How can Obama be credibly defended from GOP rapid response when they are right?
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 1, 2008 - 3:28pm.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
A key question that ALL Democratic primary voters definitely need to ask themselves is how can Barack Obama be credibly defended from GOP rapid response when they are right about him as well as Michelle Obama?
NewsBusters is a part of Brent Bozell's Media Research Center (MRC) which is a very sharp Neocon GOP media watch and rapid response website. They do not miss very much!
Right below is the NewsBusters article titled "CNN Panel Denies There’s Sympathy for Obama in MSM" where in my opinion they are absolutely right about "Sympathy for Obama in MSM." I even did a post about this incident where I criticized this CNN panel for the same thing:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14850
TRANSCRIPT: Howard Kurtz on the free pass that Obama is getting from the media!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 27, 2008 - 7:22am.
Below that is another NewsBusters article titled "Will Media Ignore Michelle Obama Remark?" where in my opinion they are absolutely right to criticize Michelle Obama for her gaffe of saying “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” and for criticizing the media for giving her a near free pass on making that ridiculous comment which will definitely come back to hurt Barack Obama in the general election IF he is the nominee!
This was also NOT Michelle Obama's first gaffe. Many people may not be aware of this gaffe because most of the media is also giving her a free ride along with Barack Obama:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14667
YouTube Video: Michelle Obama said "I'd Have To Think About" Supporting Hillary
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2008 - 3:26am.
Here are some other Republicans who are attacking Barack Obama for his lack of substance and I think that they are absolutely right about him:
1) Mary Matalin:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14794
Mary Matalin explains why Hillary is the stronger candidate against McCain!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 21, 2008 - 4:55am.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/20/sitroom.01.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
Powerful Union Endorses Obama; McCain Blasts Obama: Addresses Issue of Experience; Interview With Mary Matalin
Aired February 20, 2008 - 16:00 ET
MARY MATALIN, FMR. ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BUSH: "I think she is a much tougher candidate. You know, she is right about Barack Obama. He has not been vetted. The press is largely swooning, maybe present company excluded, but he has not been vetted by the press, he's not been vetted by any Democrats because they all believe in the same thing. It's been a personality contest...
Well, when you sweep away the soaring rhetoric, which is magnificent -- the best order since Cicero -- but you take that out of there, he's pretty standard issue liberal, way liberal on every conceivable issue. And that's a good contrast..."
2) Roger Stone:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14821
VIDEO: Republican strategist Roger Stone discusses GOP strategy against Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 24, 2008 - 4:27am.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23236180/
'Tucker' for Feb. 18
Read the transcript to the Monday show
Guests: Lanny Davis, Peter Fenn, Peter Beinart, Roger Stone
ROGER STONE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: "There‘s no real record of achievement there. There‘s no real solid proposals there. There‘s very inspiring rhetoric..."
I agree with Stone on this and I will qualify his comment about Obama "There‘s no real record of achievement there" to the level of being President as opposed to being a member of Congress or the Senate.
What Obama has done as a community organizer and the other good things that he has done at the local level are fine when it comes to representing people locally such as being a member of Congress or the Senate BUT he has "no real record of achievement" that I can see which specifically qualifies him to be the next President who will inherit each and every problem that Bush leaves behind on 1/20/09. That is NOT the case when it comes to being one single member of The U.S. Congress or Senate which is what Obama has been only since 2005!
3) David Frum:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14785
ANALYSIS: The bottom line about the plagiarism charge concerning Barack Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 20, 2008 - 1:11pm.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/18/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Nancy Reagan Hospitalized; The War of the Word in the Race for President
Aired February 18, 2008 - 21:00 ET
LARRY KING, HOST: "You're a speechwriter.
What do you think?
DAVID FRUM, FORMER SPEECHWRITER, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "What is -- why should -- why should Barack Obama be president?
What is there about him?
He's never achieved anything. He's never done anything. He's never run anything. He's a completely insubstantial person.
But he has one great attribute, which is he's a spell-binding orator. And so that was the case he was making. Never mind that I've never done anything, words matter -- but the words I'm using aren't mine.
And suddenly that makes you think if there were a record of accomplishment, you're right, this would all be as insubstantial as everyone on the panel has been saying. But since there is no record of accomplishment, since he's running only on his words, the fact that they're not his words, that's pretty serious, to my mind, because it raises the question who is he?
What is he?
On what does he stake his claim?
Maybe we should be running Deval Patrick for the Democratic nominee. After all, he gives the same speech."
I do not care who these quotes are from. If they is right, then they are right, and they are definitely right in my opinion when we are talking specifically about Obama's lack of substance on the issues and the office of President of The United States in a post-9/11 world!
Barack Obama may have done some good things at the local level which would qualify him to be in the Senate BUT he has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I have seen so far which qualifies him to be the next President who will inherit a huge foreign policy and economic mess from Bush on 1/20/09 when there will probably be very little to no room for any margin of error on judgment!
I use my real name on this blog on purpose because I am proud to stand behind and defend what I write. If Obama is the nominee and if I do not think that he cannot answer the tough questions with any kind of credibility, then there is not much I can see that I can do for him IF he is the nominee. I will definitely NOT put my credibility on the line trying to defend what cannot be reasonably defended!
John McCain will crush Barack Obama like an egg shell in my opinion if he is the nominee when he asks Obama to articulate on the tough questions which many Democrats and which most of the media have not asked him yet (I have not heard them asked yet)!
Hillary on the other hand will be able to answer the tough questions and she will be far less vulnerable than Obama would be in the general election because she has already been fully vetted and tested:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13992
Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 28, 2007 - 4:49pm.
Please forward this information on so that all Democratic primary voters will be aware of this BEFORE they vote in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and in Vermont on Tuesday, March 4!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/02/27/cnn-panel-denies-there-s-sympathy-obama-msm
CNN Panel Denies There’s Sympathy for Obama in MSM
By Matthew Balan | February 27, 2008 - 12:11 ET
Three CNN talking heads - "The Situation Room’s" Jack Cafferty, senior political analyst Gloria Borger, and chief national correspondent John King - all denied that the mainstream media has a "double standard for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton," as "The Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer put it. Cafferty was the most adamant denier of the charge. "No, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy, Wolf. We all got together in the media and said okay, let's all decide collectively to beat up on Hillary and be nice to Barack Obama. That's nonsense."
The three, along with Blitzer, had a discussion on Tuesday’s "The Situation Room" at the bottom of the 6 pm Eastern hour in response to a report by Howard Kurtz which was played immediately before the segment. Kurtz, commenting on the Clinton campaign’s charge that "media are giving her [Clinton] a hard time and Barack Obama a free pass," proposed that it was "hard to deny that Senator Obama has gotten largely upbeat coverage from the time he first flirted with running for president." After playing various clips such as the now-famous "Saturday Night Live" sketch which portrayed the media as being "totally in the tank for Obama" and Chris Matthews’ "thrill going up my leg" comment, Kurtz concluded that "[t]here are signs that Obama is starting to draw a bit more critical scrutiny now that he's the Democratic front-runner. But it will take a lot more of that to change the ‘Saturday Night Live’ image of a pro-Obama press corps."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/24/snl-cnn-debate-moderators-totally-tank-senator-obama
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg
The first to respond to Kurtz’s hypothesis was Cafferty, who went into one of his extended populist-tinged rants, all the while denying that the media has it in for Hillary Clinton.
WOLF BLITZER: Jack, what do you think? Is there a double standard? Is Hillary Clinton sort of getting tough coverage and he's getting a free ride?
CAFFERTY: That would be the meaning of double standard. I got it. No, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy, Wolf. We all got together in the media and said okay, let's all decide collectively to beat up on Hillary and be nice to Barack Obama. That's nonsense. This is a tailor-made story for the U.S. news media from a couple of perspectives. One, the arrogance and the incumbent presumed nominee way with which this thing was launched -- I don't need the voters, I'm going to be the next president. Katie Couric says what if you -- what if you're not the nominee? Oh, I'll be the nominee -- this arrogance, almost. The lack of planning, figuring it's all going to be over February 5th. No money, no people on the ground in the states that came after that. And this young guy, who recognized the deep dissatisfaction among the people in this country -- not the politicians, the people -- at their government, at their foreign policy, at the economic policies, at the military-industrial complex's choke-hold on the country. And it began to resonate. And all of a sudden, it's the media's fault? Get out of here.
Blitzer then asked Borger for her take, who placed the blame squarely on Hillary Clinton herself for her apparent media problem.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure, blame the media. Don't blame the candidate. Don't blame the campaign. Blame the media. And Hillary Clinton herself said look, I've been vetted. Well, she's continuing to get vetted in the way she performs as a candidate. Is Barack Obama new on the scene? Of course. Has Hillary Clinton been around for a couple of decades? Do voters think they know her? Does the press think that it knows her? Of course. But is she getting [un]favorable treatment because of some mystical quality that Barack Obama exudes? No. It's her campaign and it's the candidate.
After Blitzer played a clip of a Hillary Clinton interview where she claimed she was "misunderstood," it was King’s turn for a take on the issue. King brought up Clinton’s "more public" record, her connection to her husband Bill Clinton, and concluded by agreeing with Kurtz, that Obama will now receive more scrutiny, particularly because of the upcoming Tony Rezko trial.
JOHN KING: Well, look, her record is much more public than Barack Obama's record because Hillary Clinton has been in Washington throughout her husband's presidency -- eight years of that, plus her time in the Senate. So it is easier to go back and look at the Hillary health care controversy, to look at her sparring with what she calls the vast right-wing conspiracy over the years. And, yes, she does get the baggage of Bill Clinton's presidency attached to her. Is that fair? It's not my call to make, but it is a reality and a political reality. She benefits from Bill Clinton's, well, likeability in Democratic politics and she is criticized sometimes from it. I think, in the long run, this all balances out. The Rezko trial begins next week in Chicago. Senator Obama will get some scrutiny because of that. But it has been a constant complaint from her campaign, Wolf. Without a doubt, they believe there has been a double standard and they complain about it on a daily basis.
Even with the evidence squarely placed in front of them by Kurtz, these three journalists pretty much brushed aside the theory of a pro-Obama mainstream media.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Matthew Balan's blog
Login or register to post comments
Printer friendly version
Topics:
2008 Presidential
Liberals & Democrats
Media Bias Debate
Barack Obama
Gloria Borger
Hillary Clinton
Jack Cafferty
John King
Wolf Blitzer
The Situation Room
CNN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/02/18/will-media-ignore-michelle-obama-remark
Will Media Ignore Michelle Obama Remark?
By John Stephenson | February 18, 2008 - 19:21 ET
First she said that only Obama can "fix America's broken soul," and now this. If anything can stop Obama from getting the nomination or eventual Presidency,his wife running her mouth could be it.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/02/16/obamassiah-mender-of-broken-souls/
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/pride_in_the_na.html
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/02/18/is-michelle-obama-the-next-teresa-heinz-kerry/
“For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” she told a Milwaukee crowd today, “because it feels like hope is making a comeback.”
Doesn't this beg the question, "when did she become an adult"? Yesterday? The question is, will the media pay attention to this gaffe? Probably not much, and that is why the bloggers have to. Will Michelle be this year's Teresa Heinz Kerry?
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/02/18/is-michelle-obama-the-next-teresa-heinz-kerry/
So her husband's run for President is the only thing she has ever been proud of America for? That sounds quite self-centered and arrogant! Nothing? Nothing like winning the Cold War, or feeding poor countries? Wow! How selfish is this?
Did she mean this the way it came out? Shouldn't the media be asking?
John Stephenson's blog
Login or register to post comments
Printer friendly version
Topics:
2008 Presidential
Michelle Obama
Blogs
Blogs
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020808/content/01125110.guest.html
Obama's Messianic Appeal
February 8, 2008
RUSH: "It is strictly a cult of personality. It has nothing to do with the issues...
RUSH: But his appeal right now is above and beyond. It's almost messianic. He's a messiah! He's "for change." He's young. He's youthful. He's JFK. He's Camelot. I mean, people will show up and listen to Obama speak -- and say nothing, but say it well -- and they will literally start crying..."
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
• Real Clear Politics: The Emotion Behind Obama's Appeal - E. J. Dionne
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obama_goes_left_and_right_of_c.html
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Here is why I think that Rush Limbaugh is right about this:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14826
TRANSCRIPT: Obama is called "a guy that America is infatuated with & phenomenon"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 25, 2008 - 4:13am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14352
Many "enraptured" Obama supporters do NOT know his "position on the issues..."
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 8, 2008 - 6:37am.
with Obama showing actual substance on the issues which I have NOT seen yet!
Please specifically answer these questions for me which I have not heard any answers to yet from any Obama supporters:
1) What is Obama going to do in the general election IF he is the nominee and when McCain plays around the clock 24/7 Obama saying "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Asia—Southeast Asia?"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13948
Obama said strongest foreign relations experience was living overseas as a child
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 21, 2007 - 9:17am.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/20/clinton-hits-obama-on-foreign-relations-experience/
November 20, 2007
Clinton hits Obama on foreign relations experience
"On Monday, Obama told an Iowa audience, "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Asia—Southeast Asia."
According to the campaign, Obama was six years old when he moved to Indonesia in 1967, and stayed until he was 10.
Obama said his time there and the fact that his father is from Kenya gives him the knowledge "of how ordinary people in these other countries live..."
2) What is Obama going to do when McCain nails him on trying to have it both ways when it comes to a timetable for Iraq IF he is the nominee?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14640
TRANSCRIPT: Obama tried to have it both ways on setting a timetable for Iraq!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 6, 2008 - 11:50pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14687
OBAMA & IRAQ PART 2: What The RNC is already saying about Obama & Iraq now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 11, 2008 - 10:21am.
3) What is Obama going to do when McCain plays this quote from Obama around the clock 24/7 where he in just one paragraph made a firm promise on Meet The Press NOT to run for President this year and bragged about his own lack of experience back in November of 2004?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6430019/
Meet The Press Transcript for November 7, 2004
Guests: Karl Rove, senior advisor to the president; Senator-elect Barak Obama, D-Ill.; Maureen Dowd, columnist, New York Times; William Safire, columnist, New York Times
MR. RUSSERT: "Before you go, you know there's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as U.S. senator from Illinois?
SEN.-ELECT OBAMA: Absolutely. You know, a little--some of this hype's been a little overblown. It's flattering, but I have to remind people that I haven't been sworn in yet. I don't know where the rest rooms are in the Senate. I'm going to have to figure out how to work the phones, answer constituent mail. I expect to be in the Senate for quite some time, and hopefully I'll build up my seniority from my current position, which I believe is 99th out of 100.
MR. RUSSERT: Barack Obama, we thank you for sharing your views.
SEN.-ELECT OBAMA: Thank you so much..."
Obama again very firmly promised NOT to run for President again in January of 2006 on Meet The Press:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10648
TRANSCRIPT: Obama Promised one year ago Today NOT to run for President in 2008!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 22, 2007 - 2:23pm.
4) Do you honestly think that Obama's free ride in so much of the media (which is a proven fact) will continue IF he is the nominee and if he does not have specific answers to these kind of tough questions that the nominee will have to answer?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14665
MEDIA STUDY: Media Boost Obama, Bash “Billary” and "NBC Is Toughest on Hillary"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2008 - 1:01am.
http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm
CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
2100 L Street, N.W. * Suite 300 * Washington, D.C. 20037 * 202-223-2942
February 1, 2008
Contact: Donald Rieck
MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY”
NBC Is Toughest on Hillary; FOX Has Heaviest Coverage
What I have mentioned so far in this comment is just the tip of the iceberg of what will come back to hurt Obama in the general election IF he is the nominee:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14603
DOCUMENTATION: Issues that will come back to hurt Obama IF he is nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 4, 2008 - 9:07am.
These 4 questions are unanswerable with any credibility in my opinion. If you disagree with me, then I would like to know what your SPECIFIC answers to them are!
"These 4 questions are unanswerable with any credibility in my opinion."
Why am I going to waste my time on an opening like that?
Your low-balling and I'm declining the gambit.
what I think, it really matters what the specific answers are to these questions!
If these questions cannot be answered right now during the primary, then how will they be answered during the general election IF Obama is the nominee when John McCain, The RNC, Rush Limbaugh, NewsBusters, Drudge, and others in the GOP rapid response will definitely be bringing them up?
If you do not think that they will come up in the general election IF Obama is the nominee, then I have some land to sell you in Florida. That is very naive thinking!
Please stop your excuses and put your money where your mouth is. If you honestly believe that I am wrong about this which is perfectly okay, then please show me and everyone else here where I am wrong by specifically answering these questions!
If you cannot answer these questions, then just admit that you cannot answer them and that will be the end of it!
Your group is taking help from any quarter, no matter what they believe in. Your hairsplitting differences, your signing off on the most dangerous and threatening ideologues, you degrading posts and threatening to maliciously vote people off the boards for the mere reason that they disagree with you.
Gen. Clark said this is not a game for the faint hearted, and I agree, but when you use that as an excuse to rate up bloggers that agree with you no matter the evil that they claim as their own, and degrade bloggers that disagree for the mere fact, that's a game for fools, or worse.
Then you demand I simply be subservient and accept that I must engage in a discussion with you in which your starting position is that you have asked an unanswerable question?
CCN has lost it's moral footing.
Your out of control and recovery on March 5th will be too late.
myself, I am not responsible for anyone else here at CCN though I am of course in agreement with the Clinton supporters in principle like how Gen. Clark is!
Your problem DonL is that you are full of excuses and you know that you cannot answer any of the legitimate questions that I am asking which will definitely come up in the general election and will crush Obama like an egg shell before middle America IF he is the nominee!
You need to either put up or shut up because I am sick and tired of people like you who do a lot of talking and at the end of the day cannot specifically answer answer any of the tough BUT fair questions to defend Obama's lack of substance!
If you or any other Obama supporter will try to answer my questions, then we can have an honest dialogue. If you just go on to rant and make more excuses, then I will interpret that as being that you cannot answer the tough questions about Obama's lack of substance!
Can you even answer just one question? Tell me where David Frum is wrong about Obama's lack of substance when we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the office of President of The United States (as opposed to Obama being just one of 100 Senators) because I can promise you that this question will definitely come up in the general election IF Obama is the nominee:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/18/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Nancy Reagan Hospitalized; The War of the Word in the Race for President
Aired February 18, 2008 - 21:00 ET
DAVID FRUM, FORMER SPEECHWRITER, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "What is -- why should -- why should Barack Obama be president?
What is there about him?
He's never achieved anything. He's never done anything. He's never run anything. He's a completely insubstantial person.
But he has one great attribute, which is he's a spell-binding orator. And so that was the case he was making. Never mind that I've never done anything, words matter -- but the words I'm using aren't mine.
And suddenly that makes you think if there were a record of accomplishment, you're right, this would all be as insubstantial as everyone on the panel has been saying. But since there is no record of accomplishment, since he's running only on his words, the fact that they're not his words, that's pretty serious, to my mind, because it raises the question who is he?
What is he?
On what does he stake his claim?
Maybe we should be running Deval Patrick for the Democratic nominee. After all, he gives the same speech."
Obama being a community organizer and helping to pass some legislation in the IL State or U.S. Senate is fine for him being a Senator but that has hardly anything to do with his being able to both inherit and fix each and every foreign policy and economic problem that Bush will leave behind on 1/20/09 which is what the next President will have to do and when there will probably be very little to no room for any margin of error!
What substance is that Mitch?
Mysterious, hidden essences? Maybe because we're too busy resisting your marriage of militarism and eugenics to take your position seriously, Mitch.
You have become repressive.
To spell out the obvious to you, it is the substance of what specifically has Obama done that qualifies him to be the next President who will inherit and will have to fix each and every problem that Bush leaves behind on 1/20/09?
You are all full of excuses and no substance because you cannot answer even just one of my questions. I am sure that the good people here at CCN can also see that!
And for your information, CCN has NOT lost it's moral footing. If you do not like it here, then go find some other place!
Until you are ready to put up and specifically answer some questions, then I suggest that you shut up with your insults and excuses!
And your showing your 'Alamo'. Purge and silence all opposing views is your strategy. The strategy of tyranny. I'll grant these are trying times for all of us, but clearly you have lost your footing.
answered any of my questions and they know that you are just full of hot air making excuses to divert attention away from the real issue of Obama's lack of substance as a Presidential candidate which you obviously cannot defend!
I can easily cut through any kind of spin and B.S. that you can dish out!
Going forward, I will not dignify your excuses with a response on this post. When you are ready to start answering some specific questions, then I will be ready to respond to you!
Maybe you two could take it offline or just back off. I don't think this is going anywhere.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I told him in my last comment "Going forward, I will not dignify your excuses with a response on this post."
I meant what I said. He will get no further responses from me on this post or even off of the board if he makes any more excuses or if he makes any further insulting comments!
I accomplished what I needed to which was to expose that he is all talk and excuses without the substance to answer any serious questions. Once that purpose is accomplished, then I would not waste any of my time with something like this!
That's why people post here. They know they can say pretty much whatever they want and it won't be deleted like it would from other boards.
Proud to be an American.
unfortunately!!! heh
the high chaff to wheat ratio here & the fact that it is becoming a constant uphill struggle to vocally support WKC's active efforts is really becoming disheartening. Some of the behavior truly stuns me. Apparently it's all about them.
Some days it feels just as bad as kos.
If that was the case, you wouldn’t be blogging in here anymore.
Clarkies in here who were, and still are, patient and trying to welcome everyone should be credited because I think it’s just fair enough to mention the good things about CCN.
And to recieve attacks from outside and still find ways how to support Hillary and Gen. Clark is not fainthearted at all.
You respect and like Wes. If you feel his blog is on the wrong track, why aren't you helping to get it back onto the right track?
You know, Don, some of the things that get posted here are blindly pro-Hillary. But nobody's going to listen to you if you beat them over the head with a stick or if you post things that are blindly pro-Obama in response. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you think we're wrong, why are you acting the same way just in the opposite direction?
Can you please try talking to us like you're talking to Wes? Would you really talk to him this way? And do you really think he'd be pleased that you're talking to fellow Wes supporters this way?
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
I'm not here to win points with Gen. Wesley Clark.
Nor am I here to win points with you.
I'm here to try and reason with you to abandon this course of action. To embrace liberty instead of authoritarianism.
This is the main vector of attack on our liberty, Shortie, and just as Gen. Clark once stood in the way of Soviet oppression, I'm standing in the way of yours.
Reps never bother with the truth, so respond accordingly; brash, outrageous 'lies!!!'
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/030208/loc_252892773.shtml
"Clark declines to talk about Clinton's major Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama."
"I don't want to talk about her opponent," he said. "I want to talk about her."
in the context of what so many pundits in the mainstream media are doing to Hillary right now to try and write her political obituary while at the same time trying to act as apologists for Obama!
I would definitely add Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Jack Cafferty to that "Drive-By Media" gangster picture below because the rotten smell of their blatant anti-Hillary/pro-Obama media bias is very strong in my opinion:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113007/content/01125121.guest.html
Drive-By Media, Explained
November 30 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Brad in Topeka, Kansas, welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: It's an honor to talk to you, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I was just wondering when did you first use the phrase Drive-By Media, and where did you come up with that?
RUSH: When did I first -- gosh, I don't know, it's probably over a year now. It's the perfect illustration of what they do.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: You know what a Drive-By shooting is.
CALLER: Sure.
RUSH: You got a bunch of renegades in a car and they drive into a crowd and they start spraying bullets around and they head on down the highway and make a total mess of things. They ruin some people. They kill some people in the case of Drive-By shootings. Then they head on down the highway and they do it again. Meanwhile, other people have to clean up the mess. The Drive-By Media is the same way. They come in with their cameras and their microphones and their news reporting, and they create an absolute mess. They scare the hell out of people. They literally cause carnage. Their actions sometimes are destructive and ruinous to individuals. They kill the reputations of people, or try to. And then they get in the convertible, they head on down the highway and they find the next group of people to do the same thing to while there are those of us who have to go in and clean up the mess.
RUSH: Okay, I completely agree with you. I was curious of the origin or when you first started using that. That answers my question.
RUSH: Why. Has somebody stolen it from me?
CALLER: Oh, no, no. No way. (laughter)
RUSH: Well, just checking. I'm not sure when I started it. It could have a year and a half ago. Time flies.
CALLER: Right. Okay, thank you, Rush.
RUSH: Katrina is a great example of it. Katrina is a great example of the Drive-By Media. (interruption) What did you say, H.R.? All the rapes; all the murders; all the destruction inside the Superdome that didn't happen; all the rescues that weren't taking place, great example there of the Drive-By Media and that's pretty much what they do in every instance. I just don't remember when it started. The creativity on this program is spontaneous in many cases. I don't sit around at home and dream this stuff up. It just pops out of there. Well, sometimes something strikes me when I'm doing show prep at home and so forth, for the most part it just pops out.
END TRANSCRIPT
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.