject sanity back into the discussion.
It is unseemly to speculate about the pregnancies of Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin. Good grief, folks.
The Obamas are clearly a happy, healthy family. No dissembling in the world could fake it that well.
Obama's mother and father were an unhappy and short-lived couple. He has obviously chosen a more traditional, stable family life for himself -- another sign that he represents a generation of people that are moving beyond the so-called social revolutions of the 60s.
The most significant thing about Obama's election, I would argue, is not his race but his AGE.
At 46 Obama is not embittered by segregation or Vietnam or Watergate. His politics were not formed in the ugly aftermath of assassinations and the breakdown of social order in the 60s, as were the politics of Bush and Clinton (and Limbaugh, and Michael More).
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 5:24PM
Precisely, Jeremiah, tell Bob to knock it off. The Palins also seem happy and healthy. Both are beautiful families.
Thom| 1.21.09 @ 5:38PM
Bob, what was Clinton Impeached for if he commited no crime under the law? If Libby is gulty because he was judged so, then Clinton is guilty of something? I believe Starr made a judgement to let the matter be handled by the political system rather than the justice system.
Nick| 1.21.09 @ 5:49PM
Bob,
First of all, I notice you didn't address your erroneous statement about Obama. I'll take that as an admission of guilt.
The only facts you have are Gov. Palin's wedding date and her child's birth date. Everything else is supposition upon supposition. Kind of Oliver Stone-ish, Bob. Or should I say Andrew Sullivan-ish.
Now Bob, it was I who stated the FACT of Libby's conviction, not you. You said: "We know for a fact that he did, indeed, lie." My point is not all convictions prove guilt, just as all acquittals do not equate innocence. Then I gave a reasonable defence of Libby which you did not comment on. You then set up a straw man of letting all murderers go. I never questioned the jury system. I just stated the obvious, a conviction is not the same as a fact. Or are you going to argue that 100% of all convictions are correct?
I should read biographies of noted historians, but you don't note any. One historian of note, Stephen Ambrose (who knew Ike very well), said the affair never happened. He also said the people who promoted such calumnies, were people who didn't like his politics. Like noted liberal historians. Now site where and when Kay ever admitted an affair. As for Lincoln, again more hearsay and suppositions, unless you can provide a witness?
For someone who only deals in "facts", you sure depend alot on what others say.
J.C. Eaton| 1.21.09 @ 6:06PM
Ruth, at the risk of appearing obsequious I write to tell you that because of your tenacity, acidity, and lucidity, you are about my favorite poster here. For the life of me though, I do not comprehend why you engage these two. They specialize in repetitive, self-adulatory, banal, and nearly terminally boring polemic. Whatever insight or utility either may have flashed in the past has become threadbare, tired,utterly predictable piffle. If you've read one post you have read all their posts. In the name of all that's holy: why do you choose to deal with them? Just curious. Best,
Nick| 1.21.09 @ 6:07PM
Jeremiah,
I wasn't trying to speculate on Michelle Obama's pregnancies. Bob stated as a "fact" Obama never aborted a child. Something he could not possibly know. Bob is always admonishing others to stick to facts. But Bob doesn't practice what he preaches. I like to point that out for everybody to see.
And Bob was the one speculating on Gov. Palin's pregnancy.
Noah| 1.21.09 @ 6:26PM
I loved how right-on Chris Matthew's commentary was. Get over your sour grapes.
malm| 1.21.09 @ 6:33PM
Bush was quite kind to the Clintons. Special prosecutor Raye had a nifty little case against her majesty, lady Hillary in regards to travel office fiasco. He (Bush) let it be known he wanted it dropped. His administration also could have reopened the horror that was Waco. Reno still has not testified fully, specifically about all the communicating between the Justice department and the white house, including Hillary's office. What more do you people on the left want to do to Bush and Cheney ? Right now you can sit back, and watch destroy republicans maul and destroy each other. But, going after them on the war on terror will make quick allies of many of us. You want that war you'll get it.
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 6:39PM
J.C., meaning no disrespect to my fellow posters on this fine site, the reason I blog a lot is because I'm sick and tired of Conservatives getting our asses kicked (leave Sarah Palin alone, damn it!). So if a girl wishes to engage in a little verbal bare-knuckled street fighting, I figure, what the heck? Besides, I sprained the hell out of my ankle and I can't go back to work yet;).
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 6:47PM
Noah, sounds like you share Matthews' special tingle for Obama. Tool.
Jeremiah| 1.21.09 @ 8:00PM
Ruth --
I'll join you in defending Palin against those who would pry into her family life.
However, I insist that she is as available for criticism of her politics (and her difficulties communicating ideas clearly).
It is bad and nasty to speculate about peoples' private lives unless (as was the case with Clinton) they are so disordered they interfere with their ability to live up to their responsibilities.
I tell you this, you'll not see Obama chasing women around. If I'm wrong, he's the biggest fool I ever saw.
I've never seen the least bit of interest in Palin's family life. I did think there were legitimate questions about her husband, but only as concerned his public membership in a political party.
I'd say drop the whole conversation.
I've given you plenty of things to attack me for, comrades. Let's raise taxes and quadruple the spending on arts programs in every school in America.
Fire away!
