Obama Goes Nuts for Acorn

So the Obama campaign has evidently given almost one million dollars to ACORN. Not directly of course. The modus operandi of democrats has been to set up multiple organizations, for moving money around. Not unlike the dummy corporations one would see in a money laundering scheme. Money goes from the donor, to some multiple other organizations, but eventually winds up at the organization to which the donation is realy being made, in this case ACORN.

This is the same ACORN that congressional democrats earlier this year funneled 1/2 Billion dollars to through legislative fiat, and tried to funnel a second 1/2 Billion a few weeks ago in the so-called bail-out bill before House republicans decided they were having none of it. Later versions of the bail-out bill scrapped the half billion for ACORN.

This is the same ACORN that faces about a dozen federal indictments for voter fraud all over the country. These people have been paying suragotes a lot of money to invent fictitious voters and get them registered by walking into voter registration with bags full of registration forms... and in many cases, Ohio being a prime example, the fictitious voters immediately cast REAL votes, as bags of filled out absentee voter ballot forms are turned in at the same time. Tens of thousands of fictitious votes. Maybe hundreds of thousands. Enough to change the landscape of the US Congress, and maybe the presidency, in our upcoming election.

In the last few weeks, Obama has donated $800,000, through the network of democratic party non-profits, to ACORN. For "getting the vote out". The main stream media does not consider this news worthy... and there will be no questions concerning his support for ACORN. There were none at the debate, and none forthcoming over the next 3 1/2 weeks. If Obama says he doesn't condone voter fraud, and then immediately writes a check for $800,000 to the biggest perpetrator of voter fraud in US history, isn't that news worthy?

Paul Krugman wins 2008 Nobel for Bush-Bashing

You said it yourself Paul, there were other economists playing important roles in the studies you were involved with 30 years ago. This was a solo prize awarded to one and only one economist. Think the Nobel committee knew you were not alone in this work? Think they cared?

Dude... you're an economist. Remember math? 2 + 2 = 4. Except maybe at the New York Times, yeah I know. Okay, but you know that the election is three weeks away, the Nobel Committee has expended a lot of prizes over the last eight years in their effort to admonish those who might support Bush, and to generally speak to the world of their royal displeasure with our president and republicans in general.

They picked you first Paul, and then justified the prize after confirming that you did something, anything reasonably intellectual 30 years ago. But if the prize were really for economics, Paul, there would have been a few more names included. Deep down inside, I think you know.

NBC goes Orwell on us

I still hear the talking heads proclaim that Saturday Night Live is even handed. Oh yes they make fun of republicans and democrats. During this election campaign they had seemed more even handed than ever. Someone however, has put their foot down. SNL went too far, criticized the left too much, and now some writers are learning first hand how much freedom of speech they really have.

I kept clicking on this one skit, wanting to see the CSPAN-Bailout skit SNL did recently. It turns out the skit blamed Barney Frank, in part, for today's economic crises. The line used is "and thank you congressman frank as well as many republicans for helping block congressional oversight of our corrupt activities". The line is spoken by Herbert Sandler (protrayed by Darrell Hammond), one of those who has been greatly enriched by the subprime lending that took place.

Well it turns out.... I will not be able to see the original skit on any NBC websites or on HULA. The skit has been pulled, CENSORED, and then replaced. That's right.... criticism of Barney Frank has been edited, removed from the skit. The censored portion is visible now only on youtube. The censored portion, aka the "Missing 18 Seconds", also picks on Herb Sandler, not just a billionaire but like George Soros he gives massive amonts of money to democratic party 527's, including 2.4 million to moveon.org in the last election cycle.

Frank and Sandler are still portrayed in the post-censored video, but the close friendship between the Sandlers and Nancy Pelosi and the thanks for Frank's running interference for them in congress has been conspiciously removed.

The message to SNL's writers and actors: Barney Frank is off limits, as are giant democratic party donors. They do beat up George Soros, but he extremely high profile, we have heard it all and more, and The Party is in no danger of ever loosing his support. Most of us had never heard of the Sandler's until this skit.

The media narrative is driving Obama's poll results. His lead nationwide currently sits at 52%. The Narrative says this economic mess is due to Bush, cronies, lack of regulation, greed, and of course, John McCain. Never mind that Bush and McCain both actually tried to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac earlier in this decade, and that Barney Frank and the democrats and the media portrayed that oversight as an attack on the poor and the middle class. The campaign for president has been distilled into a simple process of Obama saying simple things, not taking chances, and the presidency is his, crowned by the main stream media.

An SNL skit that differs from that view, and in this case goes out 180 degrees from the official narrative, could loosen that hammerlock on 50+% that Obama now holds. That's all it would take... any inference that the narrative people are being told is not complete. Remember, these skits are getting hammered themselves, in a good way. Over 10 million hits for a Sarah Palin skit in just a few days. SNL is getting big attention from a lot of people, but it's the young voter that the NBC-Obama campaign frets about the most. Those are the voters most susceptible to manipulation. So goofy spoofs are okay, but don't get in the way of big democratic donors, or Barney Frank, or most of all The Narrative. That narrative has given Obama the lead, and keeping the blame pointed squarely at republicans will guarantee victory.

Someone Wake Biden in Time for the Debate

This is one of the main ways the left creates mythology. The headline is not true. The story reveals that Biden only left the debate prep temporarily to cast a vote in the senate. But the headline says that Biden is so underwhelmed by Sarah Palin, that he doesn't need to prepare. A cause for much mirth among the left, who will take the headline, and repeat it, and treat it as fact. A few jokes from Letterman or Leno, and the headline will be ingrained within the popular culture.

