John McCain has figured out that one way to build enthusiasm among conservatives is to confront his former best friends in the liberal media. As the media glorify Barack Obama the "statesman" on his trip abroad, with the three network anchors lining up for interviews like a gaggle of smitten fan-club presidents, the McCain campaign suddenly acquired a surprising "Annoy The Media" flavor.
Like many Obama-loving press outlets, Newsweek has reported that McCain’s campaign is struggling against an Obama crusade that seems "blessed by destiny." This spin is maddening. The Obama campaign has been blessed by a media that arrogantly aspires to be the manufacturers of our destiny, and make history by beating the electorate senseless with glowing Obama coverage.
McCain is learning that the best way to fight the "destiny" makers is to take them on directly. The Drudge Report revealed that after The New York Times published an op-ed by Obama on July 14 laying out his thoughts on Iraq, McCain submitted an op-ed in reply. But the Times rejected it. David Shipley, the deputy editorial page editor, suggested that McCain’s article wasn’t constructive enough to publish.
"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece," Shipley wrote. "To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."
Republicans and conservatives quickly smelled that Shipley – a former Clinton aide and New Republic executive editor – wanted McCain to resubmit an article that "mirrored" Obama’s views. But what the Times really refused to tolerate was any criticism of their precious prince Obama. Announce your own plan for Iraq, fine, but don’t try to grace our pages by saying Obama "mangled the evidence" and has "learned nothing from recent history," as Mccain’s rejected op-ed stated. McCain’s piece would be rejected for prose disparaging Obama’s position: "In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been."
But Shipley had no problem publishing Obama’s article, which bashed McCain for bad judgment in voting for the "grave mistake" of war in Iraq, and claiming that McCain wanted permanent bases in Iraq, like our presence in South Korea. While Shipley demanded McCain recommend a timetable for withdrawal, McCain was clear in his rejected article that he thought a rigid timetable was unwise, even dangerous.
The New York Times is out of control. On a regular basis, the news department makes headlines for outrageously biased non-news, such as the incredibly scummy story in February alleging that McCain had a sexual relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman despite the paper’s utter lack of proof. Even their advertising department has gotten into the act. Recall how they made a sweetheart deal with MoveOn.org to slam Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us." Now it’s the op-ed department, refusing to give McCain the opportunity to respond to Obama because they don’t like the response, period.
Meanwhile, over in TV land, the network anchors lined up for their chance to boost Obama’s adventures. In the first days of the trip, it led all the network newscasts and they praised him aggressively, down to the jump-shots he made playing basketball in Kuwait. Now compare that to their coverage of McCain when he went abroad. On a trip in March, the networks amassed four stories in the entire week. CBS gave McCain’s trip....ten seconds, 31 words.
When McCain went to Colombia and Mexico a couple of weeks ago, ABC beat him up. Five times over the course of two segments on July 2, various "Good Morning America" hosts, reporters and analysts emphasized that McCain's trip might result in voters thinking he didn’t care about the domestic economic situation. Robin Roberts began her interview: "So, why is Senator McCain abroad when Americans are focused on the economy here at home and losing jobs, more and more jobs?" McCain said the drug trade in Colombia is a serious issue for Americans. But Roberts just plowed ahead, and asked again why on Earth he would go to South America. ABC didn’t want an answer. ABC wanted people to resent McCain for leaving the country.
McCain’s campaign is now running Internet ads mocking Chris Matthews for his "thrill up the leg" comments about Obama and other assorted media goo, complete with Frankie Valli crooning "Can’t Take My Eyes Off You" in the background. It’s quite clear that the media are hypersensitive about any mockery of Obama. So mocking his pitter-patter valentines in the media may be the best hardball he can throw.
(Shipley photo from NYTimes.com)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
obama certainly isn't my first choice for president...
July 22, 2008 - 23:16 ET by abeautifulperson... but mccain steps in it so often, he really doesn't need the media to make him look bad. in previous elections, conservatives have had more than one better candidate than mccain. hell, ron paul could think on his feet better than mccain. (that would have been an interesting race).
mccain seems like a dead man walking. he's got quite a hole to dig himself out of. the videos are circulating which show gaffe after gaffe in interviews and speeches. and i'm not looking for these. one can't help but trip over them.
its may not be fair at all, but the media does appear to be backing obama, but is it by sheer default?
it almost seems like payback to the conservative party by being mindless dupes with the iraq war and rubber stamping it... then later getting nailed for being asleep at the switch.
US corporate media have a herd mentality. and the mavericks tend to be dismissed or vilified, whichever end they are on.
Media lets Obama's frequent gaffes slide
July 22, 2008 - 23:40 ET by krendler"... but mccain steps in it so often..."
But not nearly as much as Obama. The media either ignores his gaffes or makes light of them in cutsie-"Oh, he's just human" segments.
57 states.
Rambling, completely incoherent 45 second answer on whether the surge has worked.
Uncle liberating Auschwitz.
Typical white people.
Idiotic, nonsensical platitudes like "We are the ones we've been waiting for.."
The endless stream of flip-flops as he races from his far-left position the instant the Dem primaries end.
Would also be nice if Obama took the time to learn how to pronounce "Massachusetts".
i saw mccain in an interview with more gaffes in it...
July 22, 2008 - 23:48 ET by abeautifulperson... than your list. in a single interview. i was embarrassed for him.
say what you want about obama, he's a pretty smooth talker.
Great. Then post it.
July 23, 2008 - 00:13 ET by krendler"saw mccain in an interview with more gaffes in it than your list. in a single interview. i was embarrassed for him.
"
Oh ya did, did ya? Then feel free to post a youtube link or a transcript of this interview you speak of. Since it's so filled with gaffes and everything, it's impossible that it wouldn't be all over the web.
Post it.
:-)
Sorry. You don't get a free pass like Mr. Platitude-Empty-Suit gets from the adoring media. Out here in the real world, you're actually going to get called on your bull$hit :-).
MassaTOOSETS - Yeah, Mr. 57 States is a pretty smooth talker.
say what you want about
July 23, 2008 - 07:44 ET by motherbeltsay what you want about obama, he's a pretty smooth talker.
You're confusing "talking" with "giving speeches."
One of the staff here said he "gives good teleprompter."
That's a perfect description.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
obama certainly isn't my
July 23, 2008 - 06:23 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsobama certainly isn't my first choice for president...
So you are voting for Obama, the chickenhawk war monger who is going to drag us into a quagmire in Afghanistan with no exit strategy?
Good move.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Agreed
July 22, 2008 - 23:21 ET by KC MulvilleOne point about the New York Times treatment of McCain and his article. If the Times had invited both candidates to outline their visions of Iraq, and McCain submitted nothing but an attack on Obama, then the Times might possibly have a case.
Again, I have to speculate ... why are all these media outlets so eager to defend Obama? It's because they don't think he can defend himself. They know he's a lightweight. That's why his campaign will only allow him to speak from a prepared speech, or do a townhall standup routine, or distribute basketball pictures to the media. They won't let him open his mouth unless they've scripted it for him. What are they so afraid of?
here's a crazy thought...
July 22, 2008 - 23:44 ET by abeautifulpersonGW bush hasn't been entirely kind to the media for his two terms. and in the later years, the media have also not been kind to him.
is it possible, the media wants a new relationship with the new guy? if mccain is possibly (or even remotely) more of the same of the last 7.5 yrs, perhaps what we are seeing is the media voting with their keyboards, microphones and cameras.
Person, have you been
July 23, 2008 - 01:00 ET by ConservativeRexPerson, have you been attacked by any terrorist at home in the last 7.5 years? No, you haven't, because we've killed 'em by the bushel full in their own hell hole and not here. Every democrat I know was thanking God that Algore was not in office on 9/11/01.
