NY Times to Mind-numbed Housewives: Pay No Attention to the Judas Oprah. Solidarity Sisters!
Does anyone know if Oprah woke up today with a horse head in her bed? It’s been 24 hours and it’s already getting ugly.
Patrick Healy of the New York Times, no doubt first forced to watch the Vagina Monologues to get in touch with his inner female before writing this, has fired the first shot at The Oprah on behalf of The Clintons.
Message: women are still alive who didn’t have the right to vote. You must stick with the woman so that these old women can finally see one of their own in the White House.
“I told her that my grandmother was the first person in town to vote, and my mother was the second,” said Mrs. Smith, who was born three months before the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. “And I told her I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.” Since then Mrs. Smith’s story has become a grace note in Mrs. Clinton’s stump speech. At the same time, the many other elderly women who turn out for Clinton campaign events have become welcome set pieces, visibly demonstrating the candidate’s effort to highlight her sex and her overtures to female voters, whom the campaign is counting on to propel her to the Democratic presidential nomination.
I wish I could insert barf noises into this post.
Seriously, this is the Clinton message against The Oprah — it’s more important that we get a woman elected than a black man because, well, there are still women alive who lived before women’s suffrage. Solidarity sisters! Housewives unite! Pay no attention to the suffrage of African-Americans. Now is our turn.
That’s really rather pathetic.
Lest you think this is an objective piece, Mr. Healy pulls out the trademarked practice of presenting the negative to show the positive in an effort to appear fair and balanced. After spending 755 words explaining to American housewives the world over that they must vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton despite what The Oprah tells them, he throws in 124 words of “not all women will vote for her just because she’s a woman” and then ends with 48 more words on how all respectable housewives will ignore The Oprah and vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton:
Mrs. Smith, the senator’s touchstone in Iowa, said she heard doubts about Mrs. Clinton from some of her Republican friends but did not care much. “A lot of them believe a woman’s place is by the cookstove,” Mrs. Smith said. “But I think Hillary’s a very capable girl.”
I say within two weeks there’ll be a hit piece on Oprah in the New York Times.
A spike in the price of staples.
This one will hit my household as my wife sets into her holiday routine of preparing copious amounts of candies, cookies, and other treats. Christy turns out amazing stuff from our kitchen in large amounts every Christmas season.
The price of holiday baking staples – like sugar, eggs, milk and cream – have risen noticeably this year, according to local bakers and the American Farm Bureau. The rising price of corn, due to ethanol production, and the fuel used to transport goods have driven up prices as much as 30 percent in some cases.
This year we have my sister to thank for a turtle recipe and we have a large, expensive bag of pecans to throw in the mix. And there is the good news.
“This has been the best pecan crop Georgia’s seen in 15 years,” said John Steedman, owner of the North Georgia Pecan Co. in Athens. “A lot of things just happened exactly right.” The nuts thrive in relatively dry conditions, and pecan farmers turned out a bumper crop this year. Consequently, their price has dropped from about $7.95 a pound to about $7.25.
The Oprah Takes On The Clintons
The OprahTM hits the ground soon for Barack Obama. Never let it be said The Oprah doesn’t have cajones. She’s going up against Bill and HIllary in a full frontal assault, wrecking havoc to Mark Penn’s thesis of the unbeatable Hillary and wrecking havoc in American households. I hope American politics and families will survive. But will The Oprah and Obama? They are, please remember, going up against the Clintons. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, lots of people end up in a bad way when doing so. (O, you got your tax records in order? Prepare to be audited if Mrs. Bill Clinton gets elected)
But here’s the thing — and I think the Godzilla picture is apt: like Godzilla tearing up Tokyo, The Oprah is going to tear up the Clinton play book. Mrs. Bill Clinton, remember, has been trying to frame herself as the sensitive Mrs. Bill Clinton, not the ice queen of Hillarycare. She’s been talking up her religion, gabbing it up with her husband, and pushing out the Tammy Wynette stories (despite her 1992 mocking) about how she stood by her man. She’s loyal and lovable down to the ankles.
