POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

24Jun/110

Most Awesome Super Jeenyus President Evar! can’t remember who he awarded Medal of Honor to

Best alternate headline comes from Andy at AOSHQ: All you people look alike to me ...

President Obama visited the 10th Mountain Division today at Fort Drum, NY.  During a speech celebrating their service in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he recounted, in his characteristic cool demeanor, how he had personally awarded one of their number the first Congressional Medal of Honor given to a living recipient since the Vietnam war.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.

Nice one, eh? Smoother than Billy D. Williams.  Showing the troops how much he cares; how he keeps on top of all that soldiering stuff.  Real.  Authentic ...

Only one problem though, Jared Monti was killed in Iraq, the year Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate...

Now, surely he meant Salvatore Giunta; you know, the man who's neck he personally hung the Medal of Honor around earlier this year!  But, you know, keeping all of those details about the little people is, well, hard.  That would actually require him to give a tinkers damn about something besides himself or his next tee time.

Jim Hoft has the video of the performance.  But Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive has what is possibly the piece de resistance of the entire episode:

The ironic part of the speech, and this comes after the announcement of the politically pressured drawdown of troops in Afghanistan, was Obama's closing remark, "Know that your Commander-in-Chief has your back."

Right.  He "has their backs".  Whatevz...

Even the MBM knows how bad this "gaffe" looks for Obama, coming on the heels of his "Mission Accomplished in Afghanistan" speech.  Check out this headline, where the media hacks are spinning for the President faster than the double-deuce rims on a low-low: Obama visit to Fort Drum stirs range of emotions.

Indeed, it's just too bad that surprise, disgust, and apathy were included among them.

I hate to beat dead horses and all, but I can't help but ask my favorite rhetorical question; What if Mr. Bush had done something like this?  Imagine for a moment the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth; the talk of how this not only confirmed the kill-crazy-cowboy Chimperor McBusHitler's stupidity, but also the utter disregard for the lives of the men he sentenced to death in faraway places to simply stroke his ego, satiate his fascistic neo-con fantasies, and, of course, line eeeeeevolll Darth Cheney McHalliburton's pockets.

But Obama? Well, he's just stirring a range of emotions and keepin' it real...

[Cross posted at the Conservative Commune]

Share
29Mar/110

On the latest O!-bloviation

I've kept my trap shut on the Libya action, in general, because I believe that partisan politics end at the water's edge in time of armed conflict, and I don't want to engage in the same petty behavior I've spent the last 8 years criticizing; namely, using foreign conflicts as a cudgel to unfairly bash the President.  But that's a two-way street.

Click to Enlarge

There are some folks swooning this morning over Obama's speech, and recounting how it was chock full of memorable explanation, rhetorical nuance, heartfelt genuineness, emphasized the moral authority of multilateral-ism, and clearly explained "The Obama doctrine!".  They must have watched a different channel than I, or than AP fact check.  I found it to be disjointed, filled with misleading half-truths, and an overall lackluster delivery by an obviously uncomfortable Obama; in short,  completely and utterly forgettable.  This very cheerleading, though, has crystallized into a "Popeye moment" for this old salt; I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!

This entire speech made my guts grind. In the first part, he essentially patted himself on the back for “taking the lead”; He must truly think that we’re all idiots and don’t remember it was Sarkozy who first called for action, or that, in the usual and customary way, if the Sorelian "Big Lie" is repeated enough that it will somehow become truth.  Then, in the middle, he contradicted himself by going on about letting “our partners” in this vast international coalition “bear the burden of responsibility”.  And in the last part, he patted himself on the back some more, for being such a great humanitarian and, of course, for being the anti-Boooooosh!, as well as for his promise not actually expiring, as is usually the case; that promise being that the entire operation would be handed off to NATO; MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I've been on the pointy end of a few of these kind of operations in my time, and I can assure you that there is little difference between a US military action with allied participation and a NATO action; save for the decisions being made by committees that include folks that may despise, or be jealous of, the US military, I might add, which is unusual outside of certain Congressional caucus meetings...

But don't take my word for this, here's the NY Times revealing this inconvenient truth:

In his speech on Monday night, Mr. Obama, as he has in the past, portrayed the mission as a limited one, and described the United States’ role as “supporting.”

But interviews in recent days offer a fuller picture of American involvement, and show that it is far deeper than discussed in public and more instrumental to the fight than was previously known.

From the air, the United States is supplying much more firepower than any other country. The allies have fired nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the campaign started on March 19, all but 7 from the United States. The United States has flown about 370 attack missions, and its allied partners have flown a similar number, but the Americans have dropped 455 precision-guided munitions compared with 147 from other coalition members.

So it's not just me wallowing in ODS driven hateful wingnuttery when I say that we should all count on US forces continuing to provide an inordinately high percentage of the precision strike sorties and TLAM attacks; that is, "inordinate" in light of Obama's pronouncement that we've turned the operation over to our allies.  Indeed, Cap'n Ed has coined an amusing acronym for this; "NINO"-NATO In Name Only.

Oh, and not forget the strong implication and ersatz justification that he needn’t consult with Congress since, you know, he had such an awesome international consensus and UN mandate-something he still hasn't felt the need to do...

CHANGE!

Let me be very clear about this.  I have no problem going after K'Daffy.  But let's not act like there's some formidable coalition of Extraordinary Magnitude! assembled here, the likes of the world has never seen, because it's just not true.  And I want to see the US President get approval from Congress before embarking on such an undertaking, especially considering all of the previous sanctimonious, and now patently hypocritical, statements made by Mr. Obama and other national level Democrats regarding the need for such approval; and not imply that a UN resolution is a reasonable facsimile.  While he's at it, I'd also like to see an oval office address to the public, you know, a good old school one like Presidents used to give, in order to explain to the American people what's going on in their name at the time hostilities commence or as soon as reasonably possible (hint-not 10 days later).  And once engaged, I'd like to see the most overwhelming firepower possible brought to bear in order to bring about a swift end to the fighting as well as prevent casualties amongst our warriors to as great an extent as possible.

I fear that something entirely different is going on here, and I call upon the self-proclaimed, "Most Transparent Administration EVAH!", to be honest with the public, not politicize this action, be aggressive with our adversaries, and mindful of our warriors in harms way.  May God bless them, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Share
5Nov/104

Time to feast on a delicious second helping of schadenfreude

The midterm elections just keep on giving don't they? That pinhead Grayson, out. Pelosi's fall from glory. Obama's perhaps stubborn, dare I say Nixonian, inability to recognize the message voters sent him this past Tuesday.

But this, THIS!, may be the pièce de résistance :

Statement from Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:
I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.

Tastes sweet doesn't it?  Like a perfectly chilled, delicious, gewürztraminer on a warm summer afternoon...

Personally?  I see this as a convenient pretext for the new bosses from Comcast, who in a deal with G.E. recently took controlling interest in NBC and MSNBC, to get rid of Olbermann.  I mean, face it, MSNBC essentially bent over backwards for their "star", tolerating his free rein of idiocy, manic behavior, even getting him grief and anger counselors.  Olbermann was the face of their decided, and finally admitted, leftward shift.  But, I guess, Comcast didn't want any part of a loose cannon like him.

So I wonder if it's back to sportscenter, or, you know, NPR .  What a great fit that would be, non?

Either way, this is good riddance to bad rubbish, and a move I can see benefitting MSNBC in the long run.

Cap'n Ed has loads of details here.

Share
19Mar/1013

A simple illustration of the legacy media’s double standard at work

I don't know how many here are old enough to recall Dan Quayle's famous gaffe, where the then Vice President told a child at a school photo-op, "that he had left the 'e' off of the end" of the word "potato" while spelling it at the board.  Indeed, if you google, "potatoe", the top search results return references to Quayle's mistake.  For those of you too young to recall the incident directly, let me fill you in; essentially, the late night comics had a field day.  This one slip provided material for months, and clearly demonstrated the Quayle was a silver spoon, trust fund, idiot who was so stupid that his daddy must have bought his way through college with endowments; a lot like the same conclusions reached based on G.W. Bush's accent and malaprops.

Isn't it great though that now we have such a smooth, Harvard educated, obviously Brilliant! President?  I mean, that is what all of the lefties are always cooing about; that we needn't hang our heads in shame over having an idiot in the oval office.  Never mind that without a teleprompter, he sounds like a stammering ignoramus.  Or, when confronted with fluid situations-again sans teleprompter, like his interview on Fox with Brett Baier this week, where he had to actually, you know, answer questions instead of get fellated by an adoring and compliant press, he came off as small, petty, shifty, a little clue-less, and, yes, disingenuous (YOU LIE!).  That despite all of his Ivy League education, that of course we can't see any of the pertinent records for, he seems to be "historically challenged" as Victor David Hansen put it; Dr. Hansen having too much class to call-a-spade-a-spade, cut to the chase, and say it-Obama is too often factually challenged!  Suffice it to say that, in spite of his obviously HUGE! support staff, the President still manages to screw up basic historical facts in a way that should be cringeworthy to the faculties of Harvard and Columbia.

But despite all of the available evidence that so easily destroys the meta-narrative of Obama's brilliance, we still have yet to see him get the same treatment that Gerald Ford, Reagan, Quayle, or G.W. Bush did; where are all of the jokes about his educated idiocy?  About Hirohito signing the surrender aboard the Missouri?  About him listing the 57 states?  No one seems to see the humor in any of this.

And indeed, the Legacy Media has moved from a position of studiously ignoring Obama's gaffes, mis-statements, and general errors to a position of correcting and covering them for him!  A simple example is brought to you today courtesy of HotAirPundit who details how ESPN edited out Obama's misspelling of "Syracuse" on his NCAA bracket chart, instead showing animation containing the correct spelling.  But ESPN's continuity department forgot to scrub the video piece completely, as Andy Katz is clearly heard saying to the President, "should be an 'r' in there"; what can I say, good help is hard to find sometimes!  Also, be sure to click through the links at the HotAirPundit piece to "Newsbusters" for some other great examples from the “Let Us Fluff Your Pillow Award for Obsequious Obama Interviews” category.

So just to review where we are, if you spell potato wrong, or are white and speak with a heavy southern accent (but are not LBJ), then you are obviously an idiot and are considered a laughing stock for all time.  But, if you are Obama, the smoothest guy in America since Billy Dee Williams, then regardless of the gaffe or how you screw up, it only serves to underscore your Brilliance! as well as that of the media for dragging you across the finish line...

Share
20Nov/0936

The Renaissance of Sarah Palin.

sistah wasilla

TV ratings for November 18, 2009; courtesy of the Drudge Report. (click to enlarge)

Sarah Palin sure seems to be gathering steam lately, and there’s strong evidence that the public is giving her a second look; perhaps the realization of Mr. Obama’s shortcomings is accentuating her positives more than any negatives that the lamestream media tries to keep the public’s attention focused on.  Efforts that have achieved a whole new level of transparent desperation lately, with MSNBC reporters attending Palin book signing events armed with talking points to challenge her many fans, and Chris “Tingle” Matthews obsessing about the “monochromatic” nature of ‘Cuda’s fans.  I guess Chris “Tingle” needed to find a new angle, since lately the race card is looking a bit dog-eared from overplaying it; attempting to use it against anyone opposing the President’s political agenda.
 

The evidence of this resurgence is manifold.  To begin with, her new book, “Going Rogue: An American Life”, sold 300,000 copies on the first day it was released!  I guess it won’t be so hard after all to reach the 400,000 copies sold break even point, eh?  And then there are the TV ratings that spike when she’s on interview programs.  Not only did her interview last night propel Hannity’s ratings past O’Reilly's usual high metric, but her recent appearance on Chewbacca’s Michelle Obama’s friend Thulsa Doom’s Oprah Winfrey’s program registered the largest audience that show has drawn in years!
 

But a real measure of the change in public perception of Palin is reflected in a recent Fox news poll where her favorables were found to be 47/42 (favorable/unfavorable opinion):

Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll…

Among self-identified Republicans in the survey, Palin gets the highest favorable ratings (70 percent) amid a group of other possible contenders for the GOP nomination, including Mike Huckabee (63 percent), Mitt Romney (60 percent) and Newt Gingrich (58 percent). Palin’s favorable score among all voters is 47 percent, up nine percentage points over last July’s reading of 38 percent…

President Obama recently stated that he “probably won’t” read Sarah Palin’s new book. But his possible opponent in the 2012 elections trails him in personal favorability by only seven points (54 percent to 47 percent). Among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).

That last part is especially topical and should concern the President, considering how his poll numbers are fading across the board.  Of course, there is the Rasmussen daily Presidential tracking poll and approval index, which today stand at 46% of respondents at least somewhat approving of Obama’s overall performance, and an approval index rating of -14.  And less those numbers be dismissed as wingnut fantasy, Quinnipiac reports an overall policy approval rating of 46%-although a higher number of respondents “like” the President, Gallup has him hovering around 50%, John Zogby has Obama’s popularity holding steady at 49% as does Public Policy Polling, and finishing off this round robin of popularity polling is Fox, who show the POTUS having the same favorability rating as Rasmussen-46%.

That’s a whole lot of “below 50%” going on…
 

What should be of larger concern to President Obama is the growing dissatisfaction with his performance among self identified “independents”; a 34/51 split (overall approval/disapproval).  Perhaps more troubling still is a Zogby poll which reports that independents think that the Bush administration was more transparent than the much heralded, celebrated, most Ethical!, Honest!, Brilliant!, Judicious!, and Transparent! Administration-EVAH!  And the Democrats as a party need to recognize that Obama’s coat-tails work in reverse also, as Rethugs! now lead in generic congressional balloting; an advantage that Republicans in the modern era have never enjoyed, not even in 1994 when they were swept in to power in the House of Representatives.
 

None of this data means that any electoral success  is “in the bag” for Sarah Palin, quite the opposite instead since the legacy media, and the fightin’ nutroots, will almost certainly strive to cement her public image as being a divisive figure primarily through the bitter, deranged, openly misogynistic, acrimonious arguments, and belittling attacks that figures such as Chris “Tingle”, Olbermann, Maddow and other “gatekeepers” of information will subject the public and Sarah Palin to.  And, wittingly or otherwise, there will be alleged conservatives “wizards of smart”, such as the Davids-Brooks and Frum, that will aid them in this endeavour by using what limited sway they have in Republican circles to  gainsay her at every opportunity; publicly supporting the elitist arguments that she is just a rube, hicktard, chillbilly that’s bad for the party in general and who will be unable to attract moderates.  It’s been more than 30 years since I’ve heard this kind of rhetoric; the same sorts of criticisms were leveled at Reagan, the only difference being the slur substitution of doddering-avuncular-doofus for rube-hicktard-chillbilly.  And that’s why it is so clear to me that the far left is reacting to what they rightly perceive as an existential threat to all the sway they’ve worked to regain; especially over the last 4 to 6 years. 
 

The far left Democrats fear that, just as with Reagan, Sarah Palin’s cheery optimism, can-do attitude, and dedication to the traditional American ideals of national exceptionalism and individualism will resonate in a way that the elitist notions of our “betters” deciding what’s good for us never will; and fear that combined with a charisma that far exceeds the media enabled “cool” of Obama, will make for an unstoppable juggernaut.  Indeed, based pretty much solely on her charisma and  personal appeal the public is willing to give her another serious look; a development that drives liberals in the legacy media, as well as a few conservatives, to resort to doing whatever it takes to eliminate her viability as a candidate.  This dedication to the destruction of her potential political career is revealed by the maniacal response by some journalists and commentators, such as Ana Marie Cox’s decision to not let a silly detail, you know, like actually reading the entire book get in the way of her panning of it; a suspicion some have about Rod Dreher as well.  Or consider that the Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to “fact check” Palin’s book; an astonishing development on it’s face when you realize that to this day they have assigned none to fact check either of Obama’s books-either now or when he was an unknown, un-vetted, candidate who essentially came out of nowhere.  As if this doesn’t reveal sufficient and unfair bias on it’s face, as Mark Steyn wryly observes, all this squad of muckrakers uncovered were 6 minor, inconsequential errors, and between them produced a 695 word story.
 

What none of the folks in any of these organizations realize is that they are actually helping Palin through their deranged efforts.  Just as during the 2008 campaign, the public can tell that many legacy media outlets, and of course the nutroot blogs, are biased against her; indeed, the Fox poll showed that 6 out of 10 respondents recognized this biased and agenda driven reportage.  Add to this the public’s perception of the legacy media’s liberal bias, and the President’s continued bungling, dithering, and dedication to his far left base and their agenda, and you have a perfect storm that could possibly result in Palin’s favorable perception by the public exceeding the President’s;  resulting in a monumental sense of delicious irony, in the literary sense, writ large as well as a generous helping of schadenfreude for the targets of the left’s coordinated political attacks.
 

All of their efforts might just aid in Sarah Palin’s resurgence and might just propel her solidly into history too; not the dustbin though, but the annals instead, as perhaps the first woman to be elected President of the United States.

UPDATE: Dan Riehl weighs in on Sarah Palin 2.0, noting that in the public's eye she has what amounts to a fresh slate and that what happened in the past is of less importance than what happens going forward.  Oh, and he also mentions perhaps her most deranged and obsessive critic-RawMuslglutes...

Share
15Oct/098

A Rush to judgement on hearsay alone?

The participation of radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh in a partnership interested in buying a stake in the NFL St. Louis Rams has caused a media firestorm this past week.  As part of that, Rush has been called out for his past statements, characterized by some as racist.  Of course there is his past criticism of Eagles QB Donovan McNabb as an overrated media darling who the media wished to succeed based on race, an opinion that I happen to disagree with, a characterization which got him summarily fired from his ESPN prime-time commentary gig.  But what should concern even the most disinterested parties are the oft repeated, but as yet still unsourced, alleged Limbaugh quotes involving James Earl Ray, the institution of slavery, and today’s newest talking points involving his membership at an exclusive Florida country club.

These fabricated quotes were introduced into the zeitgeist by talking heads, of course, at MSNBC and CNN, putting Rush in the unenviable position of having to prove a negative.  And sensing an opening, professional race-hustler Al Sharpton, armed with extorted corporate cash from his National Action Network, quickly joined the battle.  Now, following Dave Checketts’ letter removing Limbaugh as a member of the proposed ownership group, the Reverend Al is declaring Victory! over his long-time nemesis.  But were the racialist assertions of a grievance pimp, and the ensuing posturing pandering palaver of other owners as well as the NFL commissioner himself, the prime force in this action?

Or, could it have something to do with billionaire George Soros reported involvement or desire to be involved in the Rams ownership group.  It is unclear whether the shadowy Soros has been involved all along, or has recently expressed interest.  But, while much more low key than Rush, Soros is no less controversial or polarizing a figure.  So while many of the usual suspects on the “proggy side of the street” may be celebrating the put down of their long time foe, their resort to both an essentially ideological disqualification as well as the nuclear option of invoking racism may well mean that their Patron, Mr. Soros, may have to be scotched as well lest the obvious double standard soil the entire brand.

The bottom line on all of this is that if the league is going to rely on alleged statements to disqualify a person from owning an NFL franchise, they ought to at least make sure that those egregious remarks were actually made!  And they need to use independent investigators, because as with the Breitbart/Acorn sting, this episode has gone a step further in exposing the inherent bias of the legacy media as well as their willingness to propagate naked hearsay in order to advance the desired narrative.  As Toby Harnden put it:

The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.

[emphasis-ed.]

Especially vile is CNN’s Sanchez’s repeating of the unfounded rumor after receiving a free ride from the press for his own sin of running over a pedestrian while driving drunk, and then leaving the scene of the accident.  But all that aside, it’s OK to dislike Rush the entertainer for the things he actually says, after all, I'm sure he provides so much material on his daily 3 hour show that there’s no need for his ideological opponents, bent on once more making the political-personal, to make anything up; in their zeal to attach to him the most toxic, and lately the most recklessly applied, label there is in America…

UPDATE: The long walkback has begun.  HuffPo removed the phony quotations after only 3 years and 3 months; I'm glad their editors were so thorough.  And that twit Sanchez has twittered, "our bad", as a backhanded apology for the whole affair.  It doesn't matter anyway, their work is done; Limbaugh's chance at part ownership of an NFL franchise has been thwarted...

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Share
17Sep/0917

We knew the card game, and now recognize the dealer.

It seems like ever since Chris “Tingle” Matthews declared, “My job is to make the Obama Presidency a success!”, the legacy media has been doing it’s best to ensure that result.  But, in a rare moment of candor and, you know, actual reporting, they seem to have pinpointed the real source of all the race card dealing and opponent vilification of late:

 

The White House officials are eager to avoid the perception that the president is directly engaging critics who appear to speak only for a vocal minority, and part of their strategy involves pushing material to liberal and progressive media outlets to steer the coverage in their direction, senior advisers said.

When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.

 
[emphasis-ed.]
Behold, a trifecta of admissions casually tossed out as if they were common knowledge; and confirming suspicions held by this writer and others.  First, an admission that the Obama administration is directing the tone and content of the coverage to achieve the narrative they desire.  And, it seems that the CRAZEE H8TING WINGNUTZ were not far off the mark in voicing concern over the President’s address to the nations schoolchildren; otherwise why would the speech text need “scrubbing”.  Finally, they are pushing out the talking points through a network of nutroot bloggers, Democratic pundits, and friendly legacy media outlets; utilizing their go-between channels of “jouno-list”, CAP’s “Progressive Media”, MoveOn.org, “Common Purpose”, and of course, the daily conference call featuring Rahm Emmanuel, George Stephanopoulos, Paul Begala, and James Carville.

As I noted yesterday, the distributed talking points are faithfully parroted in many publications such as, McClatchy and the NY Times; the latter providing the double service of not only pushing the desired meme, as MoDo did here while breathlessly bemoaning today’s lack of civility, but also declaring faithfully the intent of the President and all his men to steer clear of the growing “race debate”.  I guess this is not part of the “conversation on race” that Obama wanted to have, in which case they shouldn’t have brought it up !

But this strategy is not working out the way it was intended, or as it usually has.  While the usual suspects profess their usual OUTRAGE!, some writers are starting to openly mock the strategy as well as the melodramatic crying and gnashing of teeth.  And this seems to only make the liberals even more angry, as Peter Wehner notes:

It’s fascinating to watch how furious liberals have become despite Obama’s being president and Democrats’ controlling the Senate and the House by wide margins. This period should be—they expected it to be—years of milk and honey for them. But events and reality have intervened. They see the Anointed One, Barack Obama—their “sort of God”—failing. He is not only a mere mortal but also a deeply flawed one.
…
Many liberals simply cannot process this new data, this horrible turn of events. What we are seeing is the equivalent of a computer crash. As a result, they are returning to what has become for some liberals an emotional and psychological norm: anger and fury, overheated and reckless charges, bitterness and pettiness. It is embodied in people like Frank Rich and Keith Olbermann and Joe Klein, but some version of this affliction extends to many others.

Maybe it is simply misdirected anger, but the always astute Victor David Hanson sees it as more like a frustration:

A better explanation than right-wing racism for the Left's exasperation is that in the Bush wilderness years, the Left assumed permanent political marginalization, adopted an ends-justify-the-means strategy of street rhetoric against Bush, then found themselves unexpectedly as the establishment, and now are appalled that anyone might emulate their own past emotional outbursts.

[emphasis-ed.]
That same old hypocrisy of, “What’s good for me, is not for thee”; as always, some animals at the farm are more equal than others.  As I’ve said before, this canard is wearing thin.  People are starting to notice that criticism of the President’s agenda results in one being branded a racist, and reject it.  This definitely won’t help Michelle’s children…

So to the President and his administration I say, what’ll it be?  A straight up debate; a clean game?  Or will you keep dealing those race cards from the bottom of the deck?

UPDATE: The inimitable Ric Locke weighs in on the careless use of the race card.

Share
15Sep/0922

The Legacy media’s “intellectual incuriosity”; part deux.

wildlife-monkeys-hear-no-evil-see-no-evil-speak-no-evil

You would think that after the fallout stemming from the lack of reportage on the Van Jones story, as well as the revelation of falling public trust in their accuracy and objectivity in a recent Pew poll, that the legacy media would be on top of the most recent scandals involving ACORN; especially since they were dropped from participating in the census and the Senate overwhelming voted to cut off their access to public funds.  But that is not the case.

As usual, all we hear “crickets” and deafening silence…

Don Surber points out that the NY Times has one of the largest reporting staffs in the US, but amazingly does not have anyone available to cover the growing ACORN scandal, an organization who counts among their alumnus the current President of the United States, and instead are going with wire stories.  And, in an almost absurd statement, ABC’s Charles Gibson proffered that he didn’t even know about it!

Instead, major media outlets seem to have become obsessed with reporting, and “outing”, the hate-mongering racists that are behind the dissent to Mr. Obama’s legislative agenda.  Speaking about this past weekend’s protest in Washington DC, Howard Kurtz strains to reach for a racist motivation, an exercise which ACE thoroughly destroys.  Conversely, I doubt that Mr. Kurtz or any of his colleagues will see anything wrong with Congressman Johnson’s (D-Ga.) assertion that unless Joe Wilson is censured, and his underlying “ideas” rebuked, then folks will once again don white hoods and go riding through the countryside.  Is the Congressman’s assertion asinine and hyperbolic?  In a word, yes.  Will he be taken to task by the legacy media for inflammatory remarks that demonstrate a racialist outlook?  Somehow, I don’t think so.  Heck, Keith Olbermann will probably crown him as the best person in the world!  It’s just the usual pathetic media double standard, as Mark Salter observes at RCP.

This is a subject that I’ve written a few posts on, and unfortunately will likely have the opportunity to do so in the future.  But the Democrats and their media allies should reconsider the bias in their reportage.  Not only to slow the decline of the legacy media outlets, but to ensure that those charge others of racism, perhaps the most toxic pejorative in America today, does not go the way of the boy that cried wolf in the fable.

Exit Question:  Is Allah Pundit right when he pronounces the much heralded post-racial Presidency dead and buried?

UPDATE (SHOCKAH!):  Boston.com  breaks meta-narrative ranks reporting on how Obama's Kenyan relatives live in ABJECT! poverty.  You'd think he would do them a solid and let them hold a little somethin'...

Considering that Obama often admonishes us on how, "WE are our brothers keeper", and on, "Spreading the wealth around", you'd think that the legacy media would be all over it; as they often say about conservatives, "Because of the Hypocrisy!".  I wonder when MSNBC will tackle this one..?

At POWIP, we report, you decide…

Share
   

Switch to our mobile site