The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight out propagandists for the Obama campaign. While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08 for the first time, the major media are consciously covering for one candidate for president and consciously knifing the other. This is no longer journalism — it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Volkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.) And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly and even half way honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs — the press. The image of Barack Obama that the press has presented is not a fair approximation of the real man. They have consciously ignored whole years in his life, and showed a lack of curiosity about such gaps that bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct. Thus, the public image of Mr. Obama is of a "Man who never was." I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real life WWII British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece, rather than Italy, in 1943. Operation "Mincemeat" involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as a Maj. William Martin, R.M. and put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a brief-case containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece. To make the operation credible, British intelligence created a fictional life for the corpse — a letter from a lover, tickets to a London theater, all the details of a life — but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media has presented to the nation as Mr. Obama is not the real man. The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeats any McCain gaffes, while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Internet sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Mr. Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventual one or two clear sentences from Mr. Obama. Nor do you see Mr. Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the United Nations. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's. More appalling, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" suggested that Gov. Sarah Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That scene was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate for Senate in Minnesota. Talk about incest. Democratic presidential candidate Sen.Barack Obama, D-Ill., greets supporters before his speech in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina on September 21, 2008. (UPI Photo/Nell Redmond) But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting, is the shocking gaps in Mr. Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply has not reported on Mr. Obama's two years at Columbia University in New York, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers— after which they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Mr. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Mr. Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks the media has focused on all the colleges Mrs. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago and the close criticism of Mrs. Palin's mayoral political opponents. But in two years they haven't bothered to see how close Mr. Obama was with the terrorist Ayers. Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Mr. Obama's rise in Chicago politics — how did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great — and unflattering details on Mr. Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book, the mainstream media continues to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, the Economist, to give Mr. Freddoso's book a review with fair comment. The public image of Mr. Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Mr. Obama, his publicist David Axelrod and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media. Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor has written that "the media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis." That conspiracy has not only photo-shopped out all of Mr. Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent Mr. McCain's image), but it has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole. The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Mr. Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.
Tony Blankley is a syndicated columnist. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/24/media-chronicles/
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Puzzling through another McCain surprise
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain jolted the 2008 race Wednesday by saying he’d suspend his campaign and come to the Capitol to help pass a bill to rescue the nation’s financial sector.
He also called for a postponement of the debate with his Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama, set for Friday night.
McCain said, “No consensus has developed to support the administration's proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time."
Was it a masterstroke by McCain, a lunge out of desperation, or a puzzling improvisation?
McCain ran the risk that he would arrive Thursday just in time to find the rug being pulled out from under him — if there’s an announcement of a deal having been reached between the Bush administration and Democrats in Congress.
Dramatically setting the stage for an arrival at the Capitol can backfire: in 2006 Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., flew back from skiing in Davos, Switzerland to say he'd lead a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito — but then suddenly seemed to lose interest and scurried away from reporters who tried to question him about the filibuster.
McCain and Obama issued a joint statement Wednesday saying "This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe."
President Bush invited both candidates, along with congressional leaders, to confer at the White House Thursday afternoon on the financial markets crisis.
Immediate reaction in the Capitol to McCain’s sudden move to suspend his campaign was scathing from Democrats, and ranged from cool to supportive from Republicans. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat who is an ardent McCain ally, took part in a Wednesday night meeting of Democratic senators with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke at the Capitol.
McCain to spur bipartisan solution?Emerging from that meeting, Lieberman said, “I think Sen. McCain would serve a very useful purpose because it’s clear that this won’t pass without Republican support and Sen. McCain — just as Sen. Obama — is the nominee of his party and has become the titular leader of his party. I think if anybody can make this a bipartisan solution, which we need, it's Sen. McCain. I’m glad he’s coming back.”
McCain would “hopefully be a constructive force in mediating with the Democrats,” Lieberman said.
“This is not the time for debates — this is the for everybody to be here in Washington acting to solve this economic crisis in a sensible and smart way.”
Obama “could play a constructive role here. There’s no substitute for being here.”
But Obama supporter Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said McCain's sudden visit to the Capitol Thursday “feels like a stunt.”
She said, “All they (Obama and McCain) need to do is to send a signal as to what they’re for. It’s important that they debate. We don’t need photo ops. Their physical presence here is a distraction.”
'An American first'McCain is “an American first and a Republican second. This clearly shows the kind of leader that he is,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, leader of the House GOP conservative caucus.
Hensarling opposes the bill which was being revised in bargaining between Paulson and House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., and other Democratic leaders.
“I assure you that if he and Sen. Obama sat down at the table with congressional leadership, something might get done that just might get sufficient support on both sides of the aisle,” Hensarling said.
But Frank called McCain’s move “the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of football, and of Marys.”
What could McCain do in person?Perhaps the most baffling aspect of McCain’s move was that, at first blush, it was hard to see how the Arizona senator, in person, could help make the Paulson-Frank financial rescue bill any more palatable to congressional Republicans who are opposed to it.
McCain seems ill-cast in the role of whip for House Republican members who are at the heart of the opposition to the bill.
House Democratic leaders have made it clear that Republicans will be expected to supply a significant number of their members to vote for the bill, and that it would unacceptable for Democrats to supply 180 House members and Republicans only about 40 or 50.
“McCain and his buddies created this (financial distress) with their deregulation fever and all of us are of the opinion that they (Republicans) should put up the majority of votes” to pass the financial rescue plan, said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D- N.Y., the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee.
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, D- N.Y., laughingly said McCain was trying to put off Friday’s debate because his campaign was in such a parlous position.
“I could understand if I was in McCain’s position and had to go to a debate and saw the direction the campaign was going and took a hard look at my vice presidential running mate, I would say, ‘Can we talk?’
