America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

NY Times Soft on Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Thanks to an out-of-state reader for tipping us on a NY Times article published yesterday about Arkansas’ own Senator Blanche Lincoln.  Titled “In Arkansas, a Democrat Navigates the Health Fight“, the article gently describes Lincoln’s activities over the August recess.  The article might have better been titled “Arkansas Senator Hides from Angry Constituents.”

Senator Lincoln has chosen not to give her constituents who oppose President Obama’s government-run health care plan an audience during her break from DC.  Instead of pointing out that she locked out constituents with whom she disagrees, the Times states she “filled the first week of the Senate recess with controlled events before respectful crowds, like business forums and civic club luncheons.”  Rather than state Lincoln is intentionally avoiding facing angry constituents who are rightly concerned about Obama’s attempt at a government takeover of the health care industry, Times’ reporter Kevin Sack states, “The cautious scheduling, avoiding any risk of an ugly videotaped confrontation, underscored the political hazards of the health care debate for centrist Democrats like Ms. Lincoln…

Sacks describes Lincoln as “caught characteristically in the middle” of the health care debate, which isn’t exactly accurate either.  Unless caught in the middle is synonymous with bouncing from one extreme to the other, hitting both sides numerous times, flipping and flopping so much that no one has any real idea where the Senator really stands on this one issue.  Almost at the end of the article, the author points out that “her opinion has been difficult to pin down.”   Most definitely an understatement considering in a span of little more than a month she went from being for it, to against it, to for it again.  Our requests for a yes or no answer on whether or not she’d support a public option have been met with vague, non-committal responses from which we’re unable to discern her position.  A more fitting description of Senator Lincoln’s position is straddling the fence, waiting until the last possible moment so that she can vote whichever way maximizes her political gain.  Waffling might be a good descriptor for Lincoln’s position.

The article so softly touches on Lincoln’s calling Obamacare protesters “un-American” that the reader almost wants to feel sorry for her.   Sacks almost makes the Senator out to be a victim when he states “Ms. Lincoln quickly issued a statement saying she should not have used the term. But the state Republican chairman, Doyle Webb, accused her of ‘becoming an elitist.’”  The author then fails to challenge Lincoln on her excuse for not holding town hall meetings with her constituents.  In fact, Lincoln again speaks in condescending tones of her constituents.  “If people genuinely wanted to have a constructive conversation, then that would be a different thing.” she said. “But that has not been what we’ve seen.

So Lincoln has really learned nothing from the uproar that resulted after her original “un-American” comment and her apology was nothing more than empty words.  She obviously still has no respect for those of us who exercise our 1st Amendment right to protest and demand our views be heard on government-run health care.

And the Times seems to be doing more to protect her than to point that out.

August 18, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Endless Love

by Jonah Goldberg on Townhall.com

Huzzah! Thanks to a few pointed questions from the press corps at a White House news conference, the long Obama captivity of the media is at an end. The Hotline, an inside-the-Beltway tip sheet, proclaimed June 23 “The Day the Love Ended.”

The New York Daily News’ Michael Goodwin celebrates the press corps’ ability to channel the mood of the country: “By peppering the President with forceful questions … and by challenging some of his slippery answers, reporters captured the changing tone in the country. Like the end of a real honeymoon, blind infatuation is giving way to a more accurate view of reality.”

“The press corps gets it,” Goodwin writes. “For Obama, the hard part begins now.”

Swamis and carnival contortionists who can fit their bodies into a Happy Meal box could learn something from the press about flexibility, given its ability to effortlessly pat its own back.

More

June 26, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Obama | , , , , , | Leave a comment

You won’t see this on ABC’s Obamacare infomercial

ABC is donating it’s airwaves to President Obama to help him sell his ‘Obamacare.’  This wouldn’t be so bad, but the network is refusing to allow any point of view other than the administration’s.  In so doing, ABC has become more of an Obama operative than a journalistic entity.  The broadcasting company has even refused to allow the Republican National Committee to run a paid ad to present its approach to solve the health care crisis.  So we now have a major network submitting itself to the President to do his bidding.

ABC won’t let the opposing view be heard, but you can hear it here.

June 24, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Obama | , , , | Leave a comment

Obama says Fox News devoted to attacking him

“First of all…I’ve got one television station [Fox News] entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone…You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”–President Obama

Video

Poor baby. I guess he’ll try to nationalize the cable news industry next so he can control the only network that presents something other than the “Worship Obama” mentality found elsewhere.

June 17, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Obama | , , , | Leave a comment

Missing in Action: American Mainstream Media

by Larry Elder on Townhall.com

Back when our military failed to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, The New York Times apologized to its readers.

Why?

Before the war, the paper wrote article after article — relying on both government and non-government sources — that assumed the presence of stockpiles. Three of its reporters even wrote a book called “Germs,” in which they discussed Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological programs.

But when the stockpiles failed to appear, the paper felt used, manipulated by the “devious” Bush administration. It promised its readers greater skepticism, more scrutiny, and no more at-face-value acceptance of assertions by the Bush administration. “The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter,” wrote the Times in 2004, “but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on ‘regime change’ in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. … Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.” Quoth the Times, “Nevermore”!

But with hard-left Democratic President Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities running both the House and the Senate, the mainstream media — the ones that felt used and manipulated by the Bush administration — now purr like a contented kitten after a hearty meal.

More

June 11, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Obama | , , , , | Leave a comment

Former CEO to Obama: You Scare Me

The following letter was written by former Proctor & Gamble CEO Lou Pritchett.  Pritchett says he submitted the letter to the NY Times, which neither acknowledged nor published the letter.  Once again, the MSM seeks to protect the President from concerned Americans who disagree with his Socialist policies.

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

June 10, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Obama | , , , , | Leave a comment

NY Times softer on Obama’s civilian casualties

What a difference a couple of years (and a new President) make in the headlines of the NY Times. Two stories, two years apart, telling similar stories. One is dated May 13, 2007, the other May 7, 2009. Both stories detail the precarious situation for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan resulting from mounting civilian casualties, but one headline is far more benign than the other. Can you guess which story is the former, and which is the latter?

Civilian Deaths Undermine Allies’ War on Taliban

High Civilian Toll Seen in U.S. Raid in Afghanistan

Notice how the second headline intentionally omits the word “death,” opting instead for the less graphic “toll.” Also note that nothing in the second creates a vision of the strain placed on US and allied forces as civilians perish, though the first conjures up the idea of a practically unwinnable battle.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, the second article was published today with Obama as Commander-in-Chief, the first was written when Bush occupied the Oval Office.

The obvious bias that softened the NY Times coverage of civilian casualties is further illustrated by the prose buried in the articles, both co-written by Carlotta Gall.

The earlier article was written in response to “scores of civilian deaths over the past months” while the second follows on the heels of American airstrikes that “had killed dozens and perhaps more than 100 civilians” in one village in one day. Though the more massive, destructive, and deadly one day bombardment would almost certainly provoke a much greater fury than the smaller attacks spread across several months, the headlines give the opposite impression. A villager described the more recent attacks saying, “It would scare a man if he saw it in a dream.” From the earlier story, ” ‘We are not saying that the foreigners should leave or stay, we are just saying they should not do this,’ said a farmer, Fateh Muhammad, 55, gesturing with his scythe at an enormous bomb crater and his neighbor’s collapsed house. He showed the place where two of his neighbors had been killed in a field nearby.

Comparing these two quotes, most would certainly expect the latest story to follow the more emotional headline. But there’s more.

From the earlier story, “Since the beginning of March at least 132 civilians have been killed in at least six bombings or shootings, according to officials. The actual number of civilians killed is probably higher,* since the areas of heaviest fighting, like the southern province of Helmand, are too unsafe for travel and many deaths go unreported and cannot be verified.” In the more recent article, “American airstrikes that Afghan officials and villagers said Wednesday had killed dozens and perhaps more than 100 civilians…If the higher toll proves true,* the bombardment, which took place late Monday, will almost certainly be the worst in terms of civilian deaths since the American intervention began in 2001.” (emphasis added)*

Notice the difference of the approach taken in these two articles, by the same reporter.

Under President Bush, the Times’ reporter assumed the death toll was higher than reported, but went out of her way to imply the number of civilians killed under President Obama was lower than reported. The first article also claims “nearly half” the civilian deaths in airstrikes on one village were women and children, but the second makes no mention of women and children among the dead.

I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to believe that an attack on a village resulting in such a huge number of dead civilians somehow managed to avoid killing any women and children.

It’s clear this reporter now writes in a completely different tone than she did when Bush was President, and it’s also apparent the Times’ editors now put a different spin on similar stories with their headlines.


Note: In no way should this article be construed as a criticism of US or allied forces in Afghanistan. As a USMC veteran, I realize and understand that collateral damage occurs in any war. I also firmly believe that anytime US forces are placed in harm’s way, such collateral damage should not in any way reflect badly on them. This article is solely intended to shed light on the obvious bias present at the supposedly objective NY Times.

May 6, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Remember when the media wasn’t dominated by the left…

#TCOT #diggcons

Posted on (It’s about my e-mail naming habits.)

If the D-Day Invasion were reported by today’s media:

June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY, FRANCE-

Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America’s invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. “We are dying for no reason,” said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. “Americans can’t even shoot straight. I never thought I’d say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler.”

…(Read full article)

Sad, but very likely true.

January 11, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another case of liberal bias in MSM

Article posted on All-American Blogger

Great article pointing out, yet again, the obvious liberal bias in the MSM.


2001: Bush Talking Down the Economy for Political Reason? 2009: Obama Sounds Dire Warning on Economy

 

President-elect Barack Obama hit the airwaves and sounded a Chicken Little-esque warning to the American people:

“If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.”

“This is a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime,” he said in a speech in Virginia.

…(Read full article)

January 10, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Video of Hamas Missile Strike

#TCOT #diggcons

The MSM loves to point to the difference in Palestinian casualties vs. Israeli’s killed and wounded in Israel’s effort to eliminate the Hamas threat to its citizens in the south.  The latest figures I’ve seen claim more than 680 Palestinian dead while the Israelis have lost 10 killed in the violence.  

The intent of course, is to imply the Hamas threat to Israel is minute, maybe even virtually non-existent.  Here’s a quote from a Richard Falk article on the Huffington post that plainly states what the MSM propaganda implies.

…some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly* on nearby Israeli territory…

*emphasis added

Now, Mr. Falk has lots of fancy degrees from lots of fancy schools, but I wonder how many times he’s had to flee to a bomb shelter when the air raid sirens sound, contemplating whether he’ll make it before an explosion that will shred him to pieces. 

Tell me, Mr. Falk, how many of a country’s citizens must die before military action is justified in your eyes?   If one citizen is killed, is that enough?  Or do you have some other arbitrary number in mind?  Perhaps 10, 20, 50, 100, or maybe military isn’t justified until Israel loses 1000 citizens.

It’s easy to place such arbitrary demands on others when he’s never been in the line of fire.  I wonder, if Mr. Falk lived with this threat every day, if he’d been born in a place where just miles away are 1.5 million people whose self-stated purpose in life was the destruction of his entire race, would he feel differently.

Well, Mr. Falk, what if you were the man in this video?  How do you think he feels about your ridiculous notion that Israel has no right to protect him because he escaped death by mere seconds?

I’ll just bet this guy is glad Israel is working to destroy Hamas’ military capability.

It should also be noted that Falk is also one of those highly educated nit wits that espouses US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  Toward the end of this article which calls on the Bush administration to use restraint in responding to the attack on our country that claimed some 3000 lives, Falk states that terrorism stems from American technological dominance that leaves people with two choices, subjugation and poverty or “vindictive violence.”  In other words, it’s America’s fault. 

This defense of terrorism and terrorists isn’t a new fad with Falk.  In 1973, he defended Karleton Armstrong who killed a University of Wisconsin researcher when he bombed the Army Math Research Center at UW-Madison.

So, Mr. Falk, why don’t you spend a little time in Sderot or Ashkelon and see if that doesn’t enlighten you?  It’s easy to criticize those who seek to defend themselves from radical zealots who seek only the eradication of Israel and her people when you’ve never walked in their shoes.  Let the missiles fly into your neighborhood, putting your family at risk and tell me then how many Israeli’s must die before taking action against Hamas.

January 8, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Middle East | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment