Posted by: Puma1 | October 23, 2008

A Vote for McCain is a Vote Against the Media’s Nasty, Divisive, Meanspirited pro-Obama, anti-Palin Biases

As my grandmother would say: the press has really “showed their underpants” during this election.

Kirsten Powers — who for the record leans proudly to the left — was right yesterday in calling it what is: prejudice. The prejudice of pundits and reporters against 1) those who lean right and/or 2) those who are not part of the out-of-touch, latte-sipping Georgetown jet set elite bubble (yes, that means you Brooks and Noonan).

Fortunately, the public is sick of the media’s nasty, divisive, meanspirited filter. Everyone knows the media is firmly in the tank for Obama and against McCain-Palin — even Dan Rather, whose career was brought to an abrupt end by his own anti-Bush bias, put himself on record as troubled by the double-standards.

In the latest and most egregious example of media excess and sleaze, we have Obama’s running mate announcing unequivocally on Sunday that Obama’s election would spark an “international crisis,” presumably because Obama’s inexperience and weakness would prompt America’s enemies to attack him:

To say that this is troubling is an understatement. If Obama’s chosen running mate is so sure that Obama’s elevation to the Presidency would put the nation at immediate risk, Obama must have serious flaws as a candidate at should give every voter pause.

Why on earth would we elect a guranteed “international crisis” for our countery at a time of wars and economic troubles? It doesn’t help that Obama himself promises such a crisis would be “severe”?

I’m sorry — what???

Is this reassuring? Is another severe test what Americans want? A voter would be insane to support a candidate who threatens the nation’s security according to his own running mate.

Have these stunning admissions by Biden and Obama been front page news, as it should be?

No.

Instead, media outlets are busy wondering about the intracacies and costs of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe

Wow. So at a time of war, at a time of economic crisis, the point that Obama’s lack of experience might immediately cause another crisis according to his veep nominee is to be ignored.

To be examined: what shoes Sarah Palin is wearing today.

It is clear that the media has abdicated whatever sense of responsibility to the public trust it once had. They have lost all credibility. According to investors and numerous reports, the New York Times isn’t worth the paper its printed on, its shares having now fallen below ten dollars and its worth rapidly dying. Network news ratings are in a smiliar free-fall.

Falling, falling, falling. New York Times stock price follows media's objectivity and credibility right down the crapper.

Falling, falling, falling. New York Times stock price follows media's objectivity and credibility right down the crapper. The price of blatant bias and elitism?

The decline in stature of the press says the public is tired of Obama’s overexposure. But we can do more than stop paying attention. We can reject Obama — reject his socialism, inexperience, and danger to national security — and thus really hit the media where they hurt.

We can’t allow them to force on us Obama, who would take your money and “spread the wealth around” and who would cause a severe “international crisis.”

By voting against Obama and the media, US citizens be able to keep their wealth and have a President who doesn’t invite crisis, the media will learn that their meansprited, negativite, vile attacks against those who aren’t like them don’t worth.

It’s time for us to put the press back in their place.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. You folks are getting to look silly. Every 8-12 years there is a change of power in the country. Look into it. Its time for a change. What did Bush do that you like so much you will go to any lengths to continue?
    _______________________
    Bush isn’t running for President, so obviously power is going to change. Please try to pay better attention next time. Thanks.

  2. I listened to Sen. Biden’s comment as you extracted it here out of context.

    As I heard it, Sen. Biden, obviously assuming that Sen. Obama will be elected (“We are going to elect a brilliant 47-year old President of the United States”) believes that, within six months, an international crisis of some sort will arise to test Obama’s mettle “the same as it did with John Kennedy”. While Sen. Biden may have used “I promise you” this was clearly a figure of speech (like saying “I really believe”), not an actual promise of action.

    Further, as he said, this prediction came out of his service under seven presidents, not, as you presume, “because Obama’s inexperience and weakness would prompt America’s enemies to attack him”. In no way did Sen. Biden imply that a similar incident would not come about if Sen. McCain were elected.

    After I wrote the above, I searched the web and found this quote from Sen. Obama:

    “I think the point that Joe made is actually very similar to the one that Secretary Chertoff made today or yesterday, which is that whoever is the next president is going to have to deal with a whole host of challenges internationally, and that a period of transition in a new administration is always one in which we have to be vigilant, we have to be careful, we have to be mindful that as we pass the baton in this democracy, that others don’t take advantage of it.”

    Finally, as to your complaint, “Everyone knows the media is firmly in the tank for Obama and against McCain-Palin…” consider this possibility: that a significant percentage (obviously not all) of media reporters might, after covering both campaigns (that clearly reflect the personality of the candidates) might have actually come to believe that Sen. Obama will, when all is said and done, make the better president.
    ____________________________
    More ‘rhetorical flourishes.’ While you try to “read” into what Biden said, we are merely stating what he said. There’s nothing to read into.

    In no way did Biden imply that McCain WOULD face such a crisis. Secretary Chertoff’s point was not similar to the one Biden. Chertoff’s point was that the next president will have many challenges and must stay focused. Biden’s point was that Obama’s election would spur an “international crisis” because other states would test him.

    McCain experience, which is just as extensive as Biden, leads him to believe that he will not face such a crisis. Biden’s experience leads him to declare that Obama WILL face such a crisis. “Mark his words.” In the privacy of the voting booth, I suspect voters will too.

    As to the media…um…I have no doubt that the media has made the wrong and terrible decision that they want Obama to be President. Just as I have no doubt that the teachers at my kids school have made a similar decision. The difference, of course, is the integrity of those teachers, who refrain from forcing their views upon students and do their duty to present both sides fairly. The media has no integrity and thus does not present both sides fairly. There is no question that Biden’s statements are more important than Palin’s wardrobe. A fair media would reflect that.

  3. The mainstream media demands that Obama wins. No ands, ifs, or buts. They will do or say whatever needs to be done to get him elected. Our free press is now gone, controlled by Obama. How sad.

  4. I have to say that your take is just as biased. Plus really it depends on the station as to which view you are going to get, and not all of them are going with either…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: