ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [252] -- What The Media Missed

[ Posted Friday, April 5th, 2013 – 17:56 PDT ]

We've got a lot to cover this week, so we're going to try to get through everything in a rather foreshortened format. At least, that's the goal (I have lost count of the times I've started one of these columns with "It's going to be shorter this time, dammit!" and then wound up with the usual tome's-worth of text when I get to the end).

First, some "old business" to start. For anyone who missed it, and is still in a foolish mood, some House Democrats put together an amusing "House of Fools" website to poke fun at Republicans.

With that out of the way, we're going to take a quick overview of what the media considers the big stories of the week, and we're going to end up in the Talking Points section with all the stories you may have missed due to the media being distracted by this stuff, just for fun.

President Obama just waded into some brackish waters in the sexism swamp by how he referred to California's attorney general at a fundraiser. Note to politicians: since the late 1970s, it has no longer been acceptable to comment upon professional women's appearance in any way, shape, or form. Obama immediately apologized, but be on the lookout for some late-night comedians making a few funny jokes tonight.

Obama also made a gesture this week, to give up five percent of his income in solidarity with the pain the sequester cuts are causing to hundreds of thousands of workers. Which prompted me to suggest yesterday how the federal budget could easily be cut to save fifty times the money Obama will be saving, by abolishing the offices of the congressional chaplains.

In more substantive budget news, Obama sent his budget over to Congress. While the House has passed Paul Ryan's "drown it in a bathtub" budget, and the Senate has passed a much-more-reasonable Democratic budget, neither one has a prayer of actually making it into law. Obama has now essentially put on the table the offer he made to John Boehner over a year ago, and it is being attacked from left and right. But if any budget does actually pass this year, it's going to look a lot closer to Obama's proposal than either the House or the Senate version -- something that may get lost in the frenzy of commentary over the next week or so.

Cindy McCain, most-recent wife of Senator John "You Kids Get Off My Lawn!" McCain, is going to star in a pro-gay marriage play about California's Proposition 8. Our hats are off to Cindy, and we wish her the best of reviews as she trods the boards.

Unemployment is down to 7.6 percent. North Korea is in a frenzy of saber-rattling.

Up next week, as Congress returns from a multi-week vacation: immigration.

OK, that's enough for now, let's get on with the awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

This is an odd one for me to comment on, because I feel I am not qualified to really take any sort of position on the issue.

Nevada state lawmaker Lucy Flores testified recently on a sex education bill. She offered up her own experience of getting an abortion when she was 16 years old. Since then, she has been receiving threats for doing so.

This seems to me to be not only worthy of a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, but also of a sort of "Profiles In Courage" status, as well. Because it must have taken a lot of courage to do what Flores did, knowing that there would be a backlash.

I would never presume to suggest that any woman follow Flores's example, in the same way I would not presume to tell any closeted gay person to come out. These are very personal decisions, and how each person deals with them is a matter for them to decide, not some pundit who knows nothing about their lives. The sheer number of gays who have come out in the open has indeed changed the political debate in this country, because it's getting harder and harder to find people who have never had a personal interaction with an "out" gay person these days. Some pro-choice groups have tried to get a similar thing going by encouraging women who have had abortions to speak out about the experience.

But, again, that's not for me to decide. What I can do, however, is to admire Lucy Flores for the brave testimony she gave, and to denounce any who would threaten a politician for any reason whatsoever. Flores put a human face on an issue that is too often debated and decided by those who know little (if anything) about it. For doing so, she is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores on her official contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

OK, a few quick demerits here before we get to the main award. President Obama, obviously, gets a (Dis-)Honorable Mention for his comments on Kamala Harris in California. He did immediately apologize, but he never should have said it in the first place, really.

More and more Democratic senators have now come out in full support for gay marriage, although we have four (Dis-)Honorable Mentions for the remaining four Democratic holdouts.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just got thoroughly embarrassed by a federal judge (a Republican appointee, no less) for her nakedly political and cowardly fight against science. Even though President Obama pledged to set policy based on science when he arrived in office, and even though the scientists gave their full approval to offering the emergency contraceptive "Plan B" pill over the counter to women of all ages, Sebelius overruled the scientists and restricted it to a prescription-only pill for minors. For no scientific reason whatsoever. For no reason at all except politics, in fact. The judge just pointed this out, in no uncertain terms, and ruled that the pill be available over the counter to everyone, within 30 days. Obama and Sebelius should realize that this is the perfect solution -- the judge has removed the issue from the political sphere by his ruling -- and announce they will not be appealing the ruling. For now, no matter what they decide, both Obama and Sebelius deserve at least (Dis-)Honorable Mentions for their anti-science political cravenness.

But our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award goes to three New York politicians this week, one of whom is so far anonymous. Federal arrests and indictments were taking place in the Empire State this week, in two separate corruption scandals. State senator Malcolm Smith, Democrat from Queens, was allegedly trying to bribe his way onto the Republican ballot for New York City mayor. He was at the heart of a scheme to buy ballot access for tens of thousands of dollars in bribes, apparently.

As if that weren't bad enough, state assemblyman Eric Stevenson and an unnamed co-conspirator were accused of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to write legislation friendly to one business.

