About Me

Name: King Vinyl
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

Spilt Milk Spoils Once Conservative Party

This is an absolute joke, yeah I said it all you wanna be that call yourselves conservatives.
 
Oh I don't even no where to start.
 
Talk radio, started as a beacon of truth in the spin cycle of the Mainstream.  It only got where it has through truth.  Some of the old media types blame technology for their demise but it's really just the AM dial.  So what's changed since then?  Everything, talk radio today is 24/7 & 365 of the back seat drivers opinions and nonstop politics.  Talkers used to be concerned with other distorted 'facts' that the media tried to put out, but not anymore.  Ronald Reagan won without talkradio, he did it twice.  The hypocracy with talk is that instead of reporting the facts they assume to know which ones are important.  Case in point the primary elections, instead of focusing on the Democrats and staying on the sidelines of the GOP vote they got right into the middle.  Result John McCain, this party roundly rejected the well spoken liberal Mitt Romney, and when it seemed ready to embrace Mike Huckabee the talkers went beserk.  The facts are all right there but to this day Limbaugh and others blame us who voted for Huckabee instead of themselves for tainting the process.  Then when it comes to Obama they want to talk about all the facts about his associations, great.  But when it came to the fact that Obama won't even present us with his Birth Certificate they say it's a loosing battle.

The fact is Liberals don't need the "fairness doctrine" to take talk radio off the air the talkers are doing it to themselves.
 
Now we are supposed to care if Coleman or Chambliss lose their seats?  Instead of challenging their President elects qualifications to hold the office with a law suit we are defending against a few to save the status quo?  This is a joke, why is it our stupid party wants to reach across the isle, isn't that what got the GOP congress in trouble in the first place?  We reached across the isle and spent the tax payers dollars,  we passed legislation that we didn't even know the cost of, we put bandages on fractures, and now we want to continue to have a voice in the matter?
 
I am no longer a Republican, you take your so called high road and see where it gets you.  The Democrats will continue to stab you in the back and violate your trust.  They sue in the face of defeat, they manipulate private industry without taking the blame for the aftermath, they manipulate legislation to cater to minority groups whose needs are never met by this and yet they ratchet up control of our lives.  So what is the big plan another prevent defence.
 
Count me out
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oreilly Flunkter Full Spin Tilt!!

Uh I don't really know where to begin, I guess by saying I love most of your stuff.  But I more strongly in this respect totally disagree with Oreilly than did Pastor Manning.  First off Sarah Palin was the only reason people like me EVER, and let me emphasis EVER voted for John Shamnesty. 

Honestly we hoped he would have to give her the reigns in his first term, I hate the man unequvicably.  Obama and McCain were 100% identical on the economic bailout, immigration, "global warming" and the foreclosure meltdown.  That is all anyone who was not predisposed to party status gave a crap about.  McCain must have been hoping enough white people would fear Obama based on his skin tone to vote for him.  He tried to remake Palin in his image and it backfired. 

I told a firend right after she accepted at the airport in Ohio that her speech came dangerously close to upstaging McCain.  She did just that in the convention acceptance speech and McCain instead of seeing what the real conservative majority wanted to hear in political direction decided to try and force feed us his failed agenda.  The reason she looked bad in the Couric interview was because she was try to be "MC" (McCain Correct).  It wasn't natural for her, look at the Gibson interview when she was asked if she believed in global warming.  She just doesn't lie well and McCain was dictating his agenda to her which made her cringe.

I have held my tounge long enough he lost, voted for him, I tried to support and fight for him because the underlying issue were night and day between him and BO.  But enough is enough he is an idiot whose campaign was on life support before Palin and she can not be expected to win it for him, no VP should.  If that is the case he should have been the one to pull off the ticket.

This lose has talk radio written all over it.  Those punks played MSM with Romney and Huckabee in an election where the GOP was at a huge disadvantage because of the wimp we put in the white house.  They trashed Huckabee, distorted his record and tried to paint Romney as the second coming of Reagan.  Romney is just a liberal who will say anything to get a vote.  They called those of us who voted for Huckabee "bigots" because they wanted to frame our decision as anti-mormon.  Mormons consider any questions aboutthe roots their beliefs to be anti-mormonism.  But that is beside the fact Romney ran a pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-government healthcare administration as governor os Massachusetts.  Kinda reminds me of Obama, you know record says one thing candidate say another.

