Thursday, 28 August 2008
OBAMA'S "FAIRNESS DOCTORIN''"
As readers of this blog know, I have determined that the Obama people have
come up with a new wrinkle on the "fairness doctrine". it is called
"fairness doctorin'". Simply stated, fairness doctorin' is when you don't
like the truth so you do whatever you can to avoid having people here it.
With this in mind, the following account by Warner Todd Huston of
newsbusters.org and conservablogs.com will make all the sense in the world:
August 28, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Elections,
Media Bias, News,
Publius Contributor, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Warner Todd Huston |
-By Warner Todd Huston
Members of Barack Obamas campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a
local radio show on the Citys most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they
didnt like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator
Barack Obamas ties to local terrorist William Ayers. This is a shocking attempt
at stifling political free speech and a bald attempt to quash debate by the
office of the Democratic Partys nominee. The funny thing is, WGN is the most
liberal station in the City with every host but one slavishly supporting the
junior Senator from Illinois.
Show host Milt Rosenberg, the
stations only conservative leaning host (probably to be considered more
libertarian than Republican), had on short notice asked conservative writer
Stanley Kurtz to come on the air to discuss his work on uncovering Obamas ties
to terrorist Wiliam Ayres and the Annenberg Challenge project. Kurtz was just in
Chicago for his investigation and Rosenberg contacted Kurtz only that morning to
appear. At the same time, Rosenbergs producer contacted the Obama campaigns HQ
which is but blocks from the radio station in downtown Chicago to offer some
time on the air with Kurtz to debate Kurtz claims about Obama and Ayres. The
campaign, however, flatly refused the offer of the equal air time and instead
tried to drum up via email a protest of the show, trying to get it stopped.
After the refusal of host Rosenbergs offer to
appear on the air with Kurtz, the Obama campaign issued an extensive email (The
Chicago Tribune has the full text) to drum up
protests of the radio station, which said in part
In the next few hours, we have a crucial
opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever
launched against Barack.
Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet
man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist
smears. Hes currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to
11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and
University of Illinois professor William Ayers.
Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime,
they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the
standards of political discourse.
The email gave the Rosenberg show contact info and
told people to call and protest Kurtz appearance. The email also lied to its
supporters by acting as if the Obama campaign was not offered fair rebuttal
It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would
give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive
ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane,
honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtzs lies.
I happen to live in Chicago and by chance was
listening to the Milt Rosenberg show and heard for myself the host assure
listeners that he offered the air time to the Obama campaign, an offer that was
refused. Rosenberg even went so far as to offer any other show date for the
Obama campaigns rebuttal to Kurtz work.
Then, in compliance with the Obama campaigns
email instructions, a parade of callers was aired all telling Rosenberg to shut
down the Kurtz interview. Each caller was quite insensible to the unAmerican
reaction in which they were indulging and each one was entirely unreasonable and
uninformed on the facts. Sadly, this anti-American attitude seems typical of
Obama supporters nation wide.
Now, Dr. Rosenbergs show is one of the most
intelligent, even high brow, shows on the radio, so schmaltzy, exploitation
radio is as far from his style as one can get. Rosenberg interviews authors of
the highest standing and show topics range from philosophy, to Opera, to physics
and political science. He even does a delightful yearly show on the misuse of
the English language as well as one on the years best literary offerings. Like
I said, exploitation radio he aint.
So, for the Obama campaign to act as if this
particular show is an affront to reasoned debate is an outrageous charge. Just
as outrageous is the Obama campaigns obvious desire to destroy free political
speech. It makes one quake to wonder what sort of oppressive climate an Obama
presidency would impose on the country?
That, folks, is fairness doctorin' in all its glory. If you don't like
the facts fight tooth and nail to suppress them so that the boobs...er, voters
won't get wind of what they are.
Do you like fairness doctorin'? I hope so. Because if Mr. Obama
is elected be assured that you will get four, maybe 8, years of
BILL CLINTON'S SPEECH
I've been asked why I have not commented on Bill Clinton's speech.
"Everything I've learned in eight years as
president and the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has
convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job": Bill
Clinton last night
Those were the words uttered by a man absolutely dedicated to defeating
Barack Obama and installing his wife into the White House throughout the entire
A comment like that reduces anything Mr. Clinton said down to boilerplate BS
- the stuff he had to say or they won't let him on the podium. It has all
the honesty of a car salesman claiming that the Hummer he's trying to sell you
gets 35 miles to a gallon - in town.
Any other questions?
MSNBC ON THE VERGE OF IMPLODING?
We've all heard the philosophical question about what happens when an
irresistable force meets an immovable object.
Well what happens when unsurpassed egos meet....er, other unsurpassed
This, courtesy of Noel Sheppard of www.newsbuster.org, appears to be the
Is MSNBC Feud More Serious Than
As more and more media outlets begin to notice the feud going on
between some of MSNBC's highest profile on air personalities, a question begins
rising to the surface: just how serious is it?
Although the network's President Phil Griffin
told the Wall Street
Journal he wasn't concerned, others at MSNBC say this situation is much worse
than management is letting on.
As reported by Jossip
Wednesday (emphasis added, h/t Johnny Dollar, photo courtesy
[I]n the past few hours we've spoke [sic] to a
number of 30 Rock staffers in Denver, New York, and Washington some of whom
thought it more productive to speak to us than attend to the on-going live DNC
coverage and the common wisdom is: 1) Nobody can believe how much Keith
Olbermann is getting away with, even if he does draw ratings; 2) As
an Olbermann protege, Rachel Maddow is attracting negative feelings from
staffers, since she stays mum on many of these catfights, but "there's still
time" to represent; 3) MSNBC head Phil Griffin is alienating staffers by
publicly defending Olbermann while privately bashing him, and it's left many
wondering when that will leak (oops); 4) MSNBC publicist
Jeremy Gaines appears increasing [sic] stressed out and can be seen "shaking"
with a phone attached to his ear dealing with reporters; 5) You don't want
to run into Chris Matthews anytime soon, especially en route to the bathroom,
because he has zero pleasant things to say right now; 6) Joe Scarborough
is definitely stressed, but he's managed to calm down a bit today and can be
seen laughing and gabbing; 7) None of this is helping ratings, with MSNBC
scoring the lowest numbers against Fox News and CNN in convention
There's lots of stuff here. But the one thing that jumps out most
prominently is how much keith olbermann appears to be hated by the people on his
I remember when Jimmy Breslin, the rancorous (though Pulitzer prize-winning)
writer, moved out of New York City to the suburbs. He got into fight after
fight with the people in surrounding houses and was utterly
despised. When he moved back to the city, the neighbors literally had
a block party to celebrate.
I wonder how big the party will be when olbermann eventually becomes
KARL ROVE DEBUNKS BARACK OBAMA'S "ACCOMPLISHMENTS"
No wonder Democrats hate Karl Rove. Look at how completely he debunks
their fraudulent claims about Barack Obama.
No excerpts on this one: Here is the entire article, straight from www.weeklystandard.com. Read it
and marvel at what dishonesty you were treated to about Mr. Obama and how easily
Mr. Rove disposes of it.
Pay special attention to the two paragraphs of summation and analysis at the
end, which I've put in bold print. They put it all together
Inflating Obama's record will
not resolve doubts.
by Karl Rove
08/28/2008 2:30:00 AM
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION exposed
the central defect of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy: the absence of
compelling evidence he is up to the job of president. The expos comes
courtesy of a bad habit of his running mate, Senator Joe Biden. When in
doubt, Mr. Biden exaggerates. And in the past week, he did a
Voters expect candidates to embellish, but
only so much. Go beyond acceptable stretching and a candidate may squander
his most precious political possession: credibility. Mr. Obama may be on
this perilous path.
Last Saturday, America heard Mr. Obama's new
running mate exclaim, "I watch with amazement as he came to the Senate. I
watch with amazement!" Mr. Biden's hyperkinetic praise is what we expect a
running mate to offer his benefactor at the top of the ticket.
But Saturday and again Wednesday night, Mr.
Biden also praised Mr. Obama for three specific legislative
accomplishments. One of them was an ethics bill, called by Mr. Biden in
his acceptance speech "the most sweeping in a generation." However, many
critics--including Hillary Clinton--criticized it as weak. For example,
under Mr. Obama's bill, lobbyists may buy politicians meals if they are
eating standing up but not if they're sitting down. Mr. Obama's bill
didn't ban privately funded travel for congressmen or authorize an
independent investigation office. But Mr. Obama did help draft, negotiate,
and push the legislation that passed. The other two supposed
accomplishments are more problematic.
Saturday, Mr. Biden asserted Mr. Obama "made
his mark literally from day one, reaching across the aisle to pass
legislation to secure the world's deadliest weapons," a claim similar to
one Mr. Obama made earlier in the campaign. Wednesday night, Mr. Biden was
more expansive, claiming Mr. Obama was a leader "to pass a law that helps
keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." This implied
a big, important controversial measure, passed with difficulty after the
intervention of an extraordinary leader.
