Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Care for a Knife?

Recent events in the health care reform debate have made for some interesting news. It seems Independent Senator Joe Lieberman has announced that he would help with attempts to filibuster a Senate proposal that would include a public option. Democrats and Leftists were not shy about their disdain for Lieberman and his decision, claiming that he was in the back pocket of Big Health Care. (For the record, so is Chris Dodd, and the Left isn't going after him...because he's in favor of the Senate plan.)

On the House side, things aren't much better. Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak recently said that he isn't exactly one of Nancy Pelosi's favorite Democrats because of his efforts to change provisions in the House version of the health care reform bill that would allow federal funding of abortions. Some House Democrats aren't thrilled with Stupak and I'm sure he's enduring the same kind of barbs being thrown at Senator Lieberman.

I've said before that the longer the health care reform debate goes on, the less likely it will be that any bill comes out of Congress this year, or perhaps any year. Combine that with a growing sentiment within the Democratic Party that their leadership has failed them, and you have the beginning of what could be an explosive political situation.

More intriguing to me, however, is how willing some Democrats are to throw aside people who don't follow "the party line." From the party who tells Republicans that they're ruining their party by driving out more moderate voices, it's even more ironic. The Democrats are willing to push people like Lieberman and Stupak out of the party when the party needs their voices now more than ever. Their party is on the verge of splitting down the seams at a time when President Obama needs a united front to pass an important piece of legislation for the President.

Instead, they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Why This Matters

A few more news items that haven't been covered extensively enough for my tastes, so here we go...

- A recent CNN poll shows more people polled disagree with President Obama on important issues by a 51-48 margin. The poll has a 3 point margin of error.

Why This Matters: Although the margin of error is the same as the margin of difference, the real issue at hand is that the President is failing to impress people anymore with his hopeity-change talk. With almost a full year under his belt as President, voters are taking a hard look at the man and not liking what they're seeing. Obama may be a great campaigner, but he's sucking as a leader.

- Former Vice President Dick Cheney took the Obama Administration to task for its policy regarding the war in Afghanistan. Cheney admonished the Administration, accusing it of "dithering" while soldiers die in the field waiting for the President to make a decision on how to proceed.

Why This Matters: Put aside the partisanship for a moment and take a hard look at what Obama's done on this front. If you're being honest, you'll see that he hasn't done much, if anything. With our military in Afghanistan fighting a war that Obama has called "the right war," indecision or even apparent indecision is harmful on so many levels. Cheney may have pulled out a word that hasn't been used much recently, but it perfectly describes the Obama Administration's ineptitude on Afghanistan.

- At a Democratic fundraiser, President Obama took a swipe at Republicans, saying "sometimes they do what they're told." As far as Democrats are concerned, Obama said they were "an opinionated bunch" that are "thinking for yourselves." Naturally, Republicans and conservatives shot back, rejecting Obama's claims.

Why This Matters: The easy thing to do in this case is take it at face value and attack it, but there may be a another reason Obama made the statement that has nothing to do with Republicans. Quite possibly, he was sending a signal to his own party to unite. During an earlier section of his speech, Obama said Democrats "were their own worst enemy" due to their diversity because it undercuts party unity. Right now there are a number of people on the Left who want to punish the "blue dog Democrats" for standing up to the President on his health care reform idea. As badly as Obama needs health care reform to pass, he needs his party's Congressional contingency to come together to save it. And the fundraiser gave Obama the perfect opportunity to ask for it to happen.

- Meghan McCain got in some hot water recently after a photograph of herself in a low-cut tank top was posted on her Twitter account. Critics called her a "slut" while supporters of all political stripes gave her praise for being proud of the way she looks.

Why This Matters: First off, Ms. McCain is attractive and has some nice...assets. Having said that, she wants to be taken as a serious commentator and future shaper of the GOP, but she's doing all the wrong things to get to that point. Sex may sell, but it will only take you so far. She needs to focus and hone her writing skills to find her voice. Otherwise, she'll be disregarded as a vapid Maureen Dowd wannabe. You know, like Maureen Dowd is today?

- Congress is starting work on a "net neutrality" bill that will force internet providers to treat all material coming across its bandwidth equally. Democrats cheer the measure, citing that artists will get more of an audience for their work, while Republicans worry about this being the first step towards controlling the Internet.