We've long heard rumors that Albany is one of the most corrupt state governments in the country, and while nobody has yet been convicted, it certainly seems like the federal attorneys have been busy chasing down some of this storied corruption. If either man proves his innocence, we will of course offer a retraction and an apology, but for now both Malcolm Smith and Eric Stevenson are this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award winners.

[Contact New York Senator Malcolm Smith on his official contact page, and New York Assemblyman Eric Stevenson on his official contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 252 (4/5/13)

We're feeling a little experimental this week, so we thought we'd focus on all the stories the mainstream media seems to be giving a giant pass to, while they keep up the frenzy over Jay Leno's career and other important non-news.

So this week, each talking point should be used whenever some idiotic distraction is brought up in the media conversation. Democrats, take the power into your own hands, and hijack the media conversation to a few stories the blow-dried "journalists" seem to be missing!

 

1
   The arc of history

These first two deal with the same subject: marijuana. Marijuana was in the news this week because for the first time in the national Pew poll, a majority of Americans think marijuana should be legalized. The public is changing its mind on this issue roughly as fast as they're changing their minds on gay marriage. Our first comment comes from Tom Angell, Chairman of Marijuana Majority (a seemingly-prophetic name, now, for a pro-legalization group to have chosen):

It's time for politicians to catch up to the voters on this issue. Not too long ago, it was widely accepted in political circles that elected officials who wanted to get re-elected needed to act 'tough' on drugs and go out of their way to support the continued criminalization of marijuana. The opposite is quickly becoming true. A majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana, and you're going to start seeing more politicians running toward our movement instead of away from it, just as we've seen happen with marriage equality recently.

 

2
   Money talks

The second marijuana news tidbit is the formation of a political action committee, who will be putting money up for political ads in the near future.

"Anyone who supports marijuana legalization already has numerous groups to donate money towards, but this week the Legalize Marijuana Super PAC also appeared on the scene. For anyone sick of the abject failure of the prohibition of marijuana and who wants to see some science and some sanity in our nation's drug laws, there is now another group asking for your donations to fund advocacy for the cause. State by state, law by law, and organization by organization, we can indeed change the course of history. The people are leading on the issue, and the more clout pro-legalization organizations can get, the faster the politicians will decide to follow."

 

3
   Offshore, and off-screen

This one, no surprise, was completely ignored by the mainstream media.

"Did you happen to see the investigative story this week on how the wealthiest American individuals and corporations exploit the offshore tax laws to avoid paying their fair share? I didn't notice any stories from all the television journalists who happen to be in the tippy-top tax brackets, myself, but that doesn't make it any less important. This isn't just an American problem, either -- it is international in scale. Over 2.5 million files were poured over by the intrepid reporters at the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and what they found is simply astounding. I doubt you'll hear this story on any network news show, so I encourage everyone to go online and read for themselves how the rest of us are getting fleeced by the ultra-wealthy."

 

4
   Monsanto Protection Act

This is another one that seemed to sneak under quite a few radar screens (and television news screens).

"Even though earmarks are a thing of the past on Capitol Hill, it hasn't stopped politicians from sticking in completely unrelated legislative goodies for the betterment of their big donors. Crammed into the must-past budget extension bill that President Obama signed this week was a specific piece of legislation that has been called the 'Monsanto Protection Act,' which protects genetically-modified seed manufacturers from the consequences of their actions in the marketplace. The sweep of this provision is breathtaking, as it puts Monsanto and other genetic seed companies essentially above the law, allowing them to ignore pretty much all other federal laws and lawsuits and go ahead and plant genetically modified crops no matter what. You'd think that'd be a big story in the news -- 'special interest sets itself above all federal laws' -- but, sadly, you'd be wrong. There was barely a peep from the news media."

 

5
   Nothing to see here...

Not only is the media ignoring this story, but even if they weren't, the Pentagon wouldn't let them report it anyway.

"Dozens of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay are now staging a massive hunger strike to protest their continued detainment, some for over a decade, now. You may not have heard about this, because the mainstream media has collectively shrugged and ignored the story. The Pentagon is obviously embarrassed by what is going on, because they have just announced that reporters will not be allowed to travel to Guantanamo for any reason in the near future -- hoping, no doubt, that the hunger strike will end before anyone in the media notices. This is downright shameful, and deserves a lot more attention than it has been getting."

 

6
   In other government censorship news...

This one is just disgusting, and the Bureau of Prisons ought to be ashamed of itself.

"Daniel McGowan, who is serving a seven-year sentence for his actions with the group Earth Liberation Front, just wrote an article for the Huffington Post detailing his treatment while in prison, how his communications with the outside world were limited because of his political views. He wrote this article while in a halfway house, as he nears completion of his sentence. But because he wrote the article, he is now back in prison -- once again, for speaking out. This is a disgusting abuse of power, and something I would expect from a totalitarian society, not from the federal Bureau of Prisons. I call on the Bureau to rescind its decision and move Mr. McGowan back to the halfway house as soon as possible. No one in American should be punished in such a fashion for speaking the truth to power."

 

7
   War on voting

Of course, we can't let the Republicans get away scot-free this week, so we saved this one for last.