In reality, the Lugar-Obama Bill was passed
on a voice vote on December 11, 2006. It was so routine, there was no
recorded vote. The media didn't consider it important or controversial.
Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post reported
its Senate passage, though the Post ran a 798-word op-ed by
Senators Lugar and Obama the week before it was approved. It was not the
subject of a story on the CBS, ABC or NBC evening news--not when it
passed, not when it was signed, not ever. No story about it appeared in
Roll Call or The Hill, the daily newspapers that cover the
minutiae of Congress. It drew only one squib in Congressional
Quarterly--and that story didn't mention Obama, just Lugar. The Bush
administration supported it. The legislation required the administration
to report to Congress within 180 days "on proliferation and interdiction
assistance" to secure the mostly conventional weapons stocks littering the
nations born from the collapsed Soviet empire. It created a new State
Department office to support the Bush administration's "Proliferation
Security Initiative" aimed at interdicting weapons of mass destruction and
conventional weaponry. And the bill authorized $110 million in funding.
But this legislation didn't require a profile in courage to co-sponsor or
hard work and powerful persuasion to pass, as Mr. Biden implied.
Saturday, Biden proclaimed: "But I was
proudest, I was proudest, when I watched him spontaneously focus the
attention of the nation on the shameful neglect of America's wounded
warriors at Walter Reed Army Hospital." The problem for Mr. Biden (and the
object of his praise, Mr. Obama) is the problems at Walter Reed were
revealed in articles in the Washington Post, starting February 18,
2007. Unless Mr. Obama writes for the Washington Post under
the nom de media of Anne Hull or Dana Priest, he didn't "spontaneously
focus the attention of the nation." The two reporters did. The legislation
to correct the shortcomings emerged from a Senate committee Mr. Obama
doesn't serve on and he played no significant role in drafting or pushing
it through the legislative. Mr. Obama is not the real hero of the Walter
Reed turn-around, despite Mr. Biden's extravagant claims.
Like Mr. Biden, Michelle Obama's
speechwriter could not resist hyping her husband's work. Monday night,
Mrs. Obama talked about "what he's done in the United States Senate,
fighting to ensure that the men and women who serve this country are
welcomed home not just with medals and parades, but with good jobs and
benefits and health care--including mental health care." This is an
apparent reference to the Dignity For Wounded Warriors Act, a bill Mr.
Obama introduced that never made it out of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, despite its Democratic majority. Americans missed the spectacle
of Mr. Obama "fighting to ensure" because he was missing for that
particular battle. And if he was fighting, he must have been ineffectual
because fellow Democrats didn't think this bill was worth
When candidates lack real
accomplishments, they and those around them exaggerate what they have
done, puff their performance, hype the difficulty of their activities and
depict their work as far more substantial than it really is. But if you
describe yourself as something you're not, or as having done things you
haven't, a critical press corps may be aroused and the contrast with what
people believe to be true may be jarring.
Mr. Obama should be way ahead in the
race for the presidency but this week has seen five polls showing the
essentially race dead even. Deep doubts remain about whether Mr. Obama is
up to the job. His running mate and his handlers know this. So they are
puffing his rsum, padding his accomplishments and claiming the work of
others to reassure voters he is up to the duties of the Oval Office. It
may work. But the American people are particular about who they elect as
president. And voters do not tolerate candidates whose opinion of ordinary
citizens is so low they think they can get away with misleading
3.3% GROWTH!! THE NON-RECESSION RECESSION
The definition of a recesssion is when there is negative growth for two
For a year or more now, Democrats have done everything short of hiring Barack
Obama's pal william ayers to bomb a few corporate headquarters, to talk
down the economy. Presumably this is because the worse the economy is the
harder it will be for a Republican to win the presidency.
But, despite the lousy housing market and major mortgage loan problems,
the economy is not only not receding, it is growing. Strongly.
Here are excerpts from today's
Associated Press article, which tell the tale:
WASHINGTON - The economy shifted to a higher gear
in the spring, growing at its fastest pace in nearly a year as foreign buyers
snapped up U.S. exports and tax rebates spurred shoppers at home.
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross
domestic product, or GDP, increased at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the
April-June quarter. The revised reading was much better than the government's
initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists' expectations for
a 2.7 percent growth rate.
The rebound comes after two dismal quarters. The
economy actually shrank in the final three months of 2007 and limped into the
first quarter at a feeble 0.9 percent pace. The 3.3 percent growth in the spring
was the best performance since the third quarter of last year, when the economy
was chugging along at a brisk 4.8 percent pace.
