Thursday, 03 July 2008
EXPLOITING TIM RUSSERT'S DEATH
As you may remember, I blogged about keith olbermann viciously - and entirely
dishonestly - attacking Fox News as "the worst persons in the world" for
talking about Tim Russert immediately after he died - because olbermann's claims
about what was said were completely untrue, as you can see by clicking
Now, what I'd like to know is whether olbermann will be doing a similar hit
job on his employer, MSNBC. Why? Because of this, as chronicled by
D. S. Hube of www.newsbusters.org:
MSNBC Gets Caught Cooking the
Books, Has to Recant
What do you do
when you just can't win your ratings time slot? Answer: Cook the books.
That's what MSNBC tried to do regarding "Hardball
with Chris Matthews" and the 5:00pm slot:
CNN and Fox News Channel both pointed
out Tuesday that MSNBC included special coverage of Tim Russerts
death and memorial in its June data ratings for Hardball With Chris
Matthews prompting MSNBC to say it made an
The flap was over a press release that MSNBC
issued, based on Nielsen data, with the headline MSNBCs Hardball No. 1
Among Adults in June at 5 p.m.
According to the release,
Hardball averaged 190,000 adults 25 to 54 in June, beating CNN and Fox
News at 5 p.m. in that demographic for the first time since February
But the announcement immediately drew fire
from CNN and Fox News, who charged that MSNBC was using straight 5 p.m. time
slot data for June, not data solely for
By using the 5 p.m. info, rather than program
data, MSNBC was including in its tally special coverage it had aired on
Meet the Press moderator Russerts death and memorial.
Without that special coverage, MSNBCs
numbers drop. Instead, CNNs Situation Room at 5 p.m. ranked No. 1
in June in the 25-to-54 age group, averaging 186,000 of those watchers, while
Fox Newss Americans Election HQ was second with 179,000.
MSNBCs Hardball was third with 171,000.
An MSNBC spokesman conceded that the network had
made an error in including the Russert coverage along with that for
Hardball at 5 p.m.
But hey, when you're perpetually getting beat by
your cable news rivals, you'll do whatever you can, right? This reminds me of a
similarly hilarious tidbit from a couple
years back when "Countdown's" Keith Olbermann actually ... bragged
about winning the -- wait for it -- 12:00am midnight time slot over his
competitors at Fox News and CNN!
Yes indeed, that "coveted" midnight rating.
Is it my imagination, or was MSNBC trying to exploit Tim Russert's death to
boom up their ratings story?
Russert was a news giant at NBC so its satellite network, MSNBC would of
course generate major viewership by covering his death and memorializing
him. There is nothing at all wrong with this. But then using
their coverage to make a bogus, inflated claim about ratings? That is
unbelievable. And unforgivable.
So we're going to see olbermann do his patented "I'm so furious my head is
about to explode" routine against MSNBC, right? They'll be the worst
persons in the world for exploiting the death of Tim Russert for PR purposes,
right? Maybe they'll even be the double
worst persons in the world because, unlike Fox, MSNBC really did do it.
I'm just waiting on tenterhooks for this to happen.
Here, from www.littlegreenfootballs.com, is
a humorous way of showing how many confidantes of Barack Obama he has
disassociated himself from over the past several months. See how many you
The Return of the Disassociator
Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:42:57 pm
Some of these newly-dispatched people only recently became
Obamacolytes. But others include his spiritual mentor and a "man" he
respectfully refers to as "Minister" - both of whom appear to hate White people,
the USA, Israel, and Jews in general.
Funny how they were okey-dokey with Mr. Obama until he needed votes from
a national electorate.
Is this what a typical machine politician - not some glorified heaven-sent
savior but a typical machine politician - would do?
Do you really have to ask?
IS THERE A CINDY MCCAIN/TERESA HEINZ PARALLEL?
The folks at www.politico.com seem to
think there is. As is obvious by their blog below, the folks at www.sweetness-light.com emphatically
July 2nd, 2008
From the Politico:
The AP dusts off a very flattering photo of
Mrs. McCain from April 24, 2008.
Cindys fortune: An asset and a
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
July 2, 2008
In 2004, Republicans demanded fuller disclosure
about the considerable fortune of Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry.
