Unsavory Politics

I was trying to sort of drift away from politics a little bit; last night I was too exhausted to post anything of relevance, politics or not. I'd had a couple of comments that my blog was more interesting when it was funny and not about politics but I really just write what is on my mind at the time.

At any rate, the campaign is sort of on my mind a little bit tonight. I'm thinking Peggy Noonan was right about the campaign getting ugly (not that it wasn't already). Case in point: the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Democrats have "airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers" into Alaska in search of information on Sarah Palin. I suspect it is dirt they are trying to dig up, but I'll withhold judgment on that one for now. It is certainly fair that we are well informed about our candidates.

Another case in point: I watched Part 3 of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Obama (I did not watch the first two parts). I find Bill OReilly bombastic a lot of the time and overbearing. However, he asked Obama tonight about his associations with Wright, Resko and Ayers, making the point that there are a lot of unsavory folks in his circle of friends. Despite Obama's disclaimers, I find it just hard to swallow that he never heard Wright say anything that inflamatory in TWENTY years. With regard to Ayers, Obama is sticking to his talking points that he was 8 when Ayers bombed the Pentagon and therefore it has nothing to do with him. He said that Ayers was working with Mayor Daly at the time Obama met him and doing some good work in the community. In other words, I don't care what he did in his past, he's not doing it now. As if the amount of time between bombing the Pentagon and now makes it a less reprehensable act. It does not. What bothers me most about that is that Obama is, by this explanation, sticking by his association with Ayers, which I still find disturbing.

I'm not even going to touch his quote today: "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig." I heard his explanation, dismissing it as a reference to McCain's statement about Hillary's health care plan, and I find that explanation paper thin. It's clearly an insulting reference to Palin and a comment which I find to be beneath him.

And finally, in Vanity Fair this week they priced out the outfits of Laura and Cindy from the convention. Give me a break. I cancelled my VF subscription ages ago because of their blatant liberalism and their hatred and disrespect for the President, but certainly they can find something more worthwhile to report than how much Cindy spent on her watch. WHY do they care if she inherited money from her father? How is that her fault and a reason to disparage her? Hasn't she done enough humanitarian work to atone for her sins of inheritance? If you are interested, here's what they spent:

Laura Bush
Oscar de la Renta suit: $2,500
Stuart Weitzman heels: $325
Pearl stud earrings: $600–$1,500
Total: Between $3,425 and $4,325

Cindy McCain
Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000–$25,000
Shoes, designer unknown: $600
Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100

Of course, those are just estimates. From a liberal rag. But anyway.

As I said, I think Noonan was right earlier this week in her WSJ column and I really wish folks would just stick to the issues. And before you get all defensive on me, I mean BOTH sides. Just stick to the issues. The American people deserve that.