Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Monday, October 8, 2012
Why Obama Lost And Why He Won't Improve
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Why The Fake Polls?
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Politico: "Obama Falls Flat"
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Monday, September 10, 2012
Romney Flip-flops To Position He Always Held!
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Polls and Jobs
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Obama Will Lose The Election
● The Polls: Polls this far out are unreliable. They are even less reliable because we can’t trust the pollsters. Most of the pollsters are using data which suggest a greater pro-Democratic turnout than Obama got in 2008, and many have begun hiding their raw data to prevent people like me from figuring out how badly they’ve skewed the data. But certain things are obvious because they run contrary to what the pollsters are trying to make you believe.
1) Romney has a small lead, even in these skewed polls. Factor out the pro-Obama bias and add in a pro-Romney enthusiasm gap and you’re looking at a landslide.This tells me Romney wins 53% to 47%.
2) Romney has a statistically significant lead in the battleground states.
3) Several “safe” blue states have become battleground states, e.g. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico.
4) Romney’s lead is consistent as is Obama’s inability to get anywhere near 50% approval.
● Enthusiasm Gap: The polls show a huge enthusiasm gap – up to 13% in favor of the Republicans. This is significant because it would take a Democratic-leaning gap for Obama to win and that just won’t happen. But look beyond the polls. Romney and Ryan are speaking to massive crowds. Obama can’t fill a phone booth. Romney and Ryan are drawing massive amounts of money. Obama’s running debt. All over the country, people are putting up signs saying, “I built this.” By comparison, Obama bumper stickers have gotten really rare. People are going in droves to see a documentary exposing Obama, but no one has been interested in any pro-Obama crap for years now. This is something you can feel in the air, hear at the store, and see in random places online – people are enthusiastic about Romney, no one’s even thinking about Obama.
● Democratic Desperation: The Democrats are hitting the bottom of the barrel in terms of how they are running this campaign. They’ve tried everything from various “wars on ___” to flat out slander. They’ve accused Romney of felonies, of hate, and of killing some guy’s wife. They’ve appealed to black-racism. They’ve tried to attack Mormonism as a cult. They’ve tried to scare Hispanics and round up illegals to vote. They’ve accused Republicans of anti-Semitism, of hating women, and of wanting to bring back slavery. The one thing none of them have done is actually mention an issue.
What this tells me is that they are desperate. These are not attacks someone makes if they are winning. This is scorched earth with no regard for the consequences or the future. This is a party that knows it will lose and doesn’t care what it does to the political landscape on the way out. Moreover, using these tactics now tells us they see the race as essentially lost right now and are desperate to turn it around before it becomes an obvious and settled fact.
● Media Desperation: Like the Democrats, the MSM is desperate. We see this in several ways. First, despite 80% of their stories about Romney being negative, they have yet to find any attack which will stick. So they keep trying wilder and wilder attacks, which is a sign of desperation and a strategy guaranteed to backfire. Secondly, they avoid talking about Obama like the plague. This is because they know he’s so unpopular that they cannot help him by giving him coverage. Instead, they need to attack Romney.
Indeed, look at the lengths to which they go to talk about anything other than the issues. The Akin controversy is the perfect example of this. Everyone except the hard-core Religious Right have repudiated that troglodyte, yet the MSM continues to cover this incessantly and continues to try to connect Akin to every other Republican. Why do this? Because they have nothing else they can talk about.
Look also at the distortions. There is no mention of real inflation. Unemployment is downplayed. The failing economy is still called “a recovery.” There is no mention that gas prices are higher than they were under Bush, when the media blasted us with the-sky-is-falling stories about gas. Are American troops still dying overseas? The media won’t tell you. How is Obamacare working? Has anyone lost their health insurance? Are doctors still taking Medicare? Have medical costs gone down a single dollar? The media sure doesn’t know. How about too big to fail? Where are the reports about the biggest banks doubling in size under Obama? Did Copenhagen result in any positive change for the environment? Who knows. . . the MSM sure doesn’t.
This is proof the MSM knows Obama is in deep trouble and that they simply can't discuss anything without making it worse.
Obama has already lost this election and the items above prove it. The Democrats know he’s in such desperate trouble that they had to waste all their ammo already, and none of it scored a hit. That means Obama has lost. The MSM is desperate to cover up his tracks and knows they can’t promote him because people don’t like him. That means Obama can’t recover. And the public enthusiasm tells us what even the doctored polls are starting to suggest, the right will turn out in force in November and the left won't.
Barring something truly unusual, this election is over and the only question now is the margin of Romney’s victory.
Thoughts?
P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Polls and Captions
First, the polls: The AP just released a poll purporting to show that Obama is ahead of Romney nationally by 1%. . . one little percentage point. But at least he’s ahead, right? Well, maybe not. This poll was biased toward the Democrats by +8%!!! How significant is this? In 2008, the electorate was +7% for the Democrats. So for this poll to be accurate, more Democrats and fewer Republicans would need to turn out than turned out in the Democratic-wave’s high-water mark. That ain’t happenin’.
It sounds to me like Romney is several percent ahead.
But we all know that national polls don’t matter. State by state polls are what matter. So get this, Rasmussen and Gallup both have Romney ahead now in Michigan and Wisconsin. In Michigan, Romney’s lead is surprisingly strong – 48% to 44%. In Wisconsin, Romney leads by 1%, though other polls have him higher. Romney also is even or ahead in these battleground states: Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Florida and Iowa. The handwriting may not be on the wall yet, but somebody just whipped out an enormous crayon!
Finally, I leave you with this. The AP put out the photo below this week, causing all kinds of people to wonder what exactly the AP is thinking? Was this an intentional sleight of Obama or just sheer incompetence? You make the call (in the comments). Plus, give us your favorite caption(s)! Have at it!
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Yet More Election News
● Issue One: Everywhere you look, the MSM is smearing Paul Ryan. The Democrats too are focusing almost exclusively on Ryan. This suggests two things. First, they know that Ryan is very important to this ticket and they are desperate to stop him. Unfortunately for them, their attacks on him have been pathetic. They’ve found no damning votes, no skeletons in the closet, and no close associates looking to make a name for themselves by turning against him. Nothing they’ve tried has touched him.
Secondly, it suggests that the Democrats really have no idea how to win this election. Poll after poll shows the public worried about jobs and the economy, and they aren’t happy with Obama’s record. But rather than defend that record or come up with some new plan the public will believe (his latest involves hiring more teachers), they are trying to smear Ryan. . . the number two guy on the ticket. This is horrible strategy. When November rolls around, Ryan won’t even be an issue in the voting both, so attacking Ryan is nothing more than a waste of time. That the Democrats don’t understand that is fascinating.
