Different River

”You can never step in the same river twice.” –Heraclitus

September 24, 2008

McCain suspends campaign to return the Senate; Reid says he’s not welcome

Filed under: — Different River @ 5:49 pm

McCain just announced he’s suspending his campaign and returning to
Washington to deal with the financial crisis.

… It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration’ proposal. ….

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

He’s even stopping his advertising and requesting that Friday’s debate be postponed.

In his usual manner of bipartisanship, Harry Reid told McCain NOT to come back.

Biden on the Financial Crisis

Filed under: — Different River @ 1:50 am

The AP Reports on Sept. 23

WASHINGTON – Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says today’s leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a financial crisis.

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,’” Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929.

It’s actually even worse than that.

The first presidential TV appearance wasn’t until 1939, and the first televised presidential “address to the nation” was by President Truman in 1951 — a full 22 years after the stock market crash!

But hey, at least Biden has EXPERIENCE, so he won’t make stupid ignorant mistakes like Palin will!

September 17, 2008

Hillary’s Odd Priorities

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:21 am

A coalition of American Jewish groups has scheduled a rally for Sept. 22 outside the UN, to protest the appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is not surprising, since Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews worldwide. He is one of those people who denies that the Holocaust, the mass-murder of one-third of the world’s Jewish population during World War II, actually occurred, but seems to think it would have been a good idea. Protesting against Ahmadinejad seems to be the sort of thing every decent person would support, regardless of politics — unless your politics is that all Jews deserve to die. Sounds safely bipartisan, right?

Sen. Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at the rally. She accepted.

Gov. Sarah Palin was invited to speak at the rally. She also accepted.

Then Clinton heard Palin was going to be there, so Clinton cancelled. She claimed to have been “blindsided.”

Thus, Hillary Clinton refuses to appear on the same platform as Sarah Plain — even at an event that ought to be thoroughly uncontroversial to all Americans.

This might be understandable — barely — if Clinton had a long-standing policy of refusing to appear with people with whom she disagreed. This would hardly be a policy of “uniting not dividing,” but at least it would be consistent.

But inevitably, her refusal reminds me of a previous incident, in 1999, when then-First Lady Clinton appeared with Suha Arafat, wife of Yasser and listened passively as Mrs. Arafat falsely accuse Israel of poisoning the Palestinian water supply, of “‘daily and intensive use of poison gas’ against Palestinian women and children.” After which, Mrs. Clinton not only refrained from calling Mrs. Arafat on her slanders or her previous endorsements of terrorism, including suicide bombings, but in fact embraced and kissed Mrs. Arafat on the platform, in effect endorsing her claims.

So, Hillary Clinton hugs one who endorses terrorism and slanders Israel, but refuses to appear on the same platform with Sarah Palin.

What can we conclude from all this?

Either Hillary Clinton thinks anti-Israel terrorism is OK, or she thinks Sarah Palin is worse than a terrorist.

Is anyone going to call her out on this?

September 10, 2008

Lipstick and Pigs

Filed under: — Different River @ 11:03 am

So, apparently after Sarah Palin called herself a “hockey mom,” and joked that difference between a hockey mom and pit bull was “lipstick,” Barack Obama said, “If you p[ut lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign demanded an apology.

So, Obama apologized — to the pig.

;-)

Pro-Choice Lesbian Feminists for Palin

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:33 am

I don’t know how many people are in that club, but at least two are well-known commentators, Tammy Bruce and Camile Paglia.

Tammy Bruce, former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, writes in the San Francisco Chronicle:

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

The [Democratic] party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin’s comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she’s voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman – who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

Camille Paglia, University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, writes in Salon:

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. … Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna … .

Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics — which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama’s campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don’t see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

September 5, 2008

Sarah Palin and the “Gender Gap”

Filed under: — Different River @ 6:00 pm

Everyone keeps asking if Sarah Palin will help the McCain ticket appeal to women voters — especially voters who preferred Hillary Clinton.

What everyone seems to be missing is that Palin will appeal to men — perhaps even more.

Liberal women who care more about liberalism than gender will not switch to McCain because he’s running with a conservative woman. The “Debra” vote — Clinton voters who switched to McCain on the basis of Obama’s lack of “experience” may not be followed by more “experience” voters, especially if they measure experience by years in office. (Obviously, some people will count Palin as “more experienced” than Obama because she’s accomplished more even thought she has about the same number of years in office. But those people probably weren’t voting for Obama anyway.)

The demographic that Palin brings to the ticket is going to include a lot of men who were lukewarm McCain supporters who might have stayed home — but think it’s really cool to have a woman on the ticket who hunts, fishes, likes guns, and does all kinds of “macho” stuff with a husband who’s even more macho (He does multi-thousand-mile snowmobile races!). Seriously: Think about guys who like to go hunting on the weekends, but who’s wives don’t like them to leave for an activity they see as pointless. They will look at Palin and say, “Wow — that’s the kind of woman I like.”

I say this as a male with no interest whatsoever in hunting.

