A Look At Barack Obama And More Old Media Bias

It's still too early to tell who the candidates are going to be for each party in the Presidential election. But we can take a look at who the current presumed front-runner for the Dems: Barack Hussein Obama.

I was watching Glenn Beck last night and he posed a question to three political commentators about B. Hussein Obama: "Specifically, which of his policies do you like best?" Not one single commentator could come up with a specific reason.

So, maybe we should start looking into this ourselves. I found this item by Dennis Prager at Town Hall about the "call for unity" Obama made:

I do not doubt Mr. Obama's sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish. First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity -- whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) -- do not tell the whole truth. If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: "I want everyone to unite -- behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine."

But what are his values? What does he really believe? That is what Glenn Beck was trying to get the commentators to answer but no one would say.

Dennis goes on:

Barack Obama wants American troops out of Iraq now. About half of America believes that American troops abandoning Iraq will lead to making that country the world's center of terror and to the greatest victory thus far for the greatest organized evil in the world today. How, then, will Mr. Obama achieve unity on Iraq? Mr. Obama believes in repealing the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. How will he achieve unity on that? Many of us believe that re-raising taxes will bring on a recession.

And this:

For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush's policies "divisive" simply because they don't agree with them. They are not one whit more divisive than Sen. Obama's positions. A question for Democrats, the media and other Obama supporters: How exactly are Mr. Obama's left-wing political positions any less "divisive" than President Bush's right-wing positions? Second, the craving for unity is frequently childish. As we mature we understand that decent people will differ politically and theologically. The mature yearn for unity only on a handful of fundamental values, such as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity. The next time Sen. Obama speaks with his usual passion and eloquence about his desire to unite Americans, someone must ask him two questions: Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush's right-wing positions?

That is the question that leftists in Old Media will never ask for fear of the answer.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Sen. Obama's Calls for Unity Are Not What They Seem
Dennis Prager
TownHall.com
January 8, 2008

---

And how much proof do you need to come to the realization that Old Media has a leftist slant and bias in its coverage? How about ABC's Good Morning America which gave a full fifteen minutes of coverage to the Dem campaign but only 31 seconds to the GOP?

From NewsBusters.org:

Over the course of the two hour program, GMA featured four segments on the Democrats and only a solitary (and brief) piece on the GOP contest. This included co-host Diane Sawyer interviewing Barack Obama twice. ABC anchor and former Bill Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos talked to Senator Hillary Clinton. Kate Snow discussed the state of the New York senator's White House bid. Aside from mentioning the latest GOP polls in the show's intro, the only analysis of the Republicans resulted from Sawyer asking Stephanopoulos this banal question: "And what about the Republicans?" The conversation that followed lasted 31 seconds.

The really sad part is that ABC thinks we were too stupid to notice.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

ABC's GMA Devotes 15 Minutes To Dem Race; 31 seconds To GOP
Scott Whitlock
NewsBusters.org
January 7, 2008

Joe Kennedy: Bad Politics And Even Worse Judgement

Have you seen the TV commercials where Joe Kennedy is touting "free" heating oil from the "people" of Venezuela? I have, and they are an insult to the intelligence of anyone who knows the first thing about Latin American politics. In the middle of the ad, Kennedy says, "Some people would call this bad politics." Well, Joe, I am one of those who calls it bad politics and I will go one step further and call it even worse judgement on his part.

And I am not alone in my assessment. Writing for TownHall.com, Mona Charen has the following to say:

So let's see, the poor should accept charity from a would-be dictator who has formed an alliance with Iran and Cuba, who has denounced the United States as the greatest threat to peace and security in the world and called the U.S. president "the devil" and "a genocidal murderer." They should permit themselves to be used by a man who attempted to subvert his country's constitution, proclaimed his goal as "socialism or death," and launched the most comprehensive assault on freedom of the press in Latin America this side of Castro? "Our good [friend] in Venezuela" just last month suffered a key rebuke from his own people when he attempted to amend the constitution. Chavez's proposed "reforms" would have permitted him to serve for life, ended the autonomy of the central bank, permitted the president to rule by decree, and given him broad powers to suspend civil liberties and seize private property under indefinite states of emergency. A broad spectrum of Venezuelan society united to oppose this "constitutional coup" and narrowly defeated the measure. With his characteristic good grace, Chavez called it a "s---t victory."

And that's not even the worst part. Read this:

How can Mr. Kennedy reconcile the fact that Chavez has in the past pushed OPEC to reduce output to increase prices which affects all Americans, but the poor most of all -- with his pose as Mr. Bountiful? Gosh, is that the act of someone who truly cares about the world's poor?

That's right. Chavez pushed to market price of oil upward so that the poor could afford it even less, and then turns around and offers free oil to those same poor? I remember reading something like that in 1984 by George Orwell where the chocolate ration was reduced by several ounces but the Party put out a story that it had actually been increased. Only the most weak-minded fools believed the story. Here in the real world, what would that make Joe Kennedy?

That I why I call his judgement worse than his politics.

Mona goes on the highlight some other "achievements" of Mr. Chavez that Joe is turning a blind eye to:

It isn't as if Chavez has improved life so much in Venezuela that he can now look abroad for charitable opportunities. According to the Associated Press, Venezuela's inflation rate has now topped 22 percent, Latin America's highest. The government has imposed price controls in a bid to control inflation, which has led to shortages of basic items like milk, eggs and sugar. Consumers are also having trouble finding chickens, cooking oil and black beans in supermarkets. One can understand Mr. Kennedy's desire to help the poor heat their homes in the winter. But to shill for a figure like Chavez? There are other options, including federal programs. Doesn't Kennedy cringe when he reads accounts like this from CNN last May? "Venezuela's most-watched television station -- and outlet for the political opposition -- went off the air after the government refused to renew its broadcast license . . . Police on Sunday used water cannons and what appeared to be tear gas to break up thousands of demonstrators protesting the government's decision to close the country's most-watched television station . . . Inside the studios of Radio Caracas Television, employees cried and chanted 'Freedom!' on camera."

And this:

Does it not cause Kennedy to question his association when he reads accounts like this mid-2007 report from the State Department and the Organization of American States? ... "The OAS report on Venezuela said it was concerned about the administration of justice in that country, the problem of sicariato (paid killings) and the 'impunity that surrounds reports of extrajudicial executions at the hands of agents' of the Venezuelan government. "Extrajudicial killings are a particular concern in Venezuela. More than 6,370 people were victims of homicides committed between 2000 and 2005 by the 'agents' of Venezuelan state security forces . . ."

Joe Kennedy's politics are most definitely in the "bad" zone. But his sense of good judgement is totally MIA.

You can access the complete colum on-line here:

Joe Kennedy, Hugo Chavez And That Free Heating Oil
Mona Charen
TownHall.com
January 4, 2008

Benazir Bhutto, Rest In Peace

I was going to post some other articles today, but they paled in comparison to the news from yesterday. David Ignatius, writing for Investor's Business Daily has the following to say about Benazir Bhutto:

I remember encountering her once when she was a graduate student at Oxford, shaking up the august and occasionally somnolent Oxford Union debating society as its president. She was wearing a Rolling Stones T-shirt, the one with the sassy tongue sticking out, and I recall thinking that Pakistani politics would never be the same once she returned home. In later years, I would see her during her periodic visits to Washington after she assumed her family's mantle of political leadership and became prime minister in 1988, at the age of 35. She changed in her outward appearance, wearing a head scarf and traditional clothes as she matured, but not in her inner passion for change. Bhutto was fearless, from her college years in America to her cruel assassination Thursday. She had an unshakable belief that Pakistan should embrace the modern world with the same confidence and courage that she had.

Although the corruption charges that marred her second term as Prime Minister were legitimate, she was Pakistan's trail-blazer into the modern political world and thus a symbol for others to follow.

Rest In Pace, Madam Prime Minister.

Bhutto Paid Ultimate Price For Freedom
David Ignatius
Investor's Business Daily
December 27, 2007