● Issue Two: Swift Boat Boogaloo. Obama really stepped in it when he tried to claim credit for killing bin Laden. Not only was it unseemly for a President to try to steal the credit which belongs to the troops who did the actual deed, but it soon became apparent that our Kenyan Overlord did little more than cower in the corner while others pushed the decision buttons. Yet, Hollywood is intent on making a pro-Obama propaganda film about the event. So it’s rather hilarious that a group of Navy SEALs is putting together an advertisement attacking Obama for his mishandling of this as well has his administration’s penchant for leaking secret documents which harm the troops in the field. Of course, the Democrats are furious about this and they are calling it another swift boat attack, but that won’t change the fact that an ad like this will prove to be highly effective against our arm-chair warrior in Chief.
● Issue Three: Gallup now shows Romney with a small but growing lead over Obama – 47% to 45%. I can’t get to Gallup’s underlying data, but you can guess it’s probably biased at least 3% to the left. That means Romney’s support may have crossed the magical 50% mark.
● Issue Four: Priorities. Last week, Gallup released a poll showing voter priorities for this election. In the top spots by far are (1) creating good jobs, (2) reducing corruption in the federal government, and (3) reducing the federal budget deficit. Each of these is a notable Obama failure – with the corruption thing being the most ironic since Obama claimed to want clean and transparent government. Obama’s main selling point, “increasing taxes on wealthy Americans” ranks last on the list with only 49% support – 43% behind the jobs issue. This tells us that Obama is in real trouble and is plan to save himself is deeply flawed.
● Issue Five: The Boston Globe has now become the first left-leaning editorial board to demand an apology from Biden for his "chains" comment. They noticed that if Romney or Ryan had said that, they would have been attacked for "racial insensitivity" and they think Biden should not be excused merely because he's on the left. Imagine that!
● Issue Six: Finally, there is this issue about appointments. You may have heard that the Congress has decided to give the president more power to get his appointments. Specifically, 170 posts which needed Senate approval in the past will no longer need Senate approval. Some people are upset about this because it gives Obama more power, but let’s get real. A President should, by and large, be able to appoint the people he wants to fill most posts. And for decades now, the Senate has done a horrible job of make decision on appointments, leave some slots empty for years after a President is elected. This decision will be a good thing for Romney who should be able to hit the ground running that much faster now, despite what I expect to be Democratic attempts to grind the Senate to a halt. It’s too bad the parties couldn’t come together to give Obama more power to restructure the Executive Branch as well because Romney could have used that very effectively.
Thoughts? Anything I missed?
P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
Monday, August 13, 2012
The Paul Ryan Pick
● Why This Pick Was Great: The Ryan pick was great on many levels. For one thing, Ryan is one of the few politicians people trust. He’s unassuming and he’s wonkish, so he doesn’t appear prone to exaggeration or lying. He’s also willing to tell people the truth rather than trying to give people a false sense of happiness, which allows him to get things done. And he’s not someone who scares people. That will make it difficult for Obama to use Ryan to agitate his own base or upset independents.
Ryan also excites the base of the party. He is seen as the “intellectual leader” of the party these days, especially by fiscal conservatives, because of his efforts at fixing the budget and entitlement reform. His ideas have become those of the party. He’s also very much liked by the Religious Right, who remain queasy about Romney because of his religion -- and this is despite Ryan’s support for extending employment protections to gays. Ryan also is very much liked by the establishment wing who see him as a steady hand.
In effect, Ryan unites the various wings of the party and brings tremendous energy to the base. He guarantees GOP and Tea Party turn out, without scaring the moderates and without increasing Democratic turn out. Moreover, he will prove invaluable in reforming and reshaping the government toward a more conservative, more sane and more sustainable structure once Romney/Ryan are elected. That makes him a great pick.
● The Democratic Response: Naturally, the Democratic response has been shameless. It has also been instructive for how disorganized and how ineffective it has been. Basically, they are attacking Ryan along all the standard hypocritical and propaganda grounds whether they fit or not:
● “Journalist” Andrea Mitchell said Ryan was “not a pick for suburban moms, not a pick for women.” This is the standard “war on women” meme which assumes that women only care about birth control and which ridiculously contends that Republicans want to drive women from the workforce. Only idiots believe this.Conclusion
● Some Democrats and The New Yorker said Ryan was a bad pick because he lacks private sector experience! Seriously! Think about that. Obama and Biden together spent 0.0 minutes of their lives in the private sector yet somehow this is only a problem for Ryan, who did work in the private sector. Not to mention that the left has been telling us that Romney’s private sector experience makes him unacceptable for the job.
● Many Democrats, and again The New Yorker, are calling him “risky” and “totally a Palin-redo” because he lacks experience. Yeah, right. Palin was a first time governor of a small state that is entirely dependent on federal money. She had about a year of political experience and none of it at the national level. Ryan has been in Congress since 1999, he’s risen to become budget committee chairman, and he’s gone toe-to-toe with Obama on ObamaCare and took him down handily. Ryan is media savvy, policy wise, and a seasoned and skilled political operator. Palin was none of those things. This is the standard Democratic “he’s stupid” attack they always use and it won’t work here because Ryan’s intelligence is obvious. And let’s not forget that these are the same people who thought Obama was qualified because he knew how to read from a teleprompter and cast a handful of votes in the Senate. The “lack of experience” charge is wishful thinking on the left.
The New Yorker also laughably thinks Biden will rip Ryan apart in their debate because of his votes for the Iraq War, TARP and Medicare Part D. Of course, they conveniently forget that Biden voted for all of those things too -- and more. Plus, Obama/Biden can add bailouts, stimulus packages, ObamaCare and financial regulation to that their list of failures, not to mention 9% unemployment and trillions in debt.
● They’re working hard to demonize Ryan on his Medicare reform proposal as well, which is rich coming from a party that plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. CNN’s Candy Crowley was the first to use the old tactic of pretending that anonymous Republicans are nervous about this, stating that she has spoken with “Republicans” who claim this pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Yeah, right, find me an actually Republican who said that you hack.
Running with this, the AP is turning out articles how this pick will likely cost Romney Florida. Once-relevant liberal Michael Kinsley refers to Ryan’s proposals as “Ryan’s slasher novels” and the blogosphere is full of leftists whining about Ryan trying to kill old people and poor people. Too bad for them, nobody will listen.
● Following Crowley’s lead, Politico tells us that unnamed Republican strategists have “misgivings” about the pick because Ryan is little more than a “random Heritage Foundation analyst,” and someone “close to the campaign” supposedly “grumbled” that Ryan would now be dictating policy for the campaign. This is standard leftist prattle as well. When they can’t find a reason to attack a conservative, they invent unnamed sources supposedly on the conservative side who are despondent or outraged or just generally upset by the candidate or policy. It’s bull.
● Dumbass Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to link Ryan to the “failed policies of the past” and for wanting “tax breaks for the rich.” Neither line will work with Ryan as he was never the face of the Bush years and because their class warfare attacks haven’t worked yet even against Romney. As an aside, Politico also points out that Ryan is rich. . . something they never seem to mention about all those rich Democrats.
● Politico also worried that the Ryan pick was a desperation pick for Romney, which will force him to change his entire campaign strategy in ways which Politico doesn’t actually explain. They also had a couple articles on how Romney “lost control” of the picking process and was thus forced to pick Ryan because the public forced Ryan on Romney -- which contradicts the polls which show Rubio was the more popular choice and which flies in the face of the argument that Ryan is unpopular.
All in all, Ryan is an excellent pick. He’s a solid fiscal conservative with solid social conservative credential, though he doesn’t display the hate of someone like Rick Santorum. He’s got the backing of every Republican who has spoken. His budgetary brilliance is unmatched. He’s not Tea Party, but his views align with them very closely and he should excite them. And as you can see from the above, the Democrats can’t find anything to attack him with except his entitlement reform proposals, and I don’t see those as a problem. For one thing, they make Ryan the one guy in Washington who isn’t afraid to try to save the current system. For another, the party which plans to rob Medicare of $500 billion is hardly in a position to criticize, and Ryan is smart enough to point that out.
Thoughts?
Friday, August 10, 2012
Pelosi Communes With The Spirits
Now this is no imaginary interpretation of a brief unexplained “feeling.” We've all had those. Nancy with the Wild Eyes went into great detail describing her communion with the spirits. She first felt the presence of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul at the White House. She says that “my chair was getting crowded in and I couldn't figure out what it was, it was like this (demonstrates).” Most people would attribute that to a girdle failure, but not Nancy.
Not satisfied with the early roll call, Pelosi added Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul and Sojourner Truth to the ever-filling chair on which she sat. Though the videotape only recently emerged, the revelations occurred at a meeting of the Women's Political Committee this past May. The communion occurred during Pelosi's first visit to the White House during the Bush administration when she had just become the House Speaker.
Her descriptions of the event (including the above-mentioned herky-jerky hand waving) continued. “I swear this happened, never happened before, it never happened since. Then I realized they were all in that chair, they were—more than I named.” The vision included Bush appearing (also as a spirit, but not in the chair—it was getting too crowded) “saying something to the effect of we're so glad to welcome you here, congratulations and I know you'll probably have some different things to say about what is going on—which is correct.” At that point, apparently Bush took a powder and slowly faded away.
She then heard the spirits saying “at last we have a seat at the table.” And according to Pelosi, “then they were gone.” She has apparently told this tale before, but this time it was videotaped. I knew that botox could be a deadly pathogen, but this is the first time I've heard of it being a major hallucinogenic. There's more to the treatment than just a permanent fixed smile and permanently-surprised eyebrows.
Now I want all of you to put on your imagination hats. Imagine that a story like this were being told by Ann Romney, Condoleeza Rice, or any other prominent Republican woman. The mainstream would be full of stories about how they need straight-jackets. Bill Maher would be doing b-word and c-word jokes about the crazed women of the right. Jon Stewart would be smirking until his face hurt. MSNBC might even bring back Keith Olbermann for the big event. Chris Matthews would be feeling a thrill going up his leg exceeded only by the one he felt when he discovered that Obama was the messiah.
But the mainstream media will continue to celebrate Nancy Pelosi's vision while burying her visions. Remember how they eviscerated Nancy Reagan (the good Nancy) for merely consulting an astrologer. Instead of a place in the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi should be a distinguished professor at the Laughing Academy with her own expensively-decorated rubber room.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Election Stuff
● The Polls: Dick Morris, who is often correct, made an interesting statement about the polls the other day. He noticed that the MSM is presenting the picture of Obama having momentum and they are doing it through polling that purports to show Obama gaining support. Newsweek apparently even speculated about an Obama landslide. Morris says not to believe any of this.
Morris has seen state-by-state polling of the thirteen key states. He says this polling shows Romney gaining momentum in nine of those states and Obama gaining momentum in four. From this, Morris claims that Romney is ahead in Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina and Colorado. He is basically tied in Virginia, Florida and Ohio, though Obama importantly remains stuck below 50% in each. Moreover, while Obama is still ahead in Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, he is stuck below 50%, which presents a significant pick up opportunity for Romney -- Obama needs to win each of those states to win the election.
All told, Morris thinks that Romney may end up with around 350 electoral votes, which would be a landslide. I’m leaning in that direction as well.
● The Trumpster: According to reports, Romney plans to unleash Trump to win over swing-state whites in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump huh? Well, before you scoff, consider this. According to Zogby, Trump appeals to whites who earn less that $35,000. These people make up the bulk of the undecideds. They apparently see Trump favorably based on “his celebrity, personal magnetism, and the positive aspiration brand he offers, [which] seems to gel with this group of voters.” He’s also a fearless campaigner who won’t shy away from blasting Obama on any issue. This could get interesting.
● The Money: I’m not a believer that money decides elections, but a lot of people are. To me money is more an indication of which way people think the election will go. Thus, it’s fascinating that Romney continues to out raise Obama by huge margins. In May, Romney raised $77 million compared to $60 million for Obama. In June, Romney took in $106 million compared to Obama’s $71 million. Now we learn that in July, Romney took in $101 million compared to Obama’s $75 million.
● The General: According to an Obama donor, Obama thinks Romney is looking to pick Gen. David Petraeus for his Vice President. Obama promptly denied saying that. On the one hand, this pick would probably electrify the public. I bet this would add 3-5% to Romney’s poll numbers everywhere. On the other hand, I’m leery of Petraeus. Generals rarely make good politicians and Petraeus is a known moderate. Given that Romney is still viewed with suspicion by the right, I think this would be a bad move. I still prefer Rubio.
● The Shameless: Obama keeps hitting new lows in his political ads. Last week, one of his ads called Romney a felon for his SEC filings. This week, he’s got some guy whining how he lost his healthcare when Romney closed a plant which led to his wife dying of cancer, i.e. Romney killed his wife (LINK). For the record, she died four years after Romney left Bain. Also, anyone who has dealt with our healthcare system knows this is crap. But that never stops the Democrats. PLUS, it turns out that she actually had insurance through her own job even after Bain closed the plant (LINK).
Romney, by the way, has hired a new advisor whose job will be to start pushing back on the Bain attacks. That shouldn’t be too hard, just point out the companies Bain saved.
● The Spending Cuts: Finally, do you recall the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts that are supposed to kick in? Under a new law signed Tuesday, Obama will need to begin detailing where those cuts will happen as early as next month. This isn’t going to sit well with his voters when he tells them that if he’s re-elected, he will cut their jobs or benefits. Of course, that assumes he does what the law requires. Obama has already delayed Medicare cuts until November, even though those were supposed to kick in already, and he’s apparently been leaning on Big Business not to fire people before the election.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Obama Was Sabotaged!!
