Skip to main content

In the tank...

The "mainstream" (more like foaming rapids of bullshit) media has truly outdone itself over the last year, acting as a gushing flunky for the blank slate messiah (formerly of liberal persuasion). I am glad that McCain's campaign is pointing this out head-on.



If I were Obama I would be quite a bit leary of the obsessive white geekboy cult love for him amongst the blow-dried denizens of once-at-least-marginally credible "major" networks and "news" sources. They have a long history of backing losers and frauds, only to turn on them later.


Honestly, when was the last time Chris Matthews was right about anything?? His cheerleading for Obama reminds of his gushing for George W. not a few years ago. I thought Matthews was a finger-in-the-wind
blustering ass, back then, and since then his asshattery has only multiplied in droves for Chicago O.

The Joe and Jane Q. voting public has a long history of hoisting the MSM liberal-bots on their pretentious petards, come November. We'll see if the same media that gave us "W"(ar) will prove successful in their most blatant intensive sales onslaught in history for the most slick, sloganeering, calculated, fabricated-from-whole-cloth pseudo-lefty cum DLC candidate we may ever see.

Many of us remember that these same people shoving Obama down our throats were the very same war cheerleaders and willing shills that Bush-Cheney-Rove played like chumps for years.

Personally I think their judgment sucks the high one and their ecstasies over Obama only prove it once again...and again...and again...ad violent nauseam. Matthews et al are not even worthy of the phrase "media whores". I think just plain "Ho's for O" is more like it.


Victor David Hanson at the National Review has an interesting look at what is becoming Barack W. Bush.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I heart Tyler Nixon. =)

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...