The Maverick Conservative

We have established (see previous entry) that the "Anti-American, Despicable AP" is an evil organization.  It is spreading evil and hate whenever and wherever it can.

So why am I picking on Fox News?  It is because of the Associtated Press article featured in the previous enty. I found it on the Fox News website. If you want to know why I regularly call Fox News part of the minstream media problem, and NOT part of the solution, this is the amin reason why (in addition to the cable TV mentality that hype is fine, and that "balanced" unfairnesss and speculaton is the goal in news).

Fox News regularly uses the truly despicable AP as a mainsource of "news"--not only online but on air.  You can't do that an not be an enabler of evil.   If you are going to sue the AP, which no news outlet should, then you have to FILTER the stories you use very carefully. Otherwise, you get Fox News putting out the most disgraceful of AP stories, like this one.

Nope.  I refuse to give Fox a pass on this stuff, because they are more balanced than the others.  CNN and MSNBC, for example, along with the AP itself, FILTER out "news" they don't like. I am sure Fox woul dargue that it is merely doing what those won't do, and giving all of the "news". Not true.

The problem with evil stuff like this is that it is NOT "news".  It has no business being put out there at all.  If you use the AP as the filter FOR YOU of what news is important, you are turning over yor "news" judgment to an evil, highly partisan organization.

I don't forgive that, becasue I don't forgive enabling evil.  That is why I don't consider Fox News worth watching on a regular basis.  I do NOT frequent the Fox News website. I was LOOKING for this AP exercise in evil, because I had heard about it and did not believe it (okay, my problem is that I believed it too well, which made me want to confirm it).  The source that came up on Google was the Fox website articale.

By the way, did you know that Jews are "derided" because they KILLED JESUS.  See prvious entry for the expalnation of this deliberate mockery of teh evil Eric Gorski and the AP by me (nope, I do NOT mean it as a mockery of the Jewish religion).

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

One disappointment to me was ANWR.  Look at the opportunity McCain had.  All he had to do to MAKE NEWS, and drive the crwd at the convention wild, was to say something like (in the section where he proposed more drilling as part of an "all of the above" approach) was say something like this:

"I have already learned from Sarah Palin, as I think she has already learned some things from me.  Even though I know the bare facts about ANWR, Sarah Palin knows the region and the technology better than I ever could. She is an Alaskan environmentalist, and she convinced me that we CAN drill in ANWR without damage to the environment, and I already knew we NNED to do it if it can be done safely.  Therefore, I am announcing that I am changing my position on ANAR--not because I have changed my position on the environment or pristine areas, but because I have LEARNED some things from Sarah Palin.  I expect she has more to teach me, and I hope I have some things to teach her. She has already shown she learns quickly.  I believe we will make a good team."

Maybe McCain and his team disagree, but I believe something like the above would have helped his speech tremendously--focusing on the drilling issue as nothing else could.

Yes, Sarah Palin is GOOD on this.  She explains the safety and necesssity of drilling in ANWR as well, or better, than any living person.  Why WASTER that?  As Palin explains, we are talking about a small stripo of land (maybe 2,000 acres in 30 milllion, or some similar scale--don't hold me to the EXACT numbers), and drilling technology that has made drilling there even SAFER than offshore drilling. 

A missed opportunity.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

What can you say about John McCain.  He has an absolutely amazing personal story. Absolutely EVERYBODY (probably including most leftist Democrats) trusts him to be Commander in Chief.

Howewver, he is not a great speech maker.  So what is an appropriate response to that.  We are not electing a President to read a teleprompter well, or even to compose (with the help of speechwriters) a good speech. I think most of the American people understand that, and I don't think it hurts McCain much that he delivers a pretty pedetrian speech--except for the truly rousing end, and the description of his prisoner of war experience.

Being as objective as possible, I think the speech tonight gave enough people a reason to vote for McCain.  In a lot of ways, it was an effective speech.  It is just not one that will make a lasting impression, like that of Sarah Palin.

That said, this speech would never have induced me to vote for McCain.  So what.  Thre is NO speech that McCain could give that would cause me to vote for him.  He has insulted me (as a conservative, rather than me personally) too many times. As with Obama, I believe in looking at McCain's record, and not what he says (which is not to say that what he says is different from his record, if you understnand correctly what he is saying). 

This is the way people SHOULD look at Obama.  His ever changing WORDS--sounding good even when they contradict what he said yesterday, or two months ago, in terms of his prepared speeches.  Those eloquent prepared speeches often contradict directly Obama's record, or his less well prepared moments (like those comments in San Francisco).  I don't pay much attention to a single word Obama says in prepared speeches, and I don't think anyone should.  The speeches matter only to the extent they wither persuade with reason or build on a record.  Obama's do neither.  However, that is true of most politicians.  The reason that Sarah Palin's speech was so effective was that the speech seemed to accurately reflect HER, and to effectively convey arguments.  Obama's speeches do not do that, and neither do McCain's.

That, of course, is the problem.  I am voting for McCain only becausee of HER.  If not for her, it is almost impossible that I would vote for McCain.  McCain's choice of Palin both made me think better of him AND gave me a reason to be enthusiastic about voting for McCain.  It was effectively impossible for McCain to make a speech that would impress me.  I know him (not personally, of course) too well.

I don't think McCain was helped much by his team tonight.  The "warm up" speeches were lackluster, at best.  Tom Ridge's speech emphasized how good he choice of Palin really was.  Lindsay Graham is a taste I have never acquired.  Cindy McCain was fine, but it was fairly obvious tis was not something she did often (giving a speech).  There just was nobody to rev up the excitement, like Rudy Giuliani did for Sarah Palin.  Unlike Obama, McCain needed help.  He did not really get it.

Still, I think the Republican convention was very successful. McCain really accomplished what he had to do:  give a reason for people to vote for McCain the MAN.  He never waws going to get them to vote for him on his domestic policy positions (especially as articulated in a speech).  It is in that sense that the speech was effective enough.

Plain provided the excitement.  The mainstream media helped by their truly evil personal attacks on Palin.  (See the multiple entries in this blog over the last week).).  Indeed, the speeches of Giuliani, Thmpson, and   (yes) Lieberman were all exremely good, in their own way.  The convention gave people more than enough reason to vote Republican, if they were at all inclined to do so.  I would be surprised if the race were not about even right now.  The Republicans could probably count on not much better. The convention set the stage for the 60 day race against Obama, and a star was born.

To the end, the mainstream media maintained their bias.   They are still invested in DESTROYING Palin, but realize they have to manufacture/find something else to do it.

So tonight the mainstream media focus was all on the ECONOMY, and the theory that McCain failed to make a case for himself on the economy, which is the REAL issue in the campaign. 

No, it isn't.  That is BIAS speaking.  For example, the mainstream media focused on the 340 pont Dow loss in the stock market today.  In doing that, they effectively LIED (no new thing).  There is nothing important about that kind of one day loss in the stock market.  I KNOW.  I am an experienced stock market investor, and frequent stock trader (on a virual daily basis).  For this entire YEAR, the stock market has been trading in a RANGE. Every time it has moved to the bottom of that range (although that bottom has moved SLIGHTLY down over the year), it has JUMPED.  In other words we have had MULTIPLE drops of 200 to 300 points, and MULTIPLE rises of 200 to 300 points. We did NOT go to a new year low in the stock market today--still a significant amount above the low, as a matter of fact.  However, we ARE approaching the area near the bottom of the range, where the market has BOUNCED upward on NUMEROUS occasions this year. 

The LAST thing McCain needed to do was buy into the DOOM and GLOOM that the economy is in a CRISIS. It is not.  It is slow, but not rally bad (3.3% GROWTH in the second quarter, and no sign of a recession in sight).  If there is one thing McCain should know, it is NEVER to fight a war on the enemy's turf.  I would say that McCain went to far on buying into the DOOM and GLOOM as it was.  But that is McCain, and he had to avoid the charge of "not caring". However, to give a speech that suggested that the economy is TERRIBLE would have ben SUICIDE for McCain.

That is because the conomy is the MAIN issue in the campaign only if McCain LETS it be.  Contrary to what the condescending media things, people are perfectly aware that the economy goes up and down.  They worry more tabout the economy being RUINED by government than they believe that government can MAKE the conomy always be good.  Now it is true that Obama is saying that he will have the Federal Government "take care of" all of us. But McCain is NEVER gong to get the votes of people who vote on the basis of who will promise MORE BIG GOVERNMENT.  That means shifting the focus of he race from what government can do for you.  If you concede that almost EVERYONE is hurting (untrue), and that government has to take care of all of those hurting people, McCain is going to lose.  If people realize that Obama is DANGEROUS to both a not bad economy AND to the security of this country, then McCain can WIN.

In short, the mainstream media wants McCain to be a DEMOCRAT. He cannot win on that ground, and they are not helping him by suggeting he can.  They don't even want to help him.  Yes, McCain MIGHT win by talking abuot "bipartisan", but the MEDIA idea of "bipartisan" is to ADOPT the full Democrat philosophy.  McCain can never windoing that against a REAL Democrat (who knows what McCain is). He would merely lose the "base" he has just regained (with Palin) if he tried.

I can assure you I am right on all of this.  The economy is NOT "in crisis".  Yes, there are SEVERE dsiruptions in housing and financial institutions (credit), but the overall economy is not bad.  It does McCain no good to go with the total doom and gloom.  Nor does it do McCain any good to go totally to the leftist side. He can't win that way.

McCain CAN win with the strategy outlined in his speech, and by the whole REpublican Convention.  He may NOT win, but he CAN. 

All in all, a good convention  For conservatives, of course, it was good for Sarah Palin alone--whether McCain wins or loses.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

I just heard one of the most condescending, disgusting statements I have ever heard from CNN, and it was not even directly about Sarah Palin.  These people are just EVIL, and they still don't get it.

The statement (after discussing the "challenge" of the cndidates trying to speak the language of "small town America).  "Our challenge is to see if WE speak the language of small town Amierca".

Nope.  YOu still don't get it.  I live in El Paso, Texas--hardly "small town America", although that is where I grew up.  I have lived in El Paso for 40 years, and I graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas.  In my law practice, I was regularly in places like New York City, Dallas, Philadelphia, San Francisco, et. al.

The abve statement is CNDESCENDING to "small town America".  It is INSULTING to the rest of us as well.

Let me speak directly to CNN here:  "Ladies an dGentlemen, yuour prolem is that you do not speak the language of RATIONAL America. You do not speak the language of DECENT Aermica.  You do not speak the languate of FEMALE America.  You do not speak the language of SANE America.  You do not speak the language of RELIGIOUS America (which does not include me). You do not speak the language of MIDLLE CLASS AMERICA (the America of Charlotte ARmstrong--onme of my favorite authors of all time.  You do not speak the language of AMERICA.  The ONLY language you speak is the language of the LOONY LEFT, of which you have become a part. You have become EVIL people, who feel that the end justifies the menas--who feel that the politics of personal destruction are fine for YOU, although not for Republicans.  You are the evil people who think it is RIGHT to try to personally destroy people for lPOLITCAL REASONS--even using a 17 year old girl for that purpose.  You have no soul, even if other people do.  You have sold out to the Dark Side, and there is no reason for you to exist anymore."

That is my message to CNN.  It may be almost my last referecne to CNN, unless I hear about some statement of CNN from an indirect source. My moratorium on my personal boycott of CNN is about to end.  I may bever hear directly another word said on CNN after tonight.

Again, I have followed Obama's instructions over the last week or so.  I have tried to confront EVIL, and CNN has been the face of evil over the past week.  It has little to do with "samll town America", although CNN clearly has CONTEMPT for those peple. It has to do with right and wrong.  CNN has been on the side of WRONG.  I have been on the side of RIGHT (politics aside). 

Goodbye, CNN.  I expect everyone else, to soon bid you goodbye.  I may finish up my "investigations" of the personal life of CNN people, but I am through with  CNN.  As far as I am concerned, I am following the Rome example with Carthage.  They NEVER EXISTED.

A

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Who knew?  Well, I GUESSED.  Over this past week, leftist Democrats have exposed themselves as MORE sexist than I am-which most people thought impossible.  For example, as far as I can remember, I never called Hillary Clinton "shrill".

Yep. That was "Dirty Oil" Reid's (Democrat Senate Majority Leader) reaction to Sarah Palin's speech.  To "Drity Oil" Reid, the speech was "shrill".

Gee, that's telling her.  Uppity woman.  Why doesn't she go back to the kitchen.

Reid obviouisly stands with those left wing crazies superimposing Palin's head on the cover of a fashion magazine, or on a woman's body in a bikini.

Reid, of course, is obviously also agreeing  with those evil people on CNN, and in the rest of teh mainstream media, who have said that a mother (like Soledad O'Brien of CNN) should not neglect her children by DARING to think she can be Vice President.

P.S.  If you want to know how Reid EARNED the nickname of "Dirty Oil", see yesterday's entry. 

P.S. 2:  Obama has often sounded SHRILL to me, when he starts whining.  Then there is taht studied CADENCE of his--sort of like a revivalist preacher.  Well, I don't have to tell you.  You heard it.  Sarah--with more unfair attacks in a week than Obama has faced from the MEDIA in 18 months, sounded warmin and confident. She did NOT sound petul. defemsove.or panicked.  But "shrill" is the traditonal word to use to PUT DOWN an uppity, confident woman.  Leftist Democrats, including the mainstream media, have missed NO ooprortunity to put down women during the last week plus.  Why should they miss this one (opporunity to put down women).  Aren't you women glad to know what leftist Democrats REALLY think about you?  Adn aren't you impressed with how leftist "femimist" women are willing to joint the sexist men against you, in the name of ideology? 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Continuing my public service announcements, since I do it better and more factually than the overhyping media, here is the latest update on Ike.  Note again that it is still TOO EARLY to say where Ike is going, and that panic is therefore not indicated.  There IS, for the first time, reference to the need for "moniotring" in the Bahamas.  Here is the relevant part of the NHC advisory:

"IKE IS MOVING TOWARD THE WEST-NORTHWEST NEAR 16 MPH...26 KM/HR. A
GRADUAL TURN TOWARD THE WEST AND WEST-SOUTHWEST IS EXPECTED OVER
THE NEXT 48 HOURS.  ON THIS TRACK THE HURRICANE WILL CONTINUE TO
MOVE OVER THE OPEN WATERS OF THE WEST-CENTRAL ATLANTIC DURING THE
NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.  IT IS TOO EARLY TO DETERMINE WHAT LAND AREAS
MIGHT EVENTUALLY BE AFFECTED BY IKE BUT INTERESTS IN THE
SOUTHEASTERN BAHAMAS AND THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS SHOULD
MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM".

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this