Presidential election may be up for grabs

[a_majoor]

Not only are right wing blogs more interesting and offer greater depth of coverage than the MSM; they are much funnier as well:

 

[CougarKing]

Gov Bobby Jindal is awesome.  He could even outplay Obama in the intellectual debate game.  McCain would have done much better with him than with Palin.  But i doubt he would appease the far right of the GOP like she did.

I think you will be disappointed, since he just announced recently that he wasn't considering a 2012 run at this point. Looks like all eyes will be on Palin again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_el_pr/jindal2012

RICHMOND, Va. – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Wednesday he's not interested in a 2012 Republican presidential bid and will seek a second term as governor in 2011.

Jindal, who appeared at a news conference to back Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, was asked if he was interested in being president."No," he replied.

Jindal's trip to Iowa last month fueled speculation that he was laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign, and he did not rule out changing his mind over the next few years.

Instead, he said Americans are weary after the longest, most expensive election cycle in U.S. history.

"I think anybody who is even thinking of running would be well served to roll up their sleeves and support our new president," Jindal said. "I told our people, 'It doesn't matter whether you're Republican, Democrat or independent, it doesn't matter whether you voted for him or not, President-elect Barack Obama is our president.'"

In the wake of Republican losses in Congress and a blowout defeat in the presidential race, Jindal is an early favorite among many Republicans for 2012.

He's young, 37, and has strong support from conservatives for his income tax-cutting initiatives. Many of them advocated for John McCain to pick Jindal as his vice presidential running mate.

Jindal also enjoyed broad-based approval for his handling of back-to-back hurricanes, Gustav and Ike, that menaced his state and New Orleans in particular in August and September, just three years after Hurricane Katrina devastated the area.

 

[Drag]

Not only are right wing blogs more interesting and offer greater depth of coverage than the MSM; they are much funnier as well:

They amuse me as well, especially the drivel they are peddling about Obama's birth certificate, conspiracy to nationalize 401Ks, Malcom X being Obama's father and such.  I think this election cycle, the loony right in the US even out-crazied the loony left, which is very, very, very hard to do...  Code Pink or the Freerepublic... who is crazier??? Though call now.

I think Jindal will be on the ticket somewhere.  Palin is a fad, is she runs gain the Republicans are doomed.

 

[TCBF]

...  Palin is a fad, is she runs gain the Republicans are doomed.

- Too bad.  She likes Canada.

 

[tomahawk6]

Palin is a major contender for 2012.Four years is a long time in politics and anything can happen.She does energize the base.Her recent visit to Georgia to help Saxby Chambliss in his run off race for the Senate was a smashing success.

 

[CougarKing]

Reposted from another forum (the ff. are not my own comments):

Ann Coulter just can't resist making up wild and crazy crapola

Unfortunately, it seems those stories about Ann Coulter having her jaw wired shut were groundless indeed. She was on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show today, pitching her new book and weighing in on how the Blagojevich scandal taints Obama, yadda yadda yadda. But of course, in addition to the yadda, she brought the usual dose of wingnut bats--t crazy along (captured in the above edited version of the interview): theorizing that "Daily Kos has more to fear from [Obama] than I do" and that Patrick Fitzgerald filed the complaint so that Obama couldn't fire him. Right.

But my favorite moment was this:

Coulter: Oh, third point. I just want to mention -- Liberals, hysterical with me throughout the campaign for calling him B. Hussein Obama, we found out yesterday, that's what he likes to be called.

Cavuto: What are you saying in this --

Coulter: He's changed his -- now that he's president --

Cavuto: Yeah, but when he's inaugurated -- remember it was a thing with Jimmy Carter, you know, whether they were gonna call him James Earl Carter --

Coulter: Yeah, but as president, he wants to be known as Barack - Hussein - Obama.

Cavuto: How do you know that?

Coulter: He announced it yesterday!

Cavuto: Where did he announce it?

Coulter: [pause] I don't know! Wherever he announces things! Where does he announce anything?

Of course, there was no such announcement. If you go to the Obama transition website, you'll find no such announcements, either among the press releases or on the blog. It didn't come up in his momentary discussions with the press yesterday, or any of his press conferences at any time.

The only time the matter of his middle name has come up has been when he was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune, and he said this:

Q: Do you anticipate being sworn in as Barack Obama or Barack Hussein Obama?

O: I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other. I'll do what everybody else does.

"Crazy liar" only begins to describe Ann Coulter. But then, you knew that.


With Video

<<http://crooksandliars.com/>>

 

[tomahawk6]

Gotta stay away from those nutroot sites CougarDaddy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site, ought to confirm the suspicions of Thucydides and tomahawk6 that the world (America, anyway) is going to hell in a liberal/Democratic Party hand-basket:
--------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/15/senate-kennedy.html

Caroline Kennedy to seek N.Y. senate seat: report

Last Updated: Monday, December 15, 2008 | 4:47 PM ET

The Associated Press

Caroline Kennedy has told New York Gov. David Paterson she wants to be the state's next senator, becoming the highest-profile person to actively lobby for the seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Associated Press reported Monday.

Kennedy has told the Democratic governor she wants the job should Clinton be confirmed as secretary of state for U.S. president-elect Barack Obama, according to two people familiar with the conversations between Kennedy and Paterson.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to the Associated Press Monday because neither Kennedy nor Paterson have acknowledged she is seeking the position.

If appointed by Paterson, the daughter of former president John F. Kennedy would hold the seat once occupied by her late uncle, Robert F. Kennedy.

There was no immediate comment from the Kennedy family or from Paterson.

Paterson has sole authority to name a replacement for Clinton, who was first elected in 2000 and re-elected by a wide margin in 2006.

Over the past week, Kennedy has reached out to several prominent New York Democrats to tell them of her interest in the senate seat.

They included Joel Klein, chancellor of New York City's education department; Kennedy worked closely with Klein as executive of the office of strategic partnerships for the education department, where she raised some $65 million US for the city's schools.

Other Democrats who appear to be on Paterson's short list include New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who won't say publicly if he's interested.

One of the early front-runners, Nydia Velazquez of Brooklyn, a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, took herself out of the running Friday.

Paterson is expected to tap someone who can raise a lot of money and help him politically when they run together on the 2010 ticket.

Other names in the mix include:

• Nassau County District executive Tom Suozzi, who is also a possible choice for lieutenant governor with Paterson in 2010.
• Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown.
• Bronx Borough president Adolfo Carrion Jr.
• Five other legislators in the House of Representatives — Carolyn Maloney, Steve Israel, Jerrold Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand and Brian Higgins.

Republicans slam Kennedy

Republicans wasted no time in criticizing Kennedy as unqualified for the job.

"If anything, it makes me more determined to run," said Representative Peter King, a Long Island Republican who has already expressed his interest in the seat.

"As far as record of achievement I strongly believe that I'm much more qualified, much more experienced, and have an independent record," said King. "Nothing against Caroline Kennedy but I don't think anyone has a right to a seat."

© The Canadian Press, 2008
--------------------


I suppose each person has to start her trek to the White House somewhere and if Bush 43 can follow Bush 41 then I guess Kennedy (4n) can aspire to follow Kennedy 35, and I presume an appointment to ”the world’s greatest deliberative body” is as good a place to start as any.

 

[George Wallace]

Guess she doesn't believe the family is cursed.

 

[a_majoor]

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site, ought to confirm the suspicions of Thucydides and tomahawk6 that the world (America, anyway) is going to hell in a liberal/Democratic Party hand-basket:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

 

[CougarKing]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

I really don't see any further point in my contributing to this thread where the other side (Liberals/Democrats) is summarily dismissed and demonized or not given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[tomahawk6]

From my perspective that ship has already sailed. The corruption evident in Chicago will be going to Washington with Obama. How many of his apointments make it to Washington with him will be interesting to watch. So far his chief of staff is on the hot seat,as is Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr and now his Commerce Sec Governor Richardson has an ethics problem. Had the media properly veted Obama then the public would have been better able to make a decision. It probably wouldnt have made any difference but at least the system would have worked. Sadly the MSM made Obama and will have to defend him at least until it becomes near impossible to do.

Obama went from a categorical denial about talking to Governor Blago to silence. He should have admitted to discussions about potential replacements,after all it would be natural and not illegal. Now it appears that once again Obama has lied when it wasnt even necessary. Any world leaders that deal with him better get any agreements in writing. Should be an entertaining 4 years anyway.

 

[a_majoor]

I really don't see any further point in my contributing to this thread where the other side (Liberals/Democrats) is summarily dismissed and demonized or not given the benefit of the doubt.

How much more benefit of the doubt is there to give? Look at their record: the Wilson Administration's proto Fascist regime during WWI? The "New Deal" that extended the Depression and almost saw a "President for Life" in the White House? The "Great Society" that destroyed generations of poor families, sparked a great inflation and began the process that entangled American society in debt and regulatory red tape? America's holiday from history during the Clinton Administration, which allowed toxic and destabilizing regimes and ideology to expand and take root all over the world? The fact that the incoming administration is set to repeat the all the same mistakes?

The conservative side has many flaws as well, but the defining mark of "Classical Liberals" (Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Objectivists etc.) is they base their programs on observation and fact, not wishful thinking. I would suggest the error of the Classical Liberal side is to compromise and accept any of the nostrums peddled by the Progressive side, the angle of the slope is reduced, but you are still going downhill.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... the defining mark of "Classical Liberals" (Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Objectivists etc.) is they base their programs on observation and fact, not wishful thinking. I would suggest the error of the Classical Liberal side is to compromise and accept any of the nostrums peddled by the Progressive side, the angle of the slope is reduced, but you are still going downhill.

But the real, "classical liberals" (I don't like capitalizing either word) constitute the tiniest of minorities - outnumbered by even the rump of the fascists. The classical liberals have no choice but to compromise and try to limit the damage proposed from all angles - including from the arch libertarians.

 

[TCBF]

Guess she doesn't believe the family is cursed.

- Beats me why she didn't just buy that seat they were sellin' off in Illinois.  Oh well...

 

[time expired]

GEORGE,
            funny you should say that,I read a long time ago that an Irish
woman, reputed to be a witch,placed a curse on the family.This was in
response to the elder Kennedy`s exploitation of poor Irish immigrants.
Funny that.
          Regards

 

[a_majoor]

Post election analysis:

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_he_did_it_a_diagrammatic_a.html

How He Did It: A Diagrammatic Analysis of the Obama Campaign
By Paul Shlichta

"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia." ---George Orwell.

The audacity and speed with which Obama railroaded the stimulus bill through Congress took Republicans by surprise. It shouldn't have; it was a logical extension of his campaign tactics.

Like the spear-carrying soldiers of Ethiopia, overwhelmed by Mussolini's tanks and poison gas in 1936, the Republicans simply don't know what hit them in last year's election. Some felt that they had conducted an old-fashioned 20th century campaign while Obama mounted the first truly information-age 21st century political blitzkrieg. Others blame the blatant media bias, the race issue, or the unprecedented scale of fund raising and spending.

The first month of Obama's regime has provoked a similar bewilderment. A dazed Congress hastily authorized a huge document, filled with hidden booby traps like RAT, that none of them had actually read, let alone comprehended. Republicans are now cowering in corners, wondering what atrocity will come next

Anyone hoping to launch a successful counterattack must first analyze Obama's campaign and assess the factors that contributed to its success. To assist in such efforts, I have constructed a block diagram [1] of the post-nomination campaign's components, interactions, and successive stages [2]. A study of this diagram will, I think, reveal interactions that are too complex to be sorted out and comprehended from a verbal description alone.

The diagram is colored according to the phases of the campaign, which, like a military campaign, can be divided into the resources provided by the terrain, available forces and weapons, strategy and tactics, and objectives to be taken [3].

The resources, which Obama, or any other black liberal candidate, had to start with, were:

voter dissatisfaction with the prolonged war and the economy, which the Democrats had for years redirected and focused on George Bush,
the decades-long liberal domination of our education system and the consequent liberalization of the last two generations of the voting public,
the consequent liberal bias of the media, with regard to both journalists and entertainers,
traditional liberal guilt about racism,
the racially polarized outlook of the US black community and its radical leaders; an asset which any black candidate could count upon,
liberal special interest groups, such as the gay rights and abortion lobbies, and especially the financial, strategic, and organizational support of George Soros and the numerous political action organizations he controls, such as Acorn and MoveOn, and
experience and contacts with corrupt political machines such as (in Obama's case) the Daley organization in Chicago.

The forces and weapons that Obama had at his disposal, both from his personal attributes and from his access to the above resources, included:

his own personality and image as a young talented black liberal,
his consequent value to the media as a "hot" newsworthy topic,
his consequent personal attractiveness to the liberal elite in politics, journalism, entertainment, and finance; in particular, his suitability for backing by George Soros, who may well have been the eminence grise of Obama's campaign-the "man behind the curtain", as he has often been characterized,
this popularity, in conjunction with his persuasive and oratorical skills, gave him the opportunity to raise abundant campaign funds, which in turn caused Democratic party leaders to look favorably upon him,
the effect of his image {i.e. youth, dramatic appeal, charisma, and assuagement of guilt about racism) in arousing an enthusiasm that his revivalist style of oratory encouraged and amplified,
for the same reasons, his persona and newsworthiness, which induced journalists to give him favorable media coverage to the point of blatant bias,
in addition to these external advantages, his experience with the Daley machine and flamboyant Illinois politics, which developed his organizational skills and gave him access to numerous political contacts,
his natural audacity, as enhanced and trained by these same associations, and
familiarity with the arts of evasion, deception, and fraud, as learned from the same sources.

Thus armed, Obama, and/or his associates and mentors, employed the following strategy and tactics to exploit these assets:

aggressive and well organized fund raising and lavish spending at an unprecedented level,
the extensive use of the Internet for organizing and mobilizing activities,
an intense effort to attract and utilize young people,
the development of a grass roots network, based on both enthusiastic youthful recruits and money-bought hardcore organizers such as ACORN, to carry out registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns,
additional use of the Internet for aggressive purposes by his famous "dogs of war" and by the 527 groups of Soros and others,
the use of these resources and his media connections to attack and villify Bush and opponents, such as Sarah Palin, while appearing to be personally above such tactics,
an intensive appearance and speechmaking campaign focusing on emotional and charismatic appeal, publicly centered on vague platitudes while on a more private level making mutually contradictory promises to every special interest group,
emphasis on terms such as "hope" and "change", which were veiled allusions to criticisms of Bush and the current regime,
an unusually drastic post-nomination shift from far left to right of center,
domination of a docile media, so that issues favorable to Obama were spotlighted while unfavorable issues, such as his lack of experience, faded into the background (the equivalent of the military tactic of seizing the high ground) while Obama's gaffes, contradictory promises, and questionable associations were effectively obscured or covered up.

Finally, the attainment of the following objectives, or harvesting of votes:

a massive voter registration campaign aimed exclusively at young, Hispanic, and black voters, thereby changing the Democratic to Republican ratio of the voter registry,
a corresponding increase in young and black votes,
the development, by intensive media and 527 group attacks, of a substantial anti-Bush backlash vote,
the use of biased media coverage to divert centrist swing votes to Obama,
reliance on tradition and anti-Palin sentiment to keep feminist and traditional Democrat votes within the Obama camp, and
the use of questionable political forces, such as Acorn and the Daley machine, to allow indiscriminate and unchecked registration of new voters, who often turned out to be illegal aliens or frauds, and reliance on loyal Democratic state and city officials to sanction and abet voting "irregularities"; also the use of street money and other fraudulent tactics.

