Posts Tagged ‘Republican’

The Tsunami Hits! Republicans Control Congress!

November 5, 2014

Obama-Shrinks-2Well, it happened.

Americans, in their anger and disgust over the direction which President Barack Hussein Obama, his enablers, and his minions have taken our country, spoke in a loud and clear voice in the Midterm Elections yesterday, giving the Republican Party control of both the House of Representative and the Senate.

The Associated Press reports about the aftermath of this Political Tsunami…

WASHINGTON (AP) — Riding a powerful wave of voter discontent, resurgent Republicans captured control of the Senate and tightened their grip on the House Tuesday night in elections certain to complicate President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

Republican Mitch McConnell led the way to a new Senate majority, dispatching Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky after a $78 million campaign of unrelieved negativity. Voters are “hungry for new leadership. They want a reason to be hopeful,” said the man now in line to become majority leader and set the Senate agenda.

Two-term incumbent Mark Pryor of Arkansas was the first Democrat to fall, defeated by freshman Rep. Tom Cotton. Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado was next, defeated by Rep. Cory Gardner. Sen. Kay Hagan also lost, in North Carolina, to Thom Tillis, the speaker of the state House.

Republicans also picked up seats in Iowa, West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana, all states where Democrats retired. They had needed a net gain of six seats to end a Democratic majority in place since 2006.

In the House, with dozens of races uncalled, Republicans had picked up 11 seats that had been in Democratic hands, and given up only one.

A net pickup of 13 would give them more seats in the House than at any time since 1946.

Obama was at the White House as voters remade Congress for the final two years of his tenure — not to his liking. With lawmakers set to convene next week for a postelection session, he invited leaders to a meeting on Friday.

The shift in control of the Senate, coupled with a GOP-led House, probably means a strong GOP assault on budget deficits, additional pressure on Democrats to accept sweeping changes to the health care law that stands as Obama’s signal domestic accomplishment and a bid to reduce federal regulations.

Obama’s ability to win confirmation for lifetime judicial appointments could also suffer, including any Supreme Court vacancies.

Speaker John Boehner, in line for a third term as head of the House, said the new Republican-controlled Congress would vote soon in the new year on the “many common-sense jobs and energy bills that passed the Republican-led House in recent years with bipartisan support but were never even brought to a vote by the outgoing Senate majority.”

Legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada is likely among the disputed issues to be debated.

Said outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, ” The message from voters is clear: They want us to work together.”

There were 36 gubernatorial elections on the ballot, and several incumbents struggled against challengers. Tom Wolf captured the Pennsylvania statehouse for the Democrats, defeating Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn lost in Illinois, Obama’s home state. Republican Larry Hogan scored one of the night’s biggest upsets, in Maryland.

How did all this come about?

According to the Washington Post,

…From the outset of the campaign, Republicans had a simple plan: Don’t make mistakes, and make it all about Obama, Obama, Obama. Every new White House crisis would bring a new Republican ad. And every Democratic incumbent would be attacked relentlessly for voting with the president 97 or 98 or 99 percent of the time.

But none of that would work if Republicans did not get the right candidates, a basic tenet that had eluded them in recent elections. This time, party officials pushed bad candidates out, recruited and coached contenders with broad appeal and resuscitated two flailing incumbents, Roberts and Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Rival organizations also improved coordination with each other and beefed up their opposition research to wreak havoc on Democrats, while the party closed the gap on data, digital and voter turnout programs.

“We had to recruit candidates, and we had to train them,” said Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). “We had to bring back our incumbents. We had to modernize creaky campaigns. And we had to prevent the mistakes that have plagued our party.”

Democrats began the 2014 campaign with a big disadvantage: They had to defend seats in six deeply Republican states — enough to lose the Senate — and a handful of others in swing states.

Burdened by the climate, Democrats believed they still could win if they localized races and framed each as a choice between two candidates. The strategy worked in 2012. On his office windowsill at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the group’s executive director, Guy Cecil, displayed a beer mug shaped like a cowboy boot with the name “Heidi” on the side — a reminder of how Democrat Heidi Heitkamp won a Senate seat that year in heavily Republican North Dakota.

Senate Democrats calculated that to win in red states, they also had to alter the midterm electorate.

