Senator John McCain Blasts NBC, And The Washington Post Looks At Five Ways To Wreck A Recovery

Well, we've known for a long time that Old Media outlets like NBC are biased in favor of leftist (i.e. Democrat) candidates. The question was actually one of how long it would take before Republicans would get a pair of cajones and call them on it.

Looks like John McCain has finally lashed out. From the Politco:

McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis asked Sunday for a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, to protest what the campaign called signs that the network is "abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race." Davis made the request Sunday in a letter that is part of an aggressive effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to counter news coverage he considers critical. In this case, the campaign is objecting to a statement by NBC's Andrea Mitchell on "Meet the Press" questioning whether McCain might have gotten a heads-up on some of the questions that were asked of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was the first candidate to be interviewed Saturday night by Pastor Rick Warren at a presidential forum on faith. ... Here is the text of the letter: Steve: We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain. Nowhere was this more evident than with NBC chief correspondent Andrea Mitchell's comments on "Meet the Press" this morning. In analyzing last night's presidential forum at Saddleback Church, Mitchell expressed the Obama campaign spin that John McCain could only have done so well last night because he "may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama." Here are Andrea Mitchell's comments in full: Mitchell: "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/17/08) Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night's forum at Saddleback Church. Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of "Meet the Press" viewers with no indication that 1.) There's not one shred of evidence that it's true; 2.) In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren's idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, "I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;" 3.) John McCain actually requested that he and Barack Obama do the forum together on stage at the same time, making these kinds of after-the-fact complaints moot. Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.

This happens so often that it is beyond ridculous for Mitchell to even try to deny it. Anytime Old Media gets a chance to hurt John McCain and/or help Barack Obama, they do it.

It would probably be best for everyone if Old Media stopped pretending to be objective and just admitted their bias.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Protests NBC Coverage
Mike Allen
The Politco
August 17, 2008

---

And even the left-leaning Washington Post is starting to understand what Socialist policies means to the American economy. They actually allowed a column by Amity Shlaes (author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression) to be published.

Amity writes about five lessons we need to remember from the Great Depression. Here they are:

· Giving in to protectionism. In Herbert Hoover's time, Sen. Reed Smoot and Rep. W.C. Hawley proposed a tariff that was to raise effective duties by as much as half. More than a thousand economists signed an open letter warning that the duties would "raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens." ... Yet again, one party -- the Democrats, this time -- is cavalier. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is blocking passage of these bilateral agreements. And another ambivalent politician -- Sen. Barack Obama -- has sent mixed messages to Canada about just how much he wants to roll back the North American Free Trade Agreement. · Blaming the messenger. Punishing the stock market for the 1929 crash was popular in Washington in the early 1930s. Lawmakers attacked the practice of short selling; Senate Banking Committee counsel Ferdinand Pecora hauled J.P. Morgan and other Wall Streeters in for hearings. ... Today, too, a "Blame the Street" mood prevails. SEC Chairman Chris Cox has criticized "naked shorts," an attack with a legitimate anti-fraud component. But targeting short-selling also generates uncertainty. The investigations of Bear Stearns and Freddie Mac are just the beginning; more prosecutions are likely. Like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed Enron's accounting meltdown, this cleanup will send companies and jobs abroad. · Increasing taxes in a downturn. Hoover more than doubled income tax rates, taking the top marginal rate to 63 percent from 25 percent. FDR hiked the top rate to 90 percent. Perhaps worse, Roosevelt's Treasury crafted taxes to punish business, including an undistributed profits tax and an excess profits tax, that ultimately sucked cash from a capital-starved economy. Today, Democrats are planning tax increases that make Bill Clinton's hike look mild. The proposals start with lifting the cap on Social Security payroll taxes -- an effective increase in the top marginal tax rate of 6.2 percent, or for some 12.4 percent, all by itself. Add in the promised repeal of the Bush tax cuts and you have an additional 4.6 percent increase. Effective top rates approach 50 percent. There are also proposed increases for dividends and capital gains. Taken together, these will make the U.S. economy sluggish and more like that of Europe. · Assuming bigger government will bring back growth. There's a sense today that Washington has retreated too much from daily lives. ... Such state solutions tended to suppress the creation of long-term private-sector jobs, as did the aggressive Wagner Act for organized labor. The National Recovery Administration, the New Deal's centerpiece, favored large businesses at the expense of small fry. The new Tennessee Valley Authority and Roosevelt's repressive Public Utility Holding Company Act combined to crowd out private utilities that hoped to light up the South. As for Wall Street, those New Yorker magazine cartoons were accurate: Wall Streeters retreated into their martinis and country houses rather than rebuild. This yielded the "Depression within the Depression" of 1937. · Ignoring the cost of inconsistency. FDR spoke of "bold persistent experimentation." Obama speaks of "change." Both can do damage. What's more, the list of experiments is always finite. Our bailouts look reassuring, but even Washington cannot rescue the entire economy. And foreign investors wonder where Washington will stop. Already concerned about the inconsistent dollar policy, China is now troubled by the inconsistent rescues.

One of the most level-headed arguments against the Socialist policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats.

I've read The Forgotten Man and strongly encourage everyone to read it as well.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Five Ways To Wreck A Recovery
Amity Shlaes
The Washington Post
August 18, 2008

The Press And The Obama Trip, John McCain Fires Back And I Will Be On Sirius Radio This Tuesday

Well, I've been away for a little while and have had very little time to post anything. So, let me get caught up on a few things.

