Posted: 06 Sep 2008 10:41 AM CDT
When Sarah Palin was announced as the Republican vice presidential running mate to John McCain, it caught many people off guard, the media assumed they knew his "short list", the Obama campaign prepared videos and responses to a potential Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, Lieberman pick and didn't have a response to a Palin pick arranged, the Obama supporting liberal blogosphere did the same.
That set the scene for what happened next.
Instantly rumors started flying, compliments of the very popular liberal blog Daily Kos, about Sarah Palin's youngest son, Trig, born in April, where they claimed it was her daughter's son.
This sent ripples throughout the Internet with people repeating the rumor, even quoting the dates on certain photographs of Palin's daughter Bristol, which turned out to be the wrong dates and the media started digging.
Then the announcement from Palin that her daughter was pregnant and to be married, date unknown, which showed that her family was like any other, dealing with hard decisions, teenage angst and private issues that were now thrown into the public eye instead of people focusing on Palin's policy stances and record, her family had come under attack.
The media helped things along by publicly questioning her parenting ability and asking if a mother of five,one of which is old enough to have joined the service and is deploying out and the other about to start her own family, had the "time" to become a vice president.
Then came the discussion throughout forums, blogs and even comments on news articles that allowed them, which wondered why Palin, mother of five, was questioned about the her ability to work and raise a family when Barack Obama, father of two, was not asked the same questions.
To some this implied sexism.
Stopping right there for a second to point out that it was right then and there the damage had been done, not to Palin, but to the credibility of DailyKos and every single person that repeated the original rumor which started that type of conversation online and offline, in the media and over dinner tables across America and probably beyond.
Some people started identifying with Palin, a working mother, raising children and being the subject to attacks on her character, her parenting skills and her ability to have a career and raise a family.
How do I know people started identifying with her?
Well a report today from The Politico, about the crowds lining up to see Palin at campaign stops in Milwaukee and Detroit, both drawing approximating 10,000 people, and what they are telling reporters.
One woman, Cheryl Hauswirth, explained why she was enthusiastic about Sarah Palin, stating, "She's a real woman, she's a real feminist but she's not strident — she's like us. She's strong, powerful and opinionated, all the things a women should be, while still retaining her femininity, her womanhood."
Another woman, Melody Halstrom, a middle-aged women from River Hills, Wisconsin says, "She's got a real family with real troubles, just like the rest of us. You know, she's got teenagers."
What those false rumors had done, was the opposite of what they intended to do, instead of destroying Sarah Palin in the eyes of the public, they had brought her private family life, her story, right into homes of America and many woman started identifying with Palin.
Identification wasn't the only thing people started expressing.
Disgust for how nasty the rumors were as well as being false, also started becoming apparent, with people seeing that the far left liberal Daily Kos, as well as those repeating the viscous lies, were prepared to use a 17 year old girl to attack her mother because the mother dared to accept the position of running mate to the Republican presidential candidate.
Perhaps Barack Obama foresaw the damage this could potentially do by way of bringing support to Palin, or perhaps he truly was as disgusted with the personal attacks on Palin and her family, whatever the reason, he "strongly" advised people to "back off" those types of attacks.
It was too late though because his supporters weren't listening.
The National Enquirer teased the public with a story that Palin "may" have had an affair, without any details as they had provided with the John Edwards story, they used words like "allegation", with maybes, mights, and possibly as their basis, but it was enough to have liberal bloggers again, off and running.
When news hit the liberal blogosphere yesterday that an associate of Todd Palin's had requested his court records of his divorce be sealed, the bloggers went tearing after the rumors again, assuming that the requested stemmed from some desire to protect Sarah Palin, with many saying outright, she was named in the divorce for having an affair with the husband in question.
The judge denied the request saying there was no justification to seal the records and keep them confidential.
The court papers, 98 pages of them were obtained by The Smoking Gun and lo and behold, Palin's name was mentioned but only in the sealing request, not the in the divorce itself as The Politico reports.
Surely, the Netroots speculated, that friend must be the unnamed business partner whom this week's edition of the National Enquirer alleges — without proof so far — was romantically linked to Palin. The McCain campaign's characterization of the story as a "vicious lie" seemed to only fuel more speculation.
It seems the man in question, Scott Richter, wasn't trying to protect Palin, he was trying to protect details about his home, workplace, and phone numbers, because reporters and news agencies were using the information to contact him.
In the motion presented to the court, Scott Richter, wrote, "I am friends an [sic] landowners in a remote cabin property with [the Palins] and as her campaign moves forward, my phone #'s and addresses are being used thru this file to obtain unwanted contact daily. My cabin life and private life is extremely important to me and my young son, who find ourselves and our lives disrupted by such contact."
Another rumor bites the dust, after a full day of speculation and dedicated ink to the topic.
Then came the media's part in helping Sarah Palin by reporting a couple stories, again without fact checking, specifically one written by the Washington Post blog about Palin "slashing funding for teen moms," where they produced a fact that Sarah Palin had denied a request for $5 million to go to a group called the Covenant House and changed the amount to $3.9 million.
