Saturday, 26 July 2008
PROOF THAT THE VOTERS ARE NOT STUPID
Do the voters understand how biased media are?
Read this short piece from Brent Baker of www.newsbusters.org and see for
Fox Poll: Two-Thirds Recognize
Journalists Want Obama to Win
Just days after a Rasmussen Reports survey was
released showing more than three times as many likely voters believe most
reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage than help John McCain,
a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken July 22-23 of 900 registered voters
discovered six times as many think most member of the media want Obama to
win than wish for a McCain victory. On Thursday's Special Report, FNC's
Brit Hume relayed: 67 percent of the respondents think most media members
want Obama to win. Just 11 percent think most in the media are for McCain.
A FoxNews.com article
added this damning finding: Only about 1 in 10 (11 percent) volunteers the
belief that the media is neutral on the race to become the 44th President of
the United States. Those polled recognize the tilt in action: When asked
to rate the objectivity of media coverage of the campaigns, Americans feel
Obama gets more of a positive spin by a better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent
more positive toward Obama; 6 percent more positive toward
I can't help thinking that this is why, after a week of non-stop all-positive coverage
of his globetrotting, Barack Obama's poll
numbers have barely moved upward.
Most of us didn't go to Harvard as Mr. Obama did. But it doesn't take a
Harvard graduate to see what is in front of our faces.
BARACK OBAMA AND THE CHARGE OF RACISM
I am not voting for Barack Obama and I am not a racist. But I have no
doubt that if Mr. Obama loses there are people - both White and Black - who
will "know" that racism did him in.
Illustratively, just this past week I blogged about the incomparably
nondescript Governor-by-resignation of New York, David Patterson, blaming
criticism of Mr. Obama - and himself as well - on racism rather than the fact
that there are things to criticize about both men.
Matthew May, writing for American Thinker, outlines this issue very
well. Here is his article:
The Racism Cry Returns
By Matthew May
Having begun softly during the primary season, an
incessant drumbeat has steadily gained strength and will soon reach its
deafening crescendo as we march toward November: If you are white and vote for
anyone other than Sen. Barack Obama (Savior-IL) for president you are a
Joe Klein says that anyone horrible enough to suggest
that Obama -- who isn't even the official nominee of his party -- is being a bit
presumptuous in touring Europe and the Middle East automatically couples that
criticism with "the subterranean tinge of racism."
says that black Americans (all,
apparently) and the rest of the world will "scream racism" if Obama is defeated
by John McCain. Greeley says that "Only the innocent and the naive think that
the November election will not be about race."
governor David Paterson recently suggested at the national meeting of the NAACP that an Obama loss is a
I will not insult
your intelligence and vainly attempt to assuage my supposed white guilt by
claiming "some of my best friends are black," or revealing the racial background
of my college roommate, and the artist who dominates my music collection. I
refuse to do so not because it is a clich, but because it is unnecessary for
the non-racist to do so.
I do not compartmentalize my friends into
categories other than that labeled "Friends." My friends and associates are
nobody else's business or concern. I have sought and will continue to seek them
according to their worth to me as individuals -- the values we share, the
equality of life to which we aspire, and our mutual respect and admiration for
one another as individuals.
Calling someone a
racist is one of the most serious charges than be leveled against an individual.
It is outrageous enough that such a charge is being and will be thrown at tens
of millions of people. It demonstrates the naked contempt the left have for the
individual mind and the individual voter who approaches an election with certain
fundamental benchmarks that a candidate must meet to earn his vote.
As a conservative, I
will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 --
but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so. And, surprisingly enough
to those of you who cannot fathom it, this white American will be voting against
Barack Obama not because he is black, but because he has repeatedly shown
himself to be nothing more than a politician from the Daley cesspool. I have
plenty of reasons*
To those whose every
move in life is political and wrapped up in busily placing people in one
identity group or another rather than as individuals, it is impossible to
comprehend that perhaps part of the problem with Obama is not the color of his
skin but its thinness. Across the spectrum of presidential leadership throughout
our nation's history, Americans have desired -- and fairly demanded -- that
their political leaders endure the slings and arrows of satire with good humor.
Such a mindset harkens back to the classical American disgust with and fear of
the individual with too much power, accompanied by a royal bearing.
Obama and his
associates act as if the candidate is beyond reproach. George W. Bush has
endured much worse without protest. Abraham Lincoln too, if Bush is not to your
liking. Everyone is free to consider what this sensitivity to criticism tells us
about the candidate's character.
