Posts filed under 'Media Bias'
The network of McCain supporter sites is going through a growth spurt, right, left, and center. On July 1st, the anniversary of John McCain’s promotion to Commander of Attack Squadron 174 in 1976, the founders of John McCain 2008 Social Network and McCain Now are launching LetsGetThisRight.com. They have worked tirelessly to launch a site that focuses on supporting Senator McCain and local Republicans across the country. They are looking to raise money for a series of candidates in important races.
On the other side of the spectrum, let me welcome Clinton supporters who now support Senator McCain to the club. The establishment and networking of Clinton supporters not willing to support Senator Obama, has been impressive to say the least. Over 125 sites and blogs have emerged within a few weeks. A list of all (or most) is available at Just Say No Deal. Here are a few that have already established a significant following. Clintons 4 McCain, Savage Politics, Puma Party (which includes the Puma Party forum), Done Dems, Hillary Clinton Forum, and Dems 4 McCain. Certainly, not all who have decided not to vote Obama have committed to voting McCain. However, there is mounting evidence that many Clinton supporters will vote McCain.
Some Hillary supporters have even decided to donate to Senator McCain’s campaign on July 4th. As a show of support, many long time McCain supporters have also agreed to contribute on that day. The request is that Hillary supporters make donations in amounts like $5.44, $25.44, or $125.44 and others donate in whole dollar amounts so Clinton supporters can be differentiated and counted.
Other new Pro-McCain sites include…
Battleground States ‘08 is a contributor based blog giving a state to state perspective on the presidential race.
Local Republicans similarly is a contributor based blog focused on down ticket candidates and state and local Republican candidates.
Grand Old Partisan is an excellent site for those interested in history. It remembers that the GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
also…
Jews for McCain
Conservative Mom in a Liberal World
Its All Dicta
McCain Brigade
McCain Independent
McCain Supporters
Local Republicans
Obama Independent or McCain Independent?
Red Arizona
Right Score
Stop Obama Vote McCain
Democrats and Independents for McCain Social Network
Tags: candidate, Clinton, Democrats, hillary, Hillary Clinton, independent, independents, John McCain, liberal, mccain, politics, president, republican, republicans
June 29th, 2008
Clinton supporters are making a statement that they are NOT going to unite behind Barack Obama. There are a variety of reasons why; Michigan and Florida, poor treatment of Senator Clinton by the media, disrespectful behavior by Obama supporters, or simply doubts about Senator Obama and his qualifications. For these, or other reasons, many Clinton supporters are actively campaigning for Senator McCain. The site Just Say No Deal lists over 125 sites, many newly started, that agree that they will not be voting Obama in November. Some like Savage Politics are even raising money for Senator McCain. Many are planning to donate to the McCain campaign on July 4th to show their committment. Here are just a few of the numerous sites committed to NOT unifying the Democratic Party.
clintondems.com
hireheels.com
hillarysupporters.com
clintons4mccain.com
riverdaughter
hillaryclintonforum.net
womenforfairpolitics.com
donedems.com
pumaparty.com
savagepolitics
hillarygrassrootscampaign.com
pumapac.org
millionwomenmarch.blogspot.com
Clinton Supporters Making A Statement About Not Supporting Obama
Tags: Clinton, clinton supporters, Democrats, mccain, Obama, unity, unity nh, unity rally
June 27th, 2008
Senator Obama’s opt-out of public financing came as no surprise. It was a politically expediant move. However, the switch is disconcerting, not just because he broke his word or changed his mind; it’s troubling because he signed a pledge. When most Americans sign a ‘pledge’ it’s considered a legally binding contract. Yet this was a ‘pledge’ and not a contract? So it should be noted that a pledge from Senator Obama is a non-binding agreement. Signature, no signature, this is different than changing on a position, he promised to do ‘x’ signed off on it then did ‘y’. Politically it was most likely the right thing to do, he will have much more money this way. However, he revealed to the American people in the process that a promise, a pledge, and his word are negotiable.
Tags: broken word, campaign finance, contract, dishonest, honesty, oath, public funding, signed
June 22nd, 2008
David Brook’s excellent article The Two Obama’s does an excellent job laying out how Senator Obama talks reform and inspiration, but plays old school politics as well as anyone out there…
“God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson…”
“…But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes…”
Brooks goes on to explain Obama’s history of old school politics. That he is smart and calculating, and has laid out a path for himself that any old-school Chigago politician would be proud of…
“…Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
Full David Brook’s article The Two Obama’s
Tags: change, chicago politics, hope, Obama
June 20th, 2008
YouTube Clip of Susan Rice’s Statement
Unfortunately, Susan Rice’s statement regarding the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, “Thank God he did because if he hadn’t we would have not been able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis” is completely false. In fact historians agree that this meeting fueled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Weekly Standand, in detailing the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, quotes NYT columnist James Reston who interviewed President Kennedy right after his meeting with Khrushchev,
“Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev “had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs” and that he had “decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.” Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had “just beat [the] hell out of me” and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: “If he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him. So we have to act.”
Kennedy responded to the meeting with a congressional request for a dramatic increase in defense spending, and a significant increase in the size of the military. Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s actions with above ground nuclear testing and erecting the Berlin Wall. The tensions between the US and Soviet Union dramatically increased due to the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting; the Cuban Missile Crisis followed.
Susan Rice’s statement is simply false. There is no historical record of the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting being at all helpful in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis and actually the exact opposite true that an inexperienced leader was bullied into an arms race.
First Published at Purple People Vote
Tags: cuban missile crisis, experience, foreign policy, john lehman, Obama, obama advisor, obama foreign policy, susan rice
June 11th, 2008
With more over-the-top preaching coming out of Trinity Church this weekend, some question the relevance of these different preachers’ comments to Senator Obama’s campaign. Understandably, many become frustrated that important issues receive less attention than the politics. However, as someone who would love to see more issues debated and less political pontification, I see Senator Obama’s connection to Trinity Church as both relevant and important. His twenty year connection to Trinity Church and Reverend Wright speaks directly to who Senator Obama is as a person. Senator Obama’s explanation that he just didn’t realize the controversial nature of some of Reverend Wright’s sermons is absurd. Whether it is the church newsletter ‘The Trumpet’ featuring Senator Obama on the same cover with Louis Farrakan, whether it is Reverend Wright stating that he doesn’t appologize for his ‘GD America’ speech, or whether it is Pastor Pfleger mocking Senator Clinton and basically calling her a white supremist (a criticism that I have not heard out of even the most ardent Clinton-haters); there is no way Senator Obama could not have known that the church, at which he is still a member, is radical and at best, dabbles in hate. His membership in this church is a direct contradiction to his campaign message of hope and unity. The two possibilties voters are left with is that he believes the teachings of his church, as church goers often do, or he joined for political reason. He has said nothing to that explains how a man that talks unity can attend a church that regularly preaches division. This matter speaks to Senator Obama’s beliefs and honesty, and if he wants this issue to go away than he needs to answer for these glaring contradictions.
Tags: chicago politics, contradictions, division, fleger, honesty, Obama, pfleger, political contradictions, questions, reverend wright, trinity chuch, unity, wright
May 30th, 2008
For years and years, the New York Times has been a thinly veiled Democratic Party hit machine. Their treatment of the Presumptive Republican Nominee John McCain this year has been… something less than fair and honest.
Its an open secret that the paper has been trying everything it can to smear John McCain, and now Ed Morrissey reports that they are trying to extort the McCain Campaign. The emphasis here is Mr. Morrissey’s, who deserves the credit for blowing the lid off a potentially huge story.
All of that brings us to today. It’s no secret that the McCain campaign believes the Times to be dishonest in its reporting on the candidate, and they decided not to extend an invitation to the Times for the media pool at the release of the medical records on Friday. According to my source close to the part of the campaign that deals with these issues, they have invited a variety of media outlets, including national-reach newspapers, wire services, and cable-news networks into the pool, but told the Times that they would not receive any credentials for the event.
This prompted a conversation between one Times editor and the campaign staff. Again according to the source, the editor told the campaign that the Times would take a negative view about the release of the records if an invitation was not forthcoming. It was clear that an invitation to the pool would change the nature of the coverage.
That sounds a lot like extortion, doesn’t it? Is that acceptable practice for the American mainstream media? This kind of hostility calls into question their motivation for all of their past articles and stories. Did the McCain campaign do something to annoy the editors in February and March while all of these hit pieces got trotted out?
For the record, Morrissey also posts the New York Times ethics policy. Again, Mr. Morrissey highlights the most interesting section.
A2. How We Gather the News
21. We treat news sources fairly and professionally. We do not inquire pointlessly into someone’s personal life. We do not threaten to damage uncooperative sources, nor do we promise favorable coverage in return for cooperation. We do not pay for interviews or unpublished documents: to do so would create an incentive for sources to falsify material and would cast into doubt the genuineness of much that we publish.
Follow the link to the Hot Air post where Morrissey is keeping track of a potential response from the paper. In the meantime, I suggest you all spread this story on your blogs and e-mail it to your friends. The idea that the country’s premier newspaper could be blackmailing a major Presidential candidate should be a huge story, and is our duty to spread this to as many people as possible.
Tags: blackmail, John McCain, New York Times
May 22nd, 2008
The back and forth between the McCain and Obama camps about negotiations between the future president and the leaders of foreign dictatorships, such as Ahmadinejad in Iran and Castro in Cuba, addresses a real substantive difference in foreign for these two candidates. This clip from the CNN YouTube debate answers the question if Senator Obama will meet with dictators in the first year of his presidency.
Senator Obama has also stated that he wouldn’t require pre-conditions before negotiating with these dictators, but later stated that there would be preparations. There are several troubling things about this. First, as Senator Clinton pointed out in the debate, a president shouldn’t guarantee a meeting in their first year as they could be used as a pawn for propaganda purposes. Second, the comparisons between Iran and the Soviet Union are weak. The situations are very different, and not recognizing that is deeply troubling. Third, citing that ‘preparations’ but not ‘pre-conditions’ are needed for a presidential meeting is political tap dancing. What does that mean? Most everything in life requires preparation. He’s either trying to back out of a policy that even Democrats agree is foolish, or he’s still believes in this policy and is instead trying to push the question aside.
The Obama campaign instead of clarifying its own position has muddled the issue by attacking Senator McCain. First, Senator McCain was accused of saying that he would meet with Hamas without pre-conditions. This was proven untrue. The statement from Senator McCain said that since Hamas was elected by the Palestinians that they would have to be ‘dealt with’ as the leader of that government. That was not a promise of negotiations. Second, they accused Senator McCain of supporting normalization in relations with Cuba. However, Senator McCain stated that this was to happen only if Cuba took steps to embrace Democracy (a pre-condition). Finally, throughout this back and forth examples have been given where the U.S. government engages in diplomacy at lower levels of government. This however, is not the issue. Senator McCain’s point wasn’t that there should be no diplomatic relations; it was that the President of the United States should not be guaranteeing meetings without preconditions. Senator Obama has stated that Senator McCain’s views are naïve and that one shouldn’t be afraid to meet with foreign leaders. This may be what really shows how ‘in the weeds’ Senator Obama is in regards foreign policy. Numerous people from both sides of the isle have noted how foolish Senator Obama’s diplomacy policy is; yet he still accuses Senator McCain of naiveté. Now there may be some criticisms that the Obama campaign will be able to make stick to Senator McCain, but it’s hard to believe that calling him scared and naïve will ring true with anyone.
Tags: Ahmadinejad, candidate, Clinton, Democrats, dictators, foreign policy, Hamas, Iran, mccain, Obama, president, Senator Obama
May 21st, 2008
I’m sure by now everyone has read the Washington Post piece by Jamie Rubin in which he suggests John McCain wanted to meet Hamas without preconditions.
As the day continued, it became clear that Rubin was being somewhat less that forthright.
It turns out that he was flat out lying. The McCain Campaign released a video with the full answer to the question today, including this bit Rubin couldn’t be bothered to include in his piece.
Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”
Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”
The video can be found here.
I like to see an apology from both Jamie Rubin and The Washington Post. Sadly, I don’t expect one.
Tags: Jamie Rubin, John McCain, Media Bias, smear, Washington Post
May 16th, 2008
Older Posts
