…Capper at Cognitive Dissidence apparently believes that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is “right wing propaganda.”
I’ll bet $200 right now that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel will endorse Barack Obama for President in the coming weeks.
And if Capper can continue to believe that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is a right wing rag after that, viagra ampoule I guess he really is suffering from cognitive dissonance over there at Cognitive Dissidence.
Tags: Barack Obama, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
October 7th, 2008
I have no idea who is going to win this November and in some ways, cialis sale remedy I really don’t care.
But I can already tell you who the loser is: it’s the mainstream media.
Whatever credibility the press once had has been completely shredded by the way it has coddled Barak Obama and pilloried Sarah Palin.
Yes, viagra usa there have been some negative stories about Barack Obama, but they all came out during the primaries when some of those in the press were still hoping for a Hillary Clinton victory.
But now that there is only one Democrat in the race, the mainstream media has become Barack Obama’s press agent.
If Barack Obama wins next month, the mainstream media will have accomplished two things:
1.) Getting their man elected.
2.) Completing their transformation from impartial free press to implacably partisan propagandists.
October 7th, 2008
…I hoped he’d grow out of that sort of simplistic prejudice some day.
But, buy viagra store apparently, best cialis check age doesn’t necessarily bring wisdom for all journalists:
A celebrated retired journalist, try a man I’ve long admired, was surprised when I told him I hadn’t decided whom to vote for. “You’re too smart to vote for John McCain,” he said, thereby insulting 50 million Americans.
October 5th, 2008
Numbers of wild boars surge
I thought it was referring to the proliferation of pro-Obama pundits in the mainstream media.
October 4th, 2008
The polls show that the nation is basically split 50/50 between John McCain and Barack Obama.
But can anyone watching the after-debate pundits on CNN/ABC etc… claim (with a straight face and truth in their heart) that 1/2 the people on those shows are on John McCain’s side?
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain
September 26th, 2008
That sent me into a laughing fit that nearly killed me in my weakened state?
There really ARE people who think the New York Times is an unbiased source of news.
September 24th, 2008
So….
….the Washington Post accuses one of John McCain’s newest campaign ads of stretching the truth.
But, viagra sales salve in the very same article, viagra usa click they admit the commercial was 100% accurate AND that either the Obama campaign is now lying about the ad or the Washington Post’s own reporter is a liar.
And yet, John McCain is somehow at fault.
I’ve got to honest with you guys, I’m absolutely astonished at the audacity of this
article:
Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief Is a Stretch
QUOTE FROM McCaign COMMERCIAL: “Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it’s Franklin Raines, for ‘advice on mortgage and housing policy.’ Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed ‘extensive financial fraud.’ Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill.”
An already nasty presidential election campaign is getting nastier. The meltdown on Wall Street has touched off frantic attempts by both the McCain and Obama camps to secure political advantage and indulge in guilt by association. Over the past 24 hours, both campaigns have issued what are, in effect, video news releases attempting to show that the other side’s “advisers” are somehow responsible for the crisis. The latest McCain attack is particularly dubious.
THE FACTS
The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin D. Raines, the former chief executive of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae. It then shows a photograph of an elderly female taxpayer who has supposedly been “stuck with the bill” as a result of the “extensive financial fraud” at Fannie Mae.
The Obama campaign issued a statement by Raines on Thursday night insisting, “I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.” Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, saying in an e-mail that the campaign had “neither sought nor received” advice from Raines “on any matter.”
Remember these denials, I’ll get back to them.
So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”
OK, so they just admitted that the claim in McCain’s ad is 100% accurate. (Even though they apparently think their own reporting is “pretty flimsy.”) And remember that denial the Obama campaign issued? Well, if the Post’s own earlier stories are right, than it is the OBAMA campaign that’s lying.
Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of that passage. She said that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked “if he was engaged at all with the Democrats’ quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said, ‘Oh, general housing, economy issues.’ (‘Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?’ I asked, and he said ‘no.’)”
By Raines’s own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and he or she had general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls.
THE PINOCCHIO TEST
The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Raines as a close adviser to Obama on “housing and mortgage policy.” If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself — and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.
So how is this a wild exaggeration? McCain’s commercial uses the exact quote from the Post’s articles.
That the Post has the balls to accuse the McCain campaign of stretching the truth when the entire commercial is based on articles that ran in their own paper goes a long way towards explaining why people think the mainstream media is completely in the tank for the Democrats this election season.
I can’t tell you how hard it was for me not to curse in this post. I promise I was swearing up a storm when I was reading the original article.
Tags: John McCain
September 20th, 2008
…finally caught up with the post I made two days ago about the fact that the racism Barack Obama needs to worry about isn’t Republican.
From the AP story:
The findings suggest that Obama’s problem is close to home – among his fellow Democrats, buy cialis generic particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, ailment compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.
The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.
Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, cialis too, but the survey found they weren’t voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn’t vote for any Democrat for president – white, black or brown.
From my post:
The 48% or so who vote Republican would vote for John McCain regardless of who the Democratic nominee was.
(That’s not to say that there are no racist Republicans. My point is that any Republican racism is irrelevant in this case because Republicans were going to vote for “their” guy whether the Democrat’s nominated Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden.)
The problem lies with Democrats (and to some extent Independents).
The numbers say that if Barack Obama loses, it will only be because members of his own party didn’t vote for him.
So if Barack Obama loses, and you’re a Democrat who thinks the reason he lost was racism, you’re going to have to take a good hard look at your own party.
September 20th, 2008