Doug Giles, Townhall.com

 

They’ve lipsticked Michelle Obama. She morphed from Omarosa to Oprah in a month before the DNC. It’s a miracle! No . . . it’s lipstick.

 

They’ve lipsticked their wealth redistribution aspirations by calling it “economic justice.” Sounds like theft to me. Sounds like they’re going to hammer the productive by reallocating their cash via government command. I smell cherry lipstick.

 

They’ve lispticked the dog out of Obama’s mentors and associates such as Frank Marshall Davis, Gerald Kellman, Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They have downplayed both the gravity of these freak’s anti-American sentiments and they have lip glossed B-HO’s close friendships with these boys.

 

They put $20 worth of lipstick on his “community organizer” stuff. Barack’s camp has made this sound like he’s been feeding the multitudes with five loaves and two fishes for the last couple of decades. What I have found is a bunch of voter fraud activities and Wal-Mart bullying.

 

They’ve lipsticked his proposed “universal voluntary public service.” Sounds strangely involuntary to me. Sounds like if you take cash from the government then the government officially becomes your pimp. Pass the lipstick. Also, pastors, you might want to think twice about taking cash from the government if Obama becomes president. Achtung, baby. Read article.

 

Susan Jones, CNS News.com

 

Sen. Barack Obama can be quite an orator when he uses a teleprompter, and now he’s bringing one along on the campaign trail.

 

On Monday, he used a prompter at two events in Colorado, including an appearance at a rodeo. Read article.

 

Rich Carroll, 2 Sisters From the Right.com

 

Imagine for a few moments that your candidate has used more than one name. His original birth certificate is unavailable, and he was mentored during his youth by a high level communist in Hawaii. You receive a 3 page “dossier” on Frank Marshall Davis. You also learn the candidate was proctored into an elite Eastern private university by a middle eastern Muslim. You receive a short dossier on Khalid al-Mansour. You learn the candidate has terrorist organization “Nations of Islam” employees on his current staff, and one of his advisors is a member of the global terrorist group “Muslim Brotherhood.”

 

On day four, you receive in the mail from the security agency two books the candidate has written. You read both books, highlighting the anti-American, anti-white racist passages. You note the admissions of drug use. You also receive in the packet a copy of the bitter anti-white thesis his wife wrote as a college undergraduate.

 

You receive a 4 page fax on the candidate’s relative, Raila Odinga, who is connected with brutal Muslim politics in Africa, and background information on the candidate’s estranged father who was part of Kenya’s most corrupt regime.

 

The fifth day brings to your special delivery mail the complete background on Bill Ayers; his association with your candidate, his FBI criminal record, and a copy of the book “Rules for Radicals” written by communist Saul Alinsky. Read article HERE. . . . . or HERE.

Willie Brown, SFGate.com

 

For first time in modern history, a presidential race is actually going to be decided by the vice presidential pick.

 

Thanks to Sarah Palin, this is no longer a contest between Barack Obama and John McCain - it's between Brother Barack and Sistah Sarah.

 

Rock star vs. rock star. Inexperienced vs. inexperienced. Newcomer vs. newcomer. Change vs. change.

 

His "change" is East Coast intellectual. Her "change" is NASCAR.

 

His change is wine and cheese. Her change is mayonnaise by the gallon.

 

And notice how everyone is calling her Sarah Palin - not Gov. Palin. That's not good for the Democrats. It shows a certain familiarity that goes beyond just issues or her knowledge of the "Bush Doctrine."

 

Heck, even I didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was when Charlie Gibson asked her about it the other night on her first national TV interview. Read article.

 

Melanie Phillips, Spectator.co.uk

 

Andrew Bolt in Australia’s HeraldSun entertainingly fisks the media's attempt to destroy Sarah Palin by pouncing upon her first TV interview on foreign affairs to find out whether she knows who Putin is. As Bolt shows, the joke however is on them.

 

As James Taranto writes on the WSJ blog, the Obamasphere is descending from hysteria to depravity by using Palin’s decision actually to give birth to her son Trig as apparent proof of her unfitness for office. When they look at Trig, they don’t see a small and vulnerable human being; they don’t see the power of love triumphing over adversity; all they see is a handicapped thing that should never have been allowed to live.

