Ann Coulter Sours On Sarah Palin: ‘I’m Starting To Dislike Her Because Of Her Fans’

Mediaite.com:

Polls are showing Sarah Palin‘s presidential hopes– if she has them–sinking, and the time to make a decision inching nearer, or perhaps already past, if others on the right are any indication. On last night’s O’Reilly Factor, host Laura Ingraham asked Ann Coulter to assess Palin’s chances of jumping in, to which she expressed some impatience: “I think she’s terrific at what she does… but fish or cut bait here.”


Coulter joked that the Palin presidential speculation may not be over soon, as “Newt Gingrich carried it on for fifteen years,” partially due to the lackluster poll numbers. But even if her poll numbers are bad, Coulter argued, “no conservatives will criticize Palin because they don’t want to deal with the hate mail.” She explained that Palin’s supporters made a vice of their loyalty, so much so that “you say her voice is a few octaves too high… and you’ll be inundated with letters.” She later noted that while “we used to all love Sarah Palin for her enemies, I’m starting to dislike her because of her fans.”


Ingraham switched gears a bit on what was wrong with Palin as a presidential candidate, suggesting that voters were “hungry for real substance” and that Palin “had to do a lot more of the heavy lifting to be taken seriously” than she seemed interested in doing. Coulter agreed, adding that Palin “is terrific at what she does,” but when it comes to the presidential campaign, “fish or cut bait here.”


As for others that may be contemplating a run, Ingraham half-joked that it was “borderline irresponsible” for people who could potentially defeat President Obama to stay out of the race, and while Coulter agreed that all potentially viable candidates should run, added that the hurdles to jump in a campaign are significant.

Leftist Video Game Allows Players to Slaughter "Tea Party Zombies" Like Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly

MRCTV.org:

Have you ever fantasized about beating Bill O'Reilly to death with a crowbar or shooting up the offices of Americans for Prosperity with an Uzi? Well, the folks at StarvingEyes Advergaming apparently have and they'd like to share their latest creation with the world. The game is called "Tea Party Zombies Must Die" and, apart from abysmal game play, features several different levels where your only objective is to mercilessly slaughter everyone around you whether they are a Fox News stars or simply Americans For Prosperity employees.


Among the notable conservatives who you are tasked with brutally killing are Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Brit Hume, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Glenn Beck, and the Koch Brothers.


Of course there are plenty of lesser targets to mindlessly butcher like the "factory made blonde Fox News barbie who has never had a problem in her life zombie" or the "Koch industries Koch Whore lobbyist pig zombie". The names are as creative as they are classy. Kind of like the game itself.


While it is disturbing to see that some people believe it would be fun to mow down your political opponents it's also quite that odd that an advertising company with a diverse portfolio of high profile corporate clients from Meow Mix to Pepsi would create a game to allow those people to do just that. Does StarvingEyes really want to risk their business with TLC or Hotels.com by going out on their own to make a disgusting and offensive game like this? Or were they paid?


Regardless of who was responsible this news comes at just the right time to reinforce the already solid theory that the left doesn't care at all about the New Tone they championed not so long ago. New Tone indeed...


UPDATE: I emailed StarvingEyes for comment on the game and it potentially bothering other clients. Jason Oda, the head of the company, responded with the following: "The game was just a personal project. I am not worried about it effecting business."

Dr. Keith Ablow: Watching Chaz Bono On DWTS Is ‘Toxic’ To Children

FOXNews.com:

Chaz Bono, the “transsexual” woman who underwent plastic surgery and takes male hormones in an effort to appear to be a man, and who asserts she is a man, will appear on the upcoming season of "Dancing with the Stars", according to ABC, the network which airs the show. He will be partnered with a woman.


Casting Chaz Bono on "Dancing with the Stars" is part of Chaz’s victory tour, which has included appearances on talk shows and the release of a book called "Transition."


Chaz Bono, the “transsexual” woman who underwent plastic surgery and takes male hormones in an effort to appear to be a man, and who asserts she is a man, will appear on the upcoming season of "Dancing with the Stars", according to ABC, the network which airs the show. He will be partnered with a woman.


Casting Chaz Bono on "Dancing with the Stars" is part of Chaz’s victory tour, which has included appearances on talk shows and the release of a book called "Transition."


I advise parents to not allow their children to watch the episodes in which Chaz appears.


