Wednesday, October 31, 2007
In addition to the polls showing that 50% of the American people will never vote for Hillary Clinton - which means she has to win every other vote out there, an impossible task - more and more people are realizing that Hillary Clinton will say anything to anyone to get elected. And when she is actually confronted - not the baloney questions she gets from other Downercrats, but actually confronted by a media that would care to challenge her - she bleeds like a stuck pig.
Case in point: in Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia, she said that it did not make sense to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, then said that she thought it made sense to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
The response was "Whoa!" People were stunned - heck, even the morons at MSNBC, including bonehead Chrissy Matthews and Nazi Bundmaster Pat Buchanan, were shocked at how badly she did.
And now the Clinton campaign is in free fall mode. And, better yet, when she wins the nomination of her party - and she will - this debate and her advocating of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens will be her doom.
Prediction, on October 31, 2007: Hillary Clinton gets the Downie nomination, loses the general election with approximately 45-48% of the vote.
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE
SPONSORED BY MSNBC
RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian. Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?
CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.
RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?
(UNKNOWN): Believe what?
RUSSERT: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.
DODD: This is a privilege. And, look, I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we're dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it. We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here. But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.
CLINTON: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...
(UNKNOWN): Wait a minute...
CLINTON: And we have failed. We have failed.
DODD: No, no, no. You said — you said yes...
DODD:...you thought it made sense to do it.
CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving...
DODD: That's a legitimate issue. But driver's license goes too far, in my view.
CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification?
If somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker...
DODD: There's ways of dealing with that.
DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.
CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses, one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is another ordinary driver's license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road, so...
DODD: That's a bureaucratic nightmare.
CLINTON: ...it's not the full privilege.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?
CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.
WILLIAMS: New subject, Senator Edwards. You have young children. As you know, the Internet can be a bit of a cultural wild west. Assuming a lot of homes don't have parental support, would you be in favor of any government guidelines on Internet content?
EDWARDS: For children? To try to protect children — using technology to protect children, I would. I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don't want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago.
And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight.
WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?
OBAMA: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.
Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular or trying to gauge popular sentiment. It's about setting a direction for the country. And that's what I intend to do as president.
RUSSERT: Are you for it or against it?
OBAMA: I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer. That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.
So, it doesn't make sense, it does make sense, it is a good idea, but she doesn't support it.
And if you don't get the feel from mere words, check it out in living color:
You could almost feel the blood draining from the Clinton campaign.
And you can bet that this little exchange will appear on a Republican ad sometime next year. And 527s will hit Hillary with it unmercilessly.
Which is why, in the end, she will lose. You cannot take both sides of an issue in one two-minute answer and be elected. Just ask John Kerry.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
When Downercrats run the country and we go to war, the stinking elitist liberals in Hollywood make nice patriotic films. Fight for America! Destroy our enemy! Unite!
When Republicans run the country and we go to war, the stinking elitist liberals in Hollywood make sickening anti-war and anti-government films. George W. Bush? He is the enemy! He is a terrorist! Show how bad the war is going! The troops are criminals, rapists, and murderers! Down with America!
In this vein, the left in Hollywood is pumping out as many anti-war films as they can spend money on. The latest is Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs," a lump of worthless crap along the lines of "Rendition" and "In the Garden of Elah."
What do all three have in common? The American people are refusing to spend money to see them.
Audiences reject Iraq war at box office
It doesn't matter how many Oscar winners are in front of or behind the camera — audiences are proving to be conscientious objectors when it comes to this fall's surge of antiwar and anti-Bush films.
Both "In the Valley of Elah" and, more recently, "Rendition" drew minuscule crowds upon their release, which doesn't bode well for the ongoing stream of films critical of the Iraq war and the Bush administration's wider war on terror.
"Rendition," which features three Oscar winners in key roles, grossed $4.1 million over the weekend in 2,250 screens for a ninth-place finish. A re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" beat it, and it's 14 years old.
"Rendition" follows an Egyptian-American who gets kidnapped by U.S. authorities who think he's a terrorist. Reese Witherspoon plays the man's wife, Meryl Streep dials up her dark side as the official who keeps his disappearance a secret and Alan Arkin is a senior senator with the power to influence the case. Meanwhile, the man is shipped off to an unnamed North African country, where he is tortured for information.
"Elah" boasts Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon, another Oscar-winning triumvirate, under professionally red-hot director Paul Haggis, who won his own Oscar for "Crash." Mr. Haggis' drama focuses on the disappearance of an Iraq war veteran upon his return home.
Beyond the fiction features, the anti-Iraq war documentary "No End in Sight" (box office: $1.4 million) couldn't capture the indie crowd, beating a swift retreat to DVD next Tuesday despite glowing reviews.
Brandon Gray, president and publisher of www.boxofficemojo.com, says audiences seek out movies for inspiration, for laughter and to be moved.
"Many of these recent dramas fail on all those fronts," Mr. Gray says. "They're too heavy handed in their presentation."
It is always a good thing when leftist scumbags in Hollywood get spanked for being leftist scumbags. Perhaps when they get back to making films people want to see rather than films which demonstrate their bitter hatred for George W. Bush and the United States will their product be worth seeing.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
And Dennis Kucinich does a little better at 49%.
Headline: Hillary Clinton loses to the elf with the bad toupee.
Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President
While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
And here is a little piece of info that slipped by the media:
Opposition to Clinton among Democratic and Republican women revealed mirror opposite attitudes, the Zogby Interactive survey showed. While 83% of Republican women said they would never vote for her, just 17% said they could possibly cast a ballot for her. Among Democratic women, just 17% said they would never vote for Hillary, while 83% said they could.
So, 17% of Downie women will never vote for her. Imagine: nearly 1 in 5 women like Hillary Clinton won't vote for her, ever.
So the next time you hear that the Republicans are in trouble, ask yourself who is telling you that and act accordingly.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Imagine for a moment, if you will, that a Fox News broadcaster, or the head of the network itself, was caught fixing footage to back a lie told by the network. Reaction? Horror! And it would be deserved.
But when the BBC does it, the leftist media yawns.
"Nothing to see here."
"Lies? Faked footage? Whatever could you mean?"
And the head of the BBC claimed that he was not going anywhere when the scandal broke:
BBC error 'no reason to resign'
The controller of BBC One has insisted he is not planning to resign over the Queen documentary blunder.
Peter Fincham spoke out after he allowed journalists to see a television trailer which appeared to show the Queen storming out of a photo shoot.
He said showing the footage, which had misrepresented the sequence of events, was a regrettable "human error".
The BBC apologised to the Queen, but Mr Fincham said he did not think he should resign and no-one had suggested that.
"It is a mistake that was made for which, as director of the channel, I take responsibility," he said.
"If somebody above me - the director general of the BBC Mark Thompson - comes and says 'you should resign', then I will of course resign.
"But... I think that's disproportionate and I hope this is something we can move on from."
So, from the left, we get, "Yeah, we lied, and you caught us. Now let's move on, because I say so."
Ah, not so fast, Mr. Fincham.
It appears someone pushed, because Finchy has lost his job.
BBC official resigns over Queen report
LONDON (Reuters) - The boss of BBC One television resigned on Friday after a report faulted him for wrongly implying the Queen had stormed out of a photo shoot.
The incident was an embarrassment for the corporation, which has faced a number of scandals this year including an unprecedented fine for faking the results of a phone-in contest on a popular children's show.
Unveiling the station's upcoming lineup to journalists three months ago, BBC One Controller Peter Fincham presented footage from a documentary showing the Queen apparently storming out of a shoot with celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz.
That led to a host of tabloid newspaper headlines mocking the queen's apparent tantrum.
But in fact the queen had not stormed out: footage of her entering the room had been edited out of sequence to make it look like she was exiting in a huff.
Fincham resigned on Friday after a BBC report found that although the broadcaster did not intend to deceive, it had not done enough to ensure that its presentation was truthful.
"A vital relationship -- that between the BBC and the Royal Household -- had been, at the very least, placed under strain, and the reputation of the BBC, already having sustained recent damage over the issue of trust, was further tarnished," the report found.
Hah! One Marxist down, hopefully more to follow!
Friday, October 05, 2007
Back in 2005, we reported how the "online encyclopedia" called Wikipedia, run by leftists and anti-Semites, threw this blog off because we did not kowtow to their bitter leftwing agenda. Go on the site now, and try to edit - as they invite you to do - any one of their ridiculously biased articles, and see what happens. You get warned, your article is changed back, and then one of the Marxist robots throws you off. And you have no way to challenge them.
Now we find out that the scumpeddlers who run the site are removing all references to "terrorists" because that could describe Islamic nutjobs in a way that is not nice to them. And we know what leftists think of free speech.
Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter
Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.
So, we must not label terrorists, or extremists, or anyone else who is like that, because it implies "a moral judgment."
Yep - the left just keeps getting whackier each passing day.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
In a little-reported story, the Downercrats who control Congress failed the American people again and allowed a ban on taxing the internet to expire.
As we here at Joobo always say, if you elect a Downercrat you get your wallet picked. Clean.
Democrats fail (at least for now) to protect Net users from taxes
Democrats in the U.S. Congress failed on Thursday to protect Internet users from higher taxes.
The Senate Commerce committee, chaired by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), mysteriously killed a vote on an Internet tax bill that was supposed to take place at 2:30 p.m. ET. With a laugh but no explanation, Inouye simply told the hearing room it wasn't going to happen.
Normally postponements of votes would be mere congressional background noise. This is different because, as we wrote about earlier this month, a temporary federal moratorium on Internet access taxes expires on November 1.
If a lackadaisical Congress does nothing, in other words, Americans soon are likely to be paying more to local governments for the privilege of buying DSL and cable modem service. (These are some of the same local governments that have adopted as their motto: "If it exists, tax it. And then tax it some more.")
Time's running out. Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican who does support renewing the moratorium, made a good point in a statement after the nonvote: "We introduced a bill to permanently ban Internet access taxes back in January. I just don't understand the continued delay in action. The clock continues to tick, placing Internet tax freedom in real jeopardy."
You can blame the Democrats for this state of affairs. Not all of them in the Congress, to be sure, but if this was a priority for the Democratic leadership, Majority Leader Harry Reid would make this happen post-haste. John Conyers, a key Democrat in the House of Representatives, finally got around to introducing legislation called the "Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007" on Thursday that generally offers a four-year extension.
So, people of the United States, when you pay an increased bill for internet usage next month, you can thank the Downercrats for the hike. But how many media outlets, stirred into action by the plight of O.J. Simpson and Britney Spears, will let you know that?