And with Obami in there partner you're going to see a lot more attacks here, bank on it. No spine, no guts. Sorry, but that IS the real world. Good luck fending off the heathens when they attack us again. I'll check back with you in four years. Max.
Rex & Person
July 23, 2008 - 01:17 ET by MrShyRex, well said. Perfect, even.
And a.b.p. .... Bush was not kind to the media ??? He's basically allowed himself to be a punching bag from day one from all the horse mannuer (sp?) thrown at him from all directions, daily. Throughout it all, for the most part, he's miraculously remained on the high road.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Every democrat I know was
July 23, 2008 - 01:17 ET by JerEvery democrat I know was thanking God that Algore was not in office on 9/11/01.
Interesting...every Democrat I know was rallying behind our President on 9/11 and not even thinking about whether it should have been Gore or Bush in the White House.
Later, as we learned how little attention the Bush administration had given to Al Qaeda and terrorism prior to 9/11, we realized that Gore would have been considerably more capable of preventing the attacks.
Jer
*spits drink onto screen*
July 23, 2008 - 01:37 ET by candanceGore would have been considerably more capable of preventing the attacks.
Dude. You cannot be serious.
I understand that you view George Bush with some disdain...but to say Gore to would have done a better job of stopping 9/11 is just plain crazy.
And I can't believe a Democrat is actually complaining that a sitting president ignored the warning signs of Al Qaeda. I'm sorry but this really gets me riled up.
candance...you've been here
July 23, 2008 - 01:59 ET by Jercandance...you've been here long enough to know I do not view George Bush "with some disdain". Apparently I need to repeat what I have stated before: I have great respect for George and Laura Bush, his dad, and the entire Bush family. I admire the President's character, integrity, and basic decency.
I even believe in many respects he has been a superb President. But the simple truth is this: His administration was asleep at he wheel prior to 9/11. As I was rallying behind Bush in those anxious days immediately after the WTC attacks, I listened to right-wing talk radio rants about the "blood of the 9/11 victims being on Bill Clinton's hands." [How despicably crass!]
I would never use such words about George Bush, but he and his administraation were clearly negligent. They were repeatedly warned to take the terrorist threat seriously. They did not. Read Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies. Case closed.
Jer
sorry Jer
July 23, 2008 - 02:07 ET by candanceI don't blame the Clintons or say blood is on their hands, because the guys in Al Qaeda chose to do that thing themselves. The Clintons didn't make them hijack those planes.
I've read a lot about the summer before 9/11 and exactly what information was where, and I still think it's a bit more complicated than to say Bush totally blew it off.
Honestly though, I wouldn't trust Al Gore to watch my bottle of Pepsi and you cannot convince he'd have done any better.
"Honestly though, I wouldn't
July 23, 2008 - 02:12 ET by shawn228"Honestly though, I wouldn't trust Al Gore to watch my bottle of Pepsi......"
I would not trust George Bush with my Coke.....lol. I'm sorry it was there, I had to take it. :-)
Good night
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
That was laugh out loud funny shawn...good one!
July 23, 2008 - 02:35 ET by HillbillyKingIf you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
shawn,
July 23, 2008 - 02:54 ET by R D HelmI would not trust George Bush with my Coke...
Nor would I. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Jer
July 23, 2008 - 02:15 ET by MrShyOkay, listen, you're one of the better guys on the other side, but you're so off on this:
"Gore would have been considerably more capable of preventing the attacks."
Reading it again, I realized you were referring to 9/11. I sort of thought you meant -- which you also did, sort of -- that Gore would have been a better president in the post-9/11 world. I digress...
As for what president would have/could have seen what was coming and prevented something in that 7-8 month period from Jan to Sept, 2001, is a nonsensical hypothetical. Bush, Gore, anyone, would have taken the current threats of that year about the same. Police DID pull over one of the 19 scumbags in a car, but failed to take them into custody or report their license plate, whatever, to authorities. A lot of little things didn't happen, and it doesn't matter who was in the White House. The entire state department's attitude changed after 9/11, naturally.
Again, for 8 years under Clinton, only after the 4th attack in 1998 did Clinton lob a bomb, and of course, he failed in preventing any of those attacks.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr. Shy...
July 23, 2008 - 02:40 ET by JerOther than the misadventure in Iraq (which may turn out to be an astounding success)--and notwithstanding continuing problems in Afghanistan and a still breathing bin Laden--I give Bush generally high marks in waging the GWOT. But the fact remains, his administration ignored a rapidly gathering terrorist storm prior to 9/11. [He did get his act together superbly afterwards.]
By the way, what did Reagan do after 240+ Marines were blown up in Beirut?...Lobbed a few shells and made some holes in the ground and then skedaddled....Or Bush the senior after Libya blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockabie--zilch.
Al Qaeda formed under daddy Bush, but the CIA didn't even know it existed for years--well into the Clinton administration.
Jer
What did Reagan do...
July 23, 2008 - 02:55 ET by mastersofdeceitI dunno fire the opening shots on countries that support terrorism.
Wait I thought the CIA created AQ & OBL is a CIA op/moonbat off.
Don't forget the Taliban rise under you know who ; )
Thanks m-o-d for recounting
July 23, 2008 - 03:35 ET by JerThanks m-o-d for recounting the Libyan memories. I applauded Reagan actions then and still do. Now, exactly what does that have to do with the death of Marines in Lebanon and our subsequent response, or lack thereof?
The Republicans went nuts over Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, bombing Iraq, and trying to blow bin Laden to bits. If Clinton had invaded Afghanistan to liquidate the Taliban, he would have been impeached and proabably removed from office.
Jer
→ That's nonsense
July 23, 2008 - 08:18 ET by Cool ArrowIf Clinton had just said "Take the shot" you wouldn't be saying ""Why haven't we got Osama bin Ladin yet"
If Clinton had truly thought we had no legal authority in the matter, he would have released Manuel Noriega from fedral prison immediately after taking office his first term.
There's only ne hing Clinton ever went nuts over.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...it would seem if Clinton
July 23, 2008 - 17:37 ET by JerCool...it would seem if Clinton were categorically opposed to "taking the shot" he would never have authorized the cruise missile strike. In almost all of the other handful of instances where "capture or kill" action was possible and contemplated, reservations by the CIA, DOD, or Clinton's advisors [because of insufficient intelligence, timing contraints, or collateral consequences] resulted in erring on the side of caution. Decisions which were arguably prudent at the time can easily, with 20/20 hindsight, be critized as insufficiently aggressive or guided by a lack of will. Remember, much of Clinton's use of force in the international arena was met with scorn and derision by significant numbers of--though not all of--Republicans. That said, I do believe there was one incident where optimum conditions existed for taking out bin Laden, and, for some reason, it didn't happen. I'm not sure about all of the details, but, on the face of it, the administration's inaction in that particular case appears indefensible.
On a related issue, it is noteworthy to consider what Richard Clarke wrote about Clinton's policy regarding terrorist "snatches"--more properly known as "extraordinary renditions". The first one contemplated [in 1993] was being debated by Clinton with his legal advisors, who were wringing hands over international law implications, when Al Gore popped in and announced "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." [my emphasis] Against All Enemies p. 144.
Generally it was the DOD or CIA that backed off from snatch opportunities, yet Clinton would often be blamed. After one such DOD and CIA aborted action of an Al Qaeda leader in Khartoum, an Army Special Forces colonel, Mike Sheehan [aware of the actual facts but pretending otherwise] asked a couple of fellow Green Berets why the snatch was called off. Their answer "Fuckin' White House...Clinton said no." How did they know? Sheehan asked. They responded, "Pentagon told us all about it." Clarke then notes: The fact is, President Clinton approved every snatch that he was asked to review. Every snatch CIA, Justice, or Defense proposed during my tenure as CSG chairman, from 1992 to 2001 was approved. [my emphasis] Against All Enemies pp. 144-145.
