A ref tackling a player "just to defend himself," and another savage (but legal) block by Hines Ward. more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:06 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 48 words, total size 2 kb.

Safe link to Gateway Pundit.

Incidentally, the anti-Christ will be heralded as Christ, I'm told.

Do I buy that? No. But if the left is going to poke fun at the "anti-Christ" stuff among some on the right, maybe they shouldn't start worshipping Obama Christ just yet. Kinda encourages the anti-Christ stuff, non?

Posted by: Ace at 02:55 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday, CNN was complaining about Sarah Palin refusing to do an interview with them. She did one today and based on the outright dishonesty and hack job they did, it simply shows she should have skipped it.

Some asshat reporter Obama shill totally distorts a quote from National Review to make Palin look bad and put her on the defensive. Rich Lowry puts the quote in full context.

Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it’s sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle, since she’s taking flak not only from Democrats and the press but from some conservative opinion leaders as well....

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about Palin’s lack of experience. Who wouldn’t, at the very least, wish that she had more time in the governor’s office on her résumé? But a look at Palin’s 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done — and who didn’t just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.

Below the fold is how this hack actually asked the question.
more...

Posted by: DrewM at 02:24 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess we're all in agreement-- the weak Obama will provoke aggressive action, and Obama will respond in a way most Americans believe to be wrong, as Biden says.

Which means confronting aggressive provocation with passive weakness.

Commenters are wondering what Joe Biden has in mind about the response that Biden is thinking of.

Probably selling Israel down the river-- as Jesse Jackson predicts.

Yes, They Probably Mean Israel: Israel will probably strike Iran after the election, if Obama is elected, because once Obama is in office they cannot count on support, intel, flyover permissions, etc.

Obama will of course condemn them.

That would be a decision that most Americans would object to, as Biden declares Obama's decision would be.

So there you go. They're already telegraphing their punches. Against Israel.

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:26 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 2 words, total size 1 kb.

Several problems with the Sun:

1) It was a New York based newspaper. I can't really think of a more ridiculously difficult market to crack. For one thing, the paper has two conservative-leaning papers already, the New York Post (which doesn't make money) and the WSJ (which is really liberal-leaning, but the editorial page is conservative).

So right there: You have a blue-collar tabloid and a tony broadsheet serving the financial industry basically providing a conservative alternative to the Times (and the liberal Newsday, for those who want their liberalism in tabloid format).

2) The model was all wrong. The Sun sought to emulate the Times in style. It was a good paper. Don't get me wrong. But it wasn't punchy. They had a lot of great reporting -- they were in the lead on the UN scandals, and, if I'm remembering right, they were also in the lead on Norman Hsu -- but they emulated the Times' stuffy, self-important tone.

The paper was quite obviously a labor of love, and an idiosyncratic one. It was the New York Times for educated capital-class urban professional New Yorkers who didn't like the Times' liberalism.

That's a pretty small demographic. In fact, I'd say that that particular demographic was largely restricted to the investors in and editors of The Sun. In other words, they created the sort of paper they themselves would love to read in an ideal world... without much concern about whether the market for that particular paper extended much beyond them and some of their Wall Street friends who used to be Young Republicans at Yale.

Did I like the Sun? Yes I did. Did I like the Sun as much as I wanted to like the Sun? No, not nearly. In fact, after buying the paper at a newsstand for a week, I stopped. I had an idea to subscribe just to support them... but as I merely liked the paper, I decided against it, mostly due to apathy and cheapskatedness.

Two recommendations for those with a mind to try this sort of thing again: more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:50 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 1356 words, total size 8 kb.

All these code words just happen to track precisely with Obama's negatives.

Funny how that keeps workin' out for them.

Posted by: Ace at 11:40 AM | Comments (106)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

In the tank.

Even Dan "Forged TANG Documents" Rather thinks there's a double standard.

Giuliani: Joe Biden was right the first time -- Obama's not ready.

MSNBC Outdoes Itself: Given the choice between reporting the embarrassing Biden quote which has actually become an issue in the campaign, or reporting a similar quote in which Biden reformulated it to sound better, which do you think MSNBC chose?

And even worse - - they did not alert their viewers that this was not in fact the quote McCain and Palin are talking about. They called this "the quote."

Just flat out lying, now.

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks, Nancy!

Posted by: Ace at 11:17 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Did I say "racist"? I only meant "redneck" (and also racist).

This link is just a PDF of the trendline. So if you don't like PDFs, don't bother, it's will just tell you Obama's edged down as McCain has creeped up.

The polls are all over the place. I'm choosing to believe polls like this. There's no real reason to favor the Big Obama Lead polls over the Margin of Error Obama Lead polls, so might as well go with the ones that offer a shot of victory.

Thanks to CJ.

Hillbuzz: On those undecideds. I mean racists. No, I meant rednecks. By which I meant racists.

Undecideds will go to McCain at a rate of 4:1 or higher, the same way they broke for Clinton. That means in this Battleground Poll, itÂ’s actually McCain 52%-Obama 49%.

The other interesting thing to keep in mind is that, on average, Obama overpolled by 7% in our primaries.

Posted by: Ace at 11:00 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.