Rangel added, chortling sarcastically “Based on his experience with finances in the Senate, I think he can make a contribution. In the 26 years he has been here he’s been very close to the (financial services industry). Put the election on hold and let his ‘great work’ in the Senate speak for itself.”
Third-ranking House Republican Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida said moments after the McCain announcement that “as of now the Paulson proposal has not gotten the traction to complete this process by the end of the week.”
Putnam said it was important for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and GOP Leader John Boehner to agree on a consensus plan “that can pass and pass quickly to restore confidence in the markets.”
So will McCain help do that? If so, how? None of that was clear.
Will McCain propose an alternative to the Paulson-Frank financial rescue bill?
And if so, how will he get not only Republicans in Congress but Democrats, who spent the afternoon mocking him, to back it?
Asked if he wanted McCain to be a part in the nitty-gritty negotiation between Congress and the Bush administration, Putnam indicated he didn’t think this was a good idea by remaining silent for 10 seconds.
Asked what specific role McCain could play in revising the Paulson/Frank plan, Putnam answered carefully, “The most productive role Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama could play would be for them to each acknowledge the need for a congressional intervention to avert a financial disaster. By doing so, they would detoxify this process and bless a bipartisan proposal moving forward by taking it out of the presidential politics mix.”
He added, “That would be the post-partisan, maverick statesman move that they need to make. They are each the senior statesmen of their parties. The two candidates — who will have to deal with whatever outcome Congress passes here — have a responsibility in this process.”
One reason that process has become “toxified” is that many Democrats don’t want to pass a Wall Street bailout bill, and rank-and-file House Republicans are balking at their leaders' call for them to rally around the plan.
And as Frank modifies the Paulson plan, it will grow ever more unacceptable to GOP conservatives.
National affairs writer
MSNBC
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain jolted the 2008 race Wednesday by saying he’d suspend his campaign and come to the Capitol to help pass a bill to rescue the nation’s financial sector.
He also called for a postponement of the debate with his Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama, set for Friday night.
McCain said, “No consensus has developed to support the administration's proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time."
Was it a masterstroke by McCain, a lunge out of desperation, or a puzzling improvisation?
McCain ran the risk that he would arrive Thursday just in time to find the rug being pulled out from under him — if there’s an announcement of a deal having been reached between the Bush administration and Democrats in Congress.
Dramatically setting the stage for an arrival at the Capitol can backfire: in 2006 Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., flew back from skiing in Davos, Switzerland to say he'd lead a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito — but then suddenly seemed to lose interest and scurried away from reporters who tried to question him about the filibuster.
McCain and Obama issued a joint statement Wednesday saying "This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe."
President Bush invited both candidates, along with congressional leaders, to confer at the White House Thursday afternoon on the financial markets crisis.
Immediate reaction in the Capitol to McCain’s sudden move to suspend his campaign was scathing from Democrats, and ranged from cool to supportive from Republicans. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat who is an ardent McCain ally, took part in a Wednesday night meeting of Democratic senators with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke at the Capitol.
McCain to spur bipartisan solution?Emerging from that meeting, Lieberman said, “I think Sen. McCain would serve a very useful purpose because it’s clear that this won’t pass without Republican support and Sen. McCain — just as Sen. Obama — is the nominee of his party and has become the titular leader of his party. I think if anybody can make this a bipartisan solution, which we need, it's Sen. McCain. I’m glad he’s coming back.”
McCain would “hopefully be a constructive force in mediating with the Democrats,” Lieberman said.
“This is not the time for debates — this is the for everybody to be here in Washington acting to solve this economic crisis in a sensible and smart way.”
Obama “could play a constructive role here. There’s no substitute for being here.”
But Obama supporter Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said McCain's sudden visit to the Capitol Thursday “feels like a stunt.”
She said, “All they (Obama and McCain) need to do is to send a signal as to what they’re for. It’s important that they debate. We don’t need photo ops. Their physical presence here is a distraction.”
'An American first'McCain is “an American first and a Republican second. This clearly shows the kind of leader that he is,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, leader of the House GOP conservative caucus.
Hensarling opposes the bill which was being revised in bargaining between Paulson and House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., and other Democratic leaders.
“I assure you that if he and Sen. Obama sat down at the table with congressional leadership, something might get done that just might get sufficient support on both sides of the aisle,” Hensarling said.
But Frank called McCain’s move “the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of football, and of Marys.”
What could McCain do in person?Perhaps the most baffling aspect of McCain’s move was that, at first blush, it was hard to see how the Arizona senator, in person, could help make the Paulson-Frank financial rescue bill any more palatable to congressional Republicans who are opposed to it.
McCain seems ill-cast in the role of whip for House Republican members who are at the heart of the opposition to the bill.
House Democratic leaders have made it clear that Republicans will be expected to supply a significant number of their members to vote for the bill, and that it would unacceptable for Democrats to supply 180 House members and Republicans only about 40 or 50.
“McCain and his buddies created this (financial distress) with their deregulation fever and all of us are of the opinion that they (Republicans) should put up the majority of votes” to pass the financial rescue plan, said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D- N.Y., the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee.
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, D- N.Y., laughingly said McCain was trying to put off Friday’s debate because his campaign was in such a parlous position.
“I could understand if I was in McCain’s position and had to go to a debate and saw the direction the campaign was going and took a hard look at my vice presidential running mate, I would say, ‘Can we talk?’
Rangel added, chortling sarcastically “Based on his experience with finances in the Senate, I think he can make a contribution. In the 26 years he has been here he’s been very close to the (financial services industry). Put the election on hold and let his ‘great work’ in the Senate speak for itself.”
