Tuesday, September 23, 2008
|
|
Media in the Tank? Deja vu all over again ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:23 AM
|
|
With all the talk about John McCain's battle with the NYT, I found this quote to be interesting:
"He loved the Senate, he loved Arizona, he loved his wife, and he hated being told what to do ... He may have also sensed that his popularity, which was considerable, would change once he became a candidate for president. As many people have discovered, a politician can go to long way in Washington until he becomes a serious presidential candidate. At that precise moment the Washington press corps digs in, and reputations are destroyed in no time."
The author goes on to write that prior to running for president, this person wrote a popular book, was subject of numerous positive magazine articles, and was a fixture on national television.
... I should probably point out that this quote is not in reference to John McCain. It actually comes from Alfred Regnery's book, "Upstream," and refers to Barry Goldwater's 1964 race.
Of course, it could just as easily have been written about John McCain in 2008. Prior to winning the GOP nomination, McCain was the toast of the liberal media -- a group he famously referred to as his "base".
And when his campaign was down and out, the NYT endorsed him. But just months later -- after winning the nomination -- the "newspaper of record" launched a scurrilous attack against him, alleging affair with a female lobbyist. And their attacks have not let up. Of course, they claim McCain has changed -- which is more convenient than admitting that their coverage has changed because he now poses a threat to their favorite liberal candidate.
Of course, the fact that we have a liberal bias in this country should not surprise anyone. Still, it is interesting to see that this phenomenon of the liberal immediately turning on a popular Republican once he wins the nomination is a long-standing practice that has been with us for decades. Goldwater, after all, saw it coming more than forty years ago. It's deja vu all over again ...
|
|
And 85% of them say they are for Obama.
That why John McCain is not getting a fair shake with the press.
It is okay to send Schmidty out to dump on them back, but I would encourage McCain to channel is inner Reagan and not his inner Nixon. |
|
Ayers wanted teachers trained to instruct against “oppression” and to push schoolchildren towards political beliefs Ayers valued — apparently valuing them higher than actual education. Barack Obama agreed, and for several years worked in close partnership with Ayers to implement that educational policy. Even had Ayers never tossed a single bomb, this kind of educational philosophy would likely raise eyebrows with most parents, who desire a real education for their children and not some sort of political indoctrination camp. With the context of Ayers’ violent radicalism, however, it makes the CAC even worse — a breeding ground for future Weathermen, ready to follow Ayers’ lead when the time comes for the revolution that Ayers and his wife (and co-terrorist) Bernardine Dohrn to this day desire.
Barack Obama not only supported this, he helped run this program for several years. What does that say about Obama’s idea of mainstream, as he has repeatedly described Ayers and Dohrn? What does that say about his own politics, his own ideas on education, and what kind of philosophy he brings to American politics?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/23/the-obama-ayers-conne ction-chicago-annenberg-challenge/#comment-1447484 |
|
Worse his temper apparently knows few limits, even when it comes to his own wife. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, ‘You’re getting a little thin up there.’ McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, ‘At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*unt.’
McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day.
If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
Would you want this man to have his finger on the nuclear button?
|
|
And Obama spent 20 years in a church ministered by a black racist who hates America. Prior to that, 20 years of mentoring by a Marxist black racist who hates America (Frank Marshall Davis).
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
I'll take the crank over the Marxist, America-hating, black racist Obama. |
|
The real loser in this election is the media. They just don't know it yet. They are to busy admiring themselves.
Tibby |
|
|
I may get tired of the MSM daily, but i never grow tired of columns exposing them. I believe this is one of the most important political and culture issues in America. The free press is inseparable to our Republic and should be watched closely and this level of bias is just dangerous. |
|
Can anybody remember a president worth a pinch of owl snot that did NOT have a temper?
President Truman surely did as did Kennedy and Johnson and Reagan, to a lesser degree. Clinton had the reputation of yelling when angered. One of his aides, can't recall which one, wrote that he had never seen such anger from a man. |
|
This whole NYT fight is merely the latter, i.e., damage control. It's mostly about the fundamental reality that Rick Davis did collect ~$2,000,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while working as one of John McCain's top staffers. The more that is made about it, the longer it stays in the papers. I am confident someone in Hillary's campaign did the same thing. It would not have occurred in the Obama campaign on the same scale only because he was such a "Johnny-come-lately" in this election: he was not considered a serious candidate until he was well on his way to the nomination.
John's best damage control is to quietly dump Rick and move on, while sticking to his message. This whole non-issue is really a distraction and by attacking the media, in his case the NYT, John only allows the Obama campaign unimpeded progress towards the real goal, which is winning this election.
|
|
|
not to mention Hamas, Hezbollah, Putin, 80% of the French, ahminadinnerjacket, Chavez, and most other communists, terrorists and criminals around the world are for Obama. |
|
longer a free press because they have become shackled by their own ideology. They don't have the class, or decency to just report the news, as Fox says fair and balanced and not interject
their bias in the reporting but save that for
columns. They are arrogant herd animals, playing to their own base, their peers and the DemonRAT party, sneering at the ordinary people that pay the bills. Not only that, they take it upon themselves to betray our troops in their quest to destroy a legitimately elected President. That determination to destroy the President shows their contempt for the people that elected him. In another time, these publishers, editors and reporters would be prosecuted for treason. Why do we condemn Benedict Arnold and the Rosenbergs and allow them to walk free? That Ayers and Dorhn get a pass tells us media are no different than Arnold or the Rosenbergs, worse because they were honest traitors. They have become the papparazzi, media cockroaches, in fact the original papparazzi have more class than they could ever hope to have. |
|
Kwaayesnama what's your source for Sentor McCain cursing? The Huffinton post? This is given by three reporters who won't give their names. Hummm.
Do you have a real source? |
|
The best reason to vote for a Republican:
The press will pounce on the slightest inkling of impropriety on the part of a Republican - and that's how it should be !
Yet . . .
A Democrat can associate with terrorists, collaborate with convicted felons, take huge donations from failed banking institutions, or even drown a young woman while driving in a drunken stupor - and the press finds no reason to print it.
If you want to know what's going on with your elected officials - you have to elect Republicans. |
|
|
crescen7, you should be a campign strategist! |
|
|
|