By itself, this is a very minor attack. It's msn after all, as in msnbc. But as I was taught long ago, marketing is a series of hits. Some big, most are small. A little advertisement like this disguised as news or humor that calls Sarah Palin "The Dummy", and over time mythology becomes unquestionable fact. With Bush it was started with a "D" he made in college. Never mind that Gore and that other guy made worse grades than Bush, those grades were covered up and they were always portrayed as intellects.

The good news is the more they trash, the fewer americans are fooled by the same old media tricks. But suckers are born every minute, and they get to vote. Some times more than once.

Charlie Gibson Gives Birth to Human Child During Palin Interview

Well, he was apparently giving birth, though no confirmation yet on the species. Has there ever been a man so clenched while giving an interview? He looked like he was afraid Palin would leap at him, skin him and start grilling Chuck Burgers.

Charlie's interview turns on the use of the phrase "Bush Doctrine." The news story from this hasn't gone away, but started with Palin seemingly not being familiar with Bush Doctrine. Suddenly he media says she didn't know that Bush Doctrine was "preemptively attacking countries that posed a threat to US security." That's how Gibson explained it and how others in the media have explained it since then.

Really? So that's Bush Doctrine? The left considers pre-emptive strike to be one of the 7 deadly sins. Thou Shalt Not. So no surprise that Gibson turned pop-quiz moderator tried to foist that opinion on Palin. The media continues to ask her about Bush Doctrine to remind viewers that she "didn't know". Isn't the real problem that the media has re-invented Bush Doctrine, and now defines it as whatever they don't like about Bush at the moment?

Some fact checking: I can think of two doctrines. We learn about Monroe Doctrine in school, but the fact is the phrase "The Monroe Doctrine" didn't come into use until 13 years after that president created the policy. In more modern times, Reagan and Bush both had doctrines. The media coins the phrase when they hate the president so much that they attach the doctrine moniker to some aggressive stance. Reagan Doctrine was, in part, about aiding anti-communist movements who were resisting the USSR. Central America and Afghanistan come to mind. It was about advancing technology to force the USSR to compete against america's super-charged economy. The left hated that. Papa Bush wasn't president long enough to get a doctrine named after him, but we can bet that if McCain wins, and is president for 8 years, hmmmmm, well he will have a doctrine named after him.

Bush Doctrine in reality is much more than Charlie Gibson's pretense. What about “unilateral action is okay when defending the US“. What happened to “if you’re not with us, you are against us”. These have been Bush Doctrine in the past. The fact is Palin could have answered the question better, but Charlie’s question was far more vague than he and the rest of he main stream media have been making out. Vague questions deserve vague answers.

In a presidential campaign, the media always casts one of the republicans as The Dummy. Never one of their candidates of course, always a republican. They need it so SNL and the Daily Show and armies of comedians can use the same jokes year after year. Reagan was cast as The Dummy and “crazy nuclear war starter“, Quail got it next, then they skipped the 96 campaign because Dole never had a chance, then Bush in 2000.

Gibson‘s interview question gives the official media “The Dummy” title to Palin, with media follow-up already working to build on that. The creation of the newest media mythology begins.

Chris Matthews Forced to Cover Topics Against His Will

See last week Chris took the middle of his show Hardball and gave a soliloquy on how terrible it was that the media was spending all it's time talking about lipstick, when they should be talking about "issues". He had just spent the first half hour teaming up with another Democrat to try to get Republican talking heads to admit that John McCain really believed that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig.

There is at least one online ad that makes the claim, and in fact the ad pretty much implies Obama called her a pig. The ad has appeared over and over on TV, being played for free by shows like Hardball. But Mathews wants to read their lips.... hear them admit that McCain really believes this. Both Republicans he dragged into the arena talked around the question, refusing to actually speak for McCain... and that really set off Matthews., he's yelling at them to confess!

So after that ordeal and then his denouncement of the coverage of lipstick, he brings on friends so they can spend the last half hour talking about lipstick, and whining... "when are we ever going to get to talk about the issues."

He is oblivious to his own irony.... it's his show! He can talk about anything he wants, but he cannot get off lipstick! He MUST talk about lipstick. It's not his decision you see, it's all the republicans' fault for making the accusation. Now he has no choice, and they have poisoned the conversation. I admit I was just watching because I was hoping to glimpse some of the msnbc Lord of the Fly's action Jon Stewart has covered. No such luck, but what I caught was equally bizaar. One entire hour about lipstick from a guy who decries the media talking about lipstick.

Oh by the way.... there is no doubt that the audience knew what Obama meant... they squealed like... well, you know.

Questioning Julie Roginsky

Julie Roginsky was on cnbc friday to discuss the Sarah Palin VP pick. CNBC called her a "Democratic Strategist". Roginsky insisted that Palin had been a small town mayor until two or three weeks ago. Even after being corrected by another guest she never seemed to acknowledge that Palin has been governor for two years. Later she even repeated her mistake, loudly and proudly. My question to the democrats is.... can I have a job?

As of now I want to be a highly paid democratic strategist. I can fiercely insist on air that 2+2 is 3 and the sky is purple, staring with big blanks in between each attempt to speak over other guests who are trying to correct me. Yes Al Gore invented the internet! 911 was an inside job! Bill Clinton took over a failing economy! Republicans eat children! Palin has only been Alaska's governor for 12 days! Hey this is easy!

Turns out Roginsky may be more disliked by democrats than republicans. Daily Kos took a poll last august where 71% of the respondents said she should be publicly shunned. I'm guessing she said something accurate a year ago, offending the rank and file.

I tried searching for "democratic strategist" on monster.com, but no luck. I guess they have all the help they need.