"Not content with the smashing success of their ongoing 'War On Women,' the Republican Party also seems to be redoubling their efforts to wage a 'War On Voting' as well. It wasn't enough for them to try to limit voting in 30 states, Republicans in North Carolina are now targeting student voters. They've announced a plan to essentially tax parents of college students who exercise their federal right to vote where they go to college. So, let's review. First, Republicans drove women away from their party. Next, they doubled down on driving away minorities, by attempting to make it as hard as possible to vote. Now, they're targeting student voters in an even more blatant fashion. Sounds like the Republican Party still thinks it can win big with the remaining old white men voter demographic! Every time you turn around these days, it seems the Republicans are shrinking their tent smaller and smaller. The effects of these short-sighted attempts to rig the rules will likely be felt for decades to come, that's my prediction. To all groups of Americans out there who see the Republican Party driving them away, I have a message: the Democratic Party would like to welcome you into our big tent -- there's plenty of room for everyone here...."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

71 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [252] -- What The Media Missed”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    We've long heard rumors that Albany is one of the most corrupt state governments in the country

    The other being Illinois?? :D

    Seems ironic that they are (or were, in the case of Illinois, not sure about that) Democrat governments.

    While I am sure that there are Republican State Houses that are equally corrupt, they apparently are better at getting away with it.

    Not sure if that's a plus or not, but....

    :D

    They've announced a plan to essentially tax parents of college students who exercise their federal right to vote where they go to college.

    To be accurate, the parents are not being taxed, they are being denied tax breaks because their kids are no longer living at home..

    Besides, I thought ya'all were Pro-Tax??? To use Democrat Spin, "If they are rich enough to send their kids to college, they don't need the tax break!!" :D

    Governments much have money to run, don'tcha know... :D

    "Daniel McGowan, who is serving a seven-year sentence for his actions with the group Earth Liberation Front, just wrote an article for the Huffington Post detailing his treatment while in prison, how his communications with the outside world were limited because of his political views. He wrote this article while in a halfway house, as he nears completion of his sentence. But because he wrote the article, he is now back in prison -- once again, for speaking out. This is a disgusting abuse of power, and something I would expect from a totalitarian society, not from the federal Bureau of Prisons. I call on the Bureau to rescind its decision and move Mr. McGowan back to the halfway house as soon as possible. No one in American should be punished in such a fashion for speaking the truth to power."

    The guys an eco-terrorist so I really don't care if they throw him in a dark hole for decades...

    But this is another instance where it's not really any big deal.. Prisoners are routinely denied constitutional rights (that non-criminals normally enjoy) as a result of their illegal activities..

    One of the most cherished rights (the right to vote) is taken away from felons in many states.

    In this case, as a term of his probation, McGowan was forbidden to have contact with the media w/o permission.

    McGowan did not secure permission for his HP Commentary so he violated the terms of his probation.

    Probation violations usually result in a trip back to jail, DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200...

    "Dozens of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay are now staging a massive hunger strike to protest their continued detainment, some for over a decade, now.

    Again, a bunch of terrorists. Who cares.. I would also wonder about a "hunger strike" that could last 10 years. I mean.. uh... Wouldn't they be dead?? :D

    Monsanto Protection Act

    Who knew old style record players needed protection.. :D I guess I just dated myself. :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess I just dated myself.

    Which IS legal in Alabama... :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.theimproper.com/58899/beyonce-jay-z-travel-cuba-u-s-lawmaker-protests/

    Well, I am sure glad Obama supporters don't get special treatment.... :^/

    If there was ever an administration that epitomizes Quid Pro Quo or Pay To Play it is the Obama Administration.....

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, a few quick demerits here before we get to the main award. President Obama, obviously, gets a (Dis-)Honorable Mention for his comments on Kamala Harris in California. He did immediately apologize, but he never should have said it in the first place, really.

    I find myself in the unique position of defending President Obama..

    Com'on, people. Do we REALLY want to live in a world where it is INAPPROPRIATE to compliment how a lady looks??

    It's much ado about nothing...

    Michale
    MFCCFL

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[3]

    I couldn't possibly agree more!

  6. [6] 
    dsws wrote:

    Monsanto Protection Act

    Mixture.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanx Liz.. :D As I told SF Bear in a previous commentary it's likely that, if all was aired, us'all would agree more than us'all would disagree. :D

    Howz THAT for tortured syntax... :D

    I do have to clarify though..

    While it is wholly inappropriate to disparage a woman's looks, I see nothing wrong with telling a woman she is good looking.

    I would imagine any woman would be flattered to be complimented on her looks by a POTUS.. :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would imagine any woman would be flattered to be complimented on her looks by a POTUS.. :D

    Or any man, for that matter. Wouldn't want to be discriminatory, eh? :D

    Assuming, of course, that said man (or said POTUS) was of that persuasion... :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/president-obama-plays-golf-for-second-weekend-in-a-row/

    I am sure glad that all this "sacrifice" and "belt tightening" us Americans have to endure is not preventing Obama from his golf game.

    I would REALLY hate to think that The Exalted One would miss his precious tee times...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'd personally like to know when rahm emanuel and barbara byrd-bennett make the most disappointing list, or at LEAST dishonorable mention. if i had a most infuriating list they'd be at the tippety-top.

    CPS is planning to close sixty public schools, citing a new "utilization" statistic and claiming that it indicates the schools are "half-empty." they claim that the closures are needed to save money over the next five years. yet in the very same week CPS announced that they would be opening 60 new charter schools, also within the next five years - as if the two events were completely unrelated.

    when one looks at the utilization statistics, the calculations are more than suspect. a school is considered "underutilized" if there are fewer than 30 students per class, without accounting for the fact that special education classes are generally required to have a third of that. obviously, schools with high special education populations will have low numbers of students per classroom. on the other side of the coin, many chicago charters have a low number of students per class, even with very few special education students, and not a single charter is on the list for closure. i realize that many people in politics believe that replacing public schools with charters will help students. that belief, although untrue for the majority of students, may well be sincere. however, the CPS are being blatantly dishonest about what they're doing.

    they're flat out lying to the public about their reasons for uprooting the education of thousands of students, 90% of them poor and african-american. some of the schools slated for closure are doing an outstanding job, but that doesn't seem to matter. it's cold, calculating and downright wrong.

    ~joshua

    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/chicagos_new_chief_education_officer_has_a_history_of_cleaning_schools_partner/

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    US and DPRK are in a showdown..

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/04/2013471341732178.html

    And the US backs down first...

    What a great message to send.... :^/

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    While it is wholly inappropriate to disparage a woman's looks, I see nothing wrong with telling a woman she is good looking.

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! And, that goes for a man's looks, too, for that matter.

    It's a great feeling whenever you and I are singing from the same hymn book, and in key to boot! :)

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    After reading your link, I find myself cheering on the Union!

    Thanx a lot, pal! :D

    Just one more reason why Chicago is a frak'ed up city where the "values" of the Democratic Party are abject failure...

    Liz,

    Yea, it's nice ta know ya'all can be reasonable once in a while. hehehehehehehehehehe

    Just kidding... :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    After reading your link, I find myself cheering on the Union!

    unions are like any other organization - some are good, some are bad and most are indifferent. simplistic treatments like "waiting for superman" would have us believe that they're all the same and all useless, with no purpose but financial gain and the propagation of their own existence. on the other side of the coin, the same has been said of corporations. in fact, the two are very similar in that people tend to paint them all with a broad brush, as if they were all the worst of the worst. but most of both types of organization serve an important function, without which we'd all be worse off.

    Just one more reason why Chicago is a frak'ed up city where the "values" of the Democratic Party are abject failure...

    it's not just chicago. the same thing is going on in philadelphia and new york, and all over the country. it seems like there would be a good opportunity now for some moderate republicans to make inroads among educators, but they're generally just as anti-education than the democrats. the only answers republicans seem to have is to abolish the department of education and institute private school vouchers. the federal government and its minions should absolutely stop meddling in local school decisions, so they're right on that count. but so should michael bloomberg, joel klein, michelle rhee and other phony self-styled reformers.

    ~joshua

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    unions are like any other organization - some are good, some are bad and most are indifferent. simplistic treatments like "waiting for superman" would have us believe that they're all the same and all useless, with no purpose but financial gain and the propagation of their own existence. on the other side of the coin, the same has been said of corporations. in fact, the two are very similar in that people tend to paint them all with a broad brush, as if they were all the worst of the worst. but most of both types of organization serve an important function, without which we'd all be worse off.

    Yea, but hysterical generalities are just so damn fun!!

    A perfect case in point:

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/07/auburn-man-facing-charges-after-killing-bear-in-his-backyard/

    That's what's wrong with the Democrat/Leftist mentality on guns..

    It's completely and utterly whacked with absolutely NO bearing (no gun intended... er... No PUN intended :D) on reality...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:
  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Technical/Geek Question...

    Seems adobe flash is constantly crashing, but it's really noticable here on CW.COM...

    W7/Ultimate x64, Core i7 12G RAM, 4TB HD using FireFox 19.0.2 to access CW.

    Anyone else having issues???

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But if any budget does actually pass this year, it's going to look a lot closer to Obama's proposal than either the House or the Senate version -- something that may get lost in the frenzy of commentary over the next week or so

    Yeh it's interesting that Obama clearly wants to strike a budget deal - so much so that's he prepared to piss off his own party. Of course none of this will probably be enough for the whack-job House Republicans so it'll all be for nothing. I'm surprised he hasn't realised this yet and moved on to dedicating his time to other tasks...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeh it's interesting that Obama clearly wants to strike a budget deal - so much so that's he prepared to piss off his own party.

    I haven't seen any indication of blowback from Dems..

    Which indicates to me, it's a "compromise" that isn't really a compromise..

    In other words, Obama is SAYING "cut Medicare/cut Social Security" but he is SHOWING Dems that it's really EXPANDING Medicare and SS...

    Classic Bait/Switch marketing...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    michty6 wrote:

    ^^ Well it's essentially what he was proposing before and it was not well received by Dems and the left-wing media. I think he was even CW's MDDOTW that week! I imagine when the official version comes out this week the reaction will be the same...

    Here is a typical reaction from what I've seen in left-wing media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/social-security-cuts_b_3034692.html

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, as I mentioned before with the Senate Dem budget, we really don't have anything firm. It's all vaporware, to date..

    Time will tell if Obama is serious about the cuts to entitlements or if he is just sending vaporware up the flagpole, as he has done time and time again..

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If he wasn't serious about them he could've just produced a 'Dem budget' or a 'GOP budget' like the Senate/House parties did. He actually proposed a 'Compromise budget' (classic Obama, start from a position of compromise). As I mentioned I was pretty surprised by this as it seemed the idea of a budget deal was long gone. Obama seems to think not, I think he is being naive as usual...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama seems to think not, I think he is being naive as usual...