Third-ranking House Republican Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida said moments after the McCain announcement that “as of now the Paulson proposal has not gotten the traction to complete this process by the end of the week.”
Putnam said it was important for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and GOP Leader John Boehner to agree on a consensus plan “that can pass and pass quickly to restore confidence in the markets.”
So will McCain help do that? If so, how? None of that was clear.
Will McCain propose an alternative to the Paulson-Frank financial rescue bill?
And if so, how will he get not only Republicans in Congress but Democrats, who spent the afternoon mocking him, to back it?
Asked if he wanted McCain to be a part in the nitty-gritty negotiation between Congress and the Bush administration, Putnam indicated he didn’t think this was a good idea by remaining silent for 10 seconds.
Asked what specific role McCain could play in revising the Paulson/Frank plan, Putnam answered carefully, “The most productive role Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama could play would be for them to each acknowledge the need for a congressional intervention to avert a financial disaster. By doing so, they would detoxify this process and bless a bipartisan proposal moving forward by taking it out of the presidential politics mix.”
He added, “That would be the post-partisan, maverick statesman move that they need to make. They are each the senior statesmen of their parties. The two candidates — who will have to deal with whatever outcome Congress passes here — have a responsibility in this process.”
One reason that process has become “toxified” is that many Democrats don’t want to pass a Wall Street bailout bill, and rank-and-file House Republicans are balking at their leaders' call for them to rally around the plan.
And as Frank modifies the Paulson plan, it will grow ever more unacceptable to GOP conservatives.
How Palin changed the game
By Ed RollinsCNN Contributor
NEW YORK (CNN) -- It seems like just yesterday when Sen. Barack Obama impressed our troops in Kuwait by shooting his flawless three-pointer into the basket without hitting the rim.
Two days later, he spoke to 200,000 Berliners. It looked like he could do no wrong and the campaign was only a formality on his way to inauguration day.
But it wasn't yesterday. It was the third week in July, and that's a lifetime ago in presidential politics.
Obama looked unbeatable then. He looked unbeatable the night of his acceptance speech before 85,000 cheering supporters. If victory went to the guy who could make the best speech or could win the schoolyard basketball game of "horse," he was thought to be unstoppable.
Then his world stopped with Sen. John McCain's shocking selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the vice presidential nomination. And over the last two weeks, the governor of Alaska has deflected the arc of Obama's campaign. She can match his pretty words. The outdoor game has changed from "horse" to "moose," and only one candidate in this race has shot "moose."
Obama's campaign diminished itself by challenging her experience. The candidate who ranked 99th in Senate seniority, with one of the thinnest resumes ever when he began his presidential quest, looked foolish challenging a governor who made decisions every day while he was missing votes in the Senate running for president.
The good news for Obama is the Europeans still want him to be our president. Unfortunately for him they don't vote here, and the independent voters who do are shifting to McCain-Palin.
The other good news for Obama is that this race is far from over. But he is not going to win by telling voters McCain is too old and doesn't know how to use the Internet. Many of McCain's supporters are old and could care less about the Internet.
What the country wants to know is do these candidates understand what's going on in their lives and in their neighbors' lives, and are they willing to try and fix it.
They want to get our soldiers home from Iraq as quickly as possible and leave that country as stable as it can be without us being there for another decade. They want someone who understands ordinary Americans are hurting and will try to find solutions to the economic mess we are in.
The leading "mainstream media" including ABC's condescending Charlie Gibson and The New York Times' Maureen Dowd have raced "North to Alaska" to find out what makes this woman tick. But alas, they show again and again that they just don't get it.
Nobody cares if Palin knows the Bush doctrine. I defy anyone to tell you what the Bush-Cheney strategy has been over the last seven years (other than getting re-elected) or what doctrine has been practiced by this "gang that can't shoot straight." And who cares? They are gone in 126 days.
What the media doesn't get is that Palin is one of us. She got to the top of the heap because she could relate to ordinary people, because she is ordinary people and through extraordinary efforts made it.
She's got kids; she worked her way through college (state college like most of us). Her husband is a working stiff.
She started at the bottom and worked her way to the top by being better, not prettier. She did her job at the top by being smarter and tougher than the good old boys who stood in her way.
One thing we do know is Palin is not going to look into the eyes of her neighbor across the Bering Sea and say Vladimir Putin's an honest man.
What she's going to see is a fearless adversary who we need to be wary of. Equally important, if she is elected, she's not going to be one of the boys in D.C. Behind her charm is a certain toughness. And that's a good thing.
The charisma of Palin was even evident on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend. There in the opening skit was Sarah Palin (played by her wonderful look-alike Tina Fey) opposite Hillary Clinton (played by "SNL" regular Amy Poehler).
Even though it was a spoof, Palin stood out. Besides anyone who brings Fey back to "SNL" does the country and the show a big favor.
Palin has certainly energized McCain's campaign and drawn record crowds to boot. What Democrats didn't realize is that Palin was not about getting Hillary's voters. It was about energizing the base and getting independent voters. She has done that in spades.
Both Obama and Palin have compelling stories and are great talents. In the end, the margin of victory may be the voters who say I like him, or I trust her.
Of course, the big choice is McCain or Obama. But this is one race where the "veep" choice may really matter. The rise of Palin certainly has made this the most exciting presidential race in my lifetime. And I am one of those old guys who thought he had seen it all.
After the marathon of the primaries, we are down to a 100-yard dash, and McCain's got a 2-yard lead with Obama close on his tail. There's a lot ahead before the finish line.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- It seems like just yesterday when Sen. Barack Obama impressed our troops in Kuwait by shooting his flawless three-pointer into the basket without hitting the rim.
Two days later, he spoke to 200,000 Berliners. It looked like he could do no wrong and the campaign was only a formality on his way to inauguration day.
But it wasn't yesterday. It was the third week in July, and that's a lifetime ago in presidential politics.
Obama looked unbeatable then. He looked unbeatable the night of his acceptance speech before 85,000 cheering supporters. If victory went to the guy who could make the best speech or could win the schoolyard basketball game of "horse," he was thought to be unstoppable.
Then his world stopped with Sen. John McCain's shocking selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the vice presidential nomination. And over the last two weeks, the governor of Alaska has deflected the arc of Obama's campaign. She can match his pretty words. The outdoor game has changed from "horse" to "moose," and only one candidate in this race has shot "moose."
Obama's campaign diminished itself by challenging her experience. The candidate who ranked 99th in Senate seniority, with one of the thinnest resumes ever when he began his presidential quest, looked foolish challenging a governor who made decisions every day while he was missing votes in the Senate running for president.
The good news for Obama is the Europeans still want him to be our president. Unfortunately for him they don't vote here, and the independent voters who do are shifting to McCain-Palin.
The other good news for Obama is that this race is far from over. But he is not going to win by telling voters McCain is too old and doesn't know how to use the Internet. Many of McCain's supporters are old and could care less about the Internet.
What the country wants to know is do these candidates understand what's going on in their lives and in their neighbors' lives, and are they willing to try and fix it.
They want to get our soldiers home from Iraq as quickly as possible and leave that country as stable as it can be without us being there for another decade. They want someone who understands ordinary Americans are hurting and will try to find solutions to the economic mess we are in.
The leading "mainstream media" including ABC's condescending Charlie Gibson and The New York Times' Maureen Dowd have raced "North to Alaska" to find out what makes this woman tick. But alas, they show again and again that they just don't get it.
Nobody cares if Palin knows the Bush doctrine. I defy anyone to tell you what the Bush-Cheney strategy has been over the last seven years (other than getting re-elected) or what doctrine has been practiced by this "gang that can't shoot straight." And who cares? They are gone in 126 days.
What the media doesn't get is that Palin is one of us. She got to the top of the heap because she could relate to ordinary people, because she is ordinary people and through extraordinary efforts made it.
She's got kids; she worked her way through college (state college like most of us). Her husband is a working stiff.
She started at the bottom and worked her way to the top by being better, not prettier. She did her job at the top by being smarter and tougher than the good old boys who stood in her way.
One thing we do know is Palin is not going to look into the eyes of her neighbor across the Bering Sea and say Vladimir Putin's an honest man.
What she's going to see is a fearless adversary who we need to be wary of. Equally important, if she is elected, she's not going to be one of the boys in D.C. Behind her charm is a certain toughness. And that's a good thing.
The charisma of Palin was even evident on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend. There in the opening skit was Sarah Palin (played by her wonderful look-alike Tina Fey) opposite Hillary Clinton (played by "SNL" regular Amy Poehler).
Even though it was a spoof, Palin stood out. Besides anyone who brings Fey back to "SNL" does the country and the show a big favor.
Palin has certainly energized McCain's campaign and drawn record crowds to boot. What Democrats didn't realize is that Palin was not about getting Hillary's voters. It was about energizing the base and getting independent voters. She has done that in spades.
Both Obama and Palin have compelling stories and are great talents. In the end, the margin of victory may be the voters who say I like him, or I trust her.
Of course, the big choice is McCain or Obama. But this is one race where the "veep" choice may really matter. The rise of Palin certainly has made this the most exciting presidential race in my lifetime. And I am one of those old guys who thought he had seen it all.
After the marathon of the primaries, we are down to a 100-yard dash, and McCain's got a 2-yard lead with Obama close on his tail. There's a lot ahead before the finish line.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Just Say No
The Just Say No Deal Coalition agrees with Lady de Rothschild's commitment of putting her country before her party. We applaud her difficult decision in going against the grain during this unprecedented election season. From the outset, Just Say No Deal has respected members' voting strategies and has stood by its core principle: - Country Before Party - a concept that has seemingly overtaken the "Hope & Change" theme. Currently some coalition members have expressed concern that our website has become too "pro-McCain," post-Denver convention.As we see it, there are only two candidates left standing and we won't be voting for Senator Barack Obama. That said, not all coalition members will be supporting the McCain/Palin ticket either. If our blogpostings sound a bit "pro-mcpalin," well, maybe it's because some of our members actually like them.
http://www.justsaynodeal.com/
http://www.justsaynodeal.com/
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Oprah Criticized for Senate Bill 1738, Unrelated to GOP Boycott
By Donna Porter, published Sep 16, 2008
Associated Content
Comparing the child protection bill Oprah endorsed with one involving John McCain and why S 1738 has not yet passed in the Senate.
Has partisan politic hit an all-time low? On Monday, mega-star Oprah Winfrey uses her influence on her show to elicit support for Senate bill 1738 [S. 1738] - a bill designed to help tackle the horrors of child pornography and exploitation. Yet, the full story on S. 1738, known as The Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2007, was not provided to the public.
Whether it was politically motivated or a case of being under-informed, Oprah is criticized, by at least one Republican, for not giving the full story on Senate bill 1738.
Given the statement to Senate leadership, by Sen. Tom Colburn M.D. (R-Okla), it appears unrelated to the recent GOP Oprah boycott over Gov. Sarah Palin.
Oprah supports S.1738, Biden and Obama
Monday, Oprah announced that S. 1738 was necessary and for compelling reasons concerning rampant and largely unfathomable child predators.
Unknown to most of the public, instructions for molesting young children and babies are easily accessible online.
Oprah acknowledged that Senate bill 1738 was authored by Sen. Joe Biden and endorsed by Sen. Barack Obama, both candidates whom Oprah has endorsed during this U.S. presidential race.