“There’s basically two Americas — there’s midterm America and there’s presidential-year America,” White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said. “They’re almost apples and oranges. The question was, could Obama voters become Democratic voters?”

Evidently not.

The Democrats never realized that it was too late to separate themselves from their fallen messiah, the “clean and articulate”, unvetted candidate, who, through media manipulation and outrageous propaganda, they foisted on an American public, thanks to America’s Low Information Voters, who desperately wanted to make history, by elected the first Black President (Bubba Clinton, notwithstanding).

Last night, the Democrats paid for their deception and their arrogance, in believing that they could take our country in a direction which the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to go.

They reaped what they have sewn.

Now, the Republicans have to prove their trustworthiness to all of us who voted them in.

Their actions  will have to reflect our wishes, not their own. They must hold the line against the egregious Executive Orders which will surely be coming from the desk of the Petulant President Pantywaist, since he has lost the ability to get his socialist brand of legislation passed through Congress.

The first one will be a massive Amnesty Order, which White House Officials claim will be put in action by Baracky Claus before Christmas.

If Republicans wish to win the Presidential Election in 2016, they had better pay attention to what the majority of Americans want.

Last night showed what happens  to “public servants” when they only serve special interest groups…and themselves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Senator Ted Cruz: Telling It Like It Is

February 25, 2013

tedcruzTexas’ newest Senator, Republican Ted Cruz, is getting noticed, by both sides of the aisle. He’s not afraid to tell it like it is, and the “smartest people in the room” are getting nervous.

Earlier this week, Jane Mayer, writing for The New Yorker, reported

Two and a half years ago, Cruz gave a stem-winder of a speech at a Fourth of July weekend political rally in Austin, Texas, in which he accused the Harvard Law School of harboring a dozen Communists on its faculty when he studied there. Cruz attended Harvard Law School from 1992 until 1995. His spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request to discuss the speech.

Cruz made the accusation while speaking to a rapt ballroom audience during a luncheon at a conference called “Defending the American Dream,” sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a non-profit political organization founded and funded in part by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. Cruz greeted the audience jovially, but soon launched an impassioned attack on President Obama, whom he described as “the most radical” President “ever to occupy the Oval Office.” (I was covering the conference and kept the notes.)

He then went on to assert that Obama, who attended Harvard Law School four years ahead of him, “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.”

“We are puzzled by the Senator’s assertions, as we are unaware of any basis for them,” Robb London, a spokesman for Harvard Law School, told me. London noted that Cruz had contributed “warm reminiscences“ of the school by video for a reunion of Latino alumni. “We applaud the fact that he has pursued public service, as so many of our graduates have done. We are also proud of our longstanding tradition of freedom of speech and the robust range of views and debates on our campus.”

Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried, a Republican who served as Ronald Reagan’s Solicitor General from 1985 to 1989, and who subsequently taught Cruz at the law school, suggests that his former student has his facts wrong. “I can right offhand count four “out” Republicans (including myself) and I don’t know how many closeted Republicans when Ted, who was my student and the editor on the Harvard Law Review who helped me with my Supreme Court foreword, was a student here.”

Fried went on to say that unlike Cruz, or McCarthy, who infamously kept tallies of alleged subversives, he had never tried to count Communists. “I have not taken a poll, but I would be surprised if there were any members of the faculty who ‘believed in the Communists overthrowing the U.S. government,’” he said. Under the Smith Act, it is a crime to actively engage in any organization pursuing the overthrow of the U.S. government.

Fried acknowledged that “there were a certain number (twelve seems to me too high) who were quite radical, but I doubt if any had allegiance or sympathy with anything called ‘the Communists,’ who at that time (unlike the thirties and forties) were in quite bad odor among radical intellectuals.” He pointed out that by the nineteen-nineties, Communist states were widely regarded as tyrannical. From Fried’s perspective, the radicals on the faculty were “a pain in the neck.” But he says that Cruz’s assertion that they were Communists “misunderstands what they were about.”

It may be that Cruz was referring to a group of left-leaning law professors who supported what they called Critical Legal Studies, a method of critiquing the political impact of the American legal system. Professor Duncan Kennedy, for instance, a leader of the faction, who declined to comment on Cruz’s accusation, counts himself as influenced by the writings of Karl Marx. But he regards himself as a social democrat, not a Communist, and has never advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government by Communists. Rather, he advocated widening admissions at the law school to under-served populations, hiring more minorities and women on the faculty, and paying all law professors equally.

The Liberals literally lost their minds over Crux using the “C” word, and they weren’t very happy about the grilling he gave Obama’s token “Republican” buddy, Chuck Hagel, during his nomination hearings, either.

Fox News reports

MSNBC host and Democrat Chris Matthews went as far as to compare Cruz’s suggestion that Hagel has been too cozy with Iran and North Korea to former Sen. Joseph McCarthy accusing politicians and other public figures of being Communist sympathizers.

“My view is simple: Washington is a rough-and-tumble place,” Cruz said last week. “If folks want to attack me personally, they’re welcome to it. Texans elected a senator to go to Washington and speak the truth.”

This weekend, Cruz, a Harvard Law School graduate and former clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, doubled down on past remarks about Marxist professors at his former law school, revisited in a recent story in The New Yorker.

“The New Yorker is shocked — shocked — to discover that there are Marxists on the Harvard faculty,” said Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “It’s curious that the New Yorker would dredge up a 3-year-old speech and call it ‘news.’ “Regardless, Senator Cruz’s substantive point was absolutely correct: In the mid-1990s, the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies’ — a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism.”

Still, Cruz allows the Hagel grilling might have resulted in negative consequences.

“The flurry of attacks on me has had their intended effect, which was to shift the conversation away from Chuck Hagel,” he said. “Away from his record, away from his refusal to provide financial disclosures, and toward the direct, nasty, personal attacks leveled at me.”

I really like what I have seen out of Senator Cruz so far. He has been a breath of fresh air, as opposed to all the hot air that has been the normal atmosphere on Capitol Hill for way too long.

The Liberals will tell you whom they fear.

Until He Comes,

KJ

#Evolve? Into what? A Democrat?

November 11, 2012

As I got ready to attend church this morning, I was mulling over this historical week in American Politics and, also, considering the aftermath.

After Republican Moderate Mitt Romney lost, the cries came up from anonymous sources on the internet and television and radio pundits as well, that the reason Obama won, is the narrow-mindedness, and old-fashioned core values of the Republican Party.

These geniuses want the party to be in favor of no-strings-attached amnesty for  illegal aliens, to embrace gay marriage, and to sublimate, if not totally eliminate, any influence Christians have on the Republican Party Platform.

In other words, these geniuses wish to turn the GOP into a doppelganger of the Democratic Party.

And, if that happens, our two party political system is finished.

Here’s one of those MENSA members I am speaking of:

An outspoken Republican moderate, Meghan McCain took to Twitter to express frustration with her party following a less-than-stellar night for the GOP.

“I don’t need to do any soul searching about what the GOP is doing wrong, I knew what was wrong four years ago when my father lost. #evolve,” she wrote on Twitter Wednesday morning after Republican nominee Mitt Romney was projected to lose the election to President Barack Obama Tuesday night and Congress would remain with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats the Senate.

McCain, a writer and daughter to former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain tweeted again, “Keep calling people like me RINO’s and see how many elections we keep winning.”

A “RINO” or “Republican in name only” is a term used within the political sphere to describe a self-identifying member of the Republican Party who does not conform to a certain mold of a conservative Republican.

McCain pushed back on the apparent name-calling Wednesday morning suggesting the Republican Party needs to, as she tweeted, “evolve” on a number of issues to keep up with an increasingly diverse American electorate where Democrats appear to have an advantage.

McCain’s reaction on Twitter is part of a growing narrative woven from the Republicans losses in Tuesday’s election and joins a chorus of Republican voices calling for change within the party.

But, win or lose, McCain got a little back-up from her mother on the social media site.

“Good job Meghan!!! RT @McCainBlogette: Keep calling people like me RINO’s and see how many elections we keep winning,” tweeted Cindy McCain, wife to Sen. McCain and Meghan’s mother.

#Evolve…into what? A Democrat?

I would rather set my hair on fire and put it out with a hammer.

