Wednesday, September 24, 2008

How Much

Do you think the media is getting paid to push Obama on us? I think Tony Blankley wondered the same thing in his article, "Media Campaigns Hard for Obama." He states:
While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer 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 or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

While I take exception to his claim of the "media as liberal and blinkered in its worldview for decades," a claim not borne out when Bush was running against Gore or Kerry, I do agree with his assessment that the media has been woefully inadequate in vetting Obama.

Blankley asserts:
The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign. Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and 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 have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

Well, those of us who are still thinking human beings know that to be true. We have been presented a hopey-changey-unicorn riding man who has nefarious associates who must never be mentioned or investigated by the media; who has a dearth of experience and legislative accomplishments; who seems hell-bent on acquiring power for power alone, beginning with his time in the IL State Senate (Obama's Lost Years, "Obama And Me"); a man who has flipped and flopped so many times he should have been on the US Men's Gymnastics team; who has lied, and lied, and lied about his family, his upbringing, his career, and his opponents; and who has demonstrated an arrogance and sexism not usually on display by public officials, especially one who wants to be president. Yes, WE know who the real man is, and it is NOT the one the media has been hell-bent to promote.

Blankley continues:
The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see 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 U.N. 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, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

He noticed! Just like we non-Kool-Aide drinkers! Yes, we know FAR more about Governor Sarah Palin in a very short time than we have learned about Obama. And about those universities Obama attended - transcripts, please!!!

And here is an issue we have discussed a good bit.
It is about damn time someone else picked this up: But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Besides some outstanding work at No Quarter (Larry Johnson, LisaB, DrKate, Steve Diamond, and SusanUNPC, among others), Stanley Kurtz has been one of the very few journalists looking into the Ayers/Obama connection. He was a guest of Greta Van Susteren's last night, and was also on with Bill O'Reilly recently. Here is the LINK.

I have heard so many Obamabots, including members of my own family, tout Obama's line that Obama was only 8 when Ayers bombed those buildings. As if that is the only issue. Exceedingly narrow bits of truth can only take one so far, yet that is to what they are clinging. His relationship is much more expansive than he, or the MSM, would like us to know. Same with much of his time in the realm of Chicago-style politics:
Nor have the media paid any serious attention to 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 Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of 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 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 wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."
.
That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also 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 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.

Well, he's got it right, IMHO, but for many people, the MSM is the only option they have. That is not a comforting thought. Especially when you have people like George Will trying to frame McCain's persona in a negative light. In his recent article, "McCain Loses His Head," he states:
It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

I'm sorry, George - you are going to attack McCain on temperament?? You mean, like THIS?



Yeah, okay. Thanks, George, for proving Blankley's point. I have seen more and more recently about McCain's temper, something I have not seen from him, but I have seen it PLENTY from Obama. Go back and look at the last debate he deigned to have with Senator Clinton, or anytime he was actually questioned about his policies and associates. He does not like for ANYONE to challenge or question him. Ah, just what we want in a world leader - a thin-skinned, arrogant, inexperienced, shallow man who got where he is today by getting any real challengers removed from his path. Perfect. Thanks, MSM!!! It is only our nation's health at stake, but keep it up and you'll get your wish fulfilled - another president on a par with George W. Bush. I can hardly wait...

5 comments:

mac said...

Rev. Amy: If you are in fact a fully fellowhipped and ordained Unitarian Universalist minister, your full name should be given so that your credentials could be verified. As an individual you have a right to our own opinions, but not to claim credentials you may lack.

I find your opinions objectionable. Vice Presidential candidate Palin is to feminism as Clarence Thomas is to Black right. One heart attack on the part of a 72 year old man, given the election of McCain, could set women's rights, gay ' rights, Blacks' rights, back for generations. with right wing US Supreme Court appointments. We would be getting even more US refugees up here in Canada than we are now receiving.

Rev, J. McRee Elrod, Unitarian minister retired. (Check the UUA directory,)

Mike J. said...

It's amazing that even George Will is against McCain. Given that Will has always been a proponent of a weak federal government and basically a libertarian (in the sense he believes gov't is superfluous and wasteful when it doesn't do things George Will wants it to do), it certainly speaks volumes of Obama's approach of governance if he has Will's de facto endorsement.

I suppose the reason the media as a group are strongly supportive of Obama is partly due to suasion, partly to groupthink, but also partly due to his compatibility with their political and economic interests. The elite journalist in this country earns a very handsome salary and does not want tax increases to provide for public services they scarcely use, like public schools, the welfare system, and the like. However, to reveal the truth about Obama would be to damn the political chances of a candidate which caters to the interests of the wealthy minority.

Suzy said...

mac,

I can vouch for Rev. Amy's credentials and have had the priviledge of enjoying her sermons for over 13 years. Some are delevered in church, some in hospital chapels, and some on this blog in a slightly different form.

Since you are new to this blog, you may not be aware that her identity was hacked, her credit card hacked, etc., etc., etc. shortly after she became a regular contributor at No Quarter and started voicing her opposition to Senator Obama. Hence the first name only.

