Mudslinging and the Political High Ground

Barak Obama has been virtually given a pass from the news media since he began running for president.  Hillary Clinton found this out when they turned against her during the election.  Pro-Obama folks (not directly linked with his campaign) would sling dirt about Hillary and this allowed Obama to maintain the high ground.

In some cases, Obama even stooped to telling people what his opponents would say, even before they said it.  And then when Hillary (and later McCain) would engage in the debate on the topic, they were immediately attacked for racist remarks or otherwise not being sensitive to Obama's heritage.  Even Bill Clinton was accused of "going too far" when he tried to challenge a ridiculous claim that Obama had made against Hillary.

Now that it's between Obama and McCain, the pro-Obama forces, those in the media as well as ultra-left bloggers, have slung mud on McCain and now Palin daily.  Any time that McCain or Palin try to defend themselves or fight back, they are accused of mudslinging, while Obama gets to sit on political high ground, not having done any of the dirty work himself.

Consider that during the democratic primaries, Obama, as well as other democratic candidates, met with the leftwing bloggers' group (on the left coast).  Even Hillary Clinton had reservations about this meeting, as it would legitimize these people.  Obama had no qualms about meeting with them.

And they were the first to attack Palin's family, and although Obama came out the next day with a statement that family is "off limits", the fact is that he never denounced these supporters who have continued on their mudslinging campaign against Palin and McCain.  And Obama continues to maintain the political high ground.

The New York Times are printing half truths, lies and intentionally misleading the public, actually quoting bloggers are "sources", knowing that these bloggers have no journalistic integrity and that you can write anything on the web; and it only has to be copied a few times elsewhere on the web to be picked up on google and it becomes defacto truth, when it isn't at all.

I am frustrated to see that truth isn't being allowed to prevail, and that they have been working hard to dig up any dirt they can on Palin, while they didn't spend a day looking into the past of Barak Obama.  They still haven't made him face issues of lying to get votes when he said he'd renegotiate NAFTA and didn't even try.  They haven't faced him with his own links to lobbyists, but they allow him to make accusations about Republicans and lobbyists.
And they've given a complete pass to Joe Biden who has strong links to the biggest credit card company in the United States, and has voted this way to prove it.

They've given a pass to Obama and to Biden when it comes to lobbyists and their recent votes to let telecommunication companies be immune from prosecution if they cooperated with the government in wiretapping (illegal or otherwise).
At first, Obama was against immunity for them, but someone must've pointed out that AT&T were contributing heavily to the DNC, because the next thing you know he had no problem voting for it.  He didn't vote against it like he said.  He didn't vote "Present".  He voted for it.

Several websites have sprung up supposedly for the purpose of setting the records straight and getting at the truth; but what they really are is just another means of distorting the truth and continuing just enough of the half truths against McCain and/or Palin, to essentially promote the illusion of truth coming from Obama.  It's intellectually dishonest.

I saw 7 or 8 instances of this today and it gets to the point where you just can't set the record straight on every one of them.  There are more of them out there, spreading more and more lies or half-truths, to get to all of it.
And plus, in some instances, McCain and/or Palin actually have distorted the truth to suit their own needs.  For instance, there was a lot of discussion for a couple of days over something so trivial as to whether or not Sarah Palin actually sold the Alaskan governor's jet on ebay.  Well, the point of it is that she sold it and helped get rid of some of the waste, unneeded perks and ridiculous spending and abuse going on in the governor's office.

The truth is, as she stated this, is that it was "put up for sale on ebay the next day".  This is true.  The fact that after a period of time, they weren't getting the bids they had hoped for and so they regretfully allowed a broker to handle the final sale of the plane.  The plane did get sold.  The money to the taxpaper was saved.  The abuse was cleaned up.

But the left went on and on about it not being sold on ebay, failing to mention that it was "put on sale on ebay", but was ultimately sold by a broker.  They only mention that it wasn't sold on ebay, giving the reader the feeling that Palin lied.

This is just one example, but it is a ridiculous example.  The whole point isn't whether or not she sold the thing on ebay or craigslist or anywhere else.  The point is that she sold the plane, she got rid of the governor's personal chef, as well as getting rid of the limo and driver that the governor had.

And the news media seems eager to do a 'fact check' when it's a statement by McCain and/or Palin, but they are frequently giving a pass to anything Barak Obama or one of his supporters writes or says.  The coverage of this election is clearly meant to influence.  There is little journalistic integrity.  And MSNBC has given up on journalism entirely, and have gone for propaganda and comic relief (same with Comedy Central).  They don't even hide it.

Charlie Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin.  During his interview, he was trying to trip her up; something he never did with Barak Obama.  He asked about the Bush Doctrine.  The fact is, the Bush Doctrine hasn't been defined.  It'll be defined either by Bush or by the historians.  It wasn't a legitimate question, but it was enough to trip her up.

Gibson also made a big deal about earmarks.  On the surface, it sounds like an inconsistency, but then again, you have to go back to the definition of earmarks.  Her, being a governor, would have no control over how money is appropriated in Congress.  It is her responsiblity to ask for federal dollars and to seek them for her state.  There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's not wasteful spending.  And the fact is the bridge to nowhere was ultimately rejected by Palin, a fact that her detractors easily ignore.

The definition of an earmark is funds that are snuck into an unrelated bill by a legislator.  Someone in Congress would put an earmark, funding for something in their home state, in a bill that probably has nothing to do with that spending.  It's a way to sneak pork by and get it passed along with something legitimate.  It's something that Palin fought within legislation in her state, and that McCain has fought in the Senate, and in fact, in all of his years in the Senate, never pursued any earmarks.

So if Palin asked for federal dollars for infrastructure within her state, she had no way of knowing how the Senator or Congressman in DC would come up with those dollars.  Believe it or not, but governors seek federal dollars from time to time and get it through legitimate avenues.  It happens.

This is a fact this is carefully overlooked in all of the discussion by the media; because they have an agenda to make her and McCain look badly, while giving a free pass to Obama and Biden; who have both pursued earmarks.

And the whole earmark discussion is with regards to the fact that the money is being appropriated in secret, hidden from the public so that no one in Congress is voting for it directly.  If these sorts of practices were out in the open, it would be different, but to secret these "earmarks" within other bills, it is essentially commiting fraud against the American people.  That is the discussion, not whether or not a state or municipality asks for federal dollars.

I don't have a problem allowing the truth to be known and let the chips fall where they may, but it seems to me that this is not what is being allowed to happen.