I first became interested in journalism after watching the movie, "All the President's Men." This 1976 movie chronicled the investigative journalism of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose series of articles brought down the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
To me, these journalists were American heroes. They had the courage to ask the tough questions, to investigate beyond the quotes and sound bites provided by the Nixon Administration to report that a coverup of a third rate burgularly at the Watergate Hotel went all the way up to the President of the United States. President Nixon wasn't involved in the original crime, but he was deeply involved in the attempt to hide the administration's involvement in the burgulary.
In the past month and a half, I couldn't help to think back to those golden days when journalists believed their jobs were to act as the Fourth Estate in American politics, to keep our government honest and to take everything government officials said with great sketicism. There was a healthy distance between journalists and government officials, with neither side truly trusting the other. Where are those journalists today when it's clear that officials in the Obama Administration are lying about what they knew about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and when they knew it?
Just as the original burgulary did not involve President Nixon, the failure to ensure proper security at the Benghazi embassy in all likelihood never made its way to President Obama. But just like Watergate, the attempt to make the attack appear to be anything but a well-planned attack by terrorists in all likelihood did involve President Obama and his closest staff.
Facing a close election, the last thing this President and his administration wanted to see reported on the televisions of American voters was a terrorist attack killing four of our own, including an ambassador, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For this reason, the Obama Administration labeled the violence as a spontaneous attack by demonstrators angered by a YouTube video. Obama Administration officials, including the President himself, Press Secretary Jay Carney and our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, continued to perpetuate this lie for at least two weeks following the attacks.
But then more information began to emerge from the shadows.
E mails showed that the White House was told in the hours after the attack that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration, including that a terrorist group had claimed reponsibility for the attacks. More details revealed that real-time video was being watched at the White House and the State Department, showing as events unfolded that this was a well-planned attack and not the result of a spontaneous demonstration. In the past few days, even more information has come to light, including that the Navy Seals working for the CIA who responded to the attack at our embassy asked for military support, but that this assistance was denied. Yesterday, the CIA released a statement saying that no one at the CIA had denied any request for assistance from those Seals, which in all likelihood means that someone at the Department of Defense vetoed the request. When the Department of Defense denies a request for military assistance at a U.S. embassy under attack, this decision would most likely would have involved the President of the United States. Military experts have reported this weekend that the President would clearly have approved or denied any decision to send in military assistance.
Think about this logically. If a U.S. embassy is under attack, if military assistance is requested and if live video is available to see what is happening on the ground, do you not think the President himself would be aware of what is happening and involved in the decision-making? Absolutely.
Sadly, the mainstream news media, other than Fox News, has turned a blind eye to what is clearly an attempt to deceive the American people. Brian Williams of NBC News, one of the few journalists who have been given any access at all to the President in recent weeks, lobbed one "softball" question about Benghazi to the President during an interview this week. The President deflected the question and Williams moved on to other topics.
In an interview on Fox News this weekend, Bob Woodward (yes, the same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story in the 1970s) said that the way the President has answered questions should have raised red flags for any credible reporter. Essentially, the President has said that voters really don't want to hear about Benghazi during this election, which, according to Woodward, means that the President really doesn't want to talk about this issue and may have something to hide.
This is exactly why credible journalists should be asking these questions of the President and key members of his staff.
From all indications, our President had a bad case of electile dysfunction -- afraid to call the violence a "terrorist attack" and afraid to send in military support to raise the profile of a tense situation so close to the election. As a result, four Americans are dead and the American people have been deceived by this President for weeks.
Just as Watergate brought down a President four decades ago, Benghazi could and should end this President's reign.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Romney Will Win Election
Two weeks until the November 6 election, the numbers are starting to turn markedly in the direction of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
The latest polls show Romney up 50-46% in the Rasmussen Reports poll, up up 49-48% in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and up 51-46% in the Gallup poll. Of the latest polls including data through October 22, only the IBD/TIPP poll shows President Obama up two points, 47-45%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Averaging the two most respected polls, Rasmussen Reports and Gallup, Romney leads with 50.5% to 46% for President Obama. With most polls showing a third party candidate receiving only 1% of the vote, this means that only 2.5% of voters are truly "undecided" in these two polls.
If four years of on-the-job training haven't convinced voters to cast their ballot for President Obama, chances are that two more weeks of campaigning won't either. Historically, two-thirds or more of undecided voters vote against the incumbent when a competent challenger is on the ballot, which means that in all likelihood Romney will pick up around another 1.5% of votes, giving him about 52% to about 47% for the President and 1% for a third party candidate. A 5% percent spread will result in an easy Electoral College victory for the Republican candidate.
Prior to the first debate, the President was clearly in the lead, although he was barely able to reach the 50% point in the polls, which demonstrated voters' dissatisfaction with him and his record. In early September, the President was up by 7% in the Gallop poll and 5% in the Rasmussen Reports poll. This lead came after spending $150 million in negative advertising against Romney by the Obama Campaign and its super PACs.
At the first debate, however, voters who were leaning for President Obama were able to see Romney as someone who clearly is a competent candidate. Viewing Romney through the unfiltered lens on the televisions in their living rooms, voters saw the Republican candidate as someone who was clearly able to stand toe-to-toe with the President and actually beat him soundly at explaining how he would revive the economy, the most important issue of this campaign. More importantly, they saw Romney not as the uncaring person painted by $150 million worth of Obama Campaign advertising, but as a caring human being who is a faithful husband, a strong father and a leading member of his church. Those leaning voters started moving to Romney and the polls began to reflect this change. Voters were able to compare a candidate with an economic plan against a President with a horrific economic record and who also has not explained what he would do differently in a second term.
With each subsequent debate, Romney solidified himself as a competent, caring candidate, equal to or better than the President we currently have. During last night's debate on foreign policy, Romney was actually able to appear more Presidential than President Obama, describing a high-level vision for American foreign policy instead of the snarky and condescending comments made by the President. While most believe President Obama won this debate because of his aggressiveness, Romney achieved what he wanted to achieve -- to present himself to the American people as a competent leader on foreign policy and not the warmonger as he's been portrayed by the Obama Campaign. In comparison, the President did not achieve what he need to achieve -- an overwhelming victory to change the direction of the polls.
The fat lady may not be singing yet, but unless something changes dramatically in the next two weeks, she clearly is warming up her vocal cords.
The latest polls show Romney up 50-46% in the Rasmussen Reports poll, up up 49-48% in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and up 51-46% in the Gallup poll. Of the latest polls including data through October 22, only the IBD/TIPP poll shows President Obama up two points, 47-45%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Averaging the two most respected polls, Rasmussen Reports and Gallup, Romney leads with 50.5% to 46% for President Obama. With most polls showing a third party candidate receiving only 1% of the vote, this means that only 2.5% of voters are truly "undecided" in these two polls.
If four years of on-the-job training haven't convinced voters to cast their ballot for President Obama, chances are that two more weeks of campaigning won't either. Historically, two-thirds or more of undecided voters vote against the incumbent when a competent challenger is on the ballot, which means that in all likelihood Romney will pick up around another 1.5% of votes, giving him about 52% to about 47% for the President and 1% for a third party candidate. A 5% percent spread will result in an easy Electoral College victory for the Republican candidate.
Prior to the first debate, the President was clearly in the lead, although he was barely able to reach the 50% point in the polls, which demonstrated voters' dissatisfaction with him and his record. In early September, the President was up by 7% in the Gallop poll and 5% in the Rasmussen Reports poll. This lead came after spending $150 million in negative advertising against Romney by the Obama Campaign and its super PACs.
At the first debate, however, voters who were leaning for President Obama were able to see Romney as someone who clearly is a competent candidate. Viewing Romney through the unfiltered lens on the televisions in their living rooms, voters saw the Republican candidate as someone who was clearly able to stand toe-to-toe with the President and actually beat him soundly at explaining how he would revive the economy, the most important issue of this campaign. More importantly, they saw Romney not as the uncaring person painted by $150 million worth of Obama Campaign advertising, but as a caring human being who is a faithful husband, a strong father and a leading member of his church. Those leaning voters started moving to Romney and the polls began to reflect this change. Voters were able to compare a candidate with an economic plan against a President with a horrific economic record and who also has not explained what he would do differently in a second term.
With each subsequent debate, Romney solidified himself as a competent, caring candidate, equal to or better than the President we currently have. During last night's debate on foreign policy, Romney was actually able to appear more Presidential than President Obama, describing a high-level vision for American foreign policy instead of the snarky and condescending comments made by the President. While most believe President Obama won this debate because of his aggressiveness, Romney achieved what he wanted to achieve -- to present himself to the American people as a competent leader on foreign policy and not the warmonger as he's been portrayed by the Obama Campaign. In comparison, the President did not achieve what he need to achieve -- an overwhelming victory to change the direction of the polls.
The fat lady may not be singing yet, but unless something changes dramatically in the next two weeks, she clearly is warming up her vocal cords.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The President Continues to Be Empty Suit of Broken Promises and Pathetic Record
After returning home this weekend after a week on the road, I've had a little time to re-watch the latest the Presidential Debate that was held on Tuesday, October 16.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 6.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 6.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Biden's Debate Performance Is Microcosm of Obama Administration
Vice President Joe Biden had a great time at last Thursday's debate against Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan. For much of the 90-minute debate, Biden could be seen laughing, smiling and chuckling, even while Ryan was talking about the attack on the Libyan embassy that killed four Americans or about how Iran is drawing closer to building a nuclear weapon that could wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
The majority of Americans probably thought that Senator Biden was arrogant and condescending to Congressman Ryan, but I view his performance in a slightly different way. I saw his debate performance as a microcosm of the Obama Administration.
Remember when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to pass Obamacare and that they could read it once it was passed? This landmark legislation was shoved down the throats of our elected representatives, or at least the Democratic ones. Not one Republican voted to support this legislation, and the President didn't care anyway. He had enough Democratic votes to pass the legislation, so he didn't need the votes from Republicans. As a result, the most expensive domestic bill ever passed did not even receive a single vote from the minority party.
Although some Americans may view this bill's passage as bold leadership, I view it a little differently. I see it as arrogance. "Trust us," was the message from the President and Democratic leadership. As a result, we have a law that was ruled Constitutional by the narrowest of margins in the Supreme Court and a Chief Justice that used convoluted reasoning to allow the law the stand. We also have a law that people are just now beginning to learn all of its tax and policy ramifications.
But this was not the only occasion when this Administration has displayed arrogance and condescension.
The debt limit crisis of 2011 is another example. According to Bob Woodward's book, "The Price of Power," a deal between the Republicans and Democrats to extend the debt limit was nearly torpedoed by a President who demanded more tax revenue after a deal has been made and who also had a temper tantrum when he did not get his way. Woodward also places blame on House Speaker John Boeher, but he notes a lack of Presidential leadership and that no one in the Administration had Boeher's phone number to remain in contact with him.
For much of the President's time in office, he has belittled and blamed Republicans, spent little to no time actually trying to build relationships with Republican members of Congress or even members of his own party. He has spent much of his term blaming his predecessor for everything and has yet to take responsibility for anything that has occurred under his watch. Yet the President expects Republicans and Democratic members of Congress to ask, "how high?" when he demands them to jump.
Since the passage of Obamacare, Congress hasn't jumped, as evidenced by the Rebublican-controlled House voting down the President's budget 414-0 in 2012, and the Democrat-controlled Senate voting down the President's budget 97-0 in 2011. Not one member of the President's own party voted for these budgets. The same arrogance that Vice President Biden displayed Thursday evening in the debate is undoubtedly the same attitude that the Administration has exhibited when dealing with Congress, so they're pushing back.
