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.

Impressions of Palin

Sarah Palin was announced as the republican candidate for vice president a few days ago.  I had read about her a few times over the past few months, not knowing that she'd ever be on the radar for consideration as vice president.  When I heard who the pick was, however, I was delighted.  From what I know of her record, she's an excellent choice.  However, I have a few concerns, and so far, only a few have been put at ease.

I listened to the rhetoric from the left, as far as her not being qualified.  And of course, she's more experienced than Barak Obama, but that doesn't enter their logic.  Comparisons have been made with the governor of Virginia who Obama had on the short list for vp.  At the time, Republicans suggested that he wasn't experienced enough, and so they (the left) make this same comparison with Palin.  However, they aren't comparing apples to apples.  The fact is that Palin has accomplished a lot more during her time as governor of Alaska.  In addition, she was governor of an energy producing state, and a state with quite a bit more natural resources to manage.

Palin took on the big money interests and beat them, even with them vastly out spending her.  She took on corruption in her own party, even with a sitting governor of her own party.  She stood up to big oil a number of times as governor.

All this said, the governor of Viriginia is hardly as qualified for an executive position as Palin.  The left don't see this because they don't want to see this.  However, if she were a democrat, it would be different.

I liked her speech on Wednesday night of the RNC.  It had a bit of "red meat" in it, but so did Joe Biden's when he gave his a week earlier.  And to be fair, that is what these speeches are supposed to be.  The VP is supposed to go on the offensive against the opposition.   This allows a more diplomatic, more inclusive speech from the nominee for president the following night.  I haven't heard McCain's speech yet, obviously, and so I can't comment on that.

One thing that I'll say is that I am impressed that Palin can think on her feet, rather than relying on a teleprompter to do her thinking for her.  In fact, during her speech, the teleprompted had a malfunction and so she did the bulk of her speech without its aid.  That speech was given from the heart.

I feel that Palin did a reasonably good job of introducing herself to the public, especially those that haven't read as much about her as my wife and I have over the past few months.  However, one thing that I didn't get out of the speech, was a clear view of how well she would stand up to a sinister leader such as Vladimir Putin.  This man is a former KGB leader, and for all practical purposes, has kept that organization alive, although in a different name now.

If John McCain is elected, and he were to keel over during his presidency, then Sarah Palin would become President of the United States.  Our enemies will test her, as they will test McCain or anyone else who becomes President.  They will test to see what they can get away with.  The terrorists will do it.  Putin will do it.  Chavez will do it.  The list goes on.

Judging from her history with dealing with the big money interests (with billions at stake), I have a feeling that Palin would do fine standing up against our enemies.  However, nothing in her speech said that to me.  I will be watching the upcoming debates to see how well she goes up against a "bitter old man".

Many people describe Joe Biden as a bitter old man, and in some respects, he is.  He certainly can be.  He can be very diplomatic and presidential in discussions, but I have noticed over the years that he becomes easily frustrated if the facts catch him in an inconsistency or a lie.  At this point, he can become agitated and nasty.  He tends to start making things up, or making personal attacks in order to "change the subject".  I had a lot or respect for Biden a decade ago, but less in more recent years.  I do respect him as far as being a tough opponent in a debate,  and in my opinion, he is probably the toughest person in debate that I have seen of the four current players.

So these debates are going to be very crucial for me level of comfort regarding whether or not Sarah Palin could step in as President if something were to happen to John McCain.

The Media Are Campaigning For Obama

I've said for a long time that the media have become active participants in the Obama campaign.  Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann definitely have a man-crush on Obama.  Even Hillary Clinton, who had always gotten a pass from the media before, was suddenly upset because now they were backing Obama, and she wasn't able to combat it.  They were against her, rather than just reporting the news.

In the past, John McCain has had friendly press.  This is mainly because he wasn't the typical Republican.  While others would surround the wagons and tow the party line, McCain would break with party and try to get things done.  He would join forces across the aisle and passed much legislation in favor of the American people, but not always with the approval of the party.

During this presidential campaign, there was a shift as soon as McCain got the nomination.  Suddenly, they turned on McCain.  They published unfounded rumors with no journalistic integrity, whereas they refused to publish unfounded rumors of any kind regarding Obama.

Even early in the primaries, the media refused to publish any unfounded rumors regarding marital infidelity on the part of John Edwards; and that turned out to be true.  There were facts.  It's not like it was unsubstantiated.  It's pretty bad when the National Inquirer can beat the New York Times to a substantiated story.

On the other hand, unsubstantiated stories were released regarding the Republicans.  First, there were accusations of infidelity on the part of John McCain, which turned out to be nothing.  They have remained unsubstantiated.  How does a legitimate news organization publish stories they can't substantiate?  Unless of course, they're a part of the political process on one side or the other?

And as soon as it was announced that Sarah Palin would  be the vice presidential candidate for the  Republicans, there were vicious unsubstantiated stories published about her.  They suggested that she wasn't the mother of her youngest baby, and that it was really her teenage daughter that was the mother.  How could a story like this be published with nothing more than suggestion?  No journalistic standards were observed in reporting this.

And when it turned out to be bogus, due to the fact that the teenage daughter was pregnant, the news media, instead of just shutting up about it, published this story.  They brought the family into the public even though the Obama camp had supposedly said that "family is off limits and not a part of the political process".

Essentially, Obama can afford to take the high road, because he knows the media are going to take the low road.  He even met with elements of the leftist fringe media when warned not to.  They have started a lot of these rumors against Palin, and yet Obama hasn't distanced himself from these groups.  He just plays like he's not a part of it and remains to take the high road.  This is much the same as how George W. Bush allowed Karl Rove to do his dirty work, and claimed no knowledge of it.

Is this Obama's meaning for "change" and a "new kind of politician"?

It aint new.

If Sarah Palin's daughter had an abortion, I'm assuming that the media would've not published her name or the story, because they have a sympathetic view of abortion rights and the right to privacy.  However, evidently, this right to privacy isn't afforded to a young teenage woman if she chooses to let the child live.  When have we seen the news media publish stories about teenage daughters of candidates, or about any teenage girls having children out of wedlock?

Again, Obama took the high road (after the fact), but he could afford to do this.  The story had already been made public; and of course, the news media is doing his dirty work for him.

And during the Democratic National Convention, we saw all kinds of divisive speeches.  Biden's was one of the worst.  That's a part of the process and to be expected.  However, during the Republican National Convention, the news commentators have gone on and on about how divisive the speeches have been during the convention; but they made no mention of this when it was the Democrats.  And they have even gone so far as to interview Joe Biden and allow him to rebutt some of the speeches.  And he actually had the gall to suggest that the speeches were "divisive".

Let's tell the truth here.  John McCain is one of the least divisive people in either house of Congress.  He is the one that has consistently reached across the aisle on behalf of the American people.  Obama never has.  Biden rarely, if ever, has.

And now the Republicans have a vice presidential candidate that is much like McCain.  She has reached across the aisle on behalf of the citizens.  She fought corruption in her own party.  She fought big oil.  She did it all when under funded in relation to her opposition.

On the other hand, Biden and Obama both have been a part of the political machine in Washington, that protects their own; rather than working on behalf of the American people.

Do I think that Sarah Palin walks on water?  No.  Of course not.  It's too early to tell much about her, although I've read a reasonable amount about her over this past year or so.  I do like the idea of someone that comes from an energy state, and knows energy and environmental issues.  These are things that Biden and Obama only know how to talk about from the party line; not from real experience.

I'm hoping that Palin turns out to be genuine.  What I've seen during the convention is consistent with what I've read about her for several months.  I think that McCain did a good job in picking her.  It was quite a surprise; especially for the media, who are definitely working on behalf of the Obama campaign to neutralize her affect to the McCain campaign.

I noticed that before Guiliani spoke at the convention, a CNN reporter asked him about negative statements he'd made about McCain during the primary race.  I have noticed that Biden, nor any of the other speakers during the DNC were ever asked the same thing.  And the fact is that Biden made some very harsh remarks about Obama during the primary race.

This is nothing really new.  I remember that when Bush (sr) was running against Bill Clinton, Dan Rather ran a story on "economy in jeopardy" at the end of every broadcast.  As soon as the election was over, he never ran it again.  You can't tell me this wasn't an attempt to influence the election results.

The news media are working hard to affect the election.  I've seen so many cases of this.  It is certainly different from how these same people covered the DNC.