I ran this by Different Mother, who said, “Of course [she'll appeal to men]! She’s gorgeous!”

The Democrats are not going to know what hit them….

September 4, 2008

Clinton vs. Palin?

Filed under: — Different River @ 1:18 am

We’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but Rasmussen did a poll in which they asked who voters would prefer for President (not VP), Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton.

The result: Clinton 52%, Palin 41%.

Sounds bad for Palin until you remember: Clinton has been known nationwide for 16 years. Palin has been known nationwide for 6 days!

I’ve been saying for a couple of decades that the first woman president would be a Republican. Now, we know which one it will be.

Remember, you heard it first on Different River! ;-)

September 3, 2008

Liberals claim ANOTHER faked pregnancy!

Filed under: — Different River @ 4:26 pm

You will be pleased to know that the liberals at DailyKos and elsewhere who broke the rumor that Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up the “fact” that her youngest child is “really” her daughter Bristol’s, are not taking the announcement that Bristol is currently pregnant lying down.

They’re now claiming that Bristol’s current pregnancy is a fake, to cover up the “fact” that the Governor faked an earlier pregnancy to cover up Bristol’s real pregnancy!

Can you believe it? Here’s DailyKos:

This is a complete cover up from the McCain campaign because the blogosphere is actually making headway in exposing Ms. Palin’s fake pregnancy. I made this deduction by how fast they’re willing to tell us about what we didn’t really ask them about.

Bristol is not currently pregnant; this press release is a head fake.
Bristol’s tummy is still big from the birth of Trig
Gov. Palin is using the ultimate cover up to cover her fake pregnancy.

Bristol is the real mother of Trig. And Trig is the grandson of Sarah.

This admission is all the proof we need; this admission of pregnancy is the red-flag.

Again congratulation folks for an outstanding “grassroots oppo job”

Congratulations indeed…..

I have always been impressed by the ability of liberals to believe mutually contradictory facts (as in this list which is portrayed as humor but is basically true).

But this really takes the cake.

Ironically, if Bristol were not actually pregnant now, there would have been NO WAY to refute the “fake pregnancy” charge — a DNA test can’t reliably distinguish which of a mother-daughter pair is the real mother of a child, since mitochondrial DNA is passed unchanged from mother to daughter (or son). And of course, if a DNA test showed that Todd Palin was the father, they’d just add incest to the list of allegtions.

And of course, they couldn’t use medical records from Trig’s birth, since the whole claim is that those records were faked.

September 2, 2008

Sex, Hypocrisy, Bill Clinton, and Sarah Palin

Filed under: — Different River @ 10:00 pm

It seems that everyone on the left — from bloggers to CNN — are going on and on about the “hypocrisy” of Sarah Palin expressing pro-life values while her daughter was, um, … making a pro-life decision. And, advocating pre-marital abstinence, while her daughter was, likely without her knowledge, not acting according to that standard.

These people do not seem to understand the meaning of the word “hypocrisy.”

It is not hypocritical to “go on and on” about pro-life values and then make a pro-life decision. That is called, acting in accordance with your principles. It is called being consistent. It is the opposite of hypocrisy. It would have been hypocritical to do the opposite.

As for abstinence and hypocrisy: Have YOU ever done anything your parents disagreed with? Does that make your parents hypocrites? Or does that just mean you didn’t do what they wanted you to do?

Seriously.

Now, here’s some real hypocrisy:

  1. Liberals claiming that Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds were irrelevant to his qualifications, but Sarah Palin’s daughter’s sexual misdeeds — not even hers, but her daughter’s! — are relevant to her qualifications.
  2. Liberals claiming that Bristol Palin’s misdeeds are the public’s business, but that Al Gore III’s drug and drunk driving convictions are his own private business.
  3. The New York Times‘ long record of ignoring John Edwards’ affair and out-of-wedlock child, but running three front-page stories on the same day about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s out-of-wedlock child. So apparently the NYT’s view is that a candidate’s affair is irrelevant to his qualifications for public office, but the candidate’s child’s affair is relevant. Do they really expect us to believe that? Are they discriminating against women, or against Republicans?
  4. Liberals respecting the privacy of Chelsea Clinton, including her dating habits, but plastering the private life of Bristol Palin all over the front pages.
  5. Liberals claiming women should be able to work outside the home when they have small children, that Sarah Palin shouldn’t be VP because she has young children. And of course, they seem to have missed that from the time her first child was born, Mrs. Palin never had a full-time job outside the home until she was elected governor. Which, they are happy to point out when discussing “experience,” was not all that long ago!
  6. Liberals claiming to be against sexism, yet saying that Sarah Palin shouldn’t be VP because she has young children — but it’s OK for Barack Obama to be President even though he has small children. What do that think, that Michelle Obama should be home with the kids? She’s always had a full-time job before, even with young kids.
  7. … And ignoring the fact that when Joe Biden first became a U.S. Senator, Biden was a single father of two children both under age 4.

Note that when the Republicans are involved, the rules get reversed. Who are the hypocrites now?