Nonetheless, The Oprah, the arbiter of loyal and lovable, has chosen another. And American housewives the world over listen to every word The Oprah says and seize upon every recommendation made by The Oprah. That wavering mass of undecided American housewives that Mark Penn tells us will vote for Hillary because she’s a woman would sooner vote for The Oprah’s chosen than Bill’s wife. Why? Because The Oprah told them to.
Hollywood celebrity endorsements don’t amount to much. Just ask John Kerry. But The Oprah is bigger than all of the Hollywood-New York corridor of self congratulating, self-appointed guardians of who the “it person” is combined. The Oprah outranks Sean Penn, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Susan Sarandon, and all of Shirley McLaine’s present, past, and future lives combined. She is the modern day Jesus of the secular left and the Patron Saint of the American housewife. If she says “Obama” the Clintons better watch out. But so should Oprah.
There are three things to note here.
Attention Sarah: Per Your Request
I will not
Rail on about megachurches, many of which are good, but I will say that I’m always a bit concerned with independent megachurches that are driven more by their charisma of their pastors than by doctrinal beliefs. And this is in large part why.
When a church, any church, is thriving more because of the pastor himself than anything else, there is no one to hold the pastor accountable. And he can get out of hand. Of course, he can also get himself a deal with EWTN TBN (sorry Mother Angelica. Didn’t mean to get you mixed up with the big haired lady who sits on the gold throne, I was just moving fast) to be on TV all night.
Let me add more here than I did when I posted this at Peach Pundit.
I’ve got a real problem with a lot of these guys like Osteen, Binny Hinn, etc. who only know enough verses in the Bible to speak some silver tongued message about prosperity. I’ve read through the Bible and I have yet to find the passage that says God is going to make me rich if I believe in him.
No, the Bible says God will deliver me from my sins, not make me rich. And, of course, that’s worth more than all the gold on earth. But these megachurch pastors and their prosperity message are going to be held seriously accountable and will be found wanting at the end of days. They’ve taken a group of people hungering and fed them sugar without substance. The hunger has turned to a disease. While the hunger could have been cured with good scriptural nourishment, the disease will be far more difficult to cure because they were given scripture to begin with — just a bastardized version.
A whole flock lost to the sex and greed of a one man church.
Okay, so I did go off on megachurches. Oh well.
In the Wall Street Journal
Here you go. And yes, I do love my quote.
“Basically, it got to the point where someone could put up a post saying they were going to the bathroom, and a dozen Paultards would comment, ‘Vote for Ron Paul while you’re there,’ along with another dozen warnings of the Zionist conspiracy in the toilet,” says Erick Erickson, founder of popular conservative blog Redstate. A month ago, the site banned posts from some Paul supporters, branding them “MoRons.” Afterward, the site was “deluged” with comments and “swarms and swarms” of hate mail, Mr. Erickson says. He changed the site’s phone number, and says other blog owners have contacted him seeking advice on discouraging Paul supporters from posting.
Don’t ask them their solutions. They only have platitudes.
Here ladies and gentlemen is the ultimate example of Democratic pandering.
The leading Democratic presidential candidates are united on the government’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage plan: They’d scrap it.
What then is their solution for dealing with the accumulated nuclear waste bound for Yucca?
They don’t have one.
What then is their solution to expanding nuclear energy in this country?
They don’t have one.
What then is their solution to make us an energy independent nation?
They don’t really have one except the platitudes. It’s all very similar to their strategy for dealing with terrorists.
I suspect a well meaning friend
Friends can be so well intentioned, yet so dumb sometimes. I’m talking about these anti-Mormon phone calls in New Hampshire and Iowa. I suspect close friends of one of the candidates are behind the calls. It would not surprise me if a friend of Mitt Romney’s, thinking it’d do some good, was behind the calls. That’s not to say it was a Romney friend, but I think that is just as plausible as a Huck friend, McCain friend, Rudy friend, or Thompson friend.