 

Offensive and disgusting, indeed – and how revealing about the ‘liberal’ conscience -- but what it also shows is that the chattering classes have understood that this election might just call a halt to the agenda of social and moral nihilism that masquerades as progressive politics. Hence the weeping and wailing and rending of garments, in between firing the poisoned darts at Sarah Palin, on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

And that’s why social conservatives everywhere – aka people who prefer truth over lies, right over wrong, morality over anarchy and the continuation of western civilisation over the forces of totalitarianism that threaten it – have suddenly raised their heads above the sandbags and seen a sign they never thought they’d see: that civilisation might just be fighting back. Read article.

Review & Outlook, Online WSJ.com

 

Barack Obama's Columbia years are a hole in the sprawling Obama hagiography. In his two published memoirs, the 47-year-old Democratic nominee barely mentions his experience there. He refuses to answer questions about Columbia and New York -- which, in this media age, serves only to raise more of them. Why not release his Columbia transcript? Why has his senior essay gone missing?

 

Voters and the media are now exercising due diligence before Election Day, and they are meeting resistance from Mr. Obama in checking his past. Earlier this year, the AP tracked down Mr. Obama's New York-era roommate, "Sadik," in Seattle after the campaign refused to reveal his name. Sohale Siddiqi, his real name, confirmed Mr. Obama's account that he turned serious in New York and "stopped getting high." "We were both very lost," Mr. Siddiqi said. "We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled and without a place to stay." For some reason the Obama camp wanted this to stay out of public view.

 

Such caginess is grist for speculation. Some think his transcript, if released, would reveal Mr. Obama as a mediocre student who benefited from racial preference. Yet he later graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, so he knows how to get good grades. Others speculate about ties to the Black Students Organization, though students active then don't seem to remember him. And on the far reaches of the Web can be found conspiracies about former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became the candidate's "guru and controller" while at Columbia in the early 1980s. Mr. Brzezinski laughs, and tells us he doesn't "remember meeting him." Read article.

 

Emmett Tyrrell, Townhall.com

 

The campaigning politicians apparently cannot talk accurately about the economy. As I am not campaigning for anything, let me try to describe the economy as it is. The Democrats cannot talk accurately because if they did, the average American would realize that the economy under President George W. Bush has not been so bad. Furthermore, the Democrats have not a clue as to how to improve it. All they would do with their promised tax increases and other extensions of the federal bludgeon onto the market would be to slow down an economy that actually is growing.

 

Did I say growing? Yes, I did, but the Republicans cannot talk about the growing economy because if they did, it would sound as though they have no compassion for those who are not doing particularly well in this economy.

 

This is a rhetorical trick that the Democrats have imposed on the Republicans. So effective has it been in cowing the Republicans that quite possibly never again will a sitting president be able to boast of a record of economic achievement. To do so would be to ignore the less well-off, even though there always will be less well-off people. For that matter, in every economy, no matter how robust, there will be citizens in difficulty.

 

Nonetheless, someone ought to note the economic health of the present economy. Let me give it a try. Read article.

 

Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe.com

 

Who would have dreamed that a hockey mom could produce such a bounce? I didn't even think the puck was supposed to get off the ice. But now that so many women have skated over to her side, allow me another metaphor. Sarah Palin is the Zamboni of this campaign.

 

This hockey mom rolled onto the ice, did a couple of turns around the rink, and managed to clear off all the nasty old Republican detritus. She gave the Grand Old (Boy) Party a new image, or at least a new surface.

 

The Emergence of Sarah Palin is actually the Return of Supermom. Mother of five, moose killer, and marathoner, she was back at work three days after her son's birth, juggling a Blackberry and a breast pump while making Helen Reddy look like a slacker. Call her a role model or a parody, but the fresh face of 2008 looks like the exhausted face of the 1980s.

 

The conservative virtue of Palin's life is that she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K. Let alone universal health insurance. Read article.

 

Lance Fairchok, NMJ.us

 

Middle America might as well be Middle Earth as far as the Democrats are concerned. They spend so much time shaping the political environment with push polls, information suppression, media message management and covert smears that they always miss the pulse of the citizens that do not live in the urban bastions of progressive liberalism. They are deaf to what America is and what most of its citizens want it to be.

 

We are a conservative country, with a loud, ill-mannered and bad-tempered “leftist, liberal, progressive” minority; however, progressive, defined as moving forward, they are not, and liberal, as in open to other perspectives, they are not. The only accurate descriptor is “leftist” with all that it entails.

 

Bruce Walker outlines that national self image in his article, The Biggest Missing Story in Politics, about the Battleground Poll, which in August of 2008 revealed that 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative, 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative, 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate. Contrast that with the 27% of Americans who considered themselves to be somewhat liberal, and the 9% who considered themselves to be very liberal. The missing 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer. These numbers have been within a few points for well over a decade. Read article.

 

Phil Gramm & Mike Solon, Online WSJ.com

 

Incredibly, the business climate in Michigan is now so unfavorable that it has overwhelmed the considerable comparative advantage in auto production that Michigan spent a century building up. No one should let Michigan politicians blame their problems solely on the decline of the U.S. auto industry. Yes, Michigan lost 83,000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.

 

So what do the state laboratories tell us about the potential success of the economic programs presented by Barack Obama and John McCain?

 

Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers: In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses. Read article.

 

Nancy Morgan, RightBias.com

 

In a delicious stroke of cosmic justice, it seems that the left, not the earth, is in meltdown stage. The sacred pillars of liberal orthodoxy are in the process of losing their underpinnings and it is not a pretty sight. 

 

With the nomination of Barack and Sarah, three major industries and shibboleths of the left, feminism, racism and the media are losing their clout, big time.

 

The feminists who have preached against the 'social construct' of male patriarchy and female victimhood have achieved their stated goal, and they're furious. After 40 years, the feminist mantra that a woman can and should have it all, has come to fruition in Sarah Palin.

 

There's only one small problem. Palin doesn't buy into the feminist line. As Peggy Noonan so aptly put it, "she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way." When feminists see Sarah Palin, they see a woman. When conservatives see Palin, they see a conservative. Who'se sexist?

 

Feminists are furiously backtracking on one of their core tenets, questioning whether Sarah Palin has the ability to juggle home and job. Instead of applauding a woman who has it all, they instead question whether she will have time to be VP, what with her family and all. Liberal feminist Whoopi Goldberg got it right when she described Sarah Palin as "a dangerous woman." Read article.

 

Rich Lowry, NY Post.com

 

Perhaps nothing Sarah Palin said in her boffo address at the Republican Convention had as much resonance as her statement that "sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge."

 

That truism was redeemed from mere Hallmark-card sentimentality because everyone knew that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and that Palin herself gave birth to a boy, Trig, with Down syndrome in April. The joys in the Palin household lately have been particularly leavened with challenges.

 

Palin's choice to give birth to Trig after she learned of his condition 13 weeks into her pregnancy endeared her to pro-lifers and contributed to the frenzied excitement among social conservatives about her selection. The national stage she's now been given means her choice could have much wider significance and constitute an enormous symbolic leap ahead for children with Down syndrome and their parents.

 

As many as an estimated nine out of 10 children with Down syndrome are aborted in the womb, sought out by increasingly sophisticated prenatal tests and eliminated as too flawed, too burdensome, too different to live. This is the ugly eugenic underbelly of American life, even as we congratulate ourselves on our tolerance and diversity. Read article.

 

Kimberley A. Strassel, Potomac Watch, WSJ.com

 

Something happened on the way to September.

 

It was in July that Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democrats' House campaign operation, predicted this year would prove "another big-wave election" for his party -- a repeat of 2006 when Democrats gained 31 seats. Barack Obama's "50-state strategy" was supposed to secure both the White House and blowout gains in Congress. At the recent Democratic convention, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer bragged his party had 75 pick-up opportunities.

 

Or maybe not. Slowly, without much notice, the political landscape has changed. House Republicans are getting traction on issues like energy and reform, and a boost from a newly energized McCain-Palin ticket. An even bigger problem for Democrats is that Nancy Pelosi's liberal governing has put her own vaunted freshmen at risk in their conservative districts.

 

Some Republicans now cautiously predict they might keep losses to the single digits. Some Democrats morosely agree. Read article.

 

Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Live.com

 

The intelligent question thrown out among strategists for both campaigns is, can John McCain really win Pennsylvania?

 

Really win it, not pretend to go for it, as Republicans did in 2004, all the while closing the deal in Ohio when no one was looking.

 

The last Republican presidential candidate to win Pennsylvania was George H.W. Bush, in 1988 -- a win preceded by two Reagans but followed by two Clintons, a Gore and a Kerry. The Kerry win was narrower than the others, however.

 

Since this year's Pennsylvania primaries, many people have been schooled on the mechanics of how Democrats win this state. Call it the "Rendell rule": Stack up high numbers in the Philly collar counties, hold the losses to a minimum in the other 60, and try to win Allegheny for good measure.Can Barack Obama pull off a Rendell? Read article.

 

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: