Right Voices » Sarah Palin

Video: How Obama Got Elected… Interviews With Obama Voters

Pam — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:01:33 +0000

The website, How Obama Got Elected, has released this video shot on election day.

All of this was conducted for a forthcoming documentary on how the news media impacted the 2008 election. Please get on our mailing list and return to this website in the coming months for more information on the film, “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected“

The website further states that they “commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.” The poll involved 512 Obama Voters and of that sampling, 97.1% were High School Graduate or higher, and 55% were College Graduate. They were asked 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions in which Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct, and only .5% got all of them correct:

57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Here is John Ziegler appearing on Hannity And Colmes

Are you surprised by these results?

Linked with:

Was Palin a Mistake?

Lisa — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:10:50 +0000

She really was a breath of fresh air, wasn’t she? I really enjoyed her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention and really had super high hopes for her after that. And it sure seemed as if there were a mutual admiration between McCain and Palin – - though, it’s hard to ignore the reports coming out now that this whole thing is over.

Was she too green and inexperienced? Or was it that the media was excruciatingly unfair to her? A little of both, perhaps? We all laughed about Biden’s gaffes during this campaign – but have a look at a few of Palin’s:

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Before the taxpayers bailed out Freddie Mac and Fannie May, Sarah Palin stated that the two financial giants had become to big and too expensive for the taxpayers. Except, the two companies are not funded by taxpayers - they are private organizations. They did become very expensive for the taxpayer due to the bailout – - but Palin referenced tax payer expense as past tense. Small gaffe? Maybe – but economist pounced all over it.
Attack Pakistan. While John McCain was criticizing Obama for stating he would attack terrorist targets Pakistan – Sarah Palin told a voter in Philidelphia the same thing. “”If that’s what we have to do to stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,” she said.” This left McCain and his handlers with the task of defending the statement as ‘not an official policy statement’.
The infamous Bush Doctrine question from ABC’s Charlie Gibson: we all know it. Charlie Gibson asked her to define the Bush Doctrine Palin appeared unsure of what he meant, and called it the president’s “world view,” his attempt to “rid this world of Islamic extremism.” Gibson then lectured her “like an impatient teacher,” according to the New York Times, identifying the doctrine as the belief that America has a right to anticipatory self-defense. But the Bush Doctrine refers to a set of foreign policy positions enunciated by the president in the years since he took office: taking a unilateral approach to international treaties, regarding nations as either “with us or with the terrorists,” claiming the right to make preemptive war and making democracy-promotion America’s first mission abroad. Charles Krauthammer, the columnist who created the term, wrote that “Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson.” He called it “Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe”.
Russia is visible from Alaska – Tina Fey sure had a great time with this one, didn’t she? During a discussion of foreign affairs and America’s relationship with former nemesis Russia, ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked how Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy insight. “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska,” Palin said. Though Alaska has trade relations with neighbor Russia, Palin has played no part in negotiating them as governor.
Bridge to Nowhere. Before Palin was against the infamous bridge, she was for it. She told the world that she said “thanks but not thanks to the bridge”, however – she said during her gubernatorial run that she would continue state funding for the bridge. “The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,” she said, according to the Anchorage Daily News. The earmark was withdrawn in 2006, before she entered office. Probably more of a story there – but that is how it played out in the media.
What does the VP do, anyway? “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration,” she said.
The Supreme Court. Sarah Palin drew a blank when she was asked to name another Supreme Court decision besides Roe v. Wade that she disagreed with. Joe Biden, When Couric asked her what other decisions she disagreed with – she couldn’t think of any. Do we expect her to be a Supreme Court expert? Not really, but it still played to her inexperience on a national level.
Dick Cheney. During the Couric interview, Couric asked Palin to talk about the worst thing Dick Cheney has done as Vice President, Palin would only refer to his duck-hunting accident. I know Couric is a leftist hack – - but I think she was looking for something more substantive.
Under God. When asked “Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?” – Palin replied: “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance” Note: The Pledge Of Allegiance was penned 120 years after the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration Of Independence. The Words “Under God” were added in 1952! – but we do get what she meant..but it just played in the media as another example of her weak grasp on history.
Iraq and 9/11. “You’ll be there to defend the innocents from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans.” –Sarah Palin, linking the Iraq war the 9/11 attacks while addressing U.S. soldiers shipping off to Iraq, Fairbanks, Alaska, Sept. 11, 2008. This is debatable – - we all know that Al Queda is in Iraq.. so, techically, she’s right.
Unprepared. “I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to ya.” –Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric to cite specific examples of how John McCain has pushed for more regulation in his 26 years in the Senate, CBS interview, Sept. 24, 2008. Sorry, as a VP candidate – this question should have been a no brainer, and should have been prepared for, one maverick to another, don’t you think?
Africa. Did she really not know that Africa was a continent, not a country? There was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked “a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency,” in part because she didn’t know which countries were in NAFTA, and she “didn’t understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.”

