Saturday, August 30, 2008

John McCain proves he has a sense of humor!

Did you hear the one about the Vice Presidential candidate? Oh man, I thought McCain was old, and completely out of touch, but instead here he is totally punking the entire country. He had the balls to get on national TV and pull off the best practical joke I've seen in years! He actually acted like he picked a former beauty queen with a BS from the University of Idaho in journalism to potentially run the country! Oh man, that's rich! That's less education and foreign policy experience than I have! It's so funny because the Democrats are now tripping over each other to dis this Mary-Anne look alike as if McCain would really pick someone with an active misconduct investigation against her to be his running mate. As if that's not enough, he hilariously said Sarah would pick up Hillary supporters, although she is anti-abortion, anti-conservation, and is literally married to someone in the oil industry. That's high satire! Oh, the irony is funnier than Arrested Development and How I Met Your Mother combined!

You got us John, and it's a good one. Funny stuff. Now who's really your VP pick? No, seriously, quit playing around. Who are you really picking? John? JOHN???!!!

Oh Shit.


Anonymous said...

You may be "mis-underestimating" the power of THIS woman!

I don't think this is your 'typical' gal in any stretch of the imagination.

The more you learn about Sarah Palin, the more you may be surprised.

BTW, Are you sure you aren't showing just a wee little bit of sexism? Or maybe reading too many liberal blogs?

I can't wait until McCain*Palin get elected so she will have an opportunity to prove your sarcasm to be a bit hasty.

In any event, she is as, if not more, qualified than Obama or Hillary. Talk about jokes...



Dan said...

Oh, I say thee nay- no sexism here. I've no issues with Young Ms. Palin's gender, and I am not even trying to delve into any of the nasty rumors-- but I am not sure how running a town of 6000 (and coming under investigation twice for misconduct during that time) and then spending 8 years running a state with less population than most American cities equates to more political expertise than six years in the Federal Government. I will admit though Obama and Palin have the same number of years of college- though she turned six years into a BS in journalism, and he turned his into a Bachelor's in Political Science/International Relations and a Harvard Law degree. Serving on the Sentate Foreign Relations committee is a bit of a leg up as well. And- he wrote his speech, and didn't try to claim change while having a Bush speech-writer put words in her mouth. Change doesn't mean you have different people say the same things.

Anonymous said...

LOL ~ Dan ... THAT response proves to me that you really DO read and watch too much liberal biased media.

I don't believe for one minute that the size of the town has any relevance. The same decisions have to be made. In fact, in a smaller town a governor has to actually have more skills in dealing with situations hands-on because they are more accessible to their contingency... they see them everyday, everywhere they go. They aren't insulated by aides and managers and PR agents. They are responsible and accountable for keeping things on track. They have to have common sense, people skills and good character. All the rest of it comes from experts that they trust and surround themselves with. No one can be an expert on everything and I think Sarah is a fast learner! Her approval rating is 80 - 85%. She has a proven record for everyone to see and is honest and forthcoming as opposed to Obama's experience running for elections and disowning his history, background and past associations when it gets politically expedient. You list his 'six years in the Federal government' but he has spent the vast majority of that time traveling the country running for his 'next' job, all the while taking his full salary and benefits from the taxpayers he is NOT representing!

Voting 'Present' is NOT making good executive decisions.

As for investigations, accusations and scandals, how many of those were the Clintons, and now the Obama's involved in? (BTW, why is it that the liberal media always seem to miss or downplay big scandals involving Democrats?)

Let's see, what's the definition of misconduct? Ayers and the Weathermen; Wright; Farrakhan; Black Liberation Theology; Rezko; his communist mentor (and child molestor) FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS; his Kenyan political interventions and connections with his Luo tribe killing Christians after they lost an election;drug abuse; 17 unpaid parking tickets going back to 1988 that he only paid after he made the decision to run for office; Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors; his fake show of patriotism AFTER he gets criticized; Obama LIED by repeatedly claiming to be a 'constitutional law professor' when in fact, his title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer". Details matter.

Good grief ~ the list goes on and on.

The John Edwards affair is a chilling reminder that Democratic cover-ups can succeed, (over two years in this one case) with the help of the media, and that even the most sophisticated "investigative" reporters are prepared to overlook especially potentially devastaing Democratic scandals. Edwards is out of the race, but Obama is running ahead in most polls for the highest office in the land and seems confident that the media will not blow the whistle on his Marxist associations.

Perhaps Obama should be subjected to the scrutiny he deserves and bring these unsavory lies, deceptions and radical connections to national attention. He is hiding MUCH more than the allegation that Palin tried to get someone who tasered a 10 year old kid, was found to be drunk on duty and made death threats to others, fired from a position in law enforcement!

And oh yeah, Obama got lots of assistance with the plagiaristic content of his speeches even if he 'hand-wrote' them himself.

(Note one example: his slogan, “Yes we can,” was lifted directly from Bob the Builder.):-O

Palin's speech contained mostly content that she originally used on her own. Just because she had professional assistance in quickly putting it all together doesn't mean she can't think or is ignorant as the liberals would love for us to believe. She isn't even remotely as staged as Obama has been for the past two years.

Preaching Saul Alinsky's slogan of 'Change' doesn't mean the American people are too stupid to see the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Deborah :-)

Dan said...

Well, I am a little concerned we have seen Governor Palin make the same false statement from that speech word for word on three occasions, but.... Let me ask you this: If the size of Wasilla doesn't matter, should a Squad Leader in the US Army who is a decent leader run his Brigade? Or the Pentagon? Obviously not. I also think the caveat "executive" experience is quite telling. McCain (and Clinton) harped on Obama for his lack of experience for months... until picking a less experienced running mate. Then suddenly it's "executive" experience.

You again reiterate a list of charges against Obama the mainstream media has dismissed. These can't get true play- the media wants RATINGS and any of these with someone to back it up is a ratings grabber. Though, I am still waiting for the mainstream media to run the clips of The Governor from her 2006 debate to become Governor where she defends the bridge to nowhere as great for Alaska and applauds her congressional representatives for getting such earmarks.

Please check out my post bagging on the liberal bloggers for making stuff up.

I reiterate- if Sarah Palin was a guy, she would not have been considered. I applaud the fact McCain played this card and it worked for him. I shake my head at the nation for buying it.

Anonymous said...

Good points Dan. I must say though that if Obama wasn't 'black' he wouldn't have been considered either!

:-O (Well, HE is the one that keeps reminding us he's black!)

As for the media and their ratings, they have sold their souls to get Obama elected and they want Obama elected more than anything. They are so biased that Olber'ham' and Matthews were finally 'reassigned' ~ even while drawing huge ratings. Their lust for Obamamania couldn't even be controlled to the point that they were willing to lose their jobs ~ and now any pretense of fairness is futile.

They haven't had to expose Obama to get big ratings because they have been riding his messianic rise. Besides, they are too busy digging for more 'allegations' on Palin to exaggerate instead of asking hard questions of Obama on who his closest friends and mentors are.

There is no way you can deny that there is an extreme bias and unfairness in the way the different candidates are being treated and presented. For you to think they would actually say anything negative about 'The One', let alone investigate anything against him, indicates you are naive at best. That doesn't mean there isn't anything there. And I suspect a lot more than we'll ever know.

Is this my paranoia coming into play? I sure hope so anyway.