Here’s why: Many of the children who might be watching will be establishing a sense of self which includes, of course, a sexual/gender identity. Some will be girls becoming comfortable with dramatic changes in their bodies. Some will be boys coming to terms with integrating the dawn of manhood with exquisite feelings of vulnerability. Young viewers will include tomboyish girls and sensitive, less stereotypically “masculine” boys. They will also include children who have sustained the losses of loved ones and are wrestling with depression, perhaps wondering who they are absent their deceased mothers or fathers.


The last thing vulnerable children and adolescents need, as they wrestle with the normal process of establishing their identities, is to watch a captive crowd in a studio audience applaud on cue for someone whose search for an identity culminated with the removal of her breasts, the injection of steroids and, perhaps one day soon, the fashioning of a make-shift phallus to replace her vagina.


It is a toxic and unnecessary byproduct of the tragic celebration of transgender surgery that millions of young people who do watch "Dancing with the Stars" will have to ponder this question: Maybe my problems really stem from the fact that I’m a girl inside a boy’s body (or a boy inside a girls body). Maybe I’m not a tomboy; I’m just a boy! Maybe I’m not just being bullied because I’m a sensitive, reflective young man interested in flowers, not football. Maybe I’m not just uncertain about my sexuality. Maybe I’m a girl! Maybe all this angst and suffering I’m feeling as I emerge into puberty and pass through it isn’t just because I’m changing, but because I should change completely—and have my breasts removed or my penis amputated!

Of course liberals support this kind of thing because transgender is the new black.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 9/5/11

Obama, Romney To Unveil Jobs Plans As Congress Returns

Part-Timers Pose Biggest Threat To Unemployed 

America's Uncle Omar Problem

Illegal Aliens Received Billions In Tax Credits Last Year

Marco Rubio's Courageous Speech

MTV's Missing 'Pants'

Ten Ways That Liberals Deny Reality 

Defiant Gadhafi Vows Long Guerilla War 

The Too Black, Too White Presidency 

Nation Suffering From Obama-Induced Irregularity

What The Left Doesn't Understand About Obama

Sen. Jim DeMint Blasts Obama: ‘I’m Not Interested In His Speech’

Mediaite.com:

On ABC’s This Week today, Senator Jim DeMint went after President Obama for his upcoming speech this week on jobs, asking for a written proposal that can be calculated by the CBO instead of an address by the president to Congress.


Rather than dwelling too long on Speechgate 2011: The Incredible One-Day Saga Of A Minor Scheduling Issue, DeMint focused on the expected content of the president’s speech and threw cold water on Christiane Amanpour’s question of whether any of the president’s plans would be able to get Republican support.


I’m, frankly, very tired of speeches. I don’t want to be disrespectful to the president, but what I want to see is something in writing and what the Congressional Budget Office tells us it’s going to cost so that we can not only read it ourselves, but the American people can read it. Speeches, we’ve found, are not very similar to the actual legislation.


DeMint claimed there was a disconnect between the White House and American businesses on job creation, and dismissed President Obama’s upcoming speech as just “pandering to his base.” Because according to DeMint, “as the Congressional Budget Office said, we can’t score a speech.”


The senator certainly has a point when it comes to the value and content of a speech versus actual legislation, but speeches are generally used to sell ideas to people in the most effective form possible. A good communicator like President Obama can use the bully pulpit to explain to Congress and the American people his specific goals for job creation in the immediate future. If he can convey those ideas effectively, then the speech will have achieved its desired effect. Otherwise, it will be a missed opportunity.

HuffPo’s Howard Fineman On Obama’s Biggest Mistake: Health Care Reform

Mediaite.com:

On his show today, Chris Matthews asked his panelists to name President Obama’s biggest mistake in office. Howard Fineman, Editorial Director at the Huffington Post, suggested it was none other than the controversial health care reform bill pushed through the Congress last year.


The other panelists had less surprising offers: focusing on Afghanistan as a war of necessity and not closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay were two of the ideas thrown out there. But Fineman and fellow panelist David Ignatius agreed that the president’s focus on health care reform was the biggest mistake of his presidency.


Fineman’s take:


His decision to spend all of his political capital and a year-and-a-half of his time on the health care reform law, I think, was his biggest political mistake.


Ignatius echoed Fineman’s sentiments, also pointing out that President Obama did not have that much political capital on health care reform to begin with.


The idea of watching a major change in social legislation without having a consensus in the country and in Congress about what that should look like was a mistake. That’s not how the president makes good policy.

NOW they say it was a mistake. Funny that.

Dick Cheney: U.S. Would Be Different If Hillary Clinton Was President

Hey, whoever said Dick Cheney wasn't flexible?:

To promote his new memoir, former vice president Dick Cheney has been making the media rounds, discussing the inner workings of the Bush administration and sharing his thoughts on the policies of the Obama administration. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Cheney if he thinks Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have been a better president than the current officeholder.