Clinton was not inattentive to the threat of terrorism, and despite his inexcusable moral lapses, he apparently was someone able to "walk and chew gum at the same time."
Jer
Jer.... Jer, Jer, Jer......
July 23, 2008 - 01:48 ET by MrShyLater, as we learned how very little attention the Clinton administration had given to Al Qaeda and terrorism prior to 9/11 throughout the 90's, a decade where Al Qaeda and the Taliban emerged and strengthened, committing multiple acts of terrorism worldwide to U.S. interests, starting with 1993's WTC attack, the African embassies (killing hundreds) and capped off with a brazen attack on the USS Cole and leaving Bush with a complete mess that was Afgahnastan and Al Qaeda's already 2 years of planning for 9/11, we clearly realized that Gore -- having been Clinton's Vice President for those eight years -- would have been just as clueless and spineless in going right to the heart of the problem in the Middle East, rendering him totally incapable of preventing further attacks.
Btw, early 2004 was the last major, Al Queda-sponsored terrorist attack. That's 4 1/2 years and counting. That's success in the GWOT.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
edit
July 23, 2008 - 02:09 ET by candanceNote to self: it's not very wise to launch emotional rants at 2:00 in the morning.
Holy crap...it's 2 in the morning. No wonder this rant went so far off the deep end! Off to bed for me.
Very touchy for me, too, candance
July 23, 2008 - 02:14 ET by JerVery touchy for me, too, candance. I've acknowledged Clinton's mistakes--personal and policy wise--but I'm tired of his being slandered regarding 9/11. Doing so stands reality on its head.
You and Mr. Shy need to read Clarke's book and become acquainted with the facts, not the anti-Clinton fables that have been peddled by Limbaugh nation. I respect both of you for your reasonableness, intelligence, and fairness, and I'll be glad to consider objective evidence supporting your views. Do I think Clinton's record on terrorism is beyond reproach? Of course not. But his administration was at least trying. Bush's wasn't.
Jer
Shy...Shy...Shy...Shy...
July 23, 2008 - 02:20 ET by JerLater, as we learned how very little attention the Clinton administration had given to Al Qaeda and terrorism prior to 9/11 throughout the 90's, a decade where Al Qaeda and the Taliban emerged and strengthened, committing multiple acts of terrorism worldwide to U.S. interests, starting with 1993's WTC attack, the African embassies (killing hundreds) and capped off with a brazen attack on the USS Cole and leaving Bush with a complete mess that was Afgahnastan and Al Qaeda's already 2 years of planning for 9/11, we clearly realized that Gore -- having been Clinton's Vice President for those eight years -- would have been just as clueless and spineless in going right to the heart of the problem in the Middle East, rendering him totally incapable of preventing further attacks
NONSENSE!
Read replies to candance above, and read Clarke's book!
Jer
This message is for: abeautifulperson
July 23, 2008 - 02:25 ET by Rush Fan“is it possible, the media wants a new relationship with the new guy?”
You have been a member of Newsbusters for enough weeks to know the answer to that question. I think you will agree that the mainstream media, old media or whatever you want to call it tilts to the left. In 2005 a UCLA-led study found: “Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
I believe that if it wasn’t Barack Obama, it would be Hillary Clinton or any candidate with a (D) after their name. In years past this media bias to the left may not have been as pronounced.. That is, the media may not have been objective, but they made an attempt at some balance. Recently, any semblance of balance has almost disappeared. The media are conspicuous in their choice for Obama.
And why shouldn’t the media show their enthusiasm for Barack Obama. Look at his opponent. As you point out in your other post, McCain makes frequent and numerous gaffes. He is a lukewarm speaker, especially if you compare him to Obama; moreover, McCain looks and acts too tired for the most demanding job in the land. Notwithstanding his beliefs and inexperience, Barack Obama appears to be a much more attractive candidate.
The media still has a duty and obligation to be fair to both candidates. They will continue to lose credibility and viewers (or readers) if they continue on their current path.
Lastly, let me express my opinion about John McCain. He is a poor candidate for the Republican Party, as many conservatives, including myself, consider him a RINO. I like his stance on Iraq, but on many other issues, from immigration to climate change he is as liberal as Obama. If the positive trend in Iraq continues, it may not matter whether McCain or Obama leads our nation, as either of them will be able to withdraw troops in a reasonable timeframe.
If Barack Obama is elected, I’m hoping that Republicans retain enough seats in Congress to help guide Barack Obama in the correct direction, similar to the direction that the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, helped lead President Clinton.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm voting for Barack Obama now that an unbiased AP poll shows people would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain.
NorthCoaster
July 23, 2008 - 09:54 ET by NorthCoasterCouldn't have said it better. The reporting of the MSM is not objective. How can written and broadcast media promote editorial comment as news? What happened to folks presenting opinion like Andy Rooney does?
The current handling of the Obama campaign is just a "Love Fest"!
It's not unlikely that
July 22, 2008 - 23:21 ET by flashkingIt's not unlikely that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. He is an admitted adulterer; he was sleeping with a shapely beer heiress while his handicapped wife languished. He called his current wife -- that once shapely heiress -- a c*unt. And to top it all off his campaign is freighted with lobbyist just looking to stick it to the public.
So there's definitely sex, slurs, and politics going on.
PS. -- Beard dye warps your thinking.
We had a great poster here
July 22, 2008 - 23:26 ET by BlondeWhom I haven't seen in a while.
Mr. Bishop. Who had an answer to the liberal whine of all times:
Define victory.
To paraphrase my friend Bishop, the definition of victory is...."the enemy are all dead, their weapons and will are broken, those who remain beg for mercy."
I'd like to hear Barry Hussein O spin that.
And Clyde, if you read this...kindly have Bishop weigh in with the real quote...it's the best I could do on short notice.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Utterly and totally In the tank for Obama
July 22, 2008 - 23:32 ET by krendlerSaw all this coming months ago when the media was completely in the tank for Obama when he was up against Hillary - only then, it was Clinton and her supporters - Bill included - who stated what was already obvious to everyone in the country.
Now, in the general election, the bias is completely off the charts - as expected - and The Media's 24/7 cheer-leading for their favorite has as become The Central Story of this election.
And we get the ridiculous, insulting, pitiful excuses for the lopsided coverage like "Well, we're just covering what the American people are interested in." Really? Based on what? Show us the poll, Katie Couric, that indicates the "American People" want to see more positive coverage of Obama than they do of McCain - by a factor of 2 to 1, no less.
Obama became the Democratic candidate due to overwhelming support from the media. If he becomes president, it will be for the same reason.
McCain and company - along with Fox News - should start calling these Obama spokespeople - masquerading as journalists - out by name, similar to what they did extremely effectively with the Pump video.
I hope McCain will go over
July 22, 2008 - 23:47 ET by danboI hope McCain will go over the heads of the media more often. Put his response everywhere he can. "The paper the NYT's refused to print." That would get more attention than the NYT's itself.
The media ain't your friend John.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
IT's Official..."The Former MSM" has Jumped the Shark
July 23, 2008 - 00:51 ET by JayTeeIT's one thing to be Biased, slanted, but it's another to be so Visible in your enthsiasm that you start crossing the Line and Jump into the "Tank" and go Skinny dipping with BHO.
The "internet" has long been shrinking the MSM Market share, and it was gradual and it was steady, but the MSM still maintained a toe hold on "News" Reporting.
That toe hold is gone, and all the water is draining out of the "Tank".
We have Drudge, We have alternatives to find our "News". The MSM doesn't have anyone left that can Recite, or Pass, the Boy Scout Pledge, the Girl Scout Pledge, or anyone that Retains the Respect of the Most powerful Military force on the Planet, the United States Military.....and the Victory that the Military has Secured in Iraq has/is going un-reported in favor of BHO Face time ad nauseum.