All of this, along with the post-election gossip coming out now that the campaign is over, is revealing some tensions that existed between the Palin camp and the McCain camp – - it’s making for entertaining media fodder for the left.

Was she a mistake? Did the McCain camp vet her enough? When she first hit the scene and the lefty blogs and the media were criticizing the McCain camp for not vetting her — I thought, like may did, that it was just rhetoric meant to inject a lack of confidence in McCain voters. Now, looking back, I have to wonder how much she was really vetted by the McCain camp? Or was the opportunity to inject a female on the ticket just too good to resist? A female unknown to the Washington scene – so they could be viewed as Washington outsiders, even though McCain is definitely not a Washington outsider.

And then there is the wardrobe controversy – which kind of undercut her hocky mom appeal. LA Times reports:

For weeks, the McCain-Palin campaign has dealt with the fallout from the disclosure that the Republican National Committee was billed for $150,000 in wardrobe purchases for the Palin family — a discovery that was widely ridiculed and undercut Palin’s hockey mom appeal.

Several McCain aides said they had recently discovered that Palin’s traveling staff had used personal credit cards to spend as much as $20,000 to $30,000 on additional wardrobe items for Palin.

Palin and her press aides were traveling back to Alaska on Wednesday and could not be reached for comment. But one aide earlier told Newsweek: “Gov. Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense.”

The original $150,000 in purchases was revealed in late October after the release of the September and October Federal Election Commission filings by the Republican National Committee. Those reports revealed that more than $75,062.63 was spent at Neiman Marcus, $49,425.74 at Saks Fifth Avenue and $5,102.71 at Bloomingdale’s around the time of the Republican National Convention in early September.

The campaign has said that many of those clothes were returned.

But McCain aides said Wednesday that spending on Palin’s wardrobe continued well after the convention, with one custom-made outfit showing up around the time of her “Saturday Night Live” appearance on Oct. 18.

As first reported by Newsweek on Wednesday, McCain aides said some of that money was spent on clothing for Palin’s children and husband, Todd, who may have received between $20,000 and $40,000 in wardrobe purchases. The money also included thousands of dollars in shoes. Several aides also said the items included jewelry, but a Palin aide disputed that.

Top McCain aides Schmidt, Rick Davis and Nicolle Wallace were flabbergasted by the magnitude of the spending as the receipts began trickling into the Republican National Committee, aides said.

Wallace had arranged for a stylist to shop for Palin before the convention because the Alaska governor did not have a chance to return home after she was selected as McCain’s running mate.

Aides familiar with the campaign’s internal discussions said Wallace and other top aides authorized the purchase of three outfits for Palin to wear during convention week and three ensembles for the campaign trail. But cost was to be kept to no more than $25,000 to $35,000.

When Schmidt learned that Palin’s staff was putting clothing purchases on personal credit cards, aides said he called them to stop it.

Palin’s camp tells a different story, however. But by the time the shopping spree hit the press – - it didn’t matter.

I liked Palin, really. I thought she was disarmingly ‘real’ – someone that voters could, and did, relate to.

Was it the press that just mangled her? She sure was a darling among Republican voters, wasn’t she? After her nomination – McCain’s campaign stops drew crowds like never before! They truly loved her — but was she the right pick? Or did we just really, desperately want to like her as a candidate?

Now that it’s over, gossip is running loose. Statements that Palin did not want to prepare for interviews. That she was a diva and threw fits to the point where she had her staff in tears. Is it that McCain is publicly blaming himself for his failed campaign, but from behind the scenes, his campaign staff talk in anonymity leaking the “real story” that will leave the public with the real sense that Palin was to blame?

There’s always a fall guy, isn’t there? A scapegoat. So – was Palin a true mistake? Or is she being raked across the coals and will history blame her for McCain’s failed election bid? Additionally – what do you think her prospects are in the Republican Part in the future?

Scroll For Updates…OBAMA’S LEAD SHRINKS IN KEY RED STATES!! Don’t allow the Obamedia to influence you!! GET OUT AND VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!