Bottom line here is that if we are going to play this divided we fall crap count me in for a fight.  To paraphrase Jeremiah Wright, " I am sick and tired of Republos that just don't get it,  Rush Limbaugh ain't ever been called a liberal."  Well I just did and if he's a man he will come and deny it to my face.  Then I will tell him about wrong his silly notion that all the rich people who are invested in companys that benefit from illegal aliens aren't paying all the taxes either.  Because they are abusing the skilled and unskilled labor populations they don't want to have the free trade they seek with the rest of the world.
Bring it!!!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open letter to the 'talkers'

I want to preface this by stating that as a 6 y/o boy I was mesmerised by my first taste of politics in watching Ronald Reagan debate Jimmy Carter.  The first time I heard Rush my father and I were driving through Kansas in my teens.  Some years later I spend about 8 to 10 hours a day listening to various talk show while at home and at work.  There are some that I like better than others, one my favorites is Savage just because he is not afraid to take on anyone, and because he tell good stories.   I can't stand Oreilly, Hewitt most of the time because both tend to gravitate to what they think is right without the support of the facts.  Hannity, Ingraham, Galahger, Medved, and Levin are all trying to be the next Limbaugh.  The Rush doctrine that has propelled him to fame is a simple four letter word, 'fact'.  When Rush presents the ideals of the conservative movement he uses historical facts to back up his oppinions.  But then I have just stated the obvious, so lets get to the rest of the story.
 
Starting at this time last year the GOP found itself in a huge dillema.  The top tier prospects in the partys preidential nomination field were all liberal.  Despite his record of achievement as Mayor of New York Rudi Guiliani had a socially liberal record on issues the base found unacceptable.  John McCain had fought conservatism from within the GOP as a Senator enraging that same group of voters.  His insistance upon reaching across the isle without expecting Democrats do so in return was his achilles heal.  Mitt Romney who claimed to be Conservative was perhaps the most Liberal of the bunch.  His record as Govenor of Massachusetts was clearly pro choice, pro gay rights, pro goverment health care, and amnesty for illegal aliens.  Despite his record he ran a campaign opposite of all those positions which left most informed voters troubled by his change.
 
It became even more clear that as the primaries approached and with Bush's ratings falling that Conservatives were not on board with any of them.  The talkers most of all saw this as their formats became a platform for the primary get out the vote effort.  When it became apparent that the detested McCain had just as much of a chance as the other two the talkers sought to promote someone to knock him off the top tier.  They didn't want Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo because they thought their views to be too radical.  They saw it as a weakness  in the general election that Huckabee had been a Baptist minister.  So they pushed a late coming Fred Thompson into the void.  The problem was that Thompson didn't really want the job.  Sure he would serve if elected and do so to the best of his abilities, but he lacked the drive to campaign for the right to do so.  As time passed it became more evident Thompson might actually help McCain win more vote.  So the talkers allowed Mike Huckabee into the spotlight.  Immediatly he gained traction as his charisma and wit seemed to resonate with the base.  But then a strange thing happened even though McCain was about out of it, so was Mitt Romney. It seemed as if Mike had stolen the show and was poised to take the parties nomination.
 
Behind the scenes the talkers who promoted the idea that Reagan was the measure of the conservative movement tagged Romney as the one who they felt best represented those traits.  Outwardly they began an MSM style smear campaign on Huckabees record.  When Huckabee won a suprise victory in Iowa they knew they had to act fast.  Again they attacked Huckabee and in turn pushed McCain over the finish line in New Hampshire.  Why wasn't it working?  The desired effect was Romney but instead voters had run away from him.  So knowing that he had a superior war chest they promoted his uncontested victories in Nevada, Wyoming, and Michigan as somehow superior to his opponents.  With South Carolina approaching they knew they had to do something quick so they broadcast to the masses that Huckabee didn't have a chance at winning.  Their thoery was that with McCain winning in New Hampshire and the Romney wins Huckabee should concede and drop out.  But then it happened again McCain won the primary contest and Huckabee came in a strong second.  Then Guiliani dropped out after Florida.  So going into Super Tuesday it became a three man race.  Well we all know what happened then, Huckabee came out of nowhere and took a huge percentage of states and McCain did as well, leaving the talkers to speculate that  Huckabee had stolen votes from Romney.  Even though the facts beared out the opposite result.  The in a huge majority of states taken by McCain with Huckabee finishing second the addition of the Romney vote would have put Huckabee over the top by huge margins.  In contrast the few states in which Romney finished second in only two could the Huckabee vote have changed the outcome.  In fact if Huckabee would have merely taken the 3% Paul got in Missouri he would have beat McCain without the Romney vote.
 
Denying the obvious the talkers ratched up their anti-Huckabee campaign.  They said he is a bigger liberal than McCain and couldn't possibly win the nomination.  They called for him to step aside, they floated the notion that a vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain.  In MSM fashion they promoted the words and discounted the record of Mitt Romney.  They continued their smear campaign against Huckabee, by distorting his record on positions of trade, immigration, and taxes.  In the end Romney had no path to the nomination and was forced to drop out.  They lamented his decision and in the wake of his concession they fought even harder against Huckabee out of resentment.  When CPAC voted to support the postumous campaign of Romney and then gave Huckabee a forum to speak to them eventhough they had both Romney and McCain address them prior to the vote.  In Washington the GOP stopped the vote tally with 95% reporting in their primary contest and declared McCain the winner in a very close contest.  When it became clear that Huckabee had a shot despite the odds stacked against him they convinced Romney to deliver the final blow.  Mitt could have done the honorable thing and at least released his count.  But instead of giving the voters a choice and even going so far as to give his votes to Huckabee who would have won many of them anyway if had hadn't been in the race, Mitt endorsed McCain.
 