Now, the GOP is reaping what it
Having established a recent
precedent for increased scrutiny of spousal finances, the party now finds its
own presumptive nominee, John McCain, under an unwanted spotlight over the
fortune of his wife, Cindy.
Already, Democrats have blasted Cindy McCains
less-than-full financial disclosure, asserting that it calls into question
John McCains commitment to transparency and suggests that he may be hiding
information about how his efforts in Congress benefited his family.
Worse though, the burgeoning focus
on Cindy McCains finances could attract attention to an aspect of the Arizona
senators family life that is unlikely to be advantageous to him on the
campaign trail: the affluent lifestyle and free-spending habits of the McCain
In recent years, a Politico analysis found, the
McCain family appears to have tapped its fortune liberally.
While Cindy McCain, her dependent children and
the trusts and companies they control made as much as $29 million and likely
substantially more from her familys business interests from 2004 through
last year, data from the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
Office of Government Ethics and the Center for Responsive Politics
also reveals that they spent $11 million purchasing five condominiums for the
family, hired additional household help and racked up progressively larger
credit card bills almost every year.
Their credit card bills peaked between January
2007 and May 2008, during which time Cindy McCain charged as much as $500,000
in a single month on one American Express card and $250,000 on another, while
one of their two dependent children had an AmEx card with a monthly balance as
large as $50,000
In addition to the American Express cards
which carry no monthly interest charges Cindy and John McCain jointly hold a
credit card through Chase with a steep 25.99 percent interest rate. It had a
top balance as large as $15,000 last year.
John McCain has his own credit card, his aide
said, but its balance for years has not exceeded the $10,000 threshold that
triggers the reporting requirement for listing liabilities on Senate or
executive branch personal financial disclosure statements.
The last year John McCain reported
holding a credit card with such a balance was 2004, when he had an
American Express Platinum card with a top balance of $15,000. Cindy McCain
also had a Platinum AmEx that year, with a top balance of $100,000, as well as
a Business Platinum account with a top balance of $50,000, and charge cards
from Saks Fifth Avenue, MasterCard and Visa with top monthly balances between
$15,000 and $50,000 and interest rates between 10.49 and 24.49
And in 2004, one of their
dependent children had an AmEx Business Platinum card with a top monthly
balance of $50,000. The McCain aide wouldnt identify which child got
the card, but their oldest, Meghan, turned 20 that year.
What a preposterous article, even for the
Having established a recent precedent for
increased scrutiny of spousal finances, the party now finds its own
presumptive nominee, John McCain, under an unwanted spotlight over the fortune
of his wife, Cindy.
Questions were raised about Ms. Teresa
Heinz Kerry because she not only funded
his campaign (through illegal loans based on one of her houses), but because she
ran the so-called Heinz Foundation.
Lest we forget, the Heinz
Foundation funded the Tides
Foundation and countless other
ultra-left organizations that were a major
factor in the 2004 elections.
But of course the reporters at the Politico were
unaware of all of this.
They are too busy going through the McCains
credit card bills.
[T]hey spent $11 million purchasing five
condominiums for the family, hired additional household help and racked up
progressively larger credit card bills almost every year.
Remember all of the breathless stories from our
watchdog media about the numerous palatial estates the Kerrys owned thanks to
Teresa (or rather, her former husband, who was a Republican), and how much they
spent keeping them going?
I dont either.
I wonder if the good folks at politico will do a story on where Michelle
Obama got the money for her Ivy League education and how she managed to become a
$325,000 a year or so executive at a hospital her husband passed a couple of
nice, fat $$$ earmarks to. I hope, in the interests of fairness, we'll be
seeing stories about those juicy little items sooner rather than
DESPERATELY SEEKING A WAY TO ATTACK BUSH
If I didn't know Henry Waxman was in congress with a
gavel in his hand, I would probably assume Democrats had about run out of ways
to attack President Bush. But I do know Henry Waxman, so there is no
doubt he is investigating something, and that investigation is virtually certain to target
Despite Barack Obama's lead in the polls (which, the latest polls show to be
a lot less impressive than the 15% bulge Newsweek claimed last week), Democrats
are starting to feel a little boxed in these days. Here are two examples
of what I mean:
-Iraq is off the table for two reasons: 1) it is going so well (a political liability for Democrats) and
2) the more military issues are discussed during this presidential campaign, the
better John McCain looks compared to Barack Obama. No point in going
Democrats who have attempted to frame our economic situation as the result of "Bush's
failed energy policy" are finding that (if the polling data are correct) they
are 100 miles on the wrong side of the issue. People WANT us to drill for
more oil in the places that Democrats have moved heaven and earth to prevent us
from drilling in. There is a rich record of President Bush advocating ANWR
and offshore drilling, while Democrats not only opposed them but talked up the
benefits of raising gas prices, so we would all wind up tootling around
in little electric cars or somethinge even less utile. Whoops, better find
Enter Henry Waxman. What to investigate,
what to investigate....hmmmmmmmm......
So what has Waxman latched onto? After an "investigation", he is
suggesting that Bush and his administration, despite their denials, were
aware of a deal developed between Hunt Oil and Kurds last September.
Hooboy, hold the presses. This should put Bush and
the rest of them in the can until mid-century (you're welcome for this quick trip to
Here are the particulars, from www.politico.com:
Waxman: White House
knew of Iraqi oil deal
In September 2007, the Kurdish Regional
Government, which runs the semi-autonomous region of Northern Iraq, announced
that it had entered into an oil contract with U.S.-based Hunt Oil. The deal
complicated negotiations over a revenue-sharing agreement and the Bush
administration declared itself shocked at the news. I know nothing about the
deal, said President Bush.
Documents uncovered by the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform indicate that the White
House probably shouldnt have been so surprised. Among the many pieces of
evidence that the administration knew and approved of the deal:
Commerce Department official wished Hunt Oil officials a fruitful visit to
A Hunt Oil general manager said he met with nine State
Department officials and none expressed opposition.
Five days after
the announcement of the deal, a State Department official told Hunt officials
about another good opportunity in Iraq.
U.S. involvement in the oil contract is a prickly
issue for a number of reasons. If the Kurdish region can gain control of and
revenue from its oil resources, it could effectively split off from the rest of
Iraq, which would anger Turkey and could inspire southern Shia to do the same.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is at pains to show that the invasion had nothing to do with
oil resources, an argument undercut if its seen assisting U.S. companies in the
exploitation of Iraqi oil. Finally, deals cut without the involvement of the
Iraqi central government can only further exacerbate tensions among the various
Aware of the high stakes, President Bush issued a strong denial
following the announcement of the deal. I knew nothing about the deal. I need
to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the
ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that
unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it, I'm concerned, he
The White House wasn't immediately available to
Ok, let's take a look at the three key reasons for this
conclusion/assumption/accusation/whatever by Waxman:
-A commerce department official wished a company good luck? What an outrage! I'm
sure that occupied hours of President Bush's time;
-State Department officials did not object to Hunt Oil
going to Kurdistan? So what?
And, by the way, the State Department has been
an enemy of the Bush administration throughout his two terms, so how eager do
you think they would be to give the administration a heads-up on anything
significant even if this was significant?
-Five days after the deal was announced that same State
Department talked up another good opportunity in Iraq? AND???????
This isn't even a slender thread. This is a thread from the emperor's
I have never had much respect for Henry Waxman. He reminds me a lot
of Robert Wexler, the equally obnoxious congressperson from Florida. Both
are hardline leftists in districts where being a hardline leftist makes them
safer than a babe in arms. And all they ever seem to want to do is attack
How many investigations have either of these two showboaters demanded or pursued against
Democrats? The william jeffersons, allan mollahans, jim mcdermotts, john
murthas, etc. etc. etc. have nothing to worry about from these guys.
This, folks, is what your taxpayer money is being spent on.
Investigations of nothing to find out nothing for the purpose of ridiculous
attacks on a hated political enemy.
Remember that when you go to the polls in November.
IRAQ: OBAMA'S MOTHER OF ALL FLIP-FLOPS
This is it. The mother of all flip-flops. The left is absolutely
going to go through the ceiling on this one.
Here are the details, courtesy of Mike Allen at www.politico.com:
Nothing, and I do mean
nothing, is more central to Barack Obama's appeal to the left than removing the
troops from Iraq -- regardless of whether there is any progress or any
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw
combat forces from Iraq
immediately and instead said he could refine his plan after his trip to
Baghdad later this month.
Earlier, a top Obama adviser had said
that the senator is not wedded to a specific timeline.
told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is going to do a thorough
"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to
some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information
and will continue to refine my policies," he said, according to CBS News.