Pam — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:26:37 +0000

John McCain What we’re fighting for

Final Mason-Dixon battleground numbers: dead heat

Via Gateway Pundit:

Here are the final numbers from the Politico state polling:
The final round of Mason-Dixon polls has Obama enjoying small leads in the red states that would deliver him the presidency, but he’s below 50 percent in each and there are enough white undecided voters to leave some too close to call.

Colorado: Obama 49, McCain 44, Undecided 4
Florida: Obama 47, McCain 45, Undecided 7
Nevada: Obama 47, McCain 43, Undecided 8
Pennsylvania: 47, McCain 43, Undecided 9
Virginia: Obama 47, McCain 44, Undecided 9
Ohio: McCain 47, Obama 45, Undecided 6
Missouri: McCain 47, Obama 46, Undecided 5
North Carolina: McCain 49, Obama 46, Undecided 5

As Brad Coker, who runs the Mason-Dixon poll, notes, the vast majority of the undecided voters in these states are whites.Love that last line– No kidding!

Do not allow the Marxisant Radical into the White House.
Don’t allow the Obamedia to influence you.
GET OUT AND VOTE!

Dr Sanity posted A PINCH OF REALITY, found within the pages of the UK Guardian:

You have to pinch yourself â€“ a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

America Is Worth Fighting For But Are You?

John Fund How bogus registrations become bogus votes

Linked With:

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Shadowscope, DragonLady’s World, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, nn7v, , Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Obama Video: You Don’t Like Higher Taxes? You’re Selfish

Pam — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:14:21 +0000

So paying higher taxes is patriotic, and if you balk at that, you are selfish

“The point is, though, that ” and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class ” it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot â€“ when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month â€“ then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

Everybody does have a shot, but everybody doesn’t follow the same path.

Slublog:

Maybe Obama and his running mate could try spreading some of their own wealth around first. My wife and I make far less than Joe Biden, but we on average give more to charity per year than the presumably un-selfish Democrat vice presidential candidate.

Obama is also ignoring the fact that overall, those in ‘red states’ (the bitter, clinging, selfish ones) give more to charity on average than those in blue. We’re not ’selfish,’ Senator. We would like to be the ones who choose where our hard-earned cash goes rather than leave that decision in the hands of you, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Ed:

This reveals the basic underlying philosophy of the Left – that one cannot possibly be charitable unless they use the government to redirect their funds.Â Obama assumes that people who don’t want to pay higher taxes are somehow “selfish”, but that’s only true if one assumes that the so-called rich won’t do anything else with their money except sit around like Scrooge McDuck, counting it constantly.Â Most people today invest it, which creates jobs, or spend it, which creates even more jobs, or donate it to charity ” which works much more effectively and with much less overhead than filtering it through government bureaucracy.

Those who earn the money want to direct it in the manner they see fit, in the most efficient manner possible.Â That’s not selfish, it’s just common sense.Â Only someone in love with government power could see it as anything else.

Linked With:

Art:Palin Shown Hanging From Noose…

Pam — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:34:28 +0000

Would this be art if it were Michelle Obama hanging from the noose?Â It’s all in the spirit of Halloween, right?Â Wrong, before you could say boo, the left would be screaming:

Michelle says:

It would be another sign of “insane rage” and “violent escalation of rhetoric.” And: RAAAAAAACISM.

Linked with:

Jules Crittenden Â» Dress Like Sarah Palin For Less!

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

Pam — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:40:08 +0000

This is your must read for the day, send a link to your local editor:

An open letter to the local daily paper ” almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism.Â You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere.Â It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people.Â Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan?Â It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor ” which especially would help members of minority groups.Â But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay?Â They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house ” along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.Â One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.Â The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.Â (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me.Â It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here?Â Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?Â Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal.Â “Housing-gate,” no doubt.Â Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled “Do Facts Matter?” ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago.Â So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.Â So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury.”

These are facts.Â This financial crisis was completely preventable.Â The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party.Â The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie.Â Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What?Â It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let’s follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an “adviser” to the Obama campaign ” because that campaign had sought his advice ” you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents.Â Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension ” so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link.Â (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth.Â That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie ” that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.Â You have trained the American people to blame everything bad ” even bad weather ” on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth ” even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that’s what honorable people do.Â Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences.Â That’s what honesty means .Â That’s how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one.Â He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time ” and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter ” while you ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all?Â Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women.Â Who listens to NOW anymore?Â We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That’s where you are right now.

It’s not too late.Â You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis.Â You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe ” and vote as if ” President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats ” including Barack Obama ” and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans ” then you are not journalists by any standard.

You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

A miserable, unfunny man despised by those he worked closest with and Chevy Chase passes judgement on Sarah Palin?