Cheney did not say outright that Clinton would be a better president, but thought it was a likely possibility and suggested she might have been “easier to work with” than President Obama.


I have the sense that she’s one of the more competent members of the current administration, and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform if she’d be president… but I don’t want to be in the position where I’m supporting Hillary Clinton. That might be the kiss of death for her.


The vice president said he wouldn’t discourage Clinton from running, but insisted his support would be firmly behind the Republican nominee. However, Wallace pointed out that when current GOP frontrunner Rick Perry ran for reelection last year in the Texas governor’s race, Cheney threw his support to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison instead.


Cheney clarified that he has not officially thrown his support by any one candidate yet, before explaining that his endorsement of Hutchison was not meant to be a slight to Perry, but rather as a testament to his close relationship with the senator.

Obama Oversees Zero Job Growth During August, Black Unemployment Highest In 27 Years

It's on his watch so Barry's responsible, come 2012 it's time for another change:

August brought no increase in the number of jobs in the United States, a signal that the economy has stalled and that inaction by policy makers carries substantial risk.


The government report on hiring, released on Friday, prompted another round in a relentless diminution of economic expectations. The unemployment rate, at 9.1 percent, did not change last month, and the White House said it was expected to stay that high through at least 2012.


The optics of a giant zero in the jobs column — more symbolically powerful, perhaps, than even a small decrease might have been — increase the pressure on President Obama as he prepares to deliver a major address on job creation next week, on Republicans who have a starkly different approach to economic revival and on the Federal Reserve, whose policy makers have been divided over the wisdom of using its limited arsenal of tools to get the economy moving again.


The White House immediately seized on the report to bolster the president’s impending call to action. Republicans countered that the numbers were further proof that the stimulus policies of Mr. Obama, whom they quickly dubbed “President Zero,” were not working.


Mr. Obama, who instructed the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to pull back on more stringent standards on ozone emissions in response to complaints that they would hurt hiring, is expected to propose tax incentives to promote hiring and infrastructure spending. He also is expected to renew the payroll tax cut and extend unemployment benefits, both of which are set to expire.


The Federal Reserve is expected to weigh whether to take steps to help lower long-term interest rates to bolster the economy at its two-day meeting this month.


The new data, a monthly snapshot from the Department of Labor, sent stocks sliding. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 253.31 points, 2.2 percent, Friday, closing at 11,240.26.


Some economists said the possibility of a double-dip recession was increasing.


“As long as payrolls are weak, you will continue to hear cries of not just recession risk but cries that the United States is in a recession and we just don’t know it,” said Ellen Zentner, the senior United States economist for Nomura Securities.

RELATED: Black Unemployment Highest in 27 Years

Fox News Poll: GOP Voters Think Sarah Palin Should Stay Out Of Presidential Race

Bottom line, no matter what happens from here on end, there's just no way Palin could beat Obama in 2012 and most Republicans know it:

Republican voters may be loving Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry right now, but, if a recent Fox News poll is anything to go by, they don’t feel the same way about Sarah Palin.


The poll, conducted “under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R)” — shows that Republican voters (including the Tea Party members within the fold) do not feel that John McCain’s former running mate should make a bid for the presidential nomination.


The results of the poll, which was conducted August 29 -31, specifically included a question about Palin, who has yet to officially announce whether she will or will not run:


27. Do you think Sarah Palin should run for president in 2012 or not?


Yes 20%
No 74
(Don’t know) 6


More specifically, two-thirds of poll responders who described themselves as Tea Party voters do not think Palin should run, and 71 percent of all Republican voters say she should sit this one out. The 74 percent above reflects the response from the entire electorate.

RELATED: Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time Palin

John Boehner's Request For Obama To Postpone Speech Was Not Unprecedented

Just another reason not to believe anything coming from the lamestream media:

Much of the media has been running with the claim that a president's request to speak to Congress has never been rejected until this week. Various Capitol Hill "historians" have been quoted saying that House Speaker John Boehner took unprecedented action when he cited the difficulty of hosting President Obama on the president's requested date of Sept. 7. We're not so sure.


The truth is that you don't have to go back that far in the nation's history to find a similar circumstance. And unlike the current speaker, who quickly agreed to host the president on the following day, Sept. 8, a previous holder of the gavel refused to grant the White House request, regardless of the date and time.


The June 24, 1986, edition of The Wall Street Journal featured a story headlined, "President's Bid to Address the House On Nicaragua Is Rejected by Speaker." That's right, no quibbling over the date and time, just a flat-out rejection. In that case, President Ronald Reagan wanted to address the House before its critical vote on funding for the anti-communist "Contra" rebels in Nicaragua. Then-Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neil said that he was willing to host a Reagan speech if it was expanded to include the Senate in a joint session, or he would allow the President to speak to the House alone if the President would also agree to take questions from lawmakers. Otherwise, there would be no Reagan speech in the House chamber. Reagan already had the votes to prevail in the Senate, and Mr. O'Neil wanted to avoid having the spotlight turned on the House, which would make him and his colleagues accountable to the public if Contra aid were rejected.


Both Speaker O'Neil then and Speaker Boehner this week were on very solid Constitutional ground. The president has no more right to take over the proceedings in the House, or to invite himself in, than does the speaker have the right to commandeer the president's time and attention within the White House. On this point, the meaning of a separate Article I and Article II in the Constitution couldn't be clearer.


A White House aide at the time tells us that Reagan simply shrugged off the rejection and said, "They have televisions up there on Capitol Hill, don't they?" He made his case on TV instead and then won the House vote to continue assisting the Nicaraguan freedom fighters.

RELATED: Speaker John Boehner Should Resign For His Unprecedented Insult To The President

Rep. Allen West Blasts Fellow CBC Member’s Tea Party-Lynching Comment

Mediaite.com:

On Thursday night’s The Factor, host Bill O’Reilly discussed the Congressional Black Caucus’ rhetoric concerning the Tea Party movement. He played an audio clip of a particularly provocative comment made by Indiana Congressman André Carson (D) in which he told an audience in Miami that members of Congress sympathetic to the Tea Party would “love to see you and me… hanging on a tree.”


Oh my. “Now using violent imagery with racial overtones to attack a political group is absolutely un-American,” said O’Reilly. “But Mr. Carson in unrepentant.” He brought on Florida Congressman Allen West, himself a Republican member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who felt “we don’t need that kind of incendiary talk” and he expressed this much in a letter to Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, chairman to the the Congressional Black Caucus.


O’Reilly’s theory is that such rhetoric is born out of the fear that black voters are not currently interested in re-electing Barack Obama in 2012 and, so, his opposition must be “demonized.” West agreed:


This is nothing but one of the tactics — I believe it’s rule number 13 out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals — where you pick a target, you freeze it, you isolate it, and you begin to attack it. And I think that’s one of the important things they’re trying to do.

If you're a black, liberal Democrat playing the race card never gets old.

Bill O’Reilly And Panel Are Skeptical Of Oprah’s Rosie O’Donnell TV Gamble

Mediaite.com:

Wednesday night, Bill O’Reilly focused his attention on Oprah Winfrey’s struggling OWN network and on its hope that actress, TV personality and prolific blogger Rosie O’Donnell might be able to lend it a dose of star power and a healthy boost in viewership with The Rosie Show. He brought on marketing strategist Laura Ries and New York Post reporter Sean Daly to discuss.


Ries agreed with O’Reilly assessment that O’Donnell is a risky choice for the network given she has “staked a claim in far-left territory” throughout her career, but that it’s a risk the flagging network has to take in the hopes of injecting some sort of interest into its programming. Daly weighed in, opining that the network would have to keep “a tight rein” on the actress, which was met with more than a smidge of skepticism by O’Reilly.


The panel also expressed doubt about whether O’Donnell would be able to recapture the viewers and success she enjoyed back in the 90s as host of her very popular daytime talk show. You know, when she was more “Tom Cruise is a cutie patootie” and less “9/11 was an inside job.” And then there’s the issue of whether advertisers are open to being associated with someone as polarizing and potentially controversial as O’Donnell. O’Reilly noted that “if she gets eyeballs, she gets advertisers,” noting that controversy could very well work in O’Donnell’s favor as long as it translates into viewers. And, obviously, he’s pretty shrewd when it comes to analyzing media trends:


But remember though, she did well in The View in the sense that she increased viewership there, but part of it was sensationalism. And then NBC tried to hire her — Remember this? — and they gave her a variety show which lasts, what, twelve minutes? I don’t even think it got through the hour. She brought on these communist jugglers and that was it, they had to pull the plug. That was a joke; they didn’t really have communist jugglers.


…But they might have.


Please, please invite Bill onto your show, Rosie! And, heck, a communist juggler or two.


(Also: please don’t miss O’Reilly clever self-promotion when he lists examples of his show: “No Rizzoli and Isles, no Jersey Shore. No O’Reilly Factor.”)