Forget that Obama has saddled the economy with trillions in new taxes and regulations. Forget that he wants to shove Obamacare on the nation’s employers and terrorize the medical community. Forget that he’s adding more to the debt than all other presidents combined. Forget that he’s allowed too big to fail to get even bigger, that he’s done nothing to stabilize the housing market, and that inflation is out of control. Yeah, forget all that. The real reason the economy sucks is because. . .
(1) Corporate America is “sitting on vast piles of cash.” Yep. Although conditions are clearly right for Corporate America to be out there starting new businesses, launching new products, hiring like crazy, and making America the economic powerhouse it was meant to be, this cabal of Romney supporters simply refuse to do any of that.
Politico notes that according to the Fed, private companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Reuters puts the number closer to $5 trillion. So why aren’t they spending that money on hiring people? Well, apparently, these evil business types site uncertainly, which Politico defines as there being “no guarantee there will be enough consumer demand to buy the product because not enough jobs are being created to put more money in people’s wallets.” Politico calls this a real “chicken and egg problem.”
Now think about this. What Politico is saying is that it is impossible to break out of a recession because business can’t hire people until they know the recession is over, but the recession can’t end until business starts hiring. If this is true, then how did we overcome the dozens of prior recessions the country faced? The fact of the matter is that the real uncertainty which bothers business is that Obama has imposed an incredible amount of new costs on businesses and consumers, and those costs aren’t known yet because of the way he did it, i.e. they are uncertain. No one in their right mind would commit to expanding their business if their costs could double any day or if consumers might find themselves socked with dramatically higher taxes and healthcare costs at any minute. That’s the real heart of the problem.
(2) Evil Congress wants to raise everyone’s taxes! They also want to slash spending, especially military spending. Yeah, right. Forget that Obama has been the one pushing for both things. Forget that the Democrats refused to negotiate the budget deal in good faith. Forget that Obama is the one who demanded the military cuts as part of the budget deal. Yeah, forget all of that and then you can blame the Congress because they have been unable to overcome the Democrats to stop these things.
It’s funny how Politico can miss the obvious. They actually worry that the nation is headed toward a “fiscal cliff” when these trillions in tax hikes and spending cuts will kick in on January 1, 2013 and they attack the Republicans for playing politics with this and for now leaving town on recess. They go back to the old MSM canard of calling the Congress “dysfunctional.” Yeah, ok, and who is to blame here? Nothing the House does gets passed in the Senate. Harry Reid won’t even bring Republican bills to a vote. Heck, he wouldn’t even allow Obama’s budget to be brought to a vote. And it was Reid and Obama who have been playing politics on the Bush tax cuts, first refusing to extend them long term and now using them for class warfare purposes. And it was Reid and Obama who pushed the idea of automatic spending cuts as part of the debt deal because they refused to agree to any responsible cuts. So if this is bad for Obama, it’s a problem of his own making.
(3) The evil central bankers around the world have refused to print more money! This gets rich. Politico notes that the Fed has a dual mandate to fight inflation and to “do whatever it can to boost employment” -- that’s actually not true, the dual mandate is to fight inflation and encourage growth, which is not the same thing as employment. Then they whine that all the Fed is doing is fighting inflation “despite no signs of any inflation.” Wow. First, inflation is soaring. Food and fuel inflation has run anywhere from 12% to 25% under Obama, not to mention that quality and quantity has been cut to try to mask price increases. It’s only if you look at official inflation, which excludes the things which inflate that you get to around 2%. Secondly, the Fed has done amazing amounts to promote growth. For one thing, it’s kept interest rates near historic lows since 2008. For another, it’s pumped vast amounts of new money into the economy through several rounds of quantitative easing. So what exactly hasn’t the Fed done?
Politico also blames Europe for being a drag on the world economy and the European Central bank for doing nothing to help. Total ignorance. They also specifically blame the Germans for not bailing out the other European countries, as if Germany was obligated to pay off the debts of Greece. Should we be paying Mexico’s debts?
ConclusionThis is low-grade economic idiocy and it’s premised on “facts” that are simply untrue. What interests me the most, however, is the attitude. The economy is bad because those evil capitalist who need to be put up against the wall have consciously tried to make us look bad and didn’t continue to do the things capitalists do when we started attacking them. The Fed owes us jobs and needs to keep spending to help Obama. Those lousy Europeans have sabotaged us by not fixing their damn problems and paying off debt that doesn’t belong to them. And that Congress. . . damn them, they didn’t overcome Obama’s policies enough to prevent Obama from being bitten in the ass by them.
Talk about whiny and talk about having NO grasp on reality. Do we really ever want to implement a policy put in place by people who think like this?
P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tax Returns: To Release Or Not To Release
● This. . . Is. . .
This demand to see his taxes is all about class warfare and conservatives should oppose this on instinct. It’s time we stopped letting people be attacked for their success. It’s time we stopped judging people on their money and instead judged them on their actions and views. It’s no wonder we get crappy presidents if we’re basing our decisions on the deductions they take on their taxes.
● Spin v. Reality: This issue is misleading in any event. Romney actually has released his taxes for 2010 and 2011. So where does this idea come from that he won’t release his taxes? It comes from the Democrats demanding that he release 10 years worth of taxes, and they are spinning his “failure” to produce those as Romney refusing to release any of his taxes. Understand the truth, he’s already released as many years as the IRS requires you to keep and he’s released more than John Kerry did in 2004 -- Kerry released only his 2003 taxes. So why should Romney release 10 years worth? According to the MSM, Romney’s father “set the standard by releasing 12 years.” Really? The standard is 12 years? Then why did Obama release only 6 years? Why did Hillary only release 6 years and only after Obama prodded her? Why have only 13 Democrats and 3 Republicans of the 535 members of Congress released their tax returns. Where is this standard Romney is supposedly violating. . . or does it just apply to the Romney family?
● The Smell of Desperation: The fact the Democrats are pushing this tax returns issue tells us they are desperate. They need a diversions so they can avoid talking about Obama’s record. But this strategy isn’t working. Why? Two reasons. First, the public ultimately doesn’t care. No one is going to make their decision based on how many years of taxes Romney releases. Secondly, Romney is playing this right. If he releases his taxes, the Democrats will comb through those taxes and will do their best to keep “finding” new information to dribble out week by week until the election. By refusing to release these records, all he’s left the Democrats with is speculation and speculation gets old fast.
Indeed, we see this already. This weekend, there were a series of articles about what Romney could possibly be “hiding.” These articles were less than effective. The new talking points appear to be that Romney won’t release his taxes because he’s afraid it will anger conservatives. Their reasoning? Those taxes might show (1) that he’s worth more than people think, (2) that he gave money to Harvard, his alma matter, and (2) that he gave lots of money to the Mormon Church. You tell me, is any of this news? And how will it turn off the base to learn that Romney gave to his church or his alma matter? And if his income bothers you, then it doesn’t really matter if he’s worth twenty million or thirty million, does it? But this is all they have. . . unless Romney releases more taxes.
That’s why Romney’s smart to refuse to release any more of his taxes. In fact, there’s an excellent article on why it’s a trap for Romney to play this game at the American Spectator (LINK). The point is that the Democrats have always done this when they needed to run away from their records, they try to create mini-scandals to keep the public’s attention on the Republican. And to do that, they take meaningless things and spin them into scandals. As soon as one “scandal” is exhausted, they move on to the next. So all Romney will do by releasing his taxes is feed their scandal machine, which is currently out of ammunition.
● Cowards: That brings us to the likes of George Will, Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, and National Review, among others. These people represent the “weak knees” of conservatism. They are so accustomed to surrendering to every Democratic demand that they get nervous whenever Republicans refuse. In their minds, the Democrats are always more clever, are always standing on the high ground, and always have the public on their side. Naturally, they want Romney to play right into Democratic hands in the hopes of “defusing the issue,” which is another way of saying “admit he’s wrong for being rich and beg for mercy.” Forget that!
Interestingly, these are the same people who keep attacking Romney for not fighting aggressively enough. Rove recently claimed Romney is losing because he’s not fighting back against each and every allegation (which is both untrue and is stupid advice). Keep in mind, Rove was the man who ran Bush’s political machine which operated on the principle of never defending itself. . . ever. And Kristol just unbelievably wrote this: “Does this year’s presidential campaign strike you as strikingly petty?” Well Bill, it would be less petty if talking heads like yourself weren’t obsessing with Obama’s distractions. And this is after Charles Krauthammer of Kristol’s Weekly Standard whined that Romney needs to apologize for RomneyCare. . . for no good reason whatsoever.
I think it’s time we handed guys like Kristol and Rove their walking papers. They’ve never been right and now is no different. They are aiding and abetting the Democrats once again and they need to be called on this. Fortunately, Romney has no intention of following their advice. He’s called this a privacy issue and his surrogates are out there counter-attacking Obama for not releasing his college records. Man it’s nice to have a candidate who doesn’t surrender at the first sign of shots being fired!
● A Little Mirth: Finally, I leave you with this excellent bit of photoshopping by tryanmax. This was created in response to our desire to see politicians wear more jumpsuits. Yeah, jumpsuits. And why the heck not?! They’re showmen and all good showmen wear jumpsuits. Enjoy!
Monday, July 23, 2012
Leftists Exploit Gun Tragedy. . . As Usual
As with Gabby Giffords, the left immediately jumped out and pointed their twisted fingers at the Tea Party. This charge was led by ABC News who decided the shooter had to belong to the Tea Party because they found a Tea Party member with a similar name. Naturally, they never bothered to investigate before smearing the Tea Party. Eventually, they were forced to retract this, but not before every other new outlet repeated the slander. Those outlets never withdrew their reports.
Meanwhile, the usual pack of leftist celebrities took to the airwaves to whine that this proves we need gun control. Roger Ebert even whined that this proved that concealed carry laws don’t work because no one in the crowd had a gun. Think about that. In Roger’s mind concealed carry means that someone in every crowd must be carrying a gun even when the theater and law forbid it. What a twisted turd he has become.
In any event, none of this is working. Almost no one on Capitol Hill has called for gun control laws. To the contrary they are running like scared rabbits. Why? Because polls show the public’s support for gun rights at an all-time high. Indeed, an October 2011 Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans would not support gun bans. This was the highest level in 50 years. Incidentally, the same poll showed 68% approval for the evil NRA.
So why doesn’t the public fall for the blathering of the moronic celebrities and professional tragedy exploiters? Easy, it’s common sense.
As I’ve pointed out many times before, gun tragedies are incredibly rare. The United States has 2.5 million deaths annually, but only 12,000 of those are related to guns (0.4% of all deaths) – many of these are shootings by police. This places gun deaths 43rd on the list of causes of death in the United States, well behind diseases, cancers, suicides, diarrhea related deaths, unintentional injuries, measles, falls, drownings, poisonings, fires, asthma and road accidents.
And mass shootings of the type in Aurora are even more rare. For example, in the last 10 years, there have been only seven shooting sprees at schools in the US that resulted in three or more deaths. Moreover, Europe has a comparable mass murder rate, despite its strict gun control laws. Europe saw six such mass murders in the same period, and the European ones had a higher body count. China too has seen a spree of stabbings at schools that have resulted in a vastly higher number of deaths than American shootings. So this problem the celebrity left is whining about simply about doesn’t exist, and people realize that.
Secondly, guns don’t kill people. There are 250 million guns in the United States. If guns “caused” crimes as the left claims, then there would 250 million murders a year. Even if only one in ten people fell under the evil spell of these guns, we would still be dealing with 25 million murders a year. Heck, even one percent means 2.5 million murders. Yet only 12,000 people are killed annually in the United States by guns. That works out to less than 0.004% of guns being used to kill someone. . . 40 out of every million guns in the country. Guns do not cause crime.
We know this from Switzerland too. Everyone in Switzerland is required to own a gun, yet gun crime is virtually nonexistent. It’s so low they don’t even bother keeping official statistics on gun crime. It is, in fact, lower than the gun crime rate in Japan, which absolutely bans guns. Switzerland ranks as the fourth safest country in the world and its violent crime rate is 1/100th that of Britain, where guns are banned.
Moreover, there is strong evidence that guns actually prevent crime. When Britain banned private gun ownership in 1996, crime rates skyrocketed. According to American Enterprise Institute economist John Lott, an examination of information released by the British Home Office showed that the violent crime rate rose 69% following the gun ban (with murders increasing 54%). Interestingly, in the five years prior to the ban, such crimes had been falling consistently.
A county by county examination by Lott of crime rates in the United States, found that right-to-carry states experienced (on average) lower rates of violent crime (27% lower), murder (32% lower), robbery (45% lower) and aggravated assault (20% lower) than states with more restrictive gun laws. Other studies conducted at Vanderbilt University, SUNY Binghamton, Claremont-McKenna College, George Mason University, and the College of William and Mary, have supported Lott’s findings.
So Ebert’s attempt to prove that concealed laws don’t worry through a bad analogy is proven ludicrous by comparison to these statistics.
The truth is the world is full of nuts. And if they want to find a way to kill people, they will find a way. It is better to let decent people arm themselves so they can defend themselves than it is to disarm the very people who would help, leaving everyone at the mercy of the crazies. It’s interesting that our left thinks this way. Why do you supposed they don’t want you being able to defend yourself?
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Sunday Go To Meeting Post
The Congressman is not bothered by the constant drumbeat of separation of church and state. He just wants kids to get a disciplined, intelligent education.