Why This Matters: Both sides are being a little too simplistic here and a lot too inaccurate. Forcing internet providers to treat all content the same may elevate some, at least in the short term. However, some sites will see traffic reduced to the point where it may no longer be worth their time to use their bandwidth, and they'll fade away. Others will see their services scaled back, thus inviting loss of customers. And what happens to the artists who get elevated, but then have to fall back in line with the rest of the traffic who will have the same amount of usage they do? You're inviting the death of the Internet as we know it if you support the "net neutrality" proposal.

As for those who think "net neutrality" will signal government control of the Internet, think again. Remember, these are the same group of morons who can't get their figures straight when it comes to the economy. Controlling anything more than a MySpace page will be beyond their capabilities. Even if Congress passes "net neutrality" the government isn't smart enough to enforce it across the board. The Internet is too vast for any government bureaucracy to effectively manage. Heck, the Obama White House had trouble getting hooked up to the Internet! You think they have the savvy to be Internet Czars?

That's all for now.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Strange Bedfellows

It's not often that I agree with columnist and DC press fixture Helen Thomas, but recently she made a great amount of sense. The Hill reports that Thomas was asked in an interview with MSNBC about the rising tensions between the Obama Administration and Fox News. She said, "They can only take you down. You can't kill the messenger."

They say politics make for strange bedfellows, and for once I agree with Thomas. (I'll give you a moment to get the thought of Helen Thomas and me in bed together out of your head before I move on. Okay...there.)

I can't speak to her motives, whether it be giving Obama and his staff some advice or sticking up for Fox News, but I can speak to her message. The Obama Administration going after Fox News is a major mistake for a number of reasons. Sure, it may get the Leftist base fired up, but to the rest of us, it smacks of desperation and fear. Obama's the most powerful man in the world, and he's threatened by a cable news network? Please.

What makes this strategic blunder worse is the fact that it's been done before, and it never worked out well for the President who went after a member of the media or the media in general. Richard Nixon squared off against the Washington Post and wound up having to resign in disgrace after Woodward and Bernstein exposed the Watergate break-in. Bill Clinton went up against Rush Limbaugh and wound up losing control of Congress in no small part because of his attacks on Limbaugh.

Not only do the attacks on Fox News make Obama look bad, they take focus away from his message. If a recent CNN poll is to be believed (and I'm not saying it should be), more than half of Americans polled disagree with the President's actions. That may be because they think he's doing too much or too little, but the point is still the same: Obama is losing people. With health care reform, the possibility of another stimulus package on the horizon, cap and trade, and other larger issues on his plate, Obama's focus should be on getting out his message. Fox News is not the only news source, nor does it control the bulk of the American viewing audience. With the number of sycophants in the media, Obama should have no problem getting out his message, so it's not Fox News's fault.

That's right, kids. It's Obama's fault that his message isn't getting out. And now that he's choosing to focus on a single cable news network, he's choosing to make the same mistake that Nixon and Clinton made.

For whatever reason, Helen Thomas got this one right, and I'll give credit where it's due.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Friday, October 16, 2009

CNN: The World Leader in...What?

The past couple of days has been filled with the story of the "Balloon Boy." There was wall-to-wall coverage on major networks, including CNN. Even after the "Balloon Boy" was found and the story may not be as true as we thought, CNN, the world's leader in news...continued reporting on the story...during one of its main news blocks.

Is it just me, or has CNN become a shadow of a cable news network? There was a time when you could count on CNN to report breaking news that meant something. Today...not so much.

Part of the problem is the nature of what they do. They are a 24 hour news station, and with that comes the need for a constant stream of stories to keep things fresh. Repeating the same stories in a short time span will drive away viewers, so in order to retain viewers, CNN made a Faustian deal to cover more "fluff pieces." At first, it provided a nice balance to the hard news CNN covered on a regular basis. As time went on (and other cable news networks came up to challenge their supremacy), CNN's balance of hard news to soft news got more and more skewed guessed it, Wolf Blitzer covering the "Balloon Boy" story, even after it had became harder to take it seriously.

And with each passing minute of "Balloon Boy" coverage, it gets harder to take CNN seriously. How the mighty have fallen.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Mistakes A-Plenty

The hot story in sports and politics this week has been Rush Limbaugh's failed attempt to be a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. Normally, I wouldn't bother with something like this, but there are a couple of angles to the story that haven't been covered that much, if at all.