While you may find her opinions objectionable, I find yours uninformed. If you look closely at Obama and his associates, it is HE who will set women's rights, gay rights and black rights back for generations. He already has for black rights as far as I am concerned, because he is intentionally using race to divide this country in an attempt to gain political advantage. He has shown no hesitance to throw LGBT causes under the bus (marriage/DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell), and has as his close advisors some RABIDLY anti-gay ministers (McClurkin, Meeks). As far as women's rights, if Roe v. Wade has not been overturned under Bush's watch I sincerely doubt it ever will be. Now if you want to look closer, look at how Obama TREATS women versus McCain - the difference is staggering.

Suzy, a lifelong-but-no-longer Democrat, UU, feminist and lesbian (check my voter registration card and free lesbian toaster)

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Mac -

You question my credentials simply because I do not support Obama? Wow - that is some line you have drawn. I assure you, I most definitely am a fully qualified, ordained UU minister (was graduated from Union Theo. Sem. in NYC with additional coursework at HDS, ANTS, as well as a full-time CPE residency in addition to the basic unit required. I passed my MFC meeting the first time around.).

So, because I do not support the most unqualified, inexperienced, most arrogant, sexist, race-baiting (and TAINTING of the only two term Dem prez the US has had in 4 decades), associate of anti-gay activitists, pompous candidate SELECTED by the DNC by pure out and out vote theft by the RBC, you find my opinions "objectionable"?? I do not support ANY organization that selects its leaders through unethical, immoral means, rejecting the will of the people. I am surprised you do.

Clarence Thomas? You mean the one whose nomination Joe Biden oversaw? In which Joe allowed Anita Hill to be treated like CRAP? The one Obama almost claimed was too inexperienced at Saddleback? The irony, the irony.

There is no similarity between Thomas and Palin Just because Palin doesn't fit YOUR idea of wha a feminist is doesn't mean she isn't one. I don't recall the Feminist Movement only being for LIBERALS - I thought it was for all women. She calls a Feminist when many women will not. She believes in birth control and the morning after pill. And she has demonstrated by her own LIFE that she is a feminist. You, sir, have no right to claim otherwise for her. She speaks for herself.

Here's the thing - Obama would BE the heartbeat in the White House and he is singularly UNQUALIFIED. He has ZERO executive leadership, and has never run ANYTHING. He wasn't even an effective communtiy organizer! Never published a paper as the editor of the Harvard Law Review (the least quoted year ever, and which reverted back to its SOP after Obama left), or as a law instructor. That is virtually UNHEARD of in the academia. Btw, he doesn't give a DAAMN abt GLBT rights, as his affiliations with Donnie McClurkin and James Meeks have borne out. He opposes same sex marriage, and has the same stance on it that McCain does. Oh - and there is more coming down the pike from Obama's camp to highlight that. Stay tuned.

Perhaps you are unaware that the Senate confirms Supreme Court nominations. No right wingers can get in as long as the senators do their job. I might add that McCain is not a right-winger. He is a moderate Republican, and unlike Obama, an honorable man, thus your argument is based ona a faulty premise.

Same in terms of women: McCain pays the women on his staff better than the men. Obama does the EXACT opposite. So, really, Obama, despite his "words" is worse for women. He has shown that in this regard as well as his patronizing, condescending comments on abortion. Some of us don't buy his words - we look at his DEEDS.

Rather than fear mongering of potential (unfounded) catastrophes dreamed up by the Obama camp, I would think you would be more concerned abt Obama's actual associates, or his lack of legislative accomplishments, or how he is #2 out of 354 lawmakers in terms of money from lobbyists, or how he got all of his opponents thrown off the ballot when he first ran in IL, or got the real Rep. opponent thrown off for the US Senate, thus running against Alan Keyes, who is nuts. Oh, yeah, that's exactly who I want as my president - a spineless, thin-skinned, unprincipled manipulator. No thanks.

Glad you have so much interest in US politics, but in the US, we have freedom of speech. So you don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you.

Oh - like Suzy said, because of attacks by paid Obama trolls, I am not willing to reveal my last name. I have already suffered enough consequences for supporting the most qualified candidate in our Primary, the one who WOULD have been the best for women, GLBT, veterans, the environment, obtaining universal health care, etc. - Hillary. I will not support someone who got there from theft and underhanded means (thuggery, intimidation, and bullying, and that's just at the caucuses - and online). Sorry if you don't agree - you don't have to. And since YOU claim to be a UU minister, you should know that we don't have to agree on everything.

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Hey, Mike -

I know - I was really surprised by George Will. I don't usually even read him - he's too conservative for me (like I've said, cling to the far-left wing of the DNC, or did until they selected the pres. candidate), but I have noticed throughout the whole Primary that he was leaning toward Obama. I don't get it. While I didn't read him much, I thought he was supposed to be big into the Constitution and stuff - you'd think he would not support someone who backtracked and voted for FISA.

So, yeah - you're probably right - they want to make sure they keep their hefty paychecks. So glad that they, like the DNC, are thinking about the PEOPLE (honestly - Hillary would be SO much better in this economic crisis - unlike Obama, she didn't have to wait for ANYTHING to put forth an action plan. Obama was probably just waiting to cheat off of what she, or McCain, or Bush said and claim it for his own like he did all the rest of her policies. And SHE really cares abt the people and the impact this is going to have, which is why she kept calling for a moratorium on foreclosures and all that. Sigh.).

Thanks for coming by.