Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (266049)	9/5/2008 11:42:05 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793600

Another phony feminist bites the dust.

To: KLP who wrote (266049)	9/5/2008 11:44:38 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793600

Boo hoo. Sarah's Surly 'Sisters' By Jan LaRue The sisterhood of the snarling pantsuit, galloping astride their media geldings, launched a pre-emptive strike against Gov. Sarah Palin. Hell hath no fury like scorned leftist feminists. Their misdirected, irrational fury is unrestrained by any sense of hypocrisy. You'd think they'd direct their wrath at the boys at the Democratic National Committee, which failed to respond to media bias against Hillary Clinton in favor of Barack Obama. And it's Obama, the DNC's nominee, who rejected a woman running mate. Instead, the sisters are pounding a woman who may make the final crack in their coveted glass ceiling. Truth is, the last thing the "choice" chicks and their media accomplices believe in is "a woman's right to choose." Palin chose to give birth to her fifth baby, Trig, though he has Down syndrome. On top of that, her 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant. So the mainstream media's child protection squad kicked in. CNN's Campbell Brown asked how the Palin campaign "will respond to people who wonder why [Bristol's] mother would have subjected her to this scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position." Maybe Brown could show some class by calling a halt to the scrutiny instead of piling on. John Roberts of CNN suggested that Palin might engage in child neglect if she's the next veep: "The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?" Did Roberts worry about Chelsea Clinton's care and feeding when Hillary spent eight of Chelsea's formative years copresidenting with Bill? [ Or when she was a partner at the Rose Law Firm? ] And where was Roberts the night ABC's Charlie Gibson marveled at newly-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi standing on the House floor holding a grandchild. He described her as "the ultimate in multitasking: Taking care of the children and the country." Hopefully, Pelosi is better at multitasking at Grandma's house than she is at the people's house. She's led Congress to an all-time low favorability rating. Where is Robert's concern about how much time Barack and Michelle Obama will dedicate to their kids as they both work full time? Don't bother Googling that one. I'm also guessing that if the media succeed in making Palin's former pastor into the GOP equivalent of Jeremiah Wright, Roberts won't promise her a "Wright-Free Zone" interview as he did Obama. The caterwauling by some commentators borders on hysteria. Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, ridicules Palin as the "Vice in Go-Go Boots." Dowd can't abide "a cute, cool unknown from Alaska who has never even been on "Meet the Press" triumphing over a cute, cool unknowable from Hawaii who has been on "Meet the Press" a lot. So what's so helpful about being on Meet the Press "a lot" if you're still "unknowable"? What Dowd doesn't get is that most Americans prefer a nominee who can beat the press. In her next volley, Dowd cites a "National Enquirer headline, "Teen Prego Crisis" with 17-year-old daughter Bristol." Savor the satisfying irony: the blinded-by-bias elites at the Times are so driven by their disdain for Palin that they acknowledge the very tabloid that dented the Times masthead for failing to investigate the philandering of presidential candidate John Edwards. Dowd says Bristol "is still absorbing the shocking news that she was about to turn into tabloid roadkill." Not one to be outdone, Dowd turns Bristol into Times roadkill by calling her pregnancy "broken-watergate." It matters not to Dowd that Bristol and her 18-year-old boyfriend are going to marry and have the baby instead of compounding their wrong by destroying an innocent child. Now we know what the left means by "pre-natal care." Susan Reimer of The Baltimore Sun takes a bunch of smarmy shots in her column, "A Woman-But Why This Woman?" Reimer's insulted that McCain just put "a skirt on the ticket." He chose "a running mate with a Down syndrome child" in order "to look good to evangelicals." It just boggles the mindless. How can a pro-life, evangelical, gun-totin' "beauty queen" with five kids and great legs qualify for anything but a bit part in "The Dukes of Hazzard"? Sally Quinn of The Washington Post blogs on Newsweek about, "Palin's Pregnancy Problem". What is it with libs' obsession with pregnancy as a "problem"? What they don't get is that most Americans don't think of a baby as punishment, as does Barack Obama. Maybe there should be two definitive campaign bumper stickers: "McCain/Palin: Baby on Board" vs. "Obama/Biden: Baby's a Burden." The sisterhood is regurgitating the Obama campaign's initial, cheeky description of Palin as "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Drawing more attention to Obama's anorexic résumé helps them how? Chalk it up to trickle-down audacity. The self-proclaimed "community organizer" has spent more time running for president than he's spent in his Senate office, which is about 120 days. The sisterhood thinks Palin needs a primer on foreign policy. One thing's for sure: Obama doesn't qualify as her teacher. Palin's qualifications also outshine Hillary Clinton, who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in New York after insinuating herself as First Lady into the role of head of a health care commission. Hillary's signature project was a colossal failure, leaving everybody involved in need of a prescription for migraines. She stood by and enabled her womanizer in chief, prompting this jab by Michelle Obama: "If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." It's tough to think there's hope for change among the feminist left. They're not about women's rights, they're about leftist ideology. It's why you can turn blue waiting for NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and their allies to denounce the likes of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer or any other abortion supporting womanizer. The sisterhood is wondering whether Palin can handle herself in a debate with Joe Biden, the Democrats "pit bull." I doubt that a gal who shoots moose will be intimidated by a guy who shoots from the lip. Unlike Biden, she doesn't sound like she swallowed a thesaurus. And she hasn't assumed someone else's humble origins as her own. Besides, she's "a pitbull with lipstick." Jan LaRue is an attorney, author and public speaker. She served as Chief Counsel at Concerned Women for America, Director of Legal Studies at Family Research Council, and Senior Counsel at the National Law Center for Children and Families. She is currently a member of the Board of Advisors of the Culture and Media Institute. americanthinker.com

To: KLP who wrote (266049)	9/5/2008 11:44:45 AM
From: Alan Smithee	2 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793600

OPRAH BALKS AT HOSTING SARAH PALIN; STAFF DIVIDED Amazing that an entertainer would risk alienating a significant portion of her audience over politics. Oral and I have had this discussion a number of times. If you're in business, why wear your politics on your sleeve, with yard signs, bumper stickers and such, and risk the ire of 50% of your customer base? I wouldn't be surprised to hear over the next year that Oprah's viewership is down.

To: KLP who wrote (266049)	9/5/2008 11:59:00 AM
From: goldworldnet	3 Recommendations Respond to of 793600

History has proven that the only people Democrats dislike worse than stereotype Republicans are non-whites, females, or those choosing an alternative lifestyle that vote Republican and such individuals are tarred and feathered with a vengeance. * * *

To: KLP who wrote (266049)	9/5/2008 3:40:53 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793600

Thinking about Oprah and Palin Its a free country and she can theoretically choose who to have on and not. Of course. Plus she owns her show, she's not an employee. As such she has much more managerial control and an owners interest in her show. Again, that gives her more freedom than most talk show hosts would have. Is she risking audience viewership by not having her on? Quite possibly. Especially if she's perceived as not having her on because of political bias. But she might damage her viewership even more by having her on if as an Obama supporter she felt compelled to argue with Palin. That could be even more damaging than ignoring Palin. OTOH if she had her on and didn't challenge her as much as Obama supporters wanted, that portion of her audience might be offended. Not having her on before the election might be safest for her. I'd bet she'd be eager to have her on AFTER the election. Whichever way it turns out.