BARACK OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN ADD AGENCY - THE MSM
I have followed politics for my entire adult life. In fact even as an older teen in the early seventies was somewhat of an oddity concerning politics. Not only was I conservative but as a teenager I actually was active in not only following politics but in campaigning for candidates that I was not yet old enough to vote for.
In my more than 30 year track record of following politics, I have NEVER watched such a blatant bias toward any candidate as I am now seeing with the MSM and Barack Obama. In fact this bias can almost be considered a partnership between the liberal candidate and the MSM.
The MSM has always leaned left of center with an extreme bias toward the liberal stance on issues but never have they made such an obvious blatant stand for any single candidate to the point of it looking as if they are a paid member of the Obama campaign.
This trip that Obama is making to Europe is a prime example of the obvious bias to the point of actively campaigning for the liberal Obama as the coverage of his trip is actually far more than a sitting President receives for a similar trip.
President Bush just returned from an overseas trip and not one of the MSM anchors followed him on the trip or even spent much time reporting what was taking place on the trip and Bush is a SITTING President whose trips have actual US policy ramifications.
Yet ABC, NBC and CBS are sending anchors Gibson, Williams and Couric to Europe with Obama to cover the, "Rock Stars," visit with foreign heads of State. Thank God that one head of State Germanys Angela Merkel has stepped forward and put this trip into perspective by being extremely skeptical about Obama making a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate which is a symbol of the Cold War days and has been reserved for speeches from Heads of State like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan and not a campaign stump stop which is Obama's purpose.
The hype that the MSM has placed on Obama's trip becomes even more disgusting and a sign of the blatant bias toward the Democrat when one considers that John McCain recently made a similar trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe as a candidate after he had gained the nomination and traveled with ONE reporter and his trip was only mentioned as an after thought by all of the networks during their , "in other political news," segment.
Adding to this is the ridiculous move by the New York Times in their OPED section. Last week Barack Obama wrote an OPED article for the Times which was printed in its entirety without question or editing. The article out lined his position on Iraq and Afghanistan. John McCain submitted and OPED this past Sunday on the same subject out lining his policy.
Not only did the Times reject the article but informed the McCain campaign that they would only accept an article on this subject from him if it out lined a , "plan for victory," which included a ,"timetable," for withdrawal. A policy which is NOT in any plan that McCain has or will put forth because he is against any type of timetable. Yet the Times now sees it their responsibility to dictate policy to the GOP candidate while catering to the Democrat candidate.
With this form of blatant bias toward Obama why does he need to spend another dime for campaign advertising when he receives massive amounts of FREE advertising in coverage from the MSM ? The MSM was not even this biased over a politician when they came out 'en mass against Richard Nixon during the Watergate fiasco.
Yet despite this massive media hype and bias in favor of Obama, he still is either tied with or has a slight lead over McCain and that lead in most polls is well within the margin of error. This also proves one other thing about Obama. The American people still do not trust him enough to back his candidacy even with the excessive media bias.
With the Obama hype that is taking place with the media he should be twenty points ahead of McCain especially since McCain almost can't buy media coverage and his campaign has been relatively quiet in the midst of the Obamamessiahmania.
I was surprised this week when CNN actually broke the story concerning the misinformation that had hit the press over the media lie that Iraq Prime Minister Maliki agreed with Obama's sixteen month withdrawal plan. Stating that Maliki's words, "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately." Maliki agreed with 16 months as a possibility ONLY if security situations warranted that type of draw down and the situation on the ground was safe enough for the draw down to take place in that time period. Obama calls for a sixteen month withdrawal REGARDLESS of the situation or security.
Again a blatant media bias toward Obama trying to even twist the words of the Iraqi Prime Minister in order to make Obama look like he and only he knows how to handle the issue of Iraq. While the New York Times attempts to dictate to John McCain what his policy should be in order for this liberal rag to cover McCain's plan.
With media bias as ridiculously blatant in favor of Obama as it is now I can already envision the headlines on November 5, 2008 after John McCain wins the Presidency. I'll just give the headline for the New York Times which will cover the reaction by the rest of the biased MSM.
"BARACK OBAMA FIRST BLACK CANDIDATE TO LOSE THE PRESIDENCY" with the subheading for the story being, " McCain President Elect" or "Democrat voters denied access to polls, reason McCain elected." This my friends is our great American media!
Ken Taylor
In my more than 30 year track record of following politics, I have NEVER watched such a blatant bias toward any candidate as I am now seeing with the MSM and Barack Obama. In fact this bias can almost be considered a partnership between the liberal candidate and the MSM.
The MSM has always leaned left of center with an extreme bias toward the liberal stance on issues but never have they made such an obvious blatant stand for any single candidate to the point of it looking as if they are a paid member of the Obama campaign.
This trip that Obama is making to Europe is a prime example of the obvious bias to the point of actively campaigning for the liberal Obama as the coverage of his trip is actually far more than a sitting President receives for a similar trip.
President Bush just returned from an overseas trip and not one of the MSM anchors followed him on the trip or even spent much time reporting what was taking place on the trip and Bush is a SITTING President whose trips have actual US policy ramifications.
Yet ABC, NBC and CBS are sending anchors Gibson, Williams and Couric to Europe with Obama to cover the, "Rock Stars," visit with foreign heads of State. Thank God that one head of State Germanys Angela Merkel has stepped forward and put this trip into perspective by being extremely skeptical about Obama making a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate which is a symbol of the Cold War days and has been reserved for speeches from Heads of State like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan and not a campaign stump stop which is Obama's purpose.
The hype that the MSM has placed on Obama's trip becomes even more disgusting and a sign of the blatant bias toward the Democrat when one considers that John McCain recently made a similar trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe as a candidate after he had gained the nomination and traveled with ONE reporter and his trip was only mentioned as an after thought by all of the networks during their , "in other political news," segment.
Adding to this is the ridiculous move by the New York Times in their OPED section. Last week Barack Obama wrote an OPED article for the Times which was printed in its entirety without question or editing. The article out lined his position on Iraq and Afghanistan. John McCain submitted and OPED this past Sunday on the same subject out lining his policy.
Not only did the Times reject the article but informed the McCain campaign that they would only accept an article on this subject from him if it out lined a , "plan for victory," which included a ,"timetable," for withdrawal. A policy which is NOT in any plan that McCain has or will put forth because he is against any type of timetable. Yet the Times now sees it their responsibility to dictate policy to the GOP candidate while catering to the Democrat candidate.
With this form of blatant bias toward Obama why does he need to spend another dime for campaign advertising when he receives massive amounts of FREE advertising in coverage from the MSM ? The MSM was not even this biased over a politician when they came out 'en mass against Richard Nixon during the Watergate fiasco.
Yet despite this massive media hype and bias in favor of Obama, he still is either tied with or has a slight lead over McCain and that lead in most polls is well within the margin of error. This also proves one other thing about Obama. The American people still do not trust him enough to back his candidacy even with the excessive media bias.
With the Obama hype that is taking place with the media he should be twenty points ahead of McCain especially since McCain almost can't buy media coverage and his campaign has been relatively quiet in the midst of the Obamamessiahmania.
I was surprised this week when CNN actually broke the story concerning the misinformation that had hit the press over the media lie that Iraq Prime Minister Maliki agreed with Obama's sixteen month withdrawal plan. Stating that Maliki's words, "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately." Maliki agreed with 16 months as a possibility ONLY if security situations warranted that type of draw down and the situation on the ground was safe enough for the draw down to take place in that time period. Obama calls for a sixteen month withdrawal REGARDLESS of the situation or security.
Again a blatant media bias toward Obama trying to even twist the words of the Iraqi Prime Minister in order to make Obama look like he and only he knows how to handle the issue of Iraq. While the New York Times attempts to dictate to John McCain what his policy should be in order for this liberal rag to cover McCain's plan.
With media bias as ridiculously blatant in favor of Obama as it is now I can already envision the headlines on November 5, 2008 after John McCain wins the Presidency. I'll just give the headline for the New York Times which will cover the reaction by the rest of the biased MSM.
"BARACK OBAMA FIRST BLACK CANDIDATE TO LOSE THE PRESIDENCY" with the subheading for the story being, " McCain President Elect" or "Democrat voters denied access to polls, reason McCain elected." This my friends is our great American media!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:07 AM
6 Comments:
Ken, cite a quote where Obama said "16 months REGARDLESS of the situation in Iraq." You won't be able to because he NEVER said that.
If you look at the debate transcripts against Hillary you will see that Obama was ALWAYS clear that he would not lock into a hard schedule, but he would end the war. He would set the mission and work with commanders to end the war in Iraq.
Also, you are completely wrong if you think that Maliki was misquoted. That was the orignial spin that was put out by the White House to soften the political beating they took when the Maliki quotes came out. Maliki has been very clear that he was not misquoted and yesterday, after their meetings with Obama, Maliki and some of the top leaders in the Iraqi government stated explicitly that they want U.S. troops out no later than December 2010. They are pretty firm about setting a specific timetable. It is their country and they want us out.
Good luck with your candidate, and I suppose up until November you can hold onto your headline. But if you look at the Electoral Map it is looking worse and worse for McCain.
Ken,
Excellent post.
I cant believe the NYT, well yes I can.
The entire MSM is in the tank for Obama, but with the way things are looking, no matter what is going on, Obama does NOT have a lead!
Hmmmm, Wonder why? Could it be the MSM are stuffing Obama down the throats of those that dont want to hear it anymore?
The NYT did not "reject" the op ed. They want to know how McCain defines victory. McCain's op ed offered nothing new (unlike Obama's).
Editing is normal business for newspapers. McCain wants to avoid defining what he sees as victory because he doesn't know what that is. As near as I can tell, victory in Iraq means staying in Iraq to McCain. In addition, the Iraqis themselves are defining the terms of our continued occupation, so in large measure, it doesn't matter that McCain wants to stay until some hazy, unknown, non-specific later date.
Rob, had to chime in for a moment. I work for a newspaper. OPED articles are either accepted or rejected but the editor does not try and dictate to the OPED writer what they are to write because they are opinion editorials.
Two things here about the McCain OPED situation. First even Dem pundits admit that other than the sixteen month draw down proposal Obama's said nothing new either.
Second it is NOT up to the Times to tell a political candidate what to put forth as policy. It is their responsibility to report what the candidate says and not try and tell them what to say.
It was extremely poor business to turn down McCain's only five days AFTER accepting Obama's. Especially considering how much the Times has come under fire in recent months.
This is a non-defendable situation and there is no excuse for any paper to be as blatantly biased as this.
BTW Rob Obama has stated repeatedly that his sixteen month idea starts immediatly after his inaguration if elected. He has stated that he will have the troops our within sixteen months after becoming President.
Which can be taken only one way. regardless of the situation he intends to start the pull out immediatly after he takes office if elected. That is a BIG IF!
No Ken, he has always said that he will out a troop withdrawal plan with his commanders that is responsible.
Make no mistake, he will end our combat operations in Iraq, but he is not tied to 16 months. If the only safe way to get our troops out in 18 months, that is fine with him.
But, here is the bottom line. The sovereign Iraqi government wants us out. So whoever is President will have to work out a plan to get our troops out. It just so happens that Obama has been right all along about our need to redeploy.
Post a Comment
<< Home