That she did, but what the article, at the time, did not mention when they headlined their piece called "Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms," is the $3.9 million dollars she approved was triple the amount the Covenant House had received the previous year.
Instead of "slashing" the funding, Palin has increased the funding, but that did not stop the New York Times from running the same incorrect story the next day as the Carolina Journal Online reports.
The same thing was done with special needs funding, Daily Kos struck again, CNN's Soledad O'Brien reported it that Palin decreased funding for special needs children, and Education Week showed that Palin actually increased it.
CNN's Soledad O'Brien reported that Palin had cut the budget for special needs children by 62 percent. Was it her intrepid reporting that uncovered that "tip"? No, it was taken from a far-left Web site, which has apparently become the mainstream media's new source for story ideas.
Instead of focusing on legitimate questions about actual events, the media, taking tips from the liberal blogosphere, has decided to to attack without verifying, fact checking or even doing the minimal amount of research into stories, they they are shown to be incompetent in their reporting.
It has gotten a level where the majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe "Reporters are trying to hurt Palin" as reported by Rasmussen.
Sarah Palin was watched by tens of millions on the night of her speech at the Republican convention. She is drawing crowds everywhere she goes. She is being identified with and spoken about and some might say that without the help of the liberal blogosphere and their rumors and without the help of the media actively misreporting and helping spread false rumors, Palin might have simply gotten a little attention but remained largely unknown.
Perhaps conservatives and Republicans everywhere should be thanking the progressive, liberal rumor spreading supporters and media for helping to make Sarah Palin a household name.
More from Hot Air and Explorations, here or here.
Posted: 06 Sep 2008 02:49 AM CDT
When I was a kid -- (here we go again, an old timer reminisces) -- When I was a kid you could get into the Saturday afternoon double feature at the local movie theater for fourteen cents. And you could watch two new movies, a travelogue, two or three cartoons, a newsreel, a comedy serial, and if you were lucky enough, you could get to see a new Roy Rogers Western. At least once a month, Roy would be fighting off Wild Indians (those two words were inseparable in those days). And sometimes he'd be on his valiant horse Trigger (a kind of four-legged good guy), galloping across the badlands in a cloud of dust, pursued by two dozen or so Wild Indians, and he'd turn around and get off one shot from his trusty silver-plated six-shooter and three Wild Indians would immediately fall off their mounts, deader than a doornail. And we never questioned the logic behind this implausible scenario because he was the good guy and the Wild Indians were the bad guys, and the good guys had special powers that the bad guys didn't have. This was why we were going to win the war, because we were the good guys and the good guys always win.
Now, I know how simplistic and foolish this all sounds -- good guys, bad guys -- but then again, we, the good guys, did actually win the war, and the bad guys did actually lose the war. And before we're all too quick to dismiss this whole ridiculous paradigm it might be worth remembering that -- as I pointed out in an earlier article -- two historians of the caliber of Sir John Keegan and Professor Gerhard Weinberg both agreed unequivocally with the characterization of WWII as being a battle between Good and Evil, a war which the Good ultimately won. So perhaps there was something cogent about this simplistic paradigm after all. Perhaps --
When I was a kid things were simpler. Notice, I didn't say they were better -- that probably comes under the heading of a personal subjective opinion. But I doubt if anyone would argue that things were not simpler then. Bad was bad and good was good. It was always pretty obvious who the good guys were -- most of them looked like us, or at least the way we imagined that we might look someday when we got older. And the bad guys mostly didn't look like us. They looked like Wild Indians or Savage Zulu warriors or Space Monsters or especially Japs. And even if they did look like us, somehow they looked meaner and less trustworthy. Anyway, you could always tell who they were. And -- now here comes the really controversial part -- the good guys were almost invariably white guys. I'm sorry, that's just the way it was. Sometimes they might be old white guys, like Gabby Hayes, or sometimes (but pretty rarely) they could be colored guys, and sometimes they could even be recently-converted Wild Indians, like the Lone Ranger's loyal sidekick, Tonto. But, chances are, some white guy was probably in charge.
Then came those fateful cultural upheavals of the Self-Righteous Sixties and everything changed. Now, the surest way to alienate that good-looking brunette you were talking to at that Saturday night party was to say something -- actually, say anything -- at all derogatory about American Indians or colored guys. It would have had about the same effect as saying something derogatory about our fathers and brothers in uniform during that great war two decades earlier. The tables had turned and you'd better be careful now about what you were saying and who you were saying it about. The good guys weren't necessarily the white guys anymore. In fact, the chances were pretty good that the white guys were now the bad guys and those other guys were now the good guys. There was a different take on that same old scenario. Now, the Indian (no longer stuck with that unpleasant modifier, 'Wild') was being chased by two dozen white calvary soldiers, and he'd turn around and get off one shot with his bow and arrow and immediately three white calvary soldiers would fall off their mounts, deader than a doornail.