Pam — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:41:15 +0000

I KID YOU NOT:

NEW YORK, New York –

As a former cast member and “Weekend Update” anchor, Chevy Chase knows something about “Saturday Night Live” â€“ and he wasn’t impressed by what he saw this Saturday night, when Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin made a much-hyped appearance.

“Quite frankly, it’s a big mistake to let her go on,” Chevy told Access Hollywood at the Give Food a Chance benefit in New York. “What was brilliant about [â€˜SNL' chief] Lorne [Michaels] was that he had nothing written for Sarah and that apparently she cannot improvise herself out of a paper bag!”

“On â€˜Weekend Update,’ that was her big chance,” he said. “Nothing.”

But Chevy was critical not only of Sarah’s comedic chops, but of the political campaign of her running mate, Sen. John McCain.

“The management behind McCain’s campaign has been dumb. This has only helped accentuate the problem of his judgment in choosing, in such a cynical way, a candidate like Sarah Palin for vice president. I think the last thing that they would want right about now is to have the rest of America knowing all that: to have her be seen on â€˜SNL,’ certainly never there. If anything, you just want her to be seen just from a distance.”

“I’m sure she’s very bright,” he added. “But so is the Butterworth woman.”

Remember when Chevy was roasted at the Friars Club?Â I didn’t either, but People had this to say at the time:

During his stint on “Saturday Night Live” 27 years ago, and during his subsequent visits back, it was no secret that fellow cast members had little love for the ego-heavy Chevy Chase, now 58.

Those stories surface once again — and often — in the new book, “Live from New York: An Oral History of ‘Saturday Night Live,’” by Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales and James Andrew Miller.

And it seems that Chevy’s reputation rolls on. Tuesday’s New York Times reports that at last weekend’s Friars Club roast of Chase, his “SNL” costars were few and far between.

Producer Lorne Michaels, the show’s executive producer, was at a “family engagement,” an NBC spokesman told the paper. Chase costar Dan Aykroyd was at an out-of-town event for which he was being paid, said that comedian’s spokesman.

Jane Curtin had declined appearing at the roast, says The Times, because she was expecting to be onstage in the Broadway farce “Noises Off,” but then the show closed and she forgot to inquire about the event. “It wasn’t a slight,” her spokesman insisted to the paper. “The night just slipped through the cracks.”

Presenters at the event also wondered aloud why such Chase “pals” as Steve Martin, Martin Short and Rodney Dangerfield were not on hand for the roast.

But Laraine Newman from the original “SNL” cast was there, as were such newcomers as Stephen Colbert, Todd Barry and Andy Kindler.

“I’ve never heard of half these people,” Chase later told The Times. “I’ve seen bigger names on Mexican television.”

I can not believe I am saying this, but I am agreeing with Alec Baldwin on this one

Not One Person Can Back Up Obama’s Claim That “Kill Him” Was Yelled At A McCain/Palin Rally

Pam — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:05:04 +0000

Not even one, yet Obama, ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, and it is simply not true! The Secret Service at the rally could not even corroborate the story:

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”

It is true that when the name Ayers came up, someone did in fact yell “kill him,”

“And, according to the New York Times, he [referring to Ayers -- P] was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, â€˜launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’” [Palin] continued.

“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

I fail to see how that is surprising or news worthy.Â Ayers should be tickled about this.Â This brought back memories of the Republican National Convention.Â The anarchists were committing violent acts and the press and the left cheered.Â When those anarchists were arrested, those very same people cited the Constitution..you know that piece of paper that anarchists don’t believe in..until they need it…

Others blogging:

Poll: WHO WON THE FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?

Pam — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:31:37 +0000

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Sunday Night News Roundup

Pam — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:49:19 +0000

READY FOR COME BACK?

Gas price marks biggest drop ever...

RAGE: Burning McCain campaign sign lands men in hot water... VIDEO: Liberal Outrage: A Pro-McCain March In Manhattan...

Vandalism of GOP office: 'Republican means slavery'...

Congressman says McCain 'sowing seeds of hatred'...

Castro: Racism keeps many away from Obama...

Biden decries 'unbecoming personal attacks'...

DEM CONGRESS PLANS ON OBAMA WIN; PELOSI MAY CALL HOUSE BACK...

GALLUP DAILY: Obama-McCain Gap Narrows...

ZOGBY MONDAY: OBAMA 48%, MCCAIN 44%... DEVELOPING...

Palin slams Obama on abortion...

McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on FANNIE AND FREDDIE...

30,000 Felons Illegally Registered to Vote in Florida...