Nick| 1.21.09 @ 9:32PM
Todd,
Thanks for the comment at 2:35, and let me reciprocate, great comment. You see, you're a hater because you disagree with Bob. And probably because the one full of hate thinks everyone else is a hater also. Sorta like how thieves think everybody else is a thief too, and therefore trust no one.
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 10:08PM
Jeremiah, what do you mean you've never seen the least bit of interest in Palin's family life? From you liberals; really? Bristol's pregnancy? Trig's parentage (particularly sick and nasty)? Todd's 20 year old DUI? The questioning of Sarah's mothering ability and the inappropriateness of her candidacy as the mother of five? Nasty rumors of her labor and delivery with Trig? You didn't hear this liberal garbage during the campaign? Gee, Jeremiah, I thought you were more plugged into the political process. You would have had to be braindead not to have heard this slop. Go BS someone else.
Brad| 1.21.09 @ 10:38PM
Was President Obama's mother married at the time of his birth?
Alan Brooks| 1.21.09 @ 11:08PM
Jeremiah thinks Obama is 46.
look up his birthday, do some math on this, boy.
Nick| 1.21.09 @ 11:19PM
Ruth,
Great post. You should've named names, though.
Andrew Sullivan: the continuing purveyor of the "Trig is not Sarah's son, Bristol is" garbage, what a little, little man-child.
and
Alan Colmes: the pig who tried to blame Gov. Palin for her son's downs syndrome because she flew home after her water broke, what a scumbag.
Never heard any of this Jeremiah?
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 11:45PM
Thanks, Nick. I try to think of these horrid liberal weasels as little as possible. I just don't want the visuals.
Dennis Morris| 1.22.09 @ 1:10AM
Bob
So you are saying that premarital sex disqualifies one from seeking elective office?
ruth| 1.22.09 @ 1:58AM
No. Bob says kill the evidence.
Bob| 1.22.09 @ 8:53AM
Dennis, of course not. Personally, I don't care. I was just arguing for looking at the decency of the Obama family as an personal example of morality. I may not agree with a number of his policy positions, but he is a great example of a family man for the country. The Palin argument was a side comment to this to show she wasn't "perfect" as a moral example.
To be honest, I didn't care about Clinton's sexual adventures as long as he did a good job as President.
Jeremiah| 1.22.09 @ 9:08AM
Bob if you do not care about Slick Willie sodomizing interns in the Oral Office, why do you care about the very private life of the Palins?
You are a fake, a liar, a clown. A liberal.
ruth| 1.22.09 @ 12:06PM
If Clinton's bizarre misadventures didn't bother you, why the fixation on Palin? Didn't Clinton engage in sexual acts with interns in the Oval office while on the phone with foreign leaders? You call this doing a good job?
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 12:07PM
Bob,
Please don't lie to Dennis. You cared enough to make up a new libel against Sarah Palin.
You didn't respond to my point by point exposure of your hypocrisy above (5:49), so I thought you left this thread Bob. But here you are this morning. I assume you capitulate, your silence is telling.
You see people, all you have to do to shut Bob up is show his "facts" are nothing but opinions and he runs away.
ruth| 1.22.09 @ 2:51PM
You're right, Bob is a coward; only a coward would beat up on a woman. Sarah would be the winner in a beat down with Bob.
Thom| 1.22.09 @ 6:47PM
Bob said "To be honest, I didn't care about Clinton's sexual adventures as long as he did a good job as President. " Just as way of carrying this to where such sexual adventures end up at times, if the other Clinton had caught Billy and shot him dead for what he was doing would you hold that against her because Billy was doing a good job?
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 7:04PM
COME OUT -- COME OUT -- WHERE EVER YOU ARE
BOB
Nick| 1.23.09 @ 6:50PM
Bob,
Still looking for that Kay Summersby proof?
ruth| 1.23.09 @ 8:02PM
Pathetic.
Nick| 1.23.09 @ 8:16PM
Ruth,
If you're still here, does Bob usually stay away like this or do you think he's been banned?
ruth| 1.23.09 @ 11:43PM
He's not banned--not if that freak Intergroper still blogs. I guess we ran him off. I don't like to be mean but I wouldn't treat Michelle Obama that way, why should Palin be slandered?
Jeremiah| 1.24.09 @ 9:48AM
No news from BlowBob, the Oval Office Peeping Tom?
Papa John D| 1.24.09 @ 10:45AM
You mean anyone listens to what Chris Matthews has to say? That guy has been irrelevant for years. Just a kool-aide drinking kid who drools over any liberal who plays his song.
ruth| 1.24.09 @ 12:06PM
Papa, Chris Matthews is a kid? He's around sixty--is sixty the new 30? Not a kid, he's a punk. Olbermann? I don't know what to say about that one, words fail me.
Oravil | 1.25.09 @ 6:08PM
Chris Mattthews had his first erection when he saw Obama, and has been drooling ever since. Matthews should be in a padded cell somewwhere, with one of the Gitmo sheep molesters. Or two. Or more . ..
Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 11:12PM
Are you crazy? He would actually enjoy it.
ruth| 1.26.09 @ 2:46AM
Gross. Now whenever I see Chrissy Matthews I'm going to remember all of the comments you guys have posted about him. What a distasteful man, what recommends him?
jghjg| 11.18.09 @ 8:12PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows