CBS News anchor Katie Couric, the talking airhead, tried her best to make Sarah Palin look like a 'dumb' conservative. Perhaps Couric should do some serious introspection before doing that to anyone else.
Before and after Obama's speech Tuesday night, Couric, as usual, played up the 'support Obama' rhetoric with her comments, such as 'The American people overwhelmingly support Obama's plan for the country,' and 'President Obama has an enormous amount of political capital to spend.'
Yet she turned right around and cited several polls that show the complete fallacy of the words she had just spoken.
For example, she stated that only approximately 33%-39% of Americans support bailouts for the automakers, Wall Street, and those who can't pay their home mortgages.
Excuse me, Ms. Couric, but the figures you cited in those polls clearly do NOT show that 'Americans overwhelmingly support Obama's plan for the country.' Are you not aware, Ms. Couric, that those figures show exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said?
Perhaps you are NOT aware. If that is the case, then you are without doubt the biggest ignoramus to ever occupy an anchor's chair.
But if you ARE aware of the contradiction, then you just lied to the American public.
And you people wonder why Americans in ever-increasing numbers say they do not trust the mainstream news media. You are either too dumb to recognize a blatant contradiction in reporting, or you deliberately lie to the public. In either case you do not exactly inspire confidence on the part of the viewing public.
Showing posts with label Katie Couric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Katie Couric. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
CBS News/Couric/Schieffer Smear Sarah Palin
As the months pass it is obvious that the Left in this country is scared to death of Sarah Palin.
Perhaps never before in modern history has the leftwing mainstream media, the Democratic Party, and the 'ruling class' of the political elite so thoroughly attempted to discredit, smear, and ruin a candidate for public office.
CBS News has been relentless in its smear campaign against Palin.
But when Bob Schieffer congratulated Katie Couric on her ambush of Palin during her interviews, for me that was the absolute last straw.
Schieffer was droning on about how Palin proved to be a 'lightweight,' a 'drag on the ticket,' and 'a poor choice for a Vice-Presidential running mate.'
None of this, of course, is true.
But when he said the following, I came completely unglued, particularly when I heard Couric's response.
Said Schieffer, 'And frankly, Katie, I say this not because you are sitting here, but the interview you did with Sarah Palin was the turning point in showing the nation the truth about Sarah Palin and the fact that she is unfit to be Vice President.'
Couric smile and stated, 'Ohhh, thank-you!'
Wow.
Schieffer just congratulated Couric on her ambush-smear of Sarah Palin, and Couric is proud of herself for having done so!
The fact of the matter is that the Couric interview with Palin did NOT show the real Sarah Palin. She was sorely mismanaged by inept McCain campaign staffers who should have never put her in front of the anti-conservative Katie Couric.
The real Sarah Palin is the Alaska Governor who enjoyed the highest approval rating of any Governor in the nation, at 80%. The real Sarah Palin is the one who stood up to her own Party, routed out corruption, and faced down the oil companies.
And we saw the real Sarah Palin on the stump drawing massive crowds that rivaled that of Obama, though it was rarely reported in the mainstream media.
I am through with CBS News, Katie Couric, and Bob Schieffer. I can't even stand to look at them or hear their voices. They grate on my nerves.
But this is true with the mainstream media in general.
Thus, I won't even watch them anymore even to provide a critique. I choose to get my news from real reporters who are unbiased. I will NOT get my news from hacks who slant news in favor of one political candidate, and then smear another candidate out of the fear that she may actually be a threat to Obama in 2012.
And believe me, if the gang of thugs who now run the country, including their cheerleaders in the mainstream media, were not frightened out of their wits by Sarah Palin, you can rest assured they would not be conducting this coordinated smear campaign.
And that includes members of John McCain's campaign staff.
Perhaps never before in modern history has the leftwing mainstream media, the Democratic Party, and the 'ruling class' of the political elite so thoroughly attempted to discredit, smear, and ruin a candidate for public office.
CBS News has been relentless in its smear campaign against Palin.
But when Bob Schieffer congratulated Katie Couric on her ambush of Palin during her interviews, for me that was the absolute last straw.
Schieffer was droning on about how Palin proved to be a 'lightweight,' a 'drag on the ticket,' and 'a poor choice for a Vice-Presidential running mate.'
None of this, of course, is true.
But when he said the following, I came completely unglued, particularly when I heard Couric's response.
Said Schieffer, 'And frankly, Katie, I say this not because you are sitting here, but the interview you did with Sarah Palin was the turning point in showing the nation the truth about Sarah Palin and the fact that she is unfit to be Vice President.'
Couric smile and stated, 'Ohhh, thank-you!'
Wow.
Schieffer just congratulated Couric on her ambush-smear of Sarah Palin, and Couric is proud of herself for having done so!
The fact of the matter is that the Couric interview with Palin did NOT show the real Sarah Palin. She was sorely mismanaged by inept McCain campaign staffers who should have never put her in front of the anti-conservative Katie Couric.
The real Sarah Palin is the Alaska Governor who enjoyed the highest approval rating of any Governor in the nation, at 80%. The real Sarah Palin is the one who stood up to her own Party, routed out corruption, and faced down the oil companies.
And we saw the real Sarah Palin on the stump drawing massive crowds that rivaled that of Obama, though it was rarely reported in the mainstream media.
I am through with CBS News, Katie Couric, and Bob Schieffer. I can't even stand to look at them or hear their voices. They grate on my nerves.
But this is true with the mainstream media in general.
Thus, I won't even watch them anymore even to provide a critique. I choose to get my news from real reporters who are unbiased. I will NOT get my news from hacks who slant news in favor of one political candidate, and then smear another candidate out of the fear that she may actually be a threat to Obama in 2012.
And believe me, if the gang of thugs who now run the country, including their cheerleaders in the mainstream media, were not frightened out of their wits by Sarah Palin, you can rest assured they would not be conducting this coordinated smear campaign.
And that includes members of John McCain's campaign staff.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Couric/CBS News Lied
Tonight's broadcast of Katie Couric's CBS Evening News was replete with more lies on behalf of the Obama campaign.
First, Couric and CBS lied about the 'fact check' process on McCain and Obama during last night's debate. Supposedly, Obama's tax plan will enable small businesses to get a tax cut, thus helping 'Plumber Joe.' This is according to some watchdog group.
The assertion is FALSE. Under Obama, who wishes to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, everyone will experience the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Interesting that NOBODY takes into account the INCREASES in taxes that will come when Obama-Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. This skews the figures of the 'facts check' organizations and assumptions about the Obama tax plan.
As I have repeatedly stated, you cannot claim to lower taxes for 95% of Americans if you will let the Bush tax cuts expire. THAT will RAISE taxes automatically on everyone.
Plumber Joe, therefore, will get hit hard even if Obama does nothing but allow the present system of tax cuts to expire in 2010. This is the dirty little secret Democrats don't want you to know, and CBS/Couric are helping them lie about it.
Second, Couric pointed to some poll showing that Obama supposedly beat McCain in last night's debate by an outrageous percentage, 52-29%.
That poll is SKEWED. The samples CBS and the New York Times use are heavily loaded up with Democrat participants, making their polls patently FALSE.
Third, CBS came to Obama's aid in trashing Plumber Joe by bringing up a tax bill he owes the state of Ohio--a mere $1200 or so. But the report was worded in such a way that Joe's reputation was impugned. This is unconscionable. And this is the way Obama and his mainstream media morons do business.
Fourth, CBS/Couric showed a video of Joe supposedly admitting today that under the Obama plan he would get a tax cut. If he did actually say that, it was because of the CBS-Couric blather that hides the expiration of the Bush tax cut in 2010, which will dramatically increase taxes on every single human being who pays taxes in this country.
CBS-Couric-mainstream reporters are pathetic.
First, Couric and CBS lied about the 'fact check' process on McCain and Obama during last night's debate. Supposedly, Obama's tax plan will enable small businesses to get a tax cut, thus helping 'Plumber Joe.' This is according to some watchdog group.
The assertion is FALSE. Under Obama, who wishes to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, everyone will experience the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Interesting that NOBODY takes into account the INCREASES in taxes that will come when Obama-Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. This skews the figures of the 'facts check' organizations and assumptions about the Obama tax plan.
As I have repeatedly stated, you cannot claim to lower taxes for 95% of Americans if you will let the Bush tax cuts expire. THAT will RAISE taxes automatically on everyone.
Plumber Joe, therefore, will get hit hard even if Obama does nothing but allow the present system of tax cuts to expire in 2010. This is the dirty little secret Democrats don't want you to know, and CBS/Couric are helping them lie about it.
Second, Couric pointed to some poll showing that Obama supposedly beat McCain in last night's debate by an outrageous percentage, 52-29%.
That poll is SKEWED. The samples CBS and the New York Times use are heavily loaded up with Democrat participants, making their polls patently FALSE.
Third, CBS came to Obama's aid in trashing Plumber Joe by bringing up a tax bill he owes the state of Ohio--a mere $1200 or so. But the report was worded in such a way that Joe's reputation was impugned. This is unconscionable. And this is the way Obama and his mainstream media morons do business.
Fourth, CBS/Couric showed a video of Joe supposedly admitting today that under the Obama plan he would get a tax cut. If he did actually say that, it was because of the CBS-Couric blather that hides the expiration of the Bush tax cut in 2010, which will dramatically increase taxes on every single human being who pays taxes in this country.
CBS-Couric-mainstream reporters are pathetic.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Couric Looked Foolish Before McCain, Palin
When Katie Couric decided to interview John McCain and Sarah Palin together while on a campaign swing through Ohio, no doubt she thought she would put another nail in the coffin of the Palin phenomenon by putting both candidates on the spot concerning recent criticism of the Vice-Presidential candidate.
Instead, Couric came off looking like a fool.
Couric attempted to make Palin look foolish by taking a statement to a voter's question out of context, spinning it to appear as if she were contradicting McCain's official policy toward Pakistan.
McCain jumped in with both barrels blazing, accusing the media of playing the 'gotcha game' when in actuality there is no controversy.
As for Palin, she was poised, focused, determined, relaxed, and confident as she went on the offensive against unfair portrayals by the mainstream teleprompter-readers such as Couric.
McCain was even more direct as he referred to such persons as 'self-appointed experts.'
Couric was visibly uncomfortable.
The interview was a big coup by McCain-Palin and a disaster for Couric-CBS. We can only hope we see more of this in the days ahead as the McCain campaign goes after the blatant unfairness of the mainstream media in holding him and his running mate to a different standard than that to which they hold their darlings Obama and Biden.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen in this campaign is for either McCain or Palin to engage in another George H.W. Bush 'ambush' of Dan Rather back during the 1987 campaign. Bush the elder had 'had it' with Rather's blatant partisan attacks, and he proceeded to blast Rather in a live on-air interview on the CBS Evening News.
One of these worthless scumbags of the media is long overdue another such ambush.
Instead, Couric came off looking like a fool.
Couric attempted to make Palin look foolish by taking a statement to a voter's question out of context, spinning it to appear as if she were contradicting McCain's official policy toward Pakistan.
McCain jumped in with both barrels blazing, accusing the media of playing the 'gotcha game' when in actuality there is no controversy.
As for Palin, she was poised, focused, determined, relaxed, and confident as she went on the offensive against unfair portrayals by the mainstream teleprompter-readers such as Couric.
McCain was even more direct as he referred to such persons as 'self-appointed experts.'
Couric was visibly uncomfortable.
The interview was a big coup by McCain-Palin and a disaster for Couric-CBS. We can only hope we see more of this in the days ahead as the McCain campaign goes after the blatant unfairness of the mainstream media in holding him and his running mate to a different standard than that to which they hold their darlings Obama and Biden.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen in this campaign is for either McCain or Palin to engage in another George H.W. Bush 'ambush' of Dan Rather back during the 1987 campaign. Bush the elder had 'had it' with Rather's blatant partisan attacks, and he proceeded to blast Rather in a live on-air interview on the CBS Evening News.
One of these worthless scumbags of the media is long overdue another such ambush.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sophomoric Couric Does It Again
The sophomoric Katie Couric does it again, showing the American public that she is but an amateur and not a real news professional.
Tonight on the CBS Evening News, Couric attempted to lay 2 traps for Sarah Palin in her much-touted interview with the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate.
First, Couric asked Palin if 'the present financial crisis could lead to another Depression if steps are not taken to address it.'
Palin correctly answered that such a thing is possible if something isn't done to enact necessary reforms on Wall Street.
But Couric turned right around and asked John McCain in her interview with him this evening if it is 'appropriate for Sarah Palin to be using the term "depression" at a time such as this.'
Well, Ms. Couric, it was YOU, not Palin, who brought it up. And it has been YOU and your Obama-supporting colleagues in the media who have been playing up to the hilt the 'dire financial situation' with the economy, that this is 'the worst since the Great Depression,' and that unless the government undertakes a massive FDR-era bailout of Wall Street, we could see circumstances similar to the 1930s (hint-The Great Depression).
This kind of trick is the stuff of amateurs and not seasoned professional journalists, Ms. Couric.
Couric's 2nd attempt to lay a trap for Palin was in her question about the sincerity of John McCain in attempting to reform Wall Street. Palin cited the fact that McCain was calling for reforms for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae long before it was cool to do so.
Couric would have none of it.
She continued to press Palin for other examples rather than the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform proposals put forth by McCain. It was obvious Palin couldn't think of any right off the bat, but she quickly added, 'Well, you know, Katie, I will look those up and get them to you.'
The exchange was bit too much like the old 'gotcha' trick that Charles Gibson used on Palin and that countless other mainstream media idiots have used on various politicians in the past. Excuse me, Charles, Katie, Brian, Chris, and others, but YOU are not the all-knowing teacher giving an ignorant student a pop quiz.
If fact, if we would put all of your brains together in a paper bag, it would be quickly discarded as human refuse.
I would like to give Katie Couric a pop quiz on the air. Katie, can you name the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and can you tell me the Founders' original intent for wanting to place the 2nd amendment in a bill enumerating basic human rights?
Yes, I would love to see you, Charlie, and Brian, and especially Chris Matthews, squirm attempting to answer those two very basic questions concerning our country.
Katie, perhaps you made a colossal mistake in taking over at CBS News. Your style of amateurish, sophomoric baiting tactics are more in line with The View rather than a news program...not that there is any real, hard news on CBS or the other networks to begin with.
Perhaps the mainstream talking-head teleprompter readers should start each broadcast with the disclaimer--'We admit that we are attempting to get Barack Obama elected to the Presidency. All of the stories we present should therefore be viewed with that basic fact in mind.'
Tonight on the CBS Evening News, Couric attempted to lay 2 traps for Sarah Palin in her much-touted interview with the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate.
First, Couric asked Palin if 'the present financial crisis could lead to another Depression if steps are not taken to address it.'
Palin correctly answered that such a thing is possible if something isn't done to enact necessary reforms on Wall Street.
But Couric turned right around and asked John McCain in her interview with him this evening if it is 'appropriate for Sarah Palin to be using the term "depression" at a time such as this.'
Well, Ms. Couric, it was YOU, not Palin, who brought it up. And it has been YOU and your Obama-supporting colleagues in the media who have been playing up to the hilt the 'dire financial situation' with the economy, that this is 'the worst since the Great Depression,' and that unless the government undertakes a massive FDR-era bailout of Wall Street, we could see circumstances similar to the 1930s (hint-The Great Depression).
This kind of trick is the stuff of amateurs and not seasoned professional journalists, Ms. Couric.
Couric's 2nd attempt to lay a trap for Palin was in her question about the sincerity of John McCain in attempting to reform Wall Street. Palin cited the fact that McCain was calling for reforms for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae long before it was cool to do so.
Couric would have none of it.
She continued to press Palin for other examples rather than the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform proposals put forth by McCain. It was obvious Palin couldn't think of any right off the bat, but she quickly added, 'Well, you know, Katie, I will look those up and get them to you.'
The exchange was bit too much like the old 'gotcha' trick that Charles Gibson used on Palin and that countless other mainstream media idiots have used on various politicians in the past. Excuse me, Charles, Katie, Brian, Chris, and others, but YOU are not the all-knowing teacher giving an ignorant student a pop quiz.
If fact, if we would put all of your brains together in a paper bag, it would be quickly discarded as human refuse.
I would like to give Katie Couric a pop quiz on the air. Katie, can you name the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and can you tell me the Founders' original intent for wanting to place the 2nd amendment in a bill enumerating basic human rights?
Yes, I would love to see you, Charlie, and Brian, and especially Chris Matthews, squirm attempting to answer those two very basic questions concerning our country.
Katie, perhaps you made a colossal mistake in taking over at CBS News. Your style of amateurish, sophomoric baiting tactics are more in line with The View rather than a news program...not that there is any real, hard news on CBS or the other networks to begin with.
Perhaps the mainstream talking-head teleprompter readers should start each broadcast with the disclaimer--'We admit that we are attempting to get Barack Obama elected to the Presidency. All of the stories we present should therefore be viewed with that basic fact in mind.'
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
For Couric/CBS, Body Language Says It All
CBS News anchor Katie Couric has been asking questions of the 2 Presidential candidates in a series on Campaign '08, but the biggest story so far is Couric's body language.
Tonight, for example, Couric asked John McCain and Barack Obama 2 questions--is it ever appropriate to lie to the American people, and what is your favorite movie.
When interviewing McCain, Couric is clearly reserved, rarely smiles, and appears perturbed by having to interview the GOP Presidential candidate.
But when Couric put the questions to Obama, there were big, broad-faced smiles, even a flirty sort of give-and-take with the Democrat--so much so that one gets the distinct impression that there is a sexual component for Couric to be in Obama's presence.
This only further proves the mainstream media's lust for Barack Obama and its concomitant 'over-the-top' style of news coverage for him that simply is not present with McCain or any other candidate for that matter. It's all observable in the body language and facial expressions.
Remember it was Chris Matthews of MSNBC who stated during Obama's speech at the DNC that he 'felt a sensation going up his leg' as a result of hearing the speech delivered in person.
These dimwits of the MSM are so mesmerized and sexually aroused by Obama that obviously they have taken leave of their rationality. We can expect no objectivity from such sophomoric teleprompter readers of the modern mainstream media.
Tonight, for example, Couric asked John McCain and Barack Obama 2 questions--is it ever appropriate to lie to the American people, and what is your favorite movie.
When interviewing McCain, Couric is clearly reserved, rarely smiles, and appears perturbed by having to interview the GOP Presidential candidate.
But when Couric put the questions to Obama, there were big, broad-faced smiles, even a flirty sort of give-and-take with the Democrat--so much so that one gets the distinct impression that there is a sexual component for Couric to be in Obama's presence.
This only further proves the mainstream media's lust for Barack Obama and its concomitant 'over-the-top' style of news coverage for him that simply is not present with McCain or any other candidate for that matter. It's all observable in the body language and facial expressions.
Remember it was Chris Matthews of MSNBC who stated during Obama's speech at the DNC that he 'felt a sensation going up his leg' as a result of hearing the speech delivered in person.
These dimwits of the MSM are so mesmerized and sexually aroused by Obama that obviously they have taken leave of their rationality. We can expect no objectivity from such sophomoric teleprompter readers of the modern mainstream media.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Failure to Report Massive Crowds for McCain-Palin
Remember how the mainstream media went bonkers over the massive crowds that went to see rock-star wannabe Barack Obama early in the campaign? Remember their panoramic camera views of the crowds in Europe when their beloved Obamessiah spoke in Germany and Paris?
Interestingly but not surprisingly, now that John McCain and Sara Palin are attracting mega-crowds following the Republican National Convention, the mainstream media has ignored and failed to report the groundswell of grassroots attention being given to the GOP team.
When the mainstreams cover Palin and McCain, gone are the camera shots of throngs of people waiting in line and standing to see the pair.
Clearly, Couric, Gibson, Williams, Cooper, and company do not want the public to see these images. They want the images of Obama's crowds sticking in their minds.
Michelle Malkin has much more on this story. It is well worth the time to go see it, if you are interested in fairness and truth in political reporting.
Frankly, I wouldn't give these partisans the time of day if I were Sarah Palin or John McCain. Palin is doing an extensive interview with Gibson at ABC. I know politicians have to do the obligatory dog-and-pony show with these charlatans, but it is getting to the point to where enough is enough.
If Gibson and his colleagues in the mainstream media are going to openly fawn all over Obama, then if I were on the other side, I would tell him and the rest of the goons to go jump as I flipped them the bird.
Why give the enemy publicity by granting an interview? Why enable the careers of those who under the guise of being news reporters actually attempt to change public opinion and openly campaign for a political candidate?
It is really no wonder network news broadcasts are quickly going the way of the dinosaur. And the quicker they die the better the Republic will be. The public gets its news from plenty of other sources these days, and we are much better off for it.
Interestingly but not surprisingly, now that John McCain and Sara Palin are attracting mega-crowds following the Republican National Convention, the mainstream media has ignored and failed to report the groundswell of grassroots attention being given to the GOP team.
When the mainstreams cover Palin and McCain, gone are the camera shots of throngs of people waiting in line and standing to see the pair.
Clearly, Couric, Gibson, Williams, Cooper, and company do not want the public to see these images. They want the images of Obama's crowds sticking in their minds.
Michelle Malkin has much more on this story. It is well worth the time to go see it, if you are interested in fairness and truth in political reporting.
Frankly, I wouldn't give these partisans the time of day if I were Sarah Palin or John McCain. Palin is doing an extensive interview with Gibson at ABC. I know politicians have to do the obligatory dog-and-pony show with these charlatans, but it is getting to the point to where enough is enough.
If Gibson and his colleagues in the mainstream media are going to openly fawn all over Obama, then if I were on the other side, I would tell him and the rest of the goons to go jump as I flipped them the bird.
Why give the enemy publicity by granting an interview? Why enable the careers of those who under the guise of being news reporters actually attempt to change public opinion and openly campaign for a political candidate?
It is really no wonder network news broadcasts are quickly going the way of the dinosaur. And the quicker they die the better the Republic will be. The public gets its news from plenty of other sources these days, and we are much better off for it.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Another Couric/CBS News Hit Piece on Palin
Under the guise of doing a 'fact-check,' Katie Couric and CBS News ran a piece Tuesday evening on Sarah Palin and her claim that she stopped construction on the 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska.
The bridge had been a Congressional earmark secured for Alaska by one of its U.S. Senators, Ted Stevens. Early on, Palin had supported the project, as she had Stevens.
But as Palin began to discover the corruption within Alaska politics after she became Governor of the state, the bridge to nowhere was one project that she decided to stop.
There is no corruption in supporting something that you think is legit and then changing your mind once you discover 'it ain't legit.'
CBS News, however, spun the story on Palin to suggest that she only put a halt to the bridge when she found out how unpopular it was...right at the last minute, before being selected to run as John McCain's running mate.
Perhaps we should do a 'fact-check' on CBS News.
The CBS spin is clearly FALSE. The facts are that Palin supported Ted Stevens early on and the bridge as well. Then she ran for Governor. Once elected she began a systematic campaign to rid Alaska of corruption in politics.
When she embarked on this gargantuan crusade, some discoveries were made that were hard to swallow. First, she discovered that Ted Stevens, although a Republican, had engaged in some rather underhanded dealings with Alaskan businesses, one of which was the construction firm that began building the 'bridge to nowhere.'
The money for the pork-barrel project had already been sent to Alaska long before Palin was elected Governor.
Once she became aware of the corruption involved in the Stevens scheme concerning the bridge, Palin called a halt to the construction, but kept the money for Alaska to spend on much-needed highway and infrastructure projects.
Thus, the bridge to nowhere was nixed and legitimate projects got the money.
Couric and CBS News conveniently failed to mention the timeline involved in the Palin campaign to rid Alaskan politics of corruption, and what it cost her personally to go up against powerful people in her own Party, such as Stevens.
And they certainly never mentioned the fact that a pork barrel project that was knee-deep in corruption was stopped cold while worthwhile, legitimate projects in the state got a boost.
It would seem that CBS News is in dire need of a 'facts-check' whenever it does a 'facts-check' segment on Palin and McCain.
But then, we all know already that Katie and her cohorts are in the tank for Obama. So what else can we expect?
The bridge had been a Congressional earmark secured for Alaska by one of its U.S. Senators, Ted Stevens. Early on, Palin had supported the project, as she had Stevens.
But as Palin began to discover the corruption within Alaska politics after she became Governor of the state, the bridge to nowhere was one project that she decided to stop.
There is no corruption in supporting something that you think is legit and then changing your mind once you discover 'it ain't legit.'
CBS News, however, spun the story on Palin to suggest that she only put a halt to the bridge when she found out how unpopular it was...right at the last minute, before being selected to run as John McCain's running mate.
Perhaps we should do a 'fact-check' on CBS News.
The CBS spin is clearly FALSE. The facts are that Palin supported Ted Stevens early on and the bridge as well. Then she ran for Governor. Once elected she began a systematic campaign to rid Alaska of corruption in politics.
When she embarked on this gargantuan crusade, some discoveries were made that were hard to swallow. First, she discovered that Ted Stevens, although a Republican, had engaged in some rather underhanded dealings with Alaskan businesses, one of which was the construction firm that began building the 'bridge to nowhere.'
The money for the pork-barrel project had already been sent to Alaska long before Palin was elected Governor.
Once she became aware of the corruption involved in the Stevens scheme concerning the bridge, Palin called a halt to the construction, but kept the money for Alaska to spend on much-needed highway and infrastructure projects.
Thus, the bridge to nowhere was nixed and legitimate projects got the money.
Couric and CBS News conveniently failed to mention the timeline involved in the Palin campaign to rid Alaskan politics of corruption, and what it cost her personally to go up against powerful people in her own Party, such as Stevens.
And they certainly never mentioned the fact that a pork barrel project that was knee-deep in corruption was stopped cold while worthwhile, legitimate projects in the state got a boost.
It would seem that CBS News is in dire need of a 'facts-check' whenever it does a 'facts-check' segment on Palin and McCain.
But then, we all know already that Katie and her cohorts are in the tank for Obama. So what else can we expect?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Katie Couric, CBS News Trash Sarah Palin
The tone was clearly negative. The intent was to create questions and doubt not only about Sarah Palin but about John McCain's 'decision-making' in choosing her as his running mate. The display was tabloid 'journalism' at its worst, although one can hardly describe this news segment as journalism.
Katie Couric and CBS News on Tuesday evening descended to the garbage bin of news reporting, trashing GOP Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin primarily because she had the audacity to raise a teenager who is pregnant out of wedlock.
Couric further trashed Palin by claiming that she is not the maverick politician she claims to be because she once supported Ted Stevens. So what? Most Americans have supported politicians at one time or another who turned out to be charlatans. The fact that Palin went after Stevens and his good ole boy network is proof positive that she is not afraid of attacking corruption in her own Party once she discovers the corruption.
But the CBS smear-piece didn't stop there.
Couric stated that once, way back in 1994 or so, Palin had actually attended the convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, which at one time supported Alaska's secession from the Union. Well, whoop-tee-dooooo!!
Nevermind that Couric failed to tell the rest of the story.
Palin has been a lifelong member of the Republican Party, and the GOP has her registration papers to prove it. She never joined the secession movement nor the Alaskan Independence Party. She never even spoke in favor of the Party's objectives.
Barack Obama spoke at the annual meeting of Moveon.org, one of the most Leftist, subversive groups in America. But naturally Couric never reported it. Obama, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, ALL of the Democratic presidential candidates went to the Moveon.org meeting and spoke on their stage.
But Americans never heard about it from the likes of Couric and her partisan Leftwing cohorts in the mainstream media.
Amazingly enough, however, this still is not all.
CBS News showed the picture and gave the name of the young man who is the purported father of the baby Sarah Palin's daughter is carrying.
Let me give just a personal word to Katie Couric and CBS News in particular, but to NBC, ABC, and CNN in general: you all are nothing but trash who engage in trash journalism. In fact, you have presided over the death of real journalism in America. Go to hell. You are completely irrelevant along with the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Katie Couric and CBS News on Tuesday evening descended to the garbage bin of news reporting, trashing GOP Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin primarily because she had the audacity to raise a teenager who is pregnant out of wedlock.
Couric further trashed Palin by claiming that she is not the maverick politician she claims to be because she once supported Ted Stevens. So what? Most Americans have supported politicians at one time or another who turned out to be charlatans. The fact that Palin went after Stevens and his good ole boy network is proof positive that she is not afraid of attacking corruption in her own Party once she discovers the corruption.
But the CBS smear-piece didn't stop there.
Couric stated that once, way back in 1994 or so, Palin had actually attended the convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, which at one time supported Alaska's secession from the Union. Well, whoop-tee-dooooo!!
Nevermind that Couric failed to tell the rest of the story.
Palin has been a lifelong member of the Republican Party, and the GOP has her registration papers to prove it. She never joined the secession movement nor the Alaskan Independence Party. She never even spoke in favor of the Party's objectives.
Barack Obama spoke at the annual meeting of Moveon.org, one of the most Leftist, subversive groups in America. But naturally Couric never reported it. Obama, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, ALL of the Democratic presidential candidates went to the Moveon.org meeting and spoke on their stage.
But Americans never heard about it from the likes of Couric and her partisan Leftwing cohorts in the mainstream media.
Amazingly enough, however, this still is not all.
CBS News showed the picture and gave the name of the young man who is the purported father of the baby Sarah Palin's daughter is carrying.
Let me give just a personal word to Katie Couric and CBS News in particular, but to NBC, ABC, and CNN in general: you all are nothing but trash who engage in trash journalism. In fact, you have presided over the death of real journalism in America. Go to hell. You are completely irrelevant along with the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
CBS NEWS HATCHETS UP MCCAIN CAMPAIGN
It becomes more obvious with each passing week that the MSM is in the tank for Obama. No greater example can be found than tonight's broadcast of the CBS (Cheerleading for Barack System) Evening News.
Katie Couric's lead story is about John McCain's new ad which compares the rock-star type worship of Barack Obama to infamous Hollywood starlets such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and others.
It is a legitimate criticism, and much of it Obama has brought on himself.
But Couric referred to the McCain tactics as 'the low road,' echoing the sentiments of Barack Obama himself.
And then she brings on Bob Schieffer to parrot that line, calling the McCain ad 'silly' and 'weird.'
Schieffer ended his segment by these ominous words, 'McCain is not getting any traction at all, and with this latest ad it is hard to see how anyone will take that seriously.'
Wow. No traction? What about poll after poll that shows McCain gaining on Obama in many of the battleground states where the Democrat has been ahead? What about the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls showing that among likely voters, McCain is up by 4 over Obama?
I have a message for Katie and Bob. It's hard for us out in the American heartland to take YOU seriously.
Katie Couric's lead story is about John McCain's new ad which compares the rock-star type worship of Barack Obama to infamous Hollywood starlets such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and others.
It is a legitimate criticism, and much of it Obama has brought on himself.
But Couric referred to the McCain tactics as 'the low road,' echoing the sentiments of Barack Obama himself.
And then she brings on Bob Schieffer to parrot that line, calling the McCain ad 'silly' and 'weird.'
Schieffer ended his segment by these ominous words, 'McCain is not getting any traction at all, and with this latest ad it is hard to see how anyone will take that seriously.'
Wow. No traction? What about poll after poll that shows McCain gaining on Obama in many of the battleground states where the Democrat has been ahead? What about the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls showing that among likely voters, McCain is up by 4 over Obama?
I have a message for Katie and Bob. It's hard for us out in the American heartland to take YOU seriously.
Friday, May 16, 2008
News Bias:Couric/CBS Adopt Strategy of Obama
As former Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliff stated recently, 'There is no doubt that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama.'
This happens to be one of the few times McAuliff has been completely honest in his entire political career.
As if reading from a script written by Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee, and the Barack Obama campaign, Katie Couric began Thursday's CBS Evening News with the headline that 'Republicans deliver a double-pronged attack against Barack Obama.'
Actually they did absolutely no such thing. But Barack Obama claims they did. Funny how in these instances the guilty party shouts first and shouts the loudest.
Here is the series of events to led to the Couric/CBS News smear of the GOP, in chronological order.
President Bush had traveled to Israel to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish nation in their native land. In the President's prepared remarks before the Israeli Knesset, Mr. Bush described those who propose negotiating with terrorists and state sponsors of terror as appeasement-driven.
He also compared them to those who advocated appeasement with Adolf Hitler even as the dictator conducted his bloody scourge throughout Europe prior to WW II.
Winston Churchill had to contend with such appeasement-driven boneheads in the British Parliament in the years leading up to the Nazi attack against Great Britain. There, too, British politicians such as Prime Minister Chamberlain advocated 'sitting down and talking to Hitler.'
Chamberlain did exactly that, returning home to London with a treaty signed by Hitler himself.
Churchill was not impressed.
And, as Churchill had warned, no sooner had the ink dried on the treaty than Hitler had done precisely what he agreed not to do. He invaded Poland. Great Britain had a treaty with Poland in which they agreed to come to Poland's defense if they were attacked. Thus, Britain was automatically thrust into the middle of war.
From the very beginning there have been voices within the U.S. Government, particularly within the Congress, who have advocated policies of appeasement with terrorist states. John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and a host of other Democrats in Congress have urged the President to sit down at the negotiating table with Iran, Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad, and the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Thus, the concept is nothing new.
But one would have thought that the President had fired the first shot in World War III if one listens exclusively to the mainstream media. Immediately Barack Obama was all over the television news networks, claiming that Bush had attacked him personally in his speech in Israel.
Why would Obama think that Bush had singled him out when there are many others who have advocated appeasement among the Democrats?
Obama did nothing but 'out' himself as one of the guilty parties. As the presumptive Democratic nominee he has consistently advocated 'sitting down at the negotiating table' with terrorist thugs and goons who kill people either because they are not Muslim or because they support Israel.
Thus, Obama was the first to yell. But soon he was joined by his partners in crime, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin, among others. They decried and condemned the Bush comments, referring to them as 'beneath the dignity of the office of the President,' and other such nonsense.
In what way did he disparage the office of President? By telling the truth? By reminding Israel that there are those within the U.S. Government who are just as naive and shortsighted as Chamberlain and British politicians before WW II?
This information is of vital concern to Israel's very survival in a dangerous area of the world where they are overwhelmingly outnumbered 99-to-1.
These facts were apparently lost on Couric and company at CBS, who proceeded to read the Democratic playbook word-for-word as they described these events. The very fact that Couric stated that Obama had been 'attacked' by Republicans gave one the impression that he was ganged up on by a group of attack dogs.
And within Obama's strategy for winning the White House is the tactic of making sure it is always inappropriate to criticize him in any way, and in this case, even when they don't intend to. Attacking Obama automatically makes one mean and racist.
And the mainstream media, particularly Couric and CBS News, have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
But this is not all.
The second part of the supposed 'two-pronged attack against Obama' occurred when a CBS reporter asked Republican Presidential candidate John McCain about Bush's remarks and Obama's claims.
McCain correctly mused that it is always a mistake to negotiate with terrorists and that Obama's suggestion to that effect shows his naivete and inexperience. Again, McCain spoke nothing but absolute truth.
Thus, CBS News' template for doing a smear job against Republicans, Bush, and McCain was in place.
Nothing the President said was untrue. Nothing he said did anything but confirm common knowledge about the policy proposals for the Middle East that do, indeed, emphasize appeasement. He never mentioned Barack Obama by name. But it was Obama who seized it and made it all about him.
And not only did CBS News take the Obama script and use it, but they also baited John McCain to respond, not so much to the President's speech, but to Barack Obama's response. And this supposedly amounted to a two-pronged Republican attack against Obama, although the 'second prong' was initiated by a CBS News reporter.
Perhaps Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, and Durbin should do some serious soul-searching. Their vitriolic responses to the President's words show that those words hit a raw nerve.
And so, ladies and gentlemen of surrender and appeasement, if the shoe fits, wear it. Don't try to make this about Bush when he was merely accurately reporting facts. If you support sitting down at the negotiating table with terrorists who are known to lie and say anything to further their agenda, then say so. We all already know you support these things anyway.
This happens to be one of the few times McAuliff has been completely honest in his entire political career.
As if reading from a script written by Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee, and the Barack Obama campaign, Katie Couric began Thursday's CBS Evening News with the headline that 'Republicans deliver a double-pronged attack against Barack Obama.'
Actually they did absolutely no such thing. But Barack Obama claims they did. Funny how in these instances the guilty party shouts first and shouts the loudest.
Here is the series of events to led to the Couric/CBS News smear of the GOP, in chronological order.
President Bush had traveled to Israel to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish nation in their native land. In the President's prepared remarks before the Israeli Knesset, Mr. Bush described those who propose negotiating with terrorists and state sponsors of terror as appeasement-driven.
He also compared them to those who advocated appeasement with Adolf Hitler even as the dictator conducted his bloody scourge throughout Europe prior to WW II.
Winston Churchill had to contend with such appeasement-driven boneheads in the British Parliament in the years leading up to the Nazi attack against Great Britain. There, too, British politicians such as Prime Minister Chamberlain advocated 'sitting down and talking to Hitler.'
Chamberlain did exactly that, returning home to London with a treaty signed by Hitler himself.
Churchill was not impressed.
And, as Churchill had warned, no sooner had the ink dried on the treaty than Hitler had done precisely what he agreed not to do. He invaded Poland. Great Britain had a treaty with Poland in which they agreed to come to Poland's defense if they were attacked. Thus, Britain was automatically thrust into the middle of war.
From the very beginning there have been voices within the U.S. Government, particularly within the Congress, who have advocated policies of appeasement with terrorist states. John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and a host of other Democrats in Congress have urged the President to sit down at the negotiating table with Iran, Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad, and the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Thus, the concept is nothing new.
But one would have thought that the President had fired the first shot in World War III if one listens exclusively to the mainstream media. Immediately Barack Obama was all over the television news networks, claiming that Bush had attacked him personally in his speech in Israel.
Why would Obama think that Bush had singled him out when there are many others who have advocated appeasement among the Democrats?
Obama did nothing but 'out' himself as one of the guilty parties. As the presumptive Democratic nominee he has consistently advocated 'sitting down at the negotiating table' with terrorist thugs and goons who kill people either because they are not Muslim or because they support Israel.
Thus, Obama was the first to yell. But soon he was joined by his partners in crime, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin, among others. They decried and condemned the Bush comments, referring to them as 'beneath the dignity of the office of the President,' and other such nonsense.
In what way did he disparage the office of President? By telling the truth? By reminding Israel that there are those within the U.S. Government who are just as naive and shortsighted as Chamberlain and British politicians before WW II?
This information is of vital concern to Israel's very survival in a dangerous area of the world where they are overwhelmingly outnumbered 99-to-1.
These facts were apparently lost on Couric and company at CBS, who proceeded to read the Democratic playbook word-for-word as they described these events. The very fact that Couric stated that Obama had been 'attacked' by Republicans gave one the impression that he was ganged up on by a group of attack dogs.
And within Obama's strategy for winning the White House is the tactic of making sure it is always inappropriate to criticize him in any way, and in this case, even when they don't intend to. Attacking Obama automatically makes one mean and racist.
And the mainstream media, particularly Couric and CBS News, have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
But this is not all.
The second part of the supposed 'two-pronged attack against Obama' occurred when a CBS reporter asked Republican Presidential candidate John McCain about Bush's remarks and Obama's claims.
McCain correctly mused that it is always a mistake to negotiate with terrorists and that Obama's suggestion to that effect shows his naivete and inexperience. Again, McCain spoke nothing but absolute truth.
Thus, CBS News' template for doing a smear job against Republicans, Bush, and McCain was in place.
Nothing the President said was untrue. Nothing he said did anything but confirm common knowledge about the policy proposals for the Middle East that do, indeed, emphasize appeasement. He never mentioned Barack Obama by name. But it was Obama who seized it and made it all about him.
And not only did CBS News take the Obama script and use it, but they also baited John McCain to respond, not so much to the President's speech, but to Barack Obama's response. And this supposedly amounted to a two-pronged Republican attack against Obama, although the 'second prong' was initiated by a CBS News reporter.
Perhaps Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, and Durbin should do some serious soul-searching. Their vitriolic responses to the President's words show that those words hit a raw nerve.
And so, ladies and gentlemen of surrender and appeasement, if the shoe fits, wear it. Don't try to make this about Bush when he was merely accurately reporting facts. If you support sitting down at the negotiating table with terrorists who are known to lie and say anything to further their agenda, then say so. We all already know you support these things anyway.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Couric May Be Gone In Two Weeks, Sources Say
The buzz around the news business and political circles is that CBS News lead anchor, Katie Couric, may be out of a job in as little as two weeks.
Rumors of a major shakeup at CBS News have been floating about for weeks. Couric has not helped the CBS Evening News pull itself up out of the ratings doldrums, and in fact, the ratings have only plunged further since she assumed the anchor's chair.
The big news that has made its way around the Beltway, however, is that CBS may be getting ready to outsource its news reporting to CNN.
This would be earth-shattering news to the network newscasts, which have been a mainstay of the big three networks since their inception. However, as times have changed and viewers are presented with a variety of choices from which to get their news, the network news broadcasts have suffered terribly, losing viewers by the millions every year.
As far back as a decade ago media watchers were predicting the demise of network news broadcasts as they gradually become dinosaurs from a bygone era.
Fox dominates cable news, and they are not the only choice. CNN, of course, is the grandfather of cable news services although they have lost much of their dominance to Fox.
And then there are the endless sources of news on the Internet.
Couric, it seems, came along at the wrong time. She isn't bad as an anchor, although she is definitely liberal in her bias. But she is not as bad as many, and much much better than her predecessor, Dan Rather, who never attempted to hide his bias or aim at objectivity.
Sources close to Couric's negotiations with CBS state that the anchor may stay through the 2008 Presidential election, but that if acceptable terms cannot be reached she could be gone in as little as two weeks.
If the latter holds sway, the question is will CBS News once again turn to its white male, gray-haired veterans, such as Bob Sheiffer, until it reaches an agreement with CNN on outsourcing the news.
Rumors of a major shakeup at CBS News have been floating about for weeks. Couric has not helped the CBS Evening News pull itself up out of the ratings doldrums, and in fact, the ratings have only plunged further since she assumed the anchor's chair.
The big news that has made its way around the Beltway, however, is that CBS may be getting ready to outsource its news reporting to CNN.
This would be earth-shattering news to the network newscasts, which have been a mainstay of the big three networks since their inception. However, as times have changed and viewers are presented with a variety of choices from which to get their news, the network news broadcasts have suffered terribly, losing viewers by the millions every year.
As far back as a decade ago media watchers were predicting the demise of network news broadcasts as they gradually become dinosaurs from a bygone era.
Fox dominates cable news, and they are not the only choice. CNN, of course, is the grandfather of cable news services although they have lost much of their dominance to Fox.
And then there are the endless sources of news on the Internet.
Couric, it seems, came along at the wrong time. She isn't bad as an anchor, although she is definitely liberal in her bias. But she is not as bad as many, and much much better than her predecessor, Dan Rather, who never attempted to hide his bias or aim at objectivity.
Sources close to Couric's negotiations with CBS state that the anchor may stay through the 2008 Presidential election, but that if acceptable terms cannot be reached she could be gone in as little as two weeks.
If the latter holds sway, the question is will CBS News once again turn to its white male, gray-haired veterans, such as Bob Sheiffer, until it reaches an agreement with CNN on outsourcing the news.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Clinton Ladies Intervention Team Strikes Again
The Clinton Ladies Intervention Team, the name coined by columnist Monica Crowley to designate Mrs. Clinton's hit squad that is charged with the task of planting questions at opponent's news conferences and debates, as well as coordinate the vast network news machine controlled by Hillary, has been quite busy since the candidate was booed in Iowa on Saturday.
As expected, the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team jumped into high gear following a disastrous question-and-answer session by phone that the candidate had with Iowa voters.
The weather was so bad that Clinton was forced to cancel her appearance, but she took questions by phone. The crowd booed the candidate at least four or five times during her brief session with them.
Mrs. Clinton made no friends and may well have created some enemies when she answered questions on illegal aliens. She made it clear she supports a 'path to citizenship' for illegals, enabling them to circumvent the legal process that millions of others went through, thus catapulting them to the head of the line, in front of those seeking LEGAL citizenship.
The candidate also stated that she would seek to accomplish this along with the Democrat-controlled Congress within her first 100 days in office.
The boos began to crescendo until by the time the candidate hung up the phone, very loud boos were heard from the audience.
Thus, today it was the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team to the rescue.
CBS News and Katie Couric practically joined the team today as not only did they fail to show Mrs. Clinton's disastrous question-and-answer session in Iowa on Saturday but they took pains to show her in a very friendly crowd today, as the candidate coincidentally proceeded to take swipes at the Bush Administration.
In addition, Clinton got loads of free publicity, compliments of Couric and Company, when the Evening News did a segment on 'attempting to get the youth vote.' Here again, the segment coincidentally focused almost exclusively on the Democrats rather than Republicans, although the segment was designed to show the importance of youth to BOTH Parties.
But guess who got most of the airtime in the segment? You guess it--Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In fact, Couric and Company broadcast a key quote from Mrs. Clinton as she stated, 'The youth and their future is what this campaign is all about.'
If one is paying attention merely to the pictorial symbols and not the spin-verbiage that Couric used to mislead viewers concerning the nature of the piece, it is clear that the network wished for viewers to take with them two powerful images and thoughts--one, only Democrats are concerned about the youth of America, and two, it is Mrs. Clinton who has fashioned her entire campaign around youth and their future.
As if we didn't already know, we are now assured with proof positive that Couric and CBS News are part of the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team.
As expected, the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team jumped into high gear following a disastrous question-and-answer session by phone that the candidate had with Iowa voters.
The weather was so bad that Clinton was forced to cancel her appearance, but she took questions by phone. The crowd booed the candidate at least four or five times during her brief session with them.
Mrs. Clinton made no friends and may well have created some enemies when she answered questions on illegal aliens. She made it clear she supports a 'path to citizenship' for illegals, enabling them to circumvent the legal process that millions of others went through, thus catapulting them to the head of the line, in front of those seeking LEGAL citizenship.
The candidate also stated that she would seek to accomplish this along with the Democrat-controlled Congress within her first 100 days in office.
The boos began to crescendo until by the time the candidate hung up the phone, very loud boos were heard from the audience.
Thus, today it was the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team to the rescue.
CBS News and Katie Couric practically joined the team today as not only did they fail to show Mrs. Clinton's disastrous question-and-answer session in Iowa on Saturday but they took pains to show her in a very friendly crowd today, as the candidate coincidentally proceeded to take swipes at the Bush Administration.
In addition, Clinton got loads of free publicity, compliments of Couric and Company, when the Evening News did a segment on 'attempting to get the youth vote.' Here again, the segment coincidentally focused almost exclusively on the Democrats rather than Republicans, although the segment was designed to show the importance of youth to BOTH Parties.
But guess who got most of the airtime in the segment? You guess it--Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In fact, Couric and Company broadcast a key quote from Mrs. Clinton as she stated, 'The youth and their future is what this campaign is all about.'
If one is paying attention merely to the pictorial symbols and not the spin-verbiage that Couric used to mislead viewers concerning the nature of the piece, it is clear that the network wished for viewers to take with them two powerful images and thoughts--one, only Democrats are concerned about the youth of America, and two, it is Mrs. Clinton who has fashioned her entire campaign around youth and their future.
As if we didn't already know, we are now assured with proof positive that Couric and CBS News are part of the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Ignoring the IGNORE-amuses
Ignoramuses come a dime a dozen. But since when has it become standard practice to put them on TV on every major network, including Fox, to provide political commentary?
To be frank, I have sworn off the entire lot of them, and that includes Fox's Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and all the rest. Granted, they are not nearly as bad as CBS, NBC, ABC, or the Clinton News Network (CNN), but Fox nonetheless has started standing on my last good nerve.
We have known for quite some time that Fox has been promoting Rudy Giuliani. Rupert Murdock has seen to that. Thus, we can overlook the sometimes not-so-subtle manner in which Fox pushes the candidate.
But the thing that is entirely unacceptable is for conservative commentators such as Hannity and O'Reilly to practically place every single instinct they have on the back burner in order to place Giuliani at the forefront of their starry-eyed gaze.
Both of them know better.
But the absolute last straw was when attorney and Fox commentator Monica Crowley, for whom we normally have utmost respect, states that Giuliani and ROMNEY are the two front-runners, and that Huckabee is a possibility.
Never once did Crowley mention Fred Thompson, who is in a national statistical dead-head for the front-runner position with Rudy among GOP voters who are extremely likely to vote in the primaries.
It is as if Thompson isn't even there.
Are these commentators such hopeless ignoramuses that they are totally unaware of the polls, or is it that they have simply sold out heart, soul, body, and mind to Rupert Murdock?
It is too late to make amends for these near-unforgivable mistakes. I have hit the ignore button on the ignoramuses. And unless Fox somehow redeems itself, they are history in my book, just like CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.
Unfortunately, I happened to inadvertently catch Katie Couric's interview with Rudy Giuliani, during which she went after the Mayor with a vengeance in spite of the fact that in her interview with the Queen of Sleaze, the Hildabeast, she acted as if she were so awe-struck that she could give Mrs. Clinton a bear-hug at any moment.
Here again, Couric referred to only Giuliani and Romney as the 'front-runners,' while waxing eloquent over the fact that Mike Huckabee seems to be 'coming on strong.'
No mention of Fred Thompson being in a statistical tie with Rudy.
So, is Fox now using the very same template as CBS?
It seems odd that within the very same week both Fox and CBS would speak of the GOP candidates in the very same fashion, with the exception that CBS obviously is in the Clinton camp while Fox is in the Giuliani camp.
I try very hard not to watch network news broadcasts anymore. The frustration level involved in the endeavor far outweighs anything to be gained. Yet it is important to know what the talking heads are doing and saying.
Unfortunately, I now have to add Fox to that list of the ignoramuses, about which I am too curious to totally ignore, after all.
To be frank, I have sworn off the entire lot of them, and that includes Fox's Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and all the rest. Granted, they are not nearly as bad as CBS, NBC, ABC, or the Clinton News Network (CNN), but Fox nonetheless has started standing on my last good nerve.
We have known for quite some time that Fox has been promoting Rudy Giuliani. Rupert Murdock has seen to that. Thus, we can overlook the sometimes not-so-subtle manner in which Fox pushes the candidate.
But the thing that is entirely unacceptable is for conservative commentators such as Hannity and O'Reilly to practically place every single instinct they have on the back burner in order to place Giuliani at the forefront of their starry-eyed gaze.
Both of them know better.
But the absolute last straw was when attorney and Fox commentator Monica Crowley, for whom we normally have utmost respect, states that Giuliani and ROMNEY are the two front-runners, and that Huckabee is a possibility.
Never once did Crowley mention Fred Thompson, who is in a national statistical dead-head for the front-runner position with Rudy among GOP voters who are extremely likely to vote in the primaries.
It is as if Thompson isn't even there.
Are these commentators such hopeless ignoramuses that they are totally unaware of the polls, or is it that they have simply sold out heart, soul, body, and mind to Rupert Murdock?
It is too late to make amends for these near-unforgivable mistakes. I have hit the ignore button on the ignoramuses. And unless Fox somehow redeems itself, they are history in my book, just like CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.
Unfortunately, I happened to inadvertently catch Katie Couric's interview with Rudy Giuliani, during which she went after the Mayor with a vengeance in spite of the fact that in her interview with the Queen of Sleaze, the Hildabeast, she acted as if she were so awe-struck that she could give Mrs. Clinton a bear-hug at any moment.
Here again, Couric referred to only Giuliani and Romney as the 'front-runners,' while waxing eloquent over the fact that Mike Huckabee seems to be 'coming on strong.'
No mention of Fred Thompson being in a statistical tie with Rudy.
So, is Fox now using the very same template as CBS?
It seems odd that within the very same week both Fox and CBS would speak of the GOP candidates in the very same fashion, with the exception that CBS obviously is in the Clinton camp while Fox is in the Giuliani camp.
I try very hard not to watch network news broadcasts anymore. The frustration level involved in the endeavor far outweighs anything to be gained. Yet it is important to know what the talking heads are doing and saying.
Unfortunately, I now have to add Fox to that list of the ignoramuses, about which I am too curious to totally ignore, after all.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Katie Couric/CBS News Blunder
This week's series of posts on the blunders of the news commentators focuses today on Katie Couric and CBS News.
A hot tip to Katie and the producers at CBS: when you are doing a segment on the mindset of evangelical Christians you don't turn to the publisher of one of the most liberal Christian publications in the nation as an example of the typical conservative religious voter.
As an example of the modern evangelical voter, the CBS piece cited the publisher of Sojourners' Magazine, historically one of the leftwing's most vocal proponents for 'Christian socialism.'
Sojourners has a long history of advocating for positions that conservative evangelicals and conservative voters in general have deplored. For historical perspective one only has to note that the magazine has long admired the philosophy of Jimmy Carter and deplored that of Ronald Reagan.
It is no wonder, then, that one listens to Sojourners' editor Jim Wallis' words to the effect that, 'God is neither Republican nor Democrat,' with a certain incredulity given the fact that his magazine has always supported the position of Democrats.
The very fact that the CBS News piece would interview Wallis about evangelical Christians makes the entire segment suspect. For example, CBS rolled out some poll figures that suggest conservative, evangelical Christians are not concerned anymore with abortion or traditional family issues.
One can safely assume that the numbers are highly suspect and are indicative of CBS' practice of slanting the manner in which poll numbers are reported in order to get a certain result.
Supposedly the conservative Christians cite 'healthcare' and 'Social Security' as their top concerns in the 2008 Presidential race. Abortion and family issues are not even in the top five.
Do I believe it? Not one bit. And if you believe it, as the saying goes, I have some swampland to sell you...
It is difficult to determine who, exactly, CBS picked for its poll of evangelical Christians. More than likely they included the likes of those who read Sojourners. If this is the case, you can count on those poll numbers being skewed.
It is also safe to assume that CBS did not include in the survey James Dobson's army of radio listeners. It is highly naive of CBS to assume that these persons will not vote their conscience on social issues related to abortion, the family, gun rights, and other issues related to personal liberty.
A hot tip to Katie and the producers at CBS: when you are doing a segment on the mindset of evangelical Christians you don't turn to the publisher of one of the most liberal Christian publications in the nation as an example of the typical conservative religious voter.
As an example of the modern evangelical voter, the CBS piece cited the publisher of Sojourners' Magazine, historically one of the leftwing's most vocal proponents for 'Christian socialism.'
Sojourners has a long history of advocating for positions that conservative evangelicals and conservative voters in general have deplored. For historical perspective one only has to note that the magazine has long admired the philosophy of Jimmy Carter and deplored that of Ronald Reagan.
It is no wonder, then, that one listens to Sojourners' editor Jim Wallis' words to the effect that, 'God is neither Republican nor Democrat,' with a certain incredulity given the fact that his magazine has always supported the position of Democrats.
The very fact that the CBS News piece would interview Wallis about evangelical Christians makes the entire segment suspect. For example, CBS rolled out some poll figures that suggest conservative, evangelical Christians are not concerned anymore with abortion or traditional family issues.
One can safely assume that the numbers are highly suspect and are indicative of CBS' practice of slanting the manner in which poll numbers are reported in order to get a certain result.
Supposedly the conservative Christians cite 'healthcare' and 'Social Security' as their top concerns in the 2008 Presidential race. Abortion and family issues are not even in the top five.
Do I believe it? Not one bit. And if you believe it, as the saying goes, I have some swampland to sell you...
It is difficult to determine who, exactly, CBS picked for its poll of evangelical Christians. More than likely they included the likes of those who read Sojourners. If this is the case, you can count on those poll numbers being skewed.
It is also safe to assume that CBS did not include in the survey James Dobson's army of radio listeners. It is highly naive of CBS to assume that these persons will not vote their conscience on social issues related to abortion, the family, gun rights, and other issues related to personal liberty.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Couric/CBS Goes Bonkers Over Craig Scandal
Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News went bonkers over the Craig scandal, showing a graphic containing pictures of all of the Republicans in Congress who have been implicated in scandals over the past several years.
Never has CBS done a similar thing to highlight Democrats in Congress who have been implicated in scandals. And there have been plenty.
As most Liberty Sphere readers know by now, from time to time we do a quick survey of what and how news gets reported on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Couric's years at the NBC Today Show solidified her credentials as one of the most liberal talking heads in the business.
And with the new evening news producer, who made a name for himself at CNN as one of the most unreliable, biased, and agenda-driven news producers in the business, we wanted to see just how far CBS would go to slant the news it presents on its evening broadcast.
Rarely has CBS News given a fair shake to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and others who adhere to traditional American values. A perfect case in point is the Craig scandal.
When Couric reported the news that Senator Craig from Idaho had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in an airport bathroom sting operation, the graphic shown behind her contained the pictures of all of the Republicans in recent years who have had their difficulties with scandal.
Yet when Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer, along with charges that he peddled his influence in Congress to benefit foreign governments--for a price, of course--there were no graphics or pictures of all of the Democrats who have been implicated in scandal over the past few years.
And the names of these Democrats read like a Who's Who among the most powerful and influential persons in Washington--Harry Reid, John Conyers, Dianne Feinstein, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, not a single outlet of the mainstream media even bothered to mention that Dianne Feinstein engaged in awarding lucrative government contracts to her husband's businesses--a practice that directly benefited Feinstein and her husband, which is against the law.
This major scandal was swept under the rug by the Democratic leadership in Congress and the mainstream media. The closest the story ever came to being reported in a major media outlet was when the Capitol Hill newsletter called 'The Hill' ran the story a couple of months ago.
Does this excuse Senator Craig's hypocrisy and behavior? No way. But it does provide yet one more example of how the liberal mainstream media machine attempts to portray Republicans as those dastardly poor examples of ethics while casting the Democrats as the innocent little angels.
Perhaps, though, the public simply isn't buying it. With public approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress at the all-time low of just 16%, maybe the public has wised up to the underhanded, slanted tactics of CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN to sway voters with one-sided news stories.
All I can say is, it's about time.
Never has CBS done a similar thing to highlight Democrats in Congress who have been implicated in scandals. And there have been plenty.
As most Liberty Sphere readers know by now, from time to time we do a quick survey of what and how news gets reported on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Couric's years at the NBC Today Show solidified her credentials as one of the most liberal talking heads in the business.
And with the new evening news producer, who made a name for himself at CNN as one of the most unreliable, biased, and agenda-driven news producers in the business, we wanted to see just how far CBS would go to slant the news it presents on its evening broadcast.
Rarely has CBS News given a fair shake to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and others who adhere to traditional American values. A perfect case in point is the Craig scandal.
When Couric reported the news that Senator Craig from Idaho had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in an airport bathroom sting operation, the graphic shown behind her contained the pictures of all of the Republicans in recent years who have had their difficulties with scandal.
Yet when Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer, along with charges that he peddled his influence in Congress to benefit foreign governments--for a price, of course--there were no graphics or pictures of all of the Democrats who have been implicated in scandal over the past few years.
And the names of these Democrats read like a Who's Who among the most powerful and influential persons in Washington--Harry Reid, John Conyers, Dianne Feinstein, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, not a single outlet of the mainstream media even bothered to mention that Dianne Feinstein engaged in awarding lucrative government contracts to her husband's businesses--a practice that directly benefited Feinstein and her husband, which is against the law.
This major scandal was swept under the rug by the Democratic leadership in Congress and the mainstream media. The closest the story ever came to being reported in a major media outlet was when the Capitol Hill newsletter called 'The Hill' ran the story a couple of months ago.
Does this excuse Senator Craig's hypocrisy and behavior? No way. But it does provide yet one more example of how the liberal mainstream media machine attempts to portray Republicans as those dastardly poor examples of ethics while casting the Democrats as the innocent little angels.
Perhaps, though, the public simply isn't buying it. With public approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress at the all-time low of just 16%, maybe the public has wised up to the underhanded, slanted tactics of CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN to sway voters with one-sided news stories.
All I can say is, it's about time.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Couric/CBS Continue Climate Propaganda
Without missing a beat the Katie Couric/CBS News propaganda machine continued with its erroneous and misleading 'news' stories on climate change. Monday night's broadcast proved what The Liberty Sphere had predicted, i.e., that the mainstream media would deliberately bury stories about NASA's 'mistake' that led to the current climate hysteria.
Five full days had passed since the news broke concerning a Y2K bug that caused a widespread bump in temperature readings by NASA's computers. It was last Wednesday that NASA quietly leaked the information that it had corrected the bug, which resulted in an entirely different scenario concerning global warming.
The corrected information shows that the year 1934 is the hottest in recorded history instead of 1998. In addition, five of the ten hottest years on record occurred before the 1940s, and the decade of the 1930s contains three of the hottest years since records began to be kept.
None of this, of course, was reported by CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN.
Instead, Couric and CBS News ran a special news report Monday evening that continued to spread half-truths and outright untruths concerning global warming, particularly in light of the fact that the new NASA data shows that the earth is actually 1-2% COOLER than we had originally thought.
If one listened closely to the scientists who were interviewed in the piece, one would notice that no one stated that mankind is the cause for climate change. In fact, at one point a scientist who is examining the data in the Arctic Circle stated that, 'We are continuing to attempt to determine what role humans may have played, if any, in the gradual melting of the ice.'
By anyone's estimation, this is hardly a definitive statement on 'man-made global warming.' The scientist went further to say that 150,000 years ago, the place they were standing would have been much thicker with ice, and that 150,000 years prior to that, the area would be covered with water rather than ice.
300,000 years ago, the Arctic Circle was devoid of most of its ice? Which of the oil refineries and automobiles existing at that time caused this?
In spite of the the obvious uncertainty of the scientists CBS interviewed, the piece deftly glossed over any such backtracking and hedging, and proceeded to frame the entire news story in terms of man-made climate change.
Never once was there any mention of the NASA debacle in the year 2000, which they are just now getting around to correct.
Thus, the propaganda machine is alive and well. The facts be damned.
Five full days had passed since the news broke concerning a Y2K bug that caused a widespread bump in temperature readings by NASA's computers. It was last Wednesday that NASA quietly leaked the information that it had corrected the bug, which resulted in an entirely different scenario concerning global warming.
The corrected information shows that the year 1934 is the hottest in recorded history instead of 1998. In addition, five of the ten hottest years on record occurred before the 1940s, and the decade of the 1930s contains three of the hottest years since records began to be kept.
None of this, of course, was reported by CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN.
Instead, Couric and CBS News ran a special news report Monday evening that continued to spread half-truths and outright untruths concerning global warming, particularly in light of the fact that the new NASA data shows that the earth is actually 1-2% COOLER than we had originally thought.
If one listened closely to the scientists who were interviewed in the piece, one would notice that no one stated that mankind is the cause for climate change. In fact, at one point a scientist who is examining the data in the Arctic Circle stated that, 'We are continuing to attempt to determine what role humans may have played, if any, in the gradual melting of the ice.'
By anyone's estimation, this is hardly a definitive statement on 'man-made global warming.' The scientist went further to say that 150,000 years ago, the place they were standing would have been much thicker with ice, and that 150,000 years prior to that, the area would be covered with water rather than ice.
300,000 years ago, the Arctic Circle was devoid of most of its ice? Which of the oil refineries and automobiles existing at that time caused this?
In spite of the the obvious uncertainty of the scientists CBS interviewed, the piece deftly glossed over any such backtracking and hedging, and proceeded to frame the entire news story in terms of man-made climate change.
Never once was there any mention of the NASA debacle in the year 2000, which they are just now getting around to correct.
Thus, the propaganda machine is alive and well. The facts be damned.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Media Bias in Reporting Thompson Fundraising
The mainstream media, relying on the skewed opinions of a few pundits with a vested interest in negative spin, have shown remarkable bias in reporting Fred Thompson's fundraising. The former U.S. Senator from Tennessee raised 3.5 million dollars in the month of June alone.
Yet Katie Couric and CBS News put a negative spin on the story, as did the pundits at Politico.com. Even Fox News reported the story with a negative slant.
Couric emphasized that Thompson did not reach the stated goal of 5 million in June. Fox pointed to supposed turmoil in the Thompson camp, leading to the failure to build on the momentum the Senator had originally exhibited. Politico said that the 3.5 million is an indication that Thompson's appeal is turning lackluster.
First, the goal of raising 5 million dollars in one month by a former Senator who has not even announced his candidacy admittedly was a lofty goal. Perhaps the rationale was to deliberately set the bar high so that everyone would try harder.
Second, the failure to reach that lofty goal is not the issue. The amount raised is the issue.
3.5 million in one month is no failure by anyone's estimation. It took Ron Paul, for example, two quarters (six months) to gather a warchest of 2.5 million in cash.
Thompson is now number four among the Republicans in total funds raised and number three in available cash, now that we know McCain has already spent most of his available funds.
Third, the thing that is entirely remarkable about these facts is that Thompson was able to accomplish this feat in only one month as compared to six months for everyone else. The pundits and talking heads of the mainstream media totally missed this point.
Fourth, it would appear that not only are the Democrats afraid of Thompson, but so is the mainstream media. Anyone who is viewed as the one candidate who can derail the Clinton-Obama bandwagon is to be viewed with fear and trembling as far as the socialists are concerned.
We think their fears are well-founded.
And thus, we can expect the media establishment and the Democrats to hurl mud and accusations at a frantic pace.
The Fox News spin is the one that is the most surprising of all. Fox pointed to grumbling among Thompson's campaign staff as an indication things are falling apart.
As it turns out, Thompson's wife, who is a political consultant and campaign expert, is the target of the staffers' grumbling. It is well-known among those who cover political campaigns that candidates' spouses are normally vilified by staffers for their intrusiveness. So this is nothing new.
The difference in Thompson's case is that the spouse is probably more qualified and skillful than 99% of the staff. Thompson's staff will either have to find a way to live with that fact, or else they will have to leave. This is the candidate's wife, and she is considered a formidable force when it comes to political strategy.
The bottom line? The story about Thompson's 'failure' at fundraising is pure spin and nothing more.
But then, what did you expect? Couric and all of the others at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are in the hip-pockets of the Democrats. I suspect that Fox supports Rudy Giuliani.
Our opinion is that by the time this is all said and done, Fred Thompson will have some big surprises in store for Fox and the Democrats' mouthpieces at the other networks.
Yet Katie Couric and CBS News put a negative spin on the story, as did the pundits at Politico.com. Even Fox News reported the story with a negative slant.
Couric emphasized that Thompson did not reach the stated goal of 5 million in June. Fox pointed to supposed turmoil in the Thompson camp, leading to the failure to build on the momentum the Senator had originally exhibited. Politico said that the 3.5 million is an indication that Thompson's appeal is turning lackluster.
First, the goal of raising 5 million dollars in one month by a former Senator who has not even announced his candidacy admittedly was a lofty goal. Perhaps the rationale was to deliberately set the bar high so that everyone would try harder.
Second, the failure to reach that lofty goal is not the issue. The amount raised is the issue.
3.5 million in one month is no failure by anyone's estimation. It took Ron Paul, for example, two quarters (six months) to gather a warchest of 2.5 million in cash.
Thompson is now number four among the Republicans in total funds raised and number three in available cash, now that we know McCain has already spent most of his available funds.
Third, the thing that is entirely remarkable about these facts is that Thompson was able to accomplish this feat in only one month as compared to six months for everyone else. The pundits and talking heads of the mainstream media totally missed this point.
Fourth, it would appear that not only are the Democrats afraid of Thompson, but so is the mainstream media. Anyone who is viewed as the one candidate who can derail the Clinton-Obama bandwagon is to be viewed with fear and trembling as far as the socialists are concerned.
We think their fears are well-founded.
And thus, we can expect the media establishment and the Democrats to hurl mud and accusations at a frantic pace.
The Fox News spin is the one that is the most surprising of all. Fox pointed to grumbling among Thompson's campaign staff as an indication things are falling apart.
As it turns out, Thompson's wife, who is a political consultant and campaign expert, is the target of the staffers' grumbling. It is well-known among those who cover political campaigns that candidates' spouses are normally vilified by staffers for their intrusiveness. So this is nothing new.
The difference in Thompson's case is that the spouse is probably more qualified and skillful than 99% of the staff. Thompson's staff will either have to find a way to live with that fact, or else they will have to leave. This is the candidate's wife, and she is considered a formidable force when it comes to political strategy.
The bottom line? The story about Thompson's 'failure' at fundraising is pure spin and nothing more.
But then, what did you expect? Couric and all of the others at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are in the hip-pockets of the Democrats. I suspect that Fox supports Rudy Giuliani.
Our opinion is that by the time this is all said and done, Fred Thompson will have some big surprises in store for Fox and the Democrats' mouthpieces at the other networks.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The Katie Couric-Dan Rather Flap
Washington, DC (TLS). It seems ole Danny-boy has ignited a wildfire with his unnecessary comments about Katie Couric. Let's not forget that ole Danny-boy's career is forever tainted by the fact that he helped produce and air a FALSE report on George W. Bush's military service...for which several CBS associates lost their jobs.
Some would say that ole Danny-boy lost his job too over that one, except it was conveniently covered up by Rather's supposed 'retirement,' except he never retired!
For a VERY intriguing take on the the Couric-Rather flap, read this, entitled, 'In Defence of Cleveland and Katie C.':
http://pribek.net/2007/06/12/in-defense-of-cleveland-katie-c/
Some would say that ole Danny-boy lost his job too over that one, except it was conveniently covered up by Rather's supposed 'retirement,' except he never retired!
For a VERY intriguing take on the the Couric-Rather flap, read this, entitled, 'In Defence of Cleveland and Katie C.':
http://pribek.net/2007/06/12/in-defense-of-cleveland-katie-c/
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
COWARDS! Dems Ditch Fox Debates AGAIN
Washington, DC (TLS). For the 2nd time in two months, the candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination have pulled out of debates sponsored by Fox News.
The first time, the candidates ditched a Fox-sponsored debate over something Roger Ailes said about Barack Obama. So, they picked up their rattles and pacifiers, and went home.
This time, Fox was planning a mammoth debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC in September.
But Barack Hussein Obama pulled out today, citing a policy of only participating in 'Democratic National Committee sanctioned debates.' Yet Obama stated that 'CNN would be a more appropriate venue.'
Sure, Senator. We understand. CNN will throw you soft-balls just as all the mainstream media news outlets have done. You wouldn't want to face the tough questions Fox may pose, would you? You know....like Republicans have had to do for decades at the hands of a hostile mainstream media that clearly preferred Liberal candidates?
B. Hussein Obama is not the only coward in the mix, however.
Hillary Clinton also bailed today, citing the same supposed 'policy' of appearing only at 'DNC-sanctioned debates.'
What the heck is that, anyway? 'A DNC-sanctioned debate.' Hmmm.
Let me guess. A DNC-sanctioned debate will mean Fox News will not be allowed to have any part of it. A DNC-sanctioned debate will probably involve Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Wolf Blitzer, or Helen Thomas. No questions will be allowed on Hillary's graduate thesis at Wellesley, showing her metamorphosis from a Goldwater Republican to an extremist Leftist collectivist who prefers European styled Socialism to American free enterprise.
In addition, no questions would be raised concerning Obama's connections to extremists in Islam (even his own pastor questioned his ties to Islam when Obama joined the United Church of Christ--another ultra-Leftwing outfit that takes every opportunity possible to bash America). And of course, a DNC-sanctioned event would involve absolutely no questions about the fact that Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate--even more so than Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy.
Hillary would also be given a pass on her enormous dark cloud of corruption that follows her and her husband wherever they go.
My friends, what if Newt Gingrich were to say, 'I will not appear at any debate except that which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee?'
Or what if Rudy Giuliani were to say, 'I will appear only at debates sponsored by Fox News?'
What do you think would be the response of the mainstream media to such statements on the part of Republicans?
I can tell you it would dominate the news for months. Charles Gibson and his colleagues at the other networks would see to that.
Yet this is the 2nd time--read that again, the SECOND TIME--the Democrat cowards have refused to appear at a debate involving Fox News.
If the mainstream media allows these clowns to get away with this without sounding the clarion alarm about how candidates are ducking the hard questions, then there will be even more ample proof that they are in the hip-pocket of the DNC and the Democratic candidates.
Of course, we knew that anyway. We already know for a fact that George Soros paid them off and met with them regularly during the 2006 election cycle to talk with them about pushing stories that made Bush look bad and squelching stories that made him look good.
It is obvious that the cowardly lame-brains that make up the field of Democratic candidates this year want nothing but soft-peddled questions. They want to dictate what will and will not be asked. They want to avoid pointed questions that shine the spotlight on their glaring faults, contradictions, and extremist ideology.
In short, they are yellow-bellied cowards that don't even have the guts to face Fox News! So, tell me, how in the HELL will they muster up the courage to face Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il?
The first time, the candidates ditched a Fox-sponsored debate over something Roger Ailes said about Barack Obama. So, they picked up their rattles and pacifiers, and went home.
This time, Fox was planning a mammoth debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC in September.
But Barack Hussein Obama pulled out today, citing a policy of only participating in 'Democratic National Committee sanctioned debates.' Yet Obama stated that 'CNN would be a more appropriate venue.'
Sure, Senator. We understand. CNN will throw you soft-balls just as all the mainstream media news outlets have done. You wouldn't want to face the tough questions Fox may pose, would you? You know....like Republicans have had to do for decades at the hands of a hostile mainstream media that clearly preferred Liberal candidates?
B. Hussein Obama is not the only coward in the mix, however.
Hillary Clinton also bailed today, citing the same supposed 'policy' of appearing only at 'DNC-sanctioned debates.'
What the heck is that, anyway? 'A DNC-sanctioned debate.' Hmmm.
Let me guess. A DNC-sanctioned debate will mean Fox News will not be allowed to have any part of it. A DNC-sanctioned debate will probably involve Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Wolf Blitzer, or Helen Thomas. No questions will be allowed on Hillary's graduate thesis at Wellesley, showing her metamorphosis from a Goldwater Republican to an extremist Leftist collectivist who prefers European styled Socialism to American free enterprise.
In addition, no questions would be raised concerning Obama's connections to extremists in Islam (even his own pastor questioned his ties to Islam when Obama joined the United Church of Christ--another ultra-Leftwing outfit that takes every opportunity possible to bash America). And of course, a DNC-sanctioned event would involve absolutely no questions about the fact that Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate--even more so than Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy.
Hillary would also be given a pass on her enormous dark cloud of corruption that follows her and her husband wherever they go.
My friends, what if Newt Gingrich were to say, 'I will not appear at any debate except that which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee?'
Or what if Rudy Giuliani were to say, 'I will appear only at debates sponsored by Fox News?'
What do you think would be the response of the mainstream media to such statements on the part of Republicans?
I can tell you it would dominate the news for months. Charles Gibson and his colleagues at the other networks would see to that.
Yet this is the 2nd time--read that again, the SECOND TIME--the Democrat cowards have refused to appear at a debate involving Fox News.
If the mainstream media allows these clowns to get away with this without sounding the clarion alarm about how candidates are ducking the hard questions, then there will be even more ample proof that they are in the hip-pocket of the DNC and the Democratic candidates.
Of course, we knew that anyway. We already know for a fact that George Soros paid them off and met with them regularly during the 2006 election cycle to talk with them about pushing stories that made Bush look bad and squelching stories that made him look good.
It is obvious that the cowardly lame-brains that make up the field of Democratic candidates this year want nothing but soft-peddled questions. They want to dictate what will and will not be asked. They want to avoid pointed questions that shine the spotlight on their glaring faults, contradictions, and extremist ideology.
In short, they are yellow-bellied cowards that don't even have the guts to face Fox News! So, tell me, how in the HELL will they muster up the courage to face Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)