2012: It’ll Be Here Before We Know It

December 30, 2009

 

You can bet your bottom dollar that the Democrats are already planning for 2012. In fact, President “I’d Rather Be Campaigning” still has his political organization mobilized and working toward his re-election.

If Obama is to be defeated in 2012, the GOP had better start girding its loins now for a massive fight to take back the country. And it will be a fight. We have all seen the new “transparency” that President Obama has brought to the White House. It’s a style strangely reminiscent of Chicago bare-knuckles “they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue” type of brawling that is so popular with Obama and his buddies at ACORN and the SEIU.

But there’s another twist to 2012 that the boys at Hillbuzz are pointing out; we need to find and groom the best Conservative candidate for 2012 and not allow the media to choose him/her for us–because the media will deliberately “annoint” a Republican candidate who can’t possibly win:

…[W]e believe the current president’s unprecedented decision to maintain his political campaign organization, in perpetual campaign mode, during his presidency means that in 2011, if not sooner, Democrats will work aggressively to select a doomed Republican presidential candidate for 2012.  We believe, as we repeatedly say here, the MSM is already at work on this, pushing “The Five Horsemen of the GOP 2012 Apocalypse”… None of these men can do what needs to be done in 2012:

(1) Provide an obvious, clearcut, immediate remedy to Dr. Utopia, since a winning GOP candidate must be a narrative answer to all of Dr. Utopia’s failures

(2) Excite supporters to hit the ground, phone bank, donate, and work their tails off to take back the White House

(3) Control the campaign’s message despite the media’s every effort to sabotage and destroy it

Amen to that! In the same post they pull out another hard truth that we may wish were untrue, but that we disregard at our extreme peril, as we did in 2000, 2004, and 2008:

Republicans need to understand they are not just up against the DNC and the White House.  They are also going to have to run against the MSM itself in 2012.  The MSM is 100% committed to re-electing Dr. Utopia.  Many, such as Chris Matthews at MSNBC, have said on air their job is to see that he succeeds.  The only positive thing we can say about the MSM, thus, is that they are so open about what they are doing.  They are no longer journalists, but de facto political staff volunteering for Dr. Utopia while being paid as “journalists”. [Emphasis mine]

Since 2004 when Newsweek editor Evan Thomas readily admitted that media bias could account for as much as 15 points in the election, the mainstream media has gone nearly 100% into the bag for our current President. If the Republican National Committee has a hope of retaking the White House, they’d better start planning now how to combat not just the Democrat Party, the unions, and the community organizations like ACORN, but also the fourth estate, which has thrown away any and all pretense to journalistic integrity and is going whole hog for the Obama and the Democrats.

So let’s get started. All we have to do is find a great candidate…

Stoutcat


White House Escalating War… With Fox News?

October 13, 2009

It comes as no surprise to anyone with an IQ higher than onion dip that, with the exception of Fox News, the “mainstream media” (MSM) has been little more than a cheerleading squad for The Left.  The MSM has consistently refused to cover (or even acknowledge the existence of) many major stories (ex: ACORN workers allegedly involved in Voter Registration Fraud) until the Fox News coverage made it impossible to ignore. When President Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones’ controversial history as a “Truther” and a communist was exposed, none of the mainstream news channels – except for Fox News again – mentioned a word of it until the problem was so blatant that Jones had to resign.

Over the past year, Fox News has clearly established itself as the only member of the MSM that is willing to put the truth out there and let the people make their decisions based on the availability of BOTH sides of the story. America has come to depend on Fox as the only major television source of news they can trust.  Their ratings overwhelmingly bear this out:

Prime Time News Network Ratings
(as of October 9, 2009)

P2+ Prime Time
FNC –      2,299,000 viewers
CNN –        582,000 viewers
MSNBC –    816,000 viewers
CNBC –        158,000 viewers
HLN –          551,000 viewers (HLN= Headline News)

Source: TVbythenumbers.com

All ten of the “Top 10 Cable News Shows” are Fox News programs.  The top 5 (All Fox News programs) break down as follows:

  1. “The O’Reilly Factor” – an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter, up 12% over the previous year.
  2. “Hannity” (2.603 million viewers, up 9%)
  3. “Glenn Beck” (2.403 million viewers, up 89% )
  4. “On the Record with Greta van Susteren” (2.150 million viewers, up 16%)
  5. “Special Report with Bret Baier” (1.997 million, up 20%)

Source: Huffington Post

No wonder, then, that the Obama administration (aka the gang that can’t do anything straight) is setting their sights to discredit Fox News.

It all comes down to this: Americans are voting again, but this time it’s with the remote control.  In response to the Fox News absolute dominance in the ratings (see above), and in what has to be seen as further proof of the Obama administration’s complete lack of common sense coupled with inexperience, the White House seems to be declaring war on Fox News.

Sunday, on CNN, White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn said:

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.” (emphasis mine)

Dunn is obviously hoping… desperately hoping… that American viewers will buy into her criticism of Fox News. Look at the ratings, Ms. Dunn and you will see you have just been diagnosed with “Hoof IN Mouth” disease. Even the Huffington Post admits there’s no contest when it comes to which news network the American Public turns to for “fair and balanced” reporting:

Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.

Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That’s more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.

What does worry me a bit is just what the Obama administration has in mind to counter the impact of conservative radio talk shows and now, television news that isn’t afraid to tell the truth.

This might be a good time to keep tabs on Mark Lloyd, President Obama’s “Media Diversity Czar.”  Another one of Obama’s un-vetted advisors,  Lloyd is the person who has suggested what amounts to nothing more than fining radio stations that broadcast conservative talk shows but don’t provide, in his opinion, enough opposing programming. If he pulls this off as well as going after broadcast TV, a victory for the Obama administration would mean people in this country would have about the same level of access to news as residents of the former Soviet Union.

Isn’t the preservation of the Constitution part of the Presidential Pledge that was taken by Barack Hussein Obama?

Gerry Ashley


Laugh of the Day

February 15, 2009


Newsbusters is reporting on a hugely entertaining article in The Guardian written by Yale professor Bruce Ackerman, who is suggesting begging us to start funding a National Endowment for the Investigative Arts. Because, you see, all the big newspapers are going under, and if that happens the world will suddenly lack serious journalists who can investigate, do research, and, well, stuff like that. And that’s bad, of course. And priceless, in a maudlin sort of way:

The traditional newspaper is dying. The Evening Standard has been sold off for a pound to a former KGB agent, the Los Angeles Times is bankrupt and even the New York Times is in trouble. Mexican plutocrat Carlos Slim may become its largest shareholder in return for financing the paper’s billion-dollar debt. Except for the financial press, newspapers have failed to convince readers to pay for online access – and there is no reason to think that readers will suddenly succumb to the charms of PayPal.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Ahem. Sorry, that just slipped out.

What Professor Ackerman is proposing is this:

“We urge democracies throughout the world to consider the creation of national endowments for journalism that are carefully designed to confront the impending collapse of investigative reporting….

But there are huge costs to losing a vibrant core of investigative reporters covering local, national and international stories. The internet is well suited to detect scandals that require lots of bloggers to spend a little bit of time searching for bits of incriminating evidence. But it’s no substitute for serious investigative reporting that requires weeks of intelligent inquiry to get to the heart of the problem... “[Emphasis mine]

O RLY? How’s that working out for you these days, MSM? Ackerman goes on to suggest:

Here is where our system of national endowments enters the argument. In contrast to current proposals, we do not rely on public or private do-gooders to dole out money to their favourite journalists. Each national endowment would subsidisze investigations on a strict mathematical formula based on the number of citizens who actually read their reports on news sites.

Actually, Mr. Ackerman, I think that’s what’s happening now: the number of citizens who actually read what reporters write is plummeting. It’s not because those reporters are or are not writing in print or online. It is because the vast majority of “reporters” and “journalists” have lost all credibilty with the thinking public. And the thinking public is refusing to shell out good money for distorted or just plain dishonest “news”.

Doling out endowments to reporters whose readership is near zero and likely to remain so simply creates a vast bureauocracy to pay miserable pennies to poor benighted readerless reporters (which would at least create some meaningless but well-paying jobs, so perhaps Prof. Ackerman has a hidden agenda here).

But he may just as well have suggested a “Feed the Reporters” program or a “Save the Journalists” initiative. It probably would at least get donations from a few chumps.

Stoutcat


And Another Thing…

November 23, 2008

 

I write this pursuant to my post of yesterday, in which I remarked on the number of folks on the left calling on Obama to take over, like, now, already.

So now we also have three opinion writers from the New York Times all calling for Bush to step down and let Obama have his chance almost two months early.

Paul Krugman wrote:

“How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot. Consider how much darker the economic picture has grown since the failure of Lehman Brothers, which took place just over two months ago. And the pace of deterioration seems to be accelerating.”

Gail Collins, in a column coyly entitled, “Time for Him to Go”, opined:

“Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.

Seriously. We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.”

And the latest is Thomas Friedman, who pennedWe Found the W.M.D.”

“If I had my druthers right now we would convene a special session of Congress, amend the Constitution and move up the inauguration from Jan. 20 to Thanksgiving Day. Forget the inaugural balls; we can’t afford them. Forget the grandstands; we don’t need them. Just get me a Supreme Court justice and a Bible, and let’s swear in Barack Obama right now — by choice — with the same haste we did — by necessity — with L.B.J. in the back of Air Force One.”

I’ve got a newsflash for you whiney liberals: you are part of the very reason our country is in the state it is today. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds, squeezing bla— oh, sorry, wrong rant. You sit there in your ivory towers which protect you from the humdrum world of the ordinary, and pretend you are not only smarter, but also better than most Americans. This is borne out by the opening paragraph of Friedman’s column:

“So, I have a confession and a suggestion. The confession: I go into restaurants these days, look around at the tables often still crowded with young people, and I have this urge to go from table to table and say: “You don’t know me, but I have to tell you that you shouldn’t be here. You should be saving your money. You should be home eating tuna fish. This financial crisis is so far from over. We are just at the end of the beginning. Please, wrap up that steak in a doggy bag and go home.”

What a sanctimonious load of crap. “You poor bastiches had better get home and eat tuna fish because you’re so stupid you don’t know that (in a dire tone) Worse. Is. Yet. To. Come.”

Yes, your smugness will protect you from the fall-out, and your superior intelligence will allow you and your friends to save us all from our stupid restaurant-steak-eating selves, and turn us into good little dolphin-safe tuna-consuming peons who look rapturously at our betters and march in lockstep, singing paeans to The One and his acolytes.

If any of you had written responsible articles, not just about the financial problems we’re having, but about the Iraq War, about President Bush, about the need for keeping classified information CLASSIFIED, about Obama’s past and current associates and donors, about, oh, any number of things, or better yet, all of the above, why then the few people who still read your trashy rag might have been better informed about what’s really going on in the world today.

They might have learned how best to help, rather than whinging about how a sitting President is so ineffective that he should simply step down. Well, I’ve got news for you all: you may not have caused some of the problems we’re facing today, but you damn well contributed to them and in many cases exacerbated them.

So in short, here’s a memo to the New York Times: Shut. The. Hell. Up.

Stoutcat

P.S. to Thomas Friedman: if you really think there’s no difference between a vice-president assuming the presidency after the assassination of his predecessor and a peaceful transfer of power at the constitutionally-appointed time, then you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought, and you deserve every particle of scorn that is or will be heaped on you.

H/T Confederate Yankee, HotAir


MSM Double Standard Redux

September 15, 2008

A bit of background here: Grand Rants was designed around the idea that “rants” would stand alone unless rebuttal was so compelling that it deserves another “rant. (Example: Jay and I have had two rants on the same issue because “comments” just didn’t measure up. )

Here too is another case where a simple response just doesn’t do justice to a commenter’s point about the media double standard, which is a good one. He wrote…

Obama had been vetted for almost 1.5 years in over 20 debates and a grueling Democratic primary when the Gibson interview you cite was done. Palin, by contrast, is someone most Americans have never heard of. I think it’s only natural and appropriate that the questions he asked were decidedly different and more probing.

Fair enough. Let’s go on that premise. A liberal journalist (Gibson) asks less-probing questions of a relatively “seasoned” presidential wannabe (Obama) than he does of an “inexperienced” VP wannabe (Palin). So far, so good in my book.

Now, out of fairness, let’s turn the tables 180 degrees. Suppose the two tickets were McCain/Rice and Clinton/Obama. And let’s just say that a conservative journalist (say, Brit Hume) asks less-probing questions of a “seasoned” presidential candidate (McCain) than he does of an “inexperienced” VP candidate (Obama).

If that were to have happened, I doubt your objectivity would have been so resolute.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like either party. But even more than that, I especially don’t like MSM “pulling” for a particular camp or leaving objectivity behind. (There’s plenty of scrutiny to go around for all involved…) But there goes that old double standard again.

It is what it is.

Alan Speakman