    Or he has something on the GOP that will make them make a deal..

    Considering Obama hails from Chicago politics, that is more likely the scenario...

    Obama may be a LOT of things, but naive is definitely not one of them...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/7-year-old-nabbed-on-felony-bb-gun-charges.html

    Once again, insane gun laws that defy common sense in pursuit of out of control political correctness...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    While I am sure that there are Republican State Houses that are equally corrupt, they apparently are better at getting away with it.

    Heh. You'd think the "liberal" media would be better about publicizing actions like Arthur Pope buying the North Carolina legislature ...

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/08/1832201/meet-the-north-carolina-legislature-the-new-ground-zero-for-tea-party-craziness/?mobile=nc

    How come you never hear about actions like this, or the Chamber of Commerce, or ALEC-sponsored legislation in the "liberal" media?

    I keep hearing about this "liberal" media but I sure don't see one.

    -David

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    How come you never hear about actions like this, or the Chamber of Commerce, or ALEC-sponsored legislation in the "liberal" media?

    Actually I did read about that, on a link from Drudge... Not sure the media outlet it directed me to, but it WAS publicized...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I keep hearing about this "liberal" media but I sure don't see one.

    You can, no doubt, find an example here or an example there that supports your theory that there is no Left/Democrat/Obama bias in the vast majority of the MSM..

    But you simply cannot explain the disparity of the number of Positive Stories for Obama vs the number of Positive stories for Romney during the last campaign. You cannot explain the disparity of the number of attack stories against Romney vs the number of attack stories against Obama..

    There is NO other explanation for the disparity in the reporting of Abu Ghraib vs Afghani Kill Teams, Benghazi, Domestic Spying, Drone assassinations/usage and all the other things that the media hypes/doesn't report.

    Now, it's possible that the MSM, after receiving the alleged black eye for their support of the Iraq war have swung the pendulum back hard Left by way of guilt feelings.. That's a possibility.

    But there can be absolutely NO DOUBT in the objective mind that, in the here and now and for WHATEVER the reasons, the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama/Democrats/The Left..

    NO other possible explanation fits ALL the facts..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    NO other possible explanation fits ALL the facts.

    This "liberal media" theory doesn't fit all of the facts. That's just it. In fact, it doesn't fit most of the facts.

    Isn't it more likely that the MSM is "corporate media"?

    -David

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Not sure the media outlet it directed me to, but it WAS publicized.

    Sure. But unlikely in the MSM.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    This "liberal media" theory doesn't fit all of the facts. That's just it. In fact, it doesn't fit most of the facts.

    Sure it does. Once you accept the premise that there will ALWAYS be outliers..

    Isn't it more likely that the MSM is "corporate media"?

    No.. Because if it was Corporate media, it would slant Right and slant Right big time..

    It doesn't, ergo, it's not Corporate media..

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because if it was Corporate media, it would slant Right and slant Right big time.

    When I say "corporate media", I don't mean a conspiracy. The MSM typically has it's own interests at heart (profit), not yours (informing people).

    This is ok. Just recognize the bias.

    For example, they tend to not pursue certain topics because of the fear of lawsuits. Why risk getting sued when you can just endlessly reprint the idiot Dem/Rep culture wars?

    -David

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    For example, they tend to not pursue certain topics because of the fear of lawsuits. Why risk getting sued when you can just endlessly reprint the idiot Dem/Rep culture wars?

    Now that makes a good amount of sense... But again, that doesn't explain a lot of other things...

    Let me approach it from a different perspective.

    Would you agree that the vast majority of "journalists" (I put that in quotes for obvious reasons.. :D) are Liberals/Progressives/Lefties/Democrats??

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Would you agree that the vast majority of "journalists" (I put that in quotes for obvious reasons.. :D) are Liberals/Progressives/Lefties/Democrats?

    I don't know. You might be right. Err ... left. :)

    What's more important though is who you work for and their beliefs and how they incent their reporters.

    Do they reward hardcore investigative journalism? Or is the rule that it's more important how many web hits you get? Or how quickly and how many articles you can put out there?

    Let me put it this way. If you work for ClearChannel, are they going to support your investigative reporting? Or Gannett? Or Disney? Or Comcast?

    I don't think we've seen any investigative reporting from a major news outlet here in Cincinnati for over 15 years.

    When scandals happen, it's usually because someone screws up. Not because it was uncovered by a veteran investigative reporter.

    -David

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's more important though is who you work for and their beliefs and how they incent their reporters.

    Considering some of the "reporting" (again, the reason for the quotes is self evident :D) it's clear how their reporters and incenticized... :D

    But here's my point.. It's well-documented that the vast majority of "journalists" are Left/Democrats/Liberals/Progressives..

    This being the case, let's employ Occam's Razor..

    On the one hand, if things are as YOU say, that there is no Left Wing biased in the majority of the MSM, then we have to believe that the vast majority of "journalists" are virtuous and have the integrity to completely dis-assosciate their personal political leanings and beliefs from their reporting and report the news in a completely unbiased and apolitical manner.....

    On the OTHER hand, if things are as *I* say, then we have to believe that "journalists" are sneaky, conniving assholes and pursue an agenda that is completely compatible with their own personal leanings and beliefs and report the news with their own personal slant and biases intact....

    Now...