You probably haven't read about this in the mainstream press, and your first thought is likely to be that the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish forces of militant secularism are at it again. Well, not quite. The reason you probably haven't heard about it is that the religious schooling that the Congressman is talking about is Islam, and the model schools are madrassas. Rep. Andre Carson (D-Indiana) said in a recent speech: “America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged and where the foundation is the Koran.”
In order to criticize the Congressman for his desire to mix mosque and state, the mainstream media would have to quote him and identify the specific religion he is espousing. That won't do. Islam (the “religion of peace”) is the only religion whose real tenets are off-limits to the mainstream. This, by the way, is the same Congressman who said that the Tea Party would love “to see black Americans hanging on a tree.”
II Timothy 2:15 says “study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (citation corrected, thanks to tryanmax)” But poor old Tim was a Christian, so we can't use him or the thousands of Catholic and other parochial schools as the examples. The Bible must be kept out of the schools, but maybe the Koran is all right. After all, according to Carson, Islamic madrassas use all the modern teaching techniques encouraged by the Koran. “We need an educational model that is current, that meets the need of our students. America must understand that she needs Muslims.”
Would that be the madrassas that don't allow females in at all, or just the ones that segregate them and teach them how to be obedient wives as young as possible? Is that the Koran which is utterly meaningless without the hadiths which explain what the garbled words actually mean? Would that be the innovative educational practices which still cling to Ptolemaic astronomical theory (the universe revolves around the earth)? Or perhaps it's the cutting-edge science that says that substances are formed by the will of Allah, not by Jewish chemical principles.
Still, you must admit that the madrassas are heavy on moral principle. You could search all day to find a Catholic or other church school teaching that heaven awaits with sexual and earth-like rewards if only you have the fortitude and education to strap on explosives and blow yourself up in a crowd of other (preferably non-Islamic) people.
For once, I have to agree with the Congressman that religious schools are better-organized and better-staffed than our current public schools. But then, a gathering of prairie dogs is more coherent and educational than most of our present public schools. I simply don't agree with him that we should jump out of the frying pan and into the fire by replacing non-educational public schools with non-educational Islamic schools. There are plenty of solid non-Islamic religious schools to draw inspiration from, and the teaching methods work with or without the religious instruction.
With Islamic chemistry, Islamic physics and Islamic math, there is no division between the religious and the empirical. Islam the political/social/educational cannot be separated from Islam the religious. Secular indoctrination in the public schools and religious indoctrination in the madrassas are just two sides of the same coin.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
“Obama Will Lose” Omen No. 472
Back in September 2010 (LINK), I wrote an article predicting how the left would react to the pending failure of Obama. I said that when the left knows things have gone wrong and they’re going to lose an election, they whip out the sour grapes. Specifically, they start writing articles telling us that “it’s impossible for anyone to govern!” Well, we have achieve grapedom.As I said before, liberals are big on defense mechanisms, and their favorite defense mechanism when their candidate fails is the old idea that “nobody could do it.” Indeed, every time one of their leaders fails at something, they rush to warn us that this had nothing to do with their beliefs, it was because the thing was simply impossible – often couched in terms of “this is impossible because democracy allows Republicans to obstruct us.”
And when their Presidents fail utterly, they really step it up and we are treated to a whole slew of articles lamenting the fact that America itself is ungovernable. Carter gave us the clearest example of this. When it became obvious that he would fail, liberals everywhere started writing articles about how America was too big to be governed by one man, and how the ancient presidency just wasn’t up to the task of running a modern country. It really infuriated them when Reagan proved the doomsayers wrong.
With Obama following the Carter plan to the letter (hyperinflation, gas price problems, no jobs, soaring debt, falling currency, war in Afghanistan, crashing poll numbers), it was only a matter of time before the media decided that the problem wasn’t Obama, it was that America itself is ungovernable. Enter the Washington Post and an article obnoxiously titled:
“Can any president succeed in today’s political world?”
Of course they can, they just can’t succeed when they are doing stupid things. And Obama, like Carter, does stupid things. Obama had the House and a supermajority in the Senate. He could have done anything if he had the political leadership skills to simply outline what he wanted. But he didn’t. The failure was his own with an assist from the genuinely stupid ideas of his party. It wasn’t the result of some inherent defect in our system. But that won’t sooth the Washington Post. Here’s what they blame his failure on:
Consider this: We are in the midst of more than a decade-long streak of pessimism about the state of the country, partisanship is at all-time highs and the media have splintered — Twitter, blogs, Facebook and so on and so forth — in a thousand directions all at once.Ok, stop right there. This the same paper which said to run the Republicans over when the Democrats had the majority. Apparently, partisanship wasn’t a problem for them then. Pessimism isn’t a problem either because policies work on their merits, not on the hopes of the people who implement them. As for the media “splintering” why would that matter unless the Post thinks the only way to achieve anything is to force groupthink on the public?
Now watch them flip this around:
Layer over the constant stream of news with the fact that Twitter, blogs and cable television turn every slip of the tongue, misstatements or gaffe into a mountain — “the private sector is doing fine” being a prime, recent example — and it’s clear that the idea that the president can drive the hourly, daily or weekly message of his choosing feels outdated. The bully pulpit may still exist, but it’s far less bully than it once was.Wrong. Notice that the first problem is the inability to reach the public because there is no single all-powerful (liberal) media telling people what to think, somehow that makes it impossible to govern. But then they flip that right around and whine that all these blogs and twits brainwash the public. How can the public be lost in a splintered media wilderness on the one hand, but simultaneously that splintered media can exploit any story and brainwash the public on the other? Then we flip it over one more time and finish with no one being able to get a message out because the media is splintered again. Consistency, thy name ain’t liberal.
That’s especially true not only because the fracturing of the media makes it hard to push a clear message but also because roughly half of the American public doesn’t want to hear the message (whatever it is) because it is of the other party.
The problem here is that liberalism fails, but liberals don’t want to believe it. So instead, they scratch their heads trying to figure out what could have possibly gone wrong. And the only answer they can come up with, before they start talking about betrayal, is that the whole system stinks. Good grief: “I can’t bowl a 300 game, so bowling must be flawed.” Yeah, that makes sense.
Look for more of these articles for a while and enjoy them while they last because they will soon give way to the bloodbath phase as our liberal friends start to tear each other apart. In fact, we’re already seeing the preliminaries on this as the West Virginia delegation and Hillary Clinton are saying they won’t go to the Democratic Convention. It’s going to get ugly(er), so grab your popcorn and enjoy the show!
[+] Read More...
Monday, June 18, 2012
It’s Because You’re Stupid
The MSM has finally found a narrative they can all get behind: criticism of Obama by conservatives is racist. Forget that they’ve leveled plenty of their own criticism, because hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them. Any conservative who criticizes Obama is a racist.The line that criticism of Obama is racist goes way back. Jimmy Carter whined in 2009 that the entire birther movement was racist. Then he claimed Republican Joe Wilson shouting “you lie!” during Obama’s campaign speech to Congress showed that there is “an inherent feeling in American that a black man should not be President.” In September 2011, MSNBC claimed that all criticism of Obama was because of “the color of his skin.”
