Thursday, January 29, 2009

Question Not Raised in the Mainstream Media During the Bush Administration

Written : Jan. 27, 2009

All throughout the Bush administration’s time in office the media (and others) harshly questioned and severely criticized America’s interrogation methods for captured terrorists. No one asked whether tougher measures were sometimes necessary, but the theme that was continually pounded out was that it wasn’t ever necessary. Information obtained and lives saved were of no consequence. It was reported that America was a ‘nasty country’, we were told that the world looked upon the U.S. as a villain nation for treating its enemies as enemies in a time of war. The media told us we lost all of our friends around the world. Some congressmen either implied or called for President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s resignations! They were slammed for keeping the fact that water boarding was used a secret. Hollywood even released a movie suggesting that Bush should have been assassinated.

Only one week after President Obama’s swearing in, John Roberts (an anchor) and Jeanne Merserve (a reporter) on CNN finally both seemed to ask this ever obvious question in unison, “Are harsher interrogation methods sometimes necessary?” [I’ve always thought that Jeanne Merserve was a fine reporter and an unbiased newsperson, so please understand that I’m not picking on her.] She wrapped up her news report by concluding, “More severe measures are only effective if they are secret.” FINALLY, the truth came out! However, why could they not have said precisely that during the Bush administration’s time in office? If the media wasn’t or isn’t tilted all the way to the left, then if you’re fair, answer me this: What took CNN so long to wake up and at least raise the question?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

On Vetting Tim Geithner, Good Job!

Written : Jan. 27, 2009

What’d you say? A nominee for the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner, failed to pay his taxes – for several years – until the day before he was nominated for the high office? No, say it’s not so, Joe! The day before being nominated he just so happened to decide to pay some of those taxes owed, plus interest! Wow, he was not fined, nor was he required to pay any late fees! Must be nice!

What if former President George W. Bush had nominated someone who had tax problems for Secretary of the U.S. Treasury just like Geithner? For just for kicks let’s say it was a financial expert – like Henry (Hank) Paulson? What would the reaction have been? It would’ve been constantly made fun of in the main stream media, especially by outlets like MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, and, of course, Saturday Night Live. Just imagine! The nighttime comics would’ve had a field day – and – they would’ve made fun of “that Bush” for nominating a “cheat”, a “fraud”, a “tax evader”. Many wouldn’t have been so kind in their choice of words. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) would certainly have cried from the highest tower, “corruption!” and perhaps, “good ole boy network!” Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would’ve gone absolutely crazy, not to mention the liberal blog sites! I could just hear the cries for Senator Stevens to withdraw his name from nomination immediately, couldn’t you?

Don’t look now, but this was exactly what President Obama has done. And, Geithner was actually approved by the Senate by a vote of 60-34! This is absolutely astonishing. How can this have happened? Am I living in the “Bizarro” world of Superman fame? With the exception of some of the conservative media and bloggers, no one is asking that Geithner resign and no one is crying “foul”, at least not yet. As Artie Johnson might have said, “verrrry interesting, but shtupid!”

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Media Bias Continues

Written : Jan. 24, 2009

Sometimes I have to ask myself, “Why is Yahoo my home page?” A case in point occurred this evening as I started my browser. The lead news story headline (posted at 6pm Mountain time) was “Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands”. I’m a skeptical political news junkie who watches for bias in the media, so I was hooked, though skeptical. The author, Liz Sidoti (of the Associated Press), using opinionated sentiment, and not objective statements, said that Obama “mostly” avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. (As I recall, Bush began his administration by saying he wanted to work with the Democrats.)

In her third paragraph, Sidoti said that Obama “overturned a slew of Bush policies with great fanfare”. Someone, please explain how that is non-ideological? He signed an executive order recently which will eventually close Guantanamo Bay, which is a prison camp for terrorists (but Ms. Sidoti ‘reported’ that it’s a prison camp for “suspected” terrorists). Why does she not believe our military when they say the prisoners are terrorists? Explain to me how closing Guantanimo is a non-partisan action on Obama’s part?

The author praised Obama (no surprise) by saying that he was a “picture of poise” when Chief Justice John Roberts stumbled over his words during the swearing in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2009. I disagree. Obama started stuttering immediately, but he did recover just as quickly. The author’s rhetoric soared when she used a quote from Fred Greenstein, a professor from Princeton University (no surprise that she would quote a college professor). Greenstein compared Obama to Superman / Clark Kent. How absurd, and just when will the media’s hyperbole regarding Mr. Obama end? How tedious!

Ms. Sidoti, and many in the media often demonstrate that they do not think out of the box. She tried to praise the mighty O-man and take a slap at President Bush (when will the left ever leave him alone?) when she said that President Obama is the first president to use e-mail, citing his “cherished” BlackBerry as proof. What Ms. Sidoti did not consider is that the Presidents’ correspondence is a matter of public record and that no president should ever use private devices to communicate with anyone. That’s for historical and security reasons, and also to protect the president, in case you were wondering. She also stated that Obama consulted someone else in public and in doing so he admitted to not being on top of a particular issue and thereby Ms. Sidoti inferred that President Bush would never have done something like that. For the most part, what a closed-minded and a partisan media we have!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Meet The Press – about the 1/11/09 ‘edition’

Written : Jan. 18, 2009

Former House of Representative David Bonier (D-MI), a member of President-Elect Obama’s “Economic Tranisition Team”, asked himself a couple of rhetorical questions during the January 11, 2009 edition of “Meet The Press”. He asked, “What do we want out of the stimulus package?” Then he asked, “What are we wanting to recover to?”, which meant, "To which point in recent history do we wish to return?" Both of these were great questions.

The shock came when he actually answered the questions and proposed solutions. He said that he doesn’t want to return to the unbalanced pyramid of our economic structure, which he said is due to the irregularity of income at the top. He wants to “get a hold of” the irregularities of wages and income. He said it’s “skewed the wrong way”. So, to fix this problem he wanted more collective bargaining and more union control. That, dear reader, is a socialist idea, and as we’ve seen over the past 90 or so years of ‘experimentation’, socialism simply does not work.

Bonier’s typically liberal solution is exactly what we don’t need, and here’s why (and I’ll begin with a question to Mr. Bonier and to those who would unfairly equalize incomes by taking from those, for example, who take risks and by giving to those who do not take risks): Don’t you ever wonder why America can’t compete with foreign automobile manufacturers? It’s because the American auto companies pay their workers way too much in salary and compensation benefits. In turn they have to charge their customers more for each car in order to make a profit. (And, they do have to make a profit - so that they can continue to employ their people and to be able to produce more cars.) Don’t you realize that that is precisely why the government is bailing out the carmakers? So, once they get their bailout billions, how will you, Mr. Bonier, fix it so it doesn’t happen again (the need for another bailout)? Oh, I see, you’d want the workers to make even more – so the car companies will have to charge even more. In that case, we’d never be able to afford their cars and the car czars will be back soon, asking for more money. It just can’t work that way. To not end up in the same mess again, we'll have to actually fix the problem!

When the people who take the risks of capital get their ROI (returns on investment), they deserve to receive their compensation, even if it’s a lot of money. The workers do not take the risks in the system, the businessmen do. The investors therefore deserve more income so that they can make more investments. It’s capitalism 101. Why should the workers ever get paid as much as the owners of a business? Now, don’t say “NBA” or “MLB”! They simply shouldn’t!

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Reliable Sources – about the 1/11/09 ‘episode’

Written : Jan. 18, 2009

Please forgive me because I have to admit to being tickled when liberals, reporters, and/or pundits get angry over Ann Coulter. It’s like the laugh I feel the need to suppress when “Bush Derangement Syndrome” occurs. This is when a supposedly neutral reporter, pundit, or pontificator gets very angry at President George W. Bush. They seem to hate him and insult him verbally with unjustifiable venom and vigor. “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is a phrase which was apparently coined recently by the conservative genius Charles Krauthammer. However, people don’t generally get as red faced over Coulter as they do over George W. Bush.

Although it’s the fairest news program on CNN by a long shot, I had an issue with (and a laugh over) last week’s Reliable Sources program which is hosted by Howard Kurtz. By the way, Howard Kurtz is fair at least 90% of the time (that’s unscientific of course), and so he’s almost completely believable in my eyes. His panel of Frank Sesno, Mark Feldstein, and Alicia Shepard were about as fair as they could be when they discussed Ann Coulter’s supposed ban from the Today Show on NBC. That is, until Sesno went off about her mention of “B. Hussein Obama”. One could tell Sesno wanted to go absolutely crazy on this subject, but all he said was that it was “amazing”. It’s hilarious to see a serious newsman start to go obviously ballistic and then, kudos to him, restrain himself completely.

The issue of saying the full version, “Barack Hussein Obama”, and watching people get angry is especially funny to me for some reason. Perhaps it’s because I was taught in my life (by liberals) that getting upset over words is silly. My parents taught me that old nursery rhyme, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”, and emphasized it many times. The “B. Hussein…” phrase has delighted and was highlighted over the last year or so especially by Sean Hannity on the now defunct FOX show “Hannity and Colmes”. During many of those shows Sean would say it, much to the chagrin of his co-host, Alan Colmes and other libs. They all thought it was quite the insult, they’d get so visually upset, and then Sean would explain that, well, we say “John Fitzgerald Kennedy”, “Lyndon Baines Johnson”, etc., so what’s wrong with saying “Barack Hussein Obama”? He was absolutely right, of course. But, liberals got so frustrated by this – until of course, the O’ man himself said he’d use his middle name during the swearing in ceremony on inauguration day, Jan. 20, 2009. That made their anger over it ultimately ironic, nevertheless it’s still makes me chuckle.

Mark Feldstein ultimately revealed his true political position when he said, “I’d trust NBC over Coulter”. (No conservative would ever say that, nor should any moderate.) I believe he inferred the words ‘any day’ but as I recall, he didn’t actually say them. He did say that Coulter is (in the future) not “entitled to a megaphone whenever she wants”, which is akin to saying that conservatives are not entitled to voice their opinions whenever they want over the airwaves. Liberals are the first to say they hate censorship. Whatever. They’re only against it when it’s censorship against liberals. When it’s censorship against conservatives, well, that’s ok.

I used to get irritated over Ann Coulter myself, but I’ve come to realize that she’s taking the jabs at liberals that most of us don’t have the guts to. She takes what the liberal media does to conservatives and turns it on its head! She’s occasionally over the top, but she’s funny, sarcastic, different, and she’s actually correct many times. As we conservatives have to do when we listen to Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, liberals should really try a sense of humor when it comes to Ann Coulter.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Nepotism in American Politics Today

Written : Dec. 16, 2008

It certainly is not only Republicans who bathe in nepotism. You only have to look as far as the daughter of JFK, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, to see the latest example of this in American politics. Keeping it all in the family, as they used to say.

Illinois native, and long-time Arkansas and U.S. first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton was not a New York State politician until her husband Bill had served for eight years as U.S. president. Schlossberg, although perhaps a sentimental favorite for some, is also not qualified for public office at this point. I loved her father's smile and always thought her mom was nice, but she does not deserve a senate seat (does she?), and in my opinion she should not even be considered. (Many Democrats would argue that Jeb Bush and George W. Bush didn’t deserve to run for, let alone win the Florida and Texas governorships, either. But then Al Gore is himself a son of a State Senator, and Andrew Cuomo is the son of the famous and inspiring NY Governor, Mario Cuomo.)

It seems to me that Democrats will do anything, and ask anyone to run to maintain their majority in the Senate. It’s not fair, but it’s just the way it is. I say instead, give a poorer person, perhaps a more deserving career politician, a chance to attain the seat. Don’t you think that would be a good and fair idea?

Saturday, January 10, 2009

David Gregory, the new host of

“Meet the Press” on NBC

Written : Dec. 16, 2008

Ever since David Gregory dogged President Bush at his news conferences I’d looked forward to the next president getting the same treatment from him "someday"! Unfortunately we’ve been spared in this instance, since Gregory has already been named the ‘permanent’ host of “Meet the Press” which airs weekly every Sunday on NBC. Too bad, someone else will have to get on President Obama’s case. But, Gregory was oh so very good at it with Mr. Bush.

So, I decided to tune in on Sunday, Dec. 14, to catch Gregory’s premier appearance on the weekly news program. The topic was the corrupt Democrat, the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blogojevich (D-IL). (Please notice that when the Governor's name is mentioned in the media, the word “Democrat” is seldom mentioned along with it. That’s because the mainstream media doesn’t want us to associate Nancy Pelosi’s “culture of corruption” with Democrats, whom as we know are never corrupt. Of course, we actually know better.)

Anyway, on his Sunday interview show, Gregory seemed to defend Blogojevich by repeatedly attacking the Attorney General of the state of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, on why she wanted Blogojevich to step down. At times he rather boldly accused her of being politically motivated by the desire of wanting the Governorship for herself! Instead of standing for “the right thing” and being against corruption, Gregory defended Blogojevich by correctly stating that the Governor of Illinois had not yet been proven to have done anything wrong.

While “W” was ripe for the “pickings” for Gregory at most news conferences in the past, Blogojevich obviously required his defense instead. Now, of course I realize that most journalists think they have to rake anyone they interview over the coals, and for David Gregory that included Madigan on Dec. 14. They can’t seem to help it, no matter how tedious it can get for their viewers - and that's a shame. However, I think Gregory could have gone a little easier on the Attorney General, but no, he could not help himself from sloppily leaning to the left.

Barack Hussein Obama

Dec. 16, 2008

For months during the presidential campaign it was deemed a slur by the mainstream media to even mention Barack Obama’s middle name. Ultra-sensitive to what people might have thought upon hearing it, liberals were outraged when conservatives called him “Barack Hussein Obama”, while conservatives were (admittedly) mildly amused by it. But recently it was revealed that Obama himself has decided to use the moniker when he is sworn in as the nation’s 44th president on Jan. 20, 2009.

So, suddenly, and solely because of Obama's decision, the media has accepted his middle name as politically correct when it was not politically correct for so long. What was going on here? It definitely proved that the political correctness expected during the last presidential campaign was out of line. It also alludes that political correctness itself is ridiculous.

Obama is proud of his name, and he should be. He therefore also should have been proud of it earlier this year, right? If all other presidential candidates are known by their three names why should Obama have not been known by his three names back during the campaign?

Friday, January 2, 2009

Where was Pelosi?

Dec. 9, 2008

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is famous for saying that the Republican Party is bathed in a "culture of corruption". She and her colleagues (Senate and House Democrats) often urge that every Republican, hint of corruption or not, resign. Where are her accusations now, when various Democrats have been found to have been corrupt?

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) actually resigned his governorship on Mar. 17, 2008 after being caught spending a lot of time with a prostitute. But Spitzer is the Democratic rarity. President William Jefferson Clinton (D-AR) was impeached after it was revealed that he had sex in the White House with an intern (yet, he didn't resign). Today, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) was arrested for attempting to profit personally from Barack Obama's soon-to-be vacant Senate seat. Blagojevich immediately refused to step down. In 2005, Congressman William J. Jefferson (D-LA) was being investigated by the FBI for the corrupt practice of allegedly receiving a bribe from the iGate company. He supposedly received over $400,000 in bribes in exchange for using his congressional influence to aid iGate's business in several ways. He had the gaul to run for re-election, but he lost to Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao.

First of all, this shows that corruption knows no political ideology. It proves that Pelosi's myth that Republicans are the only bad guys on the block is false. Any politician can be corrupt, no? Why do corrupt Democrats refuse to resign after calling for so many Republicans to leave their jobs? Isn't this a double-standard, and don't we all have an obligation to speak truth to power?

Speaker of the House Pelosi, you are noticeably absent on this issue - at times. But we notice when you choose to not say anything.