Another critical advantage the Obama campaign received was a decisive "October surprise"---a tactic similar to Napoleon's practice of reserving a hidden force to throw into battle at the most decisive moment. In the present election, the spectacular mortgage-market collapse in October seemed to be a fortuitous coincidence. However, some of us, bearing in mind George Soros' previous financial coups and the dictum that in politics, there are so such things as coincidences, are wondering what really happened. For the present, however, this item is colored black and its source is marked as unknown.

This diagram is herewith presented as a starting point for further discussion and study. It is by no means complete. Some factors, such as reactions to the Republican campaign and threats to potential McCain donors, have been ignored since they shed little light on Obama's overall strategy. In other cases, links have been omitted because of the limitation of a static two-dimensional diagram. For example, the links from "audacity" and "Soros" to other elements of the campaign are so numerous that their complete insertion would make the diagram difficult to decipher.

Readers are encouraged to modify the present diagram by adding boxes or links. Further analysis would be greatly facilitated by converting this diagram into a Muckety map, which would enable flexibility of arrangement and the tying of links to references. This might enable the construction and interpretation of a more detailed diagram, such as the one that James Simpson has constructed to show how Obama, in conjunction with his radical associates and Soros' organizations, has orchestrated a strategy of manufactured crisis.

A Possible Interpretation

Two people can look at the same diagram and come up with different interpretations. I herewith present mine, fully aware that others may legitimately disagree. I seem to see the following major strategic trends:

1. The exploitation of dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, as demonized by the Democrats and the media in a seven year long campaign, by a combination of (a) attacks from newspaper-radio-TV journalists and commentators, (b) mockery by TV personalities such as David Letterman, (c) vicious attacks by 527 groups, and (d) more subtly, by Obama's own emphasis on "change". This hate campaign was so successful that even Republicans distanced and disassociated themselves from Bush and claimed that they were for "change" too. The similar campaign of hatred and mockery that was launched against Sarah Palin made the venom and brazenness of this tactic even more obvious.
2. The skillful double-edged use of the race card by embarrassing white voters into refraining from criticizing Obama, lest they be considered racist, while obscuring and downplaying the obvious (if forgivable) racial bias of the black community.
3. The equally skillful "choosing of battles", i.e. refraining from activities that might do more harm than good. Note that no arrows lead away from the "black vote" resource box. Obama had this asset safely in is back pocket and, aside from intense voter registration, refrained from public activity in that sector. In the same manner, after defeating Hillary, he made no overt attempt to assuage feminist resentment or to publicly counteract the effect of Palin's nomination. Instead, he kept quiet about feminist issues and counted upon them falling into line by election time.
4. The audacity of outrageously outspending his rivals while avoiding the accusation of "buying" the election, or of having been bought
5. The audacity of claiming to offer all things to all voting groups and of making numerous mutually contradictory promises, such as the drastic left-to-center shift after his nomination.
6. The enlistment of youth for the formation of a grass roots network (now maintained and mobilized by MoveOn) and its use for the massive voter registration that gave the Democrats a new voter advantage.
7. The complete domination of media coverage, so as to present voters with a highly biased slant on the issues and to cover up Obama's numerous gaffes and contradictions.
8. The use of misdirection and deception to conceal Obama's contradictory statements and scandals; also, the apparent use of fraud in registration and balloting and the sanction and cover-up of such frauds by Democratic state and local officials.
Some of these strategies, such as the intensive fundraising, made effective use of TV, the Internet, and other tools of modern information technology. But this is mere technological adaptation. Every one of the above strategies has been used, albeit in a more primitive form, in previous presidential campaigns. Jefferson used most of them against Adams in the notorious campaign of 1800.

