Accuracy in Media
Curvy Graphic

Make Oil, Not War


By Rachel Paulk  |  August 8, 2008


 

Solutions to the impending energy crisis have been slow-coming from Washington due to partisan infighting in Congress- republicans rallying behind the “increase supply” mantra and pushing for drilling; democrats relying on the economic alternative “decrease demand” and pushing forth an environmentalist agenda focused on alternative energy sources and public transportation.  

 

Instead of working towards increasing supply by exploring America’s drilling options and building its additional refinery capabilities, environmentalists and liberals alike tout now as the time to develop alternative sources of energy.  While this development would be very positive for working to alleviate American’s oil addiction, the alternative energy options are just that: developing.  Our long-term goals should certainly include weaning America off oil; our short-term goals need to include producing more oil to more immediately ease the pain felt by the economy. 

 

Yet liberals oppose drilling in America due to the purported environmental repercussions.  Drilling in ANWR would spoil the pristine condition of the unspoiled land and would disrupt the natural wildlife and animal inhabitants of the area- same with exploring shale oil in the Rockies.  Mentioning offshore drilling conjures references to the Santa Barbara oil spill in ’69.  Not only are additional refineries considered unneeded, but the damage done by pollution would be unnecessary.  Yet how fair are these arguments?  The Clean Air Act, amended in 1990, stringently regulates permits for and restricts emissions by nuclear facilities and oil refineries.  The Santa Barbara backlash led to improved offshore drilling facilities across the industry that has yet to see another environmental disaster, more than 30 years later.      

 

While the work environmental agencies undertake is important for protecting the earth against pollution, America needs to examine a cost-benefit analysis of delaying immediate oil relief to appease these groups.  The oil crisis is costing the U.S. deeply, with severe economic repercussions as well as compromising political implications.  While urban areas offer access to various means of public transportation, rural areas often don’t have the infrastructure necessary to realistically implement a reliance on mass transit- as a result, citizens in these areas have been bearing the brunt of the impact of the oil emergency.  Also, the damage done to industries across the spectrum guarantee that the average U.S. citizen will pay for the oil crisis- whether it’s airline prices rising, grocery prices rising, shipping prices rising- one thing is clear: prices are rising.  Coupled with this increase in prices is a decrease in jobs; the automobile industry is facing rapid downsizing as well as the transportation industry. 

 

The political implications to the oil crisis are dire as well.  Congressman Mike Rogers [R, MI-8] stated in a recent presentation on America’s energy dependence that “…We send [Saudi Arabia] 40 million dollars every single day.  We send the Russians about 220 million dollars every single day. We send Hugo Chavez about 180 million dollars every single day.  These are people who don’t clearly think all that highly of us.”  America’s dependence on foreign oil gives billions of U.S. dollars to countries we’d otherwise describe as our rivals or even enemies.  Not to mention the oil-rich Middle East- it’s in the U.S.’s best interest to be capable of supporting its own oil addiction. 

 

America has the resources to rescue the tumbling economy while preventing the soaring gas prices- yet these solutions to the oil problem are prohibited by environmental groups spearheading campaigns for polar bears, wielding images of oil-soaked seagulls, and predicting a dire global meltdown.   

 

To read more about the energy protests of the Republican Congressmen on the House floor, click: here.   or here


CNN Fabricates Lack of McCain Support


By Rachel Paulk  |  August 6, 2008


 

Where is the Red? - a group dedicated to telling the truth about the alleged youth vote- reported about a CNN story (which can be found: here) which widely questions McCain's ability to appeal to young voters.  The story quotes an Eric Perlmutter, "a Republican and student at the at the University of Southern California," making disparaging statements about McCain's lack of popularity on campus compared with Obama. 

 

However, 'Where is the Red?' asserts this source was fabricated.  Their announcement is as follows:

Yesterday, CNN released a story claiming that no young voter would support John McCain for President.   They spoke to one Eric Perlmutter, a "College Republican" at the University of Southern California, who said, "We try to get people out to our College Republican meetings, but we can't seem to get the same amount of support."

The only problem? None of CNN's reporting is true, and we called them out on it.

Ben Myers, the president of the USC College Republicans, has never seen Perlmutter in his life. He said, "As far as I know, he could be a Democrat." (LA Times, 7/24/08) In fact, this whole story could be phony. No Eric Perlmutter is affiliated with the USC College Republicans, though there is a CNN producer named Bruce Perlmutter. Even worse, some of Perlmutter's quotes are taken directly from a story in the Washington Post! (The blog CitizenSugar has the whole story.)

While the mainstream media publishes fiction about fake College Republicans, four real College Republicans are working their way across America telling the truth about the youth vote.

Fox and Hounds Daily, a site dedicated to "keeping tabs on California business and politics," published a story by Michael Antonopoulos, Chairman of California Students for McCain.  Antonopoulos states as follows:

Yesterday morning, I awoke to concerning news – someone claiming to be linked to Students for McCain and the USC College Republicans had been quoted by CNN as stating that McCain does not appeal to youth, Republicans included, and will struggle to carry the youth vote on both sides of the aisle. The CNN story was one of the top headlines on their website, and even made the front page of Yahoo.

Later in the day, CNN posted a video clip of the interview, showing supposed College Republican Eric Pearlmutter elaborating on how Senator McCain was far less appealing to young voters, and as a result, how the College Republicans at USC were having trouble getting students to even attend their meetings.

Right off the bat, something seemed a bit off – given the fact that USC is currently not in session, it was strange to have a College Republican commenting on meeting attendance, and I hadn’t ever met the individual in the CNN article and video despite working closely with leaders at our USC chapter in the past.

Confirming our suspicions with two of our contacts at the campus, USC College Republicans Chairman Ben Meyers and California College Republicans Chairwoman Cheyenne Steel (daughter of F&H Blogger Michelle Steel), we found that Mr. Perlmutter was not, and had never been, a member of the USC organization. No one affiliated with the chapter that I spoke with had even heard of him prior to the publication of the CNN article, and there was no record of him ever attending a College Republicans meeting.

Students for McCain’s California youth effort has so far been a huge success, with our membership growing every week. I do concede that Senator Obama has an obvious appeal to a good portion of the youth vote. However, Students for McCain, throughout the state and at our USC chapter, has proven that there is active and growing support in the youth electorate for Senator McCain as well.

We chose to respond yesterday afternoon by issuing a press release to media outlets throughout the state -- as seasoned veterans of the press along with a handful of political bloggers took note of the obvious discrepancy and began to investigate, a lot more was revealed.

Theories began multiplying at a startling pace -- They ranged from standard accusations of CNN carrying a liberal bias to an investigative claim that Mr. Perlmutter was in fact a relative of a CNN producer who was used to fabricate quotes for the purpose of the story. Although it is too premature to speculate on CNN’s motivations in this matter, the bad press forced them to ‘admit an error’ via the Los Angeles Times Political Blog and invite the Students for McCain Chair at USC to tell his side of the story on an upcoming edition of their morning show.

 

I don't think the real question is why they chose to fabricate a source to hurt McCain's campaign.  I think the real question is how shameless CNN intends to be in promoting their political agenda over actual factual reporting. 

 


These are the Congressman that actually care


By Rachel Paulk  |  August 4, 2008


Dear fellow Americans,

 

The Republican congressman are protesting Pelosi's refusal to vote on the "American Energy Act"- a bill focused on gas price relief for you.  Instead of recessing as Pelosi's called, they are staying in the House as a protest.  Friday most of the GOP remained in the House, old-school hippy sit-in style, and the following is the iternary, so far, of what the congressmen/women are doing and have done today:

 

10:10 a.m.-
Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) offered this morning's prayer.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) led the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.

