The Right Wing Nutjob over at Weasels Zipper, thinks this is a bad thing. I don't and here is why:

Folks who are conservative in a knee jerk kind of way,  think the following is a terrible thing.  Imagine this,  Hillary does not get the bad press leaders like Rudy Giuliani gets,  when he dares to criticize Obama.  And that is a bad thing?  Really.  Here is a chart that measures the attention paid to Hillary's most recent transgressions and Rudy's soulful critique:



There is some sort of fundraising scandal with the Clinton's  (so what's new?).  That got mentioned a total of 45 times on Network over the past two days.   Rudy's comment blasting Obama?  Well, that got 2935 mentions on Network and in the papers.  

Not a bad thing at all,  and here is why:  When folks hear Rudy dare to frame the true revolutionary spirit of Obama,  and hear his words dozens of times in two days,  if they were shocked,  at first,  they are not when the words are repeated over and over and over again.  In fact, it gives the folks time to think about what Rudy is saying.  

I believe it is time to take the debate about Obama to next level,  and push the fact that he loves the America that exists in his own mind,  not the America that Washington and Jefferson and Paine and the other Founders,  built.  

Of course,  the Left will try to tie this to the gutless leadership of the GOP.  I will bet that no one will buy that comparison and,  if some do,  who cares.  The GOP gets constant,  non-stop negative press and wins elections,  anywho. 

I love it.  If the media cannot squelch such talk,  the time for a deeply involved investigation of Obama as to who he really is,  may be here.  Guaranteed,  the national media already knows who he is,  but does not want anyone else to know.  Why do you think their coverage is,  perhaps,  the most onesided in national history    . . . . . .   I mean,  3,000 "mentions" in two days  ???!!!!  They are afraid, and,  it is because they vetted him years ago,  and are fully aware with his problematic past. 

Very cool. 

at

8 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM

    Ah hahahaha!
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John SmithsonFebruary 21, 2015 at 3:29 PM

      At the end of Bush's first term, he won 12 million more votes than in his first election. Obama? Oh, he lost 4.5 millions votes. How's that for a popularity poll that actually means something?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 21, 2015 at 8:33 PM

      That fact is quite unimpressive considering Bush lost the popular vote to Gore decisively and only won election because of a confusing ballot in Palm Beach Co., the infamous Butterfly ballot which caused more than 2,000 Democratic voters to vote by mistake for Buchanan, a number larger than George W. Bush’s certified margin of victory in Florida. Then Bush won reelection over Kerry thanks to voter suppression efforts in OH. GW Bush - will go down in history as "the accidental president."

      If Gore were president, we'd never had suffered the worst attack on American soil. Bush vacationed for a month after being repeatedly warned before 9/11. Then put America into a recession.

      Delete
    3. John SmithsonFebruary 21, 2015 at 9:28 PM

      How you win or lose in a presidential election has been laid out for a couple of hundred years. Bush won in the electoral college. If Fat Alvin Gore had won his home state of Tenn or Clinton's home state of Arkansas, he would have been president. So whose fault is that? Bush's ???!!!

      Also, if Gore had not been successful in squelching the military vote, Bush would have won the popular vote as well.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousFebruary 21, 2015 at 10:21 PM

      Gore served in Vietnam, Bush went AWOL - avoiding his mandatory pilot physical that required drug testing.

      Delete
    5. John SmithsonFebruary 21, 2015 at 10:55 PM

      Fat Al Gore is your military hero? He "served" 5 months in Nam, writing newspaper articles and the like. He requested an early leave, serving less than half the time of regular recruits. And what does that have to do with him losing his home state of Tenn and Bill's state of Arkansas in the 2000 elections?

      Delete
    6. AnonymousFebruary 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM

      All Gore won the popular vote. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Bush left office as one of the most hated presidents in history, approval in the 20's. That's our American history, that's what will be in our history books.

      Delete
    7. John SmithsonFebruary 22, 2015 at 6:51 AM

      Al Gore could not win his home state in 2000 and that is why he lost that election. 9/11 's two year planning stage took place on Clinton's watch, and probably went into planning right after the 1992 Twin Towers bombing, which Clinton did nothing about. When Bush left office, his approval rating was 37%; for his 8 year term, his approval rating averaged 49%. Only in the Marxist Media polls was Bush "hated" and in 2004 he won 12 million more votes than he won in 2000 . . . . so much for being "most hated." the history books will show that he had to deal with two recessions, and won two wars, beating back the Taliban in a matter of weeks (he should have never left Afghanistan, however) and Iraq in five years, with the lowest casualty total for our side, in the history of war. His economy was second only to Clinton's, and his average annual debt was 400 billion compared to Obama's 1.4 trillion average. That is what will be in our history books.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)