A leading member of Congress recently recently shared with a nationally-recognized political pundit that he had "met" the President twice in four years. This leading Congressman made it clear that he did not have a relationship with the President. Recent reports indicate that the President has only met with the top four members of Congress twice this year, although the country is racing towards a fiscal cliff because of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts at the end of this year. The President also recently admitted that he spends time with his family instead of schmoozing with Congress. The Great One apparently doesn't feel hat he has to do the work that other Presidents have done to collaborate with the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
Even the Administration's response to the Libyan embassy attacks smacks of arrogance. There have been so many different explanations for the attacks and lack of security from so many different members of the Administration that the American people as well as the news media are beginning to wonder who has been covering up what in this foreign policy debacle. One day after a representative from the State Department admitted that embassy staff had asked for additional security on several occasions, the Vice President said that "we" had not received any requests for additional security. The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the royal "we" vocalized by Biden in the debate referred only to the Vice President and the President and not anyone else in the Administration.
Are you kidding me? This parsing of words reminds me of President Bill Clinton testifying about the meaning of "is."
While being interviewed by Fox News' Brett Baier, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter recently had the audacity to blame the Romney/Ryan campaign for trying to raise the issue of conflicting statements and potential coverup onto the national stage.
Clearly, if someone in the Obama Administration says something it has to be true and the American people, as well as the news media are expected to believe it. How dare anyone question the Obama Administration's truthfulness, even though its version of the truth changes almost hourly.
In his debate performance, Vice President Biden merely displayed the same attitude toward the opposition party, the American people and even the news media that the Obama Administration has exhibited the past four years.
Americans haven't experienced this level of executive arrogance since the Nixon Administration. Thankfully, the American people can put an end to this arrogance on Nov. 6.
The majority of Americans probably thought that Senator Biden was arrogant and condescending to Congressman Ryan, but I view his performance in a slightly different way. I saw his debate performance as a microcosm of the Obama Administration.
Remember when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to pass Obamacare and that they could read it once it was passed? This landmark legislation was shoved down the throats of our elected representatives, or at least the Democratic ones. Not one Republican voted to support this legislation, and the President didn't care anyway. He had enough Democratic votes to pass the legislation, so he didn't need the votes from Republicans. As a result, the most expensive domestic bill ever passed did not even receive a single vote from the minority party.
Although some Americans may view this bill's passage as bold leadership, I view it a little differently. I see it as arrogance. "Trust us," was the message from the President and Democratic leadership. As a result, we have a law that was ruled Constitutional by the narrowest of margins in the Supreme Court and a Chief Justice that used convoluted reasoning to allow the law the stand. We also have a law that people are just now beginning to learn all of its tax and policy ramifications.
But this was not the only occasion when this Administration has displayed arrogance and condescension.
The debt limit crisis of 2011 is another example. According to Bob Woodward's book, "The Price of Power," a deal between the Republicans and Democrats to extend the debt limit was nearly torpedoed by a President who demanded more tax revenue after a deal has been made and who also had a temper tantrum when he did not get his way. Woodward also places blame on House Speaker John Boeher, but he notes a lack of Presidential leadership and that no one in the Administration had Boeher's phone number to remain in contact with him.
For much of the President's time in office, he has belittled and blamed Republicans, spent little to no time actually trying to build relationships with Republican members of Congress or even members of his own party. He has spent much of his term blaming his predecessor for everything and has yet to take responsibility for anything that has occurred under his watch. Yet the President expects Republicans and Democratic members of Congress to ask, "how high?" when he demands them to jump.