Now the balance of power would shift as the contest between the Democrat nominee would most certainly beat McCain because 60% of the base had not chosen him to represent the party.  The talkers blamed Huckabee for this much the same way the MSM blames Bush for the economy.  The party that fought so hard against Mike Huckabee's rise had one so with no regard to the outcome of their own failings.  The facts bear out the truth a vote for Romney was in fact by a measure of his own endorsement a vote for John McCain.  Despite the facts that the majority of those primary contests had Huckabee finishing second.  This disconect from reality caused talk radio ratings to plumett as they sold their only virtue, oppinion based on fact for a 'Paper Tiger Conservative'.  Sure they tried to make up for it by convincing McCain to pick a Conservaitve running mate which he actually did.  Even though they were hoping he would tap Romney, who they had tried to pass off as Reagan.
 
Then they tried the same failed strategy they used in the primary to promote McCain.  They tried to convince independent voters that McCain was Conservative by getting him to make promises from the stump that were in line with their principles and run away from his record.  They knew that the addition of Palin would carry the base.  But the McCain stategy of playing the middle wouldn't carry Independents who know the issues just as well as Conservatives.  McCain was running carbon copy to Obama all the issues that mattered which became even more apparent to the masses when they both signed onto the bailout.  The based justified their support based on Palin's conservatism and the hope for the future of the party.  But where McCain lost this race was that he ideas were upstaged by Palin's presentation of the issues and the facts and knowing this his campaign tried to heal her to his lead of Liberalisms which brought the house of cards tumbling down. 
 
So when you want the silver lining on this lost election cycle of 2008 remember this.  The best thing about the idea that there will be a 'fairness doctrine' is that talk radio won't be able to interfere with the 2012 primary process.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

pin the tail on the talkers

I still get a kick out you guys and the talk radio boobs who paraded their liberal candidate around calling him 'Reagan', then blaming those of us who voted for a real conservative.

If the fairness doctrine keeps Man Vanninty, and the godfather and their soon to be out of work children from trying to direct GOP voters in primary elections then GOOD!!!

I will miss listening to them all but that crap is the whole reason we ended up trying to justify McCain. Personally I don't care what John does, he has the right to represent AZ anyway he wants.

My only hope is that the wizards (RINOs)quit blaming this on Palin. Sure the dems hate her she is our perfect candidate. But anyone who thinks she cost McCain votes is looney. This race would have been 75-25% without her and BO would have taken 500 electoral votes.

I think all you have to do is look into polling data, and not on Palin but on conservatives. McCain lost this by not carrying his precious independents.  Palin was seen in a bad light for having to go out and do the work McCain didn't want to do.  Rush launched operation chaos for the same reason.  McCain wouldn't say a word about Wright, he discounted Ayers.  If you ask me McCain was positioned to be the white option for those who won't vote for a black guy.  There isn't any difference between him and BO on immigration, global warming or bailing out wallstreet all problems rooted in liberalism.   Then along came Sarah Palin and that is when the party started trying to win because they saw hope in their future, a change from reaching across the isle only to be handed a rotten fish in return.

If we can convince Palin to run in 2012 I bet she is the presumed nominee going into S.C. I don't care who else runs. And if she picks Alan Keyes or Micheal Steele, not because they are black either but because both are the two most conservative members of our party.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama sliding in the polls

So why is it that all the MSM press says Obama is going after Arizona and will win a landslide this tomorrow?  It seems that no matter how bad the news gets for the Obama campaign they will still maintain their vigil at the grave stone of socialism.
I have been reviewing the Real Clear Politics  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/  adverges for the past couple months.  In recent weeks Obama has been up on the electoral state count which is really where all the answers are.  He still is but just at the end of the week his etimated take was 311, 41 more than the 270 needed to secure the nomination.  However today the 3rd of November that number is 278, but there are a number of interesting stats I would like to point out.  First that Real Clear adverages polling data equally without looking at when those polls are necessarily taken or who did the poll.  What I am stating is that I don't see any polls propaganiding for McCain but I think that there is clear evidence to suppport that some are doing so for Obama.  Yet they are all adveraged equally.
 
With that said Minnesota has gone from solid Obama territory to a leaner along with Virgina and Ohiio going back into the toss-up column.  Last week Pennsylvania went from solid to leaning Obama and New Hampshire has gone back and forth several times in the course of the last week or so.  Along with several locks for McCain going back to the toss column and the map has gone from clear distinction loosing it's colors.
 
So who on earth would that favor you might ask?  Well let's look at the track record for both candidates.  In the primaries Barack won based on suppressing information, and corupting the caucus process.  He also closed very poorly and lost the battle for the independent voters.  McCain has consistantly produced independents in his column as matter of recent record.  Which is the primary reason Sarah Palin was tapped as his VP.
 
So the idea that Obama is up is just as likely as he is down.  McCain on the other hand has come back time and again from 'immpossible odds'.  I don't know who is going to win but if I were betting on it I would say McCain wins the electoral vote 310 to 228 for Obama.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »