She's One of Us

So, a few critics and mainstream media analysts have determined that GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin 'appeared nervous' in the Charles Gibson hit-piece interviews on ABC last week.

Well, wouldn't you be, too?

One of the things Americans love about Sarah Palin is that she's one of us--a real person, a regular, average, mainstream American trying to make a living and raise a family at the same time. She speaks our language and holds to our values.

Thus, suppose you as another average American citizen had to face an attack-dog of the mainstream media after 2 weeks of being smeared, maligned, ridiculed, and lampooned for being a normal, everyday American woman who is running for office?

Over the past 2 weeks, the mainstream media on TV and radio, in magazines and newspapers, and on the Internet, has referred to Palin as a 'redneck,' a 'religious fanatic who will force all Americans to adhere to her religious beliefs,' a 'man trapped in a female body' because she can fish and hunt, a 'whore,' a 'bad mother' because her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock, a person who should not be running for office because she is raising a family, although the very ones making that statement are themselves working outside the home and raising families, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

These sleazebag elitists snobs, most of whom had never even heard of Sarah Palin until 3 weeks ago, would make these charges about someone they barely know.

I ask you, what normal human being in their right mind would NOT be nervous facing one of the mainstream media attack-dogs who had said some of these things?

Palin's 'nervousness' only showed us even more clearly how normal and human she is.

But she calmly and assertively made her case before 'the great Gibson' in spite of that nervousness. And, as the interviews wore on, she seemed to catch onto Gibson's game of intimidation and gradually lost her nervousness as time passed.

Perhaps Palin instinctively knew that Gibson was putting on display the perfect example of what conservatives have been saying about the mainstream media for over 40 years--that they are decidedly biased toward liberalism and detest conservatives--and that if she simply let him continue with his heavy-handed intimidation tactics, looking for one of those 'gotcha' moments, the American people would see up-close-and-personal just how thoroughly the mainstream media is 'in the tank for Obama' and is pulling out all the stops to smear Palin and get McCain defeated.

Gibson's behavior in the interview has already caught the attention of media specialists in colleges and politics. One in particular stated that the media is 'on thin ice' if it continues with these tactics, and that there is sure to be a backlash by the American people against such displays.

Obviously, some of these specialists, who themselves are liberals, are deathly afraid that the media may well blow it for Obama. Thus, they issue a warning.

But the media is clearly not blowing it for Obama. The truth is taking care of Obama all on its own. Charlatans are found out sooner or later.

Rather, the only thing the media has done is to show us that we cannot trust their slanted news stories and that Sarah Palin really is a normal human being 'just like us,' in spite of their attempts to ruin her.

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.

MSM Reporters--Aroused, Gushing, Frothing

Have you noticed yet the difference between the manner in which the mainstream media reported the Democratic National Convention and the way they've handled the Republican National Convention?

This week during the RNC, Couric, Gibson, Williams, Cooper, Olbermann, and company have run hit-piece after hit-piece on the McCain ticket, particularly against Sarah Palin. The interviews they have conducted have been negative in tone, and their interviewees have been decidedly negative in their assessment of Palin.

During the Democrat's Convention last week, however, at one point I actually thought that the female reporters were sexually aroused as they covered Obama. I even thought the male reporters exhibited signs of arousal.

They gushed, frothed, giggled, laughed, clapped, cheered, and worshipped right along with the Democratic delegates.

I would be willing to bet money that had Katie Couric stood up, you would have found a wet spot in her seat. And had Chris Matthews stood up, you would have probably found he had a 'woodie.'

The entire lot of them had the appearance of being drunken with adoration of the Obamessiah.

These are not reporters. These are partisans who are working to get the Democrats elected. This is why, if the 'Fairness Doctrine' ever returns, we should DEMAND equal time on the major networks to respond to the blatant bias of their 'news reporters.'

The entire lot belongs in the dust-bin of journalistic failure.

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.

Edwards Protected, Stevens Vilified by MSM

One had been the Vice-Presidential candidate for his Party in 2004 and was a contender for the Presidential nomination by his Party in 2008. He is a former 2-term U.S. Senator from North Carolina.

This man's wife, who had stood faithfully by his side during his campaign, was diagnosed with metastatic cancer.

But it turns out that the man has a mistress with whom he had a love-child.

That anonymous 'love-child' now has a name--Frances Quinn Hunter, the daughter of the mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Rielle Hunter, as it turns out, has also been receiving $15,000 per month in hush money.

John Edwards, one of the most popular and influential Democrats in the country, is up to his eyeballs in scandal of draconian proportions, yet not a word of it has been even as much as whispered in the mainstream media.

The word on the street is that the MSM will soon be forced to report the story due to the overwhelming evidence that it's true.

But how much do you want to bet that when Katie, Charles, and Brian report it, the word 'Democrat' will not be uttered in the introductory remarks about the story?

The other man in the news has been an icon in the U.S. Senate longer than any other living person in the GOP. Alaskans have trusted this man to be their spokesman in the Senate for half a century.

He has been described as one of the most powerful figures in U.S. politics, though he is not often mentioned as the prime mover behind key legislation. His power has been wielded more often than not behind the scenes.

The mainstream news media has been suggesting that this man resign his seat in the Senate. His only transgression? He got a new basement and a new deck built onto his home, supposedly paid for by Alaskan companies that received lucrative government contracts as a result of this Senator's influence.

Yet so far these are allegations only.

When the MSM reported that Ted Stevens of Alaska was under indictment and investigation for corruption, not only did it make headlines and become the lead story on the evening news broadcasts, but within the very first sentence of the story, Stevens was identified as 'a powerful Republican.'

Often when other stories have been reported involving Democrats being caught in scandals, the
reporter conveniently fails to mention that the politician in question is a Democrat.

Thus, John Edwards is given safe haven protection from the MSM while Ted Stevens is vilified.

This is all part of the stellar, unbiased journalism to be found on ABC (All Barack Channel), NBC (National Barack Channel), CBS (Cheerleading for Barack System), and CNN (Clinton News Network).

And as for the silence of the major daily newspapers such as the New York Times on the John Edwards scandal, that silence shouts louder than a foghorn that they are beneath the dignity of even the National Enquirer, which has at least a year's worth of investigative work to back up its allegations.

Miracles Happen, But Not by the Obamessiah

A miraculous thing has occurred on the way to the planned and carefully orchestrated coronation of King Barack in the 2008 Presidential Election.

Despite the best-laid plans of mice, vermin, mainstream media news reporters, billionaire Leftists, and other characters of ill repute, the precious 'Savior of Mankind' is not gaining any ground in the polls.

Barack Obama got absolutely no bump in the polls resulting from his much-touted trip overseas.

This is in spite of wall-to-wall coverage by the mainstream media, the presence of all 3 major network news anchors, the worshipful adoration of throngs of zombies in Germany, and the attempt of the mainstream media to influence the election by covering the trip of a 2nd-rate junior politician as if it were an official visit by the President of the United States.

Despite Lara Logan and Katie Couric's rather hard-hitting interviews with Obama on the trip, make no mistake that the MSM is in the tank for the Illinois junior Senator.

The reporters had to appear hard-nosed in order to address widespread criticism that they were actively attempting to get Obama elected by slanting their news coverage.

Such criticism is entirely valid, no matter what questions Logan, Couric, and company asked.

John McCain got no such coverage when he made the same trip some time ago.

Yet, despite the goo-goo-gaa-gaa-O-Baa-Maas of the MSM, complete with their endless cheerleading for the 'candidate of hope and change,' Americans have apparently become very skeptical of what they're seeing and hearing night after night on the national news broadcasts.

Even after all we've seen and heard over the past week, John McCain is still within the margin of error of being tied with Obama in a composite average of all of the major polls. In fact, the latest major poll shows that the two are in a dead-heat.

But more importantly, McCain is picking up support in key areas with key demographic groups. He is pulling way ahead of Obama among the reliable over-55 voters, and he is gaining by leaps and bounds in the battleground states.

The miracle here, therefore, is that Obama is losing ground in spite of the media hype.

Wow, do you think he's really just a man after all?

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.

Media Spin in South Carolina on Presidential Race

The moguls of the mainstream media are at it again with their latest smear tactics against Fred Thompson in the GOP Presidential race.

In Sunday's Spartanburg Herald-Journal, a major Upstate S.C. newspaper which, by the way, is owned by the New York Times, an article appeared on the front page of the local news section which stated several times that Fred Thompson had 'gone negative' in his campaign strategy.

Not only did the article state that Thompson had 'gone negative' about Mike Huckabee but that he had adopted negativity as a campaign strategy for the rest of the way to Super Tuesday.

First, let's get this notion out of the way at the very outset. Thompson did not 'go negative.' Since when did pointing out someone's very public record as a Governor constitute 'going negative?'

This is Huckabee's definition of going negative. The Governor does not want his record discussed, since the record proves that his rhetoric concerning his days as Arkansas's Governor is at best grossly exaggerated and at worst contains some outright untruths.

That the mainstream media has adopted Huckabee's definition of the term is very telling.

A clear-headed, rational attempt to contrast one's views with another's is NOT 'going negative.' The opponent's views must be pointed out in order to differentiate those views from one's own.

Second, Huckabee himself has contrasted his record with that of other GOP candidates, yet to date no mainstream media outlet has described this tactic as 'going negative.'

Yet Huckabee went far beyond merely contrasting his record with the others. In Mitt Romney's case, for example, Huckabee went out of his way to attempt to portray himself as the 'Christian' candidate, the Baptist minister, in the very areas where there is yet a marked religious bigotry against Mormons.

This is, no doubt, exceeding the boundaries of discussing political differences by personally attacking an opponent's religion.

Yet Huckabee to date has gotten a free pass on his religious bigotry in the mainstream media in South Carolina. In fact, in Sunday's article in the Herald-Journal, no mention was made of Huckabee's ever going negative.

Further, the article not only focused on Thompson's supposed 'negative campaign' but Romney's as well. And the rift between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani certainly did not escape the scrutiny of the writer.

In short, Huckabee came out smelling like a rose. The rest were portrayed as nasty ogres who say nasty things about poor little preacher Huck.

And, mind you, this was NOT on the editorial page. This was supposedly a news article.

The article also failed to mention that as an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention, Huckabee is not getting much support from the denominational leadership. SBC conservative icon Judge Paul Pressler of Texas has endorsed Thompson. Richard Land, powerful head of one of the SBC's major agencies, has also expressed reluctance to support Huckabee but speaks in positive terms about Thompson.

Agency heads in the SBC do not officially make 'endorsements.'

The mainstream media, particularly anything affiliated with the New York Times, would naturally promote Huckabee. After all, he is widely viewed by Democratic insiders as the one GOP candidate that would be most easily defeated in the general election.

CBS's Anti-GOP Machine At It Again

If one had listened to the CBS Evening News totally at face value Saturday evening, one would think that the GOP is the one political party in America that is synonymous with scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, and graft.

Ever since we at The Liberty Sphere have taken it upon ourselves to do a periodic reality check on CBS News, highlighting examples of bias, we have discovered that often one has to be most diligent on the weekends when viewership is lower.

This is particularly true with the evening news broadcasts on Saturday and Sunday, as well as the flagship news magazine '60 Minutes.'

It is during these times that often CBS News will slip in some of its most blatantly slanted news stories.

Such was the case Saturday evening. In reporting the resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, CBS News proceeded to do a hatchet job--the 2nd this week--on the Republican Party. During the segment on Craig, the reporter stated that the GOP has a 'brand problem,' that the Republican Party is a 'weakened brand,' and that going into the 2008 election cycle the Party is at a distinct disadvantage with the voters because of 'all of the scandals and corruption' involving Republicans over the past few years.

The very same hatchet job was done earlier in the week, as we reported here on The Liberty Sphere.

And once again, the reporter went down the list naming each Republican over the past four years who has been involved in scandals of one kind or another, never once mentioning the fact that Democrats have been knee-deep in corruption of their own making.

The fact that Larry Craig was 'caught' in a sex sting operation, which the police and the government have no business delving into to begin with, only serves to emphasize Democratic hypocrisy. The very party that claims that the government should stay out of the private lives of Americans, particularly their private sex lives, is the first to condemn Republicans such as Craig.

But of course, as long as the Democrats can keep the story of Larry Craig and those dirty rotten scoundrel Republicans at the top of the news, they can slip underneath the radar screen when it comes to Hillary Clinton's five-year relationship with a major fundraiser who was wanted in the state of California for committing crimes.

It turns out that this particular fundraiser had contributed mega-bucks not only to Clinton, but to Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and at least a half-dozen other Democrats.

Attempting to escape any blame or association with corruption, the Democrats who were involved in this dirty money scandal did what they always do when they are caught with their pants down--they 'give the money back,' or in this case 'give it to charity.'

My, what precious angels.

This is precisely what Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did when it came to light he had received illegal campaign funds. He gave the money back, and this supposedly made the illegal activity null and void.

Is this how we as a society treat, say, embezzlers, for example? As long as they 'give the money' back they are automatically absolved of any wrongdoing? I don't think so.

John Conyers, Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, 'promised not to do it again' when it came to light he had broken federal campaign laws.

How do you think you would fare as an ordinary citizen if this were your only defense after being arrested for breaking a federal law? 'Your Honor, I promise I won't do it again if you let me go free and drop the charges.' Yeah, right.

And as for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and William Jefferson, who clearly had their hands soiled with dirty money, little or nothing is being done by the Democratic leadership to address the obvious corruption exhibited by both.

After all, it is the GOP that is the Party of corruption. Any factual information that proves otherwise or doesn't fit the template set by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media must be pushed aside.

The present playbook of the Democrats and their mouthpieces at CBS News and the other networks has George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and the Congressional Democratic leadership written all over it.

As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress in November of 2006, this playbook was put together. Inside sources in the Congress reported that the Democratic leadership would immediately launch into a massive media blitz involving countless Congressional investigations into 'GOP corruption.'

The objective would be to so bury the Bush White House and the Republican Party with an endless barrage of charges of corruption that the GOP would go limping into the 2008 general election, leaving the Democrats with a decisive advantage.

Not only has the Democratic leadership followed through with that strategy, but they have successfully enlisted the help of their allies in the mainstream media to bombard the American public with the message, 'Those Republicans are sleazy, but those Democrats are clean.'

My friends, if you believe those Democrats are clean, then you have tweety birds and tooth fairies flying around in your head.