September 1, 2008

Sexism at CNN

Filed under: — Different River @ 12:56 am

CNN’s John Roberts asked if Gov. Palin would have enough time to take care of her baby if she were elected VP.

Would have have asked that question of a man with a young child?

Of course not.

But if he is asking because he really wants to know, rather than just to smear a Republican woman, here’s the answer: She’ll have more time then if she stays Governor, since as Governor she actually has constitutional duties. All the VP has to do is show up in to open the Senate once a year, and to break a tie vote if there ever is one.

Nice try, CNN.

Smearing Sarah Palin

It didn’t take long for the Democrats to come up with a preposterous smear of Sarah Palin — just going to show that they will say anything to discredit their opponents, no matter how nonsensical it is.

This posting at DailyKos, the leading website of the liberal “netroots,” and its followup here, claim she faked her pregnancy for political gain.

Yup, you read that right. They claim that a 43-year-old governor, constantly in the public eye, faked a pregnancy, and produced a child of which she is not the real mother, to burnish her pro-life credentials. As if, with four children already, these needed any burnishing. After all, they seem to think, you aren’t really pro-life unless your baby has Downs’ syndrome, which this child apparently has.

And where, do they claim, she obtained this baby? They are claiming it is really her then-16-year-old daughter’s baby. And they are claiming that this makes Sarah Palin a hypocrite as far as her pro-life credentials go.

Now, putting aside the fact that there is no credible evidence to support this claim, let’s look at the logic here. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that Palin’s daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, and Palin decided to cover for her and claim it’s her baby. How does this make her a pro-life hypocrite? The claim seems to be that by providing her daughter with an option other than abortion, she would be hypocritical.

That is, in fact, completely backwards. Hypocrisy means claiming it’s OK to do yourself what you say others shouldn’t do. If she’d told her daughter to get an abortion, which seems to be what the DailyKos folks want — that would have been hypocritical for a pro-life person. Providing an alternative — especially one that gives the daughter a second chance to live the values she’s been taught — is exactly what a pro-life person would be expected to do. Obviously, most pro-life parents don’t want their daughters getting, or sons causing, pregnancies out of wedlock. But everybody knows that (a) kids don’t always do what their parents want, and (b) people sometimes succumb to temptation and do things that contradict their own values.

So the liberals have “accused” Gov. Palin of doing something that is entirely consistent with her expressed values. In fact, most people would consider doing what she’s accused of to be incredibly noble and compassionate. But since a Republican did it, it must be awful, right?

Keep in mind that this is assuming that the DailyKos claims are correct — and there is, at present, exactly no evidence for those claims. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this baby is anyone’s but Gov. Palin’s. The “evidence” they present consists basically of three things:

  1. Gov. Palin was age 43 at the time of the pregnancy. According to DailyKos, “everyone knows” 43-year-olds don’t get pregnant. Baloney. My own mother did, and without fertility drugs. I saw my sister 30 minutes after she was born.
  2. Gov. Palin flew around in a plane to give a speech shortly before the birth, then returned to Alaska to deliver the baby. This is viewed as “impossible” since pregnant women generally don’t travel late in pregnancy, therefore this “proves” that she was in fact returning to Alaska to be there when her daughter gave birth, to “pose” as the real mother. Now it’s true that most pregnant women generally don’t travel late in pregnancy — but maybe pregnant Governors do. I don’t think we’ve had a pregnant governor before, so there isn’t any prior data to support this claim.
  3. They have some pictures in which it’s not totally obvious that Gov. Palin is pregnant under her big coat, and one picture in which her daughter has a little fat showing above her waist. Folks, some pregnancies don’t show much. And sometimes fat looks a bit more round than normal, especially with the kind of dress the daughter is wearing. Sheesh.

But of course, none of that matters, since everything is justified in pursuit of the higher goal of smearing Republicans (especially non-white-males who have the uppity to be Republicans, and of course electing the Messiah Obama president.

This isn’t just the nutcases at DailyKos by the way. Some mainstream liberals, like Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic are starting to pick this up.

Fortunately, at least one reasonable liberal is calling them out on this. Ann Althouse writes:

“Stop prying into other people’s vaginas, even if you happen to oppose them politically. What is wrong with you people?”

The insane obsession with Sarah Palin’s pregnancy rages on.

This will all go down in the annals of feminism, people. So think before you write. …


The top one is a new Kos diary, from ArcXIX:


Well, Sarah, I’m calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.

Whew! That is ugly. Pictures are posted, with captions like: “Sarah’s waistline never changed. Her wardrobe still remained tight and professional.” Note the gratuitous insult to pregnant working women. They can’t possibly dress in a professional manner. There are also enlarged photos of the 16-year-old daughter with comments about the shape of her abdomen. The whole world is invited to talk about that teenager’s body.

How nice. How feminist. How “liberal.”

And they say the other side objectifies women and doesn’t respect their bodies?

And by the way — back when Clinton was president, didn’t these people say that personal life isn’t relevant politically, and that lying about sex was OK?

Who again are the hypocrites?

Powered by WordPress