Read the rest here at Radarsite
Posted: 06 Sep 2008 01:00 AM CDT
Cross posted from Miss Beth's Victory Dance
Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that's the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.
When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I'm simply pro-child. I don't believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason--when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.
Believe me, I've heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I'm screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.
Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don't like them, don't listen. But don't attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.
Which brings us to politicians.
We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this--you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don't have to face the gruesome reality of your "choice"). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.
Surprise! They're all democrats.
Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.
The trouble is, it doesn't work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don't and you aren't. When you are out of line with the Church because you don't understand something or don't know something, that's fine--as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.
Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will--yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don't get to pick and choose for expediency.
In matters of life, the Church has always been firm--life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.
On July 25, 1968--in the wake of the advent of "The Pill" and the subsequent sexual revolution--Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical "Humanae Vitae".
From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:
The next subsection is "New Questions" Point 3:
All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.
Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd's Voice here:
The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.
Reactions were swift and immediate:
In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: "Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion."From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi's Abortion Remarks Scandalous):
"I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart," he continued.Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:
"Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family," he said.Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it's stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It's a dichotomy which will never meet.
Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:
National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker's Statements here:
If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain."and:
In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law." (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.Well. That seems pretty clear to me.
Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn't lax enough--they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, "freedom" to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don't understand the Church will not change her stance on these items--ever. No matter the currently in vogue "revolution", the Church will not change for expediency. She can't change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.
Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn't strengthen the Church, they weakened her.
Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this--artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior--the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.
The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.
Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No--because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.
Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of "women's choice" espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:
This is a saline abortion:
This is a partial birth abortion:
I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for "women's rights".
People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called "religious" as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it's because those who believe in this kind of "enlightenment" are truly dangerous--and yes, evil. This isn't about a woman's choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.
Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy--I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.
Posted: 05 Sep 2008 08:22 PM CDT
Below there is a bonus of a tribute from PUMA to McCain and Palin, via video.
Earlier we found out Barack Obama was calling in the big guns to fight his battles.... the women...why? Because he cannot fight his own battles against the big bad Sarah Palin.
Unless he is trying to play the race card...yet again.
"And I know that the temptation is to say, 'You know what? …The guy hasn't been there that long in Washington.,' You know, 'he's got funny name,' You know, 'we're not sure about him,'" Obama continued. "And that's what the Republicans, when they say, 'This isn't about issues, it's about personalities,' what they're really saying is, 'We're going to try to scare people about Barack. So we're going to say that you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections or we're going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he's not patriotic.'
Okay, everyone at the same time.....AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, poor thing.
Desperation makes for foolish moves and that is one of the most foolish I have seen in a while....ummm.... since the last time he played it.
Why is Obama desperate?
His polling numbers and convention bounce are gone, his highly touted speech got less television viewers that Job McCain and McCain and Palin combined received 14 million more viewers than Obama and Biden did combined and Barack Obama is beginning to understand that he has messed up, continuously, with his latest and most devastating screw up being his lack of judgment in not choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
The stink of desperation is starting to make itself known all around Obama and I cannot think of any people more happy to see him running scared as the folks at No Quarter and the PUMA's.
Here is a tribute from PUMAS to Sarah Palin and John McCain, via video below, titled "Sarah Palin - America's VP (Clinton's 18 Million PUMA Democrats thank and celebrate John McCain's wisdom on the pick)"
Looks like Sarah Palin is appealing to more than just conservatives.... no wonder Obama is running scared and trying to pathetically play the race card...if no one else will play it, I guess he has to attempt to play it himself.
Pitiful and laughable.
Posted: 05 Sep 2008 03:26 PM CDT
The television stations tracked for John McCain's speech, according to Bloomberg, were CBS, ABC, NBC and the Spanish-language networks Univision and Telemundo as well as the cable stations MSNBC, CNN and Fox News.
John McCain attracted 38.9 million television viewers for his Republican Convention acceptance speech, breaking the previous record from Barack Obama which was 38.4 million viewers as well as being viewed by more than the GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin.
The television stations tracked for Barack Obama's speech were CBS, ABC, NBC and the Spanish-language networks Univision and Telemundo as well as the cable stations MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Black Entertainment Television and TV One.
Black Entertainment Television and TV One did not air the McCain speech.
The last night of the Republican gathering in St. Paul, Minnesota, was seen in 28.3 million homes, breaking the record of the 27.7 million who tuned in for Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. McCain's ratings are the highest for a political convention since Nielsen began collecting data in 1960.
Combined, McCain and Palin had 76.2 million viewers in comparison to Barack Obama and Joe Biden who had 62.4 million viewers.
The Republican nominee's audience last night also exceeded the average viewing audience for the Beijing Olympics, a separate Nielsen report showed. U.S. Olympics viewers averaged 27.7 million a night, making the games the most watched.
TV Week breaks the numbers down a bit for ABC, NBC and CBS.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|