First, this Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 5:30 p.m., I am going to be on Indie Talk, Sirius Radio Channel 110 during the Blog Bunker Show. They liked my blog and invited me to do an interview with them. Actually, I think it is going to be more like a round-table discussion, but I must say I was surprised (and honored) to be invited. Here is what Sirius Indie Talk is about:

Indie Talk, an exclusive, groundbreaking SIRIUS talk radio channel serves as an uncensored forum for nonpartisan independent thought and opinion. Indie Talk has no agenda: the channel gives an equal voice to individuals from any affiliation or background, targets the blogger generation, and is a platform for listeners across the country to react to breaking news, issues and buzz.

A voice for the common person, Joe and Jane Average American! I'd be pretty foolish to pass this up! So, remember: 5:30 p.m. this Tuesday.

Now, on to some recent issues:

B. Hussein Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan has been shrouded in mystery it seems. Even NBC's Andrea Mitchell is questioning the manner in which the members of the press were treated and how the Obama entourage conducted the media coverage of the whole event.

From NewsBusters:

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out.

Here is what she said:

"Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before."

That's pretty scathing coming from a reporter who is known to have a leftist slant. Here's Chris Matthews asking more:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of servicepeople who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story? MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

From Andrea's point of view, this wasn't a fact-finding tour or a visit to get a better understanding of the situation the United States is facing on the world scene. It was nothing more than a dog-and-pony-show photo-op for B. Hussein Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Andrea On Obama Trip: 'What Some Would Call Fake Interviews'
Mark Finkelstein
NewsBusters.org
Junly 21, 2008

---

And speaking of the campaign trail, the liberal bias of Old Media continues to shine through with George Stephanopoulos and his interview with John McCain at McCain's Arizona ranch on Sunday.

Again, from NewsBusters:

On Sunday's This Week, ABC's George Stephanopoulos condemned John McCain for charging that “Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” Stephanopoulos, who interviewed McCain on Saturday at his Arizona ranch, declared: “I can't believe you believe that.” McCain insisted “I'm not questioning his patriotism. I'm questioning his actions. I'm questioning his lack, total lack of understanding.”

So, according to Stephanopoulos, questioning someone's judgement or their actions is equivalent to questioning their patriotism? That sounds just like the DNC talking points being repeated rather than a legitimate question by a journalist.

Here is the full exchange. Note how George continues to hammer away the DNC talking points:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You've taken heat this week with your comments saying that Senator Obama would rather lose a war than win a political campaign. I can't believe you believe that. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I'm not questioning his patriotism. I'm questioning his actions. I'm questioning his lack, total lack of understanding. STEPHANOPOULOS: But that is questioning his patriotism. When you say someone would rather lose a war, a candidate, that's questioning his honor, his decency, his character. McCAIN: All I'm say something is, and I will repeat, he does not understand. I'm not questioning his patriotism. I am saying that he made the decision which was political in order to help him get the nomination. STEPHANOPOULOS: So putting lives at risk for a political campaign, you believe he's doing that? McCAIN: I believe that when he said that we had to leave Iraq and we had to be out by last March and we had to have a date certain, that was in contravention to and still is to the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General David Petraeus. When he never asked to sit down for a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander on the ground, when he waited 900 days to go back again where young American lives are on the line, I think that's a fundamental lack of understanding and I think the American people will make the appropriate choices. STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're questioning his motives. McCAIN: I say that it was very clear that a decision had to be made, and I made it when it wasn't popular. He made a decision which was popular with his base, and that is a fundamental difference and he does not understand and did not understand and still doesn't understand that the surge was the vital strategy in us not having to lose a war, chaos, genocide, increased influence of Iranians in the region, the consequences of failure would have been severe. Now the benefits are enormous of a stable ally in the region, of a country that is a friend of ours, a break on Iranian influence, certainly a break on al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. So he made the decision that that was the best way to go to get the nomination of his party.

It's good to see McCain and the Republicans finally getting some backbone into their messages.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Stephanopoulos To McCain: 'I Can't Believe You Believe That'
Brent Baker
NewsBusters.org
July 28, 2008

---

And according to BlackFive, Senator Obama was colder than an artic wind towards the troops. From an email that came from Afghanistan:

Hello everyone, As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to ' The War Zone ' . I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country. If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake. In service, CPT J Bagram, Afghanistan

And although some are questioning whether or not this email is legitimate, a similar email also came from Afghanistan:

MY MEETING (ALMOST) WITH OBAMA <...> I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama's "fact finding" mission, when he passed through this base. While I can't name it, it's one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined. Problems are rare. Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here. This oped is of course subjective and limited, but I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn't able to see much, which makes a point all by itself. When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a "ramp freeze." This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don't move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama's flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right? 95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required. Mister Obama's motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day. Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base's senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who'd made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed. Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer, so he's not a practicing Muslim. He was in a convoy guarded by (so I'm told) both State Department and Secret Service Personnel. Less than three hours… Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything. Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn't even know he arrived the second time at this base. I can't imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we're winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can't fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from "change." In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama's strategic theory. Since he obviously knew in advance that's what they'd tell him, and since he didn't care to talk to the troops (we're told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is. A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign. In comparison, I've seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It's very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It's equally clear mister Obama does not. From here we must move to my op part of the oped. Obama clearly doesn't care about the troops, doesn't care about America, doesn't care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he'll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were "morally corrupt" and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won't happen with Iraq. That's not "change." That's "failure we can do without."

Perhaps Old Media will look into this? Nah. That would go against the Obamamania of the press and prevent more people from having "Obamagasms."

You can access the BlackFive posts here:

From G.I. in Afghanistan - "We got more thanks from the Dallas cowboy Cheerleaders" than from Senator Obama
BlackFive.net
July 23, 2008

More Witness Email - Senator Obama's PR Tour
BlackFive.net
July 24, 2008