The BIGGEST NEWS in IRAQ TODAY, is NOT B. Hussein Obama !!
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Backlash on the way?
July 23, 2008 - 02:16 ET by DaMavThe packaging that the Big Liberal Media is doing with Obama is getting so blatant that more than conservatives are becoming offended by it. Whether that "American Awakening" will get here before November or not is something we are going to find out shortly.
What I am seeing in the lefty blogosphere and amongst the BLM is an attempt to portray the race as over and done with. Just look at Obama! That jumpshot! The race is for all practical purposes over. Meanwhile back in the real world, Obama seems to be losing ground in the polls.
The media believes their
July 23, 2008 - 08:22 ET by danboThe media believes their own spin.
I'm sure the media will say there was fraud when Mc wins. And say that their polls should be used rather than the election.
John's problem is; how many coservatives will sit out the election in protest of a Republican Party they don't trust or respect.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Media unfair to McCain?
July 23, 2008 - 02:24 ET by shawn228McCain does not seem to think so.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Apparently, the NYT, the big 3 and most of the MSM.....
July 23, 2008 - 02:27 ET by HillbillyKinghave become believers in the, "Once you go black, you never go back!" phenomenom.
I would also like to point out that the media has been manufacturing our destiny for quite some time. Mr. Bozell write's,
"The Obama campaign has been blessed by a media that arrogantly aspires
to be the manufacturers of our destiny, and make history by beating the
electorate senseless with glowing Obama coverage."
Is this something that just recently began occurring? I seem to remember reading about a couple of guys by the names of Joseph Pulitizer and William Randolph Hearst creating sumthin called Yellow Journalism in the 1890's. A brief description is here:
http://www.encyclope...
and here:
http://www.pbs.org/c...
Obama is just the latest product that the media is pitching to the masses. A couple months ago it was global warming. Hell, 6&1/2 years ago it was patriotism.
The way I see it is that the media manufactures opinion for the masses to purchase/consume. You see most people have neither the time nor the inclination or they are just too stupid to formulate their own opinions on most anything. Yet, for any number of reasons, they must have an opinion on certain things. So where to find one? There are a number of places, but the largest purveyor of opinion in the USA is, that's right, the media. Read an editorial, listen to talk radio, watch primetime or the morning shows on cnn, fox, msnbc, bloomberg, etc., and what are they selling/distributing but opinions.
It's been going on since the inception of media. This is just it's current manifestation.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
The Power
July 23, 2008 - 08:44 ET by kilrodThe Power of the Press
HillBilly you are right on about the press and it's history of manufactoring destiny. Especially since they were able to take down a presidency(Nixon), the power has went to their heads and they caint get enough of it. Since Nixon the press has ruined the lives and careers of many people, some had it coming, but too many were/are decent people, whom the press ruined for their own gain and benefit and agenda. That kind of power is addictive and now they beleive they have the power to choose who will be elected president. They need to be taken down a notch and i hope all this obama bs backfires on them. Unfortunately, you are also correct in your assessment of how too many people come to adopt an opinion, they go shopping for it and are easily duped. I beleive Macs best strategy right now is too attack the press, the msm, the media, and i hope every decent patriotic American will join in and also attack the msm by calling for the firing of the talking heads such as williams, brokaw, couric, gibson, sawyer, snow(kate), smith, olberman, matthews, chen, rodriquez, etc.etc.(too many to mention). And let them no we want the news, fair and unbiased, the facts, the truth. No agenda, no spin, no taking out of context, no sesationalism.
On another note, during the terms of Dildo bill- madelin Muslim allbutt- and janet Burn-em-Alive reno, the immigration gates were wide open. Claim someone in your home country was trying to kill you because of your beleifs and you were granted political asylum and turned loose in the good ole USA, no questions asked and no follow up on where you went are what you did next. Is that how some of the terrorist got here, and how many more are here that we don't know about??
