"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." ~ Joseph Heller
The New York Slimes is doing it's Liberal best to smear a Republican candidate. So, what else is new?
They say they have been working on this (non)story for three months. Why?
I don't mean why work on the story for three months. I mean why should it take so long to sit down and write a story filled with so many holes one could drive a semi through? I could sit down and dash a story out with more credibility in about an hour or less.
What's the first sign it isn't factual? The ubiquitous "anonymous sources", of course. Whenever the Slimes or any Liberal news organization wants to do a hatchet job on someone, all they have to do is dredge up a few "anonymous sources", and Voila! They have muck! And they really don't have to dredge them up. All they really have to do is mention anonymous sources. There doesn't have to be any.
Anonymous sources are the perfect source. They don't even have to exist to make a story appear credible.
Ok. Point made.
I've been listening to the talking heads speculate about who the Presidential nominees will choose for their running mates. We hear these rumors every election cycle, and there's nothing wrong with discussing the subject, but I've never seen a Presidential nominee choose a running mate from the pool of Presidential contenders that didn't win.
For instance, Everyone thought Howard Dean would be chosen in 2000, or was it 2004? No matter. It didn't happen. Go down the list of Presidential candidates in the last several elections. None of the candidates from either party ever chose a running mate that experts said they would choose.
Offhand, I can think of Nixon's choice of Spiro Agnew, George W Bush's choice of Dick Cheney, and some one's (I can't remember who) choice of Lloyd Bentzen. These are all Vice Presidential candidates I had never heard of before the nominee chose them.
So, if you're expecting to hear McCain choose Huckabee or Romney as his running mate, it probably won't happen. He would more likely choose Senator Lieberman, but I doubt Lieberman would accept. Who knows, though? Stranger things have happened.
But the one speculation that really amuses me is "Will Obama choose Hillary to be his running mate?" Well, I won't commit myself to saying no, however, in my opinion, he would have to be either fearless, stupid, or crazy to pick her.
The Clinton's have such a lust for power, they have left a long trail of dead bodies strewn behind them (if "anonymous sources" have any credibility to them at all) in their quest for political power. Or to stay in power.
Here is one example from an article (the first one I accessed in a google search of "Clinton's criminal record") entitled "Clinton Lies and Criminal History":
"[C]ritics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster’s death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one. Other conspiracy theories claimed that she had killed Foster herself or had him killed."
If there is any truth to any of those aforementioned rumors, Obama would be in danger of being assassinated by any of the Clinton's thug pals, or thug pals of their thug pals, if she were placed in the position of "heiress to the throne" so to speak. Anonymous sources speculate she would literally stop at nothing to reach her ultimate goal of attaining the title of "Commissar for life of The Socialist States of America".
Including assassination.
But it doesn't matter. Obama, should he win the Democratic nomination for president, will never choose Hillbillary for his running mate.
You'll see. History will bear me out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Chuckle. Funny story. Which "thugs" would those be?
Anyway, I don't believe Obama would pick Clinton, partly because he'd have to deal with both her and the former President. And I don't think she'd want it. I think she would rather serve out her career as an accomplished senator than a second banana.
And if she did become his VP and Obama got a hang-nail, people like you would blame her and Bill for it for the next 50 years. The rest of her term would be consumed with Ken Starr-like investigations aimed at thwarting anything that she would want to accomplish as president. It would be a no-win situation.
Why, all of a sudden, are you guys taking the NYT seriously?
It's not like you ever did before.
Anonymous, no one is taking the NYT's story seriously. Where did you get that idea? If Mark was taking it seriously, then it would be because he thinks it's true. I didn't see anything in this post to suggest that.
Funny you should come in here as "Anonymous" when this post is about Anonymous sources. Wonder if that was planned? LOL!
Hi, Mark. We both know that story was a load of crap, and we also know the New Your Slimes is loosing it's readership. Gee, I wonder why? I don't believe Obama would ever choose Hilary as his running mate either. He'd have to be suicidal to do so, even if the "Anonymous Sources" are bs. We know that the Clintons are both all about their own personal power and nothing else.
Good post!
Why on EARTH did the NYT endorse McCain when they knew they were sitting on this story? My news organization doesn't allow anonymous sources. The rule of thumb is that you can use an anonymous source, but you'd better verify that what he says is true. If someone tells you where the body is buried and you don't find a body there, it's time to be skeptical.
"The rule of thumb is that you can use an anonymous source, but you'd better verify that what he says is true."
And how do you know that this is not the case with the NYT? I'm sure the have and abide by the same rule.
The story is that his staff was concerned. Has that been proved untrue? Why would they be concerned? Because McCain cheated on his first wife. There's precedent.
The story is that the staff is concerned? What staff? McCain had about 150 people working on the Commerce Committee. Many of them worked for Democrats. My staff SAY they saw you walking into a gay bar the other night. They wish to remain anonymous. Is that enough evidence for you? And why do you believe they have to abide by the same rule? Do you work there?
I've got a buck bet with a liberal that Mrs. bill clinton will somehow steal the nomination. This is way more likely.
Post a Comment