I know some of you might think I’m crazy for saying that, but I say it based on personal experience. Back in 2002, when I was really getting into running races, a friend hooked me up with a Congressional race that needed a lawyer for the campaign. It was right up my alley. As the campaign went on, however, I found myself more and more in a management role and less and less in a lawyer mode — eventually having to get another lawyer involved.
Anyway, my guy was a small businessman and Baptist minister. We were running in an area of the country that is extremely religious with a large contingent on home-schoolers, many of whom were volunteering on the campaign. And we were doing well.
Mitt’s Nuance
This is actually not something I’m generally inclined to write. I’m trying to get beyond writing things that might be construed as negative about Republican candidates. But, we had Hugh the other day suggest that Fred should not have gotten the NRLC endorsement because he did not support the HLA and, though not directly stating so, fairly well implied that Romney did.
In fact, of course, Romney has in the past said he supported the HLA. But then he contradicted himself. Nonetheless, after I posted the other day that Fred and Mitt held the same position, I got several emails suggesting that they did not because, in fact, Mitt does support passage of the HLA.
Kathryn Lopez sums it up best.
In August, there was also a fuss, when he said that the states would decide post-Roe. Fact is, the odds of a Human Life Amendment are slim and it will come down to the states. Considering the National Right to Life Committee has dumped automatic support for the HLA from their criteria of who should be president, what Romney said isn’t all that shocking, though the coverage will continue to feed into that same flipper label that’s been sticking to him, even though he’s far from the only one who’s been one place and moved to another.
Now, to be fair, I don’t think it is safe to say “the National Right to Life Committee has dumped automatic support for the HLA from their criteria of who should be president.” They did not. And Fred did not say he’d drop it from the platform. In fact, Fred said he supports the platform, like McCain, Romney, and Huck, but, as Kathryn says, “the odds of a Human Life Amendment are slim and it will come down to the states,” so Fred’s position, like I assume Romney’s real position is, is that he’ll work on goals that can be accomplished, e.g. originalist judges.
Frankly, I think Fred and Mitt hold the best position on this. The HLA is a worthy goal, but it’s unrealistic to expect a President to invest major political capital in getting it passed when it won’t get passed. The President can accomplish his goals in a host of other ways.
The problem, of course, is that Fred took heat for being very direct that he himself would not push the HLA. Romney, on the other hand, tried to be nuanced.
Senate Democrats Hate Average Americans
Don’t ever let the Democrats in the Senate fool you. They hate you. And they are offering further proof today.
It is not against the law in this country for employers to demand their employees speak English. In fact, the average American — heck, a solid majority of Americans — believe English should be the national language. Despite it not being against the law, the EEOC routinely files lawsuits against employers who refuse to hire non-English speakers. The EEOC hides behind “ethnic discrimination” while their evidence is always that the proof of the discrimination is a failure to hire because the person does not have a command of the English language.
Senator Lamar Alexander wants to do something about that. Hs’s proposing legislation to make it crystal clear to the EEOC that it is perfectly legitimate for speaking English to be a job requirement.
But dingy Harry Reid is blocking it. The Senate Democrats hate that you think our national language should be English and they hate employers who want employees to be able to actually communicate with customers in English.
The number of charges filed with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on such English-only policies is six times larger that it was 10 years ago, Alexander said, growing from 32 charges in 1996 to about 200 in 2006. At a Senate hearing on the matter in May, Alexander told EEOC Chair Naomi Earp, “I find this to be an astonishing waste of your time and taxpayer money to … by your lawsuit – require every single employer in America to worry that they will face litigation if they require English to be spoken in the workplace.”
Just remember – the Democrats would rather sell out to multi-culti special interests than do anything an average American wants because, well, average citizens are less special than elite liberal interests.