Some enterprising network should give Obama a talk show. Or maybe we could all just all invite him for dinner:
Voters disapprove 53 - 41percent of President Obama's handling of health care.
We like the guy personally, it's his policies that are killing us.
But why so negative? You can't blame Obama for the stimulus bill - that was the handiwork of Pelosi and Reid. The health care effort? All he has done is cheerlead for whatever Pelosi and Reid are going to drop on his desk.
Can't blame Obama for the unpopular decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City - although it is fraught with national security implications it was deemed to be below his pay grade, so he left it to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Maybe people didn't like his revised strategy for Afghanistan announced in March? No worries - he will be delivering another turkey any day week right after Thanksgiving.
It's a baffling poll result - how can people disapprove of a President who doesn't actually do anything?
Hope you are right Clarice.
Do you think we should pursue a Saturday Sarah book signing event at the Capitol to have thousands show up to help stiffen the spine of waverer's, or do you think enough of them are sensible enough to not buy off on this supposedly benign Saturday night Procedural Vote that will be grandstanded by the Pol's and MSM?
From way out here I simply don't know.
Posted by: daddy | November 20, 2009 at 11:51 AM
The NYT has a story on Palin's stylist who confirms Sarah was telling the truth about the clothes that caused such a controversy.
Hot Air has the link.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I plan to have a JOM party tomorrow night right here for the vote. You are all invited. I'll be serving grey goose, Dacu, and pinot grigio, my famous bourson cheese and a variety of other appetizers. Friends are welcomed.
Posted by: Jane | November 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Rush just said that Nelson is a yes on Saturday's vote.
Posted by: Sue | November 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Speaking of Hot Air, I think the Walpin matter could be an impeachable offense.
Posted by: Jane | November 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM
It's a shocking story, Jane. Espicially with Rhee marrying the d-bag after finding out who he is.
And yeah, impeachment would be the peachiest.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM
bad,
Can you believe that was in the NYT? Granted in the Fashion & Style section, but still.
Temps are dropping in Hell as we type.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Porch, I was astonished! I'm still wondering if I read it right.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 12:54 PM
If he keeps mucking everything up even the left will be looking for a reason to impeach him. He of course will say it is because he is black.
Posted by: Jane | November 20, 2009 at 01:01 PM
The vote tomorrow, if it happens, is only the vote to proceed to debate. I don't see anyway of organizing anything worthwhile in 24 hours, but I think it is a great idea for the day of the actual vote, should they get that far.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 01:06 PM
bad,
And it wasn't even a bait-and-switch job. The piece is positive all the way through.
It's actually pretty clever and the reverse of the usual hit pieces like the ones featuring Wallace and Schmidt. Normally they would allow the interviewee to whine "poor poor pitiful me, I was stuck managing this horrible diva candidate" and thus make it all but inevitable that the readers end up disliking both the interviewees and the candidate too. This time they give the stylist a chance to defend her choices, debunk some of the myths, stick up for the candidate, and basically come out smelling like a rose - which has the effect of shedding positive light on Sarah.
And the photos are great. Personally I thought Palin and her family looked terrific at the RNC. Kline did a good job on extremely short notice.
Of course, she had superior raw material to work with. ;)
Posted by: Porchlight | November 20, 2009 at 01:06 PM
I hope the stylist gets a ton of business from the publicity.
Wasn't Carl Cameron of FOX NEWS giggly salaciously while relaying the false info about Sarah and shopping trips?
If so, he and FOX owe Sarah an on air apology.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 01:13 PM
Jane, he's obviously ready to move on to a different job. Impeachment is a way out...
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 01:15 PM
That's fine with me bad. I'll even give him a pass to get lost. Hell, I'll pay him to get lost.
Posted by: Jane | November 20, 2009 at 01:23 PM
Word on the skreet (okay, word from National Inquirer) is that Michelle is so jealous of Oprah that she won't permit contact between Barry and Oprah.
That's shocking from the world's most glamerous women. What has she to fear from weight challenged, much older, Oprah?
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 01:35 PM
womAn
little Freudian slip there...
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Gee, bad, Michelle doesn't seem like the jealous type.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 20, 2009 at 02:01 PM
It's a shocker, Porch. Kinda makes my bad little mind wonder when the jealousy started. Bali, Baker...?
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 02:34 PM
I'll be serving grey goose, Dacu, and pinot grigio..."
Will be there in spirit Jane, but not in spirits.
Posted by: daddy | November 20, 2009 at 03:15 PM
The NYT has a story on Palin's stylist who confirms Sarah was telling the truth about the clothes that caused such a controversy.
I haven't seen anything coming from Sarah Palin that has ever given me the idea she would be dishonest or lie. I don't think she has it in her.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 04:02 PM
All of the news outlets who reported on the original story of Sarah and the clothes need to report the stylists story.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 04:20 PM
Why, bad? She isn't Barack Obama. And she details every gory detail of the clothes fiasco in the book, right down to the $70 pantyhose she refused to wear.
I think your implication that Sarah is such a liar she needs outside confirmation is really odd. How low is your opinion of her anyway?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 04:23 PM
I think your implication that Sarah is such a liar she needs outside confirmation is really odd. How low is your opinion of her anyway?
Probably not as odd as I think your post to bad is.
Posted by: Sue | November 20, 2009 at 04:35 PM
I think you misinterpreted bad's remark; she means (I believe) that everybody that misreported the original story needs to correct it.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 20, 2009 at 04:35 PM
Sara, I thought I was making a statement about journalistic integrity but I obviously communicate badly.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 04:39 PM
Sara,
Not to speak for bad, but my view is that the fact that NYT ran the story will go a long way with people who aren't predisposed to believe Sarah's version of events in the book.
IOW "wow, we were wrong about Palin" stories from major players in the MSM would have a big impact. I wish it didn't have to be that way. But if we want the Muddle to figure out that they were lied to about Sarah, corrections of the record in major news outlets is a powerful way for that to happen.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 20, 2009 at 04:49 PM
Sara:
I think your implication that Sarah is such a liar she needs outside confirmation is really odd.
mrs hit and run gets mixed up on imply vs infer too. You inferred certain things from bad's comment that were not implied. That is,I think you'll find yourself the only one who thinks that's what her words implied.
The thinking is, if some media outlet runs a story based on innuendo and rumor and what turns out to be lies, it should be willing to run a story based on a first hand account of those events that contradicts their earlier story in order to get all the facts into the record.
I think your implication that Sarah's word alone is enough to convince the readers of these outlets that her version of the events is true is really odd. How high is your opinion of these readers anyway?
Well,that's me inferring something from your words. My inferral may be off as much as yours was of bad's.
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 04:53 PM
I think that thinking that anyone cares what the NYT writes is nutz. No one cares about them outside the bubble of liberal elites. Obama is now at 49% at Gallop, Sarah Palin has 70% approval among Republicans and is a point higher than Obama overall, plus 61% think she was trashed by the press. A 2nd printing of her book was ordered by Harper before the book even hit the stands, she is doing great on her book tour, so some "good review" in the NYT, who cares?
Sarah, herself, says in her book that the old or lamestream media is dead weight. The future is with new media (something she has mastered brilliantly to her advantage) and she intends to use it to go directly to the people.
Sarah Palin is a woman with a laser-like focus on what needs to be done and then sets about with incredible drive to "make something happen." Her greatest strength, IMHO.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 05:01 PM
How high is your opinion of these readers anyway?
Obviously higher than yours or hers.
Talk about adding insult to injury.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Sara,
There is danger in being too far in the tank for any one candidate, Palin included. She ain't perfect. However, you are reading what isn't being written here. And it is making you look foolish.
Posted by: Sue | November 20, 2009 at 05:13 PM
Sara:
so some "good review" in the NYT, who cares?
Agreed! Good thing no one here said that they cared about a "good review" in the NYT.
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 05:24 PM
Sue:
Of course it is Sue, thanks for the compliment. I dared to question one of the anointed. But par for the course.
I, at least, have read the book.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Sara,
I think the NYT is a POS news organization. But they have clout, not only among liberals but also with moderates and independents. *I* don't think Palin needs their stamp of approval. But if she got it, it would have a huge impact. She still has to win over that large chunk of the public that doesn't read new media.
It's also a huge moral and psychological victory to have the same people that dumped on you turn around and start telling the truth for a change. It's confirmation that you're winning, even if the haters won't openly admit it.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 20, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Oh, and I didn't realize I was in the tank for Palin, too far, or otherwise, since I'm a Romney supporter. But, I like her, I think she did a bang up job with the book and is doing a bang up job in her interviews and book signings and since I have read the book, I am going to state my opinion whether any of JOM agrees or not.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 05:30 PM
Sara:
I dared to question one of the anointed.
No. You misinterpreted what another commenter said.
And you dig in when anyone dares question you about it.
There's a lot of questioning going on here.
I Question The Timing.
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 05:35 PM
Let me back up.
Thank you Sara,for your opinions,your perspective,for giving us a vantage point in having read the book that is needed and appreciated,and unique because it is from you.
Even if I think you misinterpreted bad's point above,that doesn't take away from the fact that I get a lot from your opinions,thoughts and contributions.
I'm punchy because my email got hacked for the second time,and that might be coloring my response here.
Sorry.
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 05:42 PM
Odd, nutz, and annoited.
Damn!!! I belong in Congress!!!
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 05:42 PM
...or the presidency.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 05:49 PM
No kidding, bad!
Also, you need not apologize for "communicating badly," after all that is how all of your communications are at JOM - you ARE "bad," are you not? :)
Posted by: centralcal | November 20, 2009 at 05:52 PM
I dared to question one of the anointed.
Actually, I'll just repeat what Hit said before he unsaid it. I'm not punchy and won't unsay it.
Posted by: Sue | November 20, 2009 at 05:53 PM
ha ha, CC!! Should have known you'd catch that.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 05:53 PM
Hit: Sorry but I don't think I misinterpreted or misinferred anything, but so be it.
I get it, 2008 still reigns and the NYT is a god among the elite. Again so be it.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 20, 2009 at 05:55 PM
bad, if you would've run for President a year ago I'd have voted for you, despite proudly being in the tank for Sarah.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 20, 2009 at 05:56 PM
How lovely of you to say so Captain.
Sara, are you calling me a liar?
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 06:00 PM
"Actually, I'll just repeat what Hit said before he unsaid it."
Ditto.
Posted by: centralcal | November 20, 2009 at 06:03 PM
Stood in line for five hours this morning and
I GOT A WRISTBAND TO SEE SARAH!
What should I say to her? I am so nervous. Don't have to leave til about 7pm.
Posted by: Ann | November 20, 2009 at 06:04 PM
"Sorry but I don't think
I misinterpreted or misinferred anything...I agree.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 20, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Congratulations, Ann!! Hope the weather cooperates. Tell us all the details when yu get back.
Posted by: bad | November 20, 2009 at 06:11 PM
What should I say to her?
Ask her if she ever meets Ted Strickland to wink at him so he can dissolve into a twitching pool of protoplasm and other body fluids, but mostly protoplasm.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 20, 2009 at 06:13 PM
Sara:
Sorry but I don't think I misinterpreted or misinferred anything, but so be it.
I get it, 2008 still reigns and the NYT is a god among the elite.
If you think that what Bad sad had to do with the NYT,and still claim not to have misinterpreted or misinferred anything,then we're at an impasse.
The NYT publishes stories that get picked up downstream in hundreds of other media outlets (especially local outlets that do influence their audiences),as was certainly the case in the case of the Palin wardrobe diva story after the campaign.
Bad was saying that now that the NYT published the story of the stylist vindicating/corroborating Palin,all those outlets should follow up and publish that story too.
Why is that so wrong to wish for?
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 06:15 PM
Annie Bannanie I an so happy for you!!! Are you allowed to take any pictures?
Woo Hoo - way to go girl!
Posted by: centralcal | November 20, 2009 at 06:16 PM
Ann:
I GOT A WRISTBAND TO SEE SARAH!
What should I say to her?
I would say ask her if she'd consider a threesome with bad and mr bad,except I've been informed that bad doesn't even like Palin.
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 06:17 PM
LOL, Hit!
Posted by: centralcal | November 20, 2009 at 06:24 PM
No personal messages on books and no pictures. But I will give you a full report when I get back.
LOL, Hit
Someone just texted me to leave now, parking is a big problem.
See ya later :)
Posted by: Ann | November 20, 2009 at 06:25 PM
Go Ann!!! I can't wait to hear your report!
Posted by: Porchlight | November 20, 2009 at 07:34 PM
Ann, Just remember you stand in for all of us and behave with honor and dignity.
Or else.
Posted by: clarice | November 20, 2009 at 07:59 PM
stand in for all of us
and
behave with honor and dignity.
Well, which do you want her to do?
Posted by: bgates | November 20, 2009 at 08:19 PM
Oh, and anybody who thinks news outlets that follow the lead of the NYT should follow the lead of the NYT and print a story about Palin telling the truth is calling Palin a liar.
Posted by: bgates | November 20, 2009 at 08:23 PM
stand in for all of us
and
behave with honor and dignity.
Well, which do you want her to do?
If no cameras are allowed,then definitely "behave with honor and dignity".
But a bootleg video of "stand in for us" is not only welcome,but probably worth a lot of money.
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 08:37 PM
Hit, really...I am stomping out of here if you keep that up..or flouncing..yeah I'm going to flounce out..wait..um..hightail it?
Posted by: clarice | November 20, 2009 at 08:47 PM
Clarice: my vote (not worth a dang) is for "flounce" rather than "hightail."
But, that's just me.
Posted by: centralcal | November 20, 2009 at 08:54 PM
flounce it is, then hrumph..
Posted by: clarice | November 20, 2009 at 09:00 PM
mmmmmm mmmm mmmm
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 09:05 PM
What a wonderful day I had and it wasn't because of the cold weather; we froze our butts off getting those wristbands.
I felt like I was meeting all of you for the first time. Just fantastic, patriotic, kind souls in the line today. One guy even called his wife to bring us hot chocolate and coffee.
Laughed most of the day and feel like I have a whole new bunch of friends.
Oh, you wanted to hear about Sarah! She is absolutely beautiful, stunning and tiny, tiny, tiny. She was sitting down signing books so maybe that made her seem more so. I thanked her and pleaded for her to continue working for our country. It all went by in a flash and I forgot to check out the $35 ring Todd gave her when they married and still wears to this day. (I love that story.)
She also wore a buckeye necklace which I thought was very gracious because they are butt ugly.:)
Narciso, I have a signed book for you so email be at annatjom@gmail.com so I can send it to you!
Posted by: Ann | November 20, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Beautiful,Ann. Thank you.
Posted by: Moose's Tooth Bartender | November 20, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Ooops,yes,a sockpuppet to play with Daddy on the Reid His Lips thread.
(oh,and yes I have a hundred of them [or maybe this is my only one],you only wish you knew which they were[if there are any others])
But in my name,now, thank you Ann.
Posted by: hit and run | November 20, 2009 at 10:17 PM
***email Me*** It has been a long day.
My daughter wanted so badly to go but had promised someone she would babysit and couldn't get out of it. To make it worse, she called me and all you could hear in the background was a child screaming at the top of her lungs.
Hey, Bartender, give me a round!
Posted by: Ann | November 20, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Ann, I am so glad you got to see Sarah. And thanks for sharing. I know just what you mean when you said you met JOM.
Posted by: caro | November 20, 2009 at 10:47 PM
caro:
♥
These guys were so terrific. After we got our wristbands we all went home to get pretty. Then the line started all over again at 5pm. They saved me a place in line and found a parking place for me. I just parked and walked right in. Gentlemen and conservative, who woulda of thunk?
Posted by: Ann | November 20, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Ann, how wonderful! Congratulations! I love that the people you waited with were so fantastic. It doesn't surprise me but it's still great to hear.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 20, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Ann--so very glad you got to meet Sarah. How terrific for you. Keep the reports/impressions coming in when things settle down for you.
Posted by: glasater | November 20, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Thanks, Porch
I do want everyone to know that Borders Book Store advertised all week that they would give out 1000 bands for people that purchased a book at their store. You had to have a receipt to get one.
After over 1000 people stood in lines for hours (5 for me) they finally let everyone know around 10am that oops they would only give out 500.
I will never go in their store again. We were all pretty outraged and felt bad for the people at the end of the line.
So Boycott Borders Book and Vote for Palin would be my advice today.
Posted by: Ann | November 20, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Ann, what fun! How nice of you to think of narciso. I am certain he'll be thrilled.
Posted by: clarice | November 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Ann-
I wouldn't worry. Borders (BGP symbol) is trading under $2.00, with over a 22% dividend. Which, in my world, means that no one believes the divedend and expects it to be slashed, probably retro-actively(illegal, but the market is saying "Why Not?").
I just feel sorry for those employees who have had to eat the stock.
Just the same, I really, really envy you.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 20, 2009 at 11:50 PM
2.5 million. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Sue | November 21, 2009 at 12:04 AM
OMG, you have to see this picture. I don't have the background story yet but it is from What the Heck?.
More pics at link! LOL
Posted by: Ann | November 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Fashionistas!
Go here to help nominate MICHELLE OBAMA'S MIRROR'S BLOG, for the best Fashion Blog in the 2009 weblog awards. Scroll almost all the way down to the bottom of the comments where you'll find MOTUS, and click the little plus sign to give her number a bump. I was sorry to see Cripes Suzette surrender her FLOTUS baton, but MOTUS is a stitch. The pix in "Decorating with Sushi" are a must-see.
[Hi Ann ;-)!]
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 21, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Ann,
You weren't in Indiana were you?
Posted by: Sue | November 21, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Another:
This has to be a joke, right?
More pics here
Posted by: Ann | November 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM
No, Sue, I live in Columbus, Ohio and Sarah was here today from 6 to 9pm.
Posted by: Ann | November 21, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Apparently the left is trying to get a video to go viral of Palin supporters angry at her in Indiana for not signing their books. I just read it over Ace's place but haven't seen the video yet.
Posted by: Sue | November 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM
JMH:
I had no idea we had so much competition. I deserve an award because where else have you seen one of our favs:
Sorry, just can't help myself. :)
Posted by: Ann | November 21, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Governor Palin has already responded on her facebook:
The response on this book tour has been overwhelming. We are truly humbled, and I thank you.
I've been told that yesterday there were supporters in Noblesville who stood in long lines for hours in the cold and rain, and the book signing event ended without a chance to say hello to everyone who showed up. I am so sorry. We are working on a solution for those who were left behind.
I apologize.
- Sarah Palin
Posted by: Sue | November 21, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Sue:
Interesting, I wondered all day if they were purposely trying to make Palin fans mad or if Sarah's book tour manager had something to do with it.
The book store here had all week to correct it. I commented that I thought 1000 customers was to many last night and wondered if I should even go.
The fact that they didn't correct the number until the store opened makes be believe they were looking out for sales first. But I am a crazy racist Sarah lover so what the heck.
Posted by: Ann | November 21, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Good job Annie!
Yesterday I found out that since I like Sarah I must be a Lesbian, and here today you find out that because you like her, you must be a Crazy Racist.
I'm on pins and needles wondering what we'll find out we are tomorrow. Hope it's something dirty, but hopefully not as dirty as being an Andrea Mitchell Fan.
Posted by: daddy | November 21, 2009 at 03:31 AM
Ann, thanks for sharing your adventure with all of us. What wonderful folks - saving your place in line and finding you a parking spot. How terrific is that!
Andrea the Hag Mitchell - pfft. Which book signing did she show up at?
Posted by: centralcal | November 21, 2009 at 08:25 AM
Wow, Ann, it's hard to belive those photos are real. Surely Greenspan could have found someone more attractive.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 09:22 AM
Sue,
I think that's the video we were talking about yesterdy - although I may be mixing up JOM with HotAir.
If you watch it, the crowd looks perfectly happy, but you can hear 2 or 3 people booing closer to the mike. Something about "she's quitting us like she quit on Alaska." Doesn't sound like something a Palin fan would say, but who knows.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 09:24 AM
porch--our revenge is that Alan and Andrea get to see eachother's faces first thing on waking every day.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Porch: I haven't watched the video, but I have read in several places that the one woman they interviewed on TV, is an Obama supporter. I don't think she is Palin fan, too :(
Posted by: centralcal | November 21, 2009 at 09:30 AM
What a thought, clarice. It is sweet revenge indeed. If they sleep in the same bed, which is questionable.
She looks like Rod Stewart only he is much cuter.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 09:40 AM
centralcal,
If I were going undercover to try to "capture" angry Palin fans (read: fake a video), that's how I'd do it. Put my hecklers w/in earshot but out of visual range.
This was a setup. It's probably the first of more to come, sadly.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 09:48 AM
I agree Porch, probably a setup. But, hey, they tried the same tactics with the tea parties. They usually only get away with it once. When folks figure out what lefties are trying to do, they come prepared (cell phone cameras, etc.)
Posted by: centralcal | November 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Ann, you're a sweetheart. Narciso's gonna freak.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | November 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Ann, the picture you posted of Andrea Bitchell is hilarious!! The stupid broad shows up at a BOOK signing with NEWSWEEK in hand.
I can hear Bitchell's questions. "Who did the photoshopping on your thighs? Is he/she very expensive? I've GOT to have that name."
Posted by: bad | November 21, 2009 at 01:35 PM
Just a FYI, I read yesterday somewhere that the Andrea photos are all photoshopped.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | November 21, 2009 at 05:55 PM
"Something about "she's quitting us like she quit on Alaska." Doesn't sound like something a Palin fan would say, but who knows."
If you google "Sarah Palin Booksignings" you'll find several places/orgs, that are trying to "infiltrate" book signings, which is just, too weird, but, then, they are liberals.
Posted by: Pofarmer | November 21, 2009 at 07:32 PM