Other noteworthy supporters of S. 1738 include Sen. Hillary Clinton and a few Republicans.
The fact that Biden and Obama are associated with Senate bill 1738, in isolation, is of limited concern.
Response from Senator Tom Colburn on Senate bill 1738
Sen. Tom Colburn M.D., who has authored a bill similar to S. 1738 -- one combined with a bill authored by Sen. John McCain, had this to say in a press release to Senate leaders on September 15: "Oprah's viewers deserve to know that Senate leaders have twice objected to passage of the bill she supports.
Senate leaders have insisted that S. 1738, authored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), only pass if it is included in a package of unrelated bills that addresses less vital concerns such as the interstate commerce of non-human primates.
When I proposed de-linking the causes of protecting children and chimpanzees, Senate leaders objected," Dr. Coburn said.
"Because of these objections, I introduced S. 3344, a comprehensive child exploitation bill that pairs S. 1738 with the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act of 2007, a measure strongly supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which passed the House by a margin of 409-2. The Democrat leadership objected, however, apparently because they didn't want to give the SAFE Act's Senate author, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), credit for passing a complimentary bill," Dr. Coburn said".(read full transcript here)P
Problems and Costs with Senate Bill 1738
Given the real need for viable legislation to protect children from predators and exploitation, it is imperative that a law not only pass but be funded -- and not go the wayside as did the unfunded Adam Walsh Act of 2006. Responsible funding, particularly in this economy, requires financial discipline. As noted, S. 1738 has been held up in the Senate.
The senate bill was turned into an omnibus [S. 3297], containing over 30 bills, several unrelated. The Congressional Budget Office estimates S. 3297 would cost taxpayers $10 billion dollars over four years. This equates to $89.59 for a family of four. Whereas S. 1738 would cost 1.059 billion over seven years or $6.30 for a family of four, and only $1.58 per person. An analysis on the Coburn bill S.3297 is needed. Getting Child Protection Legislation PassedWhether the public supports S. 1738 or S. 3344, the takeaway is that there are options. Moreover, Congress needs substantial pressure from voters to perform their job to get an effective child protection bill passed. To be clear, Oprah's passion for child protection is demonstrably sincere and personal, and she has accomplished a lot in this area. Yet, this would seem like a good time, for all concerned, to avoid even the perception of partisanship -- both to promote voter response and confidence. Authors note: This writer has three articles here on AC concerning child abuse and molestation, One, Child Molesters in My Neighborhood, is of a personal experience nature and such experience lends towards a solution-based, non-partisan view of Senate bill 1738.
Sources used and to research Senate bill 1738
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110yC3SQw
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/subject/839.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_3297.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1738.html
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=677267e2-802a-23ad-4698-dbe39b99ec24
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9615/s3297.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9362/s1738.pdf
Associated Content
Comparing the child protection bill Oprah endorsed with one involving John McCain and why S 1738 has not yet passed in the Senate.
Has partisan politic hit an all-time low? On Monday, mega-star Oprah Winfrey uses her influence on her show to elicit support for Senate bill 1738 [S. 1738] - a bill designed to help tackle the horrors of child pornography and exploitation. Yet, the full story on S. 1738, known as The Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2007, was not provided to the public.
Whether it was politically motivated or a case of being under-informed, Oprah is criticized, by at least one Republican, for not giving the full story on Senate bill 1738.
Given the statement to Senate leadership, by Sen. Tom Colburn M.D. (R-Okla), it appears unrelated to the recent GOP Oprah boycott over Gov. Sarah Palin.
Oprah supports S.1738, Biden and Obama
Monday, Oprah announced that S. 1738 was necessary and for compelling reasons concerning rampant and largely unfathomable child predators.
Unknown to most of the public, instructions for molesting young children and babies are easily accessible online.
Oprah acknowledged that Senate bill 1738 was authored by Sen. Joe Biden and endorsed by Sen. Barack Obama, both candidates whom Oprah has endorsed during this U.S. presidential race.
Other noteworthy supporters of S. 1738 include Sen. Hillary Clinton and a few Republicans.
The fact that Biden and Obama are associated with Senate bill 1738, in isolation, is of limited concern.
Response from Senator Tom Colburn on Senate bill 1738
Sen. Tom Colburn M.D., who has authored a bill similar to S. 1738 -- one combined with a bill authored by Sen. John McCain, had this to say in a press release to Senate leaders on September 15: "Oprah's viewers deserve to know that Senate leaders have twice objected to passage of the bill she supports.
Senate leaders have insisted that S. 1738, authored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), only pass if it is included in a package of unrelated bills that addresses less vital concerns such as the interstate commerce of non-human primates.
When I proposed de-linking the causes of protecting children and chimpanzees, Senate leaders objected," Dr. Coburn said.
"Because of these objections, I introduced S. 3344, a comprehensive child exploitation bill that pairs S. 1738 with the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act of 2007, a measure strongly supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which passed the House by a margin of 409-2. The Democrat leadership objected, however, apparently because they didn't want to give the SAFE Act's Senate author, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), credit for passing a complimentary bill," Dr. Coburn said".(read full transcript here)P
Problems and Costs with Senate Bill 1738
Given the real need for viable legislation to protect children from predators and exploitation, it is imperative that a law not only pass but be funded -- and not go the wayside as did the unfunded Adam Walsh Act of 2006. Responsible funding, particularly in this economy, requires financial discipline. As noted, S. 1738 has been held up in the Senate.
The senate bill was turned into an omnibus [S. 3297], containing over 30 bills, several unrelated. The Congressional Budget Office estimates S. 3297 would cost taxpayers $10 billion dollars over four years. This equates to $89.59 for a family of four. Whereas S. 1738 would cost 1.059 billion over seven years or $6.30 for a family of four, and only $1.58 per person. An analysis on the Coburn bill S.3297 is needed. Getting Child Protection Legislation PassedWhether the public supports S. 1738 or S. 3344, the takeaway is that there are options. Moreover, Congress needs substantial pressure from voters to perform their job to get an effective child protection bill passed. To be clear, Oprah's passion for child protection is demonstrably sincere and personal, and she has accomplished a lot in this area. Yet, this would seem like a good time, for all concerned, to avoid even the perception of partisanship -- both to promote voter response and confidence. Authors note: This writer has three articles here on AC concerning child abuse and molestation, One, Child Molesters in My Neighborhood, is of a personal experience nature and such experience lends towards a solution-based, non-partisan view of Senate bill 1738.
Sources used and to research Senate bill 1738
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110yC3SQw
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/subject/839.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_3297.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1738.html
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=677267e2-802a-23ad-4698-dbe39b99ec24
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9615/s3297.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9362/s1738.pdf
E-Mail to Obama: Dishonest TV Ad, Wrong Audience
by Jonah Goldberg
After running a brilliant primary battle to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign is now in disarray. Why?
Perhaps it's because Barack Obama has never run a competitive race against a Republican.
Now, facing John McCain's blistering ads, Obama seems unable to fight fire with fire. The Democratic rank and file are furious (while simultaneously denouncing McCain's negativity) and scared that Obama doesn't how to close the deal.
Hence the Obama campaign's vow to take the gloves off, once again, and go after McCain hard as an out-of-touch Bush clone.
One flaw with this supposed course correction is that it isn't one. That's been Obama's message for months. Indeed, ABC News' Jake Tapper wrote on his blog that this is actually the fourth time Team Obama has pledged to strip off the gloves for a bracing round of fisticuffs.
To prove his newfound determination, bare-knuckle Obama unveiled a new TV ad, to air in key states.
It begins with the date "1982," a picture of a disco ball and footage of McCain in clunky glasses from his first year in Washington. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't," says the announcer. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a walkie-talkie from "Ice Station Zebra."
The tax-cuts and economy barbs are familiar boilerplate. What's new is the charge of computer illiteracy and the blatant attempt to attack McCain as too old for the job - and that speaks volumes.
First, the ad is dishonest. McCain has been one of the Senate's leading authorities on telecom and the Internet.
In 2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate's savviest technologist." That same year, Slate's Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."
Weisberg, an Obama booster, now disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer."
One reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain's injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says he's getting up to speed.
"It's extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail." For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.
Besides, by this logic, Obama is even less qualified to be commander in chief because, unlike McCain, Obama has never fired a gun, flown a plane or led men during wartime.
And if the Obama campaign didn't intend to mock a disabled veteran, what does it say about his supposedly "cybersavvy" staffers that they don't know how to conduct a five-minute Google search?
But the most revealing aspect of the ad is its target audience Obama has a 20- to 30-point advantage over McCain among 18- to 29-year-olds. Indeed, his base (not counting black voters) is upscale college kids and new-economy young voters. They may think being able to send an e-mail is, like, totally crucial.
The only other constituency - other than the press - that will be jazzed by such an attack are the Web-symbiotes of the left-wing netroots, another demographic Obama has locked up.
But older Americans, working-class Americans, veterans and other voters Obama desperately needs probably won't care and might even take offense at Obama's condescension and insensitivity.
There are two explanations for the ad. One is that Obama released it to reassure his base that he's serious about attacking McCain, not to win over swing voters. That, or the campaign actually thinks it's an effective ad.
Either way, the lesson is the same: Obama doesn't know how to get outside his echo chamber. He talks about being bipartisan to hard-core liberals who like the words, but he rejects actual deviation from the liberal line. He talks about new ideas while repackaging old ones.
He is a candidate who has never had to sell himself to voters who weren't already sold. And it shows.
After running a brilliant primary battle to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign is now in disarray. Why?
Perhaps it's because Barack Obama has never run a competitive race against a Republican.
Now, facing John McCain's blistering ads, Obama seems unable to fight fire with fire. The Democratic rank and file are furious (while simultaneously denouncing McCain's negativity) and scared that Obama doesn't how to close the deal.
Hence the Obama campaign's vow to take the gloves off, once again, and go after McCain hard as an out-of-touch Bush clone.
One flaw with this supposed course correction is that it isn't one. That's been Obama's message for months. Indeed, ABC News' Jake Tapper wrote on his blog that this is actually the fourth time Team Obama has pledged to strip off the gloves for a bracing round of fisticuffs.
To prove his newfound determination, bare-knuckle Obama unveiled a new TV ad, to air in key states.
It begins with the date "1982," a picture of a disco ball and footage of McCain in clunky glasses from his first year in Washington. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't," says the announcer. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a walkie-talkie from "Ice Station Zebra."
The tax-cuts and economy barbs are familiar boilerplate. What's new is the charge of computer illiteracy and the blatant attempt to attack McCain as too old for the job - and that speaks volumes.
First, the ad is dishonest. McCain has been one of the Senate's leading authorities on telecom and the Internet.
In 2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate's savviest technologist." That same year, Slate's Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."
Weisberg, an Obama booster, now disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer."
One reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain's injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says he's getting up to speed.
"It's extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail." For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.
Besides, by this logic, Obama is even less qualified to be commander in chief because, unlike McCain, Obama has never fired a gun, flown a plane or led men during wartime.
And if the Obama campaign didn't intend to mock a disabled veteran, what does it say about his supposedly "cybersavvy" staffers that they don't know how to conduct a five-minute Google search?