I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war
in Iraq was a mistake.
Obama later said at a second news
conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.
original Obama plan, still on his website, promises: Obama will
immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to
two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of
Iraq within 16 months.
In a separate six-page Iraq plan, he says
in a section headed All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: The best way
to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their
civil war is to begin immediately to remove our combat troops. Not in six
months or one year now.
David Axelrod, Obamas chief
strategist, began backing off during remarks Wednesday on CNNs Situation
Room, telling guest host John Roberts that Obama has actually advocated
a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet,
that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these
benchmarks and advice on the commanders on the ground.
always said that he would listen to the advice of commanders on the
ground, that that would factor into his thinking, Axelrod said. He's
also always said that we had to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we
were careless getting in. So he's been very consistent on this point. ...
I think he will take the advice, not just the advice of the
commanders on the ground but his general assessment of conditions on the
ground in calibrating that withdrawal. He said he thought we could get one
to two brigades out a month. But he's not wedded to that in the face of
events. No president would be. And he's always said that he's never said
that this withdrawal would be without any possibility of alteration based
on events on the ground. That would not be a prudent thing to do for any
The Republican National Committee plans to make an
issue of the evolving statements and has posted Obamas Iraq Guessing
Game, rounding up various
statements on Iraq by the
senator, his aides and
The other flip-flops are grating to the left and are troubling evidence that Obama is nothing more than a
two-faced machine politician. But they are chicken feed compared to Iraq. Iraq is
absolutely, positively the main event.
And now? He is telling his loyal followers, the ones who have contributed all
that time and money, the ones who have defended him in every which way, that his
unequivocal position on Iraq is.......equivocal.
Do yourself a favor: click on that link to "rounding up various
statements" and see how many versions of Iraq policy Mr. Obama has
had. And then think about how the moveon.org, dailykos, crooksandliars and
code pink crowd will feel about this latest one.
I think these folks just might have something to say. Count on it
to be very, very soon and very, very loud.
A PASSPORT LETTER
My sister sent me the following letter which, it is purported, was actually
sent to a passport office.
I can't vouch for its authenticity, but I very definitely can empathize with
most of the points it makes.
I warn you that there is a lot of bad language here.
Ok, you're warned. Now here's the letter.
I'm in the process of renewing my passport,
and still cannot believe
this. How is it that Radio Shack has my address and
and knows that I bought a t.v. cable from them back in
1997, and yet,
the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born
and on what
date. For heaven's sakes, do you guys do this by hand?
My birth date you have on my social security card, and it is on
income tax forms I've filed for the past 30 years. It is on my
insurance card, my driver's license, on the last eight goddamn
passports I've had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I've
had to fill out before being allowed off the planes over the last 30
years, and all those insufferable census forms that are done at
times. Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that
name is Maryanne, my father's name is Robert and I'd be
if that ever changed between now and when I
apologize, I'm really pissed off this morning. Between you and me,
enough of this bullshit! You send the application to my house,
then you ask
me for my f-cking address. What is going on? You have a
gang of Neanderthal
a ssholes working there! Look at my damn picture
Do I look like Bin Laden? I
don't want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for
shit sakes I just want to go and
park my ass on a sandy beach. And
would someone please tell me, why would
you give a shit whether I plan
on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? If I
ever got the urge to do
something weird to a chicken or a goat, believe you
me, I'd sure as
hell not want to tell anyone!
Well, I have
to go now, cause I have to go to the other end of the city
and get another
f-cking copy of my birth certificate, to the tune of
$60. Would it be so
complicated to have all the services in the same
spot to assist in the
issuance of a new passport the same day??
Nooooo, that'd be too damn easy
and maybe makes sense. You'd rather
have us running all over the f-cking
place like chickens with our heads
cut off, then find some asshole to
confirm that it's really me on the
goddamn picture - you know, the one where
we're not allowed to smile?!
(f-cking morons)Hey, you know why we can't
smile? We're totally pissed
off! Signed - An Irate f-cking
P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture and
to confirm that it's me? Well, my family has been in this
1776 . I have served in the military for something over 30
have had security clearances up the yingyang. However, I have to
someone important to verify who I am - you know, someone like my doctor
WHO WAS BORN
AND RAISED IN COMMUNIST f-cking CHINA !