Looking at these data, I can't help thinking back to the
year 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency (plus 20 days in
Clinton had spent years bragging about his great economy, based on a dot.com
bubble that made things appear dramatically better than they actually
were. The bubble burst in late March of that year, and the economy went
Then, during the 2000 presidential
campaign, every time candidate George Bush pointed out that the economy was in
trouble, he was blamed for the downward slide. "He's talking down
the economy" was the line Democrats used then, and it was dutifully, relentlessly repeated
by a media intent on electing Al Gore.
Bush was literally being blamed for an economy he had nothing whatsoever to
do with, based on a blatantly fraudulent talking point.
Eventually the economic blow-down resulted in a recession
- a real one - for 6 months. And, again, with copious help from an
in-the-tank media, it was referred to as the Bush recession (note: Not one day of those
6 months was under a Bush budget. The first day of the first
Bush budget was October 1, 2001).
Now fast-forward to the present. Democrats have gone out of their way to
"talk down the economy" in dramatically more ominous terms than George Bush ever
used in 2000. But have you seen this same media villify them for doing
so, as they were happy to do when it was Bush?
here's the kicker of them all. Because Democrats have put all their eggs
in one basket - trying to win by claiming everything is wrong - strong
economic growth presents a problem for Barack Obama. A huge problem. Conversely, it is a genuine
boon for John McCain.
Since this 3.3% growth rate is the last data that will be released before the
election. It is therefore what John McCain will use to bolster his
relatively positive comments on the economy and Barack Obama has to explain away
as a "recession".
Which of the two sounds like it makes more sense? See the
HOW I FOUND OUT I WAS A GENIUS
I never knew I was a genius this morning. I never thought of myself
that way - and, god knows, no one else did either. But this morning I was
apprised of my elevated status; by none other than Matt Lauer of the Today
Now I do not know Matt Lauer and have never spoken with him. So how
could he have told me this?
It happened during Mr. Lauer's interview of David Plouffe, Barack Obama's
I only caught about a minute of the interview. But what I heard was Mr.
Lauer extolling Mr. Plouffe and stating that he is thought of as a genius in
political strategy. That was the word Mighty Matt used: genius.
Then, to demonstrate Plouffe's genius, Lauer explained that he had uncovered
18 states which he deemed battleground states. And he even named two of
them: Ohio and Pennsylvania.
That's when I realized I was a genius. You see, even before I found out
about David Plouffe's impossibly amazing analysis I, too, uncovered a great
many battleground states. And - this is where it gets truly astounding -
two of the states were Ohio and Pennsylvania!!!
Can you believe it? I looked at these two states, both of which have a
large number of electoral votes and were close in the last presidential
election, and concluded that they were battleground states. On my
own. Just me. BEFORE I heard from Mr. Plouffe or found out
what a genius this made him in the eyes of Matt Lauer.
I thought I was the only one to be this smart, and there's a genius
saying the same thing. It's hard to explain how wonderful that makes
I wonder if David Plouffe is as impressed with my analysis as I am of
his. I wonder if Matt Lauer will call or e-mail to confer genius status
upon me the way he did for Mr.Plouffe.
After all, as they say, birds of a feather............
THE BIDEN SPEECH
For the most part I thought the Biden speech - in fact, other than when he went into his attack mode, the entire Biden
segment (beginning with his son's introduction and ending with his family coming
to the stage) was terrific.
Biden has a very compelling personal story. He grew up without a
lot of money (not poor, but far from on the economic A-team).
He got his family through a horror of all horrors - his wife and one
of his children tragically being killed in a car crash. He claims
(and, I assume he is telling the truth) that after a day's work in the senate
he commutes home by train, just like a "regular" Joe.
Truthfully, Mr. Biden seems less like a senator and more like the kind
of guy you want living next door to you, someone you'd count on if you needed a
Politically, however, you get a very different Joe Biden.
As a politician, Mr. Biden is a hard case liberal/leftist with a
vicious, sarcastic streak; one who can be counted on to make rash,
unthought-out comments which he then has to (or at least should) apologize
That said, however, none of Mr. Biden's downside was in evidence last
night. Politics aside, as a human being Joe Biden is inspirational.
Does this translate into votes? Is it nothing more than a one day
snapshot immediately superseded by the head of the ticket, who is speaking today
at the Colosseu....er, Partheno.....er, Lincoln Memoria...er, Invesco Field?
Time will tell.