A few mind-boggling examples:
"Even Obama now says the surge was a success" -- sometimes expanded to include that he said it was "more successful than we ever imagined".
Ya know, I was screaming at my T.V. this morning over this one. Not ONE of the political opinionators could complete the quote. They either deny Obama said it (and in fact, he did say it in his interview with Bill O'Reilly), or they try to not-so-cleverly change the focus of the conversation.
Here's the RIGHT response you dip-shits... yes, Obama DID say that, but that isn't the complete quote. He said it was a success at reducing the violence in Iraq, but that the Iraqi government has still failed to take responsibility for it's own country while we continue to spend $12 billion per month there. His overall point for disapproving of the surge to begin with was that it failed to address this exact issue... that it's time for the U.S. to start asking the Iraqis to be responsible for their own progress, and to set up a system of accountability so as to see they actually do it. Has the surge been a success? Yes, in reducing violence only, but not in all the other ways needed so that U.S. troops don't remain their indefinitely.
Another glaring example is the quote from Sarah Palin, "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere." Now sure, the news has reported that she was actually for the Bridge before she was against it, but the Democratic pundits seems to stop there... they don't connect the dots like they should.
Hey, idiots, how about she was FOR IT when she was running for office -- ie., telling the local people what they wanted to hear so she would get elected -- and then she was against it ONLY after she got into office and when Congress had already pulled the plug. Mind you, she kept the money, earmarks, for other infrastructure projects anyway, including the Road to Nowhere to support the non-existent Bridge.
Did you know that she dropped the line when giving speeches in recent days in Alaska? Apparently the Alaskans don't like her lying too much about her record when she's back on home soil, and with the recent Charlie Gibson interview, I guess she was pretty sure she couldn't get away with it... however, her good 'ole shtick has now returned that she's back out on the stump, this time in Nevada.
How do I know all this? Because I pay attention and look stuff up between my two jobs and family life. Why is it the experts that get paid to be on television, the ones that are supposed to question this stuff, can't seem to spend a little more time getting their shit straight?
I'm particularly angry over the fact that very few talking heads seem to be questioning our ability to criticize Sarah Palin without being considered sexist, while also failing to comment on the "vote Sarah hottest VP" on RNC buttons. I didn't hear any outcry tonight while listening to XM-Radio either, when one guy said "middle-class white men like her, in part, because she's hot." I think republicans need a lesson on what is sexist and what isn't, and SOMEONE needs to take them to task on it.
But lets forget Sarah Palin for now.
How about the whole fact that John McCain is the "candidate of change". Where are all the democrats on television screaming how ironic it is that McCain didn't start running his campaign on "change" until he realized that his own message wasn't working. Where are all the factual statements from liberal pundits being offered up as proof of how Bush-Like McCain is? Need an example?
I think we need to start paying John Cusack to be a pundit!
No comments:
Post a Comment