Birds of a feather

Did he sleep his way through Protocol 101 class?

As posted on the Associated Press:

LONDON (AP) — Britain's Gordon Brown has praised Sen. Barack Obama in a commentary published Wednesday, seemingly breaching protocols that prevent world leaders from endorsing candidates in foreign elections.

Brown hailed Obama's proposals for a mortgage foreclosure prevention fund and said he believed the Democratic Party is the organization offering policies to help people through the current economic woes.

"In the electrifying U.S. presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times," Brown wrote in Parliamentary Monitor magazine.

"To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a foreclosure prevention fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counseling, and help families facing repossession."

Why is this guy sticking his nose into something that doesn't concern him? Doesn't the prime minister of Great Britain have more pressing matters at home that should concern him?

Brown's Labour Party is traditionally allied to Obama's Democrats...

Oh, that's why...

...but under international conventions, foreign leaders refrain from intervening in ballots overseas.

Then shut the hell up, Mr. Prime Minister.

"A responsible British prime minister needs to be ready to work with either presidential candidate after the U.S. election, and should neither take sides nor be seen to be taking sides," said Conservative lawmaker William Hague.

A few words of advice, Mr. Brown. Stay the hell out of the ballot box of other countries. Telling other countries what they should do is OUR job, so we Yanks certainly don't take kindly when it gets done to us.

Inquiring minds want to know

Can someone explain to me why the liberal left supports abortion, yet is against capital punishment? I never quite understood stood this. Why is it OK to kill an innocent human life, but yet not OK to kill a guilty human life?

A baby, at one point in time, whether at the exact point of conception or at a later point in its development, becomes a human life...a completely innocent human life. The liberal left supports the woman's right to abort...a.k.a kill, this innocent human life. Even if this human life somehow manages to survive this procedure, their book says it's OK to leave the baby alone in a room to die. This human life is guilty of absolutely nothing, other than being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Contrast this with a convicted murderer...someone who has made the conscious decision to take the lives of others. Why should this human life be spared and allowed to live? Why isn't it OK to kill this human life? Why should everybody else have to pay for food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. to keep this human life alive in prison for the rest of it's natural life? If any life deserves to be killed, it would be this one, right?

This just never made sense to me. And is a big reason why I have a difficult time understanding and supporting any liberal agenda.

Lipstick Jungle

In a campaign speech in Lebanon, VA, today, Mr. Hope-n-Change took quite a swipe at the Republican VP nominee, Sara Palin.

“You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”

I know this saying is a common slang phrase, and is used to describe what happens when you take something negative (a pig) and try to dress it up (add lipstick). According to the Urban Dictionary:

slang for when someone tries to dress something up, but is still that something. usually used on ugly broads, when they put on a skirt and some lipstick and well, they still look like the same disgusting pig.

WOW. Did he really just do what I think he did?? Perhaps. Where was the last time we heard the term "lipstick" during this 2008 campaign? Ah. I remember. It was the punchline to a joke Sarah Palin made about herself at the RNC last week.

What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.

Hmmm...did Barack really just imply that Ms. Palin as a "pig"??? Naaaaah. I'll give the guy a break. That is a phrase that has been used by countless politicians in the past, so I'm sure the Obama campaign didn't use the "lipstck" comment as a direct referral to Ms. Palin. Or did they?

The Democratic Congressman from Missuori, Russ Carnahan, also used the term "lipstick" in a direct swipe at Sarah Palin.

“For all his tough talk [McCain] buckled to the right wing of his party in his choice. Picked someone with zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick."

So, within 24 hours, we have the Democratic nominee for president "possibly" refer to Sarah Palin as a pig with lipstick, and another Democratic Congressman, when introducing Senator Joe Biden at a campaign stop, also play the "lipstick" card.

Way to go, Mr. Hope-n-Change. You are worried about losing a large share of female voters, and you and your campaign pull the gender-card. And if that wasn't bad enough, you yourself use a slang phrase that brings her physical looks into play. In what alternate-reality do you live in where a woman enjoys being called a pig? That's almost as bad as invoking the c-word.

I guess you feel you haven't alienated enough of the female voters, huh?

The best defense is a great offense

When praise comes from the San Francisco Gate, you know it has been earned... especially when that praise is levied on the "right" side of the aisle... According to Willie Brown from the SF Gate:

The Democrats are in trouble. Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign.

Period.

Palin's speech to the GOP National Convention on Wednesday has set it up so that the Republicans are now on offense and Democrats are on defense. And we don't do well on defense.

Just ask John "Swiftboat" Kerry...

Suddenly, Palin and John McCain are the mavericks and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the status quo, in a year when you don't want to be seen as defending the status quo.

From taxes to oil drilling, Democrats are now going to have to start explaining their positions.

You mean the Dems might now actually have to explain some of their positions? I'd love to hear some of the actual substance behind their mantra of change. How does a ticket with 2 of the 3 most liberal senators signify change? Senator Biden has even been in Congress longer than Senator McCain.

Her timing was exquisite. She didn't linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke.

And she delivered it like she was just BS-ing on the street with the meter maid.

She didn't have to prove she was "of the people." She really is the people.

She is certainly "of the people", while Obama is certainly "above the people."

It takes more than just a speech, but...

Now, I'm not ready to go all ga-ga over Sarah Palin quite yet, but I do think she gave one heck of a speech last night. Her points sat well with the audience, and I think she probably connected quite well with a lot of Americans. Of course, it doesn't hurt that she's a bit of a looker either, but this is not why I think she hit it out of the park last night. She has a story to tell, and she tells it very well. A lot of people see the GOP as the party of all the old people, while the democratic candidate is young and full of energy and idea about "change". Sarah represents this just as well, if not better, than the democratic ticket does.

Case in point - it's been reported that the teleprompter was broken during Sarah's speech. The text of the speech kept scrolling through the breaks for applause, putting Sarah quite a bit behind. However, it didn't phase her one bit. She relied on her memory and her notes and delivered the speech of her lifetime.

Feel free to contrast her performance to Obama's stuttering and stammering fiasco whenever his teleprompter breaks.

Certainly no media bias here

I wonder which lever US Magazine is going to pull in November...

Pics borrowed from The Drudge Report

Apples to apples

Huh?

Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin because he has managed his presidential campaign for the past 18 months.

So, running for President makes you qualified to be President?

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said.

You've got to be kidding me. Mr. Obama, are you TRYING to lose this campaign that the media is sooo willing to win for you? Why are you comparing your current job...running for President...with her old job...being mayor of a small Alaskan town. Are you afraid to compare apples to apples? Your current job...running for President...employs 2500 people and has a $432 million budget. Sarah Palin's current job...running the State of Alaska...employs 77,000 people and has a budget of $6.6 billion dollars..

So, by your standards, how does this make you more qualified than her to be in the White House? No wonder you don't want to compare apples to apples.