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Thanks Kilrod.
July 23, 2008 - 13:15 ET by HillbillyKingI would also love to get just the facts and the truth. And no more fear appeals. I absolutely despise the media for fear mongering. That goes for all media, liberal, conservative, whatever.
The use of fear illustrates the fact that they are driven by profit and ratings, not truth and accuracy. What better way to get someone to pay attention to you than to tell them they are in danger. It's pathetic.
FDR said "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." I want to amend that to say, There is nothing to fear but fear itself and the bullsh!t fear based opinion that the media manufactures everyday!
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
The last hope for this republic is McCain blowing it...
July 23, 2008 - 02:31 ET by R D Helm...in a really big way, and doing so far enough ahead of the repub convention that he is removed from any and all consideration in time to be replaced with someone who has the stones to really go after Barry-O.
Failing that, along with some other things, Barry-O will be the next POTUS.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Media unfair to McCain?
July 23, 2008 - 02:31 ET by shawn228McCain does not seem to think so.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
The irony is that McCain...
July 23, 2008 - 04:30 ET by Parker1227...has the record of bipartisanship (read: new politics) that Obama pretends to represent.
And how many bipartisan bills has Obama authored or supported in his entire political career? Tick, tick, tick... still waiting. He is a fraud.
Obama is not just another liberal - he is a far left ideologue. How else could he have sat in the despicable Trinity church for 20 years (the same church that Oprah left after only a couple of years).
If Obama is far left and McCain is center right, then the choice for conservatives (who aren't pig-headed to the point of self-harm) should be easy.
"You knew I was a snake when you picked me up"
July 23, 2008 - 10:14 ET by KarmaThe Malevolent Socialist Mouthpieces, in all their infinite wisdom, have not chosen, as many conservatives would claim, our next president. I believe, however, that they were instrumental in choosing who we have to choose from.
Many, here and elsewhere, predicted months ago that the MSM would raise McCain on their shoulders as the most electable Republican candidate and then drop him on his head when the final choice came down to him and ANY Democrat(ic). The MSM were effective, to a large degree, in eliminating the conservative bases' chances of rallying around a "conservative". The Republican Party, all the while moving to the left to garner praise from the MSM, played right into the Mouthpieces hand. That includes McCain.
No, it's not all over yet, but you have to admire the MSM, not for their ideology as in my case but, for their cleverness and tenacity in moving the socialist agenda forward while cloaking it in "hope", "change" and "progression". Afterall, "hope", "change", "moving forward" and "a free-range chicken in every pot-of-gold" sound a lot better to government sucklers than "let's regress to the very basics of our Constitution and avoid the mistakes of the past by not allowing a self serving government to force us down an unknown path just for the sake of "progression". To "move-on" down a path of treachery and doom is just plain nuts. I'd rather "go-back" and reassess which path, if any, is better than the one we started on. Even if I have to go it alone. I will never vote for a candidate who's path will lead to a larger federal government, especially if that path is well-lit by the Malevolent Socialist Mouthpieces. Both McCain and Obama chose the paths they are on. One just has more streamers and ballons at the entrance.
Crazy
July 23, 2008 - 10:58 ET by cvgbuckeyeCall me crazy, and I probably am, but I have become convinced that the ONLY SNOWBALL CHANCE IN HELL that McCain has of winning will be the result of a SEVERE BACKLASH on the part of the electorate from the SHAMELESS and HISTORIC bias that the media have shown in favor of Obama.
There is something about us Americans that rejects the notion that a cynical, evil force like the media, will dictate to us as to who will be our leader of the free world, especially as we recognize the total insincerity of that candidate.
There is something about dishonesty that seems to show through in the end, and its starting to show. As usual, the leftist, in their arrogance are drastically overplaying their hand.
THEREFORE, Marxist media, "KEEP ON SINGIN"
Where am I going wrong here?