I will not be voting
for Obama in November and will be proud to deny him my vote. To the forthcoming
outrageous, serious charge that I am a racist for doing thusly I do not wish to
plead "not guilty" because I am, simply, not guilty.
He has been wrong
about the battle in Iraq and the war against jihad. Obama is devoid of
knowledge of the duties of Commander-in-Chief. He offers tired, discredited
pabulum in the way of economic policy and utopian nonsense. His gaffes, mistakes, misstatements, and
backtracking have continued and Obama does not have any sense of humor about
them or anything else for that matter. Despite his privileged education, Obama
is not smart enough to be president. We've already seen this movie and the
leading man was Jimmy Carter.
This is to say
nothing of the seemingly endless sordid details of Obama's career and rhetoric;
his association with unrepentant terrorists and slumlords; his stupendous
arrogance (Obama said in Berlin that "Now the world will watch and remember what
we do here" -- what was it Lincoln said about how the world would notice the
dedication of Gettysburg?); the socialist realism posters; his wife telling us what
"Barack will demand" of us; voting "Present" time after time.
short, this guy is not remotely qualified for the presidency and it has
absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity.
I am not one to make predictions. But this prediction I will make with
absolute cosmic certainty: A far greater percentage of White voters will
be casting their ballots for Barack Obama than Black voters casting their
ballots for John McCain.
Are all of these Black voters racist? Nope, but some of them
are, just as there are White voters who will reject Mr. Obama out of
hand for the color of his skin.
It seems to me that, all too often, racism is seen as a one-way
street travelled exclusively by White people in this country. In
reality that street open to the general public and, lamentably, there are people
of all races travelling on it.
Let's not pretend otherwise.
BOB HERBERT ON JOHN MCCAIN
I don't agree with Bob Herbert a lot of the time. And I don't fully
agree with his latest column on John McCain. But Mr. Herbert makes some
very important points about Mr. McCain and it is well worth reading. So
here it is:
Getting to Know You
The conventional wisdom in this radically
unconventional presidential race is that the voters have to get to know Barack
Obama better. Thats what this weeks overseas trip was about: to showcase the
senator as a potential commander in chief and leader of U.S. foreign
According to this way of thinking, as voters see
more of Mr. Obama and become more comfortable with him (assuming no major
foul-ups along the way), his chances of getting elected will be
Maybe so. But what about the other guy? How much
do voters really know about John McCain?
Senator McCain crossed a line that he shouldnt
have this week when he said that Mr. Obama would rather lose a war in order to
win a political campaign. It was a lousy comment, tantamount to calling Mr.
Obama a traitor, and Senator McCain should apologize for it.
But what weve learned over the years is that Mr.
McCain is one of those guys who never has to pay much of a price for his
missteps and foul-ups and bad behavior. Can you imagine the firestorm of outrage
and criticism that would have descended on Senator Obama if he had made the kind
of factual mistakes that John McCain has repeatedly made in this
(Or if Senator Obama had had the temerity to even
remotely suggest that John McCain would consider being disloyal to his country
for political reasons?)
We have a monumental double standard here. Mr.
McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites
and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend
Joe Lieberman. He has referred to a Iraq-Pakistan border when the two countries
do not share a border.
He declared on CBS that Iraq was the first major
conflict after 9/11, apparently forgetting at least for the moment about the
war in Afghanistan. In that same interview, he credited the so-called surge of
U.S. forces in Iraq with bringing about the Anbar Awakening, a movement in which
thousands of Sunnis turned on insurgents. He was wrong. The awakening preceded
More important than these endless gaffes are
matters that give us glimpses of the fundamental makeup of the man. A celebrated
warrior as a young man, he has always believed that the war in Iraq can (and
must) be won. As the author Elizabeth Drew has written: He didnt seem to
seriously consider the huge costs of the war: financial, personal, diplomatic
and to the reputation of the United States around the world.
He also felt we could have, and should have, won
the war in Vietnam. We lost in Vietnam, said Mr. McCain in 2003, because we
lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we
were fighting and because we limited the tools at our disposal.
The spirit of the warrior was on display in the
famous incident in which Mr. McCain, with the insouciance of a veteran bomber
pilot, sang Bomb-bomb Iran to the tune of Barbara Ann by the Beach
No big deal. Just John being John.
But then, we are already bogged down in two wars.
And John is running for president. Its hardly crazy to wonder.
Part of the makeup of the man apparently a
significant part, according to many close observers is his outsized temper.
Mr. McCains temperament has long been a subject of fascination in Washington,
and for some a matter of concern. He can be a nasty piece of work. (Truly nasty.
He once told an extremely cruel joke about Chelsea Clinton too cruel to repeat
If the McCain gaffes seem endless, so do the tales
about his angry, profanity-laced eruptions. Senator Thad Cochran, a Mississippi
Republican, said of Mr. McCain: The thought of his being president sends a cold
chill down my spine.
Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican,
told Newsweek in 2000: I decided I didnt want this guy anywhere near a
Both senators have since endorsed Senator McCains
presidential bid, but their initial complaints were part of a much larger
constellation of concerns about the way Mr. McCain tends to treat people with
whom he disagrees, and his frequently belligerent my-way-or-the-highway
Senator McCain has acknowledged on various
occasions that he has a short fuse and has at times made jokes about it. He told
Larry King in 2006: My anger did not help my campaign ... People dont like
angry candidates very much.
My guess is that most voters dont see John McCain
as an angry candidate, despite several very public lapses. The mythical John
McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is
an expert on foreign policy.
Barack Obama is not the only candidate the voters
need to know more about.
Look, my eyes are wide open on this one. Mr. Herbert has made it clear
for some time that he is a strong Barack Obama supporter. But, that
notwithstanding, a lot of what he says about Mr. McCain is entirely
John McCain is no saint. He has significant flaws. One of those flaws
is a hairtrigger temper that he apparently is better able to hold in check when
cameras are rolling than when he is one-on-one with people he disagrees
with. And while a temper may serve him well under certain
circumstances (Harry Truman had one too) it can also be a damaging element to
And, yes, Mr. McCain has made a great many gaffes and
misstatements during this campaign (and will make more before its over, you
can bet on that).
But I disagree that Mr. McCain gets away with them while Mr. Obama
Over the last few months I've chronicled a series of gaffes and
misstatements by Barack Obama's which has somehow eluded the
media. A classic was just this week when, to thunderous applause, he
told Germans that the walls in Northern Ireland had come down - which is
demonstrably untrue. Media gave him a free pass on
that ridiculous statement.
In any event, the reality is that both major candidates have
significant flaws. Therefore the one we pick had better be the one whose
flaws are easier to live with.
REPUBLICANS GROW A SPINE
Earlier today I blogged about the need for Republicans in congress to force
their Democratic counterparts to excrete or get off the pot on oil drilling (in
private I might put that a slightly different way).
Well, unbeknownst to me at that moment, they did. I just read the
particulars - and Harry Reid's obnoxious reaction to it - courtesy of Ed
Morrissey at www.hotair.com:
Senate Republicans hold the line on energy;
Update: Reid falls apart
posted at 10:31 am on July 25, 2008 by Ed
Senate Republicans kept their word today
to defeat any energy bill that did not include an end to the Congressional
moratorium on off-shore drilling. By a 50-43 party-line vote, the bill that supposedly would curb excessive energy speculation
failed to gain cloture. Instead of allowing a pro-drilling amendment to
get attached to the bill, the Democrats will bury it:
U.S. legislation to rein in excessive energy
speculation failed a key procedural vote on Friday to move forward in the
Senate, and now lawmakers will set aside the bill to consider other
The House of Representatives may take up its own
anti-speculation bill next week, and then lawmakers will get ready to leave
for their month-long recess in August.
Senate Republicans strongly opposed the
speculation bill, arguing the legislation should be modified to also boost
U.S. oil production by allowing more offshore drilling and developing vast oil
shale fields in the West. Republicans said tight petroleum supplies that were
unable to keep up with demand were the cause of high energy
Only Olympia Snowe (R-ME) crossed the party line
to vote in favor of cloture. Harry Reid (D-NV) voted against cloture, the
only Democrat to do so, but only for procedural reasons. His no vote will
allow him to bring the bill back to the floor for another pass later in the
session if he chooses to do so.
Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn promised a tough line on
energy, daring the Democrats to defy the overwhelming will of the electorate on
increased domestic oil production. The Democrats walked into the trap
and they may well find a way to lose a Congressional election that they had all
but won this cycle. If they adjourn for a summer break without allowing
Republicans an opportunity to begin the long-term process of increasing domestic
production and lowering gas prices, voters will hear all about it for the next
four months and theyll let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi hear about it in
Update: What does
Harry Reid do when he
gets caught in a vice? He lashes out at reporters and distorts the
At a pen and pad a more casual, off-camera
chat with reporters Reid attacked and scolded correspondents in attendance,
telling them hes really disappointed in how they have been writing his
energy plans, which include a bill to reign in speculation in the energy
According to two Senate Democratic aides, Reid
and other Democratic leaders were particularly stung by an article Thursday in
The New York Times. It followed on several other reports that have highlighted
Democrats attempts to fend off defections from their ranks to GOP-sponsored
amendments, measures that would permit new drilling in the Outer Continental
Shelf and in the West for oil shale. .
Reporters tried to pin Reid down Thursday on the
In the exchange, Reid told one reporter she
should watch the [Senate] floor more often. You might learn
Another reporter explained she had watched the
Senate proceedings and said it was not clear he was offereing separate
amendments, to which Reid asked the reporter if she spoke
Turn up your Miracle Ear, Reid
Reid may need to check his own comprehension of
English. He did allow only two amendments on the bill, which Dick Durbin
confirmed during a floor speech. If Reid cant count to two, he should stop
worrying about the English skills of reporters and get into a remedial math
It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of this issue to Republicans
and Democrats alike. If the Republican Party is perceived as the folks
trying to get us our own oil so we don't pay a king (abdullah's) ransom to
people who hate us, and Democrats are perceived as the folks trying to prevent
this from happening, it could change votes - literally millions of
Well, that, in fact, is exactly where the two parties stand.
So keep your eyes and ears tuned in and let's see where it goes. With a
special attention to what Barack Obama has to say about it.
SHAMING CONGRESS INTO ACTION ON OIL DRILLING
Yesterday's Investors Business Daily had a powerful editorial on how to
force the congress into action, or at least accountability, regarding the oil
crisis. Here it is:
Call Congress Back To Vote On Drilling
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
| Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Leadership: When it comes
to giving relief at the pump by drilling for more oil, this is truly a
"do-nothing" Democratic Congress. President Bush should give 'em hell like Harry
IBD Series: Breaking The Back Of High Oil
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states
that the president "may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses" of
Congress. On more than two dozen occasions in our history, presidents have done
just that, forcing the Senate and House of Representatives to meet on
extraordinary matters of defense or economic peril.
Sixty years ago this month, President Truman
called such a special session to shame into action what he labeled a "do
nothing" Republican Congress. He dubbed it the Turnip Day Session, because of
the day on which it began. According to folklore in Truman's native Missouri,
"On the 25th of July, sow your turnips, wet or dry."
Congress refused to do Truman's bidding in the
session, but the bold move saved the president's political skin. He defied the
odds that November and was re-elected largely because the public came to view
the 80th Congress as in the grip of a cowardly paralysis.
Today's Democratic-controlled 110th Congress is
just as paralyzed, but the stakes are far higher. Our irrational dependence on
oil from foreign nations is squeezing American consumers and businesses with
sky-high fuel prices. And it makes us vulnerable to blackmail by hostile,
Americans use nearly 21 million barrels of oil a
day. The U.S. Geological Survey has just identified 90 billion barrels of
recoverable oil in the Arctic nearly 30 billion barrels of it in Alaska. Yet
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a floor vote on drilling because the
idea it would make a difference is "frivolous," she said last week.
Suffering consumers disagree. This month, an
IBD/TIPP Poll of 920 adults found that by more than 3-to-1 Americans believe gas
prices to be a bigger problem than global warming. A broad-based 64% of
respondents favor offshore drilling, and 65% want oil shale development in the
A Rasmussen survey in June found 67% of voters in
favor of drilling off the coasts of California, Florida and other states, and
64% believing gas prices would drop as a result. A Zogby poll last month found
that 74% want offshore drilling in U.S. waters.
This is a potential political gusher, if only
Republicans would fully tap into it. Bush has the opportunity to do so before
this hot, cash-guzzling summer ends. Like Truman, he can use his constitutional
authority to call this negligent Congress back once it embarks on its long
August recess to campaign for re-election.
In so doing, he can demand that instead of
nonsolutions like its failed attempt to release more oil from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve [SPR], Congress carry out the will of the vast majority of
Americans by passing laws that authorize drilling.
In one fell swoop, a presidential recall of
Congress would strengthen national security, boost our economy and maybe even
turn things around for Republicans and avoid the losses being predicted for them
this election year.
If giving 'em hell worked for Harry, you bet it
can work for Dubya.
