Newsbusters asks, "Where is the media", on the story that the family of Ryan Jopek - the soldier who's name he forgot - had asked him NOT to wear it any more.
"Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family."
Disgusting. But what we have come to expect from democrats. Remember it's Barack Obama who called for defeat in Iraq to make the sacrifice of our soldiers for naught.
UPDATE: Jake Tapper who's still pulling for that Press Secretary Job on the Obama Administration begs to differ. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is enough doubt that if Obama truly respected the wishes of the family and the memory of the fallen he wouldn't be wearing it.
While SNL and the Media continue the assault on Sarah Palin telling us that "she's not ready" they continue to dangerously ignore the fact that Senator Barack Obama isn't ready to be the leader of the free world.
An example of this media sellout and their ridiculous arguments against Sarah Palin is brought to you by Fareed Kararia - noted Obama shrill. Commenting on the Couric interview he takes offense at Palin's answer to the "bailout question":
"COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
This is nonsense—a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head. Some commentators, like CNN's Campbell Brown, have argued that it's sexist to keep Sarah Palin under wraps, as if she were a delicate flower who might wilt under the bright lights of the modern media. But the more Palin talks, the more we see that it may not be sexism but common sense that's causing the McCain campaign to treat her like a time bomb."
Note there is no reasoning for this dismissal, just "nonsense", typical of the left's swatting away of things they don't like. There was nothing wrong with the answer and in fact is the way that many Americans feel about this boondoggle of a bailout. Zakaria should get out of his Newsweak office and meet some people sometime.
Let's forget the fact of the logically fallacy of the moment. First, Obama is running for President, Palin is not. The chance of Palin, who is the VP candidate - not the Presidential candidate - taking the top position in the next four years is nearly a million to one.
So let's dispense with the false argument that whether or not she could be president NOW even matters. Let's move to the one who would be KING, Barack Obama. Leading the polls and possibly 37 from now, America may just elect a man who has had - and may still have - ties with a known domestic terrorist, and with two people with open hatred of America, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright.
A man who can't see to stay on subject when talking about Iraq:
Who doesn't have much more luck with healthcare:
Who can't even remember the name of a solider's name on his bracelet a mom asked him to wear.
Who has a flipant view about the dangers of Iran and Russian and other world thugs:
And who wants to disarm America so that we cannot respond to the threats that these "tiny countries" present.
There is no way that any other candidate for President would have survived such controversy and continued to be a candidate. Not only is the MSM been a willful participant in failing to cover the stories that would inform Americans about Obama, they will be totally to blame for the cataclysm that will be sure to follow.
"JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”
Well there is more. I'm told that the DOJ will be looking into (most likely referring to the FBI) this as a possible civil rights violation as well as violation of free speech. Specifically St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, could face individual jeopardy for misuse of office.
Actually Governor Blunt himself could order his State Attorney to open an investigation.
Remember it was the democrats that accused President Bush of politicizing the Justice Department and this is far beyond that. Most likely the announcement of the DOJ will come this week.
"CNN’s poll of debate viewers blares a puzzling headline: “Round 1 in debate goes to Obama, poll says.”
But the poll itself actually doesn’t say that. This is blatant editorializing on the part of CNN. The first problem is the numbers:
Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night’s debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better.
Buried way, way down at the bottom of the story — hopefully, one surmises, past the point where anyone would read — is the following:
The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents."