First, there's Limbaugh's past. Granted, some of the quotations attributed to Limbaugh by CNN and MSNBC were fabricated. Having said that, though, there's a part of me that thinks that he bears some responsibility for creating the environment on which the Left attacked him this week. One thing I've learned in doing commentary is that you don't want to give your critics ammunition with which they can attack you. The more inflammatory quotations from this past week may have been false, but there are other direct and real quotations from Limbaugh that can be spun into sounding racist. And given the Left's love of blatant dishonesty when it comes to conservatives (see Media Matters for a plethora of examples), it was only a matter of time before the Left used Rush's quotes, both real and fake, against him.

In this case, Rush forgot the idea that within each stereotype there is a kernel of truth. Has Rush made racial statements that went over the line or could be seen as going over the line? Absolutely. With that truth already in place, it wasn't tough to create statements that play to the stereotype the Left has created about Rush and about conservatives in general. When that happens, even people who might not think Rush is racist would have second thoughts about him.

Now, for the fabricated statements themselves. CNN, MSNBC, and any other media outlets who have quoted or shown the disputed quotations without doing the legwork before going to air with them have done a grave disservice to the journalism profession. Regardless of your political leanings, regardless of whether you like Rush, you guys have a job to do: report the news. Limbaugh attempting to be a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams is news enough, so why risk legal repercussions by embellishing the story with unverified quotations attributed to him? And, no, going in after the fact with a "we're still trying to verify the authenticity of the quotations" isn't good enough. You treated the quotations like they were gospel, and in doing so, you've painted yourself into quite a corner if you find the quotations are fraudulent. Is going after Limbaugh worth a libel suit?

But it goes beyond merely personal politics and a limited effect. Many media outlets are experiencing declining viewership/readership, due in no small part to the public not believing the media are telling the truth and believing that they're just grinding partisan axes. If the Limbaugh quotes are proven to be false and come from a Leftist source, the media as a whole may suffer, but none so much as the media outlets who ran with the quotations before verifying them.

Both sides of this situation have some decisions to make about how to proceed from here. But one thing's certain: mistakes were made from both sides, and it will take a Herculean effort to regain the high ground for them both.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Three Ways to Look at the Snowe Vote

Today's Senate Finance Committee vote brought one of the versions of the health care reform bill to the floor of the Senate. The vote itself was along party lines, save for one Republican who voted in favor of it: Olympia Snowe of Maine. This decision overjoyed, confounded, and angered many people, but I have a different take. Or, more precisely, three.

First, the Democrats will treat Snowe's vote like a banner proclaiming "We're bipartisan!" In actuality, however, it's more like a fig leaf than a banner because one Republican vote does not a bipartisan bill make. All it does it make Snowe look like a turncoat to the GOP. (Whether she is will be seen in the coming weeks, but we'll discuss that in a bit.) If the Democrats push through the health care reform bill without Republican help, the Snowe vote will not mean much and won't provide much cover. It will still be a Democrat-lead vote, and they'll get all the praise or blame.

In Snowe's case, though, her vote is understandable, given her state. As of this writing, over 60% of Maine residents favor some sort of health care reform with a public option. Snowe's vote is consistent with her state's principles and her own. Regardless of what happens with the final vote, Snowe has secured her position in Maine by doing what her state wants her to do. In that way, her vote is like an acorn (no, not that ACORN) because she hopes it will grow into a larger, stronger idea, one that will help everyone.

Then again, Snowe's vote to bring the bill out to the full Senate might be a blessing in disguise for Republicans. The longer the health care reform debate rages, the less likely it looks like it will pass. By getting the bill out to the Senate, Snowe may have helped defeat it because there will be more debate of it. More debate means more time spent on it. More time spent means less support as people either read the proposed reforms and get angry or they tune it out completely. So, what exactly does this make Snowe's vote?

Possibly the straw that broke the camel's back.

Monday, October 12, 2009

"Little Fish" or Big Problem?

I ran into an interesting tactic for Leftists who defend ACORN's activities: comparing ACORN to controversial high profile corporations like Goldman Sachs and Halliburton. After all, those big companies are guilty of taking far more money from taxpayers than ACORN, so why focus on the "little guy" when the "big guy" is still out there?

Simple. Because the "little guy" has broken the law on a number of occasions.

Here's just a partial list, as chronicled by Peter Roff of US News and World Report

  • Engaged in tax evasion, obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a cover-up of nearly $1 million embezzled by Dale Rathke, brother of group founder Wade Rathke;
  • Committed investment fraud, depriving the public of the right to "honest services," and engaging in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce;
  • Conspired to defraud the United States by using taxpayer dollars for partisan political activities;
  • Violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act.
There are others, but these are bad enough.

To the Leftists who still think ACORN is a small fish, let me point something out to you. If you shoplift from a convenience store at the same time a murder is occurring on the other side of town, you're still guilty of shoplifting. If Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, or any other big company is guilty of crimes, I fully endorse investigating them and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

And unlike my Leftist brethren, I hold ACORN to the same standard.

Friday, October 9, 2009

More Posters Anyone?

The Leftist blogger who hates me, yet copies everything I do, asked where the posters were to celebrate Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Why Can't Johnny Count?

The Leftist blogger who hates me, but yet can't seem to post anything that doesn't link back to my site or reference me in some other way, posted something about my "desperation" at counting the number of times President Obama used the word "education" in a speech about education as compared to the number of times he referred to himself.

Well, in a post on his blog, he tried to do the same thing with an education speech by George H. W. Bush as "proof" of the folly of doing it. Here's something in particular that caught my eye from his blog.

Here's an education speech by George H.W. Bush. It's MUCH shorter than Obama's speech:

Number of times Bush said "I": 52 times
Number of times Bush said "Education": ZERO times.

If you check the text of the speech, you find something completely different. Take this line, for example:

Education matters, and what you do today, and what you don't do can change your future. use of the word "education" from George H. W. Bush's speech.

Then, there's this line:

It [the National Goals Report] sets forth a challenge: Work harder, learn more, revolutionize American education.

That's two uses of the word "education" and a use of the word "learn" which is connected to education.

Shall we try for another line from Bush's speech? Sure!

I know you've heard about stanines and percentiles, surveys and statistics, but here's what all that fancy talk really means: Education means the difference between a good future and a lousy one.

That's three. Another one?

Reaching those goals is the aim of a strategy that we call America 2000, a crusade for excellence in American education, school by school, community by community.

Four uses of the word "education"? Say it ain't so!

I think you get the picture. In total, I counted 8 uses of the word "education." Furthermore, there are other education-related references, including "homework," "teacher," and "student" to name a few. And in a shorter speech than the one Obama gave.

Maybe it's my "empty head", but I learned in school that 8 was a higher number than 0.

Oh, by the way. I counted only 31 uses of the word "I" in the speech. There were other references, such as "me" and "my", but just going by what the Leftist blogger put forward, I'd say he was wrong about that as well.

So let's check the final scores

Obama's uses of "education" in a longer speech about education: 10 times
Bush's uses of "education" in a shorter speech about education: 8 times

Obama's uses of "I" in the aforementioned speech: 56 times
Bush's uses of "I" in the aforementioned speech: 31 times

Looks like there's a certain Leftist who needs to go back to school.

Class dismissed.

Decoding the Left's Defense of Obama's Olympic Sized Epic Fail

Well, the Leftist who hates me and yet copies almost everything I do tried to spin his way through Obama's Olympic Blunder. Instead of directing you to his blog site, I'm just going to post his words and add my responses.

Conservatives Say: "Yay! America Lost!"

And Leftists Say: "It's Bush's fault!"

Sorry Conservatives. You can set up all the straw men you like, but Obama had nothing to do with the failure to get the Olympics in Chicago.

On the contrary. The world media have all but blamed Obama for Chicago not getting the 2016 nod. They've said it was an embarrassment, and rightfully so. Flying all that way so the President and the First Lady could give a speech where their entire reason for having Chicago host the 2016 Olympics was "because we want it"?

It was the standard practice this year for the national leader to present the bids. Tokyo's bid was presented by Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. Rio de Janeiro's bid was presented by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. And Madrid's bid was presented by King Juan Carlos. The heads of state of all 4 Olympic finalists went to speak at the IOC. This included the King of Spain himself.

Ah, "standard practice." That's why no previous President appeared before the IOC to plug a particular American city...

President Obama gave a ten minute speech presenting Chicago's bid. Obama was respecting the international community by going. Had he not he would have essentially been saying "I'm too good for this, unlike the rest of you kings and presidents who have to grovel". Going to Stockholm was the proper thing to do.

No. What he would have been saying is "I'm following what other Presidents have done. Besides, I have a country to run." Part of being a leader is delegating authority. Couldn't Joe Biden, the Obama Administration's alleged foreign policy expert, taken this one? Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State? Or, here's a novel idea. Why not let the people who have been actually working on the proposal make the pitch?

Last January 8th, does anyone have a clue what President George W. Bush was doing that day? He was in Chicago, meeting with the IOC in an effort to support the bid of Chicago for the Olympics. You know why? Because it's the right thing to do to support your country and the individual governmental entities in it, if you are the head of state.

Ah, but there's a world of difference between meeting with the IOC in a primarily ceremonial capacity, and actually making a pitch at the final vote. Of course, the Left is going to try to spin this anyway they can to take the stink off Obama's pitiful performance.

And let's not forget the reason the IOC ditched Chicago during the first round: The Republican-led Salt Lake City bribery scandal. The International committee is pissed that we exposed their delegates for the whores that they are during the Salt Lake bidding process, where Salt Lake bribed their way into hosting the games and got caught. Another big factor was the Atlanta Olympic bombing by right-wing nutjob Eric Rudolph.

And the big deal-breaker was how intrusive our customs and immigrations policies have become since 9/11, particularly the fingerprinting of foreign tourists.

Excuses, excuses. Chicago was seen as the odds-on favorite to win prior to the Obama-Oprah Express showing up in Stockholm. Besides, if all of these factors were in play, how did Chicago even get considered in the first place?

The IOC works on a principle of "turns" and on countries being due. South America has never had a turn. Brazil (as much as China) is transitioning from a poor country to an important country. By the standards the IOC uses outside of the technical standards so long as Brazil made it to the finals they were going to win. Anyone who follows IOC politics knows this. Madrid wasn't getting it, Tokyo wasn't getting it, and after Doha got punted (who technically had the 4th best bid) and Rio was allowed to move into that slot, Rio was going to win. If Doha hadn't had that one major flaw in their bid it would have been the 2016 Olympics in Doha. The IOC was looking from a country from the global south to host. Africa, Middle East, or South America, if they had a technically proficient candidate that candidate was going to win. South America is just next in line for the Olympics. Last I checked, we don't live in South America. Rio was always the leading city to get the Olympics. Rio put up three times as much money as Chicago did. We've already had the Olympics 7 years ago. It's not like we're being shut out.

Ah, the "it was Brazil's turn" lie. Given the outcome of the previous IOC vote, logic would dictate that it would have been Madrid's turn to host the Olympics, given that they lost the bid by 2 votes. Speaking of which, why hasn't the IOC made it Africa's turn to host the Olympics? I would say if it were anyone's turn, it would be Africa's.

The chance of domestic terrorism from a religious conservative is just too great to ignore in these places. Religious fanaticism is starting to take it's toll on this country much like it has in the Middle East.

Ah, making more excuses for Obama's failure. It's not Obama's fault; it's those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevillllllllllllllllllllllllll religious right wingers...who by and large CONDEMN VIOLENT ACTS DONE IN THE NAME OF RELIGION.

That's why the United States didn't get the bid. The IOC said as much on Friday.

Obama had nothing to do with the failure to get the Olympics in Chicago.

And you'd be wrong. The world media said it was on Friday, Saturday, today...

But Conservatives cheer America losing anyway. Really? This is the best you Conservatives can come up with? This is what you're going to run with in your talking points? I thought it couldn't get any lamer than birth certificates and the "war on Christmas", but there ya go. I mean, holy shit. There's grasping at straws, and then there's mind-blowing idiocy like this.

Do Conservatives really not see how bad it's making the conservative side look for the rest of the country to see Conservative talking heads crowing with delight at the idea that our country won't get to host the Olympics, just because Obama made a simple ten minute speech supporting Chicago's bid? Do you have any idea how insane it makes all Conservatives look? Do you ever want to win an election again?

If Obama gives another speech like he did on Friday, conservatives won't have any problems winning elections again.

And remember this well: If Obama hadn't gone, Conservatives would have blamed the loss on the president... failing to go.

Conjecture at best. Partisan bullcrap at worst.

Besides, wasn't it the Left who screamed about Bush "taking vacations" while there were problems to deal with in America?

Remember when Bush bid for NYC to host the Olympics? I do. The celebrations were attended by Paul Simon and Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters and all kinds of other "intellectual New York liberal/commie/black/jews". They weren't there booing the president. They didn't decide to renounce their support for the New York bid when Bush lent his support.

Remember when liberals cheered "Yay! The United States lost!" When Bush's NYC bid failed? No? That's because liberals didn't cheer. We don't celebrate America losing. That's what Conservatives do.

"The war is lost." --- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

You were saying, Mr. Obama Apologist?

That's right, folks. Conservatives are cheering: "Hooray! The United States lost!"

I haven't seen a single conservative cheering that. More Leftist conjecture to try to cover up Obama's failure.

Three years ago, these Conservatives would have called for someone to be tarred and feathered in the town square if they cheered about the US losing the bid to host the Olympics in 2016. Fast forward to the Obama years and Conservatives are leading the pack to cheer the US failure to win the bid.

Conjecture based on partisanship and love for Obama. Besides, conservatives have other more important things to do than to jet across the globe to make a failed presentation before the IOC, like WORK.

Conservatives have been building up this illusion of patriotic duty and morality for years. Mom and apple pie and honorable military service to a great nation that's here to save the world from itself. But now everyone is starting to realize that Conservatives / Republicans don't really care about morality or even the rule of law. It's all been a lie. Now Conservatives aren't even bothering to pretend to play along anymore.

"There are two places in the world right now that would be a complete disaster to hold the Olympics: The Middle East and United States."

Gee. What conservative said that?

Conservatives are happy the United States didn't win the bid to host the Olympics. These folks are TRUE PATRIOTS!

It's basically what anybody with even a speck of intelligence already knows: Conservatives don't care if America loses, because they put Party before Country.

"There are two places in the world right now that would be a complete disaster to hold the Olympics: The Middle East and United States."

You were saying, Mr. "I Put Country Before Country"? Or would reading what you typed earlier and quoting it directly showing that I don't have the "speck of intelligence" you were just talking about?

But hey, what do you expect from right-wingers? Just look at the right-wing bloggers who exploited a story about a terminally ill child for partisan reasons? Never mind the fact that the FedEx story is such a RARE occurance, that the right-wingers break open the champagne and stumble all over themselves to point this story out! They are inadvertantly reenforcing what the liberals were saying all along. Yet again, the right-wingers shoot themselves in the foot.

Funny, but I don't recall using that story to pimp a particular political party. Instead, I posted it to point out a wonderful story, something that would most likely have gotten glossed over in other areas.

Like, say, the blog site where you bash me while simultaneously copying me? Where's YOUR compassion, Mr. Leftist?

And I'm sorry, anybody who has nothing better to do on both a Friday night and Saturday night than post on a blog, really shouldn't be pointing out who is or isn't an EPIC FAILURE.

Not like posting on a blog on a Sunday night, huh? That's when REAL people with REAL social lives do their blogging, right?

And for the record, Mr. Leftist, that was sarcasm. Look it up and have a conservative explain it to you.

By the way, thanks for posting the links to the blog posts so everyone can see Obama's OLYMPIC SIZED EPIC FAIL!

But hey, maybe someday the GOP will actually have a real accomplishment to boast about.

They already do. Ronald Reagan ring a bell? Winning the majority of the Presidential elections over the past 20-30 years? And you have...Barack Obama being the first President to make a final pitch before the IOC...and fail miserably.

And we'll leave you now with this Olympic Flashback: '02 Salt Lake Games Tainted By Scandal, Bribery and Glenn Beck's Church.

And there you have it. Another attempt to slander Glenn Beck from a Leftist who can't defend Obama's OLYMPIC SIZED EPIC FAILURE. I guess when you can't defend President Obama, you have to scream "GLENN BECK! GLENN BECK!" or "RUSH LIMBAUGH! RUSH LIMBAUGH!" or "FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS!" in a lame attempt to divert attention from the failure that is the Obama Administration.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Friday, October 2, 2009

Six Words to Describe Today's IOC Announcement

Olympic Sized Epic Fail for Obama

'Nuff said.