    Of the two descriptions of "journalists", which do you think is more accurate?? :D

    When scandals happen, it's usually because someone screws up. Not because it was uncovered by a veteran investigative reporter.

    And yet, how many "screw ups" were reported from the Romney campaign vs the number reported from the Obama campaign??

    Seems that Romney got all the bad press and Obama got all the good press..

    Now, why do you think that is???

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering some of the "reporting" (again, the reason for the quotes is self evident :D) it's clear how their reporters and incenticized... :D

    That should read:

    Considering some of the "reporting" (again, the reason for the quotes is self evident :D) it's clear how their reporters ARE incenticized... :D

    My bust... :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there is a "ASSHOLE LEFTIE OF THE WEEK" award, I vote for that Chez guy who does a thing with Bob Costa....

    http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/brad-paisleys-accidental-racist-is-purposefully-stupid/?utm_source%3Drss%26utm_medium%3Drss%26utm_campaign%3Dbrad-paisleys-accidental-racist-is-purposefully-stupid

    Why is it that moronic Lefties just have to bring hatred into everything???

    Off for the night. Anyone watching the new Kevin Bacon series, THE FOLLOWING??

    It's a really awesome series....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And yet, how many "screw ups" were reported from the Romney campaign vs the number reported from the Obama campaign?

    How many screw ups did Romney make? :)

    Seriously though. If there were a liberal media, Romney would have gotten about 5 votes. And that's only because he has such a large family. The guy was a terrible candidate.

    -David

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    The guy was a terrible candidate.

    Really??

    And yet, 49% of America voted for him..

    So, it's either one of two possibilities..

    Either you are wrong or 49% of America was wrong.. :D

    Considering how things are shaping up with his Highness, the Great Exalted Barack The First, I think that 49% of America called it dead on ballz accurate... :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of ObamaCare...

    Obamacare architect Rockefeller: It's 'beyond comprehension'
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-architect-rockefeller-its-beyond-comprehension/article/2526681

    Seems the Obama Administration just can't catch a break...

    First the ACLU goes up against Obama's signature Anti-Gun legislation...

    Now the guy who wrote ObamaCare says it's crap...

    Looks like it's going to be a bad month for Obama..

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many screw ups did Romney make? :)

    About the same number as Obama..

    But we never heard about Obama's screwups from the vast majority of the MSM.

    Now, why do you think that is?? :D

    Because the majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama. They don't want to be accused of racism for slamming our first black POTUS..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, it's either one of two possibilities..

    Or all the money and marketing and media in the world couldn't save a truly lousy candidate

    (Who I recall you hated until he became the nominee)

    Now if you really want to go after Obama, go after his budget! Once again he's compromising to start and throwing social security under the bus.

    -David

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because the majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama.

    Sure, Michale.

    When conservatives win it's because they're AWESOME and when they lose it's because of a great liberal conspiracy.

    Just once it would be nice to meet a conservative who actually took responsibility for something instead of telling others they should.

    -David

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    (Who I recall you hated until he became the nominee)

    My opinion of Romney didn't change one iota once he became the nominee..

    He would have been a better POTUS (BY FAR) than Obama.. Granted, that doesn't say very much. A trained cockroach would be a better POTUS than Obama...

    Now if you really want to go after Obama, go after his budget! Once again he's compromising to start and throwing social security under the bus.

    And yet, you still support him...

    So why SHOULD he bow to the wishes of the Progressives when he knows he has ya'all, lock, stock and barrel. Or, to be more accurate, hook, line and sinker...

    Just once it would be nice to meet a conservative who actually took responsibility for something instead of telling others they should.

    That's the problem here. You still think I am a conservative.. :D

    I have no problem pointing out when Republicans scroo the pooch..

    Infinitely more often than ya'all point out when Democrats scroo the pooch...

    But to deny that the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama is to simply deny reality...

    The evidence of this is all around...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's the problem here. You still think I am a conservative.. :D

    For the record, when I was talking about conservatives who don't take responsibility, I was thinking of Romney, in particular.

    Romney's comments about how lazy Americans are doomed him nationally and his comment about Chrysler doomed him in the swing state of Ohio.

    What did he blame for his loss of Romentum?

    Obama's gifts to young people and minorities and Hurricane Sandy.

    Way to take responsibility. (p.s. What a d-bag ...)

    so why SHOULD he bow to the wishes of the Progressives when he knows he has ya'all, lock, stock and barrel

    You support the most progressive candidate you have and then you work to elect more progressive candidates.

    You yourself follow this mantra when it comes to what you believe in. Why would you advocate for a different approach for others?

    (I mean other than the obvious of course)

    -David

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's gifts to young people and minorities and Hurricane Sandy.

    It's universally accepted that, if not for Hurricane Sandy, we would have President Romney..

    You support the most progressive candidate you have and then you work to elect more progressive candidates.

    Then you appear to be working against yourself in your support of Obama. Getting ya'all to actually admit Obama has faults is like pulling teeth... :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Then you appear to be working against yourself in your support of Obama.

    You vote for the most progressive candidate you can and then you work to elect more progressive candidates.

    In 2016, I'll work to elect someone like Sherrod Brown, or Elizabeth Warren, or Sheldon Whitehouse.

    Getting ya'all to actually admit Obama has faults is like pulling teeth.

    Actually, it's not.

    I'm against his stand on Social Security. I said this before you said anything meaning the amount of work you had to do was zero .

    Why do you hate one person so much?

    Why not fight for something instead of singing the constant refrain of "I'm a, I'm a President Obama jumbo liberal hater"?

    -David

    p.s. C'mon, that last one was pretty good, right? I mean, you remember the commercials, no?

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm against his stand on Social Security. I said this before you said anything meaning the amount of work you had to do was zero .

    Which stand was that?? The one where he said that SS shouldn't be touched??

    Or the stand where he said he will cut SS??

    :D

    Why do you hate one person so much?

    I asked ya'all the same question during the Bush years.. Never got a satisfactory answer.. :D

    Be that as it may, my reasons for disliking Obama are well-established.

    It's not political.. It's personal..

    Why not fight for something instead of singing the constant refrain of "I'm a, I'm a President Obama jumbo liberal hater"?

    Ya mean, as opposed to "I'm a, I'm a President Bush jumbo conservative hater"? :D

    Once again, I.W.B.W.s

    p.s. C'mon, that last one was pretty good, right? I mean, you remember the commercials, no?

    I have to confess ignorance. Do tell.. :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'm a, I'm a President Bush jumbo conservative hater

    It doesn't rhyme quite as well :)

    And I had nothing against Bush personally. His policies were just awful as proved by the results.

    The Iraq War and Bush economic policies did more to destroy our country than any terrorist ever did. All so a very few people could make a whole lot of money ... country be damned.

    It's universally accepted that, if not for Hurricane Sandy, we would have President Romney.

    Poor Republicans ... victims of a natural disaster.

    Victims, always victims. Victims who hate it when other people play the "victim card" but love doing it themselves.

    If that's the case, how come they spent so much money on a study about what went wrong?

    http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspx

    -David

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I have to confess ignorance. Do tell.. :D

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tXiverhe-I

    One of the catchiest jingles ever. Sometimes I wish I could purge this from my mind :)

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I had nothing against Bush personally. His policies were just awful as proved by the results.

    You mean 7 years w/o a terrorist attack on US Proper? THOSE results?? :D

    Because, when all is said and done, THOSE are the ONLY results that are worth a damn..

    The Iraq War and Bush economic policies did more to destroy our country than any terrorist ever did.

    The friends and family of over 3000 Americans might disagree with you...

    Victims, always victims. Victims who hate it when other people play the "victim card" but love doing it themselves.

    Oh, come now.. Democrats *INVENTED* the victim card...

    Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle...

    If that's the case, how come they spent so much money on a study about what went wrong?

    Same reason Democrats did after The Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010...

    They don't like to lose...

    "I changed the conditions of the test. And got a commendation for original thinking.....
    I don't like to lose."

    -Admiral James T. Kirk, STAR TREK II, THE WRATH KAHN

    :D

    One of the catchiest jingles ever. Sometimes I wish I could purge this from my mind :)

    Now THAT's funny!!!! Thanx David, that's a great way to start the day!! :D

    But, like the Frito Bandito, I guess those great commercials are sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness gone mad... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    The POWER of Drudge!!! :D

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=4ee39663d6a08882947b465a73fa1a70&_cview=0

    I don't know what's more pathetic.. That DHS would actually have the temerity to actually PLACE such a ridiculous order...

    Or that they folded like a wet noodle when they got caught...

    One would hope our Dept Of Homeland Security would have a little more balls, a little more strength in their convictions...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345317/manchin-thanks-cnn-support-gun-control-debate-andrew-johnson

    And STILL people think that the majority of the MSM doesn't lean Left...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because, when all is said and done, THOSE are the ONLY results that are worth a damn.

    Bush ... 1 horrible terrorist attack, 7 years without, 2 wars, 1 collapsed economy

    Clinton ... 8 years no terrorist attacks, no wars, budget surplus

    Obama ... 5 years no terrorist attacks, recovering economy

    Given that their records on terrorism are all pretty similar and the random nature of terrorism, I'll take the folks who do a better job on the economy.

    -David

  54. [54] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because, when all is said and done, THOSE are the ONLY results that are worth a damn.

    BTW, if those results were the only results worth a damn, then your hatred of Obama & Clinton is, as Spock would say, illogical.

    So clearly something else is worth a damn.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton ... 8 years no terrorist attacks, no wars, budget surplus

    Ahem... World Trade Center 1993...

    Clinton's "budget surplus" COULD be as much from a REPUBLICAN Congress as it was from a Democrat POTUS, no?? :D

    Obama ... 5 years no terrorist attacks, recovering economy

    Benghazi?? But yer right, that's not US Proper...

    I have already acknowledged Obama's effectiveness as a CT POTUS...

    My beef in THAT case is why do Democrats go along with the EXACT same CT policies that they fought (nearly to the point of treason) Bush over...

    BTW, if those results were the only results worth a damn, then your hatred of Obama & Clinton is, as Spock would say, illogical.

    My "hatred" of Obama is quite logical, considering the other circumstances that don't matter in comparison, but still matter to a certain extent..

    As for Clinton??

    I LOVE the guy! :D Anyone who can get a BJ in the Oval Office and STILL have the support of the Left??

    A con artist of renowned skill... :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I LOVE the guy! :D Anyone who can get a BJ in the Oval Office and STILL have the support of the Left?

    LOL ... BJs are bipartisan :)

    Ahem... World Trade Center 1993.

    Ahem ... 9/11.