Since the passage of Obamacare, Congress hasn't jumped, as evidenced by the Rebublican-controlled House voting down the President's budget 414-0 in 2012, and the Democrat-controlled Senate voting down the President's budget 97-0 in 2011. Not one member of the President's own party voted for these budgets. The same arrogance that Vice President Biden displayed Thursday evening in the debate is undoubtedly the same attitude that the Administration has exhibited when dealing with Congress, so they're pushing back.
A leading member of Congress recently recently shared with a nationally-recognized political pundit that he had "met" the President twice in four years. This leading Congressman made it clear that he did not have a relationship with the President. Recent reports indicate that the President has only met with the top four members of Congress twice this year, although the country is racing towards a fiscal cliff because of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts at the end of this year. The President also recently admitted that he spends time with his family instead of schmoozing with Congress. The Great One apparently doesn't feel hat he has to do the work that other Presidents have done to collaborate with the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
Even the Administration's response to the Libyan embassy attacks smacks of arrogance. There have been so many different explanations for the attacks and lack of security from so many different members of the Administration that the American people as well as the news media are beginning to wonder who has been covering up what in this foreign policy debacle. One day after a representative from the State Department admitted that embassy staff had asked for additional security on several occasions, the Vice President said that "we" had not received any requests for additional security. The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the royal "we" vocalized by Biden in the debate referred only to the Vice President and the President and not anyone else in the Administration.
Are you kidding me? This parsing of words reminds me of President Bill Clinton testifying about the meaning of "is."
While being interviewed by Fox News' Brett Baier, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter recently had the audacity to blame the Romney/Ryan campaign for trying to raise the issue of conflicting statements and potential coverup onto the national stage.
Clearly, if someone in the Obama Administration says something it has to be true and the American people, as well as the news media are expected to believe it. How dare anyone question the Obama Administration's truthfulness, even though its version of the truth changes almost hourly.
In his debate performance, Vice President Biden merely displayed the same attitude toward the opposition party, the American people and even the news media that the Obama Administration has exhibited the past four years.
Americans haven't experienced this level of executive arrogance since the Nixon Administration. Thankfully, the American people can put an end to this arrogance on Nov. 6.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Our Watchdog Media Is Sound Asleep
As a former journalist, I'm amazed at what passes for journalism today. Although I admit that I strongly support Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, I don't pretend to be a journalist in this blog. Often through this blog, though, I have pointed out the obvious bias of those in the mainstream news media who are paid to report the news fairly and accurately.
In recent blogs, I wote about a recent revelation that would be covered extensively by the news media -- if a Republican President were in the White House. According to information uncovered by the ACLU, the Obama Administration has quadrupled the use of warrantless wiretaps.
Another story that seems to be developing almost by the hour is alleged attempts by the administration to cover up what it knew about the attack on our Libyan Embassy and when it knew it. Recent reports seem to indicate that although the administration attempted to frame the attack as the result of a "spontaneous" demonstration, others within the administration knew in the hours following the attack that it was well-planned and highly-coordinated. Reports are also now indicating that additional security for the embassy and the ambassador was requested in the days prior to the attacks, yet additional security was not provided.
But Barack Obama is President and it's clear that the vast majority of the left-leaning news media want him to win reelection, so we haven't seen as much coverage about these issues as we would if a Republican were in the White House. I thought I'd do some research to see just how biased the coverage has been.
I did an internet search using Google as my search engine to see which news media organizations have reported on these two major issues.
For the first search I entered the words, "Obama quadruples use of warrantless wiretaps," to see what I would discover. The first page I pulled up contained nine hits, only one of which was from the regular news media, Fox News. I also did a search using the same words, but omitted the word, "Obama," thinking that it might provide me with slightly different results. Again, the only regular news media hit was from Fox News.
While Fox News apparently found a story newsworthy about how warrantless wiretaps have been expanded, potentially infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN apparently did not find the story important enough to report. Even after searching on the first three pages, I did not find a single instance of coverage by these mainstream media companies. Not one.
Next, I entered the words, "Libya cover up" to see what I would find. Again, going three pages deep in the search, I found extensive coverage by a wide variety of news organizations, including the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, but I did not find a single instance of coverage by ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, other than one story by ABC News. That ABC News story popped up in my search only because a reader commenting on the story used the words, "cover up." Sadly, the only American daily newspaper that showed up in this search was the Washington Examiner, a conservative-leaning newspaper.
I was astonished at the lack of coverage by the mainstream news media on two major issues with national significance.
One other fact that amazed me was that I did not find a single instance of coverage by the nation's two leading newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. The two mainstays of journalism that broke the Watergate story and the Pentagon papers, respectively, are apparently sitting on the sidelines regarding the vast expansion of surveillance powers by our federal government, the bungling of embassy security and a subsequent potential cover up to help a President win reelection.
The vaunted Fourth Estate, the watchdog for the American people, is sound asleep when it comes to watching this President and his administration.
In recent blogs, I wote about a recent revelation that would be covered extensively by the news media -- if a Republican President were in the White House. According to information uncovered by the ACLU, the Obama Administration has quadrupled the use of warrantless wiretaps.
Another story that seems to be developing almost by the hour is alleged attempts by the administration to cover up what it knew about the attack on our Libyan Embassy and when it knew it. Recent reports seem to indicate that although the administration attempted to frame the attack as the result of a "spontaneous" demonstration, others within the administration knew in the hours following the attack that it was well-planned and highly-coordinated. Reports are also now indicating that additional security for the embassy and the ambassador was requested in the days prior to the attacks, yet additional security was not provided.
But Barack Obama is President and it's clear that the vast majority of the left-leaning news media want him to win reelection, so we haven't seen as much coverage about these issues as we would if a Republican were in the White House. I thought I'd do some research to see just how biased the coverage has been.
I did an internet search using Google as my search engine to see which news media organizations have reported on these two major issues.
For the first search I entered the words, "Obama quadruples use of warrantless wiretaps," to see what I would discover. The first page I pulled up contained nine hits, only one of which was from the regular news media, Fox News. I also did a search using the same words, but omitted the word, "Obama," thinking that it might provide me with slightly different results. Again, the only regular news media hit was from Fox News.
While Fox News apparently found a story newsworthy about how warrantless wiretaps have been expanded, potentially infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN apparently did not find the story important enough to report. Even after searching on the first three pages, I did not find a single instance of coverage by these mainstream media companies. Not one.
Next, I entered the words, "Libya cover up" to see what I would find. Again, going three pages deep in the search, I found extensive coverage by a wide variety of news organizations, including the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, but I did not find a single instance of coverage by ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, other than one story by ABC News. That ABC News story popped up in my search only because a reader commenting on the story used the words, "cover up." Sadly, the only American daily newspaper that showed up in this search was the Washington Examiner, a conservative-leaning newspaper.
I was astonished at the lack of coverage by the mainstream news media on two major issues with national significance.
One other fact that amazed me was that I did not find a single instance of coverage by the nation's two leading newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. The two mainstays of journalism that broke the Watergate story and the Pentagon papers, respectively, are apparently sitting on the sidelines regarding the vast expansion of surveillance powers by our federal government, the bungling of embassy security and a subsequent potential cover up to help a President win reelection.
The vaunted Fourth Estate, the watchdog for the American people, is sound asleep when it comes to watching this President and his administration.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Without Media Slant, Romney Wins Hands Down
I remember reading about an education study that illustrated how we treat someone and the expectations we have for that person is patterned after what we hear about that person. In the study, teachers were given erroneous information to trick them into thinking that the top-performing students in the class were the worst-performing students and vice versa. As a result, the teachers treated the top-performing students poorly and their grades suffered, while the low-performers were treated well and actually ended up with the top grades in the class.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Voice of Reason: News Media Report News They Want You to Know
The Obama PR Machine, also known as the mainstream news media, has done a wonderful job spinning the news to reelect the President.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)