Barring a terrorist attack or a major catastrophe in Iraq or Afghanistan, I
see energy - its cost, who we buy it from and whether we aggressively exploit
the vast resources we have - as the single most important wedge issue of the
John McCain is on the right side of this issue and Barack Obama is on the
McCain advocates offshore drilling (he is against ANWR drilling, which is
inexplicable to me - I have a feeling that will change during the campaign) and
the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout the country.
Mr. Obama is not only against these fastest-track solutions to the energy
crisis, but is also saddled with years and years of his Democratic counterparts
demanding HIGHER gas prices through more taxes on gas.
President Bush may not be the most popular guy in the world to share a stage
with during this campaign. But he can benefit John McCain incalculably by
doing exactly what Harry Truman did in 1948. And, not incidentally, if it
shames the Democratic congress into action, we all will benefit.
I hope Mr. Bush reads the IBD editorial and acts on it
OLBERMANN NAILED IN ANOTHER OVERT LIE
This Johnny Dollar guy is really something.
He hates keith olbermann's guts. That, in and of itself, is neither
newsworthy nor unique.
But he also seems to have dedicated a great deal of time and effort to
checking olbermann's accuracy and honesty. As it turns out, when that is
done we see that olbermann doesn't have a lot of either.
Here is the latest example, in which olbermann (again) lies to his audience's
faces - complete with the videos that prove it:
Olbermann Lifts Newshound Lie, Airs It as Fact!
Keith Olbermann is notorious for filching stories
from the blue blogs, particularly ones that attack the eeevil Bill O'Reilly. But
now his sloppy, unprofessional practices have come back to bite him. He aired an
out-and-out falsehood Wednesday as fact, ripping and reading from the most
unreliable source in existence.
On Countdown June 23 (NOTE: the date is
actually July 23) Olbermann
assailed O'Reilly over his segment on Rep. Robert Wexler. After some crack about
altering the color of Wexler's lips (a confirming clue as will be seen), he then
turned the indignation up to '11' and ridiculed Bill for not knowing that
Florida doesn't have a state income tax:
OLBERMANN: The Frank Burns of News then
speculated that Wexler was somehow trying to cheat Florida out of income
tax. Fund had to inform him that Florida doesn't have an income tax. "No
income tax? This is where my argument falls to the
ground!"Don't believe us? Here's
Unfortunately this is completely false, and in fact the opposite of
what actually happened. It was O'Reilly who brought up Florida's lack of an
O'REILLY: You say it's legal. You can
do that, based upon how he set it up. Now, taxes. Doesn't he have to pay taxes
in both states if he has dual residency there?Don't believe us?
Here's the video of the segment, the video Olbermann was careful not to
FUND: Members of Congress
can choose to pay taxes either in the Washington area or in their home
O'REILLY: OK so they have the choice. So he would pay it in Florida
because Florida doesn't have a state tax. And Maryland taxes like
FUND: And you have just identified one of the big reasons he
has to have this phantom residence, because that enables him to pay no state
Obviously Olbermann's entire segment was built on a lie,
constructed around a conversation that never happened. So how did he come up
with his twisted, doctored version of what O'Reilly said? Where else, but from
the masters of twisting words and doctoring quotes, the newshounds (another fine
product of the Outfoxed syndicate). No other site that we could find
reported this peculiar, and demonstrably
false, version of the conversation:
While Bill O'Reilly elaborated on
the dubious charge, a photo of Wexler with unusually red lips was shown
on the screen.... BOR continued the probe speculating about the state taxes
Wexler pays insinuating that he is trying to cheat in some way. Fund
couldn't help him with that either informing him that Florida has no income
tax anyway.Aha! Olbermann's "news source": another lie from the
We have exposed literally hundreds of falsifications,
doctored quotes, and lies from the newsmutts on this site. There is no more
dishonest source for smears against Fox News. But Keith Olbermann is supposed to
be a journalist. He's supposed to check sources and facts before he airs a
story. That means something more than merely lifting something from an
unreliable blue blog and airing it as if it were fact.
To say that the
next Edward R Murrow's journalistic standards are subpar would be the
understatement of the eon. Does Olbermann not care that he is just spewing lies?
Was the story "too good to check?" Can you imagine a "journalist" taking the
word of a discredited blogger, without even bothering to look at the video to
see if it's true?
You don't have to imagine it. MSNBC brings it to
you every night, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
What a liar. What a fraud. What a joke.
Call it "Smackdown, with Johnny Dollar"