    My beef in THAT case is why do Democrats go along with the EXACT same CT policies that they fought (nearly to the point of treason) Bush over.

    No disagreement with you here.

    However, if the CT policies are the same but the economic record is much better, the choice is pretty clear. Even though we'll have to keep fighting against those ineffective, expensive Bush-holdover policies.

    -David

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, if the CT policies are the same but the economic record is much better, the choice is pretty clear.

    I completely and unequivocally agree..

    So, howz the economy under Obama?? :D

    A helluva lot worse than it was under Bush, sans the last couple months...

    LOL ... BJs are bipartisan :)

    Touche' :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, howz the economy under Obama?

    The trends which caused the economic crisis have been significantly halted- trickle down theory & deregulation.

    Have they been reversed? Not yet. Still a lot of work to do.

    Would we want to return to them? I wouldn't.

    You can enjoy having Wall St rip you off if you want. I don't.

    -David

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    The trends which caused the economic crisis have been significantly halted- trickle down theory & deregulation.

    And yet, things are much worse... So, that would seem to indicate that the Democrat's way of doing things makes things much worse...

    You can enjoy having Wall St rip you off if you want. I don't.

    To hear ya'all, Wall St is STILL 'ripping us off'...

    And, considering that Obama et al STILL let's them get away with it...... Well, this makes me wonder about his support...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    To hear ya'all, Wall St is STILL 'ripping us off'.

    Have they been reversed? Not yet. Still a lot of work to do.

    And yet, things are much worse... So, that would seem to indicate that the Democrat's way of doing things makes things much worse.

    Puhleez. The trend over time is about as subtle as getting hit with a 5 pound hammer

    http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/recovery_chart_march.png

    -David

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    How to respond in seconds when cops are minutes away...

    http://sjfm.us/temp/How_to_stop_a_massacre.wmv

    Now, as a LEO professional, I can find some issues with the individual's response...

    However, there is simply NO DENYING how effective the response was...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/recovery_chart_march.png

    Where's the current data???

    That chart ends over a year ago...

    Irregardless of that, I am sure you can find oodles of charts and stats that show everything is hunky dorky and peachy keen wonderful...

    But, will the average American agree with that rosy assessment??

    Need I remind you the REAL tangibles of what constitutes well off??

    Gas prices.. Taxes.. Freedom..

    All of THOSE indicators show that this country is in MAJOR decline..

    Thanx Dems.... :^/

    Michale

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Gas prices.. Taxes.. Freedom.

    Perhaps you're right about what the average American believes.

    I believe though that the average American is starting to be more concerned with wages, jobs being outsourced, and the huge shift of wealth in our country from the 99% to the 1%.

    Yunno, the things that politicians want to distract us from. Many Dems included.

    Who cares about the price of gas going down if your job has been outsourced?

    -David

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who cares about the price of gas going down if your job has been outsourced?

    The people whose jobs HAVEN'T been outsourced.

    Obama is honor bound to take care of THOSE Americans too.. Even if they didn't vote for him..

    But "honor" seems to be a concept alien to our POTUS...

    Just ask Ambassador Stevens.... Oh wait...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The people whose jobs HAVEN'T been outsourced.

    My point exactly.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    And THAT is because of Obama and the Democrats??

    Prove it..

    Because I can point to a dozen companies that have supported Obama and the Dems and have outsourced jobs...

    That's why your arguments are such a paradox...

    You have a long long list of things that are bad and with practically EVERY one of them, *DEMOCRATS* are as (if not MORE) guilty than Republicans...

    So, if you want to state your argument as "Yea, they are all crooks and scumbags, but Dems are a little less so" that's fine..

    But you simply cannot sell the idea that Democrats are any better than Republicans...

    Because the FACTS prove otherwise...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I don't have the personal issues you seem to have with politicians.

    The issue I have is with the economic theory known as "trickle down" and the idea that deregulation is always better.

    These ideas don't work. They cause big economic collapses.

    So it's quite simple.

    I will vote for whoever advocates better economic policies.

    I will vote against whoever tries to sell me on these theories.

    If Democrats were trying to sell me that we need more tax cuts for wealthy people, I'd vote against them. Because it doesn't trickle down.

    -David

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know.. It's bad enough to have Obama and Democrats stoop to such gutter levels and exploit children's brutal murders to serve a moronic and hysterical political agenda....

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/behind-the-curtain-newtown-89977.html

    But to have the kids' own PARENTS do it!???

    That just makes me sick to my stomach...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Here is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about..

    Congress votes to shield top officials’ financial disclosures
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/12/senate-votes-shield-top-officials-financial-disclo/

    This is YOUR Democrats at work...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you want to win me over, tell me what economic plans Republicans have which are better or different than ...

    - Trickle down
    - Deregulation

    All this other stuff is distraction because the answer is: that's their economic plan.

    -David

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't have the personal issues you seem to have with politicians.

    Agreed.... :D

    I will vote for whoever advocates better economic policies.

    And therein lies the rub. Obama and the Democrats have PROVEN that their ideas are NOT better..

    They are making things worse..

    And yet, you STILL vote for them..

    If you want to win me over, tell me what economic plans Republicans have which are better or different than ...

    I never said they have better.. I, like you, support people with better ideas..

    The problem is you still claim that THAT is the Democrats..

    Despite all the evidence to the contrary...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]