The day after the election, Rush Limbaugh said:

All of these things that define the traditional institutions that made this country great, that’s what the Romney campaign was about. It was rejected. That way, or that route to prosperity was sneered at. That route to prosperity was rejected. The people who voted for Obama don’t believe in it. They don’t think it’s possible. They think the game’s rigged. They think the deck is stacked against them.

They think that the only way they’re gonna have a chance for anything is if somebody comes along and takes from somebody else and gives it to them. Santa Claus! And it’s hard to beat Santa Claus. Especially it’s hard to beat Santa Claus when the alternative is, “You be your own Santa Claus.” “Oh, no! I’m not doing that. What do you mean, I have to be my own Santa Claus? No, no. No, no, no. I want to get up every day and go to the tree. You’re the elves,” meaning us.

You throw Hurricane Sandy in here. I must admit, I am genuinely puzzled that Hurricane Sandy and the aftermath helped Obama and hurt Romney. But it did. According to the exit polls. I mean, what they say is what they say. The polls were right on the money, as it turned out. But until people understand why and how big government reduces prosperity for all, they’re gonna continue to be fooled by little things.

By marketing, by smooth talkers, by faux compassion. So we’ll see what happens with the economy as we go forward. Some people think, “Hey, Rush, the economy is resilient in this country, and it’s gonna naturally rebound. No matter what.” There are people today scared the economy is going to rebound despite what’s happening in the stock market today and Obama’s policies are gonna get credit for it.

A bunch of libs are salivating over that. They think the economy is gonna come back no matter what, and that Obama’s big government is going to end up being the explanation for the rest of our lives as to how that happened. Just like in Japan, just like in Greece. But look, you bring up Greece and you bring up Europe, and they’re where we’re headed. Their problems are acute.

The difference is that none of those European countries are anywhere near the leading economy of the world like we are. The world depends on what happens here. The world does not depend on what happens in Spain or Greece or Italy. Not to put them down. But regardless, wherever you go… Look at Greece. Whenever necessary austerity measures are proposed, what happens?

“No, you don’t! You’re not taking it away from me!” There is no rising to responsibility. There is no accepting responsibility. There’s just a demand that the gravy train continue, and we have an administration that’s promising an endless gravy train. All you have to do to stay on that gravy train is vote. But it doesn’t matter.

The thing that’s mind-boggling is that there is no new prosperity in America. There is no improved standard of living. It’s all going down. “But Obama cares. He really cares! He cares much more than Romney. He really, really cares. In fact, he cares so much, we’re gonna give him a do-over. We’re gonna give him a second term to do what we know he wanted to do in the first term but wasn’t able to for whatever reason.”

In fact, Obama cares so much about us, that, while hundreds of thousands are still without power, and desperately trying to pick themselves up after Hurricane Sandy, he went golfing yesterday.

And, this schmuck is an example of the behavior that these Vichy Republican geniuses think our party should be modeling itself after, in order to win back the American public’s vote?

Then…they are just as void of any core values as the Manchurian President himself, is.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Mark 8:36

As for me, I will remain a Christian American Conservative.

Until He comes,

KJ

The Liberal Pundits’ Poll Propaganda Campaign

October 1, 2012

The Main Stream Media, and all the Liberal Pundits, both paid and unpaid, have been all over the Internet in the last couple of weeks, trying feverishly to discourage Americans from voting for Mitt Romney on November 6th, 2012, by bombarding us with one skewed poll after another.

We’ve seen this tactic before.

From Time Magazine, 9/15/1980, courtesy of cnn.com:

The latest public opinion poll conducted for TIME by Yankelovich, Skelly and White discloses just how close the race is once again. Carter and Reagan are deadlocked at 39% each, while Anderson’s support is 15% — precisely the level set by the League of Women Voters for him to qualify as a “viable” candidate and therefore earn a third spot in its crucial opening debate, set tentatively for Sept. 21 in Baltimore. Carter, who insists on meeting Reagan first without Anderson, still threatened last week not to appear if the Congressman was included. The league’s directs were to meet this week to examine the range of recent poll results and decide whether or not to invite Anderson.