10:16 a.m.-
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

10:20 a.m.-
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)

10:27 a.m.-
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)

10:32 a.m.-
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)

10:44 a.m.-
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)

10:50 a.m.-
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)

10:55 a.m.-
Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)

11:00 a.m.-
Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL)

 

11:06 a.m.-
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)

11:13 a.m.-
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

11:26 a.m.-
Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)

11:33 a.m.-
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

11:37 a.m.-
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)

11:45 a.m.-
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)

11:50 a.m.-
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

11:57 a.m.-
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH)

12:02 p.m.-
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

12:16 p.m.-
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)

12:20 p.m.-
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)

12:27 p.m.-
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

12:43 p.m.-
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

12:53 p.m.-
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)

 

1:04 p.m.-
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

1:36 p.m.-
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

1:53 p.m.-
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

1:58 p.m.-
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)

2:02 p.m.-
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

 

2:17 p.m.-
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL)

2:33 p.m.-
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

2:45 p.m.-
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

2:52 p.m.-
Rep. Phill Gingrey (R-GA)

3:13 p.m.-
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)

3:22 p.m.-
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

3:27 p.m.-
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)

3:36 p.m.-
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

3:39 p.m.-
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

3:53 p.m.-
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

3:57 p.m.-
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

4:07 p.m.-
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)

4:14 p.m.-
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)

4:20 p.m.-
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) delivered closing remarks.

4:25 p.m.-
Debate concluded for the day.

 

Expect future updates.  Above is the list of congressmen/women who care about you. 


Sex and Politics from the Senate


By Rachel Paulk  |  July 30, 2008


 

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) said the following in a speech at Heritage yesterday:

 

"I look at Ed with a great deal of envy with his full head of hair.  I have, uh, had a little bout with Hodgkin's, and one of the consequences of Hodgkins is, uh, you lose all your hair.  But it comes back, and I'm now finding more interest in my hair styling than I am in my positions on a couple of policy.

I have a lot of correspondents suggesting I wear a toupee, some of the correspondents suggest that I shave my head and become a sex symbol-  excuse me, what's so funny about that young lady?- but I rejected that idea for two reasons:

Number One, my wife is opposed to it

Number Two, I'm not qualified." 

 

Specter Sans Hair

 

Is Arlen Specter the next Patrick Stewart?

 

Stewart Sans Hair


Liberal Blogger Comments on Liberal Media Bias


By Rachel Paulk  |  July 29, 2008


Lee Stranahan,  blogger carried by the Huffington Post (yes, I said that, the Huffington Post), wrote a blog about the coverage on the alleged John Edwards' affair scandal, or, to be more specific, the lack of coverage on-as he puts it-  "the tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party."  Evidently Stranathan's observations didn't land him in the popular table at lunch today among his liberal counterparts. 

He writes:

How's it going to play out? It seems to me that this is going to be a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party and right now the coming typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking. We're at the point of calm before the big waves hit but there are signs of the impending deluge. Jay Leno is making jokes about it. Perez Hilton is on the story. The mainstream media is fairly quiet but the most ominous silence right now is from the progressive blogosphere.

The progressive blogosphere is ignoring this story at its own peril because it's going to be big. At this moment, there's a weird state of denial about the entire thing. As of 4pm Saturday, nothing at all on TalkingPointMemo.com. DailyKos did a dismissive post making fun of the Enquirer. FireDogLake? Nothing. Americablog? Nada. These are some of my favorite blogs, by the way.

The Huffington Post has at least hovered about the edges of the story as it's been unfolding. There have been a couple of half-hearted, nothing-to-see-here blogs but also news reports on the latest events. A blog by John McQuaid said that there's no "physical evidence a la Bill Clinton." Well, there's a baby. Not a stained dress left to hang in the closest for a few months but a real cooing, smiling little baby who I assume looks adorable on camera and probably has nice hair. That lil' tyke is stuffed full of DNA, too. Cute little DNA.


Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President less than six months ago and is now on the short list for Vice President has an long affair during the campaign and fathers a child, covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the child. News! Oh -- and his wife made regular appearances on the campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer. If it were Mitt Romney, you'd be hearing peels of laughter and the satisfying smacking sound of Merlot and Starbucks fueled high fives coming from the nearest blue state. Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course it would...with funny pictures and as many self-satisfied comments as you can shake a Macbook Air at.