But the most revealing aspect of the ad is its target audience Obama has a 20- to 30-point advantage over McCain among 18- to 29-year-olds. Indeed, his base (not counting black voters) is upscale college kids and new-economy young voters. They may think being able to send an e-mail is, like, totally crucial.
The only other constituency - other than the press - that will be jazzed by such an attack are the Web-symbiotes of the left-wing netroots, another demographic Obama has locked up.
But older Americans, working-class Americans, veterans and other voters Obama desperately needs probably won't care and might even take offense at Obama's condescension and insensitivity.
There are two explanations for the ad. One is that Obama released it to reassure his base that he's serious about attacking McCain, not to win over swing voters. That, or the campaign actually thinks it's an effective ad.
Either way, the lesson is the same: Obama doesn't know how to get outside his echo chamber. He talks about being bipartisan to hard-core liberals who like the words, but he rejects actual deviation from the liberal line. He talks about new ideas while repackaging old ones.
He is a candidate who has never had to sell himself to voters who weren't already sold. And it shows.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Response from Craigslist
RE: New Blog (Midtown West) (yet more anti-liberal crap)Reply to: see below Date: 2008-09-12, 4:09PM EDTHonestly, do we really need more anit-liberal haters on this forum? I've heard nothing but smack talk about liberals, calling them everything in the book from Communists, Socialists, wackos, gay, etc. I'm not a liberal, but how about you tell me something good about conservatives for a change.. or am I thoroughly un-American for suggesing so?
-----------------
See what I mean?
That is why I've created this blog
-----------------
See what I mean?
That is why I've created this blog
Obama's Race to Lose - And He Might
Friday, September 12, 2008
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"
Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.
But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.
The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.
It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.
Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.
Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.
His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.
The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.
Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.
From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.
The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.
One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.
But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"
Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.
But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.
The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.
It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.
Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.
Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.
His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.
The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.
Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.
From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.
The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.
One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.
But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.
Lou Dobbs on Liberal Media Bias
Townhall.com's Matt Lewis interviews CNN's Lou Dobbs on liberal media bias
http://townhall.com/video/Campaign08/1450_091208Dobbs
http://townhall.com/video/Campaign08/1450_091208Dobbs
How Media Judged Palin’s Interview
Friday, September 12, 2008
by Amanda Carpenter
Before GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s highly-billed interview even aired, media outlets seized on excerpts about NATO relations to sensationalize her stance on Russia.
ABC News leaked excerpts from it with the headline: “EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY” and Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin immediately posted a blog “Time: ABC: Palin Warns of War with Russia If It Invades another Country.”
When the interviewed aired, however, it became apparent Palin only discussed U.S. obligations to fellow NATO countries. “When you a NATO ally, if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”
Gibson peppered Palin with a battery of tough questions about experience, her faith and positions on national security. Most of the news reports about the interview published Friday morning focused on her thoughts on foreign affairs.
Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times wrote: “At times visibly nervous, at others appearing to hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly, Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of “anticipatory self-defense.’”
Jonathan Martin of the Politico thought Palin’s answers seemed “hawkish” and the Washington Post said Palin erroneously linked September 11 to the War on Terror.
“Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans,” reporter Anne Kornblut wrote, “The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.”
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol fiercely refuted Kornblut’s assessment, calling it a “distortion” that was either “stupid or malicious.”
He wrote, “Obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.”
Jake Tapper, of ABC News, reported in an on-air "factchecker" segment Friday morning that Palin made two factual errors in the interview about foreign relations and global warming.
When asked if she had ever met a foreign leader Palin said no and that she would not be the first vice president who hadn’t before going into office. Tapper said that was not true and “Palin would be the first vice president that has never met a foreign head of state.”
In the interview, Palin said she believed it was possible that global-warming was caused by humans. Tapper said this indicated a change in her previous position, which Gibson suggested was a “flip-flop” to align herself with McCain’s view on climate change in his segment.
Palin challenged aggressively challenged Gibson on the "flip-flop" accusation. "Show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change," she told him. "I have not said that. I have said that my belief is there is a cyclical nature of our planet — warming trends, cooling trends — I'm not going to argue scientists because I believe in science and have such a great respect for what they are telling us. I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make that man's activities can be attributed to changes."
In his "factchecker" package Tapper cited an Alaskan newspaper article published, within the last year, which quoted Palin saying she did not believe global warming was man-made.The December 2007 article Tapper referenced came from the Fairbanks News-Miner. At that time Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren't changes
by Amanda Carpenter
Before GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s highly-billed interview even aired, media outlets seized on excerpts about NATO relations to sensationalize her stance on Russia.
ABC News leaked excerpts from it with the headline: “EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY” and Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin immediately posted a blog “Time: ABC: Palin Warns of War with Russia If It Invades another Country.”
When the interviewed aired, however, it became apparent Palin only discussed U.S. obligations to fellow NATO countries. “When you a NATO ally, if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”
Gibson peppered Palin with a battery of tough questions about experience, her faith and positions on national security. Most of the news reports about the interview published Friday morning focused on her thoughts on foreign affairs.
Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times wrote: “At times visibly nervous, at others appearing to hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly, Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of “anticipatory self-defense.’”
Jonathan Martin of the Politico thought Palin’s answers seemed “hawkish” and the Washington Post said Palin erroneously linked September 11 to the War on Terror.
“Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans,” reporter Anne Kornblut wrote, “The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.”
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol fiercely refuted Kornblut’s assessment, calling it a “distortion” that was either “stupid or malicious.”
He wrote, “Obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.”
Jake Tapper, of ABC News, reported in an on-air "factchecker" segment Friday morning that Palin made two factual errors in the interview about foreign relations and global warming.
When asked if she had ever met a foreign leader Palin said no and that she would not be the first vice president who hadn’t before going into office. Tapper said that was not true and “Palin would be the first vice president that has never met a foreign head of state.”
In the interview, Palin said she believed it was possible that global-warming was caused by humans. Tapper said this indicated a change in her previous position, which Gibson suggested was a “flip-flop” to align herself with McCain’s view on climate change in his segment.
Palin challenged aggressively challenged Gibson on the "flip-flop" accusation. "Show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change," she told him. "I have not said that. I have said that my belief is there is a cyclical nature of our planet — warming trends, cooling trends — I'm not going to argue scientists because I believe in science and have such a great respect for what they are telling us. I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make that man's activities can be attributed to changes."
In his "factchecker" package Tapper cited an Alaskan newspaper article published, within the last year, which quoted Palin saying she did not believe global warming was man-made.The December 2007 article Tapper referenced came from the Fairbanks News-Miner. At that time Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren't changes
Biden releases tax records to pressure Palin
Friday, September 12, 2008
Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer in Washington contributed to this report.
Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife on Friday released a decade of their personal financial records, showing a veteran U.S. senator who earned less than many of his congressional colleagues.
The Bidens' move is designed to pressure Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin to release her financial records. An aide to GOP presidential nominee John McCain said the campaign would release the documents but gave no indication when that would happen.
Joe and Jill Biden earned $319,853 in 2007. Joe Biden reported $161,708 in income from the U.S. Senate and another $71,000 in royalties for his book, "Promises to Keep."
Jill Biden earned $66,546 at her job at Delaware Technical and Community College, where she teaches English.
The couple paid $42,516 in federal taxes and another $10,912 in Delaware state taxes in 2007.
The Bidens also paid household employee taxes of $772. A campaign spokesman said that was for a housekeeper who visits the family's Wilmington, Del., home and does not live there.
The tax return shows that the Bidens paid the alternative minimum tax that the senator has argued should be changed "so millions of middle-income Americans are not hurt by a tax intended to make sure the wealthiest pay their share." Biden and his wife claimed an income of $280,146 last year under that provision, and paid $66,273 in income taxes.
The alternative minimum tax was established in 1969 in essence to limit the deductions that the richest Americans could take, ensuring that they would pay at least some tax. But because it was never adjusted for inflation, more and more taxpayers are getting swept in.
In the 2006 tax year, a few taxpayers with incomes as low as $40,000 were affected by the alternative minimum tax, according to figures kept by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. About 10 percent in the $100,000 to $200,000 income bracket fell under it, and 74 percent in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range had to pay it that year.
Biden, who underwent brain surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm in 1988, has yet to release his medical records.
Biden already had released a summary of his personal finances per U.S. Senate rules. In June of this year, he reported assets between $59,000 and $366,000; Senate rules allow for broad reporting windows.
Unlike Republican John McCain, the Bidens file their taxes jointly. McCain's tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007.
According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. Her wealth is estimated by some at $100 million, based on her late father's Arizona beer distributorship. She has not released her 2007 returns, which she files separately from her husband.
Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007.
Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer in Washington contributed to this report.
Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife on Friday released a decade of their personal financial records, showing a veteran U.S. senator who earned less than many of his congressional colleagues.
The Bidens' move is designed to pressure Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin to release her financial records. An aide to GOP presidential nominee John McCain said the campaign would release the documents but gave no indication when that would happen.
Joe and Jill Biden earned $319,853 in 2007. Joe Biden reported $161,708 in income from the U.S. Senate and another $71,000 in royalties for his book, "Promises to Keep."
Jill Biden earned $66,546 at her job at Delaware Technical and Community College, where she teaches English.
The couple paid $42,516 in federal taxes and another $10,912 in Delaware state taxes in 2007.
The Bidens also paid household employee taxes of $772. A campaign spokesman said that was for a housekeeper who visits the family's Wilmington, Del., home and does not live there.
The tax return shows that the Bidens paid the alternative minimum tax that the senator has argued should be changed "so millions of middle-income Americans are not hurt by a tax intended to make sure the wealthiest pay their share." Biden and his wife claimed an income of $280,146 last year under that provision, and paid $66,273 in income taxes.
The alternative minimum tax was established in 1969 in essence to limit the deductions that the richest Americans could take, ensuring that they would pay at least some tax. But because it was never adjusted for inflation, more and more taxpayers are getting swept in.
In the 2006 tax year, a few taxpayers with incomes as low as $40,000 were affected by the alternative minimum tax, according to figures kept by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. About 10 percent in the $100,000 to $200,000 income bracket fell under it, and 74 percent in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range had to pay it that year.
Biden, who underwent brain surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm in 1988, has yet to release his medical records.
Biden already had released a summary of his personal finances per U.S. Senate rules. In June of this year, he reported assets between $59,000 and $366,000; Senate rules allow for broad reporting windows.
Unlike Republican John McCain, the Bidens file their taxes jointly. McCain's tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007.
According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. Her wealth is estimated by some at $100 million, based on her late father's Arizona beer distributorship. She has not released her 2007 returns, which she files separately from her husband.
Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007.
Liberals keep attacking Conservatives
Liberals always accuse Conservatives of being "hateful" and "ignorant".
Yet they're the ones that keep spewing hate against Senator McCain and Gov. Palin and anyone who supports them.
Another thing that bothers me is that they look like a bunch of robots, they're all saying the same thing over and over.
Let's have a civilized discussion, unlike Ms.Huffington.
All liberals are welcome, just make sure you keep it clean and civil.
Yet they're the ones that keep spewing hate against Senator McCain and Gov. Palin and anyone who supports them.
Another thing that bothers me is that they look like a bunch of robots, they're all saying the same thing over and over.
Let's have a civilized discussion, unlike Ms.Huffington.
All liberals are welcome, just make sure you keep it clean and civil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)