For so early in the campaign, a surprisingly low 7% of registered voters claim to be undecided about whom they now favor. (The study was based on a national sample of 1,644 registered voters interviewed between Aug. 26 and 28. The sampling error is thus plus or minus 3% and 4.5% when comparing present trend readings with previous TIME studies.) Still, the survey discloses just how shaky those current preferences are. Fully 55% say they are not “personally interested or excited about” any of the candidates. Only 11% report genuine enthusiasm for Reagan; a mere 9% feel that way about Carter and 6% about Anderson. In fact, much of the support given their preferred candidates is based on voters’ opposition to the others, the choices are essentially anti votes. Thus 43% of the voters who prefer Reagan say they do so because they are “really voting against Carter.” Similarly, 34% of Carter’s supporters say their choice is based on opposition to Reagan, while a hefty 61% of Anderson’s followers admit that they are motivated by being “against Carter and Reagan.”

Though Carter and Reagan are even up in the race, the poll discloses areas of serious slippage for Reagan in important areas. For one thing, 59% of those preferring Carter claim they do so out of a positive feeling for him: they like his “experience,” and consider him “safer” in foreign affairs. Only 48% of Reagan’s followers feel a similar sense of confidence in their choice’s ability to get things done and to answer the need for a change. At the same time, Reagan’s rating on abilities regarded as important by voters has declined. In TIME’s last survey in May, 49% of those sampled agreed that Reagan was a leader “you can trust,” while 42% believe that now. Reagan was then considered “acceptable” as a President by 64%; the current figure is 54%. Voter confidence in Reagan’s ability to handle the economy has dropped from an impressive 75% to 66%, and his perceived competency in foreign affairs has slipped from 72% to 63%.

And, now, once again, we are being told that “it’s a tight race”.

Per RasmussenReports.com:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows President Obama attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

n Reports tracking showed Obama leading John McCain by a 51% to 45% margin. The numbers barely budged for the rest of the campaign season as Obama enjoyed a comfortable lead and stayed between 50% and 52% every day for the last 40 days.

When “leaners” are included, it’s now Obama 49%, Romney 47%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question. Today is the last day that results will be reported without leaners. Beginning tomorrow, Rasmussen Reports will be basing its daily public updates solely upon the results including leaners. Platinum Members will be still be able to see the more detailed numbers along with demographic breakdowns, and additional information from the tracking poll on a daily basis.

Currently, 43% of voters are “certain” they will vote for Romney. Forty-two percent (42%) are that certain they will vote for Obama. The remaining 15% are either uncommitted or open to changing their mind. To many Americans, especially partisan activists, it is hard to imagine how someone could be anything but certain at this point in time. One of the distinguishing features of these potentially persuadable voters is that they don’t see the choice between Romney and Obama as terribly significant. In terms of impacting their own life, just 28% say it will be Very Important which man wins.

There is particular pessimism among these persuadable voters about the economy. Only 14% think it will get better if the president is reelected. But just 28% believe it will improve with a Romney victory.

Allow me to point out a few things.

1.  These polls are telephone based. How many Americans still have land lines as their personal telephone number?

2. Look around the parking lot at work, the grocery store, or where ever you go during the day. How many Obama/Biden bumper stickers do you see? How many Obama/Biden yard signs do you see?

3. Talk to your friends at work, school, or lunch after church. How many voluntarily admit that they are going to vote for Obama?

4.  Per Gallup.com, as of 1/12/12, 40% of Americans continue to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

Liberals remain the minority political ideology in America. They are just loud.

5.  Again, per Gallup.com, as of 12/23/2011, 78% of American adults identify with some form of the Christian religion in 2011. Less than 2% are Jewish, less than 1% are Muslim, and 15% do not have a religious affiliation.

Christianity is not just a Sunday-only Faith. Christians vote.

The point is, the Liberal desperation over trying to determine the outcome of November 6th is palpable. You can smell their fear…and they will do anything…I mean, anything, to maintain political power.

Unfortunately for them, Americans have more ways of keeping up with the news in 2012, than we did in 1980.

Like this Blog, for instance.

“Game Change” Same Old Liberal Propaganda

March 12, 2012

My bride and I dropped HBO a couple of years ago, to save money.  I’m glad that we did. The Liberals who run it have screwed up what used to be a very good movie channel.

They’ve turned it into a propaganda platform for their political ideology, featuring the misogynist rantings of the decidedly unfunny Bill Maher and made-for-HBO movies, such as Game Change, about the nomination of Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee.

The Weekly Standard has the story:

Nicolle Wallace was the onetime consultant to CBS News and media aide to George W. Bush who was assigned to work with Sarah Palin after the Alaska governor was chosen as John McCain’s running mate. It was Wallace who assured the McCain campaign that her dear friend Katie Couric, a committed liberal with a history of interviewing Republicans and conservatives in a quietly nasty way, was the right journalist to conduct a major early interview with the extremely conservative vice-presidential nominee.

Palin has only herself to blame for how horribly she came off, but as she was the most hotly sought-after interview in the world at the time, the McCain campaign could have picked and chosen and been cleverly calculating about which journalist would win the prize. Wallace was responsible for one of the great blunders in political advance work of modern media history.

Now, imagine you’re making a movie about the Palin story, one that demonstrates a modicum of sympathy for Sarah Palin’s excoriation at the hands of the media. (I know, I’m talking crazy, but go with me here.) In such a movie, Nicolle Wallace’s catastrophic guidance could have been portrayed in several ways. It could have been played as a simple goof, a wrongheaded political calculation. Or as an example of a kind of golly-gee naïveté, with Wallace being snowed by a seductive Couric. Or as a careerist move killing two birds with one stone, with Wallace seeking to stay in the good graces of her former colleague Couric despite several years of working for Republicans.

Needless to say, that is not how Nicolle Wallace is portrayed in Game Change, the new HBO movie based on the John Heilemann-Mark Halperin bestseller. No, indeed. Wallace is the movie’s heroine. She is the voice of reason, the increasingly alarmed witness to the evil McCain has perpetrated by foisting Palin upon the world. It is through Wallace’s interactions with the vice-presidential candidate that we see confirmed every bad thing anyone has ever said about Palin (save that she is not the mother of Trig—it steers clear of that Sullivanian filth). Wallace (played by Sarah Paulson) delivers screenwriter Danny Strong’s inadvertently hilarious Blue State zinger when, dripping with righteous scorn during a confrontation with Palin, she says with disbelief, “Yeah, you’re just like Hillary.”

Wallace’s deeply principled revulsion is mirrored by that of Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson), the McCain campaign chief whose initial excitement at Palin’s political skills and smarts is fast superseded by his awareness of her religious fanaticism (Schmidt gets a horrified look on his face when she says she sees the hand of God at work) and her ignorance.

Yes, if ever you wanted circumstantial evidence that the sources within the McCain campaign who spent October 2008 dumping on Palin anonymously might have included Wallace and Schmidt, you need look no further than HBO’s Game Change. The movie presents a moral case for the disreputable conduct of aides who, we can presume, fearlessly drop dirty dimes anonymously to save their own standing in the liberal culture from which they desperately wish not to be excluded.

Those closest to Gov. Palin, and the Arctic Fox, herself, aren’t particularly impressed by the movie, to say the least.

According to ABC News:

In response to the movie “Game Change” focusing on her historic selection as the GOP vice presidential nominee in the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin says in an email to ABC News that the film doesn’t matter to her.

“I believe my family has the right priorities and knows what really matters,” Palin emailed. “For instance, our son called from Afghanistan yesterday and he sounded good, and that’s what matters. Being in the good graces of Hollywood’s ‘Team Obama’ isn’t top of my list.”

Palin’s allies have dismissed ”Game Change,” which is based on the book that described the former Alaska governor’s lurch onto the national stage, as a bundle of lies. Her former aide Jason Recher called it a “false narrative cobbled together by a group of people who simply weren’t there.”

Randy Scheunemann, who advised Palin during the campaign, said that “to call this movie fiction gives fiction a bad name.”

Other aides who worked on the campaign – campaign manager Steven Schmidt and top aide Nicolle Wallace – have said the film is a generally accurate portrayal of Sen. John McCain’s selection of Palin, whom they allege was emotionally and intellectually not up for the job.

Of course, Schmidt is now working as a on-air contributor for MSNBC, where Ms. Wallace is a frequent guest as a Political Pundit.

No agendas here.  Nope.  Nothing to see at all…literally.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,615 other followers