It's a juicy story that has so many elements that are easy hooks for those short segments on cable news where two people argue while the news anchor asks softball questions. Here's a quick list of all the story angles I can think of just off the top of my head.

John Edwards Matters This isn't a Mike Gravel affair. (Sorry to put that image in your head.) John Edwards been the conscience of the Democratic Party this primary season and a compelling presence speaking out on the growing gap between rich and poor. If he wasn't going to be Vice President, most Democrats wanted him somewhere in an Obama cabinet.

Video Clips Galore! Cable news loves showing video clips, usually in looping montages. Those webisodes that Hunter made that were taken down? They look flirty and suspicious in light of the alleged affair.

It's Fresh The Edwards affair happened during the primary campaign. This isn't ancient history. What if he's WON the primary? Would he really have taken the nomination and handed the race to McCain?

Primary Revisionism Will the affair change the way we look back on the primary? Why did Edwards drop out of the race so quickly? Why did Edwards not endorse anyone until his endorsement was a moot point? Endless debates will ensue.

DNA! The press loves any story with DNA. Drama! DNA test refusals. Acceptance. Test goes out. What will happen? It's like Montel Williams but it takes weeks!

Democratic Convention in Denver happening soon. Will Edwards speak? Will he appear at all? What about Elizabeth? Oh, the drama. You'll see.

"How could he do that to his sick wife?" This whole thing doesn't play well with women voters. Or women non-voters. Or men.

"Should we care about politician's sex lives?" Whatever your answer, that's a hook for the press. As soon as the story reaches a big tipping point, the mainstream press will question the story.

"Liberal media bias" - here's the big one. Republicans have had a lot of embarrassing, juicy sex scandals of their own lately and boy, do they want some payback. It doesn't look good that the Los Angeles Times banned bloggers from discussing the story. Where's the Times investigation -- seems like the story is in their backyard. And that silence you hear from the mainstream press right now? The GOP is going to "play the refs" and jump all over the media for not reporting or investigating this story. The media will eventually break down and do what they do - saturate us with the story they missed just to prove how unbiased they really are.

To view the whole article: here. 

Bush won't endorse McCain because of the negative backlash involved, so I won't endorse Stranahan (who's voting for Obama, anyways).  But at any rate I thought it groundbreaking to see a liberal blogger commenting on the lack of media coverage due to its liberal bias. 


Ben Stein on Obama


By Rachel Paulk  |  July 24, 2008


 

In my opinion, Ben Stein's most famous line goes something like "Buehler?... Buehler?..."  but his comments on Obama's speech in Germany while on Glenn Beck's show were at the very least entertaining. 

 

Media Matters transcribed the conversation as follows:

STEIN: I want -- I'm glad you brought up this Denver thing. I don't like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering people. That is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America. We have a contained number of people in an arena. Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past.

BECK: Well, yeah, you know what? I've been -- I've been saying that we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever.

STEIN: Well, I think --

BECK: I mean it's crazy.

STEIN: It's a scary situation. I mean, I think he has to recognize some bounds on his own ego. I understand politicians are politicians because they have ego deficit problems and they try to cure them by having lots of worship and adulation and adoration. But 75,000 people screaming at an outdoor arena, that's just too much. It's just -- it's scarily authoritarian.

BECK: Ben --

STEIN: It's like Juan Peron --

BECK: It's not --

STEIN: -- and Evita.

BECK: It's not gonna make a difference.


The Story No One’s Reading


By Ben Giles  |  July 23, 2008


After spending the afternoon moping around in disgust and fear over Barack Obama’s comments at a press conference in the Middle East, I finally found some consolation. The Washington Post’s Max Boot provides an excellent analysis of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s supposed “support” of Obama’s 16 month timetable for withdrawal of troops from the country.

In the same way Obama deftly sidesteps the issues on which he is clearly wrong, like the troop surge being responsible for restoring order to Iraq, Boot suggests that Maliki’s statement is simply a political one, not a correct one.

Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience and that he has been trapped in the Green Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces could leave.

In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he claimed, "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half."

