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

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

From the Conservative Net

This is the first of what I intend to be a weekly series.

It’s just impossible to write an original post on everything that needs covering, so each weekend I’ll post an excerpt from other blogs I follow of articles on issues that I simply couldn’t find the time to cover that week.

From All American Blogger

Haste Makes Waste: Feds Send Millions in Stimulus Checks to Dead People

The government is saying the error happened because they had to get things done in a hurry. Because of the perceived time pressure, the have sent millions of dollars in stimulus money to people like “Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago.”

More


From ARRA News Service

Obama Warns America’s Debt Load is Unustainable

Can you believe it? After creating the largest spending program and largest deficit in American history, President Obama warns us about something every Tea Party American knows: that the American Debt Load is unsustainable. Thanks for putting us in this position Mr. Obama!…

More


From The Conservative Pup

The Right Stuff….

I’m so proud of Carrie Prejean. When asked her opinion about a current divisive political issue during the Miss USA pageant, she took the more difficult path of honesty. Some might have chosen the easier, more traveled path of evasiveness or outright dishonesty, but she chose the “road less traveled.” She gave her opinion in an almost apologetic way, stating clearly that she didn’t wish to offend anyone.

More


From The Foundry

New York Times Reports Half The Story in Afghanistan

On today’s front page, the New York Times goes to every effort to recreate the narrative of Mai-Lai in Vietnam, only this time in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, they do so with only half the story. This much we think we know: One night last week, American forces in the middle of a drawn out battle with insurgent Taliban forces, launched an aerial attack on enemy targets. It appears many civilians were killed during the battle.

More


From Michelle Malkin

Pelosi, the CIA, and the Dems’ dangerous blame game

We had dueling press conferences this morning with Nancy Pelosi accusing the Bush CIA of lying to her about waterboarding and House GOP leader John Boehner defending the integrity of the briefers.

Pelosi had a particularly frozen look on her face throughout her presser as she repeated the “Bush lied about Iraq” mantra to justify her own inaction:

More

May 17, 2009 Posted by | Obama | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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