To determine what made Obama's campaign a success, we must look deeper to identify the basic psychological qualities that underlie these strategies. I perceive them to be:

a finely developed skill in strategy, worthy of a great general [4],
a tremendous audacity, enabling him to succeed in risky or controversial tactics that his opponents would not dare to attempt [5],
a stage magician's skill in misdirection, compelling the public to perceive only what he wishes them to see and ignore what he wishes them to overlook,
a penchant for evasion and concealment---the very opposite of his much-vaunted desire for "transparency"---often achieved by saying one thing (such deploring "negativity") while inciting others (such as 527 groups or his "dogs of war") to do the opposite,
utter ruthlessness: a willingness to resort to, or at least tolerate, deception and fraud to achieve desired objectives.
These are the qualities that I perceive in the person or persons who planned the Obama campaign, whether it was Obama himself, an associate or mentor, or a combination thereof. However, there can be no doubt that Obama at least assented to the use of the aforementioned strategies and therefore must to some degree possess the qualities that engendered them. Indeed, these qualities virtually define the sort of narcissistic personality that has been attributed to Obama.

If, as I contend, these are the root qualities that created the Obama campaign, then we should expect more of the same from the new Obama administration. For starters, the stimulus Trojan horse is a convincing example.

NOTES:

[1]  I am deeply indebted to Richard Baehr, Ed Lasky, and Dagny D'anconia, who reviewed a draft of this article and pointed out several omissions and vagueries.

[2]  The present diagram applies only to the post-nomination phase of the Obama campaign. The campaign against Hillary Clinton had a somewhat different and more orthodox set of strategies and tactics.

[3]  Because of the fuzziness of the analogy between military and political campaigns, the difference between resources and forces is somewhat arbitrary. (I drew the line at the basic resources available to any black liberal Democratic candidate). Some boxes could be colored either red or purple. Similarly, intermediate objectives might be colored either blue or green.

[4]  Unfortunately, political or military strategic skill doesn't always guarantee presidential skill. As in Grant's case, one can be a great general and a terrible president.

[5]  Similarly, as Kennedy demonstrated, successful audacity in a political campaign is no guarantee of statesmanship or good judgment in dealing with foreign powers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Now I've seen enough.

Tomahawk6 was right.  Cougar Daddy, sorry, but your man is a socialist.

 

[a_majoor]

More post election information:

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt

'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story

Congressional Testimony: ‘Game-Changer’ Article Would Have Connected Campaign With ACORN

By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
Monday, March 30, 2009

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:

“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

Ms. Moncrief made her first overture to Ms. Heidelbaugh after The New York Times allegedly spiked the story — on Oct. 21, 2008. Last fall, she testified under oath about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in its Washington, D.C. office. Although she was present at the congressional hearing, she did not testify.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.”

He also voiced criticism of The New York Times.

“If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper.”

Academicians and journalism experts expressed similar criticism of the Times.

“The New York Times keeps going over the line in every single campaign and last year was the worst, easily,” said Mal Kline of the American Journalism Center. “They would ignore real questions worth examining about Obama, the questions about Bill Ayers or about how he got his house. Then on the other side they would try to manufacture scandals.”

Mr. Kline mentioned Gov. Sarah Palin was cleared by investigators of improperly firing an Alaska State Trooper, but went unnoticed by The Times.

“How many stories about this were in The New York Times,” he asked.

“If this is true, it would not surprise me at all. The New York Times is a liberal newspaper. It is dedicated to furthering the Democratic Party,” said Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of Political Science at Grove City College. “People think The New York Times is an objective news source and it is not. It would not surprise me that if they had a news story that would have swayed the election into McCain’s favor they would not have used it.”

ACORN has issued statements claiming that Ms. Moncrief is merely a disgruntled former worker.

“None of this wild and varied list of charges has any credibility and we’re not going to spend our time on it,” said Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director in a statement issued last week.

Stephanie Strom was contacted for a comment, and The New York Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Mathis replied with an e-mail in her place.

Ms. Mathis wrote, “In response to your questions to our reporter, Stephanie Strom, we do not discuss our newsgathering and won’t comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”

Michael P. Tremoglie can be reached at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us

 

[a_majoor]

More After Action Reporting. Notice the astounding change when the "15 points" of media spin is removed and the electoral results are recast near the end of the broadcast:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/The_Cost_of_Media_Bias/1736/6337/