In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of control, Maliki declared that it would be "only a matter of months" before his security forces could "take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role."

President Bush wisely ignored Maliki. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, he sent more. The prime minister wasn't happy. On Dec. 15, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has flatly told Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel deployed to the country, according to U.S. military officials." When the surge went ahead anyway, Maliki gave it an endorsement described in news accounts as "lukewarm."

In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki predicted "that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down." In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of security in every province by the end of the year.

Even now, when the success of the surge is undeniable, Maliki won't give U.S. troops their due. In the famous interview with Der Spiegel last weekend, he was asked why Iraq has become more peaceful. He mentioned "many factors," including "the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve," "the progress being made by our security forces," "the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias," and "the economic recovery." No mention of the surge.

Somebody sounds a lot like Obama, doesn’t he? It gets better.

Maliki's public utterances do not provide a reliable guide as to when it will be safe to pull out U.S. troops. Better to listen to the military professionals. The Post recently quoted Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, commander of Iraqi troops in Basra, as saying of the Americans, "We hope they will stay until 2020." That is similar to the expectation of Iraq's defense minister, Abdul Qadir, who says his forces cannot assume full responsibility for internal security until 2012 and for external security until 2018.

The fact is, other than Maliki’s brazen, outspoken comments about withdrawal of American troops by 2010, most Iraqi’s release that certain factors have to met, especially a confidence in Iraqi police and military forces to protect the country and its people.

Obama would never concede this.

Click here for the full article.


There Are No Blogs in Heaven


By Ben Giles  |  July 22, 2008


 

For my introductory blog post, I thought it would be wise to get out into the open my feelings about blogs. And no one has ever summarized those feelings better than Washington Post sports columnist Norman Chad.

I know most of my colleagues here at AIM don’t feel so strongly about the Post, and prefer the towns other major daily, the Washington Times, but I’ve read the Post daily since middle school and will probably be sharing articles from their website often.

Without any further comment, Norman Chad:



With each passing day, I am aware that I am 24 hours closer to death and 24 hours closer to blogging.

(I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who once wrote, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes and blogs.")
 
I recently was asked to start a sports blog -- I'll get back to that a bit later. Right now, I just want to calm the masses. My older friends are railing against blogs and my younger friends are running to them. I'd like to remind fans of all ages of a couple of thoughts:

· Blogs are not the end of the world as we know it; rather, they are an extension of a world we've always known.

· If you're thinking of starting a blog, don't; the world needs more blogs like Madonna needs more leather.

I avoided blogs as long as I could. Some of them make me smile -- http://thebiglead.com is my favorite -- but many send me seeking cover in the corner of the shed, particularly the commenter sections.
 
Blogging comes in the form of the written word, but blogging is writing about as much as working the pole is dancing. Blogging is more of a one-way conversation than anything else, a neighbor who bangs on your door in the morning to complain about the fella down the street who won't cut his front lawn.

Blogging, essentially, is talk radio on steroids.
 
(During my somewhat checkered and sordid career, I have turned down offers to do sports talk radio several times, primarily for three reasons: I would get tired of the sound of my own voice within a month, I cannot fathom having that many opinions every single day and I like to sleep in.)

At least the talk-radio host, after three or four hours of public proclamations, shuts down. But blogs are like 7-Eleven: They have a bunch of stuff you usually don't need and they never close. The blogger can -- and often does -- operate at any time of day or night.

Flip Saunders can't coach? Let me tell everyone how I feel!
 
Another blown save from Francisco Cordero? Let me tell everyone how I feel!

Just had a rare, late-afternoon bowel movement? Let me tell everyone how I feel!

If a blogger were sitting next to you in a bar, you'd stop drinking.

Now, all this blogging and bloviating raises a question: Are we more opinionated than generations past?

To answer that, I'd pose another question: Are we more violent than our ancestors?

Probably not. But the means of violence have become more destructive. First there were rocks, then the bow-and-arrow, then guns, shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, cannons, grenades, tanks, bombs and, ultimately, nuclear arms.