Calling Obama “cool” was declared racist the other day. Before that the words “cocky”, “flippant” and “arrogant” were declared racist “code words.” Last month, Team Obama themselves said that trying to link Obama to Jeremiah Wright was racist and hate-filled.
Now we have Neil Munro, a reporter for the Daily Caller, interrupting Obama during his latest campaign speech from the White House where he tried to buy Hispanic votes by proposing amnesty for young illegal aliens. The MSM was immediately outraged, and quickly decided this was racist. Said MSNBC:
“I think it's a very important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We've never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it's patently obvious.”Well, actually, that’s not true. Indeed, as the Daily Caller immediately pointed out, Sam Donaldson used to do this to Ronald Reagan all the time, and yet the MSM never accused him of even bad manners.
Naturally, the MSM went to Sam Donaldson and asked him if this was true. Guess what he said? He lied about doing this to Reagan. Indeed, he said, he “never once interrupt[ed] a president in any way while he was making a formal statement, a speech, honoring awardees or in any other way holding the floor.” Of course, that’s a lie, but no MSM reporter can be bothered to go find the dozens of example disproving this.
Then Donaldson said exactly what you would expect from a leftist hack. He charged racism:
“Let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!”This is pathetic. Do I think Munro should have interrupted Obama? No. It pissed me off when Donaldson and the rest did it to Reagan and I don’t think anyone should be doing it to Obama either. But it pisses me off even more that the MSM is pushing this crap about this being the result of racism.
People criticize President "Downgrade" Obama because he’s incompetent. They criticize him because he’s an arrogant ass. They criticize Obama because he’s ruining the country and trying to destroy large parts of our economy. It doesn’t matter what color he is, the man is a menace to our nation.
Moreover, the real racists are on the left and within the MSM. It’s the leftist media which sees the world through the prism of race, not the rest of us. The rest of us have moved beyond race. We now judge men and women by the content of their characters and the competence and quality of their actions, and in that test people like Obama fail miserably. Race doesn't factor into it for us, that only matters to the race-obsessed MSM.
So in the spirit of providing proof, give us your Top Three Biggest gripes with Obama without mentioning his race?
OT, For those who regularly visit Patti's site, she's talking about my book today and there's a Q&A! Check it out! LINK
[+] Read More...
Saturday, June 16, 2012
I'm Angry and I'm Not Gonna Take It Anymore
 |
| 3/20/2010 Anti-Obamacare Rally Washington, D.C. |
Let me start by saying that I have made no secret that I am a proud member of the Tea Party movement and have been since February 27, 2009 when I attended my first rally in City Hall Park in New York City. Since that day, I have attended many small to medium rallies sponsored by our local New York City Tea Party groups, and was in Washington for the very first 9/12 Rally on September 12, 2009 where it was reported that from 500 to 2,000,000 people attended. We all had different reasons for coming together, but mostly we knew (and still do) there was a coming fiscal disaster-train heading our way and we desperately wanted to slow that train down to minimize the damage.
We were mocked, called silly and stupid names, and became the butt of about every prurient joke the MSM et al. could throw at us. They mocked our collective ages, weight, I.Q.s, and costumes all in hopes of dissuading us and sending us running back to our Laz-y-boy recliners. Still we would not be dissuaded even when our Democrat Congressional leaders in the halls of the Congress and the MSM were telling us with great sincerity that we were all sad, misguided astro-turfers being led by unseen evil forces and would soon peter out (no pun intended) to be a unimportant footnote in history.
But then came the March 20, 2010 rally to protest the upcoming Congressional vote on Obamacare. That's when the first real cries of "racism" could be heard in earnest. The Congressional Black Caucus lead by Reps. Emanuel Cleaver, Andre Carson, and John Lewis accused us of hurling racial slurs and spitting at them with a little Rep. Barney Frank thrown in to hurl the cries of "homophobia". When asked to provide some kind of proof, they stood by their accusations steadfastly recounting flashbacks to yesteryears and imploring everyone to trust them. Even after the late Andrew Breitbart offered $250K for any video or photographic proof that would prove their accusations to be true, they could not find one shred of evidence in support. There are hours of video and audio footage from every conceivable angle of their walk through the teaming throngs of protesters [see photo above] as these heinous acts allegedly occurred. Hours of video and audio of the accusers and the accused, but not one moment of video or audio that could prove these accusations to be anything but false. Fortunately, we had learned early the ways of the MSM and collectively knew that we must maintain our own video record. A sad fact that I am almost certain that Reps. Cleaver, Carson, Lewis, and Frank had not been clever enough to foresee.
For the record, the following is the list of the Official Tea Party priorities from the “Contract From America“ published on April 14, 2010:
(1) Protect the Constitution;For three and half years now, I, and many that I know, have been called "racists" in every conceivable venue - on the floor of Congress (both houses), by the President, in the MSM, on liberal blogs, by liberal pundits and comedians, and in every manner of public social media, because we dare to speak out against the fiscal policies of our present Administration and just will not go away. Why, only this week, I was called a racist on Facebook because I am member of the Tea Party and, as the equation has been well established by now, Tea Party = "racist". It is sad when people are so blinded by their own ignorant hatred that they can brand an entire group of people by the actions of a very few. Judging an entire group because of the actions of few used to be called "bigotry", but now it's called...well, I still call it "bigotry" and I am going to double down and call it "self-righteous bigotry" at that. For the record, there was a statement made at a Arkansas Tea Party rally that was deemed racist. The person making the statement was publicly condemned and removed from their leadership position within hours of her statement.
(2) Reject Cap and Trade;
(3) Demand a Balanced Budget;
(4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform;
(5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington;
(6) End Runaway Government Spending;
(7) Defund, Repeal, and Replace Government-run Health Care;
(8) Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy;
(9) Stop the Pork;
(10) Stop the Tax Hikes
But what finally put me on the ledge this week were these little tidbits! Where is the outrage and condemnation from those liberals who abhor hate-filled, violent images and rhetoric? Let's just say right off the bat, if either of these images were Obama-related, people would have lost their jobs, possibly have been jailed, or, at the very least would have been outed and humiliated into making a public apology...
First - Well, we've talked about this one:
Oh, I know, the HBO Props Department just happened to have a severed head of George W. Bush lying around in their "Stock Severed Heads" closet and thought it would be really cheeky to put it on a spike in a scene in their hit series "Game Of Thrones". It probably would have been one of those inside jokes that those in the Props Department could have quietly howled about for years. But they just had to brag about how clever they were in the "Special Features" section on the DVD. Oh, yes, HBO issued their stock apology (no doubt from their "Stock Apology" closet), but I want to know who is in charge of the Props Department and I want him or her outed and publicly condemned in full living color.
Oh, and then there is this:
Shocking, isn't it? I mean, perhaps Martin Bashir, currently with NBC News as a contributor for its Dateline program, and an afternoon anchor for MSNBC, should not be fantasizing about blowing up a bus especially a bus of a current US Presidential candidate and broadcasting that fantasy in full color video. I mean, he's British of Pakistani descent - that same Pakistan that protected Osama bin Laden, so, I am going to go out on limb and call Mr. Martin Bashir of MSNBC a terrorist. Well, I mean, why not? I've already been called a racist, an ignorant hillbilly, a moron, a Teabagger, a Rethuglican, so why not add "bigot" and "xenophobe" to the pile. Oh, yeah, I've been called those too. [+] Read More...
Thursday, June 14, 2012
The Eye Of CBS Is Upon You
All the livelong day. I used to believe what Walter Cronkite told me, even when I was a Berkeley radical. When he announced after the Tet Offensive that the war in Vietnam was lost, I believed him. It was years later that I found out (from the writings of NorthVietnamese General Giap) that the Tet Offensive had been an absolute disaster for the communists. He thanked Cronkite for his help in turning that around. That left me thinking that Cronkite had made a left turn and discarded real reporting for editorializing in the 60s. Now I find out even that was wrong. It was a lengthy evolution for the voice of CBS News. It turns out that the great news reader who so loudly condemned Richard Nixon for his presidential “dirty tricks” got there way ahead of Tricky Dick. As early as 1952, Cronkite was playing a few dirty tricks of his own, all in the name of news-gathering, of course.
Turns out that “the most trusted man in America” had bugged a secret committee room of the Republican Party during that year’s Republican convention. During the Watergate Scandal, Cronkite became almost apoplectic describing the horror of Nixon’s bugging of the offices of Democratic operatives. He termed bugging of political opponents “a stunt of questionable legality that should have disqualified [Nixon] from ever holding a powerful position of public trust.” Considering that almost twice as many people trusted Cronkite as trusted Nixon, I can only say “newsman, heal thyself.”
Disguised as news, Cronkite’s editorializing misled millions upon millions of decent Americans. His contempt for Barry Goldwater was visible even when Cronkite wasn’t making direct statements about him. When Republican presidential candidate Goldwater visited an American Army base in Germany in 1964, Cronkite’s puppet Daniel Schorr reported it thusly: “Republican Barry Goldwater, announcing his presidential run, made his first campaign appearance in the center of Germany’s right wing.” The implication was clear—Goldwater was a closet Nazi. The camera returned to Cronkite in New York, and there was the old bastard, his lips pursed, slightly shaking his head indicating disapproval (of Goldwater, not Schorr). Not a word--just a look.
This kind of sneering “news” continued throughout Cronkite’s career right up to the day he retired. At least now his editorializing is no longer being treated as news. To a greater or lesser extent, he praised every Democratic candidate and damned every Republican candidate, though rarely expressly using clear wording to accomplish the task.
Now let’s jump forward to recent times to see if things have gotten better. Well, the CBS anchor for the nighttime national news certainly doesn’t have the cachet that Cronkite had. But the inability to separate news from purely political causes goes all the way up to the top. Last week, Les Moonves, president and chief executive officer of CBS News attended a widely-publicized Beverly Hills Democratic fundraiser featuring the Wonderful Wizard Barack Obama.
Responding to a question from a friendly reporter, Moonves said: “I run a news division, I’ve given no money to any candidate.” Well, technically, at this particular fundraiser, that was true. What he did give was $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee’s LGBT :Leadership Council. So he gave money to a left wing group sponsored by the Democratic Party, at an Obama fundraiser at which the candidate was present. And everyone knows that a celebrity appearance at a fundraiser for the Democratic candidate is an endorsement of that candidacy whether Moonves gave him money directly or not. My showing up at a fundraiser without writing the candidate a check means exactly nothing. The CEO of CBS showing up in the West Coast center of news and entertainment means a great deal more than a simple check.
Moonves is not a news reporter, but his position as head of the news division of a major TV network appearing at an Obamafest is news. Now, how many CBS news reporters are going to do either of two things? Report Moonves’s participation in a big Hollywood Obama fundraiser? Report on the total impropriety of such an appearance? Anyone want to hazard a guess?
It is highly-doubtful that Moonves will make a similar appearance at a Mitt Romney fundraiser. That’s because he knows that such an appearance, particularly when well-publicized among the party faithful, is tantamount to an endorsement. That would offset his tacit endorsement of Obama, and he wouldn’t want to muddy the waters. Even if he did show up, I’m quite sure he wouldn’t write a $25,000 check to the Republican National Committee’s Traditional Morals Leadership Council. (OK, I made that up).
[+] Read More...
Friday, May 25, 2012
Nothing To See Here. Move On.
Now, I have to admit that compared to some of the Occupy nonsense in other cities recently, the Times had a point when it said: “On the final day of the NATO summit meeting here, Chicago was oddly quiet.” I’m sure they meant “disappointingly quiet,” but that’s just one man’s opinion. The obligatory comparison to the 1968 Democratic Convention riots wasn’t missed. “By Monday evening, after a few police/demonstrator clashes, some said they believed that the ugly scuffles would not overshadow what had amounted largely to an uneventful weekend.” Can’t argue with that.
There might also be something to be said for preparation and the successful tactic of “wall-to-wall” cops. The mayor, a big fan of leftist demonstrations, didn’t want major disruptions to upset his visiting buddy, Barack Obama, so he ordered all hands on deck. There were a few breakaway marches that did some destruction, but Oakland would consider that a mere trifle compared to their recent experiences. And there were the menacing marchers wearing anarchist masks. In many states, wearing a mask solely to hide one’s identity is illegal, but either Illinois doesn’t have such a law, or the police simply didn’t think it was worth enforcing.
In fact, the demonstrations were so lethargic that the Times felt it safe to report the fact that the usual suspects from the Occupy movement had shown up to demonstrate their solidarity with the other bums and creeps. Still, the streets were pretty full, and those few who actually had a thoughtful disagreement with NATO policy could scarcely get a placard or banner in edgewise.
So, it was indeed a relatively quiet weekend. That is, if you don’t count the ninety arrests and hundreds of detentions for everything from disturbing the peace, destruction of property, unlawful assembly (the breakaway groups), and lewd and lascivious public conduct. Mayor Rahm (“Rahmbo”) Emanuel praised the admirable restraint shown by the Chicago police. That might be simply because the police and federal authorities foiled a terrorist plot and seized incendiary devices (Molotov cocktails) which ostensibly were to be used on the mayor or Obama, or both. I suppose the difference between police restraint and police brutality depends on whose ox is about to be set on fire.
[+] Read More...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)