Similarly, we always were passionate about our sports teams, but the means in which we can express that passion has changed.

In the 1930s, you might sit on your front stoop and argue; in the 1960s, you might write a letter to the editor; in the 1990s, you might call in to talk radio; nowadays, you go online and vent.

The Internet is the virtual-reality version of the A-bomb.

Our culture traditionally has spent too much time and energy on sports; blogging is simply a technological extension of this tiresome phenomenon.

So, yeah, I recently said no to starting a sports blog. Who wants more of me, other than couples counselors? And why would I want to pollute an already polluted blogosphere?

As for those of you who insist on blogging on, I just ask that you be more kind and gentle, less cutting and snide.

(Sure, I know, Couch Slouch calling someone snarky is like Charles Manson calling someone macabre. But we all can change -- 37 years in the joint might've reformed Mr. Helter Skelter just as 37 years on the sofa have reformed me.)

Besides, I'm figuring there are no blogs in heaven. Then again, I'm probably looking at purgatory, and http://firejoemorgan.com might make it a bit less insufferable.

 

Click here for the whole story.


Hope and Change from the Messiah


By Rachel Paulk  |  July 18, 2008


Let's get one thing straight: an American Messiah probably wouldn't have listened to Jeremiah Wright all those years without throwing down some tables in the courtyard of the church.  Politics isn't the best choice of profession for a Messiah either, but carpentry seems pretty widely accepted as a solid stepping stone.  On the other hand, Jesus did hang out with tax collectors and (reformed) prostitutes; Obama has friends like Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko.   Yet when Jesus was 13, he wowed biblical scholars with his understanding of complex theology- Obama hasn't shown that yet.  In fact, just the opposite...

 

Dave Weldon wrote the following in a piece entitled "Obama is Just Another Politician": 

What we know about the mind of Barack Obama today is not encouraging.  There are gaping holes in his basic knowledge of history, government and economics.  He said that Arabic was the language of Afghanistan.  He said that the United States has 57 states.  He said that Canada has a president, instead of a prime minister. He doesn't understand the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not convey his orders to the command structure. But this sort of profound ignorance never affects candidates who appeal to emotion and not to intellect, which is to say, most politicians.  And Barack Obama is nothing more than another politician.

To read the whole article click: here

 

Obama's not showing the same kind of understanding I want to see from my Messiah figures.  Or come to think of it, from my presidents either. 


I want more McCain


By Rachel Paulk  |  July 16, 2008


I'm tired of hearing about Barack Obama's latest 'hope and change' monologue, I'm tired of seeing Michelle Obama on vacuous entertainment magazines, and I'm tired of the promises of a new kind of politics mixed with the reality of an old kind of mudslinging. 

In short, I want more McCain. 

 

I want to hear him talk about how his extensive military experience, and his ugly POW days, help him to understand the brutalities of maintaining the war in Iraq and give him the insight to better understand how to handle a war.  I want to hear him talk about his time as a Senator for Arizona for over 20 years, and how his involvement in the political system makes him a solid political player capable of handling a presidency. I want to know more about Cindy McCain, the all-but-invisible wife we hear nothing from, and know nothing about.  To date, all that's evident is that she's younger than John, classy, and good-looking.  When does Cindy go on The View?  When do we get to know more about her? 

 

The bad news is, McCain had a solid three months while Hillary and Obama duked it out that he wasted.  Mostly quiet, he didn't utilize the opportunity as the Republican candidate to build the base he could have.  The good news is, it looks like he's stepping up the campaign front.  Hopefully we get to see some improvements in his public speaking ability, hopefully he comes out swinging on some of the more important political issues du jour- gas prices, etc.  At the end of the day however, I want to hear more about McCain.  I want to see starry-eyed reporters worshipping his every move like the liberal media has done for Obama; I want to see more of Cindy; and I want to see him bank on his experience to effectively market the qualifications he brings to the table. 



Visit the complete Blog - On Target archives.
Support AIM
Join AIM

Red Line
Email Signup
*  Email:
    Zip:

*  Code shown:
(without spaces)